Need help. Need an Apologestic to help me out here settle a dispute

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gigglin4God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gigglin4God

Guest
A Protestant and I are having a dispute… I am going to put everything he said into here so you can give me the Catholic Truth on it. I dont know where else to turn.

“The information I’m providing is what the canon is and how it is decided if a book belonged in the canon. Also, there is considerable evidence against the Apocrytha (Roman Catholic Bible) even from some very prominent Catholics that I wanted to bring to your attention. While the Bible and it’s authors ARE debated, none of them have been proven wrong. As a matter of fact, EVERY prophecy that was ever predicted in the Old Testament HAS already taken place. This is NOT based on my own research as I have NOT read the Bible cover to cover. However, you stated that you read the New Testament and are completely convinced that Jesus had no brothers or sisters, yet, just in the book of Matthew ALONE, there are verses to the contrary. Given the information (which is NOT all of it) alone that I’m providing in this email, there’s MORE than enough VALID information here to discredit the apocrytha. While you may disagree with this, this is also coming from people within the higher ranks of your own church. The apocrytha itself wasn’t even voted on until 1546 AD and even THEN it was NOT a unanimous (meaning ALL voted in agreement) vote. This is very convincing evidence.
I’ve already stated why, even though a belief system is there, if it is based on bad information, that belief system itself is WRONG. I was raised on belief systems that I’ve learned are wrong. This does NOT makes us bad people, it shows us that we are incorrectly informed. Once this bad information is brought to our attention, we have a responsibility (to ourselves) to find the truth. As far as the apocrytha is concerned, while history and reason alone are EXCELLENT reasons (though not the ONLY reasons) to exercise faith in the Bible withOUT the apocrytha, history and reason are also 2 main reasons to EXCLUDE the apocrytha. I’m sorry if you feel I’m attacking you, but this is not a personal attack from me to you, but rather, me answering your questions based on very VALID evidence and reasons as to why what you expressed to me is incorrect. No one likes to be wrong, but if we find that we are wrong, this DOES mean that we have the opportunity NOW to make it right. This is exactly what God is providing to you.
Anyways, below is the information that I’ve copied and pasted to this email for your own research AND for you to forward to your friends for further examination. I do sincerely appreciate you taking the time to at least look at this information as well. Before I came to Chrsit, I didn’t like what I heard about where I was headed, but I thank God that friends were guided and gave me the CORRECT information so I could make the right choice based on God’s wil, the scripture and history and reason. God bless you.”

"
**The canon comes from the Greek word root meaning “rod”. The 66 books in the Bible contain all that God has chosen to reveal to man concerning His presence, mankind, the past, how to live for Him now and what will come. **
There are 4 criteria for determining when someone is a prophet or can receive the message of God and document it for the guidance and study of future generations. This criteria is found in the Bible in Deuteronomy 18:20-22 and 13:1-3.
  1. Code: 
      The prophet must claim to have revelation or inspiration from God.  Moses set the standard for this.
  2. Code: 
     Recognizable predictability of his prophecies.  Another words, the future predictions of this prophet MUST come to pass, these predictions MUST actually take place.
  3. Code: 
     The prophets message MUST not contradict the will of God.
  4. Code: 
     Does the prophet lead people AWAY from God?
No other books will ever be added (according to the canon, which is standardized using Deuteronomy) and no books in the Bible have ever been, nor will ever be proven false or contradictory.
Why the question of the Apocrytha? This means “hidden” or “concealed” and comes from the Greek “apokruphos”. This is not a collection of books, but rather individual books. Of these books, 14 were voted into the canon by the Roman Catholic church at the Council of Trent in 1546. The apocrytha is used in books today endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church and USED to be in some protestant books as well, but that practiced is far less common today.
The Old Testament apocrytha books (14) that were voted in the canon:
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
The rest of Esther
The wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah
The Song of the 3 Holy Children
The History of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
 
Part 2.

While there are 10 original reasons why the apocrytha was denied addition to the canon, here are 13 additional reasons.
  1. Code: 
       The  majority of the apocrytha contains many major flaws in style and   organization and are identifiable as obvious human writing that was NOT   aided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
  2. Code: 
     There are historical and geographical errors.
  3. Code: 
     While  they are Old Testament in nature, they were written in Greek.  Why is  this important?  Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the  language of the people.
  4. Code: 
     The  apocryptha is not quoted by Christ or any of the New Testament writers.   While  this argument solely is not completely solid, even if 1 were  quoted,  there would offer some kind of credibility to the divine  inspiration of  the sources.
  5. Code: 
     The plan of salvation runs the Old Testament, but is not evident in the apocrythal books.
  6. Code: 
     There  are absolutely no messianic (predictions of the coming of Christ) in  the apocrytha.  Obviously going back to number 5 because salvation does  not come without Jesus Christ.
  7. Code: 
     Apocrytha  makes no claim to divine inspiration.  This is one of the strongest  arguments AGAINST their validity.  If this was the case, the author(s)  should’ve made a specific reference to being inspired by God.
  8. Code: 
     Apocrytha  was never included in the original Hebrew canon.  Since  those who were  the closest to the originals omitted them from the  canon, how is it  possible for a council or person to later make a  determination that  they should be included, especially when the claim is  made over 100  years later?
  9. Code: 
     Philo  never referred to them.  Even when quoting reference OUTSIDE of  scripture, these books are NEVER mentioned.  This  man was a scholar of  his day (20 BC – 40 AD) and his omissions of these  books are another  powerful argument against the apocrytha.
  10. Jerome never mentioned them either. He is regarded as a church father by the Roman Catholics and given authority because he translated the Vulgate (first recognized catholic scriptures). His omission is another powerful argument that, since they were not part of the Vulgate, that they’re not canonical.
  11. Spiritual level in the apocrytha is low. Most feel the apocrytha did not feed the “heart” as does scripture. Since the Holy Spirit speaks through scripture, the Holy Spirit will not speak through the heart through false scriptures. The lack of the “inner voice of the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:13-16) is another reason for rejection of the apocrytha.
  12. Apocrytha implies doctrine contrary to scripture. Roman Catholics find proof for some of their doctrine in the apocrytha. This includes purgatory and prayers for the dead.
  13. Apocrytha was not consider part of the canon until AD 1546 at the Council of Trent. Even when the apocrytha was added, the vote was split within the body of the council.
    While the apocrytha is still part of the Roman Catholic bible and regularly printed in it, many Catholics today do not accept them with much authority.
    Concerning purgatory, the intermediate place where souls are placed so they can still be reconned with God for a chance in heaven. If this were true, then this automatically makes the crucifiction and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ in vain. Why in vain? Because the purgatory theory states that to get into heaven, there’s still 1 more chance after this life, that’s in purgatory. Jesus Christ stated in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.” This verse alone contradicts the purpose of purgatory because Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to spend eternity in the presence of God. This is only one of MANY examples referred to that shows that purgatory is NOT an option as it takes away from the redemptive message and plan of God."
    I can go back and include the 10 original reasons if you like, thus making a total of 23 reasons, but I figured this would get you started on your research. I’m sure that if there are this many valid reasons NOT to accept the apocrytha, then there is every reason to believe that there are more out there.
 
Part 3.

Again, not attacking you, just offering addtional information to correct the information you already have now and offer some (name removed by moderator)ut as to other areas that you might not be aware of. While many can argue that my stand is biased because I’m a bible college student, I’m also a common sense kind of guy and there’s not a single reason listed here that doesn’t have some kind of logical/common sense approach to it. When people try to disprove the Bible to me, once further research is done, they usually get upset when the CONTEXT of the scripture is explained. It’s NOT explained away, but rather, made clearer to them. For example, it’s important to understand the culture, the language and the obedience or disobedience to God’s will/word that was included in the scriptures. There’s a LOT more to understanding the Bible by just thinking that someone understands John 3:16, a very COMMON quote, but FAR from the rest of the story.

Get back to me when you can. Again, God bless".

Can someone tell me if he is putting a load of poololly on me? Especially the part where he says Jesus had half brothers and sisters. I want Biblical proof that he didnt. Please someone help me as I am losing my mind over this. 🤷
 
He is being a bit misleading to try and use the word Apocrypha to refer to them, when that’s not even the word we use to refer to them. We refer to them as Deutro-Canonical books. So the argument that the word Apocrypha means we shouldn’t have them in our books is one based on Protestant tradition itself. (Which he’s claiming they don’t have. Simply referring to them as Apocrypha IS a tradition.)

Secondly, he is indicating that the books were hidden until the council of Trent established them as official canon. When Jesus himself quoted Tobit 4:15, and the book of Wisdom has a very stunningly accurate portrayal of Jesus death (prophecy).

Not to mention the following verses as well:

Romans 1:20-29, Wisdom 13:5, 8, 14:24, 27; Romans 9:20-23, Wisdom 12:12, 20, 15:7; 2 Corinthians 5:1, 4, Wisdom 9:15; James 1:13, Wisdom 15:11-12; James 1:19, Wisdom 5:11; Hebrews 11:3, 2 Maccabees 7:28; Hebrews 11:4-40, 2 Maccabees44:1 — 50:24; 1 John 1:1-3, Baruch 3:36-38; Wisdom 2:18, Matthew 27:39-43

For ‘hidden’ books they seem to have been quoted a lot by Jesus and the first Apostles.

Also:
The Assyrian Church of the East
the Syrian Orthodox
the Armenian Apostolic
the Eastern Orthodox, and
even the Ethiopian Jews (except for Ecclesiasticus)

All of those churches accept it as their canon as well, so it’s not just a recent Catholic invention. They are also mentioned at the council of Hippo and Carthage which places their use before the year 400. Sirach is even mentioned in one of the earliest Christian writings, the Didache. (74ish ad)

As we can see from that alone, the Deutro-Canonicals are not a new invention, in fact they’ve been in Christian theology for over 1600 years… It is rather their absence which is a change from the Christian cannon. It is not the Catholics who ‘put them in’, it is the protestants who ‘took them out.’
 
Hi there!

First of all, I ask you to not worry. This is very similar to the first conversation I had with a Protestant, and I nearly had a heart attack, but I assure you, none of the concerns that this person has raised are new or accurate.

I’ll start you off with this link, which explains why, Scripturally, Catholics don’t believe Jesus Christ had siblings. I’ll have to go through the remainder of your text carefully to provide you with information regarding the rest. Remember that any Bible this student is (and, equally, we are) reading is an English translation, which means that we lose an entire layer of the original vocabulary and cultural context.
 
The Hebrew language apparantly doesn’t have words to separate brothers, sisters, and cousins. They use one word and it lumps brother, sister, cousin together.

More importantly however, where were Jesus’ brothers and sisters at the Cross? Requiring that Jesus give Mary to John?
 
Here’s more reading for you: This is a comprehensive list of the deuterocanonical references in the New Testament (Scripture) followed by an intensive collection of references from early church fathers.

Hope that helps.
 
Thank you so much for your help. I am plum ignorant when it comes to this kind of thing. I need help and he is acting like a bully. Thinking that since he is taking a Theology class that he knows everything.
 
Also, another way to disprove the existence of Jesus’ siblings is to look to the Scriptural proof of Mary’s ever-virginity.

It requires a side-by-side comparison of two parts of Matthew’s Gospel, for easier reference:

“When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus” (Mat 1:24-25, RSV).

“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age’” (Mat 28:18-20, RSV).

In the original Greek, the word for both “until,” in the first set, and “to,” in the second, is heros, which by definition is final and an end; it doesn’t imply a future or anything to follow. Thus, in the first context, Joseph never “knew” Mary after she had borne Jesus.

Hope that helps, too. 🙂
 
Just because someone wants to argue with you, doesn’t mean you have to respond.

Nor do you have to answer in detail to everything he says.

The Catholic Church (a bit of a simplification, but true enough) brought the Bible together. 1600 years later Protestant Churches dropped the books they thought might prove problematic for their faith.

As to Jesus and bis brothers and sisters: as some have said there was no word for cousins, besides, maybe Joseph had children from earlier in life: he was an older tradesman, and in Jewish law men had to marry at age 18. It’s possible. However, there are serious theological issues why Joseph and Mary would not have had children.

Part of my re-conversion process had me going to a huge Pentecostal Church for a while. Their singing and praying was magnificent. I met a ton of really nice people, young people who were on fire for their faith. Gradually though they started to challenge my Catholic past, my baptism etc., and some gave me some Jack T. Chick magazines on the Catholic Church, which are horrible hate and propaganda filled trash about the Church catholic.com/documents/the-nightmare-world-of-jack-t-chick. This actually drove me away from them and more strongly back to the Church.

Don’t argue with them over there! Come back here!👍
 
First off, as others have pointed out, “Apocrypha” is the word chosen by Protestants for these books, in order to disparage them. In the Catholic Church we call them the “Deuterocanonical” books and they are part of the 46 books of the Old Testament.

The arguments your friend uses are all old arguments, and he is just copying and pasting. To his credit, he acknowledges this. I tried to find his source, with google, but he seems to have used several sources (again, to his credit).

These old arguments have all been comprehensively answered by Catholics in the past, and you will be able to find the answers on the web. Previous posters have already given some good answers and links.

I suggest that you read the links you have been given, to build your own confidence, but don’t try and answer all the points at once. Ask your friend to pick any three arguments, and agree to argue those through first. If he does, then use the resources you have been given, or this forum, to answer those arguments. It will probably end there 🙂

The site “Refuting Carm on the Deuterocanon” has point by point answers to one of his sources. Mark Shea’s “5 Myths about 7 Books” also has point-by-point answers. Jimmy Akin’s DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS is the best overall response that I’ve seen.
 
Gigglin4God said:
A Protestant and I are having a dispute… I am going to put everything he said into here so you can give me the Catholic Truth on it. I dont know where else to turn.
Click to expand...
Hi Gigglin4God. If you would really want to know how to answer all the question concerning the bible and its books, please watch these 3 videos (A MUST SEE), how the Catholic Bible got compiled and why the protestant bible lacks 6 books etc.

youtube.com/watch?v=PjvXbotd9Lw
youtube.com/watch?v=9aozoXFdr80
youtube.com/watch?v=_JInrWhks9c
 
The Catholic Church compiled the bible in 382 A.D. under the authority of Pope Damasus I.
The list of the books listed as canonical by the Catholic Church was known as the “Damasine List” named after the Decree of Pope Damasus. The “Damasine list” or “Damasus List”, issued by Pope Damasus I at the council, is as follows:

“It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book;Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books [First and Second Books of Kings, Third and Fourth Books of Kings]; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book;”

“Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book.”

“Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.”

“Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians [First Epistle to the Corinthians and Second Epistle to the Corinthians], one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians [First Epistle to the Thessalonians and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians], one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy [First Epistle to Timothy and Second Epistle to Timothy], one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews.”

“Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book.”

“Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles [First Epistle of Peter and Second Epistle of Peter]; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles [Second Epistle of John and Third Epistle of John]; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.”

Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
-Council of Rome
 
A Christian cannot have an absolute assurance of which books belong in the Bible without accepting the authority of the Church.
In fact question, where do protestants get the authority to decide which books are to be included in the Bible?

When the Catholic Church defined which books belong to the bible, many books were left out. Other than the ones mentioned earlier (that were in the Septuagint), books such as the “Didache” (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), The “Shepherd of Hermas” (or the Good Shepherd), The Epistle of Barnabas, and several more that were thought to be inspired, were just left out.

In fact before and after the canon was determined, there has been many apocrypha books appearing and some people mistakenly think that some of these books should or should have been included in the bible because they think these are inspired. Even to this day those books are available if you want to read them. There’s probably hundreds, but here’s a short list of some of them:
  • Apocalypse of Peter
  • Protoevangelium of James
  • Acts of Paul and Thecla
  • Gospel of Peter
  • The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
  • Acts of Peter and Paul
  • Gospel of Thomas
  • Acts of Thomas
  • Acts of Thaddaeus
  • Acts of Andrew
  • Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena
  • Acts of John
  • Acts of Philip
  • Apocalypse of Paul
  • Gospel of Nicodemus
  • The Doctrine of Addai – This is a Syriac version of the earlier Acts of Thaddaeus
  • History of Joseph the Carpenter
  • Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
  • Acts of Barnabas
  • Acts of Bartholomew
  • Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle
    • Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour
    • Avenging of the Saviour
    • Apocalypse of John
    • Apocalypse of Moses
    • Apocalypse of Esdras
    • Testament of Abraham
    • Narrative of Zosimus
    • Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
    • Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea
    • Report of Pontius Pilate
    • Letter of Pontius Pilate
    • Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
    • Death of Pilate
    • Apocalypse of the Virgin
    • Apocalypse of Sedrach
    • Acts of Andrew and Matthias
    • Acts of Peter and Andrew
    • Consummation of Thomas the Apostle
There’s plenty more of these, and if you read them, you would probably not notice the difference between these and the canonical ones in most cases. It is said that there were 50 versions of the gospels.

The New testament for instance, was defined in the council of Rome, and wheter you are Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, you have the New testament just exactly as you have it because that is how the Catholic Church determined it.

Fact is, the only reason you and I have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon. The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419).

Your friend mentions the Council of Trent, but that was at a much latter date…
And the canon was ratified at that time (1500s) because of the spread of protestantism.
 
I am not a scholar of Biblical archeology or anything like that, and obviously, this problem doesn’t unsettle me as it does you. But there are some glaring errors in his claims which have little to do with scholarship. First, however, he cites that the Deutero-Canonical writings were written in Greek, and therefore not the language of the people. Well, unless I have a strange and rare mental disorder that distorts my sense of time and memory: the gospels were written in Greek. By his reasoning we should throw them away also.

He claims they are obvious human writing, not aided by the Holy Spirit. By what power does he write his critique? If he is not inspired by that same holy spirit, then his own writing by his own standards becomes suspect as untruthful. He has to find more than an absence of correspondence, because the first canon is God’s revelation and therefore infinite, we can never know by our failure to find correspondence if we have exhausted infinity. On the other hand, if an inspired author had denounced one of the books he calls apocryphal, then perhaps we would have semblance of proof in direct proportion to the discernability of the supposed denoncement. When you try and count to infinity, well, there is always one more number in front of you. Therefore, in the absence of denouncement by the holy spirit, there always remains the possibility he is missing a correspondence between a first canon and a second canon book.

He also says that those closest to the originals omitted them, so that a future council should have no power to include them. Again, by his own reasoning, he should see clearly that that so- called later council is yet closer to the originals than he is. If that is so, if they are closer to the originals than your friend is, how does he privilege himself with the power to remove what was decided prior to him? It appears that he is accusing himself of the same error as the Council of Trent. If he agrees with you on this point then he is tacitly advocating for the Council’s decisive power and you should at that moment invite him to become Catholic.

Lastly, he does not understand purgatory. It is not a permanent place. One does not circumvent Christ by going there. Rather than taking away from the redemptive power of Jesus’ salvation, it rather shows an abundance of his mercy.
 
The majority of the apocrytha contains many major flaws in style and organization and are identifiable as obvious human writing that was NOT aided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If he knew Greek he’d know that the Apostle John wrote very poorly as well, so this point is irrelevant. There are historical and geographical errors.I believe this has to do with Judith, and the contradictions contained within it. Those are dealt with easily by appealing to it as a parable instead of actual history. While they are Old Testament in nature, they were written in Greek. Why is this important? Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the language of the people. *Irrelevant, considering the Jews changed languages by the time of Christ, and also irrelevant on the basis of the fact that there are Hebrew and Aramaic copies of some of the books as well.*The plan of salvation runs the Old Testament, but is not evident in the apocrythal books. There are absolutely no messianic (predictions of the coming of Christ) in the apocrytha. Obviously going back to number 5 because salvation does not come without Jesus Christ. Actually, the book of Wisdom contains a rather explicit prophecy of Christ’s destruction, and the wisdom books of the Deuterocanon deal with overviews of salvation history quite often. Not to mention not every book in the canon of the OT that he accepts directly relates to salvation history except when it comes to relating how God helped the Jews overcome their enemies (Maccabees, Judith, Esther.) Apocrytha makes no claim to divine inspiration. This is one of the strongest arguments AGAINST their validity. If this was the case, the author(s) should’ve made a specific reference to being inspired by God.Neither do Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Ruth. Apocrytha was never included in the original Hebrew canon. Since those who were the closest to the originals omitted them from the canon, how is it possible for a council or person to later make a determination that they should be included, especially when the claim is made over 100 years later? Correction: it was not included in the final Jewish canon, which postdates the transferal of the covenant from the Jews to the Christians. Prior to that it had been very familiar to them, as evinced by… well, look at the list of citations and allusions the others provided. Philo never referred to them. Even when quoting reference OUTSIDE of scripture, these books are NEVER mentioned. This man was a scholar of his day (20 BC – 40 AD) and his omissions of these books are another powerful argument against the apocrytha. An argument from silence is a logical fallacy. He can’t infer anything from that but that Philo didn’t mention them.
 
Jerome never mentioned them either. He is regarded as a church father by the Roman Catholics and given authority because he translated the Vulgate (first recognized catholic scriptures). His omission is another powerful argument that, since they were not part of the Vulgate, that they’re not canonical Jerome had his objections, but when the Pope told him to put them in he did. The fact that he had objections shows that Christians of that era generally accepted those books. Spiritual level in the apocrytha is low. Most feel the apocrytha did not feed the “heart” as does scripture. Since the Holy Spirit speaks through scripture, the Holy Spirit will not speak through the heart through false scriptures. The lack of the “inner voice of the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:13-16) is another reason for rejection of the apocrytha. Irrelevant argument from a subjective standard not prescribed by Scripture in the first place. Of course, maybe it’s just that, from a literary standpoint, they sound more Greek than old-school Hebrew. I noticed the style difference when I first read them as well. Apocrytha implies doctrine contrary to scripture. Roman Catholics find proof for some of their doctrine in the apocrytha. This includes purgatory and prayers for the dead. Well, of course. This is circular logic, i.e. the Deuterocanon isn’t inspired because the inspired books don’t teach what it does. But if it is inspired, then the Bible actually does teach these things. This is one of those issues where, if a Protestant believes a book to be Biblical, they will try to work out the conundrum. However, they don’t attempt the same thing with the Deuterocanon because they don’t believe it’s inspired. Many of the earlier books of the OT don’t teach an afterlife either, but we know that’s just because God’s revelation to them was progressive. Apocrytha was not consider part of the canon until AD 1546 at the Council of Trent. Even when the apocrytha was added, the vote was split within the body of the council. It wasn’t commanded as a dogma for belief until Trent, but it was in common use as early as… well, the apostles refer to them and so do the early fathers, and there are lists of the canon extant from earlier times that contain them as well. This is one of those issues where something is held to for longer than it’s been a dogma, like the Assumption. Many early Christians profess belief in it, but the Church didn’t require anyone to believe it until much later. While the apocrytha is still part of the Roman Catholic bible and regularly printed in it, many Catholics today do not accept them with much authority And they have no authority. Something doesn’t become inspired because it’s recognized as inspired. It either is or it isn’t. Concerning purgatory, the intermediate place where souls are placed so they can still be reconned with God for a chance in heaven. If this were true, then this automatically makes the crucifiction and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ in vain. Why in vain? Because the purgatory theory states that to get into heaven, there’s still 1 more chance after this life, that’s in purgatory. Jesus Christ stated in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.” This verse alone contradicts the purpose of purgatory because Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to spend eternity in the presence of God. This is only one of MANY examples referred to that shows that purgatory is NOT an option as it takes away from the redemptive message and plan of God." It’s no second chance, for all that happens in Purgatory is that people who are faithful Christians when they die are punished for their sins. In other words, the only way to get into Purgatory is through Jesus! This has to deal with differences in how salvation is seen to be applied in Protestant and Catholic theology though, so this might open up another can of worms.
 
At the time of Jesus there was a Hebrew version of the old Testament and a Greek version. The Greek version called the Septuagint included the Deuterocanonicals. Jesus quoted from both versions. Bible scholars are able to determine which version Jesus quoted from and more often he quoted from the Greek Septuagint. So if Jesus quoted from the Septuagint which contains those books that’s good enough for me.👍
 
“It’s not the Catholics who put them in, but the Protestants who took them out”. Crazy thing about this is that it was a vast minority of Catholics who even voted to put them in, thus they were kept out, not because of the protestants, but because of INCONSISTENCIES. I have yet to read any responses on Giggles that actually answer the questions that were posed to her. Where’s the biblical support that Jesus had NO half brothers or sisters??? Also, who said that Jesus gave Mary to John? Last I checked, Jesus gave Mary to his half brother James (John 19:25 to the end). The reason why we KNOW that Jesus left Mary to his half brother is because James is the ONLY disciple who lived his whole life and died a NATURAL death. ALL the other disciples were martyred, but James died a NATURAL death. Why? Because James was the ONLY disciple who stayed with Jesus all the way to the end. The rest of the disciples ran in fear. This isn’t a “protestant myth/belief” or anything else, but rather a biblical FACT!!! I don’t expect anyone to respond to this with factual information considering most Catholics don’t even have pertinent information concerning the Council or why the apocrytha was not voted on even by a MAJORITY by the Council, much less by protestants.
 
will39micah said:
“It’s not the Catholics who put them in, but the Protestants who took them out”. Crazy thing about this is that it was a vast minority of Catholics who even voted to put them in, thus they were kept out, not because of the protestants, but because of INCONSISTENCIES. I have yet to read any responses on Giggles that actually answer the questions that were posed to her. Where’s the biblical support that Jesus had NO half brothers or sisters??? Also, who said that Jesus gave Mary to John? Last I checked, Jesus gave Mary to his half brother James (John 19:25 to the end). The reason why we KNOW that Jesus left Mary to his half brother is because James is the ONLY disciple who lived his whole life and died a NATURAL death. ALL the other disciples were martyred, but James died a NATURAL death. Why? Because James was the ONLY disciple who stayed with Jesus all the way to the end. The rest of the disciples ran in fear. This isn’t a “protestant myth/belief” or anything else, but rather a biblical FACT!!! I don’t expect anyone to respond to this with factual information considering most Catholics don’t even have pertinent information concerning the Council or why the apocrytha was not voted on even by a MAJORITY by the Council, much less by protestants.
Click to expand...
Actually it was a majority vote, because many in the Council abstained from casting a vote. Ultimately it came down to a 44% majority due to their abstention. It was an open issue up until that time, but the Deuterocanonical books were held in certain esteem, if not always considered inspired, for the entire history of the Church. It’s true (and actually, you helped me learn this) that there was a plurality of positions before the Council and all throughout Christian history, but I’m already familiar with such a thing happening to begin with, seeing as one is allowed to hold to either Thomism or Molinism and the Church still hasn’t defined either. Although I wish they would! The Church generally doesn’t go out of its way to be dogmatic unless its general consensus is attacked in some significant way. It’s true that some of the most learned scholars there had sympathies with the Protestant scholarship, but they also tended to deny that Tradition was an equal authority to Scripture… which isn’t orthodox in our system. It’s also interesting to find that Judas’ successor was chosen by a method akin to the modern-day flipping of a coin, yet that decision was considered made by the Holy Spirit infallibly as well. We believe in meticulous providence, so what ever was the outcome - underwhelming as the votes may be - it was God’s will.

Regarding the issue of Jesus’ family, the simple fact is that the Greek reading can validly be considered a reference to cousins and other distant kin (or in fact Joseph’s children from a previous marriage) due to the fact that in their cultural and linguistic milieu the term used - along with it’s Hebrew and Aramaic brethren 😛 - can actually mean that. So really this is a matter of which interpretations you or your denomination prefer and is not an actual clincher.

Also, the verses you referenced refer to Jesus giving Mary to the disciple whom He loved. The writer of the book specifically states that he was that disciple.

John 19:26-27 “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”

John 21:20-24 “Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who had been reclining at table close to him and had said, ‘Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?’ When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, what about this man?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!’ So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?’ This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top