Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

[Nancie_Lew]

Just a few historical errors in the Apocrypha

Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.). These two events were separated by over 200 years and yet the total lifespan of Tobit was 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).

 

[Nancie_Lew]

The NT is important for Catholics since the central tenet of Catholicism is belief in the Trinity, a Truth revealed to the world through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. While there is foreshadowing of Jesus in the deuterocanonicals, Catholics clearly don’t rely on them alone to support belief in the Trinity.

The doctrine of Purgatory can be defended using the NT alone without any support of deuterocanonical texts. Purgatory is off topic for this thread, but If you want to start a new thread, go ahead. I can explain this to you if you are really interested.
If you believe only 66 books of the OT and NT (minus the deuterocanonical books) are inspired by the Holy Spirit, then you are in agreement with Kaycee and you get this information from the opinion of Protestant tradition. Protestants consider this only an opinion, though, since they deny that Christ established a Church which has the ability to infallibly teach on matters of faith and morals. The best Protestants can say is they “think” they have the right books.

Catholics have the assurance that there are 73 inspired books in the Bible, since God revealed this to the world through an infallible proclamation of His Holy Catholic Church.

So you believe the Apocrypha when it clearly contradicts scripture? Here is an example.

The book of Sirach teaches that almsgiving makes atonement for sin. “Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins…Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin” (Sirach 3:3, 30).

The Bible is clear that it is the blood of Jesus that atones for sin. Leviticus 17:11 states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

There are other examples of almsgiving throughout the Apocrypha.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Nancie,

That is a myth:

Mark Shea answer this false claim:

Charge: 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.

((continue))

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.

Source: envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

 

[Nancie_Lew]

It was not until the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD when the Jewish religion felt threatened by Christianity because of these Deutrocanonical Books decided to form a Council.

There you go again!

1. In 90 AD, the council of Jamnia was unimportant in determining the Jewish Canon.
2. It was not a major council like Nicea, but a small collection of rabbinic Jewish leaders.
3. They did not gather to determine the canon of the Old Testament, but rather limited their discussion to the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.

.

 

[Mannyfit75]

There you go again!

1. In 90 AD, the council of Jamnia was unimportant in determining the Jewish Canon.
2. It was not a major council like Nicea, but a small collection of rabbinic Jewish leaders.
3. They did not gather to determine the canon of the Old Testament, but rather limited their discussion to the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.

.

The Council of Jamnia consist only of Jewish Scholars WHO REJECT Jesus Christ.

The Christian Council in Rome, Hippo, and Carthage acknowledge the Deutrocanonical Books as inspired. So you rather go with an Unbelieving Jewish Scholars than the rest of Christianity?

The Christianity community or Church did not find the Council of Jamnia Binding.

Before the the Reformation when Luther was still a priest he had the Bible that included the 73 OT Text, even the Wycliff Bible have 73 Books.

It was not until the time of the Reformation remove the 7 OT text and only accepted the 66 OT… The Council of Trent responded by reaffirming the Council of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo to support the Deutrocanonical.

While the rest of Protestantism reject the essential part of Christian Writings.

 

[Janet_S]

So you believe the Apocrypha when it clearly contradicts scripture? Here is an example.

The book of Sirach teaches that almsgiving makes atonement for sin. “Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins…Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin” (Sirach 3:3, 30).

The Bible is clear that it is the blood of Jesus that atones for sin. Leviticus 17:11 states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

There are other examples of almsgiving throughout the Apocrypha.

The deuterocanonical books are inspired Scripture. God revealed this through His infallible Church. You’re relying on Protestant opinions, so you reject these books. If Protestants accepted them and Catholics rejected them, you probably would make an argument for why they belong there. I think you are more against the CC than you are against the deuterocanonical books. I don’t expect we will agree on this.

As far as what the Bible teaches in the NT and OT about atonement for sins, do you have a clear understanding of what this means? Look at Jonah 3:6-10 when the King of Nineveh atoned for sins/did penance by fasting and putting on sackcloth and ashes. Do you have a problem with this book too?

Be honest–are you a serious Bible student? From your previous posts, it looks like you’re not a Christian at all.

The subject of almsgiving is throughout the Bible, not only in the deuterocanonical books. Jesus tells people to give alms in Luke 12:33.

Also, Jesus tells us to honor our father and mother in Matthew 15:1-9.

Sirach is a great book that gives a lot of practical advice. Many things written in Sirach can be found in the NT too. For example compare Sirach 28:12-26 with James 3:1-12.

 

[Wisdom]

So you believe the Apocrypha when it clearly contradicts scripture? Here is an example.

The book of Sirach teaches that almsgiving makes atonement for sin. “Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins…Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin” (Sirach 3:3, 30).

The Bible is clear that it is the blood of Jesus that atones for sin. Leviticus 17:11 states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”

There are other examples of almsgiving throughout the Apocrypha.

Yeah and examples in the new testament as well. Almsgivng are to be regarded as a meritorious memorial sacrifice to God thats why we offer these gifts in the offeratory and in our prayers in the mass in conjunciton with Christ sacrifice. And last I checked protestants also take a collection and make similar prayers. Heck many protestant churchs in the Word Faith and Pentacostal circles go far beyond what Sirach and Acts teach.

You really should talk to your own protestant brothers and sisters as using almsgiving as God’s slot machine, you know sow the financial seeds and get a financial reward from it. Now this is truly unscriptural and sometthing the dueterocanonicals nor the book of Acts supports. But hey try talking to your Pentacostal sometime to correct this as I am a little sick of this on TBN and the other programs protestants are pushing on TV. Clean your Your own backyard and then we can revisit this teaching found in the early church and contiues to this day. Say what you will but this regards the merit of the soul and not merits or world pleasure which is the rage of protestantism these days so you tell me which is more unbiblical?

**Acts 10
3He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

4And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

31And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.**

The ending of the verse from Sirach that you left out says that HE who does kindness is remebmered afterward and this is exactly the respons of God here in Acts, it agrees with the passage 100 percent. And the verse was not to be taken in isolation like protestants love to do with thier exegesis, that is is isogesis and neither the Bibical authors nor the early church ever read into the bible as evangelicals with their one verse web sling. Of course Jesus is the sacrficie that washes away our sins but we can participate as God calls us to do in the Body of Christ by doing what we catholics call the corporal works of mercy and yes they are meritorious to our salvation once we are in the body of Christ. Of course that goes with the cavaet that good works apart from Christ count for nothing.

 

[kaycee]

There you go again!

1. In 90 AD, the council of Jamnia was unimportant in determining the Jewish Canon.
2. It was not a major council like Nicea, but a small collection of rabbinic Jewish leaders.
3. They did not gather to determine the canon of the Old Testament, but rather limited their discussion to the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.

.

BINGO! The Deuts were never discussed!

 

[kaycee]

Before the the Reformation when Luther was still a priest he had the Bible that included the 73 OT Text, even the Wycliff Bible have 73 Books.

It was not until the time of the Reformation remove the 7 OT text and only accepted the 66 OT… The Council of Trent responded by reaffirming the Council of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo to support the Deutrocanonical.

While the rest of Protestantism reject the essential part of Christian Writings.

Not True! In the early sixteenth century, just prior to the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo, in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia. There is an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification

This Bible, as well as its Preface, was published by the authority and consent of Pope Leo X, to whom the whole work was dedicated.

 

[TheApologist]

That is one reason I do not believe that the Deutrocanicals are inspired. There is no need for them.

Malachi was the last prophet in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament predicts the coming of the Messiah.

The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. In the Old and New Testaments God has already said all that needs to be said. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians it says, “When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.” (Gal. 4:4) In other words, the time of our Lord’s birth was God’s appointed hour, the moment for which God had been long preparing.

After Malachi had ceased his prophesying and the canon of the Old Testament closed God allowed a period of time for the teachings of the Old Testament to penetrate throughout the world. During this time, he rearranged the scenes of history. In the pagan empires the people were sick of the emptiness of their pagan faiths and they were open to the Jewish religion. Pagans who embraced the Old Testament teachings were searching for something to end the emptiness of their lives. That was the hope of the coming Messiah.

It has been 2,000 years now and there has been no inspired voice of God just like during the 400 silent years but like the 400 silent years God is rearranging history for Jesus to return.

templemount.org/0240.html

Who are you, or your church, to say that the deuterocanonicals aren’t God’s Word? Or, if they are God’ Words, that they are unimportant.

You do know that Baruch, one of the deuterocanonicals, was written BEFORE the book of Malachi? The book of Malachi was written around 450 B.C. Baruch lived around the turn of the 6th century B.C. (599 B.C.)
If you say the deuterocanonicals were uninspired because there were no prophets after Malachi…what about Baruch?

Also, where in the Bible does it say one has to be a prophet to have inspiration from the Holy Spirit? To be a prophet is to be given the gift of the Holy Spirit- prophecy. Does one have to have prophecy to write the Word of God? Were the NT writers prophets? Or did they write down(the correct words through inspiration) what they had seen/heard of Jesus and what He had left in His path? If these people were prophets, then wouldn’t they be writing or speaking of things to come? I agree, Revelation was a prophecy at the time, but what of the other NT books? Were they prophecies? Do you think the writers had to be prophets?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Not True! In the early sixteenth century, just prior to the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo, in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia. There is an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification

This Bible, as well as its Preface, was published by the authority and consent of Pope Leo X, to whom the whole work was dedicated.

The Holy See used the Deutrocanonical Books. The official Bible used by the Vatican is the Latin Vulgate which has been the official Scripture since St. Jerome translated the Bible. The Latin Vulgate have those deutrocanonical books. The Cardinal you spoke of who wrote his own version of the Bible is not the official Bible of Rome.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

Who are you, or your church, to say that the deuterocanonicals aren’t God’s Word? Or, if they are God’ Words, that they are unimportant.

You do know that Baruch, one of the deuterocanonicals, was written BEFORE the book of Malachi? The book of Malachi was written around 450 B.C. Baruch lived around the turn of the 6th century B.C. (599 B.C.)
If you say the deuterocanonicals were uninspired because there were no prophets after Malachi…what about Baruch?

Also, where in the Bible does it say one has to be a prophet to have inspiration from the Holy Spirit? To be a prophet is to be given the gift of the Holy Spirit- prophecy. Does one have to have prophecy to write the Word of God? Were the NT writers prophets? Or did they write down(the correct words through inspiration) what they had seen/heard of Jesus and what He had left in His path? If these people were prophets, then wouldn’t they be writing or speaking of things to come? I agree, Revelation was a prophecy at the time, but what of the other NT books? Were they prophecies? Do you think the writers had to be prophets?

The Old Testament itself says that collections of inspired and recognized books were being put in the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 31:9-11,24-26; 1 Samuel 10:25) and then the temple (2 Kings 22). It was the job of the priests to watch over and guard these books (Deuteronomy 33:9). Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us that the Old Testament canon was completed and recognized as completed by the Jews after their return from Babylon in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (around 400 B.C.). By Jesus’ day the Jewish people still held to Ezra’s collection (Ezra 7:6,10; Nehemiah 8:2-8,18), which they called ‘the Scriptures,’ that is “the writings.”

SHOW ME WHERE THE BOOK OF BARUCH WAS INCLUDED IN EZRA’S COLLECTION!

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Old Testament itself says that collections of inspired and recognized books were being put in the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 31:9-11,24-26; 1 Samuel 10:25) and then the temple (2 Kings 22). It was the job of the priests to watch over and guard these books (Deuteronomy 33:9). Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us that the Old Testament canon was completed and recognized as completed by the Jews after their return from Babylon in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (around 400 B.C.). By Jesus’ day the Jewish people still held to Ezra’s collection (Ezra 7:6,10; Nehemiah 8:2-8,18), which they called ‘the Scriptures,’ that is “the writings.”

SHOW ME WHERE THE BOOK OF BARUCH WAS INCLUDED IN EZRA’S COLLECTION!

When did theApologist mention Ezra’s Collection. He only wrote about the Baruch and Malachi?

 

[Janet_S]

Not True! In the early sixteenth century, just prior to the Reformation, Cardinal Ximenes, the Archbishop of Toledo, in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia. There is an admonition in the Preface regarding the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine, though the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification

This Bible, as well as its Preface, was published by the authority and consent of Pope Leo X, to whom the whole work was dedicated.

Geez!! Give us a break from the William Webster article would you.

I would like to see the “admonition in the Preface to the Apocrypha” that William Webster mentions. Do you think you could find this for us? I wonder why Webster told us it was there but didn’t quote it.

It looks to me like the Polyglot Bible is a tool for scholars. It was never the official Bible of the CC.
newadvent.org/cathen/12222a.htm

Still would like to know why Protestants consider Church council decisions as fallible while considering Jerome as infallible?

 

[lak611]

Geez!! Give us a break from the William Webster article would you.

Still would like to know why Protestants consider Church council decisions as fallible while considering Jerome as infallible?

Sounds like Kaycee considers William Webster to be infallible, rather than Church councils. All her quotes point to one source: Webster.

 

[Chancellare]

Sounds like Kaycee considers William Webster to be infallible, rather than Church councils. All her quotes point to one source: Webster.

Hope Kaycee is not Protestant. This argument is a “Freudian slip” against “Sola Scriptura”.

 

[lak611]

Hope Kaycee is not Protestant. This argument is a “Freudian slip” against “Sola Scriptura”.

True. That “slip” would mean that she believes in a Magisterium of Webster.

 

[Mannyfit75]

True. That “slip” would mean that she believes in a Magisterium of Webster.

We ought to adhere to the Magisterium of Webster… LMAO

I don’t see how a Protestant is an expert on the Catholic Church. The last time I check the Vatican is in charge of the Catholic Church not Webster.

Unless I missed a memo that had Pope Benedict XVI transfer his infallible authority to Webster.

 

[TheApologist]

Malachi was the last prophet in the Old Testament…

After Malachi had ceased his prophesying and the canon of the Old Testament closed God allowed a period of time for the teachings of the Old Testament to penetrate throughout the world.

Your assertion: Because Malachi was the last prophet in the Old Testament, the deuterocanonicals cannot be inspired because they didn’t come from prophets.

My First Objection: The Book of Malachi was written around 450 B.C…The Book of Baruch was written by the man Baruch who lived around the turn of the 6th century B.C. (599 B.C.)
If the Book of Baruch was written before the Book of Malachi…then how is your assertion accurate? Baruch very well could have been a prophet.
…And if, as you say, prophets are the only ones who dictate God’s Word, why couldn’t Baruch be a scribe of inspired text?