Sacred Oral and Written Tradition

[AshleyBelle]

Of course it is. From what do you think the doctrine was formulated? Thin air?

There’s nothing in Scripture stating Mary’s bodily assumption, and much stating the doctrine of the Trinity.

Sigh…

It’s not scriptural; therefore, it need not be believed, and certainly, it should carry no penalty for rejection of the dogma, but alas, the church, by her self-proclaimed authority, condemns anyone who rejects it.

The church was "condemning" heretics who were trying to teach against the Tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity and assumption. These are long standing traditions of the church, and they are a crucial part of our faith because they help us understand the nature of Christ himself.
The church had to speak out against lies and deceptions. Would you rather that the church just split apart and had a "Catholics who believe in the marian doctrines" church, and "catholics who don't believe in the marian doctrines" church? Is that the unity Christ called for?

I still have yet to see anyone show me why every tenent of my faith needs to be speciffically sited in scripture. How do you know that the WORD of God is not contained in scripture, the church and tradition all combined? Where does scripture say the Word is only the scriptures?

 

[MerickOWA]

It’s not scriptural; therefore, it need not be believed, and certainly, it should carry no penalty for rejection of the dogma, but alas, the church, by her self-proclaimed authority, condemns anyone who rejects it.

Its not IN Scripture, but you have yet to prove that it CONTRADICTS Scripture.

If you really believe the “Trinity” is in the Bible, please quote the passage were Jesus referrers to God as “Trinity” or “three persons in one Godhead.” Historical evidence and fact show that this belief was NOT directly taught in the Scripture but something the Church believed because the Scripture didn’t contradict it and had many passages as well as oral Traditions which supported it.

There are many other interpretations of the passages which support the idea of Trinity. I believe Mormons would agree that the idea of Trinity is not directly taught in Scripture. This doesn’t, however, make their interpretations valid because the idea of Trinity becomes relegated to the status of something that “need not be believed.”

 

[justasking4]

cfrancis;4382923]“Its not based on any specific verse that says such and such but on the nature and power of the writings themselves.” It is, then, implied, according to your use of Jn 12; we should note that Jn 12 makes no mention of anything written. So, when you state “The books of the Bible themselves attest that they are Scripture” you really mean that in some writings, the Scriptural nature of said writings is implied. If Jn 12 is the best you have to offer to support the “self-attesting” nature of the books declared to be Scripture, then your questions of “what is the criteria [you] use for something to be ‘implicit’” are more relevant for you.

This “implicitedness” is based also on other things to.

OK, please provide your Scriptural support for this test of canonicity. As far as I know, SCripture makes no mention of what criteria must be met for a writing to be declared SCripture.

The Scriptures themselves don’t mention such a criteria. There are other means to determine if they are inspired or not.

You start with an extra-Biblical formula - the definition of the Trinity - and then go back to see if anything in Scripture supports the definition; do I understand you correctly?

I can use any formula so long as that formula can be supported by the Scriptures.

Or, you can agree that the Tradition of the definition of the Trinity grew out of a growing understanding of what was both explicit and implicit in SCripture and handed down by the Apostles.
Otherwise, there is nothing explicit in Scripture to support St Augustine’s definition.

i can agree with this.

The Church’s criteria - not mine - is the consistency of both Scriptural and Apostolic teaching.
What is your criteria for something to be “implicit”?

For something to be implicit would require some explicit statements in some form that such things are implicitedly true. Take the deity of Christ. He does not come out in His teachings and say “look at Me. I’m God” rather in His teachings and ministry He clearly demonstrates that He is God incarnate.

I think you missed a “not” in there somewhere.
Let’s use our discussion of determining what books are Scripture.
Is that determination inspired and therefore authoritative?

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

Here is the definition you provided:
“God’s whole and undivided essence belongs equally, simultaneously, and fully to each of the three persons of the Godhead.”

You and I agree there are Scripture passages we can use to support this definition, correct?

Yes
But just because we can use them doesn’t make our use of them correct. One need only look at those who deny the Trinity and use Scripture passages to support their position.

We would have to lay on the table all the verses and passages and see first how strong our case is. If someone comes and say that there is no evidence or there is counder evidence then we would need to examine that. For example Islam denies the Trinity not on biblical grounds but philosophical grounds.

Do you accept St Augustine’s definition of the Trinity based on your use of Scripture?

i think it can be sustained on Scripture. He was brillant man.

 

[AshleyBelle]

This “implicitedness” is based also on other things to.

The Scriptures themselves don’t mention such a criteria. There are other means to determine if they are inspired or not.

I can use any formula so long as that formula can be supported by the Scriptures.

i can agree with this.

For something to be implicit would require some explicit statements in some form that such things are implicitedly true. Take the deity of Christ. He does not come out in His teachings and say “look at Me. I’m God” rather in His teachings and ministry He clearly demonstrates that He is God incarnate.

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

We would have to lay on the table all the verses and passages and see first how strong our case is. If someone comes and say that there is no evidence or there is counder evidence then we would need to examine that. For example Islam denies the Trinity not on biblical grounds but philosophical grounds.

i think it can be sustained on Scripture. He was brillant man.

I believe tradition and the church are also sustained by scripture Christ was another brilliant man

 

[sandusky]

cfrancis:

Your position is that we must find our beliefs in the Bible, eg, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (“Because it’s an addition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; therefore, it will be rejected by God’s true Church”).

And yet, you stated the canon you believe to be Scripture is not found in Scripture; in fact, the majority of NT writings claim neither inspiration nor inerrancy.

If I follow your logic, I must look for the canon (as well as any test to applied to writings to determine their canonicity) in Scripture.

We have a canon of scripture, which I accept, so you can dispense with arguments concerning how it is we’ve come to have the canon that we have.

Moving on, the authority of scripture determines what is to be believed by the faithful.

Christ, Himself states that in Mk 7:6-13, in which, He begins with a quote Isaiah, in which it is stated that those who teach precepts that invalidate the word of God, worship God in vain.

Here’s another quote from Isaiah concerning the authority and preeminence of the revelation:**Isaiah 8:20

To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light in them.**If what’s being taught is not according to the testimony, it’s not binding on the faithful—the canon is the testimony, and therefore, it’s only what’s taught in the canon that’s binding.

Belief in the assumption of Mary, IMO, is, according to the Lord, “worshipping God in vain” (Mk 7:7).

 

[justasking4]

I believe tradition and the church are also sustained by scripture Christ was another brilliant man

He was the smartest man Who has ever lived…

 

[sandusky]

Its not IN Scripture, but you have yet to prove that it CONTRADICTS Scripture.

Here

 

[cfrancis]

This “implicitedness” is based also on other things to.

The Scriptures themselves don’t mention such a criteria. There are other means to determine if they are inspired or not.

Maybe, but none of them are Scriptural. The point being made is, in reference to the canon of Scripture, it is a Tradition not based on Scripture.

I can use any formula so long as that formula can be supported by the Scriptures.

except the canon of Scripture…

I stated:

Or, you can agree that the Tradition of the definition of the Trinity grew out of a growing understanding of what was both explicit and implicit in SCripture and handed down by the Apostles.

you replied:

i can agree with this.

Good! We can agree here! The Catholic Church, using Scripture (such as Rev 12) and Apostolic Tradition, presents the Assumption of Mary.
It appears you do not agree with the Church’s interpretation of Scripture on this point, which is a wholly separate issue from Tradition.

For something to be implicit would require some explicit statements in some form that such things are implicitedly true. Take the deity of Christ. He does not come out in His teachings and say “look at Me. I’m God” rather in His teachings and ministry He clearly demonstrates that He is God incarnate.

I must say you have confused me here.

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

OK, Here’s what you said:

Depends what you mean by Tradition and can the Tradition be supported by Scripture. Even if the Tradition can be supported by it that does *[not] **mean the Tradition itself is inspired-inerrant and has the same authority as Scripture.

• = I think you meant to add “not”

I then used the issue of the canon to help with this point:

Let’s use our discussion of determining what books are Scripture.
Is that determination inspired and therefore authoritative?

The declaration of the canon of the NT is not found in Scripture; it is a Tradition.
Is this declaration inspired and therefore authoritative?

We would have to lay on the table all the verses and passages and see first how strong our case is. If someone comes and say that there is no evidence or there is counder evidence then we would need to examine that.

Is the final word on this, then, whoever is able to most eloquently, forcefully, or persuasively present his point? Or is the deciding factor whose case contains the most Scripture quotes? What would be the deciding factor?

i think [Augustine’s definition of the Trinity] can be sustained on Scripture. He was brillant man.

You and I agree (for different reasons, though) on the implicit Scriptural support for this, but a Mormon, JW, Unitarian would not. What is the deciding factor?

 

[cfrancis]

We have a canon of scripture, which I accept, so you can dispense with arguments concerning how it is we’ve come to have the canon that we have.

I recognize your “white flag” and accept it. You accept - believe in - a core Christian belief not found in Scripture.

Moving on, the authority of scripture determines what is to be believed by the faithful.

Except for the canon of Scripture, in which you believe.

Christ, Himself states that in Mk 7:6-13, in which, He begins with a quote Isaiah, in which it is stated that those who teach precepts that invalidate the word of God, worship God in vain.

Let’s see what Mark says:
6 And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’
8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 “For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’;
11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

I trust in your intellectual honesty to admit that Christ was not condemning all tradition and to provide the Scripture references that support the use of Apostolic Tradition; I need not, then, take the time to do so.

I further trust your intellectual honesty to admit you are equating “the word of God” with “the written word of God” which limits and distorts the meaning of the text.

Here’s another quote from Isaiah concerning the authority and preeminence of the revelation:Isaiah 8:20

To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light in them.If what’s being taught is not according to the testimony, it’s not binding on the faithful—the canon is the testimony, and therefore, it’s only what’s taught in the canon that’s binding.

Again, I trust you to admit you are equating"this word" with “this written word” which is clearly neither stated nor implied by Is 8:20.
To take Is 8 as you wish us to, we must accept only the book of Isaiah, or, based upon the argument, the OT; but according to Is 8, the NT is out of the picture.

Belief in the assumption of Mary, IMO, is, according to the Lord, “worshipping God in vain” (Mk 7:7).

Better stated:

Belief in the assumption of Mary, IMO, is, according to Sandusky, “worshipping God in vain”

 

[justasking4]

cfrancis;4384289]
Originally Posted by justasking4
This “implicitedness” is based also on other things to.

The Scriptures themselves don’t mention such a criteria. There are other means to determine if they are inspired or not.

cfrancis
Maybe, but none of them are Scriptural. The point being made is, in reference to the canon of Scripture, it is a Tradition not based on Scripture.

The canon is based on the Scriptures being recognized as being inspired. If the Tradition is valid then we should use that as a support. For example since the names are not the gospels and there are some solid traditions that support who wrote them then we should go with that unless there is a counter tradition to is more compelling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I can use any formula so long as that formula can be supported by the Scriptures.
cfrancis
except the canon of Scripture…

The canon is a result of what books are inspired and not something that stands alone.

I stated:
Quote:
Or, you can agree that the Tradition of the definition of the Trinity grew out of a growing understanding of what was both explicit and implicit in SCripture and handed down by the Apostles.

you replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i can agree with this.

Good! We can agree here! The Catholic Church, using Scripture (such as Rev 12) and Apostolic Tradition, presents the Assumption of Mary.

Each “tradition” must stand on its own. Just because the church got it right on the canon of the NT does not automatically mean they got it right on the assumption of Mary. This fails because:
1- no support for it in Scripture
2- no historical support for it. Its mentioned centuries later
3- Its based on an a fictional gospel.

It appears you do not agree with the Church’s interpretation of Scripture on this point, which is a wholly separate issue from Tradition.

True. However it does demonstrate that the church can err. The standard that the Catholic church has set for itself is impossibly high since it can never be wrong on any matters of faith. Here is one such case that shows this is not the case at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
For something to be implicit would require some explicit statements in some form that such things are implicitedly true. Take the deity of Christ. He does not come out in His teachings and say “look at Me. I’m God” rather in His teachings and ministry He clearly demonstrates that He is God incarnate.

cfrancis
I must say you have confused me here.

i’m trying to show what something that is implicit such as the deity of Christ has solid support from the Scriptures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

OK, Here’s what you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Depends what you mean by Tradition and can the Tradition be supported by Scripture. Even if the Tradition can be supported by it that does [not*] mean the Tradition itself is inspired-inerrant and has the same authority as Scripture.

• = I think you meant to add “not”

I then used the issue of the canon to help with this point:

Quote:
Let’s use our discussion of determining what books are Scripture.
Is that determination inspired and therefore authoritative?

The declaration of the canon of the NT is not found in Scripture; it is a Tradition.
Is this declaration inspired and therefore authoritative?

No. The canon in and of itself is not inspired but the books that make up the canon are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
We would have to lay on the table all the verses and passages and see first how strong our case is. If someone comes and say that there is no evidence or there is counder evidence then we would need to examine that.

cfrancis
Is the final word on this, then, whoever is able to most eloquently, forcefully, or persuasively present his point? Or is the deciding factor whose case contains the most Scripture quotes? What would be the deciding factor?

The ability of each person to determine who has the better case. Which case incorporates more facts would decide. However, human nature being what it is is not always able to come to agree based on a number of factors not necessarily related to the issue. For example, i see Catholics believing things not so much on facts but on what the church has told them to believe. For many the deciding issue are not the facts but what does the church say. Since the church claims it cannot err in matters of faith it can never be wrong no matter how many facts show otherwise. The Marian doctrines are a case in point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
i think [Augustine’s definition of the Trinity] can be sustained on Scripture. He was brillant man.
cfrancis
You and I agree (for different reasons, though) on the implicit Scriptural support for this, but a Mormon, JW, Unitarian would not. What is the deciding factor?

Let the Mormon and JW put their reasons and facts on the table and lets compare them with ours. If you know Scripture well that would be the determiner. It does not mean they would accept this though.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I can use any formula so long as that formula can be supported by the Scriptures.

ii think it can be sustained on Scripture. He was brillant man.

Most people here would support the idea that the Trinity is taught in Scripture, (Although being taught in Scripture is not the same as defended in Scripture.)

However, the Trinity is not taught in such a way so as to keep the Jehovah"s Witnesses from convincing millions of people that it is not taught in Scripture.

Anyway, we here do believe in the Trinity; but, if we didn’t already, how long would it take to come up with the idea by simply reading Scripture alone? (Maybe a long time, and it would always remain a controversial issue.) Tradition is the reason we already believe in the deity of Christ, and the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit (we mustn’t leave Him out). I am of the opinion the apostles taught this tradition to the early Christians.

In other words, the early Christians had this belief prior to using Scripture; and only later, when it was challenged on scriptural grounds, did a need arise to develop a scriptural proof. This proof convinces us, but not everybody.

 

[cfrancis]

The canon is based on the Scriptures being recognized as being inspired.

I agree, and this reinforces my point. Only Revelation reveals it is inspired by God (and we should recall that a writing self-identifying as Scripture does not make it so). Calling the remaining books of the NT Scripture rests upon Tradition, not on Scripture.

The canon is a result of what books are inspired and not something that stands alone.

We agree that each book of Scripture was inspired (and therefore Scripture) from the moment ink met writing surface. But identifying them as such is the matter at hand. Tha canon is the result of an authoritative extra-Biblical decision on what books were the ones inspired.

Each “tradition” must stand on its own. Just because the church got it right on the canon of the NT does not automatically mean they got it right on the assumption of Mary. This fails because:
1- no support for it in Scripture
2- no historical support for it. Its mentioned centuries later
3- Its based on an a fictional gospel.

Your criteria applied to the NT canon:
1 - no Scriptural support
2 - complete canon accepted centuries after Christ
3 - based upon an extra-Biblical statement

True. However it does demonstrate that the church can err. The standard that the Catholic church has set for itself is impossibly high since it can never be wrong on any matters of faith. Here is one such case that shows this is not the case at all.

Better stated as, “IMO, here is one such case that shows this is not the case at all” for I truly believe the opposite of you!

i’m trying to show what something that is implicit such as the deity of Christ has solid support from the Scriptures.

OK

No. The canon in and of itself is not inspired but the books that make up the canon are.

This one caught my eye. You are saying then, we have a fallible collection of infallible books, which means we very likely are missing some pieces of Scripture?

The ability of each person to determine who has the better case. Which case incorporates more facts would decide. However, human nature being what it is is not always able to come to agree based on a number of factors not necessarily related to the issue. For example, i see Catholics believing things not so much on facts but on what the church has told them to believe. For many the deciding issue are not the facts but what does the church say. Since the church claims it cannot err in matters of faith it can never be wrong no matter how many facts show otherwise. The Marian doctrines are a case in point.

Bottom line, then, if I read you correctly, is each person must decide what is right. Is that your position?

 

[PJM]

**Originally Posted by justasking4 **

No (not dodging)

I’m a newbee. I’ve only been involved with CA Forum for a few months, and yet, I have replied with Biblical Evidence, much of what others have sharred some twenty to thirty times.

I keep comming back, in the event that someone actually wishes to know the truth. I recon some of us do, and some of us are a bit more ???

There is also an issue of Common sense; why else did God give us an intellect?

My great Irish Grandpa used to say:“it’s often easier to find something, if you actually look for it.” I suspect he was right?

God bless you my friend, and may you find what your after

PJM m.c.

 

[MerickOWA]

Here

sandusky:

Belief in the assumption of Mary, IMO, is, according to the Lord, “worshipping God in vain” (Mk 7:7).

In my opinion… according to the Lord? … Is your opinion now to be regarded as Scriptural fact?

You quote passages which prove that something must contradict the Bible in order to be considered “worshipping God in vain”. But you have yet to prove that Mary’s assumption into heaven is just such a contradiction.

Your opinion is not fact, its conjecture. Since the Scripture is the only authority you claim to hold. Please provide a scripture reference that refers to Mary NOT being assumed into heaven.

By your own words, If you can’t provide Scriptural references that proves Mary was NOT assumed into heaven, you’re not required to believe that either. This just goes back to the argument that not everything that is true is in the Bible as you admitted. If you can’t produce evidence that Mary’s assumption contradicts the Bible, how can you so flatly declare that it isn’t Scriptural? It passes the test set down by the Bible passages you quote.

 

[mercygate]

Most people here would support the idea that the Trinity is taught in Scripture, (Although being taught in Scripture is not the same as defended in Scripture.)

I would suggest that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is by no means “taught” in Scripture. It IS indicated in Scripture but it is taught by the Church. The point is not subtle.

However, the Trinity is not taught in such a way so as to keep the Jehovah"s Witnesses from convincing millions of people that it is not taught in Scripture.

Anyway, we here do believe in the Trinity; but, if we didn’t already, how long would it take to come up with the idea by simply reading Scripture alone? (Maybe a long time, and it would always remain a controversial issue.) Tradition is the reason we already believe in the deity of Christ, and the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit (we mustn’t leave Him out). I am of the opinion the apostles taught this tradition to the early Christians.

In other words, the early Christians had this belief prior to using Scripture; and only later, when it was challenged on scriptural grounds, did a need arise to develop a scriptural proof. This proof convinces us, but not everybody.

 

[sandusky]

cfrancis:

I recognize your “white flag” and accept it. You accept - believe in - a core Christian belief not found in Scripture.

Your statement demonstrates your ignorance of the definition of Sola Scriptura, as defined by those who adhere to it. Furthermore, it shows as well that the argument you’ve been putting forth is a straw man.

SS is a presuppositional position that is based upon the fact that a canon of Scripture exists, both OT, and NT, which is why I stated in my post #559, that you should dispense with that argument.

cfrancis:

Except for the canon of Scripture, in which you believe.

As I said, SS is based upon the fact that a canon of Scripture exists; again, you should dispense with your straw man, but you probably won’t.

cfrancis:

I trust in your intellectual honesty to admit that Christ was not condemning all tradition and to provide the Scripture references that support the use of Apostolic Tradition; I need not, then, take the time to do so.

He’s certainly not condemning all tradition.

However, the assumption of Mary is clearly a tradition that I believe Christ would condemn, as it carries with it the penalty of a loss of salvation for those who reject it.

Clearly the testimony of God does not bind the faithful to believe in that dogma as the dogma has no basis in His testimony, as demonstrated by your inability to produce scriptural support for it.

cfrancis:

I further trust your intellectual honesty to admit you are equating “the word of God” with “the written word of God” which limits and distorts the meaning of the text.

Yes, I’m equating “the word of God” with the written word of God because it’s that written word to which Christ is referring.

cfrancis:

Again, I trust you to admit you are equating"this word" with “this written word” which is clearly neither stated nor implied by Is 8:20.

It is the written word to which Isaiah refers (cf Is 1:10; 8:16; Lk 16:29).

cfrancis:

To take Is 8 as you wish us to, we must accept only the book of Isaiah, or, based upon the argument, the OT; but according to Is 8, the NT is out of the picture.

Then you have to deny the NT is a part of God’s testimony, which frankly, wouldn’t surprise me.

cfrancis:

Belief in the assumption of Mary, IMO, is, according to Sandusky, “worshipping God in vain”

I’m sure that’s what you believe.

But, hey, you’re an adult, with a free-will; you’ll believe what you want.

 

[twb1621]

…

The assumption is not an addition, it is a conclusion based on existing accumulated information from the OT and the relationship between Mary’s life and the life of her Son.

 

[sandusky]

MerickOWA:

In my opinion… according to the Lord? … Is your opinion now to be regarded as Scriptural fact?

You quote passages which prove that something must contradict the Bible in order to be considered “worshipping God in vain”. But you have yet to prove that Mary’s assumption into heaven is just such a contradiction.

And you have yet to prove that it’s biblical.

MerickOWA:

Your opinion is not fact, its conjecture. Since the Scripture is the only authority you claim to hold. Please provide a scripture reference that refers to Mary NOT being assumed into heaven.

:doh2:

cfrancis:

By your own words, If you can’t provide Scriptural references that proves Mary was NOT assumed into heaven, you’re not required to believe that either.

:doh2:

cfrancis:

This just goes back to the argument that not everything that is true is in the Bible as you admitted. If you can’t produce evidence that Mary’s assumption contradicts the Bible, how can you so flatly declare that it isn’t Scriptural? It passes the test set down by the Bible passages you quote.

Again, the Papal statement of the dogma condemns those who reject the it; that’s an unbiblical condemnation based upon an unbibilical dogma.

 

[AshleyBelle]

And you have yet to prove that it’s biblical.

:doh2:

:doh2:

Again, the Papal statement of the dogma condemns those who reject the it; that’s an unbiblical condemnation based upon an unbibilical dogma.

 If one believes the church to truly be Christ's authority on earth.. would it not stand to reason that to hold a belief contrary to church teaching would "condemn" someone to remain OUTSIDE the church? The church has also said "Outside the church there is no salvation."  Which many outside the church have misunderstood to mean that if you're not catholic you aren't saved....

But this has been discussed time and again in countless threads…probably explained to YOU as a matter of fact.

Outside the church there is no salvation..because anyone who has faith in Christ, in TRUTH,  is whether they admit it or not, PART of the Catholic church, however incompletely.

Arguing that it’s wrong because the church condemned those who chose to speak against it is not a valid argument.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

What would help is to compare exactly those deuterocanonical quotes with the corresponding verses in the NT. Do you have those from the DC’s?

I’m not talking about the OT Deuterocanonical books (Wisdom, 1 and 2 Maccabees, etc) I’m talking about the NT Deuterocanonical books and passages: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Revelation, and certain portions of the Gospels.