T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
I like the part of the woman personified as Jerusalem.
It actually is a very beautiful book.
It actually is a very beautiful book.
Norman Geisler on why Deuterocanonical books are not scripture
- Status
J
JSRG
Guest
It might be just me, but it seems to be a bit in poor form to post a thread devoted to critiquing Norman Geisler’s argument on the same day as his death.
po18guy
Well-known member
Q: Why are you studying those who have zero authority for making their false claims? Just because someone says something; just because they have a book published, does in no way indicate that they merit our attention. This man insults the pious Jews who wrote, copied and used these books long before Christ.
Ever see the original Wizard of Oz? “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
Ditto.
Ever see the original Wizard of Oz? “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
Ditto.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord,
and let perpetual light shine upon him.
May he rest in peace.
and let perpetual light shine upon him.
May he rest in peace.
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
Interestingly that verse you just quoted comes from the same book, 2(4) Esdras 2:34-35, which is one of his arguments. It is kind of ironic the book he says has a verse denouncing prayers for the dead( which I don’t see it doing), also has a verse we use as one of the most popular prayers for the dead in liturgy.
Lol ironically the requiem prayer comes from 2(4) Esdras 2:34-35.
Therefore I say to you, O nations that hear and understand, “Wait for your shepherd; he will give you everlasting rest, because he who will come at the end of the age is close at hand. Be ready for the rewards of the kingdom, because perpetual light will shine on you forevermore.
2 Esdras 2:34-35 NRSV-CI
Eternal rest grant unto them oh Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them
I had no idea he passed. This was just a terrible coincidence.
Last edited:
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
It wouldn’t be a New Testament book because , it is Jewish in nature, as in written by a Jew( except chap 1-2 and 15-16 which many say were later Christian additions) and also it purports to be an account of Ezra, thus this wouldn’t be a New Testament writing.
W
Wesrock
Guest
That seems to be a problem, though. If it is a Jewish work written in the Christian Era, it doesn’t seem proper to consider it scripture at all. Shouldn’t all works at this point be of Christian and of apostolic origin (in some way)?Wesrock:
It wouldn’t be a New Testament book because , it is Jewish in nature, as in written by a Jew( except chap 1-2 and 15-16 which many say were later Christian additions) and also it purports to be an account of Ezra, thus this wouldn’t be a New Testament writing.
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
There’s been arguments that a few books, I think even the book of Wisdom is said by some historians to be written later.( Even the Muratorian Fragment names Wisdom of Solomon as a New Testament book).
There’s a difference between secular historical dating and faith. Otherwise a lot of the books in the Bible could fall into this same trap.
For example, most historians say Isaiah was a tripartate work that spanned a few centuries.
It isn’t necessarily when or who wrote it but that the author was under divine inspiration while writing it.
There’s a difference between secular historical dating and faith. Otherwise a lot of the books in the Bible could fall into this same trap.
For example, most historians say Isaiah was a tripartate work that spanned a few centuries.
It isn’t necessarily when or who wrote it but that the author was under divine inspiration while writing it.
Last edited:
D
De_Maria
Guest
I’ve read all of the canonical books, I’ve seen no claim in any of them that they are inspired. So, I call bullchips on that one.
Then why did they go to the trouble of translating the Septuagint? It wasn’t Christians who made that version. It was Jews.
Here’s part of the history:
A writer, who calls himself Aristeas, says that when Ptolemy Philadelphus was engaged in the formation of the Alexandrian Library, he was advised by Demetrius Phalereus to procure a translation of the sacred books of the Jews. …
If they were considered “sacred”, then, in my opinion, they were considered inspired.
Whether they did so or not, we go by what the Catholic Church Teaches.
That has been debunked too many times. I don’t know why anyone takes this seriously. St. Jerome explained that he was simply retelling what the Jews had said to him. Not that he believed what they had said.
cont’d
D
De_Maria
Guest
cont’d
105 so no one shall ever pray for another on that day, neither shall any one lay a burden on another; for then every one shall bear his own righteousness and unrighteousness."
If you read the Chapter, you will see what the words, “on that day” mean. The entire chapter is about the coming of the day of Judgment. On that day, no one shall pray for another. That day doesn’t come until the end. The mere fact that this is mentioned means that we may pray one for another and to the Saints in heaven, UNTIL THAT DAY COMES.
Anyway, I hope that helps.
True. But if that means that He did not consider the Deuterocanonicals inspired, then He forgot to inform the Apostles. See Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament
What does that mean? Did the Apostles ever say, “Hey, only these books of the Bible are inspired”? No. But they did quote from them. See above, answer to #5.
More bullchips. Let’s look at what this says:
105 so no one shall ever pray for another on that day, neither shall any one lay a burden on another; for then every one shall bear his own righteousness and unrighteousness."
If you read the Chapter, you will see what the words, “on that day” mean. The entire chapter is about the coming of the day of Judgment. On that day, no one shall pray for another. That day doesn’t come until the end. The mere fact that this is mentioned means that we may pray one for another and to the Saints in heaven, UNTIL THAT DAY COMES.
As shown, no contradiction there.
On the contrary, these show what the pre-Christian Jews were doing.
Anyway, I hope that helps.
E
esieffe
Guest
https://www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/why-orthodox-bible-is-different-from-catholic.php
Eastern Orthodox Church has no universally-approved Biblical canon
Adding some spice to the soup!
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
I kind of prefer their way of thinking.
Having this set in stone canon is such a Protestant innovation.
E
esieffe
Guest
LOL, I agree. And no statement one way or another means you are free to explore etc.
Last edited:
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
Well it’s kind of like that’s how the Church was before the Protestants made the canon such an issue. Like before, 1(3) Esdras, 2(4) Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh were printed in the Vulgate and noone batted an eye about it. Thus formally they weren’t part of the Canon but they were still commonly printed. Then Trent said we have to set it straight once and for all because the Protestants were rejecting books. And they did. Which is fine. The three texts were put in the appendix of the Clementine Vulgate but are omitted from the Nova Vulgate thus many Catholics now are unaware of their existence.
There was nothing wrong with them being in the Bible for historical and traditional reasons.
So really this is just another thing Protestants ruined for us.
There was nothing wrong with them being in the Bible for historical and traditional reasons.
So really this is just another thing Protestants ruined for us.
Last edited:
- Status