Posted on 10/08/2014 5:36:44 PM PDT by Gamecock
The apocrypha (απόκρυφα means "hidden") is a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ that is rejected by the Protestants and officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 as being inspired. These books are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.
But if the Apocrypha is a Scripture, then it should not have any errors. But since it does have errors, as will be demonstrated below, this puts into question whether or not the Roman Catholic Church has properly used its self-proclaimed position as the teaching authority of the Christian Church. If it can error in such an important manner as what is Scripture, can it be trusted to properly teach the Christian Church? The following references can be verified at http://www.newadvent.org/bible.
When we look into the apocrypha itself, we find numerous problems. For example, we see it advocating magic where the smoke of a fish heart on a fire drives away devils.
Tobit 6:5-7, "Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them."
Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.
Salvation by works:
We know from Scripture that alms (money or food given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ is what cleanses us--not money or food given to poor people. "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7).
Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:
2 Maccabbees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."
Can anyone truly accept that money isn't offering for the sins of dead people? Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.
Wrong historical facts:
The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1
Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
Obviously the apocrypha has serious problems. From magic, to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts--it is full of false and unbiblical teachings. It isn't inspired of God. Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic Church, which has stated the Apocrypha is inspired. This shows the Roman Catholic Church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man's false tradition rather than God's absolute truth.
__________________________________________________
See Related Articles
One man’s apocrypha is another man’s scripture. These choices are made by humans and therefore subject to human error.
You mean where He explained that it wasn't physical flesh but spiritual?
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Surely you don't believe Jesus broke the law by drinking real blood do you?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
He made a direct statement as to that belief in the post I was responding to. I thought about that before I posted.
Not in 1098. Heck, not even in 1898. It was only when Ataturk established the Turkish Republic in 1923 that the common Turkish mumbling of eis ten politas (to The City in Greek) became the city’s name. Until then the Ottoman Sultans were proud to have conquered the city of Constantine and kept the name.
No. Baptism is the ordinary means of obtaining sanctifying grace and sharing in the divine nature. The existence of ordinary means does not limit God’s ability to act through other means.
Baptism is “necessary for salvation” in the sense that, if one has faith in Jesus, and wishes to follow the will of Jesus, one will use the ordinary means of salvation that he wishes us to use. The Church has always given a Christian burial to catechumens—people who, at the time of their death, were being instructed in the Faith and are preparing for baptism. They have never been assumed to be damned because they had not been baptized.
Baptism is NOT “necessary for salvation” in the sense of a strict physical necessity: If you want your car to run, you must have fuel.
The sacraments are not “techniques” or “procedures” that bring about certain effects according to physical laws. Jesus did not reveal to us that pouring water on people is “how you get grace,” in the same manner as Thomas Edison revealed to us how to get light from an electric current.
The sacraments are signs or “words” given to us by Christ as the ordinary means by which he wishes to act and to maintain his presence among us through history.
Yup. The fatal flaw in the works teaching of the necessity of baptism for salvation.
You're right on that one because it's only the shedding of blood that cleanses us from sin.
“Only the blood of Jesus can wash away sin.”
Amen! And His blood DOES!
Baptism is interesting. I cannot solve its seeming mystery, but I find it interesting that Paul didn’t want to be associated with it. In Colossians 2 he also precedes a mention of our baptism into Christ with this:
“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ”
Without hands. Hmmm. I’m guessing the baptism Paul is here speaking of is without water? If the lesser—the shadow of circumcision with hands—gave way to the greater—the circumcision of Christ, made without hands—wherefore water baptism?
At any rate, just below this Paul states that God in Christ has forgiven ALL our sins. Many who teach baptismal regeneration do NOT accept this. Colossians is a powerful antidote to dead religion of ANY kind!
Baptism is the outward symbol of the inward washing of the blood. A puplic proclamation of a spiritual cleansing that has already taken place.
That is a stock reply. No offense to you CB, but it is. Baptism is easily one of THE most divisive Christian doctrines. Your simple explanation makes more sense than some, but others hold their explanation to be just as valid (though at odds with yours).
I have almost—not completely, as I still have flesh energy!—passed clamoring for easy answers to seeming Scriptural conundrums. I have observed, from the cults to the soundest of Christians, the dead-on sincerity of each, the smiles, the outward “fruit”. Scary thought: Whitewashed tombs that men walk over without knowing it!
I want Truth from THE truth...Jesus! I know this so far: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”
Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Did you really die or is it a symbol of what happened spiritually? Were you really buried or is it a symbol of what happened spiritually?
Good point, thanks. We believers need each other.
Trust me. I have had all the questions you have. I’m nearly 70 years old and started those questions as a teen.
If you are speaking John's baptism, eg, water baptism, no...
That's all I need to know.
A probable group of perverts and anti-Catholics doing their thing.
At least now I know what CARM is...
Huh, no substantive response from the OP, weird...
Bookmark
I am speaking of the Baptism that Jesus was talking about when He said: “Go into the whole world, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
It sure doesn't SOUND like you do!
If you can possibly muster up enough courage, why don't you read the link, or even the OP, and then come back with some valid evidence that disproves whatever the link says? If we only read those things that tickle our ears or comes from "our" side, we would be unable to defend not only what we believe but why we believe it. The truth never needs to fear a challenge.
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.