W
Waynec
Guest
This is nicely summarized. And to think the Governing Body has over 8 million followers believing in their rhetoric.
- Status
C
ChosenOne7
Guest
You would agree same like everyone else would agree… Probably would have a different view if u studied the Bible along with the apocryphal… Or did you do that already?
D
davidv
Guest
I have studied the Bible. This study confirmed my choice to remain Catholic.
C
ChosenOne7
Guest
Then how is it that you didn’t see the differences between the Bible and the apocryphal? Which do u believe in more the Bible or the apocryphal?
D
Dorothy
Guest
The pope has been given the authority, in communion with the bishops, to be able to teach truth with regard to faith and morals. He has been given this authority from Jesus Christ, our Lord, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
Obviously the bible is not the sole rule of faith, as there are many interpretations of it.
A
ajcstr
Guest
Well first of all, Catholics do not follow a Bible Only mentality. But a Catholic teaching cannot contradict the Bible. You keep mentioning that there are many differences but you will not discuss any. Please tell us what verses from the “apocryphal” are not in harmony.
Also, numbers don’t matter, I am sure Atheism has seen a growth in the last 5 years also.
All one needs to do is pick up a Watchtower interlinear from 1984 and can see all the dishonest translations when the Greek translation is right next to it. It’s pretty funny that the NT was written in Greek and the Greek churches hold to the doctrine of the Trinity. This dates back several hundred rears before there was even another translation. The Watchtower has changed pretty much every verse in the Bible that points to the divinity of Jesus because they don’t want the Bible to say that.
C
CeelosDeznos
Guest
This shows how very uneducated you are about Catholics.
First of all the word you are using “apocryphal” should be “apocrypha.”
The word “apocryphal” means “that which is doubtful or not authentic.” But the “Apocrypha” is what most Protestants use to refer to the Jewish books of the extra Greek Scriptures (a.k.a., the Greek Septuagint or LXX). The word “apocrypha” means “hidden” and is used by the Jews and others to refer to these extra books not because they are not believed to be important of no use, but because they are not part of the Tanakh library or canon (to be of the Tanakh a book must be written in Hebrew script and before the Hasmonean/Second Temple era).
Because this was the version of the Scriptures used by the first century Jews and Christians, the Catholic Church adopted all these books into its own canon when the New Testament books were authorized. Catholics refer to the “apocrypha” as the Deuterocanonicals. These books are even used by Jews to this day (for example the books of Maccabees are read around Chanukah by some Jews as the events which led up this celebration are recorded there; Jesus himself observed the Festival of Lights or Chanukah).
Also the Catholic Church is not based on the Bible, but the Bible is based on what the Church believes. The New Testament didn’t come before the Church. Members of the Church wrote, copied, distributed and eventually canonized the New Testament.
The same is said of the Old Testament. Judaism is not based on the Hebrew Scriptures. The Hebrew Scriptures are a product of Judaism. The religion came first, the Scriptures are based on the Jewish religion.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are backward. Like the Mormons who believe religion is based on book (for them it is the Book of Mormon), Jehovah’s Witnesses base what they believe on the Bible. The Jews and the Catholics produced the Bible, which is different. Our faith and religions came first.
Your religion is based on the book our religion wrote and canonized. Our religion is based on Jesus Christ, and after meeting him and learning from him our members wrote the Scriptures.
No one from your religion ever met Jesus. Neither did your religion ever produce Scripture. True religion like that of the Jews and Catholics produces Scripture.
Truth is not based on a book. It’s based on Jesus Christ.
C
CeelosDeznos
Guest
As to the authenticity of books of the “Apocrypha” or Deuterocanonicals, did you know they prophesy about Jesus with even greater details than some of the other Hebrew books do?
The Book of Wisdom prophesied the following about the Passion or suffering of Christ, 100 years before Jesus was born with the following words:
Let us lie in wait for the righteous one, because he is annoying to us;
he opposes our actions,
Reproaches us for transgressions of the law
and charges us with violations of our training.
He professes to have knowledge of God
and styles himself a child of the LORD.
To us he is the censure of our thoughts;
merely to see him is a hardship for us,
Because his life is not like that of others,
and different are his ways.
He judges us debased;
he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure.
He calls blest the destiny of the righteous
and boasts that God is his Father.
Let us see whether his words be true;
let us find out what will happen to him in the end.
For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him
and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
With violence 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.–Wisdom 2:12-20
How does a book uninspired of God prophesy about Jesus so accurately? Could the Devil know these details ahead of time? Of course not. This book had to be from Jehovah!
Does your religion accept this prophecy and the book that it is written in? No? How could a religion that rejects a book in which Jehovah prophecies about his Son be the true religion or properly preaching the truth about the Kingdom of God?
D
dcana
Guest
I believe this is what is called “moving the goalposts.” Only they move them to another field on the other side of town.
You keep mentioning that all we need to do is “look in our Bibles”. Where does is say in the Bible that we should be involved in predicting in what year the end of the world will be? Chapter and verse, please.
Is constantly shifting doctrines a sign of the “restored” True Church who speaks for God or of a 19th-century man-made church? Seems to me a church founded by a man, and not Christ, is the one that will have constantly-shifting doctrines. In this particular case, the “doctrines” that Charles Taze Russell came up with from reading his KJV were so extreme and in such conflict with that same KJV that over the years the JWs have had to repeatedly change the words of the Bible itself. Is that a sign of the True Church or of a 19th-century man-made organization? Seems pretty obvious to me.
Jesus said He would build His Church on Peter. Notice who the builder is and who is the one on whom Jesus’ Church will be built. Jesus’ Church can never fail or teach error precisely because it was not founded by man and is not built up by man. He said so Himself, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” And “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Would you say that Jesus was “with them” after this supposed “Great Apostasy” which lasted some 1,700 years until Charles Taze Russell came along? Was He “with them” when they were preaching their “false Gospel” all over the world? And yet the Lord said that He would be with us always. Was He wrong? Who is it that believes Him? Do God’s promises ever fail? Never. Is Jesus the wise builder who builds His Church on rock, so that (changing some tenses here) “[even if] the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon that house; it [does not] fall: for it was founded upon a rock” or is He the unwise builder who builds His Church on sand, such that “the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon that house; and it falls: and great is the fall of it”? I’d say He takes His own advise and builds His Church on Rock. In fact He explicitly says so, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If Jesus did not mean Peter as being the Rock, why did He change his name to Peter? When God changes people’s names it signals for them a new manner of life, a new task for them in the Eternal Plan of God, such as Abram to Abraham. And even if you believe that (against the plain sense of the Scriptures) Jesus meant Peter’s confession of faith: 1. Jesus is still the one who builds His Church, 2. He founds it on rock, and 3. He says that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Speaking of great apostasies, the JW organization is a prime example of apostasy from the truth. I’m sorry, but it really is that simple.
God be with you
A
adf417
Guest
I don’t know about the rest of the Catholics on this thread but I never have read any of the apocryphal writings. When I do bible study it is only with my 73 book bible.
ChosenOne7, any reason you skipped over my last post #108?
Peace!!!
C
ChosenOne7
Guest
Okay… In the book of Tobit… The account states that in his youth Tobit saw the revolt of the northern tribes, which occurred in 997 B.C.E. after Solomon’s death (Tobit 1:4, 5), also that he was later deported to Nineveh with the tribe of Naphtali, in 740 B.C.E. (Tobias 1:11-13) That would mean that he lived more than 257 years. Yet Tobias 14:1-3 says he was 102 years old at the time of his death.
In the book of Judith, Judith 1:5, says “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.” The events are stated as occurring during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who is called the king “who reigned over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh.” However Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylonia and never reigned in Nineveh, since Nineveh had been destroyed earlier by Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar.
In the book of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, contradicting Paul’s statement at Romans 5:12-19, which places the responsibility for sin upon Adam, Ecclesiasticus says: “From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die.” (25:33) The writer also prefers “any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman.”—25:19.
In the book of Barack… Baruch is represented as being in Babylon (Baruch 1:1, 2), whereas the Bible record shows he went to Egypt, as did Jeremiah, and there is no evidence that Baruch was ever in Babylon. (Jer 43:5-7) Contrary to Jeremiah’s prophecy that the desolation of Judah during the Babylonian exile would last 70 years (Jer 25:11, 12; 29:10), Baruch 6:2 tells the Jews that they will be in Babylon for seven generations and then experience release.
In the second book of Meccabees, the account represents Jeremiah, at the destruction of Jerusalem, as carrying the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant to a cave in the mountain from which Moses viewed the land of Canaan. (2 Maccabees 2:1-16) The tabernacle had, of course, been replaced by the temple some 420 years previously. There are also two contradictory accounts of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, that dreaded enemy of the Jews. One narrative records that Antiochus and his company were “cut to pieces in the temple of Nanaea by the treachery of Nanaea’s priests” (2 Maccabees 1:13-16), while another version in the same book states that Antiochus was “taken with a noisome sickness” and so “ended his life among the mountains by a most piteous fate in a strange land” (2 Maccabees 9:19-29). Various texts are employed in Catholic dogma as support for doctrines such as punishment after death (2 Maccabees 6:26), intercession by the saints (15:12-16), and the propriety of prayers for the dead (12:41-46). There’s no New Testament passage to support this notions. How would you explain that? So hence my question which do u believe the Bible or the Apocrypha?
C
ChosenOne7
Guest
Has already been answered in previous posts… It’s difficult replying to 10 different people each asking 10 different questions lolI don’t know about the rest of the Catholics on this thread but I never have read any of the apocryphal writings. When I do bible study it is only with my 73 book bible.
ChosenOne7, any reason you skipped over my last post #108?
A
adf417
Guest
Could you give me a post # where this was done. I don’t necessarily read all posts not addressed to me.
Peace!!!
D
davidv
Guest
I believe in Jesus Christ. I don’t believe in books. What is the apocryphal? My Bible has 73 books.
C
CeelosDeznos
Guest
Tobit is written in the same genre used by Jesus when he taught using parables. Just as the conversation between the Rich Man and Lazarus wasn’t literal nor was there a real prodigal son or Good Samaritan, the Book of Tobit employs this genre Jesus employed to teach sacred truths.
The reason Jesus used this parable stories so often in his teaching was that Jews expected to be taught using this type of platform: a story with moral. This is a Jewish form of writing known as novella. The one telling the story purposefully puts details in them which are not geographically or historically accurate on purpose so that the one reading or hearing the story knows that transcendent truths are what they should be looking for. Just as when Jesus said that the poor man Lazarus was located in Abraham’s bosom and speaking over a great chasm to the Rich Man (details that could not be literal and inform the reader to look for a deeper meaning) this genre employs a similar literary form. This doesn’t make the truths anymore lacking than they do in the parables of Jesus.
Again, Judith is written using this same type of Jewish novella narrative. Why are Jehovah’s Witnesses, who claim to be so well-studied on Scripture, so ignorant regarding the type of literary form being employed here? Did you know there are several of these types of narratives in Scripture, not only in the Deuterocanonicals?
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus or Ben Sira) 25 was written before Romans. So you might say that Romans, written by Paul is contradicting Sirach…except Sirach is not talking about the exact same thing Paul is mentioning at Romans 5:12-19.
Ben Sira is comparing the first sin of Eve and connecting it to sin and death the way Paul does at 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:14. Though Paul singles our Adam in Romans, these texts in Corinthians and Timothy shows that Paul understands that started with Eve’s transgression. “With a woman sin had a beginning,” writes Ben Sira, “and because of her we all die.” (Sirach 25:24) If Eve had not sinned would Adam have taken of the forbidden fruit? The two texts are merely complimenting one another because in all honesty Adam’s sin was connecting with Eve’s, and they both have the responsibility for spreading sin to the rest of us.–Genesis 3:1-6.
The opening of Baruch, chapter 1, gives a setting for the confession and prayer to follow. This is a communal prayer of the people in Babylon, as a whole. Baruch’s being “in Babylon” was as literal as the words of the communal prayer was the literal words of each and every Jewish exile that was literally there (which of course the prayer is not). By reading the context it is easy to see that Baruch is speaking on behalf of the exiles, putting himself in their place. Baruch was indeed taken with Jeremiah into Egypt.
However, it is also well known since antiquity that the author of this work is not actually Baruch himself. While elements may be historically traced to him, the final work is that of scribe writing in Baruch’s name, much as the many Star Wars films, all attributed to George Lucas, are the product of various writers and directors.
As to Baruch 6:2 the “seven generations” is likely symbolic. The book was likely composed or at least put in its final form by the Jews in the second century B.C.E. and may be drawing a parallel between the oppression of the Greeks of that time with the Babylonian period of distress. The deportation to Babylon had indeed occurred “seven generations” before the Hasmonean victories over Antiochus IV.
C
CeelosDeznos
Guest
This is a Jewish account that does not conflict with anything written in any other book of Scripture about the tabernacle. There is no Scripture account that tells us what happened to the materials of the Tabernacle itself. Once the Temple was built there is just no mention of what happened to the materials outside of this story.
This is what is known as a “doublet” by Scripture scholars. Often when conflicting stories about an event exist or differing details, both are included.
Conflicting details like this also exist in other books of the Bible. Exodus for example has a conflicting story about the animals owned by the Egyptians. Exodus 9:6 states that “all the livestock” of the Egyptians die from one plague, and then at 9:20-25 the Egyptians lose livestock to the hail. And then, even though “all” these animals have died twice already, the “firstborn of beast” of the Egyptians also manage to die at Passover. (Exodus 12:29) Now this book is definitely inspired of God, but it has conflicting details. Obviously conflicting details is not a reason to dismiss a book from being considered inspired, otherwise Jehovah’s Witnesses would have ripped out Exodus from their New World Translation.
We can talk about these subjects individually, but just as I’ve proved you are incorrect about all the above, you are equally incorrect about these thing as well.
Catholics don’t believe in the type of punishment after death you are thinking of. You probably think we teach that wicked immortal souls are tortured in a fiery hell after death, but we don’t. To show you what we really believe should be another thread or reply, but why don’t you look up the actual Catholic teaching first before you go and make the same mistakes you made above.
As for intercession by the saints, of course people in heaven pray for us. Revelation teaches they do. (Revelation 5:8; 8:4)
And again, the Jews believed in books of the Apocrypha. Why would they write them and include them in the LXX if they didn’t? The Jews believed in these books they wrote, still use them, and so do Catholics. The Divine Name even occurs in them, such as in that quote from the book of Wisdom you have skirted around discussing.
D
dcana
Guest
For what it’s worth (maybe nothing), I’d like to point out that atheists along with secularists and other non-religious types spend much time and energy doing this exact thing - searching the Bible (the 66-book partial canon, anyway) in order to find and point out its supposed inconsistencies. And there are, admittedly, many of them - “supposed” being the operative word.
C
CeelosDeznos
Guest
The lame idea that Catholics added these books to the Bible is so historically unsound (when it was not until the days of Martin Luther did they become seriously challenged). As a matter of interest these books did not get officially and regularly removed by Protestants until the 1800s with the invention of the British Bible Society. The King James Version originally included these books between the Old and New Testament, and even today it has become popular for modern translations to leave them or return them to at least this position as can be seen in the NRSV.
It is not doubted that the Alexandrian Septuagint (which has these books Jehovah’s Witnesses question) made up the official canon recognized by the first century Christians. Curiously since a few second-generation copies of the LXX contain the Divine Name, Jehovah’s Witness use this fact to support their theory that the New Testament also had it since Christians quoted from the LXX. While willing to admit this, they oddly refuse to admit that these Christians also used the Deuterocanonicals that appeared in the LXX too. Romans 1 and 2 is even based on Wisdom 13 and 14!
And before you jump on the fact of the Divine Name appearing in the LXX, remember only second- generation fragments contain it. The oldest extant copy does NOT use the Divine Name. Instead it contains a space or dots. Someone added it to a few, now-deteriorating copies that fell out of favor for the practice. Third-generation copies showed that later copies of the LXX decided to use a Greek substitute instead, and this they settled on prior to the composition of the New Testament.
I used the Little Rock Bible, the Catholic Study Bible, the Ignatius Study Bible and the St. Joseph Edition of the NABRE to compose my answers. All the texts that were questioned have answers given in the footnotes of my Catholic Bibles, so anyone who questions them shows they never bothered to look them up at examine the source. The answers are right there, that’s why I was able to give you so thorough answers and so quickly!
And people who argue a point without examining the source, well would you trust me and the claims I made if I was doing that? Isn’t it hypercritical that you, as a Witness, expect us to do the same regarding you when it is clear you never even cracked open the Deuterocanonicals books you were arguing about? You would have seen the same information I did if you had.
It is not doubted that the Alexandrian Septuagint (which has these books Jehovah’s Witnesses question) made up the official canon recognized by the first century Christians. Curiously since a few second-generation copies of the LXX contain the Divine Name, Jehovah’s Witness use this fact to support their theory that the New Testament also had it since Christians quoted from the LXX. While willing to admit this, they oddly refuse to admit that these Christians also used the Deuterocanonicals that appeared in the LXX too. Romans 1 and 2 is even based on Wisdom 13 and 14!
And before you jump on the fact of the Divine Name appearing in the LXX, remember only second- generation fragments contain it. The oldest extant copy does NOT use the Divine Name. Instead it contains a space or dots. Someone added it to a few, now-deteriorating copies that fell out of favor for the practice. Third-generation copies showed that later copies of the LXX decided to use a Greek substitute instead, and this they settled on prior to the composition of the New Testament.
I used the Little Rock Bible, the Catholic Study Bible, the Ignatius Study Bible and the St. Joseph Edition of the NABRE to compose my answers. All the texts that were questioned have answers given in the footnotes of my Catholic Bibles, so anyone who questions them shows they never bothered to look them up at examine the source. The answers are right there, that’s why I was able to give you so thorough answers and so quickly!
And people who argue a point without examining the source, well would you trust me and the claims I made if I was doing that? Isn’t it hypercritical that you, as a Witness, expect us to do the same regarding you when it is clear you never even cracked open the Deuterocanonicals books you were arguing about? You would have seen the same information I did if you had.
A
ajcstr
Guest
Thank You, Thank You, Thank You
It may have taken me a week to respond to all of these.
The thing that really concerns me though is ChosenOne7 keeps referring to “the Bible or the apocryphal”. This either/or is a misconception. To Catholics these 7 books are in the Bible, period. Not in their own section, they are part of the Old Testament. Plus there is no doctrine that is taken directly from only them which I think is a misunderstanding that ChosenOne7 is making. The JW simply started with the protestant Bible since they were a protestant offshoot when they came into existence, not because they chose any of those books themselves.
Just for the record, The Apocrypha historically refers to the books that were not accepted as canonical at the council of Hippo in the 4th Century. The Catholic Bible has been the same since then and there was NO Bible prior to that. Protestants incorrectly use the term to refer to the books that the Latin and Eastern churches recognize as canonical but they do not.
A
ajcstr
Guest
All the churches preach the good news as they see it. Problem is they don’t preach the same gospel. The apostles appointed successors - you can see that in the beginning of Acts a practice which continues today. Yes, you go door to door preaching (very admirable as i have said), but you are not the only ones preaching if you are implying that you are the true believers because of your preaching. Some preach on television, some on the internet. But I challenge you, as I did before, to tell me what you do besides evangelize? The gospel is bigger than just evangelization.
And I also believe that you do not preach the true gospel of Jesus Christ, a gospel of grace. The gospel you preach never existed before 1800. In fact, the gospel you preach is so different that the words of the Bible had to be changed to fit it. You propose to me that the Bible alone is the complete word of God but that there was no accurate Bible until 1950.
Of course, I realize you believe I am following a false gospel. We are just dialoging here, expressing our opinions.
- Status