A
Adamski
Guest
I have a friend that said he believes in sola scriptoria because of the above statement any help would be great
Did Jesus ever quote from the Deuterocanonical books or Jewish tradition
- Status
E
EphelDuath
Guest
The answer to that question is “arguably, but it’s not really that relevant”. Please consult with this article: catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html
R
R_C
Guest
The Lord Himself did not believe in Sola Scriptura
He said on several occasions: “You have heard…[Bible quote] but I say to you…”.The apostles did not believe in Sola Scriptura. St. Paul goes as far, on one occasion, to almost apologize for writing:
He makes a point to say that the sole reason of his writing is to provide an instruction in case he is delayed, and he also makes a point to underscore that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth - not scripture.
Even further: if Scripture Alone suffices, what about 1 Corinthians 5? “I wrote to you in my letter…But now I am writing to you…”. We do not have that previous letter to the Corinthians! What about Colossians 4:16? “see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.” What letter is that? It has not come down to us.
What about 1 Corinthians 11:2? “I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.” Where’s the mention of Scripture?
What about Philippians 4: “Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice.” Where’s the mention of Scripture? And how are we to know what they have learned or received or learned from or seen in him, if not through tradition?
What about 1 Thessalonians 3:10: “Night and day we pray most earnestly that we may see you again and supply what is lacking in your faith.” If scripture suffices, why would he suffer so much that he cannot yet travel to talk to them in person and supply something lacking in their faith which clearly scripture cannot provide?
What about Peter’s warning in 2 Peter 3 concerning Paul’s letters: “His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” Clearly Scripture in this case is a problem, not a solution.
And the solution is given by Our Lord’s words to the chosen apostles: “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. Those who listen to you listen to me, those who reject you reject me.” In perfect conformity with the words of the Father (“This is my chosen one, listen to him”) and of the Son (“As my Father has sent me, so I send you.”). And St. Paul is very much aware of this as he writes in 1 Thessalonians 2:13:
Last but not least, the ultimate scriptural denial of scripture alone: 2 Thessalonians 2:15!
D
dmar198
Guest
In John 10:22, Jesus celebrated the Jewish feast of the Dedication of the Temple, also known as Hannukah. But the command to celebrate this feast is found only in 1 Maccabees 4:56–59 and 2 Maccabees 10:5-8. That’s a Deuterocanonical book.
Jesus took this occasion to teach that He also had been specially dedicated by God (in John 10:34-36). If the Feast of Dedication was not a biblical feast, then this passage is not consistent with the rest of the Gospel of John, which thematically portrays Jesus teaching the Jews about Himself at the major biblical feasts that the Jews kept (see John 5:1-47, John 6:4-51, John 7:2-38, John 10:22-39, John 11:56–12:33).
Another place where Jesus cites a Deuterocanonical book is in Luke 21:20-24, where He says, “When Jerusalem is surrounded by armies, then you will know that its desolation is near… For this is the time of punishment that fulfills all that has been written… Many shall fall by the edge of the sword.”
This is an allusion to Sirach 28:14-18: “Slander has shaken many, and scattered them from nation to nation, and destroyed strong cities, and overturned the houses of great men. … Many have fallen by the edge of the sword.”
Sirach 28:14-18 is not usually thought of as a prophecy. It is discussing the dangers of the tongue, including slander. But Jesus used a phrase from its text to describe the sack of Jerusalem that would happen about 40 years later, and he specifically says that it is written somewhere that this would happen. It seems He is talking about Sirach (for the source of that phrase) and some other more clear prophesy (I think there’s one in Daniel about the sack of Jerusalem happening soon after the Messiah appears, so maybe it’s that one). Anyway, this shows us that Jesus wasn’t afraid to use a phrase from Sirach as a prophetic text regarding the sack of Jerusalem, and it indicates that He thought Sirach was inspired. (It also may not be coincidental that the Sirach context says that slander has “destroyed strong cities and overturned the houses of great men.” That may be a vague prophesy, and Jesus may be saying that it applies to Jerusalem.)
5
57Bill
Guest
I would tell him “Does it matter?” or better yet how does that help or hinder a “sola” discussion?
FWIW fragments of some Deuterocanonical books have been found in/near Qumran. The Essenes who lived in that area are suggested by a majority to be very devout to Mosaic law.
What we call the “Old Testament” was not ONLY in Hebrew before Christ but in Greek and possibly languages from Northern Africa.
FWIW fragments of some Deuterocanonical books have been found in/near Qumran. The Essenes who lived in that area are suggested by a majority to be very devout to Mosaic law.
What we call the “Old Testament” was not ONLY in Hebrew before Christ but in Greek and possibly languages from Northern Africa.
T
TimothyH
Guest
*Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, they erected a desolating sacrilege upon the altar of burnt offering. They also built altars in the surrounding cities of Judah, and burned incense at the doors of the houses and in the streets. The books of the law which they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire. (1 Maccabees 1:54-56)
But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains (Mark 13:14)*
-Tim-
But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains (Mark 13:14)*
-Tim-
E
EphelDuath
Guest
In addition to the above quote from 1 Maccabees, I have to say… it is quite astounding that evangelical Christians will say that they don’t need an authority to know that the Bible is sacred text because it is obviously inspired.
Yet they reject the Book of Wisdom, whose second chapter is quite possibly the most clearly prophetic text in all of scripture.
Yet they reject the Book of Wisdom, whose second chapter is quite possibly the most clearly prophetic text in all of scripture.
A
ajcstr
Guest
from cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm :
"But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life” (Heb. 11:35).
There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find – anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi – is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament – in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.
The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, “It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine’s flesh. . . . **ut the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ’ After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, ‘You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life’” (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9)."
But that being said, I don’t believe Esther is ever quoted from in the NT so not sure how valid an argument quotes/lack of quotes is. I just look at it by saying regardless of what you believe about when/where the canon was set, I think that it is a tremendous historical “proof” that pretty much the exclusive bible in the Western Church from 400 to 1500 AD included the deuteros.**
"But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life” (Heb. 11:35).
There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find – anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi – is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament – in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.
The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, “It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine’s flesh. . . . **ut the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ’ After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, ‘You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life’” (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9)."
But that being said, I don’t believe Esther is ever quoted from in the NT so not sure how valid an argument quotes/lack of quotes is. I just look at it by saying regardless of what you believe about when/where the canon was set, I think that it is a tremendous historical “proof” that pretty much the exclusive bible in the Western Church from 400 to 1500 AD included the deuteros.**
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
SIRACH: Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 27:6 says that “The fruit discloses the cultivation of a tree; so the expression of a thought discloses the cultivation of a man’s mind.” Christ seems to be quoting (or at least alluding) to this passage in Matthew 7:16-20:
You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Other parts of the New Testament follow this pattern - for instance, James 1:19 seems to quote Sirach 5:11.
DANIEL: Jesus’ reference to Daniel 9:27 in Matthew 24:15 appears to have been to the (longer) Greek version of Daniel. There are two reasons to believe this. First, because the wording is different between the Greek and Hebrew versions, and second, because Jesus refers to him as “Daniel the prophet.” Why does that matter? Because the Greek version of the Old Testament numbered Daniel among the Prophets (Nevi’im), while the Hebrew version numbered the Book among the Writings (Ketubim).
1st and 2nd MACCABEES: James Swan (a Calvinist blogger with Beggars All Reformation & Apologetics) admits that Hebrews 11:35-37 appears to be a reference to 2 Maccabees 7 (h/t Nick):
It seems highly probable the writer to the Hebrews alluded to the Apocrypha in chapter 11. The parallels Catholic apologists suggest particularly in verse 35 and 2 Maccabees seem likely. “Others were tortured,” “not accepting their release” and “so that they might obtain a better resurrection” appear to be the closest points of contact with 2 Maccabees. As noted above, other vague points of contact could be inferred, but not with the same level of certitude of these three statements. Within the arena of rhetoric and polemics, the above study demonstrates that Protestant exegetes do not disagree with the possibility of Apocryphal allusions in Hebrews 11. Thus, Protestants are not hiding the fact that 2 Maccabees may be what the writer to the Hebrews has in mind.
These Books Give us Hanukkah, Which Jesus Christ Celebrated: In John 10:35, Jesus extols Scripture, telling us that “the Scripture cannot be broken.” He says this while in the Temple, celebrating Hanukkah, which we know from John 10:22-23. Here’s the problem. The Jewish feast of Hanukkah is prescribed only in 1 and 2 Maccabees (1 Maccabees 4:36-59; 2 Maccabees 1:18), this leaves only two possibilities. Either Christ was treating the Books of Maccabees as Scripture, and/or He was fine with extra-Scriptural Tradition. Protestantism traditionally denies both of these things.
(The above quotes from: catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/defending-deuterocanon-book-by-book_28.html)
You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Other parts of the New Testament follow this pattern - for instance, James 1:19 seems to quote Sirach 5:11.
DANIEL: Jesus’ reference to Daniel 9:27 in Matthew 24:15 appears to have been to the (longer) Greek version of Daniel. There are two reasons to believe this. First, because the wording is different between the Greek and Hebrew versions, and second, because Jesus refers to him as “Daniel the prophet.” Why does that matter? Because the Greek version of the Old Testament numbered Daniel among the Prophets (Nevi’im), while the Hebrew version numbered the Book among the Writings (Ketubim).
1st and 2nd MACCABEES: James Swan (a Calvinist blogger with Beggars All Reformation & Apologetics) admits that Hebrews 11:35-37 appears to be a reference to 2 Maccabees 7 (h/t Nick):
It seems highly probable the writer to the Hebrews alluded to the Apocrypha in chapter 11. The parallels Catholic apologists suggest particularly in verse 35 and 2 Maccabees seem likely. “Others were tortured,” “not accepting their release” and “so that they might obtain a better resurrection” appear to be the closest points of contact with 2 Maccabees. As noted above, other vague points of contact could be inferred, but not with the same level of certitude of these three statements. Within the arena of rhetoric and polemics, the above study demonstrates that Protestant exegetes do not disagree with the possibility of Apocryphal allusions in Hebrews 11. Thus, Protestants are not hiding the fact that 2 Maccabees may be what the writer to the Hebrews has in mind.
These Books Give us Hanukkah, Which Jesus Christ Celebrated: In John 10:35, Jesus extols Scripture, telling us that “the Scripture cannot be broken.” He says this while in the Temple, celebrating Hanukkah, which we know from John 10:22-23. Here’s the problem. The Jewish feast of Hanukkah is prescribed only in 1 and 2 Maccabees (1 Maccabees 4:36-59; 2 Maccabees 1:18), this leaves only two possibilities. Either Christ was treating the Books of Maccabees as Scripture, and/or He was fine with extra-Scriptural Tradition. Protestantism traditionally denies both of these things.
(The above quotes from: catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/defending-deuterocanon-book-by-book_28.html)
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
Did Jesus ever quote from the Deuterocanonical books or Jewish tradition? He probably quoted lots of it, but as St. John said in the verse in his Gospel, 21:25 “But there are many other things also which Jesus did: which if they were written in particular, neither the world itself I think were able to contain these books that should be written.” We have very little written down in the Gospels about all the things He said and did, its not like everything that He said has been recorded, that’s something that Protestants need to understand. Jesus came and established the Church, not a Bible. The Bible is the result of the Church. Somehow Protestants seem to think that Christianity came from the Bible and that our faith solely depends on that.
P
Publisher
Guest
We don’t know…the writers of the NT used the Apoc/Deut books as they were all Greek speakers…so having access ot the LXX…the NT writers did…and while there are no direct quotes found in the NT from the Apoc/Deut books…there are allusions to them and themes found in the NT that are found in the A/D books.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
I love that you brought that up about Wisdom, allow me then to provide the passage:For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves, "Short and sorrowful is our life, and there is
no remedy when a man comes to his end, and no one has been known to return from Hades.
"Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches
us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden
to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as
something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts
that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for
if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us
test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us
condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected. "Thus they reasoned,
but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, and they did not know the secret purposes of God,
nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls;
-(Wisdom 2:1,12-22)
- Status