James White's latest book "Scripture Alone" and the 'Apocrypha'

  • Thread starter Thread starter teajay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Then there’s the prophecy of our Lord’s passion and death from Wis 2, 12-24. Everyone should read that. I do admit that “some” of this is also in Isaiah and Psalms, but not all of it.
 
here is the quote from gregory the great
6th Century: *Gregory the Great *- “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed” (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)
Click to expand...
i don’t understand what pope gregory is talking about here. i question if white interprets this passage accurately.

even if pope gregory did reject the deuterocanonicals, there are many more saints and fathers who did accept them: “And finally, this myth begins to disintegrate when you point out that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.” envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html
so what’s his point???
 
Sorry this is so long, but I’m doing it the old fashioned way, by hand not by machine. Oh and also, since I am doing it manually, please forgive any error, it’s not intentional or trying to be misleading. I have 25 more verses from Sirach but I think I’ll take a break. Most of these are not found in any of the “non” deuterocanonical books.
Sir 3,18: Mt 23,12
 
I’m not going to waste too much time doing research on this dead horse. So I am just going to wing it with off the cuff remarks.
  1. 50+? Is that all? Out of how many “writers”, bishops and theologians?? It looks like a minority to me. If it was 100, it did not reflect the teaching of the Church. At one time, 80% of the bishops were Arians. Does that equate Catholicism with Ariansim??
  2. So what. He was wrong. The Church canonized him anyway because he was never in open rebellion. If it was that big of a deal, why didn’t he start his own church?
  3. Same thing, Cardinal Cajetan was wrong, was a minority, and had no effect on the teachings of the Church. Protestants have no concept of acceptable dissent. In their paradigm, dissent necessitates division. Iin ours, the right of theological dissent (within rather broad parameters), causes growth.
  4. I couldn’t help myself, I had to look this one up.
“As I stated in my original comments, St. Gregory made no magisterial pronouncements on the Canon of Scripture. The comment quoted by Mr. Webster was from his Commentary on Job also known as his Magna Moralia, which was a private work of interpretation and not a magisterial document.”

www.geocities.com/Athens/3517/ sippo/webster1.html

Scroll 2/3 down.
  1. Pope Leo approved publication of what? The introduction? The Greek New Testament? Was his approval during his reign as Pope a magisterial pronouncement? No record of that.
  2. How is Billy Burro qualified to determine who is “best read and scholarly” when his reputation as a scholar is a joke?
  3. It is irrelevant that they were provincial councils. The outcome was magisterial a few short years later by Rome. I’ve had enough for now.
 
Tom -

I’m sorry, but I can make no sense out of the many citations you’ve given. I can’t tell if you’re citing chapters, or verses, or both, or what. Please put the citations into your response and explain which point of mine you’re responding to. There is no way I’m going to wade through all of this and try to figure out what is supposed to answer what.

BouleTheou
 
40.png
BouleTheou:
Tom -

I’m sorry, but I can make no sense out of the many citations you’ve given. I can’t tell if you’re citing chapters, or verses, or both, or what. Please put the citations into your response and explain which point of mine you’re responding to. There is no way I’m going to wade through all of this and try to figure out what is supposed to answer what.

BouleTheou
Click to expand...
Here:

Now, about how Christ and the apostle NEVER quoted Deutero-canonical. Well, it must be admited that Christ and the apostles never DIRECTLY quoted Deutero-canonicals books. But if we’re willing to maintain this requirement to judge which OT book is canonical, then we would have to scrap books from the above list. They’re never directly quoted.

However to say that Christ and the Apostle NEVER quoted (not directly quoted) Deuterocanonical, then it seems a little investigating is in order.

1. Relation between Sirach 4:1 and Mark 10:19-21
One day a young man came to Christ and ask what should he do to earn eternal life. To him, Christ said, "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother." (Mark 10:19).

The problems we have is with the underline verse. In the Greek New Testament the underline words are not written in bold, indicating that they are not quotes from Old Testament.

Some people try to reconcile the underline quote by saying:
a. It’s actually the 10th commandment restated
b. It’s a different way to phrase the 8th commandment

These objections have serious flaws (to save time, it will not be discussed).

However, it would be alot easier to reconcile if Christ quoted the defraud not from Jesus ben Sirach (Sirach). The commandment defraud not on Mark 10:19 used “me apostereses” as with Sirakh 4:1, which is “SON, defraud not (me apostereses) the poor of alms”

The relationship between Sir 4:1 and Mark 10-19 is not only about the similiarity of the word used (me apostereses), but also the similiarity of the theme. Both verse talk about Justice and generousity/modesty to the poor, which, more often than not, receive unjust treatment from the rich. If in Sir 4:1 there’s one advice for a son (young man) to: “SON, defraud not (me apostereses)the poor of alms”, in Mark 10:21 Jesus said to a young man, “One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.”

Now, let examine verse by verse:

Sirach 4:1

teknon, ten zoen tou ptochou me apostereses

SON, defraud not the poor of alms, and turn not away thy eyes from the poor.

Mark 10:19-21
…me apostereses… upagehosa echeis poleson kai dos ptochois

“Thou knowest the commandments…Defraud not…”

“…sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:”

This little experiment shows how Christ acknowledged Sirach’s authority as Exodus’ (10th commandment is in exodus), which is obviously protocanonical.

continue below
 
Final
  1. Relationship between Sirach 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 2:6-9
    In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul said that to the mature he speaks of wisdom of God that none of the princes of this world knew. A “wisdom” that which God ordained before the world. Concerning this “wisdom” Paul wrote:
***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.*** (1 Cor 2:9)

We might wanna ask, from which Paul quoted the underline word? Now this is important because in the begining Paul said But as it is written, so he got to be quoting from the Old Testament!!!.

The phrase, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard," comes from Isiah 64:3 and 53:15. The phrase "neither have entered into the heart of man," is probably a rephrase from Jeremiah 3:16, "neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it. Both have the same idea.

But where did Paul quote the last phrase from, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.??

In Sirach 1:10 we have, ***And he poured her out upon all his works, and upon all flesh according to his gift, and hath given her[wisdom] to them that love him. *** This will provide plausible reconciliation to what Paul said!!!

Both Sirach 1:1-10 and 1 Cor 2:6-9 are talking about God’s wisdom and the characteristic of this wisdom. According to Sirach 1:1-10 God’s wisdom hath been created before all things, and God hath given her[wisdom] to them that love him.. Also in 1 Cor 2:6-9 Paul was talking about a wisdom that God ordained before the world which God hath prepared for them that love him.

Let examine the verse by verse:

Sirach 1:1-10
Wisdom hath been created before all things,…

…And he poured her out upon all his works, and upon all flesh according to his gift,

and hath given her to them that love him (tois agaposin auton)

1 Cor 2:6-9
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

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. (tois agaposin auton)

Examine the similiarity of the two pericopes, both in the word "tois agaposin auton or the theme about God’s wisdom and its characteristics.

Again, to repeat, it is important to note that initially, Paul started with “as it is written”. Meaning that he’s quoting from scriptures (Old Testament). Not only that, but Paul considered Sirach is of equal authority with the book of Isaiah and the book of Jeremiah!!!.

If anyone has any objection, then I suggest he looks, in protocanonical OT, book that has "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (tois agaposin auton). Not only that, the protocanonical verses should have the same theme, and that is describing God’s wisdom and its characteristic.

There many many other similiarties. I just mentioned two of the most important one. They are important because:
  1. Christ regarded Sirach has the same authority as Exodus.
  2. Paul CLEARLY stated that he’s quoting scriptures, thus Sirach WAS and IS scripture.
Have a nice day debunking heretics 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top