Praying for the dead

[Canto]

This is very long but I felt the need to reply.
I was thinking of starting another thread but as it realted (i.e. Maccabees) I though I’d post it here.

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

**-The council of Rome (382 AD) produced the list we have today – Pope Damascus **-The same canon was reaffirmed at the council of Hippo (393 AD)
-The canon was also reaffirmed at the council of Carthage (397) and…
-The council of Carthage (419)
-The council of Nicaea II (787)
-The council of Florence (1441)
-The council of Trent (1545-1563)
-Vatican council I (1869-1870)
-Vatican council II (1962-1965) for example

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

-Manuscripts of all the deuterocanon books have been found in Hebrew except one from memory
-Some parts of the protocanon were written in Aramaic
-The entire New Testament (aside from the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew) was written in Greek
-Most Jews at the time of Christ spoke Aramaic or Greek even those in Jerusalem
-Jesus mostly spoke Aramaic though he new Hebrew
-Greek inscriptions have been found in ancient synagogues in the Holy Land

**-The Bible doesn’t say that only books in Hebrew are canonical **

c.73 AD the Zealots made a last stand but were overpowered by the Romans who broke into their synagogue (Masada) In the ruins of the synagogue were chapters (scrolls) of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew

St. Francis de Sales said in his famous book “The Catholic Controversy”:

“I say the same to you about Ecclesiasticus, which S. Jerome had and found in Hebrew, as he says in his preface on the books of Solomon. Since, then, you reject these books written in Hebrew or Chaldaic equally with the others which are not written in one of these languages, you will have to find another pretext than that which you have alleged for striking out these books from the canon.” (The Catholic Controversy, p. 97)

quote from catholicapologetics.net/apocrypha_books__in_the_hebrew.htm

1. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

**-Where in the Bible does it say that a writer has to claim inspiration for their work to be canonical? **-Where does it say they can’t be modest?
-Do all the protocanon writers claim inspiration?
-What about the New Testament?
-Paul says he “thinks” he has the Spirit of God c.f. 1 Cor 7:40

 

[Canto]

1. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

-They never considered the New Testament scripture
-Some did consider the deuterocanon scripture though
-They were included in the Septuagint (LXX) translation
-Greek speaking Jews used them
-Ethiopian Jews use them even to this day in their cannon
-At the time of Christ there was no official set canon of Jewish scripture
-The Sadducees only accepted the Law for example (Pentateuch) so should we give Psalms the boot etc

As St. Francis de Sales said:

As to your saying that these books which you call apocryphal are not received by the Jew, you say nothing new or important. S. Augustine loudly exclaims: “It is the Catholic Church which holds the Books of Machabees as Canonical, but not the Jews.” Thank God, we are not Jews, we are Catholics. Show me from Scripture that the Christian Church has not as much power to give authority to the sacred books as the Mosaic may have had. There is not in this either Scripture or reason to show for it. (The Catholic Controversy, p. 99)

Quote from geocities.com/hammer348/apocrypha.html

1. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

-**The Didache a first century Christian document quotes them - c70 AD I believe **
-Clement I of Rome quoted from them for example her calls Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) “Scripture” (The Instructor, I:8)
-Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian for example all quote from Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees (I and II) and Daniel ‘additions’ for example in their writings

• Hippolytus cites the book of Baruch as Scripture (Against the Noetus, 2)
• Origen defended the canonicity of Susanna [Daniel 13], Bel and the Dragon [Daniel 14], the prayers of Azarias [Daniel 3] and the hymn of praise of the three youths in the fiery furnace [Daniel 3] in his Epistle to Julius Africanus around the year 254.
  -In the year 248 A.D., Origen cited the book of Sirach 21:28 as Scripture. (Against Celsus,7:12)

The following citation from Origen citing the Book of Maccabees as Scripture shows that it was accepted at that time (230 A.D.):

“But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ’ ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.’[2 Maccabees 7:28]”, (Fundamental Principles,2:2)

St. Cyprian in 252-258 A.D., cites the books of Tobit (Treatise 4,32), Sirach (Treatise 7,9), and the story of the three youths in Daniel 3:37-43 (Testimonies, 20. See also Treatise 4,8.), as Scripture several times in his writings.

 

[Canto]

1. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

-How do you know what the Canonical Scripture is?
-You may argue Jews for the OT but what about the NT
-Who gave us the NT canon and if the Holy Spirit to whom?

• What do you mean by fabulous statements – Jonah in the belly of a whale, is that a fabulous statement?
• Which contradict scripture?

If we check both books, we can locate one time that Antiochus Epiphanes died . But, as it is, there were several Kings in the Maccabees with the title of “Antiochus.” Epiphanes was the fourth one to take the name of Antiochus.

First and Second books of Samuel and First Chronicles as well, for in them we find four very different accounts of how King Saul Died. First Samuel (31:4) says that Saul “Took a Sword, and Fell upon it”. Were as Second Samuel (1:2-10) says Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite. Later in Second Samuel (21:12) we read that Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa. then we read in First Chronicles (10:13-14) that Saul was slain by God.

And what of two different accounts of the death of Aaron? The Book of Numbers (33:38) tells us that he died on Mt. Hor, and the Book of Deuteronomy (10:6) tells us that Aaron died in Mosera.

What about the two different accounts of the death of Sisera in the book of Judges? In chapter four (verse 21) Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him and yet chapter five (verses 25-27) tells us that Sisera was standing. does this mean that we must now also discard the sacred this book as well?

Last, we have the interesting case of the death of Ahaziah, Second Kings (9:27) tells us that Jehu shot Ahaziah near Ibleam. Ahaziah fled to Meggido and died there. and in Second Chronicles (22:9) Ahaziah was found hiding in Samaria, brought to Jehu, and put to death. Do we now discard these two sacred books as well?

Another example of how throughout the scriptures God prohibits killing (Ex. 20:13, Dt. 5:17, Mk. 10:19, Lk. 18:20, Ro. 13:9, Ja. 2:11) and yet in many places God actually orders killing (Ex. 32:27, Dt. 7:2, 13:15, 20:1-18) in Second Kings (19:35) we read that An angel of the Lord slaughters 185,000 men. Does this mean we must now reject Exodus and Deuteronomy as well?

Parts from catholicapologetics.net/apolo_157.htm

As for oftentimes claims by Protestants of errors in the Deuterocanon

-These errors seem the like sort of errors some atheists use against the Protocanon and New Testament
-The books don’t claim to be giving the reader a lesson in Renascence Art or Quantum Physics or whatever
-The fundamental truths are there, to paraphrase, he who has eyes to see let him see
-Mark gets the name of the Chief Priest wrong in his Gospel and actually lists his son as the Chief Priest
-Jesus says the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, but it is not
-This ‘error’ does not take away from the meaning of the parable
-Jesus is not giving us a lesson in horticulture
**-In the Synoptic Gospels (Mt, Mk, Lk) Jesus is tried before the whole Sanhedrin yet in John He is subject in private with Annas and Caiaphas **

 

[Canto]

1. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

-Says who?
-When Jesus died do you think anyone prayed for him?
-Acts 9:37,40 has Peter praying for a dead woman.
-Sinless perfection ??? If you are referring to Pelagianism the Church has rejected this heresy
-See above

8 The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.

With what authority do you makes these claims?

Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife’s iniquity.

Context
14 The fear of God hath set itself above all things:
15 Blessed is the man, to whom it is given to have the fear of God: he that holdeth it, to whom shall he be likened?
16 The fear of God is the beginning of his love: and the beginning of faith is to be fast joined unto it.
17 The sadness of the heart is every plague: and the wickedness of a woman is all evil.
18 And a man will choose any plague, but the plague of the heart:
19 And any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman:
20 And any affliction, but the affliction from them that hate him:
21 And any revenge, but the revenge of enemies.
22 There is no head worse than the head of a serpent:
23 And there is no anger above the anger of a woman. It will be more agreeable to abide with a lion and a dragon, than to dwell with a wicked woman.

Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.

The woman was named Eve; she was the first human to commit sin; as her sin directly led to Adam’s, it can be said that because of her, “we all die.” See Genesis 3.6

 

[Canto]

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.

Context: A son ill taught is the confusion of the father: and a foolish daughter shall be to his loss.

Let us concentrate first on the Sirach passage. Has our opponent rightly understood this passage? How are we to understand it? Let it be first be said that the Book of Sirach has two names. One is Sirach, the other is Ecclesiasticus. Why Ecclesiaticus? Ecclesiaticus means “Book of the Church”! And where did it get that name? It is a historical fact that this book was used for the catechumens who desired to enter the Church. It was used so much by the early Christians in their teaching that it got this nickname “book of the Church.” So you can see it was widely used by the first Christians, the one who were trained by the Apostle’s themselves.

Now on to understanding what is meant by “the birth of a daughter is a loss.” A comparison of different translations gives us a little insight. You’ve read the RSV version.
Now from the New Jerusalem Bible:
“It is a disgrace to have fathered a badly brought–up son, but the birth of any daughter is a loss.”

The New American Bible:
“An unruly child is a disgrace to its father; if it be a daughter she brings him to poverty.”

The King James:
An evil nurtured son is the dishonour of his father that begat him: and a [foolish] daughter is born to his loss.”

With these parallel verses we can begin to see what Ben Sirach meant when he wrote this. Not that “any” daughter is a “loss”, but that a “foolish” one will bring him to poverty. The Jerome Biblical commentary says this “On Laziness and Foolishness (22:1-18 ). Sirach digresses and concentrates on the lot of the fool. In a series of loosely connected maxims he gives various consequences of folly and counsels the proper course of action in dealing with the fool. Finally, he returns to his original theme by contrasting the constancy of the sage with the instability of the fool. 3 . poverty: An unruly daughter brings financial loss as well as disgrace; no one will agree to marry her, and she must be supported at home.” Now this makes much sense especially when compared to the other things Sirach wrote concerning daughters.

This part from canapologetics.net/sirach.html

 

[Canto]

9 It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
10 The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.

In 1 Samuel, chapter 28, Saul has recourse to a witch for help, this witch actually brings back the spirit of the prophet Samuel. through the witch, Samuel prophases the death of Saul’s two sons, and his defeat hand of the Philistines. Does that mean that the book was teaching “immoral practices,” such as as the use of witchcraft and magical incantation? Or how about where Saul killed himself with his own sword in 1 Samuel, chapter 31? What about King David’s adultery with Bathsheba and the subsequent arranged Murder of her husband Uriah in 2 Samuel Chapters 11,12? In I Kings chapter 11 we find that Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. His wives turned away his heart away from the true God, his wives turned away his heart after other gods such as “Ashtoreth” the goddess of the “Zidonians”, and “Milcom” the abomination of the Ammonites. In Hosea ( 1:2) God instructs Hosea to “take a wife of harlotry”.

The point is, that throughout the Old Testament, immoral practices are to be found. They aren’t to be found in the Deuterocanonical books alone. But, of course, this does not mean that simply because they are in the Bible the books are promoting such practices as suicide, recourse to witches, Murder, adultery, Idolatry and so forth.

From catholicapologetics.net/apolo_157.htm

• **Silent Period: **Maccabees (1M 9:27) does say “…since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them”
• It does not mean that prophets would never re-appear at some stage c.f. 1M 4:46, 1M 14:41, 2M 15:11-16 for example C.f. also 1 Sm, 3:1, Lm. 2:9, Ps 74:9
• It does not mean that writing ceased

11 Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus

-He rejected the NT as inspired did he not
-The Jews, mostly, rejected Jesus and -subsequently the New Testament
Ethiopian Jews still used them today
**-The Sadducees only accepted the Law **

-Does your bible has 24 books or does it have the Catholic canon minus the deuterocanon
-If we should follow the Jews why don’t Christina Bibles follow the Jewish ordering etc?

12 The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

News to me. The deuterocanonical books were found among the dead sea scrolls

13 The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

-Some say the council was a school
-Some say the canon was not discussed
-Some day it was and they rejected the entire New Testament
-Some say they rejected the Deuterocanon as it was too Messianic
-Some say they wrote nothing down but transmitted decisions orally
-Some say they had no authority to make a canon binding for all of Judaism
-Some say the school/council never even happened

 

[Canto]

14 Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.’’

-With what authority ?
-Marcion used only 10 Pauline Epistles and a condensed Luke
-Athanasius, included Baruch 326 AD
-Cyril, included Baruch but excluded Revelation 348 AD
-Some included Hermas some rejected Revelation

The following citation from Origen citing the Book of Maccabees as Scripture shows that it was accepted at that time (230 A.D.):

“But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ’ ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.’[2 Maccabees 7:28]”, (Fundamental Principles,2:2)

15 Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.

The same Jerome who said “I speak with the successor of the fisherman and disciple of the cross. I, who follow none but Christ as first, am joined in communion with your holiness, that is with the see of Peter. On this rock I know the Church was built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Whoever is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the deluge comes…Whoever does not gather with you scatters for whoever does not belong to Christ is of Antichrist.”

-Jerome was never the Pope and could never speak infallibly on faith and morals
-When the decision was made he accept the decisions of the Church

What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? . . . I was not relating my own personal views [when I wrote the objections of the Jews to the longer form of Daniel in my introduction], but rather the remarks that [the Jews] are wont to make against us [Christians who accept the longer form of Daniel], (Against Rufinius, 11:33).

In the above quote we see Jerome defending his uses of the Deuterocanonical parts of Daniel and defending the Church

“…does not the scripture say…” (epistle 108 404 AD – Jerome quoting Ecclesiasticus)

“…remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ…” (Jerome epistle 31:2 384 AD)

“Do you expect me to explain the purposes and plans of God? The book of Wisdom gives an answer to your foolish questions… and in the same place ‘In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God.’ You will perhaps deny the authority of this book…” (Jerome against the Pelagians)

 

[Canto]

16 The terms “protocanonical” and “deuterocanonical” are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.

-There are New Testament Deuterocanon books such as Revelation
-Luther questioned some New Testament books such as Revelation and called James an epistle of straw
-Deuterocanon means it took a tad longer to ascertain their canonicity – this does not mean they are less valid
-Some people take a little longer than others to recognise Christ

17 Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as “the infallible and authentic Bible.” Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the “Apocrypha” (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.

-Infallible – is that a direct quote?
-The Vulgate if free of doctrinal and moral error – not necessarily the most accurate translation ever – though I personally believe you won’t find a more accurate translation than the Nova Vulgate
**-Jerome’s Vulgate included the Deuterocanon – complete **

18 Cyril (born about A.D. 315) – “Read the divine Scriptures – namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated” (the Septuagint)
19 The apocrypha wasn’t included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century

-Says who?
-We don’t have the original Septuagint

1. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as “God’s organization”, why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the “Holy See” have known?

There was much debate in formulating the canon. When it was finally officially decreed by the Pope at the council of Rome it has not since changed

Luther questioned Revelation and called James and epistle of straw

1. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?

-Which canons circulated
-The Authorised canon remained the same

1. If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?

Some councils are local dealing with local issues
These councils were under the authority of Rome

1. Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon”, does this not prove that Rome had no direct (name removed by moderator)ut or initiative in determining the canon.

No

1. Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the “orthodox church”, how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?

These councils were councils of the Catholic Church

 

[Canto]

1. If the Catholic church, “by her own inherent God given power and authority” gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

She did get it right
Deuterocanon questioned by Protestants such as Luther so reinforced by Trent

1. Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose “church authority” shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?

We should believe the Catholic Church

1. Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

The Canon of the Bible

1. Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from “written” (scripture)?

Who says it has to differ

1. If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which “apostolic tradition” is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?

The Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth
Apostolic Tradtion – the spoken Word of God (as opposed to the Written Word) is protected from Chinese whispers by the Holy Spirit
Not by private interpretation says St Peter

1. Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?

God doesn’t believe in sola scriptura
The Church with Sacred Tradition and guided by the Holy Spirit came up with the Christian Cannon

1. If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: “the church is the pillar and foundation of truth” means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?

What major doctrinal differences are there aside from the Pope?

Some Protestants believe in Bapitsim by full immersion, some by partial, some with no water, some don’t believe in baptism at all – yet Christ says unless born of water and spirit no life – so this is not some little quibble

The Popes/Church have never ever ever made doctrinal or theological errors

1. If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?

c.f. above bit

 

[Canto]

1. Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that “without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone”. These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a “drink of milk and honey” then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these “observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law”. Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the “apostolic tradition” was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don’t the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?

tradition (customs) or Tradition (doctrine)

The sign of the cross is made on the chest and also on the forehead, both ways are used at Mass

 

[Canto]

Ecclesiasticus aka Sirach

Influence in the Jewish liturgy

Ben Sira was used as the basis for two important parts of the Jewish liturgy. In the Mahzor (High Holy day prayer book), a medieval Jewish poet used Ben Sira as the basis for a poem, KeOhel HaNimtah, in the Yom Kippur* musaf *(“additional”) service. Recent scholarship indicates that it formed the basis of the most important of all Jewish prayers, the Amidah. Ben Sira apparently provides the vocabulary and framework for many of the Amidah’s blessings. Many rabbis quoted Ben Sira as an authoritative work during the three centuries before the advent of Yavneh.

In the New Testament
Some people claim that there are several allusions to the book of Sirach in the New testament. These include The magnificat in Luke 1:52 following Sirach 10:14, the description of the seed in Mark 4:5,16-17 following Sirach 40:15, and Christ’s statement in 7:16,20 following Sirach 27:6.[2]

The distinguished patristic scholar Henry Chadwick has claimed that in Matthew 11:28 Jesus was directly quoting Sirach 51:27.[3]

nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ben-Sira

 

[tobinatorstark]

Maccabbes is not part of the inspired canon of scripture and therefore has no authority. Along with the rest of the Apocrypha, it was not accepted as inspired by the Jewish community that wrote them. They were not accepted by Jesus and the apostles who never quoted them in the NT. As far as Matt 12:32 the text is not speaking about forgiveness in the next life after suffering for sins but the fact that there will be no forgiveness for this sin in "the world to come. I Cor 3:15 Here Paul is speaking of believers who will one day be given a wage for their service to Christ. The text says nothing about believers suffering the temporal consequence for their sin in purgatory.

Machabees is part of the inspired canon. The canon that the Catholics use and accept was established in 397 at the Council of Carthage. The canon was standard for many years and when people started to break away from the Catholic Church, they didn’t care for these books. The 7 books not included in the Protestant Bible are indeed quoted in the Bible such as the book of Wisdom. Also books that Catholics consider Apocrypha are also quoted, like the book of Enoch in the Jude. Just because it isn’t in the Bible doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t inspired. There are books however that aren’t inspired though.

 

[tobinatorstark]

21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
   

   And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)

8 The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity. 

Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die. 

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.

9 It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
10 The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.

And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)

And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)

And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)

Your quotes of Ecclesiasticus are misquotes.

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 should read A son ill taught is the confusion of the father: and a foolish daughter shall be to his loss
Ecclesiasticus 25:19 should read And ally wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman:
Ecclesasticus 25:24 should read The wickedness of a woman changeth her face: and she darkeneth her countenance as a bear: and showeth it like sackcloth. In the midst of her neighbours,

Where did you get your source for saying there are 21 reasons that the Apocrypha is not inspired??? This past weekend at my Christ Renews his Parish weekend, one of the attendees was an Lutheran Minister. He knows all about the so called Apocrypha of Protestants. Even though they aren’t in the Protestant Bible, he still considers them inspired and accepts them for what they are. If he can, why can’t you???

 

[banjo]

ppasa316/firstmode,

I see that **Canto and tobinatorstark **have already done a good job of responding to your posts. I would only ask, from where did the “Reformers” get the authority to change the canon of Sacred Scripture?

 

[tobinatorstark]

ppasa316/firstmode,

I see that **Canto and tobinatorstark **have already done a good job of responding to your posts. I would only ask, from where did the “Reformers” get the authority to change the canon of Sacred Scripture?

I too would like to know. Hopefully logical source and documentation can be provided.

 

[ppasa316]

I too would like to know. Hopefully logical source and documentation can be provided.

Martin Luther, John Calvin and other Reformers rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha. Reformed churches followed the Westminister Confession of Faith which states " The Books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspirtation are not part of the canon of the scriptures and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God. Also it lacks the primary determining factor of canonicity: propheticity, that is the apocryphal books lack evidence that they were written by accredited prophets of God.It was never part of th Jewish Canon
Even noted Roman Catholic scholars during the Reformation period rejected the Apocrypha, such as Cardinal Cajetan . He wrote a Commentary on “All the Authentic Historical Books of the OT whcih excluded the Apocrypha”. Thanks
God Bless

 

[Canto]

Also it lacks the primary determining factor of canonicity: propheticity, that is the apocryphal books lack evidence that they were written by accredited prophets of God.It was never part of th Jewish Canon

Since when does a book of the Bible have to be written by a prophet?

How do you define an accredited prophet?

For some books of the OT we have not idea who wrote them

Maccabees has Chanukah, Ecclesiasticus was used as the basis for a poem, KeOhel HaNimtah, in the Yom Kippur musaf service, then there’s the Wisdom of Solomon - now doesn’t Jesus talk in the NT about hearing the wisdom of Solomon.

Some Jews do accept the Deutrocanon as part of their scripture and again they reject the entire NT - getting that wrong doesn’t bode well for their credentials.

The 1611 King James/Authorised Bible included the Deuterocanon and even cross referenced them with the NT

Even noted Roman Catholic scholars during the Reformation period rejected the Apocrypha, such as Cardinal Cajetan . He wrote a Commentary on “All the Authentic Historical Books of the OT whcih excluded the Apocrypha”. Thanks
God Bless

The words of Cardinal Cajetan are the opinions of one man and are not the words of the Magisterium. The Cardinal was also a strong oponent of Luther.

 

[Randy_Carson]

21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

Luther and the Canon

Recently, many Protestant apologists have been attempting to discredit the deuterocanonical books of the Bible by claiming that it would not be possible for Luther to delete books from a canon that had not been finalized

Gary Michuta, author of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger** provided the following in response to this issue: **

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to take attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

Even if something like the definition given at Trent happened before Luther, Luther would have rejected it as being in error and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of it any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter. After the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha (St. Jerome), there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not effect the authority of the definition given. Usually Ecumenical Councils met to address something that has disturbed the universal Church. By the end of the fourth century, Jerome’s views had caused trouble mainly in North Africa. Regardless of their solemnity these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was question by a bishop as to the canon and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. This is the first Papal decision on the canon There were a series of decrees attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas (266-523) that also reaffirmed the canon as well. By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that Pope Innocent I’s letter on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.” To this, we could add that there are about a dozen local and regional councils (not to mention popes) during this period who issued decrees that quoted the Deutero’s to confirm doctrine and with the formal introduction normally given to Scripture showing that the issue was largely settled and that bishops throughout the world were confident in appealing to these texts to quiet heresies.

Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decreed on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority it is just as authoritative as the rest.

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said,

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [Second Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 251).

So Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on do adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter has already been closed hundreds of years early. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.

 

[Randy_Carson]

21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

If the author’s use of Hebrew is required to prove divine inspiration, then your argument proves too much because the New Testament was written - by Jews for the most part - in Greek.

What is special about Hebrew?

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

How many of the NT books begin with “Thus sayeth the Lord…”?