Jesus quoting the Deutero Canonicals

[ziapueblo]

Jerome is the one who first called them apocryphal. That was the prevailing attitude of those days. Very few churches were promoting those books.

St. Jerome defended other Deuterocanonical Books:
“What sin have I committed if i follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating (in my preface to the book of Daniel) the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah (Dan. 13), the Song of the Three Children (Dan. 3:29-68, RSV-CE), and the story of Bel and the Dragon (Dan. 14), which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seems that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, This is not the time to descuss such matters” (Against Rufinius 11:33).

By the way, St. Jerome added the Deuterocanonical Books to his translation of the Vulgate. He put his personal opinions aside and looked to the authority of the Church.

I know that you have always been taught such by the RCC, but why don’t you do as the Scriptures say, and test what you have been told? Study the history of the Bible, apart from what the RCC has taught you. You will be very surprised…

You should try studying some Bible history. It seems that you are dodging my response earlier in the thread.

 

[Lampo]

1. None of them lay claim to inspiration.

This reasoning is why you believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God? Because the Bible tells you so? If you think about that, it’s actually a bit of a logical inconsistency. I would venture to guess that your main issue with the Church comes down to authority.

The Koran states very plainly that it is the inspired Word of God. Do you believe the Koran is the inspired Word of God because the Koran says it is? You don’t, do you? If, in this post, I claimed that this post was the inspired Word of God, would you believe it? After all, the post says the post is the inspired Word of God. But, you wouldn’t believe that, would you? Of course not.

If you don’t believe my post is the inspired Word of God, even if it said it was; and you don’t believe the Koran is the inspired Word of God, even though it says it is, then why do you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God simply because the Bible says so?

What I’m hoping to do here is make you realize that you are actually not relying just upon the Bible in your belief that the Bible is the Word of God, but also upon some authority other than the Bible itself. There has to be some authority, outside of the Bible, that confirms the Bible is what we think it is – the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

The Bible says that “all Scripture is God-breathed.” But, what is Scripture? How do we know, for example, that the Gospel of Mark is Scripture? The Bible never tells us that it is. The Gospel of Mark never says it is Scripture. It never says it is the inspired Word of God. So, how do we know it is? Yes, all Scripture is God-breathed, but how do we know what is and is not Scripture? Who told you? Who told me? How do you know who wrote Mark? The title, “The Gospel of Mark,” is not inspired Scripture – it was put in there by the publisher. So, who wrote Mark? If someone named Mark actually wrote the Gospel of Mark, then which Mark wrote Mark?

Now, you might say it doesn’t matter who wrote Mark. But it does. It actually matters a great deal. The Gospel of Mark is inspired Scripture, if and only if the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote it. But, if we don’t know which Mark wrote Mark, then how can we know that it is inspired Scripture? None of these questions are answered by the Bible itself. Which means, we got the answer to those questions from somewhere else…but where?

The question of where we got the Bible, is actually a central question to the Christian Faith. All Christians need to realize this. And, when all Christians do realize this, it will work towards greater unity amongst the various Christian faith traditions. The books of the New Testament were written separately over a period of anywhere from 40-60 years or so after the death of Jesus. They were written in different places, at different times, and sent to different people in different cities throughout the ancient Roman Empire. How did these different books and letters come to be regarded as Scripture? How did they find their way into what we now call the Bible? Who put the Bible together as we have it today? This is important because if we cannot trust the veracity of the folks who put together the Bible, then we cannot trust the veracity of the Bible itself. That’s why these questions are so important.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Most of these assertions are simply false.

1. Several counter-examples have already been given. Regarding the rest, nor did He recognize or quote from many of the proto-canonical books.

No example has been given, just some verses listed, but I notice no one wanted to post exactly what the verses had to say and compare them in context with what they claimed were references to them.

1. Nonsense. They remained an integral part of the Christian LXX far beyond their exclusion from the Jewish canon as being too recent.

Most scholars and theologians will tell you they were NOT a part of the original LXX and we can’t prove that either way because the oldest copy we have of the LXX is from 400 A.D. Studies throughout history have mostly reached the conclusion that they were NOT included in the original.

1. If you mean that many of the stories in them are probably fictitious, are at least partially so, that is very likely true, but true also of several of the proto-canonical books, such as Job and Daniel. If the deuterocanonicals had been admitted to the Jewish canon, it undoubtedly would have been as “Writings” (Ketuvim).

Could you list the stories from the Old Testament that you say are fictitious?

1. Dozens of counter-examples have been listed. That you instantly reject them all severely compromises your credibility.

And I checked practically every one of them for accuracy and they do not do what was claimed.

1. I’m not sure you meant to say this. They were certainly included in the LXX, as an integral part, not separated from the proto-canonical books in any way that I am aware of.

The RCC claims they were included but as I have stated before, we do not know that and most authoritative theologians and scholars do not believe they were.

1. Nor do most of the protocanonical books, but what is the point? Any book at all can make such a claim, and the ‘esoterica’ section of any big bookstore contains many such books of recent origin.

Most all of the protocanonical books do claim inspiration. Could you list those that do not? I am not concerned with later writings.

1. There are far more contradictions between the books of the protocanon than between the protocanon and the deuterocanon.

I wish you would show the contradictions…

Also, you said the Maccabees prayed “to the dead”, I presume that was a typo and you meant to say “for”. Where does it say in the protocanon that Jews do not pray for their dead? My wife, who is Jewish, offered such prayers just last week on the anniversary of the death of her late husband, and everyone at her temple prayed for him also. This custom is called in Yiddish ‘Yortzeit’, from the German word Jahreszeit, meaning season or time of year, and has been practiced at least since the time of the Maccabees and probably long before, and was very likely practiced by Christ Himself.

I should have said “for” the dead but am I correct in believing that the RCC teaches praying “to” the dead? Do they not pray “to” Mary and “to” the saints?

Jerome was correct in that their canonicity had not been determined at that time; that does not alter the fact that most of your assertions are simply wrong.

You can say my assertions are wrong all day but can you point them out specifically?

 

[bilop]

I should have said “for” the dead but am I correct in believing that the RCC teaches praying “to” the dead? Do they not pray “to” Mary and “to” the saints?

We ask Mary and the Saints to pray for us.

If you think Mary and the Saints are dead, you are no Christian. One can not be a Christian and reject the immortality of the soul.

God Bless

 

[Old_Scholar]

This reasoning is why you believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God? Because the Bible tells you so? If you think about that, it’s actually a bit of a logical inconsistency. I would venture to guess that your main issue with the Church comes down to authority.

The Koran states very plainly that it is the inspired Word of God. Do you believe the Koran is the inspired Word of God because the Koran says it is? You don’t, do you? If, in this post, I claimed that this post was the inspired Word of God, would you believe it? After all, the post says the post is the inspired Word of God. But, you wouldn’t believe that, would you? Of course not.

If you don’t believe my post is the inspired Word of God, even if it said it was; and you don’t believe the Koran is the inspired Word of God, even though it says it is, then why do you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God simply because the Bible says so?

What I’m hoping to do here is make you realize that you are actually not relying just upon the Bible in your belief that the Bible is the Word of God, but also upon some authority other than the Bible itself. There has to be some authority, outside of the Bible, that confirms the Bible is what we think it is – the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

The Bible says that “all Scripture is God-breathed.” But, what is Scripture? How do we know, for example, that the Gospel of Mark is Scripture? The Bible never tells us that it is. The Gospel of Mark never says it is Scripture. It never says it is the inspired Word of God. So, how do we know it is? Yes, all Scripture is God-breathed, but how do we know what is and is not Scripture? Who told you? Who told me? How do you know who wrote Mark? The title, “The Gospel of Mark,” is not inspired Scripture – it was put in there by the publisher. So, who wrote Mark? If someone named Mark actually wrote the Gospel of Mark, then which Mark wrote Mark?

Now, you might say it doesn’t matter who wrote Mark. But it does. It actually matters a great deal. The Gospel of Mark is inspired Scripture, if and only if the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote it. But, if we don’t know which Mark wrote Mark, then how can we know that it is inspired Scripture? None of these questions are answered by the Bible itself. Which means, we got the answer to those questions from somewhere else…but where?

The question of where we got the Bible, is actually a central question to the Christian Faith. All Christians need to realize this. And, when all Christians do realize this, it will work towards greater unity amongst the various Christian faith traditions. The books of the New Testament were written separately over a period of anywhere from 40-60 years or so after the death of Jesus. They were written in different places, at different times, and sent to different people in different cities throughout the ancient Roman Empire. How did these different books and letters come to be regarded as Scripture? How did they find their way into what we now call the Bible? Who put the Bible together as we have it today? This is important because if we cannot trust the veracity of the folks who put together the Bible, then we cannot trust the veracity of the Bible itself. That’s why these questions are so important.

**Yes I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God because it tells me so. I cannot speak for the Koran because I have not read it and would not. It was written by one who made the claim that he was a prophet but no one else proclaimed him so or called him a prophet. I believe any prophet of God will be made known to us. However I do not believe it makes any claim of inspiration.

I might surprise you by saying that I believe the gospels were inspired because of tradition. For the church leaders in the early times after Christ, the four gospels were the baseline authority in all their teachings. Even Irenæus cited them very early and the widespread use of all the New Testaments attests to its authenticity and value. In addition, the early church leaders Justin Martyr, Clement and others of that day declared the books of the NT to be inspired. Origen and Tertullian also declared them so very early on. Peter declared certain of the books as inspired and that they were Scripture.

As to the author of Mark, I believe I could prove to most that it was Mark, a companion of both Peter and Paul, but that is a subject for another thread.

Contrary to your belief, probably, I do put a lot of faith on tradition, especially when it comes to the authenticity of Scripture. The early church leaders, apostles, etc. were there and I put a great deal of faith in what they have to say.

As you noted, the Bible itself does not tell us everything but it certainly tells us everything we need to know in the matter of faith and morals. We need to look to tradition for the mechanics of many things, but not to anything that pertains to faith or morals that cannot be found in Scripture.

We must either believe the Bible is the inspired word of God or it isn’t. There is no in between.**

 

[Old_Scholar]

We ask Mary and the Saints to pray for us.

If you think Mary and the Saints are dead, you are no Christian. One can not be a Christian and reject the immortality of the soul.

God Bless

Strange that you would say the soul is immortal since the Bible teaches otherwise…

 

[Old_Scholar]

A little more about praying TO the dead, vs praying FOR the dead.

Since Roman Catholics do not pray “to” Mary, how do you explain prayers such as this:

**Hail Mary, poor and humble Woman, Blessed by the Most High! Virgin of hope, dawn of a new era, We join in your song of praise, to celebrate the Lord’s mercy, to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom and the full liberation of humanity.

Hail Mary, lowly handmaid of the Lord, Glorious Mother of Christ! Faithful Virgin, holy dwelling-place of the Word, Teach us to persevere in listening to the Word, and to be docile to the voice of the Spirit, attentive to his promptings in the depths of our conscience and to his manifestations in the events of history.

Hail Mary, Woman of sorrows, Mother of the living! Virgin spouse beneath the Cross, the new Eve, Be our guide along the paths of the world. Teach us to experience and to spread the love of Christ, to stand with you before the innumerable crosses on which your Son is still crucified.

Hail Mary, woman of faith, First of the disciples! Virgin Mother of the Church, help us always to account for the hope that is in us, with trust in human goodness and the Father’s love. Teach us to build up the world beginning from within: in the depths of silence and prayer, in the joy of fraternal love, in the unique fruitfulness of the Cross.

Holy Mary, Mother of believers, Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for us.

Amen.**

This is just one prayer of the popes out of many. This one is by Pope John Paul II. Prayer to our Lady of Lourdes.

Now there is no claim here that he is NOT praying to the Mary. How can you say you do not pray TO the dead?

Ooops. Back later, I’m being summoned.

 

[Pier]

A little more about praying TO the dead, vs praying FOR the dead.

Since Roman Catholics do not pray “to” Mary, how do you explain prayers such as this:

**Hail Mary, poor and humble Woman, Blessed by the Most High! Virgin of hope, dawn of a new era, We join in your song of praise, to celebrate the Lord’s mercy, to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom and the full liberation of humanity.

Hail Mary, lowly handmaid of the Lord, Glorious Mother of Christ! Faithful Virgin, holy dwelling-place of the Word, Teach us to persevere in listening to the Word, and to be docile to the voice of the Spirit, attentive to his promptings in the depths of our conscience and to his manifestations in the events of history.

Hail Mary, Woman of sorrows, Mother of the living! Virgin spouse beneath the Cross, the new Eve, Be our guide along the paths of the world. Teach us to experience and to spread the love of Christ, to stand with you before the innumerable crosses on which your Son is still crucified.

Hail Mary, woman of faith, First of the disciples! Virgin Mother of the Church, help us always to account for the hope that is in us, with trust in human goodness and the Father’s love. Teach us to build up the world beginning from within: in the depths of silence and prayer, in the joy of fraternal love, in the unique fruitfulness of the Cross.

Holy Mary, Mother of believers, Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for us**.

Amen.

This is just one prayer of the popes out of many. This one is by Pope John Paul II. Prayer to our Lady of Lourdes.

Now there is no claim here that he is NOT praying to the Mary. How can you say you do not pray TO the dead?

Ooops. Back later, I’m being summoned.

How do you do, OS?

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/waffen/violent-smiley-026.gif

Hmmm…

Strange that you would say the soul is immortal since the Bible teaches otherwise…

Was that part removed as well?

 

[bilop]

Strange that you would say the soul is immortal since the Bible teaches otherwise…

Say What!

That’s absurd. If the soul is not immortal, what’s the point of Christ’s death and resurrection?

God Bless

 

[ziapueblo]

Old Scholar,

How did the Bible come about? There is no inspired table of contents. How do you know what books are inspired, OT and NT?

 

[Ilroy]

OS -" 5. They are not included in the Massoretic text of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, or in the jewish Talmud. "

This was pointed out previoiusly but I think you forgot to address your obvious error in this one small point…The 7 books taken out by the various protestors are in fact in the Septuigint.

It shows if you can’t get it right in these small things, how can we trust your assertions in anything else?

 

[thistle]

Strange that you would say the soul is immortal since the Bible teaches otherwise…

So you mean Jesus lied when he said “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

 

[po18guy]

Sorry, but you are in error. My Bible had absolutely nothing at all to do with the Roman Catholic Church. They didn’t write it, they didn’t canonize it and they certainly didn’t approve it.

And I am not the one that declared them apocryphal and after some time, deutero-canonical. The early church did that. Didn’t you read what Jerome had to say about them? Jerome is the one who first called them apocryphal. That was the prevailing attitude of those days. Very few churches were promoting those books.

The word “apocrypha” comes from Greek apokryptein, “to hide away”), in biblical literature, works outside an accepted canon of scripture. The history of the term’s usage indicates that it referred to a body of esoteric writings that were at first prized, later tolerated, and finally excluded. In its broadest sense apocrypha has come to mean any writings of dubious authority.

If you agree, as most Christians do, that the Old Testament is a book inspired by God Himself and protected throughout time by Him, why would He keep hidden, or apocryphal, the very words which were presumably to instruct the Old Testament Jewish Congregation? Obviously the answer would be that He did not! He wouldn’t do this. The Jewish Canon does not contain the Apocrypha. We can’t say that this is insignificant because as we know it was to the Jews that the Old Covenant books were entrusted. See Romans 3:1-2. As I stated previously, there is no evidence that Jesus ever used these books, nor did the apostles, and the Jewish leadership or congregation ever use it.

I know that you have always been taught such by the RCC, but why don’t you do as the Scriptures say, and test what you have been told? Study the history of the Bible, apart from what the RCC has taught you. You will be very surprised…

Your unusual opinion duly noted. Thank you.

 

[brycelaliberte]

Sorry, but you are in error. My Bible had absolutely nothing at all to do with the Roman Catholic Church. They didn’t write it, they didn’t canonize it and they certainly didn’t approve it.

:bigyikes:

I literally had one of those.

You seem to be writing straight out of an anti-Catholic book. Which is it?

First off, if you Bible had nothing to do with the Catholic Church (and just Catholic, though I would consider myself entering the Latin Rite), then how do you know it is inspired? Because it told you so? That is incredibly ridiculous, and you would never have believed it on that assertion alone. Unless I’m overestimating you?

If the Catholic Church didn’t canonize it and say, with authority, that the Bible was infallible, then who could? That, and by the time of the Bible’s canonization (at the Synod of Hippo, 397, I believe) the Church was formally recognized as THE CATHOLIC Church, the word coming from Greek katholikos and most likely in common use by the end of the 2nd century, taking cues from letters written early 3rd.

Why do you believe the Bible is infallible?

 

[Lampo]

Contrary to your belief, probably, I do put a lot of faith on tradition, especially when it comes to the authenticity of Scripture. The early church leaders, apostles, etc. were there and I put a great deal of faith in what they have to say.

Well, that same teaching authority (Magesterium) that determined the Canon of Scripture that you have faith in also defines all of the other doctrines of the Catholic Church while being guided by the Holy Spirit in all instances. Are you saying the Holy Spirit got it right on some things and not others? What authority do you speak from in determining such a thing?

 

[Old_Scholar]

So you mean Jesus lied when he said “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

I don’t believe Jesus lied. I believe what He said. He said that if we believe and perservere until the end, He will give us eternal life. He will raise our dead mortal soul from the grave and give us a new soul that will be immortal. That is what He has promised us who believe and follow His commands.

Romans 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Romans 6:12 * Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body*, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

Romans 8:11 *But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken **your mortal bodies *by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

1 Cor 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

1 Cor 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Of course that will be at the resurrection.

2 Cor 4:11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

I can list severl more if you care to read them. And before you tell me the body is not the soul, I must warn you I can show you Scriptures that tell you the soul and the body are one.

 

[Old_Scholar]

:bigyikes:

I literally had one of those.

You seem to be writing straight out of an anti-Catholic book. Which is it?

First off, if you Bible had nothing to do with the Catholic Church (and just Catholic, though I would consider myself entering the Latin Rite), then how do you know it is inspired? Because it told you so? That is incredibly ridiculous, and you would never have believed it on that assertion alone. Unless I’m overestimating you?

If the Catholic Church didn’t canonize it and say, with authority, that the Bible was infallible, then who could? That, and by the time of the Bible’s canonization (at the Synod of Hippo, 397, I believe) the Church was formally recognized as THE CATHOLIC Church, the word coming from Greek katholikos and most likely in common use by the end of the 2nd century, taking cues from letters written early 3rd.

Why do you believe the Bible is infallible?

This is not an anti-catholic book. It is the word of God. And since you asked, it is the KJV Bible.

You said the Catholic Church canonized the Bible. Remember I said the Roman Catholic Church. That is two different churches. The *Roman Catholic Church *did not come into being until the 5th century and the *Codex Sinaiticus *and the *Codex Vaticanus *both came into being in the 4th century. We all sprang from what was called the Catholic(universal) Church then.

Both the original Russian copy of the Bible and the British copy were in place and use long before the *Roman Catholic Church *came into being.

I feel certain also that you should know that the earliest copy of the gospels was produced in *Syriac *about 160 A.D. and included all four of the gospels. That shows the gospels were accepted long before the Catholic Church canonized them.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Well, that same teaching authority (Magesterium) that determined the Canon of Scripture that you have faith in also defines all of the other doctrines of the Catholic Church while being guided by the Holy Spirit in all instances. Are you saying the Holy Spirit got it right on some things and not others? What authority do you speak from in determining such a thing?

Any “suthority” that claims doctrines that cannot be found in Scripture is not any “authority” at all. Even the earliest Catholic Church leaders believed that. In fact it is in the Catholic belief that unless a doctrine can be substantiated by Scripture, it is not to be used.

It is the false belief that tradition ursurps Scripture that is where the error comes.

Is it the Magesterium that tells you it is guided by the Holy Spirit? Or did you decide that yourself?

 

[Tietjen]

Any “suthority” that claims doctrines that cannot be found in Scripture is not any “authority” at all. Even the earliest Catholic Church leaders believed that. In fact it is in the Catholic belief that unless a doctrine can be substantiated by Scripture, it is not to be used.

It is the false belief that tradition ursurps Scripture that is where the error comes.

Is it the Magesterium that tells you it is guided by the Holy Spirit? Or did you decide that yourself?

If I have to ask, what Church do you belong to? I know of no Protestant Church that believes the soul is not eternal. You claim Sola Scriptura but then turn around and admit that Tradition is important as well. Yet you leave us all hanging as to where that Tradition comes from if not from the Church. In an earlier post, you claimed that Catholics responded to the Reformation by adding the 7 books for which this thread first spoke. I must admit that your Church is a mystery to me, as I have not heard so many contradictions to both the Catholic Church and most Protestant Churches. It is almost as if you take a little of this, add a pinch of that, pour in a drop of this and stir.

 

[po18guy]

Now there is no claim here that he is NOT praying to the Mary. How can you say you do not pray TO the dead?

Ooops. Back later, I’m being summoned.

I certainly hope it was not the Lord calling, because He likely has a bone to pick with your theology! You’re an Adventist, right? If so, you follow the teachings of Ellen Gould White, the “Adventist Pope”. Her writings are “inspired” and teach hatred of Catholicism and the Pope. It shows in Adventist’s writings, although it is being soft-pedaled nowadays as the church attempts to lead Catholics away.

We pray to those who are dead to you. They are living to both God, and to us. Can you simply not understand this? YOU think they’re dead. We know they’re living. “God is not God of the dead, but of the living” It’s there in your bible. Please explain the transfiguration. Or, do you disbelieve any concept which contains the prefix “trans”???

We would all be interested to know where the bible teaches “temporary hell”, “Soul sleep” or “soul annihilation”. Is it the writings of Ellen?

Due to your belief in the Holy Trinity, a valid baptism, and the sharing of many other tenets of the Christian faith, we remain brothers, although separated, in Christ.

I’m Catholic. Now, be honest, not embarrassed! Which denomination are you?

Christ’s peace.