DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS
-
When Catholics and Protestants talk about "the Bible," the two groups actually have two different books in mind.
In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."
Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).
Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ. -
Who Compiled the Old Testament?
The Church does not deny that there are ancient writings which are "apocryphal." During the early Christian era, there were scores of manuscripts which purported to be Holy Scripture but were not. Many have survived to the present day, like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, which all Christian churches regard as spurious writings that don't belong in Scripture.
During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.
The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).
Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church -- the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life -- the Septuagint.
The Apostles & the Deuteros
The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands -- especially without warning them against them.
But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).
There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find -- anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi -- is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament -- in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.
The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, "It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh. . . . [B]ut the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ' After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, 'You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life'" (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).
One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection. "The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them . . . [saying], 'I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws,'" telling the last one, "Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers" (2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29).
This is but one example of the New Testaments' references to the deuterocanonicals. The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.
The Fathers Speak
The early acceptance of the deuterocanonicals was carried down through Church history. The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).
The recognition of the deuterocanonicals as part of the Bible that was given by individual Fathers was also given by the Fathers as a whole, when they met in Church councils. The results of councils are especially useful because they do not represent the views of only one person, but what was accepted by the Church leaders of whole regions.
The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.
This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965). -
The Reformation Attack on the Bible
The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books -- Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation -- and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.
The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)
To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that "The Jews don't except these books." In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.
Rewriting Church History
In later years they even began to propagate the myth that the Catholic Church "added" these seven books to the Bible at the Council of Trent!
Protestants also try to distort the patristic evidence in favor of the deuterocanonicals. Some flatly state that the early Church Fathers did not accept them, while others make the more moderate claim that certain important Fathers, such as Jerome, did not accept them.
It is true that Jerome, and a few other isolated writers, did not accept most of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture. However, Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures-testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were expected to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.
Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept certain deuterocanonical parts of the Bible. In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not.
He wrote, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled -- the judgment of the Church, not of later Jews.
Other writers Protestants cite as objecting to the deuterocanonicals, such as Athanasius and Origen, also accepted some or all of them as canonical. For example, Athanasius, accepted the book of Baruch as part of his Old Testament (Festal Letter 39), and Origen accepted all of the deuterocanonicals, he simply recommended not using them in disputations with Jews.
However, despite the misgivings and hesitancies of a few individual writers such as Jerome, the Church remained firm in its historic affirmation of the deuterocanonicals as Scripture handed down from the apostles. Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly remarks that in spite of Jerome's doubt, "For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament . . . The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405" (Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56).
It is thus a complete myth that, as Protestants often charge, the Catholic Church "added" the deuterocanonicals to the Bible at the Council of Trent. These books had been in the Bible from before the time canon was initially settled in the 380s. All the Council of Trent did was reaffirm, in the face of the new Protestant attack on Scripture, what had been the historic Bible of the Church -- the standard edition of which was Jerome's own Vulgate, including the seven deuterocanonicals! -
As quoted from Wikipedia :
The majority of Christians (including members of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches) include deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament. These are a collection of books, which were included in various versions of the Septuagint. The Roman Catholic Bible includes seven deuterocanonical books: Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch, as well as six additional chapters of Esther and three additional chapters of the Daniel. The various Orthodox churches include a few others, typically 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, Odes, Psalms of Solomon, and occasionally even 4 Maccabees.
Protestants (which represents a smaller % than the Catholics) are the only one holding a different bible. So what does this say? -
Revelation 22:18 - I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.
1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works:
Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
Magic:
Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
8. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
9. Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East. -
Apocrypha in KJV?
Didn't the 1611 King James Bible contain the Apocrypha?
Yes, it did. But we must remember that in that day, the Apocrypha was considered an historical document and was added as supplementary historical material IN BETWEEN the Old and New Testaments. The KJV translators went out of their way to let everyone know that the Apocrypha books were not a part of Inspired Scripture. They gave 7 reasons in the preface as to WHY the Apocrypha was not a part of Inspired Scripture. Contrast this with The Catholic Bibles from the corrupted Alexandrian Manuscripts which dispersed the apocryphal books throughout the Old Testament, implying they were a part of Inspired Scripture! The Apocrypha Books were not inspired, and taught many Unscriptural things such as prayers for the dead; magical incantation, sinless perfection, etc.
Much like today, our Bible publishers have added a concordance or maps in the back of the Bible as supplementary material to be helpful to the Bible reader. We understand that these concordances and maps are not inspired like Scripture. The Apocrypha in that day was considered a helpful historical supplement, but the translators wanted to make sure that people didn't think these historical writings were considered to be a part of the Bible itself. -
The Apocrypha is rejected from the canon of Scripture for numerous reasons.
I. Besides the fact that Jesus and the apostles never once quoted from it; and aside from its obvious lack of inspiration and anointing (it "just doesn't sound like" scripture; "My sheep hear My voice," John 10; etc.) – there are many solid reasons for rejecting its contents from being included with the canonical scriptures.
A. The Apocrypha contains chronological errors and statements contrary to history.
Baruch 1:2 (comp. Jeremiah 43:6-7)
Bel and the Dragon 22 (Xerxes did it); Bel and the Dragon 33
Tobit 1:4 (He could not have been "still a young man," or even born yet.
The rebellion of the northern tribe against Jerusalem in 1 Kings 12:19-20
took place around 922 B.C.)
B. It contains geographical errors.
Tobit 1:4; 6:1; 9:2 (This was an 11 day journey.)
C. Many false teachings are represented, and evil practices that the inspired Word of God
condemns are condoned.
1. Prayers for the dead.
2 Maccabees 12:44, 45, etc.
2. Salvation by good works (almsgiving, etc.).
Sirach 3:34, 14, 30; 30:11-12 2; Esdras 7:7; 8:33, 36; Tobit 12:9, 8a; 14:11
3. The use of magic.
a. In demon exorcism.
Tobit 6-8
b. In healing.
Tobit 11
c. "Good luck" (fortune).
Sirach 8:19
4. The intercession of angels.
Tobit 12:15 (Raphael)
5. Suicide.
2 Maccabees 14:4146
6. Mourning for the dead.
Sirach 38:16-23 (especially verses 20-21)
7. Sinless lives of Old Testament personalities.
Prayer of Manasseh 8
D. Some of the miracles and events described are not in accordance to Jesus' teachings.
Tobit 6:2-7, 16-17, etc. (placing incense smoke on the organs of a man eating fish to ward off evil spirits; the demon was in love with the woman and had killed her last seven husbands on their wedding night)
E. Only three divisions of the Old Testament are described in Luke 24:44. Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51 also witness the arrangement and compass of the Old Testament – not allowing for any books outside the time from Genesis to 2 Chronicles.
II. Knowledge of the Bible must be accompanied by wisdom and discernment, as well as a pure heart, for the scriptures can be misused.
A. Many who lack spiritual understanding twist and distort the meaning of the scriptures "unto their own destruction."
2 Peter 3:16
B. Satan quoted the scriptures to Jesus when tempting Him in the wilderness.
Matthew 4:6
C. In the last days, scripture says, many will "heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (2 Timothy 4:34). These are "ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge
of the Truth" (2 Timothy 3:7; Ecclesiastes 12:12). It is because they seek to partake intellectually of what can only be appreciated in the spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14). -
The word apocrypha means hidden. It is used in a general sense to describe a list of books written by Jews between 300 and 100 B.C. More specifically, it is used of the seven additional books accepted by the Catholic cult as being inspired. The entire list of books of the apocrypha are: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.
The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.
The Jews never recognized these books as being canonical (inspired). There is no scriptural or historical record that Jesus or the apostles ever quoted from the apocryphal books.
Satan is the author of confusion. His aggressive efforts to add to the Word of God is intended to discredit God's Word. The Bible is complete and trustworthy. Christians should and must reject the apocrypha due to it's origin and it's obvious heresy.
The OT books were 'chosen' using certian guidelines, ie.. they couldn't deny the deity of God, Him being all powerful ect.. and they were chosen by the 'wisest' being of a Hebrew rabbinical (sp?) council long before the Catholic church even existed. The books in the Apocrypha were cast aside for one good reason or another ie...conflicting doctrine for example... and were rejected by the Hebrew Rabbi's. Then the Catholic church comes along and starts to make doctrine that conflicted with what Jesus Christ taught and what the doctrine of His and His apostles taught so they needed something to 'back it up'. Vauge terms are taken out of the Aprocryphal writings to back up things like Purgatory (no where in the canonized (meaning accepted by the Jewish leaders and for the NT by the Christians after Christs' doctrine) version and thus the Catholic church has led it's followers astray. The Catholic Chuch has it's followers focusing on things like praying to Mary. The Catholic Church has put out as 'it's' doctrine that Mary is a 'co-redemtrix' along with and beside Jesus Christ which directly conflicts with the Bible which says in 1 Titus 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;. This directly refutes their (the Catholic Church)
claim that Mary was anything But what the Holy Bible says she was 'blessed [art] thou among women.' in the book of Luke. She was just a woman who was a virgin. Not sinless, just a virgin. She was/ is probably the 'most' blessed woman to have ever lived, but still, just a woman. She even called Jesus Christ her 'Saviour' in Luk 1:46 - Luke 1:47 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, Luk 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Now, she was speaking of God in Heaven not Jesus her on earth but if Jesus is God and we can trust the book of Luke to be accurate, then did she not just call Jesus her 'Saviour'? Yes she did. in case anybody is wonder if Jesus is God then read this in your Bible - 'Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'
But back to the Apocryphal books. These books were originally cast aside because of inaccurasies, conflicting doctrine and other reasons by the Hebrew 'church' authorities, so why should we have anything to do with them now? We shouldn't. -
As I have written above :Originally posted by FrustMom:As quoted from Wikipedia :
Protestants (which represents a smaller % than the Catholics) are the only one holding a different bible. So what does this say?
As quoted from Wikipedia :
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of Christians (including members of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches) include deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament. These are a collection of books, which were included in various versions of the Septuagint. The Roman Catholic Bible includes seven deuterocanonical books: Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch, as well as six additional chapters of Esther and three additional chapters of the Daniel. The various Orthodox churches include a few others, typically 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, Odes, Psalms of Solomon, and occasionally even 4 Maccabees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protestants (which represents a smaller % than the Catholics) are the only one holding a different bible. So what does this say?
I believe this msg is very clear. There is no need to quote Protestants resources written by the heretical pastors or teachers. They are capable of distorting the history. That's very sad.
To think that there are so many denominations : Catholics, Eastern Orthodox etc. holding the same books same bible. But Protestant, being the smallest in population claim to be the only one holding the right bible. Who is going to believe the Protestant? -
Jesus quote many books from the OT, if the apocrypha were so heavenly and divinely inspired....i guess the Savior will quote it more often than usual.....wats more they supposedly contains several impts doctrines???
-
Ok. History lesson needed for Weirdo80.Originally posted by Weirdo80:(I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).. -
-
Apostolic Succession --- This is to show you how the Catholic Church linked back to the Apostalate time, something that the Protestant can never prove with any history facts.
The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).
Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41). -
So just because there are more Muslims than any other religion they are correct and we should all worship Mohammad? That is complete nonsense.
To think that there are so many denominations : Catholics, Eastern Orthodox etc. holding the same books same bible. But Protestant, being the smallest in population claim to be the only one holding the right bible. Who is going to believe the Protestant?
I categorically reject all false teachings of the Apocryphal Texts for the reasons I have mentioned above. All have sinned except God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity.
I don't ask you to believe. Just look at the facts and not be blinded by doctrine. For Jesus, having died on the cross, has saved us from the law. That is the message of salvation and grace. We are saved by His work, not by own our fallible strength. -
Err....I don't think the Muslims worship Mohammed....Originally posted by Weirdo80:So just because there are more Muslims than any other religion they are correct and we should all worship Mohammad? That is complete nonsense.
I categorically reject all false teachings of the Apocryphal Texts for the reasons I have mentioned above. All have sinned except God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity.
I don't ask you to believe. Just look at the facts and not be blinded by doctrine. For Jesus, having died on the cross, has saved us from the law. That is the message of salvation and grace. We are saved by His work, not by own our fallible strength.
Lol, you people say all scripture is profitable, and yet you all refuse to accept the Apocrypa. And you can't even determine which books should be in the Bible.
Yea, Jesus died for us to save us, that we may have eternal life. But don't you ever forget that He himself said He came to fufill the law, not to tear down all the rules. -
The very fact that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have longer history and are linked to the apostolic time tells it all. Protestantism is only 500 years old, founded only 1500 years after Jesus time.Originally posted by Weirdo80:So just because there are more Muslims than any other religion they are correct and we should all worship Mohammad? That is complete nonsense.
I categorically reject all false teachings of the Apocryphal Texts for the reasons I have mentioned above. All have sinned except God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity.
I don't ask you to believe. Just look at the facts and not be blinded by doctrine. For Jesus, having died on the cross, has saved us from the law. That is the message of salvation and grace. We are saved by His work, not by own our fallible strength. -
The Jews destroyed them because some of the passages were helping Christian tehology.But its interesting to note that some of the Jewish prayers make of these texts.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
It was not so much that they were not permitted, it was because the early church fathers were having debates among themselves. As for Catholics not being Christian... I just have one simple question by what virtue do you make a claim to Christianity?
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
Faboulous sentences because they are both literal and spiritual. Also it was because of the liaterry influence of the Orient(note:this was because of the Jew's diverse geographic compositon then).
5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
You have taken the verses out of context. As for purgatory, it is ALSO mentioned in NT.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works:
Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
Magic:
Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
7.Out of context, it is percieved that way.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
8. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
9. Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.
8. There are refrences in NT