Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

[Nancie_Lew]

I dont know if anyone has sited this but it has the new testement verses that correspond to the Deutrocanonical books. They could not be quoteing from any onter book but the Deutrocanonical.

www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Most of those quotes came from the Old Testament. So what? Other religous books used quotes from the Old Testament and those books were rejected when the New Testament Canon was put together.

Up until Trent the Catholic Bible contained Tobias, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Maccabees, First Esdras, Second Esdras, Epistle of Jeremiah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Prayer of Azariah, and Laodiceans.

Now only Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Maccabees remain so the Catholic Church took out some of their original books after it claimed those same books were valid for hundreds of years.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Most of those quotes came from the Old Testament. So what? Other religous books used quotes from the Old Testament and those books were rejected when the New Testament Canon was put together.

Up until Trent the Catholic Bible contained Tobias, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Maccabees, First Esdras, Second Esdras, Epistle of Jeremiah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Prayer of Azariah, and Laodiceans.

Now only Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Maccabees remain so the Catholic Church took out some of their original books after it claimed those same books were valid for hundreds of years.

Nancy,
Maybe you should cite your sources (per forum rules). AFAIK your assertion is incorrect.

 

[kaycee]

So, let me ask you a question. Because the JEWS were entrusted the oracles of God (Rom 3:1-2), which according to you is the reason why you should use their canon, IF they were to get together again, like they did in Jamnia in the year 100 A.D. (almost 70 year after Christ’s death), when they got rid of the deuteros, and decide to get RID of Nehemiah or Eclesiastes (which are books that are NOT cited in the N.T.) like they did with the deuteros, would you have to follow them like you do with the deuteros and reject those books as well?

Blessings,

E.C.

Some Jews accepted the deuts, most didnt. Why you assume the majority was wrong is baseless on your part. The vast majority of evidence indicates you are wrong. Philo and Josephus both say the canon was closed. Josephus states, “no one has dared to add anything to them, or take anything from them, or alter anything in them”

Melito, Jerome, Origen testify that the Jews dont accept the deuts. The deuts even claim there was no longer a prophet in Israel. Gods people before Christ examined the deuts and found them wanting. The numerous errors were enough to disqualify them.

The so called “council” of Jamnia was no such thing. A session of elders at the college discussed if they thought Eccelsiastes and the Song of Songs were inspired. They never discussed the deuts!

You question is silly. If the Pope told you the book of James was not scripture would you believe him?

Scripture was never canonized by fiat.

 

[6glargento]

Some Jews accepted the deuts, most didnt. Why you assume the majority was wrong is baseless on your part.

this is pretty ironic considering that the majority of christiandom currently accepts them as scripture (catholic and orthodox) why don’t you accept them based on the majority christian opinion?

 

[Janet_S]

Most of those quotes came from the Old Testament. So what? Other religous books used quotes from the Old Testament and those books were rejected when the New Testament Canon was put together.

Up until Trent the Catholic Bible contained Tobias, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Maccabees, First Esdras, Second Esdras, Epistle of Jeremiah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Prayer of Azariah, and Laodiceans.

Now only Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Maccabees remain so the Catholic Church took out some of their original books after it claimed those same books were valid for hundreds of years.

You say most of those quotes came from the OT? Are you talking about this article?
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
Because if you are, these are NT quotes in which there are references to the DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS. Do you know the difference between the OT and the NT?

Catholic Bibles still contain Susanna and Bel and the Dragon. They are in Chapter 13 and 14 in the Book of Daniel.

Gary Michuta (in a previous post #123 on this thread) discussed 1 & 2 Esdras.

Now we are left with these books you claim “up until Trent the Catholic Bible contained” Epistle of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, Prayer of Azariah, and Laodiceans.

The books above were never listed in Church Council documents as “canonical books.” The Latin Vulgate Bible contained Jeromes’s Prologues too, yet these were never considered “canonical Scripture.” (Some Protestants seem to think so, though.)

Early on in this thread we listed canons of Scripture from the following: Councils of Hippo, Carthage, Rome, Florence, and Trent. None of these books (Epistle of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, Prayer of Azariah, and Laodiceans) you claimed were in Catholic Bibles before Trent were listed as canonical Scripture in prior Council documents. They were never officially considered by the Church as a part of the canon of Scripture.

The fact is that since the Council of Rome in AD 382, every major Church pronouncement on the Bible has listed a canon of Scripture identical to that given at the Council of Trent.

 

[Janet_S]

No, we do not believe that the Deutrocanonical books are more important than the New Testament.

The Deutrocanonical books do not have precedence.

We do not get most of our teachings from the Deutrocanonical books.

This is all nonsense. You really need to get your facts straight.

Nancy Lew, why don’t you address this (above)?

Why did you start this argument, ignore people’s responses, and move on to another argument?

What books in the Bible do you think are inspired or “God breathed”?

 

[kaycee]

this is pretty ironic considering that the majority of christiandom currently accepts them as scripture (catholic and orthodox) why don’t you accept them based on the majority christian opinion?

Cause Jesus did’nt

 

[DallasCatholic]

Cause Jesus did’nt

And your source for that is…what? Jesus, as did most Jews of his time and place, used the Septuagint. Guess what? The Septuagint included the deuterocanonical books.

 

[El_camino]

Some Jews accepted the deuts, most didnt. Why you assume the majority was wrong is baseless on your part. The vast majority of evidence indicates you are wrong. Philo and Josephus both say the canon was closed. Josephus states, “no one has dared to add anything to them, or take anything from them, or alter anything in them”

1. This has nothing to do with my question
2. Who cares what Josephus (a Jew) says. He has no authority… He rejected Christ and Christ call those jews who rejected him “SONS OF THE DEVIL” (John 8:44). Nonetheless, those same jews you want to follow in deciding the canon
3. You contradict yourself, as you say some Jews accepted some did not. WHich JEWS are we supposed to follow then?

Kaycee:

Melito, Jerome, Origen testify that the Jews dont accept the deuts.

NO ONE is denying that the Jews did not accept the deuteros… All that we are saying is WHO CARES… as the Jews that rejected them were the same one who REJECTED Christ.

THe JEWS who did NOT rejected Christ and became the CHURCH did not reject the deuteros, as then continued to use the SEPTUAGINT, which contains the deuteros.

Kaycee:

The deuts even claim there was no longer a prophet in Israel.

So does the N.T. The Apostles were not prophets in the sense Isaiah, Jeremiah and others were, by the way.

Kaycee:

Gods people before Christ examined the deuts and found them wanting.

Who ? The Jews? Martin Luther? your pastor or some other teacher that you, having itchy ears, heap for yourself? Are those your God’s people?

The overwhelming MAJORITY of the ECFs accepted the deuteros… that is something you cannot deny.

Kaycee:

The numerous errors were enough to disqualify them.

There are no errors! this is the same argument that ATHEISTS and Muslims give about the whole bible.

Kaycee:

The so called “council” of Jamnia was no such thing. A session of elders at the college discussed if they thought Eccelsiastes and the Song of Songs were inspired. They never discussed the deuts!

You are wrong! I cannot find it at the moment, but I have seen the document of Jamnia where they rejected the deuteros and all the other books of the N.T., as they considered the new “Christian Sect” a heretical sect. Those Jews are the one that you have decided to follow.

Kaycee:

You question is silly. If the Pope told you the book of James was not scripture would you believe him?

It is not SILLY at all, and it does NOT compare with the question you just made, as the POPE cannot go against previous infallible pronouncement by other popes and Councils. So IT IS impossible for the pope to say that. But the JEWS have NO PROVISION on going against previous pronouncements by other JEWS. They could tomorrow get together and do whatever they want with their canon. Would you have to follow them?

IF YOUR answer is NO, then your position has NO LOGIC, as you are prompt to follow the decision of ANCIENT JEWS, but not the DECISION of the JEWS today, and you are very arbitrary in trying to reject the deuteros.

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[DallasCatholic]

You are wrong! I cannot find it at the moment, but I have seen the document of Jamnia where they rejected the deuteros and all the other books of the N.T., as they considered the new “Christian Sect” a heretical sect. Those Jews are the one that you have decided to follow.

E.C.,
check out this link:
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

 

[Zooey]

So Catholics believe that the Deutrocanonical books are more important than the New Testament? That they have presidence over them? You obviously have to think that way because Catholics get most of their teaching from them rather than from the New Testament. Why… when they were written before the birth of Christ during a time when there was no Jewish profit.The Deuterocanonicals them selves say that they are not inspired scripture.

Gee…I guess I missed that! Book, chapter, & verse, please, that says “I am not inspired Scripture” ???
And while you’re at it, show book, chapter, & verse that says each of the Bible books that you **do **accept, says “I am inspired Scripture”…

this is pretty ironic considering that the majority of christiandom currently accepts them as scripture (catholic and orthodox) why don’t you accept them based on the majority christian opinion?

I think it’s because they don’t agree with kaycee…That’s why
we keep:yawn: hearing from ???]William Webster???]…

Cause Jesus did’nt

Ummmm…http://bestsmileys.com/silly/8.gif.yeah. OK. Jesus used the Deuteros. He quoted from them, for pete’s sake!http://bestsmileys.com/nono/4.gif

 

[Mannyfit75]

Gee…I guess I missed that! Book, chapter, & verse, please, that says “I am not inspired Scripture” ???
And while you’re at it, show book, chapter, & verse that says each of the Bible books that you **do **accept, says “I am inspired Scripture”…

I think it’s because they don’t agree with kaycee…That’s why
we keep:yawn: hearing from ???]William Webster???]…

Ummmm…http://bestsmileys.com/silly/8.gif.yeah. OK. Jesus used the Deuteros. He quoted from them, for pete’s sake!http://bestsmileys.com/nono/4.gif

Deutrocanonical books were used by Jesus, His apostles, their successors, and so the Catholic Church used them because they Paul states in 2 Tim 3:16

All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice.

All Scripture includes the Deutrocanonical Books which the Protestants throw away during the Reformation in 1517-45.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

Deutrocanonical books were used by Jesus, His apostles, their successors, and so the Catholic Church used them because they Paul states in 2 Tim 3:16

All Scripture includes the Deutrocanonical Books which the Protestants throw away during the Reformation in 1517-45.

I’ll just repeat what Atemi said to you in another thread.
Luther removed nothing from the Canon.

The Catholic Church did NOT have a definitive canon until Trent, so there was no definitive canon to remove anything from…

 

[Nancie_Lew]

Ummmm…http://bestsmileys.com/silly/8.gif.yeah. OK. Jesus used the Deuteros. He quoted from them, for pete’s sake!http://bestsmileys.com/nono/4.gif

Some quotes please.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I’ll just repeat what Atemi said to you in another thread.
Luther removed nothing from the Canon.

The Catholic Church did NOT have a definitive canon until Trent, so there was no definitive canon to remove anything from…

Yes he did. Luther removed the 7 Books of the Old Testament that is why you Protestant have 66 Books, we Catholics have 73 Books in the NT.

The Council of Trent only reaffirmed the Council of Rome, Council of Hippo, and Council of Carthage.

Jimmy Akin stated the following:

The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.

The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)

To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that “The Jews don’t except these books.” In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

 

[Mannyfit75]

Nancie Lew;

They refer to the Septuagint and the Deutrocanonical.

In the Hebrew Translation in the Isaiah 7:14 it said,

Behold a young woman shall conceived and bear a son, and he shall be called Immanuel.

In the Septuagint.

It said, Behold a virgin shall conceived and bear a son, and he shall be called Immanuel.

In Matthew 1:23, Matthew is referring to the Greek.

“Behold, a virgin shall conceived and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”

I can give you other text that the NT refers to the Septuagint.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Some quotes please.

Your Answer

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=140928

 

[Bishopite]

So Catholics believe that the Deutrocanonical books are more important than the New Testament? That they have presidence over them? You obviously have to think that way because Catholics get most of their teaching from them rather than from the New Testament. Why… when they were written before the birth of Christ during a time when there was no Jewish profit. The Deutrocanonicals themselves say that they are not inspired scripture.

So where does it say IN THE BIBLE that there has to be a Jewish prophet alive in order for a book to be canonical??
I’m not sure what kind of logic applies to you for you to say that because a book was written before Christ doesn’t make it canonical; that would elimate the entire Old Testament.

You know I and most Catholics on this thread really don’t even quote from the Deuterocanonicalsl on this forum most of the time, so to say that Catholic think the Deutero’s are more important than the New Testament books of the Bible is without basis and if that were true, show me an official Church document that says the Duetero’s are more important than the other Scriptures.

Also, you made the false allegation that the Deuterocanonicals weren’t found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here is evidence that from a secular site that they most certainly were.

"Contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Since their discovery, all of the texts have been translated. The texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls include 23 of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible (the Protestant Old Testament)–Esther is missing. Eight or more copies of several books of the old testament were found, including the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Twelve Prophets, Psalms, and Daniel. The scrolls also include what scholars refer to as sectarian literature–papers that describe the rules, beliefs and practices of the sect which had stored the scrolls, and commentaries on biblical books.

Finally, there are manuscripts that are part of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. The Apocyrpha includes those books which are collected in the Catholic Old Testament (called the Deuterocanonicals) but omitted from the Protestant Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible). Pseudepigrapha are books that were collected in neither version of the Old Testament, but are Jewish religious texts dated from the first centuries BCE and CE."
archaeology.about.com/od/deadseascrolls/qt/dead_sea_scroll.htm

 

[Bishopite]

I’ll just repeat what Atemi said to you in another thread.
Luther removed nothing from the Canon.

The Catholic Church did NOT have a definitive canon until Trent, so there was no definitive canon to remove anything from…

Sure it did.

---

---

***"The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, ***

Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees**, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

This list of 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books was reconfirmed in the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D… St. Jerome’s translation, “The Latin Vulgate”****, is to this day, the official Bible of the Catholic Church. The Bibles which Catholics use today, have the same 46 books in the Old Testament as they have had since before the beginning of Christianity. "

home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm
**

 

[Nancie_Lew]

Nancy Lew, why don’t you address this (above)?

Why did you start this argument, ignore people’s responses, and move on to another argument?

What books in the Bible do you think are inspired or “God breathed”?

If you don’t believe that the Deutrocanical books are more important than the New Testament than why do Catholics believe in things like purgatory and praying to the dead?

All of the books in the Old and New testaments are inspired by the Holy Spirit minus the Deutrocanical books.