B
boomerang
Guest
Would you go to a Nazi website to learn what Jews believe? Do yourself a favor. Don’t go to CARM to learn about Catholics.
- Status
D
dmar198
Guest
The site lists five objections:
*]It says Tobit 6:5-7 is about using magic to scare away the devil
*]It says Tobit 4:11 and Tobit 12:9 teach that our own human efforts can atone for our sins
*]It says 2 Maccabbees 12:43 teaches that money can atone for the sins of the dead
*]It says Judith 1:7 calls Nebuchadnezzar the king of the Assyrians when he was actually the king of the Babylonians
*]It says Baruch 6:2 foretells that the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations when it was actually 70 years
The first objection is wrong because Tobit 6:5-7 doesn’t mention magic. It says that an angel told Tobias to burn the heart and liver of a fish to free a person from demonic oppression, because the demon would smell the smoke and flee. This is not because the fish was magic and the text does not say it was. Instead, the text indicates that the fish’s parts were a sacrifice offered as a prayer of deliverance. Tobit 6:16-17 and Tobit 8:2 make this clearer by specifying that the fire had to be produced by means of incense and/or an incense censor. In the Old Testament, sacrifices were offered for the sins of the people, and the fish has messianic significance. This offering of deliverance backed up by the power of the Messiah was what caused the oppressing demon to become fearful when he smelled the fish offering. The interpretation that the fish was magic has no support in the text; the interpretation that the fish was a sacrifice for sins does have support in the text. CARM is wrong on this one.
The second objection is faulty because it misunderstands what Tobit says about human effort atoning for sin. Proverbs 16:6, 1 Peter 4:8, James 5:20, and Luke 11:39-41 shed light on this because they also talk about human effort atoning for sin, and the key is that expiating or atoning for our sins requires the blood of Christ as the foundation. Human good works can only acquire merit before Jesus if we are in a state of grace and forgiveness already, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Bible reveals good works too and says that they really can help us spiritually to acquire forgiveness for sins committed after we are in the state of grace. Tobit 4:11, Tobit 12:9, Proverbs 16:6, 1 Peter 4:8, and James 5:20 all use the language of atonement to explain this.
The third objection is faulty for several reasons. First, the passage does not say money can atone for sins, and that is a terrible way to talk about almsgiving. The merit of almsgiving has nothing to do with its being money and everything to do with its being a form of prayer. When you give away your money as an act of charity, it is a sacrifice of something of material value for the sake of something spiritual. St. Paul says that money can be an offering in Philippians 4:18. He mentions that almsgiving has spiritual merit in 2 Corinthians 9:6-7. Jesus says that if we give alms for what is in our hearts, everything will be clean – Luke 11:39-41. This is all because when you offer something of value, it is a form of prayer, and God can answer that prayer for our own salvation. This objection is really based on CARM’s rejection of prayers for the dead – but the Bible contains both prayers and suffrages for the dead in Psalms 35:13-14, 2 Timothy 1:16-18, 2 Samuel 1:12, and 1 Samuel 31:13. Almsgiving for them is just another form of that.
The fourth objection is wrong because Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians too. The Babylonian empire included the former capital of Assyria and its territory. Notice: Judith 1:7 does not say Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria but of the Assyrians, who were still around even though their country was no longer independent. 2 Kings 24:1-2 even says explicitly that God gave “bands of Syrians” to King Nebuchadnezzar and he sent them against Judah. So the rest of the Old Testament confirms what Judith says was happening here.
The fifth objection is wrong because it misunderstands the prophecy of Baruch 6:2-3. First of all, it does not say the Captivity would last for seven generations, but for “up to seven generations,” “for a long time,” “for many years.” Secondly, Baruch 6:2-3 and Daniel 9:3, 21-27 both give a greater number of years than the actual 70 mentioned in Jeremiah 25:11 – one reason is because the true, inner captivity would last until the Messiah came, and the prophet Daniel gives the amount of time (seventy times seven) that would bring them up to the time of the Messiah. Baruch gives a less specific amount of time “up to seven generations,” or 280 years, which brings them up to the time when the Maccabbean revolt reestablished Jewish independence.
Okay, so there’s all five objections. I hope that helps, but be aware that all the historical difficulties of the Bible have more data to sift through than a single human can go through. What is needed is trust in the Holy Spirit. Do you trust that He guided the Church correctly when it decided the Canon in the late fourth century? If you do, then why don’t you accept all the books they agreed to? If you don’t, then why do you accept the ones you do? The same decree that gives you Esther gives you Judith, and both of them have their historicity attacked by secularists with arguments that can sound convincing on the surface. But the Catholic way is to put our trust in the Holy Spirit who wouldn’t tell His people the wrong Canon. I hope that you’ll come to have a similar trust.
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
The Church was founded by Jesus on Peter, not on a collection of writings. The Bible is the compilation of the books used as Scripture by the Jews during Jesus’ life and some post-Resurrection writings by Apostles and disciples.
There was no definitive Bible for any Christian for over 300 years. There were quite a few writings that were being read as Scripture by some communities that didn’t make it into the Bible. It took the Council of Nicea to review all the existing documents and decide what was divinely inspired and held Authentic Teachings and what did not.
You say there are flaws but just who is the arbiter of what constitutes a flaw?
What authority do they have to say that the Fathers, guided by the Holy Spirit at the Council of Nicea, were wrong in their assessment of these books and what they contain?
What authority does CARM have to declare anything to be an authentic teaching of Christ or not?
What authority did Martin Luther have to declare these 7 books ‘apocrypha’ and to separate them from the rest of the books in a different section?
Can anyone just decide, saying that the Holy Spirit told them that the Gospel of John, for example, is not divinely inspired and should be removed from the bible?
What authority did the bible publishers have to simply omit those ‘extra’ books in order to save on printing costs and produce a cheaper bible?
What should you do?
Learn what the Apostles taught which has been preserved without change by the Catholic Church. As you pointed out, it is a matter of Salvation.
Here is a good place to start -
The Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Catechism
M
McCartney
Guest
Well said.One complaint is the fish heart on the flames driving away evil spirits. It is an unusual method, but consider how the Lord healed a blind man.
"When he had said these things, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay on his eyes, And said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe, which is interpreted, Sent. He went therefore, and washed, and he came seeing. The neighbours therefore, and they who had seen him before that he was a beggar, said: Is not this he that sat and begged? Some said: This is he. But others said: No, but he is like him. But he said: I am he. They said therefore to him: How were thy eyes opened? (John 9: 6 -10)
Did he use witchcraft by using his spit and mud to heal this man’s eyes?
O
oldburkes
Guest
Nice job, dmar198.
D
DanielJT
Guest
That’s how you do it!
po18guy
Well-known member
You listen to CARM? Man-made poison.
They oppose Christ, claiming that baptism is not needed! What did Christ say in Matthew 28:19? What did he say in Mark 16:16? What did Peter say in Acts 2:38?
Is Slick Matt smarter than Christ?
Please stay away from such man-made trash!
Oh, and they are NOT “extra” books. CARM is simply lying to you about that. They have been told the truth.
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html
P
Porknpie
Guest
Pizza,
What books should be in the bible, 73 were decided by the Council Of Rome (382ad), Synod of Hippo (393ad) and Carthage (397ad). The words of Carthage below:
"[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John." Council of Carthage III, Canon 47 (A.D. 397).
Every time someone at CARM holds the bible, they are holding a Catholic book, written by for and about the Catholic Church. It was “decided” to be 73 books out of several hundred writings by Catholic bishops in the late 4th century, to have a universal set of readings at Mass throughout the world.
The flaw is to have a bible with only 66 books, 7 removed by men over a 1,000 years later after the Church already decided what was scripture based on the apostolic faith.
Which by the way includes among many other beliefs not held true by C**M:
The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Explicit in John 6, taught by the apostles and by the apostles to their descendants is the belief in in the Eucharist. 2,000 years of belief. Can you imagine if the Catholic Church held a position contrary to scripture that is so clear:
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you
Baptism Save You
Again, can you imagine if the Catholic Church held a position explicitly contrary to scripture? How scripture must be twisted to come up with a differing belief than 1 Peter 3:21.
21** Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you**, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
PnP
P
pablope
Guest
Luther explains his issues in the prefaces. I don’t have access to all of them online, but in my Commentary from LCMS. Just a couple of examples:
Judith
1 Maccabees
For the same reasons, primarily, that such wonderful books as the Didache and Prayer of Manasseh are not.
But I think you say it well: qualms. Lutherans ought not reject them, as they are an important part of our history and heritage. I’ve learned a great deal by reading them, have found great inspiration in Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, and The Prayer of Manasseh.
At least for us in America, it is long past time to “re-discover” them, and put them back in scripture where they belong. My hope is that the LCMS publication of them, which also includes other apocryphal books not even in the Catholic Canon, is a step in that direction.
I will never buy a Bible again without them, even 2 Maccabees.
Jon
D
dmar198
Guest
I’m glad to see those quotations from Luther, but if I’m not mistaken he put Judith in the apocrypha in his German translation of the Bible, and I don’t think you could find any Bible, including the original Vulgate, that did that. Jerome and all of the Church Fathers thought Judith was canonical inspired Scripture. What made Luther think otherwise?
Luther seems to have issues with the historical accuracy:
Later on he seems to believe that the “errors” are intentional, so that the reader understands the fictional nature:
He later seems to take the same view of Tobit: *** “What was said about the book of Judith may also be said about this book of Tobit. If the events really happened, then it is fine and holy history. But if they are all made up, then it is indeed a truly beautiful, wholesome, and useful fiction or drama by a gifted poet…"***
But doctrinal issues are not particularly prevalent. Authorship, the Hebrew canon, historical accuracy seem more the issue, and this is a reflection of the views of some of the Fathers of the Church.
Jon
D
dmar198
Guest
T
TARRAT
Guest
Actually protestants have less than the 73 books in the bible.
I’m inclined to agree to a point. I think I mentioned this earlier, that accuracy doesn’t necessarily make something canon (such as Didache), and the reverse can also be true.
I agree, though it isn’t until Trent that the disputes in question about certain books are, at least for those in communion with the Bishop or Rome, are silenced. The Lutheran Reformers I think intentionally do not specify a closed canon as Trent does, leaving the discussion open for us, while at the same time, our practice does place greater weight on the undisputed books.
Jon
D
dmar198
Guest
As a Lutheran, do you think an ecumenical council would have the authority to decide the Canon?
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
Matt Slick is as sniveling and disingenuous as one can get when it come to Catholicism.
(1) It’s not just the evil, vile, Whore of Babylon, Romish Catholic Church that accepts the deuterocanonical books. It is also the Eastern Church in union with Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Councils and ECFs as well. The conspiracy–at least if one buys into Slick’s paranoid delusions about the RCC–reaches far and wide.
(2) You’ll note that he mentions only 4 of the 7 deuterocanonical books. Somehow he generalizes to all of them. Almost half are from Tobit. What basis does he have to lump all of them together as if they were one work?
(3) His objections also apply to events in NT books that he does accept.
(a) Re Tobit quotes on alms and Maccabees
Jesus to the Pharisees: “But as to what is within, give alms, and behold, everything will be clean for you.” (Lk 11:41)
(b) Re angel’s instructions to Tobit:
(i) It’s angel Raphael sent from God. By definition it can’t be magic.
(ii) Washing in the Jordan River cannot cure leprosy, yet Elijah, not an angel, said to do it in the case of Naaman. (2 K 5)
(iii) Making a mud paste out of saliva and washing in a pool as per Jesus’ instructions cannot cure blindness, yet He told the blind man to do it. (Jn 9:6-7; cf. Mk 8:23)
(c) As to errors in historical facts
(i) Mk 2:26 - Abiathar is said to be high priest; 1 Sm 21:2 - Ahimelech is high priest
(ii) Mt 23:35 - Zechariah, son of Barachiah; 2 Chr 24:20-22 - son of Jehoida
(iii) Jn 7:38 - no such exact quote in the OT
(iv) Inscriptions on the Cross differ - Mt 27:37; Mk 15:26; Lk 23:38; Jn 19:19
So I guess Slick has to eliminate all the books from the NT mentioned above too.
First, setting aside what is and is not an ecumenical council, I think clearly, for the Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, Trent clearly sets a canon of scripture in a way never done prior, as evidenced by the fact that up to and even during the council, Catholics could freely debate and dispute books.
Were there an ecumenical council, which were to include EO bishops and patriarchs, and they determined together a canon, I would be inclined to accept it, just as I do the 7 early councils.
In short, yes.
Jon
D
dmar198
Guest
Well I think that’s very thoughtful and wise of you. I hope that in the future more Lutherans will come to agree with that, and learn why. Have you considered starting up a Church history course at your local church to better inform other Lutherans on matters like this? And, on the subject of history, do you think St. Irenaeus had the right idea of the authority of the Roman Church in his book Against Heresies Book III? What is your interpretation of his remarks?
BTW I think it’s important to point out that the Eastern Orthodox do accept the Deuterocanonical books, so an ecumenical decision about them is not only possible, but in a nonconciliar way it is already there.
I am, by no measure, capable of teaching a class such as that.
I agree, at least in part, with your assessment regarding the DC’s.
Jon
- Status