Different versions of the Bible

[victus]

Hey unacanta! try to deny this!

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; - Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul’s prayer for a “spirit of wisdom” follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

I took these from scripturecatholic.com. I would love to see a protestant deny all these.

Oh yeah and do read 2 Maccabees 7 and then re-read Hebrews 11

 

[victus]

Even protestant scholars admit the only reference for Hebrews 11:35 is 2 Maccabees 6-7

 

[unacanta]

Hey unacanta! try to deny this!
Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Did Jesus or the Apostles quote Wis11:7
No.
Jeremiah 31:15
Thus says the LORD," A voice is heard in Ramah,Lamentation and bitter weeping Rachel is weeping for her children;She refuses to be comforted for her children,Because they are no more."
The slaying was also prophesied in Jeremiah 31:15
Jeremiah could be quoted as scripture because it is, not so with Wisdom. Wisdom was never cited by Jesus or one of the Apostles.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Again, He is not quoting Tobit in scripture by no means. Does He say it is witten, scripture says, or according to scripture? Nope, He is not quoting and placing Tobit as inspired scritpture.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Yep, the idea is there but again, does Jesus cite Sirach, nope, sorry. Kinda the same, similar, possibly or even almost does not make it. Scripture is scripture, Sirach is not considered either.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

The Book of Tobit 7:18 Be of good comfort, my daughter; the Lord of heaven and earth give thee joy for this thy sorrow: be of good comfort, my daughter.
biblicalproportions.com/modules/ol_bible/King_James_Bible/Tobit/7/
Does not look too close to me…

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.
I see no where in the New Testament where an author quotes or Has Jesus quoting Wisdom. Did the chief priest,teachers of the law or any of the elders say, according to scripture “let him come down” or as it is written, if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down.
As you can see, they did not.
Our bibles do have many references to various books where we can find different scriptures which support a central theme or idea… The fact still remains neither Jesus nor one of the Apostles ever quotes by saying “It is written”, “according to scripture”, “the Holy Spirit says”, and applies some verse from the Apocrapha.

What makes scripture, scripture is that it is God Breathed. Jesus knew what scripture was and used it to rebuke the Pharisees. They could not deny it nor do we see them trying to make a case for their argument by using some book from the Apocrapha. Scripture is scripture because God inspired it. It is not a table of contents, it is not some statement by an ecclesiastic body, but rather scripture is an inspiration of God.

The million dollar questions is of course how do we know??

What we do know that there were at least 52 fathers of the church who did not think the Apocrapha was inspired.

Next time I post, I will point out a couple very sore thumbs from the books.

 

[rocketrob]

The million dollar questions is of course how do we know??

This is a very difficult question for protestants…fortunately, it is not so difficult for Catholics. The decision was affirmed by the authority of the Church nearly two thousand years ago, and we are free from wrestling with this distraction to move on in growing our Faith.

rocketrob

 

[Sabda]

What makes scripture, scripture is that it is God Breathed. Jesus knew what scripture was and used it to rebuke the Pharisees. They could not deny it nor do we see them trying to make a case for their argument by using some book from the Apocrapha. Scripture is scripture because God inspired it. It is not a table of contents, it is not some statement by an ecclesiastic body, but rather scripture is an inspiration of God.

The million dollar questions is of course how do we know??

What we do know that there were at least 52 fathers of the church who did not think the Apocrapha was inspired.

Next time I post, I will point out a couple very sore thumbs from the books.

You do realize that the Scriptures were quoted without the person saying “and Scripture says” don’t you? For instance take Jesus words from the cross.

Matt 27

46
And about three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” 28 which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Jesus is quoting the first words of Psalm 22 here.

Psalm 22

2
My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? Why so far from my call for help, from my cries of anguish?

By quoting this Jesus is asking his listeners to think about this Psalm and it’s relation to him. Do you deny this is a Messianic Psalm?

I honestly can not understand how you can deny Wisdom 2 in relation to Matt 27. How can you possibly deny the Messianic properties of Wisdom 2?

Matt 27

39
24 Those passing by reviled him, shaking their heads
40
and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, if you are the Son of God, (and) come down from the cross!”
41
Likewise the chief priests with the scribes and elders mocked him and said,
42
“He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! 25 Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him.
43
26 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”
44
The revolutionaries who were crucified with him also kept abusing him in the same way.

Wisdom 2

12
2 3 Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.
13
He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
14
To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,
15
Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways.
16
He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
17
Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
18
For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
19
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
20
Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."

I don’t understand how you can you deny the likeness of the two passages? My normal reading is from the RSV-CE and not the NAB and they are alike in that translation as well.

 

[sodak]

Thanks for your answer. Do you have proof of this or is this teaching?

Keeping in mind, I am learning your faith, that is why I have these questions.

RodneyJ,

Welcome to the forums and the faith! There is a TON of evidence out there, and extremely well documented too. If you ask in one of the other forums, you might get a better response. Newadvent and other web sites have painstaking documentation about this, and rest assured the Catholic church is on very solid ground.

Since others have given you some good advice on Bibles, I’ll just echo them. The RSV is good, I like it.

Sorry for all the Non-Catholic backlash, that happens on the apologetics forums sometimes. Generally, these people try to inundate you with cherry-picked Bible verses until you can’t remember the original question…

One way to tell when you are dealing with an adversarial protestant who is trying to obstruct your faith rather than share their ideas is how they refer to the Deuterocanonical books. If they continually refer to them as apocrypha, then you know they are not being helpful, they consider that a derogatory term, like calling us “romans” or “papists”. They will generally mis-spell the word on purpose as a sign of further disrespect.

Don’t let them bother you, welcome!

 

[DarkMark]

Unacanta,

You are still not getting it.

**1st) James did not have to say “It is written”. He simply allude to it. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted nor allude to the following books of the OT: Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. This does not mean that these books are not inspired either. **The method that Protestants use: “unless Jesus and the Apostles quote from this book it is not Scripture” is fallacy. Jesus never used these books to rebuke doctrine, but this does not mean that they are not inspired. Let say that Jesus and the Apostles never quoted or allude to these books (Tobit, Judith, etc). It will not make a difference!

If this was the case, you will have 28 books instead of 39 books in the OT. The million dollar question is how do we know that Song of Songs or Esther is inspired when Jesus nor any of the Apostles every quoted from it (“It is written” or “Scripture saids” etc)? Jesus and the Apostles did not use 11 OT Books to reprove error. According to your logic , there are uninspired.

The NT is not a table of contents showing us which books belong in the Bible. You do not want to say that Jesus never quoted from Song of Songs because you have to admit that a book can be inspired even if its not quoted by Jesus and the Apostles! The Church, guided by Holy Spirit, has accepted them from the beginning.

2nd) The Fathers of the Church taught that they were inspired by God. Many Fathers, including Jerome, Augustine, and others use them to prove doctrine. Most Fathers said that they were not part of Canon, but like I said “canon” had different meanings in the Fathers age (“canon” usually means books that are not read in the Church but are still consider Scripture). Renowed Protestant Scholar J.N.D in His book “Early Christian doctrines” refers to the fact that these books was always accepted by the Early Church (page 53). I have not discovered any Fathers accepted by the Church who rejected that these books were inspired by God. I have study the Fathers for numerous years, and none made such statement.

You said that they are 52 Fathers who said these books were not inspired, just show me 1! You can tell that to somebody who never read the Fathers. I can give you every Father’s quote proving they accepted these books as inspired!

There are many allusion to these books by both Jesus and the Apostles. Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18. Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18. Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books. It was the “Bible” the Apostles and the Early Christians used, which is why the Early Christians accepted as Inspired. And Jesus, nor Paul, nor any Apostles every questioned there authority.

At the end unacanta, you will believe whatever you wish even if the facts is right in your face. Its kinda sad really . . . .

 

[DarkMark]

unacanta said “The fact still remains neither Jesus nor one of the Apostles ever quotes by saying “It is written”, “according to scripture”, “the Holy Spirit says”, and applies some verse from the Apocrapha.”

Neither do Jesus or the Apostles every quoted or alluded to the following OT Books as “inspired”: Ecclesiastes, Esther, Song of Songs, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, Nahum.

Are you willing to throw these books out of your Bible? If no, then you have a double standard. What is used against the Deuterocanonicals, if it was consistent, would come back to eliminate almost one third of the number of books of your Protestant Bibles. Its Logic 101.

The fact is that the deuterocanonicals books was not ignored by the Apostles and Jesus as did these 12 OT books. The NT is not “sole source” to find out which OT Scripture is inspired or not. The Church, from the very beginning, accepted the deuterocanonicals as Scriptures, which is why the Jews in 90AD decided that these books were not Scripture (they were used by those “Christians” , yuck!)

You said, “They [Pharisees] could not deny it nor do we see them trying to make a case for their argument by using some book from the Apocrapha”

Again, double standard. The same can be said for many OT books which are inspired and accepted by Protestants/Catholics/Orthodox. You did not prove anything here.

 

[inthecloud]

James did not have to say “It is written”. He simply allude to it. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted nor allude to the following books of the OT: Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. This does not mean that these books are not inspired either. The method that Protestants use: “unless Jesus and the Apostles quote from this book it is not Scripture” is fallacy. Jesus never used these books to rebuke doctrine, but this does not mean that they are not inspired. Let say that Jesus and the Apostles never quoted or allude to these books (Tobit, Judith, etc). It will not make a difference!

And anyone who has read Wisdom or Ben Sirach now that many passages are at least paraphrased in the Gospels and Pauls letters.

 

[unacanta]

Again, double standard. The same can be said for many OT books which are inspired and accepted by Protestants/Catholics/Orthodox. You did not prove anything here.

I actually think that you are starting to understand what I have been saying here. You are most correct in say there were only 12 books from the OT that were “quoted”, by quoted I mean specifically cited by Jesus or an Apostle saying “It is written, according to Scripture” etc. It does not mean the other books in the Protestant Canon are not inspired, only that these specific books were honored. The Apocrypha were not part of that honored group.

The council of which you speak in 90AD did not establish for the Jews the canon which they held. In an article by Steve Rudd he states “Recent sifting of the rabbinic evidence makes clear that in the proceedings at the academy of Yabneh the Rabbis did not fix the canon, but at most discussed marginal books, notably Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) and the Song of Songs…”

bible.ca/b-canon-council-of-jamnia.htm

Surely you do not think that Jesus, the Apostles or those whom the scriptures were entrusted (Rom3:2) before them did not know which books were scripture and which were not.

We see over fifty of the patristic Fathers of the Church prior to Trent declaring these books are not inspired. Even Jerome whom translated the Vulgate also included the Apocrypha, but he did not consider them inspired. Rather he considered them as secondary works, beneficial for reading but not establishing doctrine.

Cardinal Cajetan, the prelate who interviewed Luther stated:
Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canoical books, and are palced among the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain form the Prologus Galeatus.

The fact remains there was not “golden index” telling us which books were to be considered sacred scripture and which were not. The books which are sacred scripture are so because God and God alone determines so. No council, Prophet, Church Committee, can determine what God has already established. Yet, Jesus and the Apostles knew exactly which books were inspired and which were not.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia actually makes this statement:
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

Of course the rest is history. Naturally those who believe that Trent’s opinion “definitively settled the matter” continue to walk in the errors which it established.

Last but not least is Josephus in his writings Against Apion 1:37-42. These same books are listed and counted as twenty-four in the Talmaud (Baba Bathra 14-15; cf. 2 Esdr 14:44). Origen, Anthanasius, Jerome and others confirm that the Hebrew canon consists of twenty-two books and sometimes twenty-four books. The shorter list, found in Josephus, is a result of counting Judges-Ruth and Jeremiah-Lamentations as two rather than four books. (David Bunbar, “The Biblical Canon,” Hermeneutics, Authorith, and Canon {ed. By D.A. Carson and John Woodbridge, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986}, 303-304

I can see why Origen, Jerome or Anthanasius would consider Judith non inspired.
Judith states that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians and ruled in Nineveh. Nebuchadnezzar was actually the king of Babylonieans and ruled in Babylon.

How about Arphaxad, ruler of the Medes???
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Judith

Even Gregory cited an incident from 1 Maccabees 6:46 and specifically said Maccabees was “not canonical. The New Catholic Encyclopedia Pointedly confirms his rejection of the canonicity of Maccabees.

In the book of Tobit we read:
Tobit4:11-12
11 For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness. 12 Alms shall be a great confidence before the most high God, to all them that give it.

I am sure Paul or any other Apostle would take issue here. It is the blood of Christ which delivers us from sin not alms! Faith in the one and only Son of God is our mainstay. By paying alms this will delivers us from going into darkness? I assume we are speaking of the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth spoken of in Mat8:12. I am sure the whole world would like to understand we can write a check and that outer darkness will not be our lot. In fact when we arrive in heaven and present to God the most high are debit card receipts where we paid our alms our confidence will be soaring high…not according to the gospel.

I found it very remarkable in Fr. Peter Stravinskas debate with James White, this question was ask from an audience member concerning paying alms. Mr. Stravinskas answer was “you can pay now, or pay later”

As you can see from these examples why the books in which we are discussing are not inspired. I am not so sure they are even “good to read” or “edifying by no means.

Len

 

[garysibio]

**1st) James did not have to say “It is written”. He simply allude to it. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted nor allude to the following books of the OT: Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. This does not mean that these books are not inspired either. **The method that Protestants use: “unless Jesus and the Apostles quote from this book it is not Scripture” is fallacy. Jesus never used these books to rebuke doctrine, but this does not mean that they are not inspired. Let say that Jesus and the Apostles never quoted or allude to these books (Tobit, Judith, etc). It will not make a difference!

Also, if a Protestant uses that argument, we should challenge them to (1) prove that it is a valid argument using the principle of sola scriptura and (2) prove that the book they find it in is inspired using the same principle. (Actually, you should never have to use #2 since there is no answer to #1.)

Gary

 

[DarkMark]

unacanta,

1. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted nor allude to the following books of the OT: Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. This does not mean that these books are not inspired either. So why are making a big fuss about Jesus and the Apostles never alluded to the Deuterocanonical books (which is a lie)? One of your arguments agaisnt these books is that Jesus and the Apostles never quoted or alluded to these books, but over 12 books in the OT is ignored by Jesus and the Apostles. So “quotation equals Scriptural status” is not true.
2. The Fathers you mention all believe these Books were inspired. In study the Fathers, you must know that the word “canon” had a different meaning during the Fathers age. In the Fathers eyes, “canon” usually means books that are not read in the Church, but are still Scriptures. You have to give one Father, with citation, that said these books are “not Scripture”.

St. Athanasius says this about the Deuterocanonicals:

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read... Athanasius the Great: Part of Festal Letter 39 (c. 367 A.D.)[2]

So Athanasisus did not reject these books!

Lets start with St. Jerome- It is not doubt that Jerome doubted these books as Scripture, but is a fact that later on, he accepted them and adhere to the authority of the Church:

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

“I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS.” Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

Notice how Jerome makes no distinction at all between the Psalmist, Ezekiel, and Baruch.

…"Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] “Potters’ vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation.” And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] “My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390)

He saids, “it is written” and cite Sirach. There are other quotes, but He use these books to reprove error! So Jerome did not reject the deutrocanocals books.

 

[DarkMark]

#2 Gregory the Great-

He does not say that 1st Maccabees is ‘uninspired’ or not Scripture.Remember, just because he is terming it non-canonical does not mean it is not Scripture. Again, he began this work in 578 and ended in 595. He began being Pope only in 590 AD and reigned to 601 AD. This passage, you are referring to, is done in the first quarter of his whole work, well before he was Pope, where he is in Constantinople, where Maccabees is not part of the canon. As we have seen with other Fathers who did not put these books in their canon, he still refers to these books as Scripture.

Pride is of course the root of all evil, of which it is said, as Scripture bears witness: Pride is the beginning of all sin. (Sirach 10:26) Moreover; proliferating from this poisonous root as its first offspring are seven capital sins: vainglory, envy, anger malancholy, avarice, gluttony, lust. For because he grieved that we were held in bondage by these seven derivatives of pride, on that account our Redeemer, full of the spirit of sevenfold grace, joined spiritual battle for our liberation. St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 1, Book 3, p. 85. 

The former, it is said by Holy Scripture: Do not become like the horse and the mule which have no understanding (Psalm 31:9). The proud effort of the latter is blamed when it is said: Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability (Sirach 3:22). To the former it is said: Mortify your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, lust, eveil consupiscence (Col. 3:5), to the latter it is said: Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceipt (Col. 2:8) St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Book 1, Part 3, 21, p. 116

Hence it is that with difficulty is eternal rest attained by the powerful who are surrounded by numberless hosts of lieges and bound with the tight coils of a great variety of concerns. In this regard Scripture says A most severe judgment shall be for them that bear rule. (Wisdom 12:6) Hence Truth says in the Gospel: Unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required (Luke 12:48). It rarely happens that those who possess gold strive for eternal rest, inasmuch as Truth himself says: How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God (Mt. 19:25). St. Gregory the Great, A Synthesis of Moralia in Job, Part 1, Book 4, 3, p. 133.

All he denied was one book’s canonical status, not its inspiration. We see him quote from the Deuterocanonical books, and call them Scripture.

 

[DarkMark]

#3 Origen, St. Athanasius, St. John Damascene

Origin:

Remember, canonical does not necessarily mean all that is Scripture. We will see this in his following statements.

"In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, 'Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.' Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community." Origen, To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:387

Origen notes that the Scriptures that are in the Church are different from the Hebrew Scriptures, Septuagint, which contains all the Deuterocanonical books

You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus,I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon (Origen,To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:386)

Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders. Origen,To Africanus,9(ante A.D. 254),in ANF,IV:389

"But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, ‘The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,’ [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12 (A.D. 248),in ANF, IV:615

[A]s is written in the book of Tobit: ‘It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God,’ [Tobit 12:7]–in a way consistent with truth and God’s glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude." Origen, Against Celsus, 5:19(A.D. 248),in ANF,IV:551.

Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves." However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do Origen, To Africanus, 13 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF, IV:391.

 

[DarkMark]

St.John of Damascus:

We see that in the Schaff edition, volume nine, St. John of Damascus gives twelve references to Deuterocanonical texts.

And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was not common. But after God (Jn 1:14, Tit. 3:4) in His bowels of pity became in truth man for our salvation, not as He was seen by Abraham in the semblance of a man, nor as He was seen by the prophets, but in being truly man, and "after He lived upon the earth and dwelt among men, (Bar. 3:37) worked miracles, suffered, was crucified, rose again and was taken back to Heaven, since all these things actually took place and were seen by men, they were written for the remembrance and instruction of us who were not alive at that time in order that though we saw not, we may still, hearing and believing, obtain the blessing of the Lord. St. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XVI, NPNF2, p. 88

The divine Scripture likewise saith that 'the souls of the just are in God’s hand’ [Wisdom 3:1] and death cannot lay hold of them." John Damascene, Orthodox Faith, 4:15 (A.D. 743), in NPNF2, IX:87

St. Athanasius-

“And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,’ and 'By whom He made the ages,’ [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;’ [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, ‘O Everlasting God;’ [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, ‘I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,’ and shortly after, ‘My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;’ [Baruch 4:20,22]” Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:313

Since, however, after all his severe sufferings, after his retirement into Gaul, after his sojourn in a foreign and far distant country in the place of his own, after his narrow escape from death through their calumnies, but thanks to the clemency of the Emperor,- -distress which would have satisfied even the most cruel enemy,-- they are still insensible to shame, are again acting insolently against the Church and Athanasius; and from indignation at his deliverance venture on still more atrocious schemes against him, and are ready with an accusation, fearless of the words in holy Scripture, 'A false witness shall not be unpunished;’ [Proverbs 19:5] and, ‘The mouth that belieth slayeth the soul;’ (Wisdom 1:11) we therefore are unable longer to hold our peace, being amazed at their wickedness and at the insatiable love of contention displayed in their intrigues. Athanasius the Great: Defence Against the Arians, 3 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:101

Let us not fulfill these days like those that mourn but, by enjoying spiritual food, let us seek to silence our fleshly lusts(Ex. 15:1). For by these means we shall have strength to overcome our adversaries, like blessed Judith (Judith 13:8), when having first exercised herself in fastings and prayers, she overcame the enemies, and killed Olophernes. Athanasius the Great: Letter 4, 2 (A.D. 333), in NPNF2, IV:516.

The Spirit also, who is in him, commands, saying, ‘Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord thy vows. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord (Sir. 18:17).’) Athanasius the Great: Letter 19, 5 (A.D. 333), in NPNF2, IV:546

 

[DarkMark]

Has you can see Unacanta, the Fathers you listed did believe these books were inspired by God. You have not given any proof that these books are not inspired.

You said, "In the book of Tobit we read:
Tobit4:11-12
11 For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness. 12 Alms shall be a great confidence before the most high God, to all them that give it.

I am sure Paul or any other Apostle would take issue here. It is the blood of Christ which delivers us from sin not alms! Faith in the one and only Son of God is our mainstay. By paying alms this will delivers us from going into darkness?"

You seem to forget that Tobit is in the OT, where Christ death has not cleanse everyone from there sins. Remember, the Jews has to sacrifice a lamb every year, keep the Sabbath, and bound by the Law!

What Tobit said, it almost what St. Peter said in the NT: “And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8) or the douay Bible: “But before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves: for charity covereth a multitude of sins.”

You said, “Judith states that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians and ruled in Nineveh. Nebuchadnezzar was actually the king of Babylonieans and ruled in Babylon.”

Many Scholars have came to the conclusion that both Tobit and Judith were not written to tell a historical story, but rather, these books are Parables. When a Protestant hear from a Atheist that the Bible has errors, they conclude that is a “apparent contradiction” not a true error. Why can’t you unacanta have the same respect from the Deuterocanonicals and find a solution? What you doing now its what Atheist do to the rest of Scriptures. Kinda sad…

So you have not proven why these books are not inspired. It was always accepted by the Early Christians, Even Renowed Protestant Scholar J.N.D kelly affirms this.

 

[victus]

Hey unacanta, you still haven’t answered the rest of these allusions to the deuterocanonical books. It is a shame to, because the farther down the list of these, the better they get.

Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; - Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul’s prayer for a “spirit of wisdom” follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

I took these from scripturecatholic.com. I would love to see a protestant deny all these.

Oh yeah and do read 2 Maccabees 7 and then re-read Hebrews 11

Tell me unacanta, where else in Sacred Scripture do we see 7 angels? How would John have known to write this, if it were not for him knowing the book of Tobit? When is the last time the Ark of the Covenant is metioned in the Bible? Because in Revelation, the Ark is seen in no other way described as it is in another book then 2 Maccabees. How would the St. Pauls’s letter to the Hebrews in Hebrews 11:35 know about what happened if it weren’t for 2 Maccabees 7. Notice when you look at Enoch, the Hebrew Bible only says that he was “took up.” In the Septuagint, we see the reason why he was “took up” for he was “well pleasing.” St. Paul in the Letter to the Hebrews says that Enoch “pleased God”
Your arguments are weak. Stop reading encyclopedias and actually look up the Early Church Councils for yourself.
100 years before Trent we have the Council of Florence identifying which books were inspired. It was the same books from the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, 1000 years earlier. And the same books at Trent. Trent did not state something new but clarified everything that Protestants were attacking. Sorry Protestants have Theology wrong and they have the Canon of the Bible wrong.

 

[DarkMark]

Your arguments are weak. Stop reading encyclopedias and actually look up the Early Church Councils for yourself.
100 years before Trent we have the Council of Florence identifying which books were inspired. It was the same books from the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, 1000 years earlier. And the same books at Trent. Trent did not state something new but clarified everything that Protestants were attacking. Sorry Protestants have Theology wrong and they have the Canon of the Bible wrong.

True! Three Early Councils (Rome, Hippo, and Carthage) stated clearly that these books were Scriptures. It was not in “Council of Trent” that the Church decided which was Scripture and which was the not. The Early Fathers believe they were Scriptures, but apparently, unacanta believe he/she is better than all the Fathers of the Church and can decided if these Scriptures are inspired or not. Unacanta has no authority to decided which are Scriptures. It was the Church, Christ’ Bride (inseparable to Christ) who decided the list of Sacred Books. No doubt, God is the Author of all Scriptures, but He used the Church to deliver the Gospel.

Unacanta arguments are weak.

First, unacanta tries to downplay deuterocanonical books by saying that Jesus or any Apostles never quoted or alluded to these books (which is a lie). This argument is weak and does not stand ground. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted or alluded to at least 12 OT books, in which they ignore 100%. We have to admit that even if Jesus did not cite or allude to a Book, it does not mean that a specific book is uninspired, which will mean that the deuterocanonical can and is inspired, even though Jesus and the Apostles never quoted them (which is a lie of course, but you know what I mean). Unacanta said Jesus and the Apostles knew what was Scripture, which its true, but the fact remains: They never quoted or alluded to at least 12 books of the OT included in the Protestant/Catholic Bibles. The Church, under the inspiration of the Spirit, told the faithful which were Scriptures.

Second, unacanta tries to downplay Judith by saying there is a “Historical error”. However, scholarly work has concluded that these books are in fact Parables. In fact, in there are tons of “apparent contradictions” even in the Protestant Bible, and what does Protestants do? They find a solution, but unacanta is not willing to find a solution to the suppose “errors” of the deuterocanonical. There is no error in the deuterocanonical that cannot be solved using the same tactics that Protestants./Catholics use when defending the Bible from Atheists. There are also “supposed” errors (historically) in the books of Esther and Joshua. As someone said, " If you keep focusing on the superficialities of the biblical stories, you’ll miss the message entirely."

Third, unacanta tries to say that there is a “theological” error in the book of Tobit. But as we have seen, all there is a difference of the Old Covenant and New Covenant. Tobit was written in a time period when people were saved by adhering to the Law. Jesus hadn’t died yet. Giving alms to the poor would be adhering to part of the Law and so coming to salvation. There are similar passages in the canonical books.But unacanta want us to believe that Tobit deny Jesus death even though it was written hundreds of years before Christ was even born!

Fourth, unacanta tries to prove that there were at least 50 Fathers who rejected the deuterocanoicals, but as we have seen, there is in fact Zero support for this statement. All there is a misunderstanding in the definition of the word “canon” as it was used in the Fathers age. The common meaning: “Books are not inspired” is very different in Fathers age.

Throughout Church history, the word “canonical” has been used in several ways. It does not always mean what Martin Luther and the Protestants mean when they speak of a book being canonical or non-canonical. Rather, “non-canonical” can mean that:

1. a book is heretical (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas), or
2. That it is a good book with historical and spiritual merit, but uninspired (e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas), or
3. That it is an inspired book, but not used in the Liturgy of a particular city-church or even in the Liturgy of many city-churches (e.g. Revelation or 2 Maccabees).

All unacanta did was list Fathers, without even giving reliable citations. The Fathers unacanta listed actually accepted these books, and there writings speak for themselves. If Unacanta wants to prove that these books are inspired, he or she would have to cite a Fathers in which He specifically said “Tobit is not inspired” (etc)

Uncanata have not given any hardcore evidence proving that the deuterocanonicals books are not Scripture. There is no reason why will one should reject these books.

Sorry, Protestants have it all wrong.

 

[DarkMark]

For example, in the Greek Orthodox Church, the Book of Revelation is not read in the Liturgy. You will never hear it at their Mass (or as they term it ‘Liturgy’). But they will never said it is not inspired. In fact, you will sometimes hear them speak about Revelation as “non-canonical” because it has no place in the “canon” of their Liturgy but they still accept it as Scripture.

The same can be said about the Fathers: some said the Tobit (or Maccabees, or Judith) are “non-canonical” but this does not prove 100% that they believe these books are Scripture. In fact, they used them to prove doctrines and specifically calls them Scripture.

 

[unacanta]

I musty apologize as I do not have any where near the time to answer all of your responses:

True! Three Early Councils (Rome, Hippo, and Carthage) stated clearly that these books were Scriptures. It was not in “Council of Trent” that the Church decided which was Scripture and which was the not. The Early Fathers believe they were Scriptures, but apparently, unacanta believe he/she is better than all the Fathers of the Church and can decided if these Scriptures are inspired or not. Unacanta has no authority to decided which are Scriptures. It was the Church, Christ’ Bride (inseparable to Christ) who decided the list of Sacred Books. No doubt, God is the Author of all Scriptures, but He used the Church to deliver the Gospel

First of all my gender is male, second I did not claim to establish what is inspired or not, that seems to have been the task of the fallible Council at Trent.

Contrary to what Darkmark says, it was not the Church (RCC Church) which established the OT canon. It was those whom were entrusted with the ordinances (Rom3:2), likewise we see the Apostles entrusted with the gospel 1Thes2:24, and those whom they taught (1Tim6:20). It is not the Church that was entrusted but rather those whom were members of the Church that were given authority. This must also include the Eastern Church if we are to conclude it was the Church.

Unacanta arguments are weak.

First, unacanta tries to downplay deuterocanonical books by saying that Jesus or any Apostles never quoted or alluded to these books (which is a lie). This argument is weak and does not stand ground. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted or alluded to at least 12 OT books, in which they ignore 100%. We have to admit that even if Jesus did not cite or allude to a Book, it does not mean that a specific book is uninspired, which will mean that the deuterocanonical can and is inspired, even though Jesus and the Apostles never quoted them (which is a lie of course, but you know what I mean). Unacanta said Jesus and the Apostles knew what was Scripture, which its true, but the fact remains: They never quoted or alluded to at least 12 books of the OT included in the Protestant/Catholic Bibles. The Church, under the inspiration of the Spirit, told the faithful which were Scriptures.

Actually I don’t know what you mean, please be specific, what did you mean(which is a lie of course)? There is a mis-quote on my part, the correction is there were only 12 books which Jesus or the Apostles actually said “It is written, according to Scripture” etc. Again, it does not mean the other books in the Protestant Canon are not inspired, only that these specific 12 books were honored. The Apocrypha were not part of that honored group. There were several post which detailed out all kinds of scriptures which may have been similar, alluded to, or were a cross reference to Apocrypha. At least DarkMark understood that I was saying concerning the 12 books in the OT.

I will try to answer and clarify as many as I can. There were many points made and unfortunately I just don’t have time to cover ever error which is stated here.

Len