The Apocrypha

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Catholics should really question wether this is inspired scripture or not. The Book of 2 Maccabees is certainly not inspired because it plainly tells us so "Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me." (2 Maccabees 15:39 Douay-Rheims)

If this book is not inspired, why then should I trust Catholic doctrine? Why should I follow the Pope?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 07, 2003

Answers

Just in case anyone is wondering what the Apocrypha books are:

First and Second Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), Wisdom, Baruch, additions to Esther and Daniel, the prayer of Manasseh and first and second Esdras.

Also, this is the prologue of Sirach that begs pardon from his readers for the inaccuracies.

"THE PROLOGUE. The knowledge of many and great things hath been shewn us by the law, and the prophets, and others that have followed them: for which things Israel is to be commended for doctrine and wisdom, because not only they that speak must needs be skilful, but strangers also, both speaking and writing, may by their means become most learned. My grandfather Jesus, after he had much given himself to a diligent reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books, that were delivered to us from our fathers, had a mind also to write something himself, pertaining to doctrine and wisdom; that such as are desirous to learn, and are made knowing in these things, may be more and more attentive in mind, and be strengthened to live according to the law. I entreat you therefore to come with benevolence, and to read with attention, and to pardon us for those things wherein we may seem, while we follow the image of wisdom, to come short in the composition of words; for the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when translated into another tongue. And not only these, but the law also itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. For in the eight and thirtieth year coming into Egypt, when Ptolemy Evergetes was king, and continuing there a long time, I found there books left, of no small nor contemptible learning. Therefore I thought it good, and necessary for me to bestow some diligence and labour to interpret this book; and with much watching and study in some space of time, I brought the book to an end, and set it forth for the service of them that are willing to apply their mind, and to learn how they ought to conduct themselves, who purpose to lead their life according to the law of the Lord." - Sirach, Douay-Rheims Bible

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.


The important thing is, we Must accept the Books the Jews do (their rejection of the Apocrypha is very significant) because as you read in Romans 3:1,2 "What advantage then hath the Jew?...Much every way: chiefly, because unto them were committed the oracles of God".

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.

You forgot some:

1 Paralipomenon, 2 Paralipomenon

Have you read any of these Deuturoconical books?

Do you know what is in them, or did somebody tell you what to think about them?

rod..

..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 08, 2003.


That is 1 and 2 Chronicles.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.

I do not have to fill my mind with such Garbage. Will you please explain why the writers say this scripture is not inspired instead of changing the subject?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.


Ah! and we should listen to the Jewish for they hold the truth? They are still waiting for the first arrival of the Messiah. In other words, they can't even check out books from the library cuz their cards are expired. They were given a chance for renewal, but they had their reading to do. Use some logic, David.

rod..

..


-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 08, 2003.


Hey, don't put words in my mouth. Bible plainly tells us which O.T. is inspired, the one held by the Jews. I never said they hold the truth into getting to heaven. Them waiting for their first Messiah is another thing, which has damned so many Jews to hell for rejecting the Truth of Jesus Christ. Don't ignore my topic. Where does the bible say Once that we should follow a rotten corrupt organization?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.

rod, I don't think you know what logic is. A book the Catholic church claims to be the word of God PLAINLY tells us it is NOT the word of God.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.

Some are inspired, some are historical, and some are plain irrelevant or fakes. I have read the so-called "fakes" and upon reading it becomes very obvious that it is a false document. Some have very little to do with the Gospel, yet provide facts. These books can be found in the "Lost Books" published by various companies. The books in the Catholic Bible are very different to the "Lost Books". The problem is that Martin Luther's Doctrine and these Deuterocanicals don't mix. So, this is the reason for the censoring by Protestants.

Deuterocanical

rod..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 08, 2003.


No, Apocrypha. Stop going back to Martin Luther, he wanted to stay Catholic. These books don't even sound inspired, well that's because they plainly tells they are not. They plainly contradict God's Word, that is why we took them out.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.


Stop calling me a protestant, I am a Christian. Prove that the Apocrypha is inspired.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.

Please read this rod Why the Roman Catholic Arguments for the Canon are Spurious

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.

David, I didn't call you a "Protestant", yet you call me a "Catholic". Strange.

rod..

..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 08, 2003.


"Prove that the Apocrypha is inspired."

David, if we are going to rely on ther writings of men, there is no way that you or I can prove if a document is "inspired". I cannot prove that the Deuterocanical books are inspired or that the O.T. and N.T. are inspired. We are just gonna have to accept it as "inspired". You are gonna have to believe Matthew, Luk, John, Mark, Paul, and so on. It all boils down to faith. Imagine the point of view from an atheist or skeptic, "Jesus walked on water! You've got to be kidding. He can give us eternal life? Prove it. Oh, we have to die first, yeah, right! And, Jesus was born how? Immaculate Conception?! In your dreams. Paul was one of the Apostles, says who? Oh, Paul.....right.".

Do you get what I'm saying? Faith. Faith has a solution for the impossible.

Now, before I'm accused of being some kind of freak...

I was born a Catholic and believe as a Catholic. But, I'm at a crisis in my faith, but not in God. I don't swim only in Protestant waters when I go fishing for the truth. The truth is the truth even if it hurts or goes against conventional beliefs. Some would call me a "heretic" while others would call me a "Protestant". Well, as long as they don't call me an atheist, I'm redeemable.

ro

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 08, 2003.


"who really gives a rip why or who thinks they aren't canonical?"

A true Christian does.

"The fact is the early church used them as canon."

They were in error, How hard is that to believe? The New Testament churches fell in error too in the time of the apostles.

"The same council who authorized the usage of the N.T."

Only God determines what his Word is, not some council.

"Now, we have liberals who say "Who says Revelations is scripture?"

Yes, liberals. Not true Christians.

"Tampering with the Word of God is a serious, serious matter."

Yes, and the Catholic church did just that, by adding to the O.T. canon.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.



rod, God has preserved his Word after hundreds of years of being written. It was at the Reformation that the Catholic church said the Apocrypha was canon, just so we can have this argument today when Catholic accuse Christians of Removing those books, when in FACT and REALITY is that the RCC added them.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.

For Gail,

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine." Jerome Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.


The Jewish scholars of Jamnia 90 AD did not recognize the Apocrypha as inspired. That beats your Hippo council Gail.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.

No, it doesn't, David.

Why would Christians give their assent to the canon of scriptures used by non-believing Jews?

Shall we NOW, even today, hold to the Jew's non-Trinitarian view of God as well?

Gail

P.S. That is a pitiful retort, David, it really is!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 08, 2003.


No Gail, what is pitiful is listening to 'church fathers' and Not the Word of God. Stop putting words in my mouth, I never said we HAVE to be Jewish.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.

David, Is the canon of scripture according to Jewish non-believers greater than that of the Christian canon used by the early martyrs of the faith?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 08, 2003.


The Old Testament the Jews hold is the one we must hold. The Roman Catholic Church had no right to add to the O.T.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 17, 2003.

And, we are to believe that the Jewish Talmud is one complete and un- edited document? Can anyone prove this to be a pure source without man's handy work? Can we have the "real" story of Moses, please?

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 18, 2003.


Main Page

Judaic Stories

Have a good reading if you dare to.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 18, 2003.


Oh, BTW, Moderator don't get confused with my different IP address. It is still me, rod.



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 18, 2003.


So, David, let me get this straight. You trust Catholic Bishops to be guided by the Holy Spirit insofar as they correctly canonized the N.T., but you cannot believe that the Holy Spirit inspired them to canonize the deutero's?

Hogwash!!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 19, 2003.


Gail, to say the Roman Catholic church gave us the New Testament is like saying that the Bush Administration gave us the Declaration of Independence

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 19, 2003.

David, it was Catholic Bishops that presided over the Councils of Carthage and Hippo. (Augustine was pre-emininent).

Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).

The Third Council of Carthage was not a general council but a regional council of African bishops, much under the influence of Augustine. The English text below is from Bruce Metzger. Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures (listed below), nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings,(a) the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon,(b) the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra,(c) and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the CHURCH ACROSS THE SEA SHALL BE CONSULTED. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.

These are actual translated minutes of this meeting that no Protestant theological wizard refutes . . . but YOU!!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), August 19, 2003.


In essence, Bush gives us the Declaration of Independence everyday of his presidency. Some presidents have actually jepordized the meaning of the Declaration of Independence.

rod..

..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 19, 2003.


David, as you recite the "Lord's Prayer", try to get the exact words Christ said in this prayer, try to seperate fact from fiction. I think that you will be surprised with the Protestant version of this prayer.

rod..

..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 19, 2003.


Is God a liar? No, absolutely not! So then, why would a God inspired prophet tell us it is not God's word he is writing?

I don't care if everyone on the planet thinks the Apocrypha is inspired by God, the first book plainly tells us it is not...so then, why would God lie to us? Who will you believe? The Men that "canonized" the Apocrypha? Or the writer who tells us his work is not inspired?

God's word is perfect, this is not:

"Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me." (2 Machabees 15:39 Douay-Rheims)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 25, 2003.


Why don't you make the same accusation towards Paul? He admitted to giving his opinions on particular recommendations, yet you follow his writings. Some in this world see Paul as likened to today's "Tel-evangelists". They view Paul as "his" Christianity and not Jesus' Gospel. Why don't you make any issues about Paul? Could it be that you "cut" your teeth in Protestantism so much so that you dare not look beyond the censored Bible of Protestantism?

Protestantism seems to fear the possibility of discovering some hidden text or scroll, because their Bible is "complete". But, will it shatter your faith if such an event were to happen? Or, would Protestants automatically stamp such new discoveries as "Apocryphal" and yeah oh yeah the world is safe?

The bottom line is this:

How can you be 100% positive?

rod..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 25, 2003.


"Why don't you make the same accusation towards Paul?"

Because the NT canon is NOT subject to being questioned now is it??? There are NO disputes to the validity of any of Paul's writing in the NT. The Apocrypha was ADDED to the OT by the Catholic Church and anyone who reads these books and claims that they are inspired by God are just plain stupid!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 27, 2003.


So, a dispute makes a Gospel valid?

Martin Luther must have been a genius. Or, was he a stupid genius?

rod..

..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.


Paul adviced against marriage if you could help it. Was he right? Remember, Paul thought Christ would return during his lifetime. Paul was wrong. Was Paul's recommendations inspired?

rod..

..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.


rod,

Please answer the question. Are any of Paul's writings in the NT questioned whether as to whether or not they are authentic? A yes or no answer will suffice.

What does Martin Luther have to do with any of Paul's writings in the NT???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 27, 2003.


Sorry about the grammar. I'm multi-tasking right now. Kids!

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.


Martin Luther questioned the validity of Bible. Whether he targeted Paul's writings as being non-inspired, I cannot answer that at present. Luther managed to enduce the Great Reformation.

The Catholic Church keeps the Bible complete, Protestants keep their Bibles complete, but the Catholic Bible is heavier. Obviously, two perceptions are conflicting. My point is that Paul was powerful enough to put his opinions/recommendations in his books and the world considers him and his writings as being inspired. Yet, the Deuterocanonical Books, which describe traditions and wisdom, are rejected as having nothing to do with Christianity. This seem rather contradictory to me.

rod..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.


rod,

Please think about this, why is ALL of the OT and NT called CANON, or CANONICAL and the Apocrypha is called DEUTEROCANONICAL???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 27, 2003.


This is really querky! Kevin, you keep saying that any man can read the Bible and find Salvation on his own, as he reads the Gospel. Yet, you maintain the fact the the Bible is flawed and have, therefore, relied on your Protestant fathers to make corrections. You have a faith platformed on those forefathers of yours to provide you with the Bible of your faith. Pretty much what you criticize the Catholics of, has, basically, happened to you. You have a closet full of skeletons still holding their erasers, quills, and scissors. You are saying that those Reformers, Revisionists, Censors, Heretics, and Politicos, who have produced your Bible, have constructed the platform of your Gospel. It is their Bible that you hold in your hands. Basically, we have a dilema.

rod..<

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.


Deuterocononical Books are contained in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew canon, I believe. Oh, wait....the Septuagint was composed by Satan according to David's article.

rod..

..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.


rod,

It is NOT querky at all as you call it!!! Yes, ANY man (or woman) can read the Bible and find Salvation and YES the Bible is flawed and NO, I have NOT relied on some so-called Protestant fathers to make corrections at all. I have relied on and have FAITH in God that His word has been preserved and that is ALL I (or anyone else for that matter) really needs to know.

The ONLY dilemma rod, is the one that YOU have created. If the Bible that I have in my possession is NOT the word of God, then NO ONE CAN BE SAVED. YES, the APOCRYPHA is NOT in the Hebrew CANON it is the Catholics who were guilty of ADDING this to the OT.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 27, 2003.


Well, then...

rod
David
Gail
Gwen
and others

Have read their Bibles; therefore, they are all Saved. They need no guidance by any man or woman teacher. We all are self-guided by our own interpretations. There is no dilema in the conflicting interpretations of what we have read in Scriptures. Afterall, any man or woman can read all they need in the Bible(s). David is correct in his Baptism belief, you have your belief, Catholics theirs, and I have my beliefs. We are all correct?

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2003.


Apocryphal Books?

Try these instead, David:

Gopsel of Peter
Gospel of Truth(Valentinian Gnostics)
Gospel according to the Egyptians
Gospel of the Twelve
Gospel of Thomas
used by Naassenes (Gnostics)

The above apocrypha are from the Oxyrhynchus found near Nag Hammadi, Eygpt in 1945.

Sorry, some early Catholics kind of put things in order back then. Took out to bad and left the good.

rod...

...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 28, 2003.


Gail wrote, "Why would Christians give their assent to the canon of scriptures used by non-believing Jews?"

Here is the answer from the Word of God, "...because to them (the Jews) were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:2 - emphasis mine, kw). Catholics had NO right to ADD to the Word of God as the Old Testament Canon belonged to the Jews.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 02, 2003.


Here are the "apocryphal" writings that are not included in our Bible:

A real mess.

rod p.s. Thanks , Gwen.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 03, 2003.


Here we go again. Same ole argument over and over again.

Kevin says: "Here is the answer from the Word of God, "...because to them (the Jews) were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:2 - emphasis mine, kw). Catholics had NO right to ADD to the Word of God as the Old Testament Canon belonged to the Jews."

Well then Catholics had no right to ADD the New Testament scriptures as canonical either, now did they, Kevin.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 03, 2003.


That's right Gail, nobody has any right to add to the Old or New testament. The Apostle's had the authority and were led by the Holy Spirit into writing what became the New Testament.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 03, 2003.

[Censored OFFENSIVE EXPLICATIVE by ELREYROD] people!! Haven't you non-history people read any of the posts about the early books? If we go and do what David (Protestants) say about adding/deleting books in the Bible, what about all of those books we've posted links to? Should David go back and add those original books, which happen to be APOCRYPHAL in order to make his statement true????

Did you even look at those links, David?????

Burn it! I'm gonna build a bon-fire over here and start burning phone books! You've got to be kidding me with your blind-sighted supersticious propaganda towards CHRISTIANITY.

rod..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 03, 2003.


Gail,

The Catholic Church did NOT give the world the Bible, the Apostles put their writings into circulation during the First Century and ALL the Catholic Church did was to place them into one volume.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 03, 2003.


I thought this was funny, if I do say so myself:

"[Censored OFFENSIVE EXPLICATIVE by ELREYROD]".

I really didn't say anything offensive, BUT IT DID THINK IT!!.
Sorry.

rod..

..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 03, 2003.


There is a copy of a letter written to Origen asking him to review a document that was considered to be a forgery. It was part of the Daniel document. This is more than just making a volume. This is deciphering and certifying and canonizing. So, who is Origen?

rod..

..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 03, 2003.


I am focusing on the Bible, not the Catholic Church. I do not want to cloud the issue with multiple subjects. I want to know the accuracy of the Bible and the beginnings of the compilations. I really don't care, at this time, who is responsible for the compliations. I want to know the transcriptions from the Source.

As soon as I mention the Catholic Church, this place gets rowdy.

rod..

..


-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 03, 2003.


(2 Machabees 15:39 Douay-Rheims) "If this book is not inspired, why then should I trust Catholic doctrine? Why should I follow the Pope?"

A: The real question is - If this book is not inspired, what basis do you have for accepting the divine inspiration of ANY biblical book, since the entire canon was established under the authority of one and the same Church - the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church did have the authority and divine guidance to accurately and infallibly define the canon of scripture, then we can be certain that there are 73 divinely inspired books - 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament. If the Catholic Church did not have that authority and divine guidance - and if they consequently made seven errors in selecting the books of the Bible, then obviously there is no rational reason to doubt that they may have made many other errors as well; and therefore there is NO book of the Bible which can reliably be considered divinely inspired. It's all or nothing. You can't have it both ways.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 10, 2003.


"The real question is - If this book is not inspired"

No, that is the real question.

"what basis do you have for accepting the divine inspiration of ANY biblical book,"

There is plenty of basis: Fulfilled Prophecies, Unique Historical Accuracy, Scientific Accuracy, Unique Structure, Bible's Unique Effect. (More on all these later). We DO NOT need some council of men to declare them inspiration.

"since the entire canon was established under the authority of one and the same Church - the Catholic Church."

No it wasn't. The Old Testament was given to the Jews, and they still hold the same Old Testament we Christians hold. The New Testament was written by the Apostles, contray to what you believe about the bible being written by Catholics.

"If the Catholic Church did have the authority and divine guidance to accurately and infallibly define the canon of scripture,"

The Roman organization does not have the authority and is not a church or even comes close to being the church of Jesus Christ. Jehovah has preserved his Words and He did not need some council of ordinary men to show the world exactly what his Word is.

"If the Catholic Church did not have that authority and divine guidance - and if they consequently made seven errors in selecting the books of the Bible,"

Yes they did make an error because they did not have the authority or divine guidance.

"then obviously there is no rational reason to doubt that they may have made many other errors as well;"

Yes, those errors are called Purgatory, Salvation by Works, etc..

"and therefore there is NO book of the Bible which can reliably be considered divinely inspired."

Yes there is, because a Perfect God preserved His Prefect Word. I already mentioned how we can be sure, I'll go more in depth later.

God Bless

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.


David-"Yes they did make an error because they did not have the authority or divine guidance."

This is your take on the Catholic Church. Well, then why don't you simply take your Bible and shred it into confeti? The Bible you read everyday is the very Bible that was compiled by the Church. David, and others, there is no way that you can refute that fact. Had the Church not organized, as it did, the result would present the probability that a multitude of bibles would exist today. It would be exactly like the Protestant splintering, but each with their own twist on the Gospels in books, not only doctrine. I've also commented that anyone who cannot accept those Traditions that composed the Scriptures is rejecting the Word of God because Traditions and Bible are one and the same , but not restricted to the text (Prostestant Fundamentalism restrictions). rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 10, 2003.


Christianity would have kept many false doctrines and theologies had the Church not organized and compiled the Holy Bible. We would have had drastically conflicting bibles under the name of Christianity, but hey! the Protestants have managed to do just that and still maintained to keep one Bible, even if it does reject those seven books. It isn't gonna kill you to keep and read the complete Bible. All you have to do is to put a piece of duct tape over the "Catholic" name if that makes you feel better. Hey, some/many read the Bible, but they do reject the parts that don't settle well in their minds. Pardon my sour humor.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 10, 2003.


David O, Rod has a point:

The early Church (by that I mean what we now call the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches)collected the books we now call the Bible. The Church chose those translated into Greek (The Septuagint) for the Old Testament. Also, it took close to 300 years to come up with a Canon for the New Testament. At one time the Gospel of Peter was in and Revelation of John was out. What about that!!!

By the way, I accept these from the Catholic and Greek Orthodox canons (they are different, the Orthodox have 3 more books):

(Jesus Ben ) Sirach (because it chose what books were considered inspired by 200 BC), I maccabees, part of 2 Maccabees.

I don't accept: Tobit, Judith (Not historical), Baruch, Addition of Daniel,Wisdom of Solomon.

From the Received Masoretic Jewish Yext (as used by Protestants): I reject Qohelet (of Solomon), and Song of Songs (of Solomon), and Job.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 10, 2003.


Yikes! Elpidio your Bible is much lighter than mine.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 10, 2003.


Will David and Kevin please admit that there were tons more of books that were rejected and not included in our present day Bible?

Did you also know that some of Paul's writings were lost and never made it to our Bible? I wonder what those writings had to tell us? I wonder what other doctrines were meant to be, but because of the absence of those books we don't have them?

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 10, 2003.


You see, Rod, The Masoretic Text(as used by Protestants and Jews) was adopted around 70 AD. The Greek Old Testament became final until Trent, in 1570 AD.(By 380 AD i looked like ours in some manuscripts we have received).

Up until this day, there is no prophetic word on any book from 1000BC to 100 AD. All we have are rulings and tradition.

Song of songs is a poetic book dealing with sexual pleaeasure. Job is a book to show one must stay with God in good and bad times. Wisdom of Solomom=Qohelet is about how depressing life could be. Tobit, about showing piety towards the dead.

The Wisdom of (Jesus Ben) Sirach tells us which boks were accepted as genuine by 225 BC. Interestingly, these books are not mentioned (excluding Maccabes which ocurred around 165 BC): Daniel, Ruth, Esther, Song of Songs, Qohelet, Job.

I accept Macabees as a historical book.

Even Paul and John G had to admit the first ecumenical pronouncement was in the Catholic Church in AD 1572, the Council of Trent.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 10, 2003.


"I've also commented that anyone who cannot accept the Gospels in books, not only doctrine. I've also commented that anyone who cannot accept those Traditions that composed the Scriptures is rejecting the Word of God because Traditions and Bible are one and the same , but not restricted to the text (Prostestant Fundamentalism restrictions)."

Yes, and if you remember you were also CORRECTED in the TRADITIONS/Scriptures thread on this false statement of yours.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 10, 2003.


Is Kevin agreeing with me?

I'm confident that Elpidio knows which one main theological issue we completely disagree on. I believe that Jesus is God. Elpidio has made it clear that Jesus was exalted and that God is not the "Trinity" in the belief that Elpidio maintains. Elpidio does conform to particular Traditions unlike the "Sola Scriptura", "Sola Fide", and "Sola Gratia" believers. I believe that if Kevin were to have another study into the Traditions, he would reconsider many things in his doctrine. My hope is that all Protestants would recognize the Traditions as pertaining to and being of God's Word. Afterall, God wants us all together.

rod..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 10, 2003.


Hey, Rod, I cannot believe my eyes, Kevin has agreed with you on the word traditions.

What did you do to him now? Is he becoming Catholic?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 10, 2003.


Well, close, Elpidio. I read "Yes" and should have stopped there, then I read the rest.

Yes, Kevin I know that converting is not our game, believing is our life.

rod..

..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 10, 2003.


David accused, "Yes they did make an error because they did not have the authority or divine guidance."

The protestants AGREED with the Accuracy of the canon the Catholic Holy Bible first assembled in 382 A.D. ~ the protestants published their first bible in 1611 A.D., the Protestant King James Version, with exactly the same canon as the Catholic Holy Bible ~ 73 Books which included the 7 Apocrypha. Luther, the spiritual father of all protestants, himself acknowledged the fact that he owed his Catholic Bible to the Most Holy Catholic Church.

Rod said, "Had the Church not organized, as it did, the result would present the probability that a multitude of bibles would exist today. It would be exactly like the Protestant splintering, but each with their own twist on the Gospels in books, not only doctrine."

Ironically, the only alteration the protestants made on the first protestant bible was the removal of the 7 Apocrypha. They could have done worse by adding and subtracting other books, but somehow these did not happen in public ~ but such additions and subtractions to the canon of the bible are being done privately by protestants who feel that they have a private authority to accept and reject certain biblical books, certain chapters, certain verses, with their singular private knowledge or so-called private revelation ~ so there goes the splintering of doctrines privately and publicly. Protestant individuals feel that they can just start their own new religion because they have privately discovered a newly found "truth" ~ Luther felt that he alone was right and the then 1500 years of Single Unified Christian Doctrine of the Apostles, disciples and Holy Men of Jesus Christ was wrong ~ therefore, he singlehandedly led a revolt against the Most Holy Eternal Church. Too bad, many deceived persons followed his heretical revolt ~ and Luther's spiritual offsprings are still spreading lies even today ~ generating 34,001+ divided, conflicting, esoteric, protestant doctrines ~ and 34,001+ protestant pseudo-popes.



-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 11, 2003.


rod,

Go back and re-read what I wrote in the Traditions/Scriptures thread. I am NOT agreeing with you.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 11, 2003.


I re-posted this for rod, who doesn't know logic.

"Also, this is the prologue of Sirach that begs pardon from his readers for the inaccuracies.

"THE PROLOGUE. The knowledge of many and great things hath been shewn us by the law, and the prophets, and others that have followed them: for which things Israel is to be commended for doctrine and wisdom, because not only they that speak must needs be skilful, but strangers also, both speaking and writing, may by their means become most learned. My grandfather Jesus, after he had much given himself to a diligent reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books, that were delivered to us from our fathers, had a mind also to write something himself, pertaining to doctrine and wisdom; that such as are desirous to learn, and are made knowing in these things, may be more and more attentive in mind, and be strengthened to live according to the law. I entreat you therefore to come with benevolence, and to read with attention, and to pardon us for those things wherein we may seem, while we follow the image of wisdom, to come short in the composition of words; for the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when translated into another tongue. And not only these, but the law also itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. For in the eight and thirtieth year coming into Egypt, when Ptolemy Evergetes was king, and continuing there a long time, I found there books left, of no small nor contemptible learning. Therefore I thought it good, and necessary for me to bestow some diligence and labour to interpret this book; and with much watching and study in some space of time, I brought the book to an end, and set it forth for the service of them that are willing to apply their mind, and to learn how they ought to conduct themselves, who purpose to lead their life according to the law of the Lord." - Sirach, Douay-Rheims Bible

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2003.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Talk about illogical rod! The very book you claim is God's Word tell us in plain english that is it not. Very logical indeed. This shows you trust the traditions of ignorant men who didn't even bother to read this book in the first place. If I wanted to add something to God's Word, I would have made sure to get rid of this first.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.


Someone left the lights on again...

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

Uh....I just came back from "logic School". The logic is still the same; much like "truth", logic doesn't change.

All it says is that the language doesn't translate well.



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 29, 2003.


rod's logic believes

"For better is the iniquity of a man, than a woman doing a good turn, and a woman bringing shame and reproach." Sirach 42:14

God says," Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20 / KJV

Two contrary things cannot be true, yet rod wants them to be.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.


Sirach 42:14 is a compare and contrast teaching about two types of iniquity. It is not condoning either iniquity. It is teaching us that one sin leads to more trouble than the other, as one is disguised in goodness when in actuality it is evil. The man's iniquity is easier to witness in contrast to the woman's, in this case. But, both are wrong.

The reader must understand the translations and meanings of words in context of the times and cultural use. Perhaps this version will clarify things better:

Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 42:14

"A man's spite is preferable to a woman's kindness; women give rise to shame and reproach."

I also believe that this is in reference to Eve in the Garden. It was her kindness that brought her to disobedience and temptation, not Adam's. Adam then was tempted by Eve.

The Scriptures are still intact in the Book of Sirach.



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 29, 2003.


It's passed 3 in the morning (3:25 a.m.). I'm not running away from you, David. I going to bed. We will continue this later, if I'm still with the living.

Unless you've already hit the sack, may you dream.



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 29, 2003.


I thought you left, ok till later. Good morning!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

rod says,"All it says is that the language doesn't translate well"

Now that doesn't sound like a perfect God who promised to keep his word preserved. So that is making him a liar and thus according to you, a false god you is not perfect and who cannot keep promises.

Psalm 12:6-7 :: New International Version (NIV)
And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.

O LORD , you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

Psalm 12:6-7 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times. You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever.

Psalm 12:6-7 :: King James Version (KJV)
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalm 12:6-7 :: English Standard Version (ESV)
The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.

You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever.

Psalm 12:6-7 :: New King James Version (NKJV)
The words of the LORD are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. 7You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation forever.

Psalm 12:6-7 :: 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
The words of the LORD are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD; Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.


Why didn't you mention that funky little Protestant Bible that made it across the pond with thos early English Pilgrims?

The Geneva Bible

Have you ever made an attempt to read that one? It has more misspelled words than I would want to mess with. And, if you want to talk about Bible versions instead of 2 Macabees 15:29( which includes the wine and water reference in other books) then explain why, if the words are so perfect, the KJV has gone through multiple revisions and word changes? Am I to believe that the KJV is imperfect and therefore flawed and un-truthful? Is King James your pope?

Please pardon my grammatical mistakes and misspellings; I drank too much water today.

rod...

.....

...



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2003.

Of course the King James Bible is perfect, because it is the Word of God. Your attacks cannot discredit it, and it has been thriving for decades now.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.

David?

Why didn't you mention that funky little Protestant Bible that made it across the pond with thos early English Pilgrims?

I'm not attacking the KJV; I'm pointing out the human characteristics of the "imperfections". You are attacking His Scriptures by attacking the writers. I am accepting the fact that men are imperfect, yet they can be inspired to write HIS words by humanly methods.

rod...

...

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2003.


Because even the ones I did mention are from Satan. I only cited them because you have something against the King James.

The Holy Spirit dictated every single word in the bible. It cannot be imperfect.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.


I read the KJV and have different versions of it. I've mentioned before, I also have the Catholic Bibles. I don't have any written by Satan, though. Do you also have those 5 pointed stars and goat statutes?

rod...

...



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2003.


It cannot be imperfect because God is perfect and God keeps his promises. The only thing you can put faith to is "the originals". Do you know why no originals exsist? Because God kept his promise and preserved his Word. The first copy was like the second, the second like the third... the millionth like the millionth and one...

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.

"I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." (cited in the church history of Eusebius, 4:26)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 31, 2004.

"But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not 'Canonical' but 'Ecclesiastical:' that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine." - Rufinus (A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, 38)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

Since the 'apocrypha' was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles it's good enough for me.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), February 02, 2004.

John Miskell,

As far as I know Jesus did not quote from the deuterocanonical books.

Judas (Jude) quoted from the Assumption of Moses and Enoch.

Paul quoted some Greek writers.

Luke (Acts) quoted Josephus for Acts 1-15.

Do you know the passages Jesus quoted ?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 02, 2004.


The Epistle of Jude is actually quoting from a book is definitely apocryphal, not just deutrocanonical. In spite of all of that, you ackowledge the canonnicity of the Epistle of Jude? How come? Email me at JesusVictr@aol.com since I am new here and don't know how this forum works.

-- Ibrahim (JesusVictr@aol.com), August 05, 2004.

I think is the book of Enoch, Ibrahim.

Your question is a valid one. How can a letter based on an apocryphal book be canonical? Only if the write of the letter takes that as an example bu not as truth. Even Paul in one of his letters mentions some Greek writes as scripture.

I will look it up. Can't remeber the passage now.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), August 05, 2004.


But why shoudl we assume that a mere quotation orma work renders it Cannon? Paul cited Pagan wrks, where htey canonical?

If God inspired me to write a book, and I made an analogy to Star Wars, wodl that make Star Wars inspired? No, it wudl just mean I woudl be usign a culturally recognisable metaphore to express a point.

Cannonicity is not gauged by mre uotaiton in another canonical source.

And the forums are simple, you just chekc the threads.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), August 05, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ