21 Reasons why the Catholic Bible isn't inspired

[BigE]

I was debating a very scripturally sound Protestant on a thread he started in another forum. The Title of it was “21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired” (ie: why the Protestant Bible is inspired and the Catholic Bible isn’t")

We went back and forth for quite a while, but I am working and trying to go to school at night, so time became a huge issue for me (I have school papers to research and write…) and I just ran out of gas. But at some point (I graduate this May) I want to re-ignite the debate. You’ll notice that I was able to reduce his 21 reasons down to 15…lol…

I was curious as to any rebuttals this forum might be able to offer to any one or all of his points. It sure would save me a lot of research time!

Any help would be appreciated!

Here are his now 15 pts (I have to put them in three posts because his reponse went past the maimum number of characters allowed)

Here are his pts 1-9 (10 -15 to follow):

1. The Jewish Canon does not include any of the apocryphal books
2. The Jewish Council of Jamnia rejected theh apocryphal books* NOTE: I realize there is some dispute as to whether or not this Council actually occurred. However, after further review, I am convinced that it did indeed happen thus I will enter it as part of my evidence even if it is still under dispute*
3. Philo, the Jewish philosopher, never once mentioned or referred to any of the Apocryphal books
4. Josephus, Jewish Historian, vociferously rejected the Apocrypha
5. Melito of Sardis has the most ancient list of OT books (ad 170) and none of the Apocryphal books are included
6. Jesus never once quoted from any books of the Apocrypha
7. The NT writers never once quoted from any books of the Apocrypha
8. There was NO clear consensus which Apocryphal books should be included and which shouldn’t

• The Septuagint (LXX) - Except II Esdras
• Codex Alexandrinus (A) - Also contains III & IV Maccabees
• Codex Vaticanus (B) -Except I & II Maccabees and The Prayer of Manassah
• Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)
• Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) - Includes Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus
• Chester Beatty Papyri - Fragments of Ecclesiasticus
• The Dead Sea Scrolls - Some apocryphal writing was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls - interestingly written in Greek

1. The NT had much more consistency and more of a clear consensus with the early church fathers by quoting and acceptance than the Apocrypha

• See Table for the NT: ntcanon.org/table.shtml
• See Table for Apocrypha (scroll down to the bottom of the page): biblequery.org./apoc.htm

 

[BigE]

Here is his point #10 (a long one):

1. Some of the apocryphal books are rife with blatant errors:

a) Tobit 1:4-5 + 1:11-13 + 14:1-3 say Tobit saw the revolt of the northern tribes (997 B.C.); he was deported to Nineveh with Naphtali (740 B.C.) yet he only lived 102 years.

b) In Tobit 1:14, the city of Rages was a part of Media, and never a part of the Assyrian Empire.

c) In Tobit 6:1, they went from Nineveh to the Tigris River, and then east to Rage. Nineveh is on the Tigris River, so they did not need to go to the river to go east.

d) Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus did not destroy Nineveh, but Nabopolassar the Babylonian and Cyaxares the Mede destroyed centuries before (Tobit 14:5).

e) Sennacherib was not the son of Shalmaneser, but Sargon II (Tobit 1:15).

f) Bel and the Dragon (added to Daniel) mentions the contemporaneous prophet Habakkuk in Judea. However, Habakkuk lived centuries before.

g) Judith: It is unclear where the Book of Judith was written. There are at least fourteen errors in the book covering falsehoods of the people and geography of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and even gross errors on the geography of Israel.

• Nebuchadnezzar was the King of Babylon, not Nineveh.
• He was not the king of the Assyrians, and the Assyrians (or Babylonians).
• He never sacked the cities of Ecbatana or Ragae.
• Assyrians and Babylonians did not rely predominately on their cavalry.
• The Babylonian and Assyrian rulers wanted people to worship their gods, but notthemselves (unlike later Romans and Persians)
• The Jews had not returned from exile in the time of the Assyrians or Babylonians.
• The Moabites and Ammonites were descendents of Lot; they were not Canaanites.
• General Holofernes and his massive campaign in Palestine are unknown to history and archaeology.
• Nobody has ever found a city with towers called Bethulia, on the plain of Esdraelon near Dothan, able to resist 132,000 soldiers.
• Balbaim has never been found.
• Cyamon has never been found either.
• Mordecai taken by Nebuchadnezzar (617 B.C.)
• 2nd year of Artaxerxes court (~130 years later). Contradicts the regular part of Esther: (additions to Esther)
• Haman was an Agagite, not a Macedonian. -additions to Esther.
• Do not remember the dead (Sirach 38:21-23) vs. pray for the dead (2 Maccabees
  12:44)
• Baruch was not really in Babylon. Baruch 1:1,2 vs. Jeremiah 43:5-7
• Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve Babylon for 7 generations. Jeremiah 25:11 and 29:11 says 70 years.
• The Babylonians probably did not worship and feed a living dinosaur-like creature. (additions to Daniel 14:23-27)
• In 2 Maccabees 8:10, Nicanor wanted to pay 2,000 talents to the Romans; the Seleucids were not under the Romans.
• In 2 Maccabees 8:20 8K Seleucids plus 4K Macedonians did not destroy 120,000 Galatians in Babylonia.
• Judas is said to have been slain in 152 during the reign of Seleucide in Mac. 9:3; but 2 Mac. 1:10 he writes a letter to Aristobulus in the year 188, 36 years after hisdeath - Within the 2 Maccabean books, Antiochus is said to have died 3 different ways and in two different geographical locations. (See ;1Mac6:18,16; 2 Mac1:16; 2
  Mac 9
• Baruch says that in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, he read his book to Jeconiah and to all the people of Babylon; but Jeconiah was in prison and Baruch had been taken away to Egypt after the death of Gedaliah (Jer. 43:7)

 

[BigE]

And finally, his points 11-15:

1. Apocryphal books imply, infer, state things not otherwise found in any other portion of the Bible, and in some cases even against what the Bible says

• An angel named Uriel (2 Esdras)
• A good soul fell to Solomon’s lot. Wisdom 8:19, 20
• The body weighs down the soul. Wisdom 9:15
• Whoever honors his father atones for sins. Sirach 3:3
• God is unaware the origin of some is evil. Wisd. 12:10
• To none has he [God] given power to proclaim his works;…" Sirach
• Never use deceit (Sirach 25:26) vs. Deceive people for God (Judith)
• Divorce if your wife does not obey you-Sirach 25:26
• “for from garments comes the moth, and from a woman comes woman’s wickedness. Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace.” Sirach 42:14
• “Wine is like life to men, if you drink it in moderation. What is life to a man who is without wine? It has been created to make men glad.” (Sirach 31:27)
• “Pamper a child, and he will frighten you; play with him, and he will give you grief.” Sirach 30:9
• “Speak, you who are older, for it is fitting that you should, but with accurate knowledge and do not interrupt the music.” Sirach 32:3
• “My son, do not lead the life of a beggar; it is better to die than to beg.” (and it goes on) Sirach 40:28-30.
• Jeremiah took the tabernacle of the ark to a cave in the mountain Moses saw Canaan. 2 Macc 2:1-16
• Suicide is encouraged and found “honorable” 1 Maccabees 6 : Eleasar is praised for voluntary rushing upon death. 2 Maccabees 14: Razis is praised for laying hands on himself.
• Rather than the creation being spoken into existence from nothing by the word of Almighty God, as affirmed in the Scriptures (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 33:6-9; Hebrews (11:3), the Apocrypha has God creating the world out of “formless matter” (Wisdom of Solomon 11:17).
• According to the prophet Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar burned Jerusalem on thetenth day, fifth month, of the nineteenth year of his reign (Jeremiah 52:12-13). Subsequent to this, both the prophet and his scribe, Baruch, were taken into Egypt (43:6-7). According to the Apocrypha, however, at this very time Baruch was in Babylon (Baruch 1:1-2).

1. Book of Tobit uses MAGIC to get rid of a demon Tobit 6:1-17
2. The Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage weren’t declared “infalliable”, were provincial 9in nature, were opposed by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origien, and the Cyrian church: And even after their declarations of many of the apocryphal books as “canon” there were still disputes and discussion about their legitimacy particularly JEROME
3. Oddly, none of the Apocryphal books never claimed to be inspired, never claim to be the Word of God, and don’t use terminology to infer such as “God said”, “The Word of the Lord”, etc
4. Augustine was the “spearhead” to get the Apocryphal books into the canon.

---

In my opinion, the evidence is fairly clear BigE.

The Apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Canon or even in the same category as the Canon. Peace

 

[Ignatius]

Actually, the Protestants received the Bible from The Catholic Church. So, if they don’t think it’s inspired, then theirs isn’t inspired.

 

[latin_rite]

1. The Jewish Canon does not include any of the apocryphal books

What i am to understand happen was that the Jewish council was concerned of the amount of Jews converting to Christianity. And apparently the apocryphal books, where being used to help convert Jews. Which is why they choose to remove those books. The Christian or early fathers didn’t see the need to follow any Jewish edict, because they were no longer Jewish. which is why those books are still in the Catholic bible. Now if you were to read a Ethiopian Torah/cannon you will still see those books, that was taken out of the Jewish Torah.
I could be wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time.

 

[catholic1seeks]

#10

Myth 3

*The deuterocanonical books contain historical, geographical, and moral errors, so they can’t be inspired Scripture. *

This myth might be raised when it becomes clear that the allegation that the deuterocanonical books were “added” by the Catholic Church is fallacious. This myth is built on another attempt to distinguish between the deuterocanonical books and “true Scripture.” Let’s examine it.

First, from a certain perspective, there are “errors” in the deuterocanonical books. The book of Judith, for example, gets several points of history and geography wrong. Similarly Judith, that glorious daughter of Israel, lies her head off (well, actually, it’s wicked King Holofernes’ head that comes off). And the Angel Raphael appears under a false name to Tobit. How can Catholics explain that such “divinely inspired” books would endorse lying and get their facts wrong? The same way we deal with other incidents in Scripture where similar incidents of lying or “errors” happen.

Let’s take the problem of alleged “factual errors” first. The Church teaches that to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must have in mind what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion.

For example, when Jesus begins the parable of the Prodigal Son saying, “There was once a man with two sons,” He is not shown to be a bad historian when it is proven that the man with two sons He describes didn’t actually exist. So too, when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the “rich man” who stole a “poor man’s” ewe lamb and slaughtered it, Nathan is not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or identify the two men in his story. In strict fact, there was no ewe lamb, no theft, and no rich and poor men. These details were used in a metaphor to rebuke King David for his adultery with Bathsheba. We know what Nathan was trying to say and the way he was trying to say it. Likewise, when the Gospels say the women came to the tomb at sunrise, there is no scientific error here. This is not the assertion of the Ptolemiac theory that the sun revolves around the earth. These and other examples which could be given are not “errors” because they’re not truth claims about astronomy or historical events.

Similarly, both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors, not because they’re presenting bad history and erroneous geography, but because they’re first-rate pious stories that don’t pretend to be remotely interested with teaching history or geography, any more than the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are interested in astronomy. Indeed, the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like “Jack the Giant Killer” or “Aladdin.” Just as one wouldn’t wave a medieval history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins “once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the land,” so Catholics are not reading Tobit and Judith to get a history lesson.

Very well then, but what of the moral and theological “errors”? Judith lies. Raphael gives a false name. So they do. In the case of Judith lying to King Holofernes in order to save her people, we must recall that she was acting in light of Jewish understanding as it had developed until that time. This meant that she saw her deception as acceptable, even laudable, because she was eliminating a deadly foe of her people. By deceiving Holofernes as to her intentions and by asking the Lord to bless this tactic, she was not doing something alien to Jewish Scripture or Old Testament morality. Another biblical example of this type of lying is when the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh about the birth of Moses. They lied and were justified in lying because Pharaoh did not have a right to the truth—if they told the truth, he would have killed Moses. If the book of Judith is to be excluded from the canon on this basis, so must Exodus.

With respect to Raphael, it’s much more dubious that the author intended, or that his audience understood him to mean, “Angels lie. So should you.” On the contrary, Tobit is a classic example of an “entertaining angels unaware” story (cf. Heb. 13:2). We know who Raphael is all along. When Tobit cried out to God for help, God immediately answered him by sending Raphael. But, as is often the case, God’s deliverance was not noticed at first. Raphael introduced himself as “Azariah,” which means “Yahweh helps,” and then rattles off a string of supposed mutual relations, all with names meaning things like “Yahweh is merciful,” “Yahweh gives,” and “Yahweh hears.” By this device, the author is saying (with a nudge and a wink), “Psst, audience. Get it?” And we, of course, do get it, particularly if we’re reading the story in the original Hebrew. Indeed, by using the name “Yahweh helps,” Raphael isn’t so much “lying” about his real name as he is revealing the deepest truth about who God is and why God sent him to Tobit. It’s that truth and not any fluff about history or geography or the fun using an alias that the author of Tobit aims to tell.

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

**Your friend’s list of errors is, to me, a somewhat silly objection because one can find just as many historical and factual errors in the rest of the Old Testament. But he knows good and well that those errors don’t take away from the fact that they’re inspired by God because he knows that the Bible must be interpreted how the sacred authors intended it to be. The same goes for the D-C’s. Was it the author’s point to deliver historical facts? What’s the genre of the book? What literary styles and techniques does he use? What’s the purpose?

WE CAN NOW SCRATCH OBJECTION #10!!

 

[catholic1seeks]

#7 THE NT WRITERS NEVER ONCE QUOTED…

The above link I gave deals also with this objection.

Firstly, Mark Shea points out why QUOTATIONS doesn’t = CANONICITY:

**Myth 2 **

Christ and the Apostles frequently quoted Old Testament Scripture as their authority, but they never quoted from the deuterocanonical books, nor did they even mention them. Clearly, if these books were part of Scripture, the Lord would have cited them.

This myth rests on two fallacies. The first is the “Quotation Equals Canonicity” myth. It assumes that if a book is quoted or alluded to by the Apostles or Christ, it is ipso facto shown to be part of the Old Testament. Conversely, if a given book is not quoted, it must not be canonical.

This argument fails for two reasons. First, numerous non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament. These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah (alluded to in Hebrews 11:37), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren’t these writings in the canon of the Old Testament?
Second, if quotation equals canonicity, then there are numerous books of the protocanonical Old Testament which would have to be excluded. This would include the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament.

Then he goes on to show that the D-C’s are indeed quoted by the NT:

The other fallacy behind Myth #2 is that, far from being ignored in the New Testament (like Ecclesiastes, Esther, and 1 Chronicles) the deuterocanonical books are indeed quoted and alluded to in the New Testament. For instance, Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, “For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”

This passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic Gospel writers in their accounts of the Crucifixion: “He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ÔI am the Son of God’” (cf. Matthew 27:42-43).
Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: “The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man’s speech disclose the bent of his mind.” Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ’s words on the occasion of this feast: “Is it not written in your Law, ÔI have said you are gods’? If he called them Ôgods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?” Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being “set apart,” just as Judas Maccabeus “set apart” (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called “apocryphal” books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob’s Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12)— as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.

WE CAN NOW SCRATCH #7

 

[JRKH]

Don’t know how much help this will be but, In 2 Tim there is the famous verse about “All Scripture” being inspired of God…(2 tim 3:16)
So the question becomes what Scripture is Paul talking about in his letter?
Paul was writing to Timothy, a bishop of a Greek speaking community of Christians…outside of Palistine.
These Greek Speaking Christians would have been most familiar with the Septuigent.
Therefore “ALL Scriptures” would include the deuterocanonicals.

Also in His letter to Timothy, Paul refers to the Scriptures that Timothy has known since his youth. Since Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother and Greek father, living in Lystra - well outside of Palistine and so the “Scriptures” that he had been aquainted with since childhood (2 Tim 3:15) would have been the Septuigent. The Greek language OT.

As to The Council of Jamnia, since it did not occur until sometime AFTER the incarnation of Christ, we can readily surmise that the “spirit led” authority of that council is highly suspect.

Peace
James

 

[catholic1seeks]

**SCRATCH # 14 **

First off, most NT books don’t even claim inspiration, as do many OT books.

Mark Shea deals with this too:

Myth 4

The deuterocanonical books themselves deny that they are inspired Scripture.

Correction: Two of the deuterocanonical books seem to disclaim inspiration, and even that is a dicey proposition. The two in question are Sirach and 2 Maccabees. Sirach opens with a brief preface by the author’s grandson saying, in part, that he is translating grandpa’s book, that he thinks the book important and that, “You therefore are now invited to read it in a spirit of attentive good will, with indulgence for any apparent failure on our part, despite earnest efforts, in the interpretation of particular passages.” Likewise, the editor of 2 Maccabees opens with comments about how tough it was to compose the book and closes with a sort of shrug saying, “I will bring my own story to an end here too. If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do.”

That, and that alone, is the basis for the myth that the deuterocanon (all seven books and not just these two) “denies that it is inspired Scripture.” Several things can be said in response to this argument.

First, is it reasonable to think that these typically oriental expressions of humility really constitute anything besides a sort of gesture of politeness and the customary downplaying of one’s own talents, something common among ancient writers in Middle Eastern cultures? No. For example, one may as well say that St. Paul’s declaration of himself as “one born abnormally” or as being the “chief of sinners” (he mentions this in the present, not past tense) necessarily makes his writings worthless.

Second, speaking of St. Paul, we are confronted by even stronger and explicit examples of disclaimers regarding inspired status of his writings, yet no Protestant would feel compelled to exclude these Pauline writings from the New Testament canon. Consider his statement in 1 Corinthians 1:16 that he can’t remember whom he baptized. Using the “It oughtta sound more like the Holy Spirit talking” criterion of biblical inspiration Protestants apply to the deuterocanonical books, St. Paul would fail the test here. Given this amazing criterion, are we to believe the Holy Spirit “forgot” whom St. Paul baptized, or did He inspire St. Paul to forget (1 Cor. 1:15)?

1 Corinthians 7:40 provides an ambiguous statement that could, according to the principles of this myth, be understood to mean that St. Paul wasn’t sure that his teaching was inspired or not. Elsewhere St. Paul makes it clear that certain teachings he’s passing along are “not I, but the Lord” speaking (1 Cor. 7:10), whereas in other cases, “I, not the Lord” am speaking (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12). This is a vastly more direct “disclaimer of inspiration” than the oblique deuterocanonical passages cited above, yet nobody argues that St. Paul’s writings should be excluded from Scripture, as some say the whole of the deuterocanon should be excluded from the Old Testament, simply on the strength of these modest passages from Sirach and 2 Maccabees.
Why not? Because in St. Paul’s case people recognize that a writer can be writing under inspiration even when he doesn’t realize it and doesn’t claim it, and that inspiration is not such a flat-footed affair as “direct dictation” by the Holy Spirit to the author. Indeed, we even recognize that the Spirit can inspire the writers to make true statements about themselves, such as when St. Paul tells the Corinthians he couldn’t remember whom he had baptized.
To tweak the old proverb, “What’s sauce for the apostolic goose is sauce for the deuterocanonical gander.” The writers of the deuterocanonical books can tell the truth about themselves—that they think writing is tough, translating is hard, and that they are not sure they’ve done a terrific job—without such admissions calling into question the inspired status of what they wrote. This myth proves nothing other than the Catholic doctrine that the books of Sacred Scripture really were composed by human beings who remained fully human and free, even as they wrote under the direct inspiration of God.

 

[DianaCC]

All I can manage at this point is snarky one-liners, but it’s a start.

1. The Jewish Canon does not include any of the apocryphal books

…or the New Testament.

1. The Jewish Council of Jamnia rejected the apocryphal books

…and the New Testament.

1. Philo, the Jewish philosopher, never once mentioned or referred to any of the Apocryphal books

…or the New Testament.

1. Josephus, Jewish Historian, vociferously rejected the Apocrypha

…and the New Testament.

1. Melito of Sardis has the most ancient list of OT books (ad 170) and none of the Apocryphal books are included

…or Esther, Nehemiah, or Lamentations.

1. Jesus never once quoted from any books of the Apocrypha

…or Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 1 Chronicles, Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, or Haggai.

1. The NT writers never once quoted from any books of the Apocrypha

…or Ruth, Obadiah, Nahum, or indeed any of the Gospels, and the words of Jesus they do quote aren’t even in the Gospels, yet they manage to quote Menander and Epimenides.

1. There was NO clear consensus which Apocryphal books should be included and which shouldn’t

And there was clear consensus which NT books should be included? Please.

1. The NT had much more consistency and more of a clear consensus with the early church fathers by quoting and acceptance than the Apocrypha

…and so did Catholic doctrine.

1. Some of the apocryphal books are rife with blatant errors:

And there aren’t difficulties in the rest of the Bible?

1. Apocryphal books imply, infer, state things not otherwise found in any other portion of the Bible, and in some cases even against what the Bible says

Circular argument, come on.

1. Book of Tobit uses MAGIC to get rid of a demon Tobit 6:1-17

Book of Acts uses HANDKERCHIEFS AND APRONS to get rid of demons.

1. The Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage weren’t declared “infalliable”, were provincial 9in nature, were opposed by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origien, and the Cyrian church: And even after their declarations of many of the apocryphal books as “canon” there were still disputes and discussion about their legitimacy particularly JEROME

Yes but Trent was infallible and universal, and opposed by heretics. And Jerome was no Protestant.

1. Oddly, none of the Apocryphal books never claimed to be inspired, never claim to be the Word of God, and don’t use terminology to infer such as “God said”, “The Word of the Lord”, etc

And which of the undisputed books claim to be inspired? And where is God mentioned in Esther? The apocryphal parts.

1. Augustine was the “spearhead” to get the Apocryphal books into the canon.

But look who spearheaded their exclusion.

 

[BigE]

Catholic 1 and Diana CC…good stuff so far. I like it

Catholic 1 - Is there a website that you are cutting and pasting from that I reference?

Keep it coming!

Peace,
BigE

 

[catholic1seeks]

Catholic 1 and Diana CC…good stuff so far. I like it

Catholic 1 - Is there a website that you are cutting and pasting from that I reference?

Keep it coming!

Peace,
BigE

Yes the link is in my first post i think.

 

[just_came_back]

Protestants are so in love with the Jews to the point that they clearly are missing the point that, YES, Jews did reject Jesus. I’ve never understood then why they would want to claim their “inspired” scriptures around their opinions on the matter.

FUNDamentalists have a love fest with the Jews because they claim they “hold the key” to the fictitious event know as the “rapture”…

strange bunch of folks.

 

[beafedor]

Ask your friend what is the Feast of the Dedication for which Jesus went to Jerusalem in John chapter 10:22. Ask him where in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Numbers… he can trace the origin of this festival. Strangely, The Feast of the Dedication is not mentioned in any of the Protestant Canon of Scripture. That’s because it originated at the time of the Maccabees (First book of Maccabees).

John 10:22, Footnote in NAB bible:
usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john10.htm#foot9
Feast of the Dedication: an eight-day festival of lights (Hebrew, Hanukkah) held in December, three months after the feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2), to celebrate the Maccabees’ rededication of the altar and reconsecration of the temple in 164 B.C., after their desecration by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Daniel 8:13; 9:27; cf 1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 1:18-2:19; 10:1-8).

 

[CEM5]

1. Jesus never once quoted from any books of the Apocrypha
2. The NT writers never once quoted from any books of the Apocrypha

RE: #6

Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matthew 12:42 NRSA
The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here!

Luke 11:31 NRSA
The queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here!

RE: # 7

Tobit 4:15
Do to no one what you yourself dislike.
Matt. 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you

Sirach 27:6
The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had
Matt. 7:16,20
Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Wisdom 15:7
For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article: Both the vessels that serve for clean purposes and their opposites, all alike; As to what shall be the use of each vessel of either class the worker in clay is the judge.
Rom. 9:21
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

1 Macc. 2:52
Was not Abraham found faithful in trial, and it was reputed to him as uprightness?
James 2:23
And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend.

Judith 11:19
You will drive them like sheep that have no shepherd,
Matt. 9:36
When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.

Just a bit to refute # 6 and # 7!

blessings,
CEM

 

[BigE]

Ask your friend what is the Feast of the Dedication for which Jesus went to Jerusalem in John chapter 10:22. Ask him where in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Numbers… he can trace the origin of this festival. Strangely, The Feast of the Dedication is not mentioned in any of the Protestant Canon of Scripture. That’s because it originated at the time of the Maccabees (First book of Maccabees).

John 10:22, Footnote in NAB bible:
usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john10.htm#foot9
Feast of the Dedication: an eight-day festival of lights (Hebrew, Hanukkah) held in December, three months after the feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2), to celebrate the Maccabees’ rededication of the altar and reconsecration of the temple in 164 B.C., after their desecration by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Daniel 8:13; 9:27; cf 1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 1:18-2:19; 10:1-8).

Hmmmm. Nice. I’ll run that by him.

 

[Zooey]

All I can manage at this point is snarky one-liners, but it’s a start.

…or the New Testament.

…and the New Testament.

…or the New Testament.

…and the New Testament.

…or Esther, Nehemiah, or Lamentations.

…or Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 1 Chronicles, Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, or Haggai.

…or Ruth, Obadiah, Nahum, or indeed any of the Gospels, and the words of Jesus they do quote aren’t even in the Gospels, yet they manage to quote Menander and Epimenides.

And there was clear consensus which NT books should be included? Please.

…and so did Catholic doctrine.

And there aren’t difficulties in the rest of the Bible?

Circular argument, come on.

Book of Acts uses HANDKERCHIEFS AND APRONS to get rid of demons.

Yes but Trent was infallible and universal, and opposed by heretics. And Jerome was no Protestant.

And which of the undisputed books claim to be inspired? And where is God mentioned in Esther? The apocryphal parts.

But look who spearheaded their exclusion.

:clapping::clapping:

 

[mskejj]

In Jesus’ day the canon of the OT had not been settled.The Sadducees only followed the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) and so did the Samaritans. The Pharisees held one similar to the Protestant one but boundaries were not fixed until after Jesus’ time. And authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to include more. And then there were some Jews that honored one that is best represented today by the Sepuagint translation (Greek translation made between 250-125BC. The NT writers used the Greek Septuagint. Many of the OT quotations found in the NT are from the Septuagint. Protestant authors Gleason Archer and G.C. Chirichigno in their book "Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey) list 340 places where the NT cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where the NT cites the Hebrew canon. So they quoted from the Septuagint over 90% of the time. And the Septuagint version included all the books in the Catholic OT.