Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible
CARM ^ | Ryan Turner

Posted on 07/11/2010 11:07:54 AM PDT by Gamecock

Catholics and Protestants disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the Old Testament Scriptures.  The dispute between them is over seven books, part of what is known as the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther.1  However, there are a number of reasons why the Old Testament Apocrypha should not be part of the Canon, or standard writings of Scripture.

Rejection by Jesus and the Apostles

1.  There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles.  While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say."  There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics.  In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God.

2.  Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”

Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zecharias was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles.  In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles.  They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently.  For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book.  This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today.  By Jesus referring to Abel and Zacharias, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today.  Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Rejection by the Jewish Community

3.  The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation.  Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2

4.  The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha, but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books.  This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.

5.  Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.  Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture.  Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.

Rejection by many in the Catholic Church

6.  The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha.  The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent.  This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

7.  Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes.  For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it.  In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.  Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

8.  The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after, but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority.  The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.

False Teachings

9.  The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha).  (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.)

Not Prophetic

10.  The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

 

Sources

  1. 1. See http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp for a list of the books that the Roman Catholic Church accepts. Also see, Michael D. Coogan, ed., The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, third edition, New Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 4, for a list of the Apocrypha.  Interestingly, Catholics refer to these extra books as the Deuterocanonical books while Protestants refer to them as part of the Apocrypha.
  2. 2. Some scholars debate whether the exact Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures was discovered by the Jews until around 100 A.D. so Paul may not be referring to some authoritative list of books. However, the principle of the "oracles of God" still holds. The Jews rejected the Apocrypha as being part of the oracles of God.
  3. 3. There are various divisions of the Hebrew canon.  The Protestant Old Testament Canon contains 39 books while the Hebrew canon has 22 or 24.  These are the exact same books as the Protestants have, but they are just arranged differently and some of the books are combined into one.  For example, Kings is one book.  There is not 1st Kings and 2nd Kings.  Also, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) are one book in the Hebrew Canon.

  4. 4. It is true that the Catholic Church accepted the Apocryphal books at earlier councils at Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), and Florence (A.D. 1442).  However, these were not universal Church councils and the earlier councils were influenced heavily by Augustine, who was no Biblical expert, compared to the scholar Jerome, who rejected the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament Canon.  Furthermore, it is doubtful that these local church council's decisions were binding on the Church at large since they were local councils.  Sometimes these local councils made errors and had to be corrected by a universal church council.


TOPICS: Apologetics
KEYWORDS: apocryha
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150 next last

1 posted on 07/11/2010 11:07:57 AM PDT by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; HarleyD; P-Marlowe; metmom; TSgt; Quix

For your consideration


2 posted on 07/11/2010 11:08:58 AM PDT by Gamecock ("God leads us to eternal life not by our merits but according to his mercy." - Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

The Amish have the Apocrypha in their Bible.


3 posted on 07/11/2010 11:11:42 AM PDT by Shanty Shaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

As to point one, there are protocanonical works that are not quoted anywhere in the New Testament. Moreover there are works that are considered Apocrypha by all Christians that are referenced in the New Testament.


4 posted on 07/11/2010 11:23:36 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

As to point two, when Jesus makes this reference he is speaking to a crowd that did not use the Greek canon. This argument begs the question by assuming that the assumptions of the audience He is addressing are correct, which is the point at issue.


5 posted on 07/11/2010 11:26:15 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

As to point three, it also begs the question. It assumes that the exact same group that rejected Jesus as Messiah and expelled Christians from the synagogues (the Pharisees of Javneh) is a reliable authority as regards the canon. That assumption is highly suspect.


6 posted on 07/11/2010 11:29:31 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

bookmark


7 posted on 07/11/2010 11:30:22 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

As to point four, the Dead Sea Scrolls also provide no commentary on many protocanonical books either. The Essenes were a small, cultish group - there is no reason to consider them as a reliable authority for the canon either. Especially since the DSS provide commentary and texts for dozens of books that no Christian considers canonical.


8 posted on 07/11/2010 11:32:25 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

As to point 5, Philo and Josephus were very idiosyncratic individuals who were hardly representative of the Jewish community as a whole. No Jewish community has ever received them as sages or authorities.


9 posted on 07/11/2010 11:34:55 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

As to point 5, Philo and Josephus were very idiosyncratic individuals who were hardly representative of the Jewish community as a whole. No Jewish community has ever received them as sages or authorities.


10 posted on 07/11/2010 11:35:01 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

As to point six, the statement is inaccurate. The deuterocanon was included in the some of the earliest canonical lists of the Church. It is not the practice of Ecumenical Council to invent new teachings but to confirm established ones that have been challenged.


11 posted on 07/11/2010 11:38:18 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

As to point seven, Jerome may have questioned the deuterocanon but - as the argument itself effectively admits - he was overruled by the majority. Neither Cyril nor Athanasius rejected the deuterocanon - this claim appears to be newly invented. Origen may have, but Origen has never been accepted by East or West as an orthodox Father because of his many bizarre opinions - including the advisability of self-mutilation and his belief that the Devil would be saved.


12 posted on 07/11/2010 11:43:01 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Protestant anti-Catholics have a nasty habit of outright lying.

Case in point:

“•Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43).”

False. There was a collection so that sacrifices and prayers for the dead could be made. Sacrifices took money. Someone had to buy the animals.

Here’s what the Bible actually says:

He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view;
for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.

Thus, no money was offered. Sacrifices were offered.

Anti-Catholics lie. They get away with it because they know most anti-Catholics are simply too lazy or stupid to actually crack open a book (even the Bible!) and look up the truth.


13 posted on 07/11/2010 11:44:47 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

As to point eight, the deuterocanon was not always separated in the Scripture texts from the protocanon. It’s frequent placement between the Hebrew Scriptures and the the New Testament had more to do with the fact that the deuterocanon was, like the NT, written in Greek. No ancient edition followed the modern Protestant practice of placing them after the NT in an appendix.


14 posted on 07/11/2010 11:47:05 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

As to point nine, there are inaccuracies (there is no talk of magic in the deuterocanon) and also question-begging. Do acts of charity for the living and the dead lead to sanctification? That’s a matter of debate - namely the Protestant notion that physical death, which Christ conquered, is able to create an unbridgeable separation between saints on earth and those who have gone to their reward.


15 posted on 07/11/2010 11:58:54 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

As to point ten, there are protocanonical works which make no prophetic claims and even one, Esther, that does not even mention the Lord. If lack of prophetic character disqualifies a book, then the protocanon is also flawed.


16 posted on 07/11/2010 12:03:25 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
"He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death."

Do you and other Catholics believe that?

Is that a Catholic doctrine?

17 posted on 07/11/2010 12:18:56 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: knarf

You wrote:

“Do you and other Catholics believe that?”

Believe what? Be specific.

“Is that a Catholic doctrine?”

What? Be specific.


18 posted on 07/11/2010 12:20:23 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
If you believe a man could/should provide a sacrifice that would be for expiation or propitiation of a soul, the question arises;
Where is that soul and why should a man provide for it's expiation, when the scriptures are clear ... Jesus only is our propitiation.


"He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death."


Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (KJV ASV WBS NAS)

Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (ASV DBY YLT NAS)

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (KJV ASV DBY WBS YLT NAS)

1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (KJV ASV DBY WBS YLT NAS)

19 posted on 07/11/2010 12:34:04 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Rejection by the Jewish Community

1) At the time of Christ the Deuterocanonical (falsely referred to in the article as Apocryphal) books were widely accepted by the Jewish community, especially by Hellenized Jews who used the Greek Septuagint. This is the version of the Old Testament that the early Christians adopted.

2) Regardless of the debate of whether there was an actual Council of Jamnia in A.D. 70, Jewish authorities did not settle on the canon of the third division of the Old Testament known as the Ketuvim or "Writings" until the end of the 1st century. Indeed there was rabbinic debate until A.D. 200. If we were to accept the validity of the Jewish authorities to pass judgment on the canon of scripture at this late date then we would be forced to reject the entire New Testament.

Rejection by many in the Catholic Church
The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent.

1) Notwithstanding a few isolated objections, there was near universal acceptance by the early Church for the Deuterocanonical books since they were included in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament used by the Church.

2) The present Catholic canon of scripture was declared by the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I. The same canon was also declared by the Council of Hippo in 393 and reaffirmed by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. The Deuterocanonical books were also included in the Latin Vulgate translations commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 383. In 405 Pope Innocent I sent a list of the canon of scripture to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. From this time there was no need to define the canon of scripture by an ecumenical council since the question was no longer in dispute. The definition of the Council of Trent only confirmed what the entire church accepted in opposition to the novel Protestant canon of scripture.

The question of the canon of scripture raises a fundamental question of church polity. Either the witness of the early Church as confirmed by the popes and bishops is a reliable authority or it is not. If it is, then that same witness that confirms Catholic belief is also reliable. If it is not, then we have no reliable authority to declare what is scripture and what is not; the Gospel of Thomas, anyone?

20 posted on 07/11/2010 12:40:57 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

You wrote:

“Where is that soul and why should a man provide for it’s expiation, when the scriptures are clear ... Jesus only is our propitiation.”

These were Jews BEFORE THE TIME OF JESUS.


21 posted on 07/11/2010 12:43:52 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Shanty Shaker
"The Amish have the Apocrypha in their Bible. "

No, they don't. They use the King James ver. for one.

22 posted on 07/11/2010 12:45:20 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

THANKS.

That fits my understanding of reality and truth.


23 posted on 07/11/2010 12:49:00 PM PDT by Quix (THE PLAN of the Bosses: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2519352/posts?page=2#2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
"These were Jews BEFORE THE TIME OF JESUS."

Yeah .. so .. ?

Jesus eternal has no clock as ours.

The doctrine is worthless today as a practice or thought process.

24 posted on 07/11/2010 12:55:15 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Thanks! I hear that claim over and over again.


25 posted on 07/11/2010 12:55:34 PM PDT by BenKenobi (I want to hear more about Sam! Samwise the stouthearted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: knarf

You wrote:

“Yeah .. so .. ?”

Think.

“Jesus eternal has no clock as ours.”

True. Now tell that to the Jews who didn’t know Jesus was going to die on the cross for them a couple of centuries in their future.

“The doctrine is worthless today as a practice or thought process.”

What doctrine?


26 posted on 07/11/2010 1:02:10 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

The Amish use German. One of the requirements after being chosen an elder is to know or be willing to learn to handle “book German” rather than dialect Pennsylvania German.

Last I checked, the KJV is an English translation.

Now maybe you are referring to some Amish offshoot that has adopted English. But the Amish as a whole still function as a German-speaking community.

Besides, the deutero-canonicals were often printed with early Protestant English translations. Anglicans never accepted your restricted Jewish canon.

The ten reasons given here are all half-truths, as others have pointed out, one-by-one.

Half-truths are the stock-in-trade of propagandists who know they can’t argue their case straightforwardly.


27 posted on 07/11/2010 1:06:42 PM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
... and the Pygmies in New Guinea today ?

You're right ... you never answered my question, "Do Catholics believe that?"

28 posted on 07/11/2010 1:18:26 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
And reasons why it does!

When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

29 posted on 07/11/2010 1:55:57 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Oh, no, one of those slick sites.


30 posted on 07/11/2010 2:00:25 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Catholics and Protestants disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the Old Testament Scriptures

Catholics and Protestants disagree on a lot more than that.

31 posted on 07/11/2010 2:01:05 PM PDT by abortionisalwaysmurder (Before you kill your baby, ask yourself, What did the baby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/apocrypha-why-its-part-of-bible.html


32 posted on 07/11/2010 2:14:51 PM PDT by johngrace (God so loved the world so he gave his only son! Praise Jesus and Hail Mary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Gamecock

Oh no, another spam posting. (38 mostly unrelated sites).


33 posted on 07/11/2010 2:34:25 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

The Amish do not use the KJV as their standard. And the KJV does have the deuterocanon. Editions of the KJV without the original KJV deuterocanon are abridged editions.


34 posted on 07/11/2010 2:40:23 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; Quix

My post is long but I want to respond to all 4 points of the article that Gamecock posted

Rejections by Jesus and the Apostles:

1). This is poor scholarship by the author as he cleary seems to be stating that “citations of OT books” indicate Canonicity. If that is the Protestant Principle of Canonicity, then the following books should not be in the Protestant OT canon: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lametations, Obadaih, Nahum, and Zephanaih since none of this books are quoted in the New Testament.

The NT does quote from other sources, St. Paul quotes from a Greek poet in Acts and Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch. Cleary those works cited in Acts and Jude are not canonical but obviously the biblical writers saw truths in those works that they wanted to communicate to the Church and those one can’t reject the use of those citations and say it does not have Divine Truths that God wanted the Apostles to communicate to the Early Church and us today.

2) Jesus implicitly rejected the Deuterocanonicals and accepted the Jewish Canon. Well, what was the Jewish Canon at the time of Christ? The author again is done poor research as there was not “ONE” sect of Jews at the Time of Christ. There were at least 5: 1)Saducces, 2)Pharisees, 3) Diaspora Jews [The largest number of Jews], 4) Essennes, and 5) Zealots, and none of them agreed on the meaning of Judaism and none agreed on the OT Canon. It is clear that the Diaspora Jews used the Septuigiant, which contained the Deuterocanoncials and the Essenes, as the archaelogical digs at Qumran have shown us, had Hebrew Translations of most of the Deuterocanonical writings as well and viewed them as Scripture similar to the protocanonical writings.

In addition, Christ and the Apostles did make more than allusions to the Deutercanoncials. For example, in Tobit 12:15 it reads “I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord” which points to Revelations 1:4 and Revelation 8:3-4. It is also clear that the writer in Hebrews 11:35 had in mind 2 Maccabees 7:29.

The clearest place the “Golden Rule” is found in Sacred Scripture is found in Tobit 4:15 which reads “What you hate, do not to Others” which is the converse of what Christ said in Mt 7:12 where the Lord states “Do unto others whatever you would have them do to you.” Christ also celebrated the feast of Dedication in John 10:22 which is found in 1 Macc 4:59.

The Book of Wisdom also has some key Doctrinal implications as well as in Wisdom 2:24 we read “But by the envy of the Devil, death entered the world and they who are in his possession experience it”. Why is this verse important and what Doctrine does it relate to, well it is the only verse in the OT that equates Satan as the cause of the Fall of Adam and Eve, and thus is important theologically for the Doctrine of Original Sin. Just before that verse, we see in Wisdom 2:12-20 the notion of the Suffering Servant which prefigures the dialogue in Mt 27:41-44.

There are many more examples that I can give but to summarize, Many OT books were not cited at all and are not alluded to in the NT [i.e. the Ones that I cited] and the 7 Deuterocanonicals are more than alluded to [Golden Rule citation and Feast of Dedication} and are alluded to throughout the NT. Finally, the largest segment of Jews were the Hellenistic Diaspora Jews who used the Septuigiant (LXX}, which contained the 7 books Luther thru out and it is the LXX version of the OT that the Apostles most often quote from in the NT as 70% of the OT quotes found in the NT come from the LXX source and not the Hebrew sources.

3/4) Rejection by Jewish Community and Many in the Catholic CHurch

Actually, this is factually incorrect. There was no agreement among the major Jewish Sects as to what the Jewish Canon was at the time of Christ. For example, the Sadducees only accepted the Torah, the first 5 books of what we call the OT today. The Pharisees had a longer list, which would be more in line with what modern Jews have today, as Rabbinical Judaism came out of the Pharisee tradition. Both the Law (Torah) and Prophets were accepted, Also, the findings at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), this Community of Jews preserved copies of many books, including works that would later not be included in neither the Christian or Jewish Scritpures (e.g., Enoch). Of all the books that would be eventually included in the Hebrew Bible, only Esther is missing from the Fragments. On the other hand, Sirach, Judith, 1 Maccabees and Tobit were found at Qumran in Hebrew and Aramaic translations. The writings at Qumran reflect Hebrew writing at the time of Christ and agree quite well with the later Masoretic texts done in period between 700 and 1000 A.D., which are the only complete surviving Hebrew texts that have come down to our time. What all the data from above indicates is that there was no Jewish Canon at the time of Christ. Also, the findings of Qumran support both the LXX and the later Masoretic texts.

However, the idea of an Old Testament as we understand it does not become an issue until the second century A.D. After the New Testament period (30 to 50 AD), the Early Church cited scriptures from the Septuagint (LXX). This is evidenced by the fact that the NT itself was written in Greek and the majority of the OT quotes in the NT came from the LXX source (about 70%). In the second century, we see disputes between the Early Church and Judaism as evidenced by St. Justin’s Dialogues with the Jewish Scholars of his day indicating that the Church has a longer set of scriptures than the Jews, which was a debate over the OT from the LXX and the Jewish scholars at Jamnia who drew up a shorter list of books.

In summary, the consensus of biblical scholarship is that the OT Canon was not fixed until the 2nd century when Jewish Rabbi’s gathered at Jamnia to close the canon due to rivalry offered by The Early Church, who had a longer list of Scriptures (i.e. Longer OT as there was no agreed upon NT Canon at this time.) Furthermore, the idea of an OT does not make sense until the Early Church began to debate and determine what the NT Canon was, and this did not become a question of the early Church until the Gnostic Marcion proposed throwing out the OT and adopting a Canon of only St. Luke’s Gospel and certain epistles from St. Paul. Again, Marcion was “Excommunicated” by the Bishop of Rome in 144 AD, and there was nobody that questioned the authority of the Bishop of Rome to do so. Again, see Henry Chadwick, the Anglican Church History Scholar and Professor at Oxford and Cambridge; book The Early Church (Revised Edition, 1993, pp. 38-44) about the formation of the canon, which indicates that Marcion was excommunicated by the Church of Rome in 144 AD. Warren Carroll, (the Catholic Historian) in his work “The Founding of Christendom Vol. 1 p. 460) puts it much more in Catholic terms when he writes “Marcion went away angry and rebellious. In July 144 he established his own church, the first to be set up in defiance of the Pope. There would be many more.”

Again Mr. Turner’s statements are factually incorrect. There are LXX texts that date to before Christ, some 100 to 150 years B.C, from both Palestine and Egypt that fit into the same textual tradition. These texts include portions from Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and Baruch. In addition, there are extensive remains from the 1st century AD of many of the minor prophets. These early renderings of the LXX were also translated into Latin, Coptic and Ethiopic, which while they may have some differences in idiom and style, are in substantial agreement. Origen, who lived from 185 to around 255 did do a translation to harmonize the various translations of his time, but there were LXX texts before as noted above from the 1st and 2nd century as there were numerous quotes from the CHurch Fathers from tha period, which clearly point to the use of the LXX in the Early Church.

For example, the Didache, dated late 1st century, quotes from Sirach, found in the LXX as it states “You shall not waver with regard to your decision [Sir 1:28]….Do not e someone who stretches out his hand to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir 4:31] {See Didache 4:5).

St. Clement of Rome (4th Bishop of Rome) in his Letter to the Corinthian Church in the East written in circa 95AD (i.e. the first example of an exercising the Primacy of the Church of Rome) writes “By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. Who shall say to him, what have you done? Or who shall resist the power of his strength” [Wisdom 12:12] (See Letter of Corinthian Church 27:5)

St. Polycarp of Smyrna wrote :Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet 2:7]….When you can do good, defer it not, because alms delivers from death [Tobit 4:10; 12:9] (Letter to the Philadelphians 19 {AD 135}]

St. Irenaues of Lyons, in Against Heresies quotes from the Chapter 13 of Daniel, which is found in the LXX version. He also writes “Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. God shall go before you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him [Baruch 4:36, 5:9].

In addition to the Patristic Consensus, the Codices of the 4th century Church also point to the LXX. The Codex Vaticanus is from the mid 4th century and contains all of the OT books of the LXX, except Gen 1:1-46 is missing, some verses of 2 Samuel are missing, about 30 Psalms are missing and 1 and 2 Macabees are not present. Still, it represents a great witness to the early form of the LXX. The Codex Sinaiticus is another LXX source that is also from the mid 4th century and is close to the same textual style as the Codex Vaticanus.

Mr Turner does correctly point out that St. Jerome did question the inclusion of the 7 Deuterocanonicals when he did a new translation into Latin (Vulgate Translation).
With respect to St. Jerome and the Vulgate translation, he did use extant Hebrew Text of his time to do his OT translation. However, he was called out on the carpet for doing so and his original Translation met much resistance including St. Augustine, who asserted that Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew was “an innovation against the Church’s use of the LXX. In other words, Jerome’s translation was the first to use the Hebrew text as all the Old Latin texts drew from the LXX. While Jerome personally favored the shorter canon (he was in the minority along with Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianazus, Rufinius, and Epiphanius who favored the shorter canon) that found its way into the Masoretic texts, which Protestants adopted, Jerome did not rebel against the Church and thus included the 7 Deuterocanonicals in his translation. In fact, later in his life, he actually defended the inclusion of the 7 Deuterocanonicals by writing a treatise against Rufinius, as St. Jerome would write: “What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches” for including works in his translation that were not in the Hebrew texts.

Again, I will quote the Anglican Patristic Scholar JND Kelly who in his book “Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 53-54” provides solid evidence that the Dueterocanonicals were recognized as the Canonical Old Testament in the early Church. 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 accepted 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”

In summary, it was the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that debated and determined the Canon of Scripture. So if the Church did not have God given authority to do so, then tell me who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament Canon? If nobody had authority, then why don’t you remove or add books to the canon on your own authority?

The Author correctly cites in footnote 4 that the Catholic Church did incolude the 7 Deuterocanoncicals in the Canon based on the Decisions of the Synod in Rome (382 AD) and Councils of Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397 AD) which codified the New Testament., and sent their canons for approval from Rome. The author tries to play some “mental gymnastics” by stating well, these were regional or non-Universal Councils and thus it was only at the Council of Trent in 1563 that the Catholic Church defined the 46 Book OT. This is false as a Regional Council is binding if the Pope in Rome accepts it. If there was a dispute in another part of the Church that rejected the Councils of the late 4th century, then the Pope may have needed to call a Universal council to clarify the disagreements. That never happened until Luther and Calvin raised the issue and the Catholic Church responded by reaffirming the 4th Century Councils.

Here is the more interesting issue, if you Protestants don’t accept the Decisions of those Councils with respect to their decisions on the OT, which included the 7 uterocanonicals that Luther and Calvin rejected, why do you accept the 27 book NT that was defined as many books such as Hebrews, Revelation, 2nd and 3rd John, 2 Peter were questioned until the 4th century as Eusebius in his History of the Church, written between 300 and 325 AD, tells us.


35 posted on 07/11/2010 2:50:14 PM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564

Good comment.


36 posted on 07/11/2010 4:01:38 PM PDT by johngrace (God so loved the world so he gave his only son! Praise Jesus and Hail Mary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

So many falsehoods, so little time. No matter how often they are disproven, they keep being posted again and again!

1. Nearly a third of OT books are not quoted in the NT, but three of the seven dueterocanonicals are.

2. The deuterocanonicals aren’t placed after Zecharaiah, until Jerome who did so because he was translating from Hebrew to Latin, and did not have Hebrew versions of the deuterocanonicals. No way Jesus couldn’ve meant not to include them between.

3. The Jews rejected the deuterocanonicals at the Council of Jamnia, AFTER the Resurrection. At the time of Christ, there’s no evidence of any canon that includes the other books of the Khetuvim, but not the deuterocanonicals.

4. It is well known that the Jews placed the highest priority on the Law. Following that, some Jews believed in the centrality of the Prophets (the Pharisees), but the others did not (such as the Sadducees). Neither group regarded the Khetuvim (the scrolls) as highly. Yet the bible includes the other books of the Khetuvim.

6. In the sense that the Catholic Church only established the Deuterocanonicals as part of the canon in 1546, the Catholic Church had no canon at all until 1546. Which is, of course, ridiculous. The Catholic canon consisted of books which were used in the Catholic mass. The deuterocanonicals were used in mass, just like the rest. When Luther stated that all doctrine had to be based on the bible, and thus removed the portions of the bible which had doctrine he recognized as directly refuting his lies, the Catholic Church affirmed the notion that doctrine had to be biblical, and published a canon of the books which were to be included in the list of books which establish doctrine. (Curiously, the Catholic Church detected no doctrine — or any other unique teaching — in the book of Esdras III (”Greek Ezra”), since it’s a shorter redaction of two other books, Ezra and Nehemiah. So there emerged a slight difference between Catholic and some Orthodox bibles.)

7. Jerome calls anyone who claimed he rejected the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals, “a fool and a slanderer.” The diabolical practice of referring to the Deuterocanonicals as “apocrypha” (a word otherwise used to represent “hidden books” which were not canonical at all) has led some uneducated or deceitful Protestants to proclaim that various founding fathers rejected the Deuterocanonicals, where they were actually rejecting books such as “The apocalypse of Moses,” and “the Book of Enoch.”

Origen never rejected the deuterocanonicals. The notion he did not was based, again, on the Hexalpa, a comparison of Hebrew to other, then-common languages. Like Jerome, Origen did not have a Hebrew version of the Deuterocanonicals.

8. The most significant time, prior to the Reformation, that the dueterocanonicals were placed in a separate section was by Jerome, who did so solely because he was translating Hebrew into Latin, and didn’t have a Hebrew version of them to work with. In a few other instances, various Church leaders debated the value of using the deuterocanonicals to debate with Jews, since the Jews of their day did not regard the deuterocanonicals to be inspired or even truthful.

9. It’s well known that Protestants reject participatory atonement; denying the authenticity of the deuterocanonicals on that basis, then, constitutes circular logic: Luther: “This can’t be true because it’s not in the bible...” Catholic Church: “Yes it is. Right there.” Luther: “Oh. Well that can’t be part of the bible, then.” Yes, that much abridged conversation did take place.

As for the “magic” of Tobit. Does the image of bronze serpent cure disease? Does a paste of mud and water cure blindness? Does eating a baked turd give prophetic powers? Does washing oneself in the spring tubs of Judaea cure paralysis? Yet these are all commanded of people to receive miracles. None are magic; they are signs of obedience.


37 posted on 07/11/2010 4:43:55 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Their lies are dealt out like a deck of cards and then gathered up and dealt out again. Over and over. Then they sit back and watch the Catholics refute the lies over and over (which they do admirably). The net result is that many lurkers get a chance to see good Catholic apologetics at work, and that is all to the good.


38 posted on 07/11/2010 4:50:25 PM PDT by Lorica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: knarf

You wrote:

“You’re right ... you never answered my question, “Do Catholics believe that?””

Believe what? Be specific.


39 posted on 07/11/2010 5:06:32 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
The Amish do not use the KJV as their standard. And the KJV does have the deuterocanon.

Exactly. Thank you for taking the time to painstakingly debunk this nonsense.

40 posted on 07/11/2010 5:20:06 PM PDT by B Knotts (Just another Tenther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

You wrote:

“No, they don’t. They use the King James ver. for one.”

The Amish use a German language Bible actually. I am sure some of them have the KJV as well, but the Bible they use in services is some sort of German translation. German is used exclusively when they gather to pray or read scripture. This is why many Amish struggle to pray in English - they’ve never done it before.


41 posted on 07/11/2010 5:23:55 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; knarf

Knarf and Vladimir988:

The passage that Knarf cited (2 Macc 12: 43-46: I cited verse 46 as well) reads: “He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.”

So, I think when he/she asked “Do Catholics Believe that?” I think relates to the idea of Praying for the Dead.

For the non-Catholics in this thread, Praying for the Dead relates to Purgatory, which has to be understood in the context of how Catholics understand Grace and sin. Sin ruptures and breaks our communion with God and it is Grace that justifies us and makes us Holy. Thus, Grace, from the Catholic perspective is “transformative” and not just a covering of God’s Grace, which is the classic Protestant understanding. The Catechism discusses Grace in paragraph 1996 and 1997:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

The Catechism states that as sanctifying Grace, God shares his divine life and friendship with us in a habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that enables the soul to live with God and act by his love. As actual grace, God gives us the help to conform our lives to his will.

With respect to Purgatory, the Catechism states:

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

St. Augustine wrote in his classic work City of God that temporary punishments due to sin are suffered by some in their earthly life, and some after death, and some both now and then, but all punishments before the last and final judgment of Christ spoken of in the Creed, that he will come again in Glory to Judge the Living and the Dead. It was St. Augustine who first used the term “purgatory”, which later would be more formally defined based on Sacred Scripture and the Liturgical Rites of the early Church, confirmed by the Church Fathers.

In Catholic Doctrine, it is between the particular judgment and Final judgment that the soul gets purified from all impact of sin, what the Church calls Purgatory, which is a concept in Scripture.

So, when we see Christ state that only the pure of heart shall see God (cf. Mt 5:8) and that “nothing unclean shall enter heaven” (c.f. Rev 21: 27), the Church understands this to be pointing to purgatory.. The Catechism specifically (CCC 1031) refers to Mt 12:31-32, which states that some “sins will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come” and St. Paul in 1 Cor. 3:15 states that “but if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire”. A point here is that the Latin word purgation means to “pass through fire”, which is where the word purgatory comes from. The whole passage from 1 Cor 3:12-15 also helps out as it speaks of the day, when all works will be disclosed, referring to the final judgment. Faith being tested through fire is also mentioned in 1 Pet 1:7.

Other passages consistent with the Doctrine of Purgatory include Luke 12:59 where Christ says you will not get out until you paid the last penny. We also see in 1 Pet 3: 19 we see that “Christ went to speak to the spirits in prison” and later in 1 Pet 4:6 we read “For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead that condemned in the flesh in human estimation, they might live in the spirit in the estimation of God”. While these passages don’t prove purgatory, they do imply a spiritual state that is not hell or Heaven.

Finally, as we read 2 Mac 12:43-46 that “prayers were offered for the dead”, which of course is in the Catholic and Orthodox OT canons, but not Protestant, which is the main point of the article posted by Gamecock.

In summary, the doctrine of purgatory is consistent with the Catholic understanding of Grace and Sin and is supported by Sacred Scripture. In addition, the Sacred Tradition of the Church, as confirmed by the Church Fathers also supports the doctrine of Purgatory as prayers for the dead all clearly taught by the Fathers. For example [all Church Father cites are from Fr. Jurgen’s Faith of our Fathers],

ST Cyril of Jerusalem writes:

Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep. For we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holyand most solemn sacrifice is laid out” (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350]).

ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA writes:

“If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he have inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire” (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]).

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM writes:

“Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them” (Homilies on 1 Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).

ST. Augustine writes:

There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the body and blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead (ibid., 172:2).

Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

So Knarf, while you may not agree with the doctrine of Purgatory and the related “Prayers for the Dead (cf 2 Macc 12: 43-46)”, the Catholic Church’s doctrine is well grounded in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In addition, the Eastern Orthodox Church also follows 2 Mac 12:43-46 and all of the Eastern Orthodox Liturgies also pray for the dead.

Good day


42 posted on 07/11/2010 5:30:21 PM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564
"So Knarf, while you may not agree with the doctrine of Purgatory and the related “Prayers for the Dead (cf 2 Macc 12: 43-46)”, the Catholic Church’s doctrine is well grounded in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In addition, the Eastern Orthodox Church also follows 2 Mac 12:43-46 and all of the Eastern Orthodox Liturgies also pray for the dead."


Jesus probably should have stayed home if HE wasn't really gonna' be a complete(d) propitiator.

43 posted on 07/11/2010 5:38:36 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: knarf

knaf:

And the doctrine of Purgatory does not detract from Christ role as eternal High Priest and his sacrafice on the Cross. It only contradicts your heretical view of justification which has no basis in the Church Fathers and never believed by anyone until Luther and Calvin.


44 posted on 07/11/2010 6:26:24 PM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564
"And the doctrine of Purgatory does not detract from Christ role as eternal High Priest and his sacrafice on the Cross. It only contradicts your heretical view of justification which has no basis in the Church Fathers and never believed by anyone until Luther and Calvin.

Not so, Luke and Paul both seemed to lean pretty heavily on Christ's complete atonement for nothing more than a soul's belief in the work of Christ.


Oh .. you said the church fathers ... well yes, you are correct there.

45 posted on 07/11/2010 6:31:43 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
In 405 Pope Innocent I sent a list of the canon of scripture to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. From this time there was no need to define the canon of scripture by an ecumenical council since the question was no longer in dispute.

Pope Gregory the Great must not have gotten the memo because he wrote at the end of the 6th century that the book of 1 Maccabees is NOT canonical, which, if your premise were correct, would mean that Pope Gregory the Great purposely expressed a view contrary to that which he knew had been authoritatively established by the Church, which is absurd.

The definition of the Council of Trent only confirmed what the entire church accepted in opposition to the novel Protestant canon of scripture.

Then Cardinal Cajetan, one of Rome's leading scholar at the time of the Reformation must not have gotten the memo either because he wrote that the Church of his day followed the authority of Jerome on the subject.

Cordially,

46 posted on 07/11/2010 6:41:16 PM PDT by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: knarf

knarf”

Again, not correct. Theat is the problem with you Protestants, you are not in continuity with Tradition and your vies are a rupture with orthodox Apostolic Doctrine. Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, as understood by Protestants are both novel. That is the historical fact.


47 posted on 07/11/2010 6:44:23 PM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; Gamecock
2 Macc. 12:43-45 flies in the face of Roman Catholic doctrine. Judas Maccabeas is praying for soldiers who were killed because they were idol worshipers. Idolatry was a capital crime in Israel and there was no salvation for one caught worshiping idols. It is a mortal sin in Roman Catholicism. How then can the soldiers be in purgatory which is the place for “believers” to be purified, and how cans any prayer or “good” works save them?

Some Catholics obfuscate. They get away with it because they know most Catholics are simply too lazy or stupid to actually crack open a book (even the Bible!) and look up the truth.

48 posted on 07/11/2010 6:54:21 PM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
-- Thomas Jefferson

All the books of the Bible were written by humans, some perhaps well-intentioned, some perhaps not.

All the people in modern times arguing about the divinity or truth of various parts of the Bible are also humans, some perhaps well-intentioned, some perhaps not.

Perhaps God is amused; more likely he is disgusted and disappointed.

49 posted on 07/11/2010 6:56:18 PM PDT by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

Diamond:

Pope Gregory the Great states a personal opinion about 1 Macabees, which is 1 of the 7 Deuterocanoncicals. He made no such statements about the other 6. However, the question that has to be asked is whether or not he called a Council in his lifetime while he was Pope, which was 590 to 604 AD, off the top of my head. My remembering of that quote was in the context of a theological commentary on the Book of Job and while he may have personally questioned the canonicity of 1 Macabees, Pope Gregory never called a Council to remove it from the Canon nor could he in his on person do such a thing as the Pope, while having his own personal views, can’t make them binding on the Church.

So, while Pope Gregory personally questioned the Canonicity of 1 Macabees, he never as Bishop of Rome, thus Pope, did anything to try and have it removed from the Canon.


50 posted on 07/11/2010 6:57:40 PM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson