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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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
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.
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
Jesus probably should have stayed home if HE wasn't really gonna' be a complete(d) propitiator.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
blue-duncan:
Yes, they wore idols around there neck, but in the end they still fought with God’s people and while yes, they had sinned, in the end they did in fact give their lives for God’s cause as they followed Judas Maccabees [the General] to drive out the various groups who had conquered Jerusalem and desecrated the Temple, etc, which of course, is rededicated and is celebrated as the Feast of Dedication that Christ himself celebrated (cf John 10: 22).
The sin committed seems to be more one of superstition rather than idol worship. They were not worshipping an idol. They were superstitiously wearing a pagan amulet.
I don't know about church fathers, or tradition .. I know Christ, his redemptive work for me and HIS grace that kept me alive long enough until I met HIM.
I'm saved, born again because HE fulfilled the sacrificial requirement, offered it to all men freely and I, not being a stupid man, recognized the greatest deal ever offered to sinful man ... and took it.
I think it was Festus that accused Paul of reading too much and that Paul almost convinced him to become a Christian.
Paul WAS a protestant ... until he got saved and became a Christian.
“Yes, they wore idols around there neck, but in the end they still fought with God’s people and while yes, they had sinned, in the end they did in fact give their lives for God’s cause”
Maccabees says they died because of God’s judgment. They had secreted the idols that were found after they died. This was an intentional act with no repentance.
39 And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers.
40 And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth the Jews:
41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.
42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain.
St. Paul was a Jew. . . then became a Christian.
So a Jew persecuting Christians, even killing them ... isn’t a protestant?
“They were superstitiously wearing a pagan amulet.”
Read the passage. They secreted idols under their tunics and God killed them in judgment because of it. If it were merely superstition they would not have had to deceive.
You wrote:
“So a Jew persecuting Christians, even killing them ... isn’t a protestant?”
No, he’s a Jew persecuting Christians.
Fixing this:
**Paul WAS a protestant ... until he got saved and became a Christian.**
Paul was a Jew and a rabid persecutor of Christians until he was struck off his horse by Christ and became an apostle.
“Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible...”
Even though educated Christendom included them for over a thousand years!
Reason 1 - Luther said so.
Reason 2 - Calvin said so.
Reason 3 - Zwingli said so.
Heretics HATE the TRUTH.
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.