[De Maria]

That is not what apochrypha means. Here is the definition:

a·poc·ry·pha
1. (initial capital letter) a group of 14 books, not considered canonical, included in the Septuagint and the Vulgate as part of the Old Testament, but usually omitted from Protestant editions of the Bible.
2. various religious writings of uncertain origin regarded by some as inspired, but rejected by most authorities.
3. writings, statements, etc. of doubtful authorship or authenticity. Compare canon1 (defs. 6, 7, 9).
(Source: apocrypha - Definitions from Dictionary.com)

Some other definitions:

A·poc·ry·pha

1. The biblical books included in the Vulgate

Thanks for posting this. You have just proven that the Deuterocanonicals, what Protestants call the Apocrypha, were around since 397 AD when St. Jerome put it together.

and accepted in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox canon but considered noncanonical by Protestants because they are not part of the Hebrew Scriptures. See Table at Bible.

In other words, Luther accepted the Jewish Canon which rejected the Deuterocanonicals in the year 100 ad because Christ used them.

Do you understand that you have confirmed that the Deuterocanonicals have been in the Christian canon since before the Council of Jamnia in 100ad which is the Jewish council which took the nonHebrew Scriptures from THEIR canon?

2. Various early Christian writings proposed as additions to the New Testament but rejected by the major canons.

You don't even seem to understand that this refers to the books which the Catholic Church calls the Apocrypha. They may also be called the New Testament Apocrypha. These are books which were not written by the Apostles such as the Shepherd of Hermes and the Didache. Well respected books which did not make the final cut because there was no evidenc they had been written by Apostles.

3. apocrypha Writings or statements of questionable authorship or authenticity

St. Jerome called these books into question in the third century because he had many Jewish friends. But later he realized his mistake and kept them in his Latin Vulgate.

Luther however, took them out of the canon and called them Apocrypha against the overwhelming evidence that even Jesus Christ had included them.

Apocrypha
1387, from L.L. apocryphus "secret, not approved for public reading," from Gk. apokryphos "hidden, obscure," thus "(books) of unknown authorship" (especially those included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but not originally written in Hebrew and not counted as genuine by the Jews), from apo- "away" (see apo-) + kryptein "to hide." Properly plural (the single would be Apocryphon), but commonly treated as a collective sing. Apocryphal "of doubtful authenticity" is from 1590.
(Source: Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper)

Thanks for highlighting that they were not counted as genuine by the Jews. However, they were always accepted by the Christians.

apocrypha

14 books of the Old Testament included in the Vulgate (except for II Esdras) but omitted in Jewish and Protestant versions of the Bible; eastern Christian churches (except the Coptic Church) accept all these books as canonical; the Russian Orthodox Church accepts these texts as divinely inspired but does not grant them the same status
(Source: WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.)


But I do agree that Jesus would be unlikely to quote from such material.

If you are going to eliminate the Deuterocanon because Jesus didn't quote from it, will you also eliminate these books for the same reason?

Ecclesiastes, Esther, Song of Songs, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, Nahum

Neither Jesus or the Apostles ever quoted from those.

And yet, the Apostles did allude to the Deuterocanon. Here are some examples:

Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection .

This is a summary of what is described in 2 Macc 7.

James 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.

Sirach 5:11: Be quick to hear, and be deliberate in answering.

For more examples see this website:
Refuting an Attack on the Deuterocanonicals

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

Thanks for posting this. You have just proven that the Deuterocanonicals, what Protestants call the Apocrypha, were around since 397 AD when St. Jerome put it together.

I never denied that they were around, just as there were many heretical and extra-Biblical writings around at that time. That was never the question. The question is whether they are canonical, and as I pointed out Sirach, for one is disqualified easily on the basis of the contradictions.

In other words, Luther accepted the Jewish Canon which rejected the Deuterocanonicals in the year 100 ad because Christ used them.

I would suggest that the reason that The Church rejected the apochrypha was because they were clearly not inspired works.

Luther however, took them out of the canon and called them Apocrypha against the overwhelming evidence that even Jesus Christ had included them.

You keep making these claims, despite what the Biblical and historical record shows.

If you are going to eliminate the Deuterocanon because Jesus didn't quote from it, will you also eliminate these books for the same reason?

That was not me who said that.

And yet, the Apostles did allude to the Deuterocanon. Here are some examples:

Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection .

This is a summary of what is described in 2 Macc 7.

I noticed that you carefully gave no specific references, and no doubt you had good reason. Even if there were any similarity, just because a non-canonical book speaks of something similar to a canonical book is no basis for claiming that the un-inspired book is part of the canon (especially when Maccabees has internal evidence denying that it is inspired).

The same goes for the rest.

[Fr_Chuck]

They were included in one version in the 1611 King James Bible and they were always part of the Catholic Bible. The idea they were not part of the Catholic bible originally is merely not true. It is that the Protestants took them out because part of them did not follow their ideas and teachings.

This of course can not be accepted or taught by the Protestants since of course that means they took away from the bbile. So they merely try and claim the Catholics added it, which of course is not true and just plan silly.

[De Maria]

I never denied that they were around, just as there were many heretical and extra-Biblical writings around at that time. That was never the question. The question is whether they are canonical, and as I pointed out Sirach, for one is disqualified easily on the basis of the contradictions.

You denied they were in the Bible. You said they were added by the Church. But I have shown you that they were considered canonical by the Church since the time of Christ.

I have also shown that the Jews considered them canonical until the Council of Jamnia in the 1st Century. Then they took them out.

And of course, Luther took them out of the Protestant Canon in the 15th century.

I would suggest that the reason that The Church rejected the apochrypha was because they were clearly not inspired works.

And you would be wrong. The only criteria for selecting the canon of the New Testament was because they were written by Apostles.

The Old Testament canon was already established in the Septuagint by the time of Jesus. The Septuagint included the Deuterocanon.

You keep making these claims, despite what the Biblical and historical record shows.

I'm the one providing substance. You are the one making claims without evidence.

That was not me who said that.

You said,

But I do agree that Jesus would be unlikely to quote from such material.

And yet, the Apostles did allude to the Deuterocanon. Here are some examples:

I noticed that you carefully gave no specific references,

You must have been reading in a hurry.

and no doubt you had good reason. Even if there were any similarity, just because a non-canonical book speaks of something similar to a canonical book is no basis for claiming that the un-inspired book is part of the canon (especially when Maccabees has internal evidence denying that it is inspired).

As I said, the Deuterocanon was already included in the Septuagint before the advent of Jesus Christ. It was because the Deuterocanonical book had prophecies like this one:

Wisdom 2 13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God.

Which obviously prophecies the coming of Jesus Christ that the Jews threw the Deuterocanon out.

The same goes for the rest.

And of course Luther threw them out because they disagree with his interpretation of Scripture.

But back to the topic. Jesus commanded Tradition, not new Scriptures. But I can understand why you don't want to broach that topic.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Fr_Chuck]

DE Maria, the issue that too many of the protestant churches have is they can not admit they were there, no amount of "proof" will ever be enough,

As noted they were even in one version of the 1611 bible, I was told that today by one of our churches friars ( hermit monk) who does studies into this.

[De Maria]

DE Maria, the issue that too many of the protestant churches have is they can not admit they were there, no amount of "proof" will ever be enough,

As noted they were even in one version of the 1611 bible, I was told that today by one of our churches friars ( hermit monk) who does studies into this.

Excellent point Fr Chuck. How can something be added when it was there all along?

[ScottRC]

*cough* *cough*... :D

Did Jesus leave us Tradition or Scripture?

Both.

I'm surprised that you would suggest otherwise... Tradition without Scripture is WORTHLESS (not to mention logically impossible).

Hoping you'd clear this up for me.

[Tj3]

They were included in one version in the 1611 King James Bible and they were always part of the Catholic Bible.

I have many reference materials in the study Bibles that I have around here. Are you saying that reference material bound with a Bible is authomatically canonical?

I doubt that any Bible publishers would agree, nor would I expect that many if any theologians would agree.

The idea they were not part of the Catholic bible originally is merely not true. It is that the Protestants took them out because part of them did not follow their ideas and teachings.

Sigh! This has been addressed sop many times. As I pointed out, even one of the Catholic Encyclopedias stated clearly that it was the Roman Church that added them in.

[Tj3]

You denied they were in the Bible. You said they were added by the Church. But I have shown you that they were considered canonical by the Church since the time of Christ.

They never were part of the canon - that is right. The Church did not add them. The Roman catholic denomination added them. You have shown me nothing of the sort.

And you would be wrong. The only criteria for selecting the canon of the New Testament was because they were written by Apostles.

I have shown you the evidence that one of the books does not even claim to be inspired, and the contradictions between Sirach and scripture are numerous. And yet you hold these to be canonical because of a denominational decision in the 16th century?

You said,

And yet, the Apostles did allude to the Deuterocanon. Here are some examples:

Sigh! First, do you know the difference between Jesus and the Apostles? And second, I already addressed your other point in my last message. Please do not waste my time by going back over things over and over.

[quote]Jesus commanded Tradition, not new Scriptures. [/quote

And I understand why you won't give any reference to this claim which I requested a number of times.

[De Maria]

They never were part of the canon - that is right. The Church did not add them. The Roman catholic denomination added them. You have shown me nothing of the sort.

Not only did I show you, but the very evidence you presented showed that the Deuterocanonicals were included in the Latin Vulgate circa 393ad, in the Jewish canon, circa 100 ad and in the Septuagint, before Christ.

You simply shot off your own foot.

I have shown you the evidence that one of the books does not even claim to be inspired,

No you didn't. You simply said so, with no reference.

and the contradictions between Sirach and scripture are numerous.

Again a say so with no proof.

And yet you hold these to be canonical because of a denominational decision in the 16th century?

Because Jesus held them so.

Sigh! First, do you know the difference between Jesus and the Apostles?

Yes.

And second, I already addressed your other point in my last message. Please do not waste my time by going back over things over and over.

No you didn't. You simply made a remark with no explanation or proof. In essence a denial. So what?

And I understand why you won't give any reference to this claim which I requested a number of times.

All you have to do is look at the OP. Isn't it on every page?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

Your whole reply - just deny, deny, deny.

[De Maria]

Your whole reply - just deny, deny, deny.

You're whole response is to befuddle and obfuscate. Obviously, the verses that you asked for are looking at you in the face in the OP. But you pretend they aren't there.

[Tj3]

You're whole response is to befuddle and obfuscate. Obviously, the verses that you asked for are looking at you in the face in the OP. But you pretend they aren't there.

If they were there, you'd quote 'em!

[De Maria]

If they were there, you'd quote 'em!

I did.

[Tj3]

I did.

A claim is not as good as doing it.

[De Maria]

A claim is not as good as doing it.

As I said, look at the OP. Did you not realize that I wrote the OP?

[Tj3]

As I said, look at the OP. Did you not realize that I wrote the OP?

Maybe you ought to look at it again. Or don't you remember that I was one of the first to respond?

I still see no reference to your claim.

[De Maria]

Maybe you ought to look at it again. Or don't you remember that I was one of the first to respond?

I still see no reference to your claim.

I remember your reply. In it you mentioned that God told Moses to write. But you did not show Jesus instructing the Apostles to write. Jesus instructed the Apostles to teach and to baptize. Those are Traditions passed on by word.

And your reference to the book of Revelations is Jesus telling St. John to write about what he sees in heaven. That book was written 40 years after Jesus ascension by the most conservative estimates. And nowhere in that book did Jesus instruct St. John to write down His teachings.

So essentially you're stuck. You don't want to accept what Jesus provided. You want to worship your way. Regardless of what God wants.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

I remember your reply. In it you mentioned that God told Moses to write. But you did not show Jesus instructing the Apostles to write. Jesus instructed the Apostles to teach and to baptize. Those are Traditions passed on by word.

But I did, and pointed that out to again afterward. It was then that you said that it did not matter what Jesus said then because He was in heaven. But what does it matter - throughout scripture from Genesis to Revelation, God told men to write down his revelations. If you separate out what God said in the OT from the NT, then I must ask once again if you are denying that Jesus is God?

It appears to me that you are trying to distract from your failure to provide scriptural validation for your claim that Jesus commanded tradition but not scripture.

[De Maria]

But I did, and pointed that out to again afterward. It was then that you said that it did not matter what Jesus said

I want to see that quote.

then because He was in heaven.

I said that it didn't relate to the matter we are discussing. Not that Jesus words didn't matter.

But what does it matter - throughout scripture from Genesis to Revelation, God told men to write down his revelations.

Actually, only in a few places. However, throughout salvation history God told men to preach, teach and prophecy.

If you separate out what God said in the OT from the NT, then I must ask once again if you are denying that Jesus is God?

No. I am recognizing a New Covenant. In the Old Covenant God required animal sacrifices. In the New, it is replaced by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the clean oblation.

So, in the Old Testament, God told Moses to write. In the New Testament, Jesus told the Church to teach.

It appears to me that you are trying to distract from your failure to provide scriptural validation for your claim that Jesus commanded tradition but not scripture.

I have validated that Jesus taught tradition.

I can't find where Jesus told the Apostles to write down His teachings. Nor have you provided any such verse. If you are keeping it to yourself, please provide it now.

Sincerely,

De Maria