I need a good defense of the Apocrypha as scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter deanarrca
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do tell.

Did Jesus quote from the Apocrypha?

The short answer is yes—and so did the Apostles.

Jesus and the Gospel writers referenced the Deuterocanonicals in the following instances:…
I don’t necessarily disagree, but nowhere are the deuterocanonicals quoted AS SCRIPTURE.

As I said earlier, Paul quoted from a pagan source and neither one of us believes that book to be inspired. The fact that the books you refer to as the deuterocanonicals are either quoted or referenced is not proof of anything.
 
Do tell.

Did Jesus quote from the Apocrypha?

The short answer is yes—and so did the Apostles.

Jesus and the Gospel writers referenced the Deuterocanonicals in the following instances:

Matthew 6:12, 14-15—“Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your heavenly father forgive your transgressions.”
Sirach 28:2—“Forgive your neighbor’s injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.”

Luke 1:17 (describing John the Baptist)—“He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of fathers towards children and the disobediant to the understanding of the righteous, to prepare a people fit for the Lord.”
Sirach 48:10—“You are destined, it is written, in time to come, to put an end to wrath before the day of the Lord, to turn back the hearts of fathers towards their sons, and to re-establish the tribes of Jacob.”

Luke 1:28, 1:42—“And coming to her, he said, ‘Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you!’…Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Judith 13:18—"Then Uzziah said to her: 'Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women of the earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the Creator of heaven and earth.

Luke 1:52—“He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones, but lifted up the lowly.”
Sirach 10:14—“The thrones of the arrogant God overturns, and establishes the lowly in their stead.”

Luke 12:19-20—“I shall say to myself, ‘Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!’ But God said to him, ‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?’”
Sirach 11:19—“When he says: ‘I have found rest, now I will feast on my possessions,’ he does not know how long it will be till he dies and leaves them to others.”

Luke 18:22—“When Jesus heard this, he said to him, ‘There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.’”
Sirach 29:11—“Dispose of your treasure as the Most High commands, for that will profit you more than the gold.”

John 3:12—“If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?”
Wisdom 9:16—“Scarce do we guess the things on earth, and what is within our grasp we find with difficulty; but when things are in heaven, who can search them out?”

John 5:18—“For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God.”
Wisdom 2:16—“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.”

John 10:29—“My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.”
Wisdom 3:1—“But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them.”
WOW thanks Wolseley, that really helps. It shows that Scripture
confirms Scripture.
 
I don’t necessarily disagree, but nowhere are the deuterocanonicals quoted AS SCRIPTURE.

As I said earlier, Paul quoted from a pagan source and neither one of us believes that book to be inspired. The fact that the books you refer to as the deuterocanonicals are either quoted or referenced is not proof of anything.
No where are Esther and Ecclesiastes or the Canticle of Canticles quoted as scripture either. If everybook needs to be quoted as scripture in the NT to be scripture, then you ought to be prepared to take the ax to those and other books.
 
No where are Esther and Ecclesiastes or the Canticle of Canticles quoted as scripture either. If everybook needs to be quoted as scripture in the NT to be scripture, then you ought to be prepared to take the ax to those and other books.
Plus, Esther never uses the name of God YHWH even once. :eek:
 
No where are Esther and Ecclesiastes or the Canticle of Canticles quoted as scripture either. If everybook needs to be quoted as scripture in the NT to be scripture, then you ought to be prepared to take the ax to those and other books.
You misunderstand my point.

If one believes the books you guys refer to as the deutero’s are canonical or inspired because they are found either in the septuagint or because they are alluded to or quoted in the NT, that person is using faulty logic.

I only wish to point out that;
Not every book quoted or alluded to in the NT is inspired.

Not every book included in the septuagint is believed to be inspired by either you or me.

I never, ever said that every book in the OT has to be quoted as scripture in the NT for it to be inspired.
 
You misunderstand my point.

If one believes the books you guys refer to as the deutero’s are canonical or inspired because they are found either in the septuagint or because they are alluded to or quoted in the NT, that person is using faulty logic.
Correct, Calvinator. We believe the books are canonical simply because the Church says it is. I don’t think any canon of the early Church left these out. That’s good enough for me.

But, people on the other side of the Tiber tend to need more proof, saying it was never canonical. Well, if Jesus uses the Septuagint in His quotes “Scripture says, …”, that ought to lend at least some credence to the inspiration of these books. And, as pointed out by every, the denial that they are Scriptural since there’s no direct quotes is often fallacious. In truth, that’s neither here nor there.

But again, Catholic have the assurity of trusting Mother Church. Sadly, some non-Catholic apologists cling to the false notion that these books were added to the Canon at Trent. Nobody should ever further a lie in order to persuade someone else of a greater “Truth”.
 
Correct, Calvinator. We believe the books are canonical simply because the Church says it is. I don’t think any canon of the early Church left these out. That’s good enough for me.

But, people on the other side of the Tiber tend to need more proof, saying it was never canonical. Well, if Jesus uses the Septuagint in His quotes “Scripture says, …”, that ought to lend at least some credence to the inspiration of these books. And, as pointed out by every, the denial that they are Scriptural since there’s no direct quotes is often fallacious. In truth, that’s neither here nor there.

But again, Catholic have the assurity of trusting Mother Church. Sadly, some non-Catholic apologists cling to the false notion that these books were added to the Canon at Trent. Nobody should ever further a lie in order to persuade someone else of a greater “Truth”.
From your viewpoint, since you believe your church is infallible, it makes sense to accept their decision at Trent.

I think it would be difficult to illustrate whether or not Jesus and the apostles thought the books in question were canonical because they don’t say anything about it one way or the other.

If you want to offer proof to a non-Catholic I think you either have to go the authority of the church route or illustrate the Jews and or the early church accepted the books as canonical.

As you probably know, there is quite a bit of debate about each of these issues.
 
From your viewpoint, since you believe your church is infallible, it makes sense to accept their decision at Trent.

I think it would be difficult to illustrate whether or not Jesus and the apostles thought the books in question were canonical because they don’t say anything about it one way or the other.

If you want to offer proof to a non-Catholic I think you either have to go the authority of the church route or illustrate the Jews and or the early church accepted the books as canonical.

As you probably know, there is quite a bit of debate about each of these issues.
My dear Calvinator, I belong to the Antiochian Orthodox Church, the very same Church the Apostle Paul was ordained in and sent from to be a missionary to the Gentiles. Our Church has always accepted these books as Scripture without question. This is because they were contained in the Septuagint, which is the authorised version of the Holy Bible in the Orthodox Church. I do not understand why the Protestant Churches Reject the long standing acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books by the historical Christian Church. Could you please explain to me why Protestants reject them? You are newcommers, the Original Christian Church, has always accepted them.🤷
 
I notice that other members of the forum have provided a wealth of articles that should help you on this issue, and I really don’t have anything more to add to this except a personal experience.
My brother left the Church over 40 years ago and is a very devout Bible quoting, Bible thumping, evangelical Christian. In fact, I have told him that the Bible is his favorite weapon because he loves to beat people to death with it,.
Anyway, once, while having a discussion with him, he stopped in mid-sentence and said, “Hold it. Unless you believe that every word in the Bible is infallible, this conversation is over! Do you believe it?” I replied, " No! What I believe is that the Church that created the Bible is infallible because if it isn’t then the Bible itself has no claim to infallibility." And that, in the final analysis, is the essence of this question. We can argue forever, point-by-point, book-by-book about what this author or this book means and for every argument there is a counter-argument, ad infinitum. However, what the Bible “is” or “is not” depends on what the Church “is” or “is not”. If it is the Church founded by Christ and was given the Keys to the Kingdom and the power of “binding and loosening” things in heaven and on earth, then its authority alone is what determines the Bible and its contents. If it is not, then anything that it created or endorsed is suspect.So whether you be Catholic or Protestant, it is to the authority of the Catholic Church that one must appeal in determining what is scriptural and what is not. When I asked my brother whether he believed in the infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium, he was strangely silent.
Hope this helps you in some way.
JoePhilly
 
My dear Calvinator, I belong to the Antiochian Orthodox Church, the very same Church the Apostle Paul was ordained in and sent from to be a missionary to the Gentiles. Our Church has always accepted these books as Scripture without question. This is because they were contained in the Septuagint, which is the authorised version of the Holy Bible in the Orthodox Church. I do not understand why the Protestant Churches Reject the long standing acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books by the historical Christian Church. Could you please explain to me why Protestants reject them? You are newcommers, the Original Christian Church, has always accepted them.🤷
I’m not sure that I can adequately answer your question “Could you please explain to me why Protestants reject them?”. It would seem to be a rather laborious process that you will reject anyway. However, since you asked, I’ll see what I can do.

You say “Our Church has always accepted these books as Scripture without question. This is because they were contained in the Septuagint, which is the authorised version of the Holy Bible in the Orthodox Church.” But, I would like to ask you what exactly is the OT canon that you accept before we go any further with this discussion.
 
Calvinator,

I wonder if you can tell me how the canon of scripture came to be, with a little more explanation that “God gave the canon.” This will help us see where you’re coming from.
-Penitus

Here is the Roman Catholic OT canon:

Genesis​

Exodus​

Leviticus​

Numbers​

Deuteronomy​

Joshua​

Judges​

Ruth​

1 Samuel​

2 Samuel​

1 Kings​

2 Kings​

1 Chronicles​

2 Chronicles​

Ezra​

Nehemiah​

Tobit​

Judith​

Esther​

(includes additions to Esther)

1 Maccabees​

2 Maccabees​

Job​

Psalms​

Proverbs​

Ecclesiastes​

Song of Songs (Song of Solomon)​

Wisdom of Solomon​

Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)​

Isaiah​

Jeremiah​

Lamentations​

Baruch​

(includes Letter of Jeremiah)

Ezekiel​

Daniel​

(includes Susanna & Bel and the Dragon)

Hosea​

Joel​

Amos​

Obadiah​

Jonah​

Micah​

Nahum​

Habakkuk​

Zephaniah​

Haggai​

Zecariah​

Malachi​

 
I’m not sure that I can adequately answer your question “Could you please explain to me why Protestants reject them?”. It would seem to be a rather laborious process that you will reject anyway. However, since you asked, I’ll see what I can do.

You say “Our Church has always accepted these books as Scripture without question. This is because they were contained in the Septuagint, which is the authorised version of the Holy Bible in the Orthodox Church.” But, I would like to ask you what exactly is the OT canon that you accept before we go any further with this discussion.
Thank you sir, The canon was determined by the Original Christian Church. This canon is contained in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. The Hebrew version, is rejected because it was put together by Jews who reject our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
Thank you sir, The canon was determined by the Original Christian Church. This canon is contained in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. The Hebrew version, is rejected because it was put together by Jews who reject our Lord Jesus Christ.
What are those books that the “Original Christian Church” accepted?

Does it match item for item with the Roman Catholic OT canon? Are they exactly the same?
 
What are those books that the “Original Christian Church” accepted?

Does it match item for item with the Roman Catholic OT canon? Are they exactly the same?
The Orthodox Christian Church, accepts the canon of the Greek Septuagint version of the O.T.
these books are the accepted books contained in the Protestant version plus these other books: Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the additions to Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, additions to Daniel (The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon), the four Books of Maccabees, The Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151.
But to let you in on a little open secret, the Ethiopian Orthodox has an even more expanded canon for their Bible, which I am not privy to.
 
Penetius,
I just received an e-mail informing me of your reply to my last posting. I am new to the whole idea of a forum and this was only my second posting. It appears that I am not aware of who I am responding to when I reply. My second posting was directed to whoever it was that initiated the issue of “I need a good defense of the Apocrypha.” My response was personal and in no way indicated that I was an expert on canonical or scriptural matters. Therefore, I do not understand your reply to me asking for how the canons of scripture came to be. There are other much more knowledgeable on this matter than I am who have posted a more than adquate response to your question. My point was that we can debate this forever and ultimately what scripture “is” or “is not” rests on the authority of the Church that created the Bible as we have it. If that Church was not inspired by the Holy Spirit; if it was not infallible"; if it was not founded by Jesus and given the Keys to the Kingdom and the “power of binding and loosening” things on earth and in heaven, then neither can any of its decisions or creations claim inspiration, infallibility, or endorsement by Jesus. Therefore, before anyone can believe that the scriptures contain any of these qualities, they must first accept that the Church that gathered and organized them into a single work has them.
JoePhilly
As I said, I am not familar with the forum. For example, what is the “backfence”? What is the use for “quote” as opposed to “reply”?
 
Penetius,
I just received an e-mail informing me of your reply to my last posting. I am new to the whole idea of a forum and this was only my second posting. It appears that I am not aware of who I am responding to when I reply. My second posting was directed to whoever it was that initiated the issue of “I need a good defense of the Apocrypha.” My response was personal and in no way indicated that I was an expert on canonical or scriptural matters. JoePhilly
Joe, if you look at my post, you’ll see it was directed toward Calvinator.

Quotes pull text from someone else’s post, as you can see above. Replies do not.
 
The Orthodox Christian Church, accepts the canon of the Greek Septuagint version of the O.T.
these books are the accepted books contained in the Protestant version plus these other books: Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the additions to Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, additions to Daniel (The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon), the four Books of Maccabees, The Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151.
But to let you in on a little open secret, the Ethiopian Orthodox has an even more expanded canon for their Bible, which I am not privy to.
Thanks.

I thought your guys canon (OT) was different from the Protestant canon as well as the RCC canon but I wasn’t sure exactly how.
 
Thanks.

I thought your guys canon (OT) was different from the Protestant canon as well as the RCC canon but I wasn’t sure exactly how.
That’s why I have to smile when somebody says they believe in the Bible only and in it’s entirety. I then ask them, which Bible? The K.J.V.? The Roman Catholic? The Eastern Orthodox? The Ethiopian? :confused:
 
You misunderstand my point.

If one believes the books you guys refer to as the deutero’s are canonical or inspired because they are found either in the septuagint or because they are alluded to or quoted in the NT, that person is using faulty logic.

I only wish to point out that;
Not every book quoted or alluded to in the NT is inspired.

Not every book included in the septuagint is believed to be inspired by either you or me.

I never, ever said that every book in the OT has to be quoted as scripture in the NT for it to be inspired.
If that’s the case, then surely you can locate this verse in the OT? For whenever the apostles state “it is written” is a direct quotation from scripture:
1 Corinthians 2.9
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
The last part of this verse is lifted from sirach 1:10:
She is with all flesh according to his gift, and he hath given her to them that love him
.

You might say this is a quotation from Isaiah 64:4 but you would be partially correct. Neither enterred into the heart of men is from an unkown source and the ending is from Sirach.
 
Sorry this is off topic
How do you guys get your signatures in your posts?
That is the stuff that is your personal signature to post at the bottom of all your posts?:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top