What Are the "Apocrypha?"

1 posted on 07/28/2009 8:58:37 PM PDT by bdeaner

Protestants do not recognize the Apocrypha as Canon because those books have numerous errors such a geographical and historical inaccuracies.

They represent a lower level of writing than that of canonical writings.

2 posted on 07/28/2009 9:07:04 PM PDT by kingpins10

Geography? History? What happened to Sola Scriptura?

3 posted on 07/28/2009 9:37:45 PM PDT by bdeaner

4 posted on 07/28/2009 9:40:32 PM PDT by Artemis Webb

That point was covered in my first post. Apocrypha is only considered Canon by the catholic church.

5 posted on 07/28/2009 9:41:43 PM PDT by kingpins10

To: kingpins10; bdeaner

The books do not have errors; they were too Christian for the translators, that’s all.

I really do feel sorry for those who do not read the entire Bible. They are missing out on so many truths.

6 posted on 07/28/2009 9:44:39 PM PDT by Salvation (With God all things are possible.)

7 posted on 07/28/2009 9:45:41 PM PDT by Salvation (With God all things are possible.)

They have many errors. They are readily readable if you search.

8 posted on 07/28/2009 9:46:03 PM PDT by kingpins10

That point was covered in my first post. Apocrypha is only considered Canon by the catholic church.

You seem to have missed my point. As a Protestant, you made an appeal to history and to geography as a way to claim the Apocrypha are not inerrant sacred scriptures. But history and geography are extra-scriptural authorities, which seems to be in violation of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Where in Scripture does it say which Books should be excluded or included in the canon?

9 posted on 07/28/2009 9:58:02 PM PDT by bdeaner

There is no need to say in Scripture what is Canon and what is not.

Seek and ye shall find.

10 posted on 07/28/2009 10:03:53 PM PDT by kingpins10

There is no need to say in Scripture what is Canon and what is not.

As a Catholic, I agree. No need to look for it in Scripture, because the canon is not in Scripture. It is part of the sacred tradition of the Church, and it is the sacred tradition of the Church that established which books belonged in the canon and which did not.

But the Reformers, 15 centuries later, removed seven books from the Old Testament, as you know, in violation of the Church's sacred tradition. Lutheran removes them because they contained evidence of doctrines he wished to reject, including strong evidence for purgatory and the Jewish tradition of prayer for the dead.

Yet the original books of the OT canon, established within the first several hundred years of the Church, were based on the same Greek scriptures references by Jesus and the Apostles, the Septuagint.

Seek and ye shall find, in the sacred tradition of the Church.

11 posted on 07/28/2009 10:09:40 PM PDT by bdeaner

The Bible warns about following the traditions of men.

No offense intended, but the Reformers really weren’t concerned about “violating the Church’ sacred tradition.” They were more concerned about Scripture and winning souls for Christ.

12 posted on 07/28/2009 10:23:17 PM PDT by kingpins10

Jude 14 & 15 are plagiarized directly from the Book of Enoch, which is believed by some scholars to have been written 450 to 500 years prior to Jude. Bite on that non-canonical apple.

13 posted on 07/28/2009 10:36:30 PM PDT by Birdsbane ("Onward through the fog!" ... Oat Willie)

I don't take any offense. No worries. We just need to remember that, as Christians, we have more in common than we have differences. Please don't take it personally if I debate with some passion and vigor, and I will pay you the same respect.

The Bible warns about following the traditions of men.

That's true. However, what does that -- "traditions of men" -- mean? The traditions of men are those traditions which are profane and opposed to the sacred tradition. The verse is not saying that we should avoid all traditions -- only those traditions of men that are profane. As Catholics, we hold that sacred tradition, as opposed to the traditions of men, include to the canon of the Bible, all that is contained in the Scriptures, and the infallible teachings of the Magesterium of the Church, under the strick conditions for establishing infallibility. The canon of the Bible is established based on tradition. Those who reject the sacred tradition, who ex-communicate themselves from the Church, form in opposite to the sacred tradition, a tradition of men.

So, a Catholic, we take it to be Luther, for example, who is part of a tradition of men who, in opposition to the Church, has established a tradition outside the bounds of sacred tradition. And therefore, his tradition of men does not have the teaching authority to reject the deuterocanonicals. The teaching authority is excludie the the sacred tradition with the one, holy and apostolic church established by Christ and maintained through apostolic succession -- the Catholic Church.

No offense intended, but the Reformers really weren’t concerned about “violating the Church’ sacred tradition.” They were more concerned about Scripture and winning souls for Christ.

But here is the rub, kingpins10. Catholics are very concerned with Scripture -- in fact, we are so concerned with Scripture because the authority of Scripture rests on the establishment of an infallible canon, and the infallibility of the canon rests upon the infallibility of the sacred tradition of the Magisterium which establishes that canon. When a tradition of men, such as the Reformed churches, establish a separate canon, and reject any infallible teaching authority as the basis for the canon, we have a problem. The implication is that there simply would be no infallible teaching authority to establish the canon -- which means that the current canon has its authority simply based upon tradition and is subject to violation and change by any new tradition of man that comes along and decides to change. Latter Day Saints, for example.

If we wish to preserve the infallibility of the canon, then it's necessary to also preserve the infallibility of sacred tradition. One depends upon the other, and vice versa.

14 posted on 07/28/2009 10:47:34 PM PDT by bdeaner

Sorry for all the horrible typos. Forgot to hit spellcheck and proofread before I posted! Ugh.

15 posted on 07/28/2009 10:49:02 PM PDT by bdeaner

This was discussed in another thead in depth: But the manuscripts the vulgate was based upon were corrupted in Alexandria, Egypt.

This is not studied in-depth that much today. People just take it for granted that it is God’ Word.

There are many books written about Platonic views added and Christ’ deity diminished by those view.

When I was saved, I looked into why there were so many Bible versions, with different meanings in key verses. Please study this and look into it. Even the KJB has had very minor changes so that printers can copyright it. (The 1611 KJV is not copyrighted, as you may know)

16 posted on 07/28/2009 11:28:28 PM PDT by kingpins10

Yes, we did discuss this in some depth about 2 months ago, in a thread on the deuterocanonicals. I am having trouble finding the link, but it’s out there somewhere. If someone has it, it would be good to link it here for those who are new to the topic and interested in exploring the issue in more detail. That thread was a good one — lots of in-depth stuff from a variety of viewpoints, and not too many flame wars. Wish we had more threads like that one.

17 posted on 07/28/2009 11:43:39 PM PDT by bdeaner

The books were good enough for Christ and the authors of the new testament to use. The Church continued that tradition.

18 posted on 07/29/2009 5:46:53 AM PDT by lucias_clay (Its times like this I'm glad I'm a whig.)

Jude 14 & 15 are plagiarized directly from the Book of Enoch, which is believed by some scholars to have been written 450 to 500 years prior to Jude. Bite on that non-canonical apple.

And other scholars claim that Enoch was written 300 years after Jude was penned...

19 posted on 07/29/2009 6:20:32 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)

Apocrypha is only considered Canon by the Catholic Church.

"Apocrypha" means "hidden things." Why are the protestants trying to hide seven books of the Bible?

20 posted on 07/29/2009 6:24:16 AM PDT by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794