The Apocrypha

[KiwiChristian]

The 7 books support Roman Catholicism. The remaining 66 contradict Roman Catholicism. 

 

1. They are not, and have never been, in the Jewish canon.
2. Josephus explicitly excluded them from his list.
3. Philo (20 B.C.-50 A.D.) neither mentions or quotes them.
4. Jewish scholars meeting at the Council of Jabneh did not recognize them.
5. Most Church Fathers in fact rejected them.
6. The sermons in the Book of Acts, which outline Jewish history, do not included apocryphal events.
7. None of the Apocrypha claim inspiration or divine authority.
8. Many of the Apocryphal books contain historical, geographical, and chronological errors.
9. Many of the Apocryphal books teach heresy, contrary to the Word of God.
10. Their literary style is legendary and fantasy. Some stories are grotesque and demonic.
11. They lack the power and distinctive elements of the Word of God.ons in the Book of Acts, which outline Jewish history, do not included 
     

- Judith falsely states that Nebuchadnezzar reigns over the Assyrians,whereas he ruled Babylon instead.Torbit could not have witnessed the division of Israel into the northern and southern kingdoms in 931BC(Tor1:4),and have been deported 200 years later in 734BC(Tor1:10).Tobit 4:11 and Tobit 12:9 state that giving money forgives sins. This contradicts Christs' work on the cross. Jesus and the apostles quote 260 times from the 35 out of 39 OT books, yet they NEVER quoted the apocrypha.

- Wisdom 8:19,20 is another contradiction between the apocrypha and Scripture. “For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.” However, the Bible teaches that all are born with original sin. "Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men... by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners" (Romans 5:18, 19). “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). The author of Wisdom believes he was an exception.
 

Neither their authors nor the circumstances of their writings are known.The Jews nor the early Christians accepted them as inspired scripture.The books themselves dont claim inspiration.There's no"Thus saith the Lord"'s .Although the N.T has 263 direct quotes from and 370 allusions to the O.T,there's not a single reference to the books of the apocrypha.It was at Trent,Ap.8th1546,that the pope declared tradition+the apocrypha to be canonical and authoritative.
 

God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
 

It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.
 

Catholics mearly defined what THEY would use as Scripture, NOT what Scripture WAS.

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by KiwiChristian

[KiwiChristian]

2 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Maybe where they get their justification for indulgences?

Perhaps they'd claim a prophecy of the Immaculate conception?

Like to see how Judas Maccabeus answers these and others.

Yes, lets hope he/she/it moves the topic from the other thread to this one.

 

 

[Neighbor]

 I think you will find that  there are 14 books of the apocrypha not just  7. Below are a few highlights from what I think is a much better resource on  apographa than one that states there were seven books. It gives a different history of use too. The link gives full and better explanation than does my little summary below.

The link : http://goodnewspirit.com/apocrypha.htm  from Goodnews Christian Ministry
http://goodnewsprophecy.org

  My own brief summary; The Apocrypha books were indeed part of the old testament the Greek old testament used by Jews living at foreign lands at the time of Jesus.

All books not written in Hebrew were discarded by a group of Rabbis after  The death of Jesus. Anything not written in Hebrew originally was declared unclean by them. That action wiped out the Greek Old testament that had been in use by the Jews and authorized by the Sanhedrin for 300 years. When Jesus' disciples wrote they wrote in Greek the same language that they had used for their scripture.

The prophecy  of Isaiah 11 states that Jesus will speak to His people in a strange tongue (That tongue is Greek):

For by people of strange lips
    and with a foreign tongue
the Lord will speak to this people,
12     to whom he has said,
“This is rest;
    give rest to the weary;
and this is repose”;
    yet they would not hear.
13 And the word of the Lord will be to them
precept upon precept, precept upon precept,
    line upon line, line upon line,
    here a little, there a little,
that they may go, and fall backward,
    and be broken, and snared, and taken.

The early meeting of the rabbis at Jamnia served to isolate the early Christians by  leaving them with their Greek old Testament and the writings of a few apostles at tht early time all in Greek, and restricting the Jews denying Jesus as Lord to the Hebrew language.... But go to the link provided for better presentation. I summarized simply to refute the errant  statements of there being seven books and that Jews never used them.

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by Neighbor
deleted a paragraph of after thought.

[Neighbor]

The changes by various groups  for a multitude of reasoning by them is the reason  one cannot state with accuracy that the Bible in it's various  packaging is inerrant. None of the groups gathering their best intent have been inspired. They are scholars  with  points of view. It is the Holy Spirit that  saves, not a particular Bible version. All of which have general agreement about that which is the gospel of Jesus and is sufficient for the called by the Holy Spirit person to learn and to study for growth in understanding of their salvation and for deeper understanding of  the revealing of Jesus.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Neighbor

[Fidei Defensor]

Just reading them you can tell they aren't God breathed (1 Timothy 3:16). Beyond that the points you make are interesting. 

[KiwiChristian]

4 hours ago, Davida said:

These two collections of books are like Light and darkness. I gotta say to me, it would be ridiculous that any born again Christian would even think any of these RC books are part of the Holy Bible .  To me , they are a joke, you can tell immediately upon reading them what is not written by the Holy Spirit.  God-breathed is just a level no human can imitate successfully.

I read a couple of lines of one of the apocryphal books and could tell immediately they were not inspired 

[enoob57]

12 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

Yes, lets hope he/she/it moves the topic from the other thread to this one.

 

 

We have an 'it'
                                     

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

14 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

The 7 books support Roman Catholicism. The remaining 66 contradict Roman Catholicism. 

 

1. They are not, and have never been, in the Jewish canon.
2. Josephus explicitly excluded them from his list.
3. Philo (20 B.C.-50 A.D.) neither mentions or quotes them.
4. Jewish scholars meeting at the Council of Jabneh did not recognize them.
5. Most Church Fathers in fact rejected them.
6. The sermons in the Book of Acts, which outline Jewish history, do not included apocryphal events.
7. None of the Apocrypha claim inspiration or divine authority.
8. Many of the Apocryphal books contain historical, geographical, and chronological errors.
9. Many of the Apocryphal books teach heresy, contrary to the Word of God.
10. Their literary style is legendary and fantasy. Some stories are grotesque and demonic.
11. They lack the power and distinctive elements of the Word of God.ons in the Book of Acts, which outline Jewish history, do not included 
     

- Judith falsely states that Nebuchadnezzar reigns over the Assyrians,whereas he ruled Babylon instead.Torbit could not have witnessed the division of Israel into the northern and southern kingdoms in 931BC(Tor1:4),and have been deported 200 years later in 734BC(Tor1:10).Ecc3:3 states that giving money forgives sins. This contradicts Christs' work on the cross. Jesus and the apostles quote 260 times from the 35 out of 39 OT books, yet they NEVER quoted the apocrypha.

- Wisdom 8:19,20 is another contradiction between the apocrypha and Scripture. “For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.” However, the Bible teaches that all are born with original sin. "Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men... by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners" (Romans 5:18, 19). “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). The author of Wisdom believes he was an exception.
 

Neither their authors nor the circumstances of their writings are known.The Jews nor the early Christians accepted them as inspired scripture.The books themselves dont claim inspiration.There's no"Thus saith the Lord"'s .Although the N.T has 263 direct quotes from and 370 allusions to the O.T,there's not a single reference to the books of the apocrypha.It was at Trent,Ap.8th1546,that the pope declared tradition+the apocrypha to be canonical and authoritative.
 

God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
 

It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.
 

Catholics mearly defined what THEY would use as Scripture, NOT what Scripture WAS.

 

 

Quote

Catholics mearly defined what THEY would use as Scripture, NOT what Scripture WAS.

Do you believe the Septuagint is inspired? Yes or No?

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

On 6/30/2017 at 0:15 PM, Yowm said:

Is that an admission that the statements in the OP are true?

Not even a little bit, why would my asking if the OP believes the Septuagint is inspired be an admission to what he claims to be true?

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

On 2017-06-29 at 7:45 PM, KiwiChristian said:

The 7 books support Roman Catholicism. The remaining 66 contradict Roman Catholicism. 

 

1. They are not, and have never been, in the Jewish canon.
2. Josephus explicitly excluded them from his list.
3. Philo (20 B.C.-50 A.D.) neither mentions or quotes them.
4. Jewish scholars meeting at the Council of Jabneh did not recognize them.
5. Most Church Fathers in fact rejected them.
6. The sermons in the Book of Acts, which outline Jewish history, do not included apocryphal events.
7. None of the Apocrypha claim inspiration or divine authority.
8. Many of the Apocryphal books contain historical, geographical, and chronological errors.
9. Many of the Apocryphal books teach heresy, contrary to the Word of God.
10. Their literary style is legendary and fantasy. Some stories are grotesque and demonic.
11. They lack the power and distinctive elements of the Word of God.ons in the Book of Acts, which outline Jewish history, do not included 
     

- Judith falsely states that Nebuchadnezzar reigns over the Assyrians,whereas he ruled Babylon instead.Torbit could not have witnessed the division of Israel into the northern and southern kingdoms in 931BC(Tor1:4),and have been deported 200 years later in 734BC(Tor1:10).Ecc3:3 states that giving money forgives sins. This contradicts Christs' work on the cross. Jesus and the apostles quote 260 times from the 35 out of 39 OT books, yet they NEVER quoted the apocrypha.

- Wisdom 8:19,20 is another contradiction between the apocrypha and Scripture. “For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.” However, the Bible teaches that all are born with original sin. "Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men... by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners" (Romans 5:18, 19). “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). The author of Wisdom believes he was an exception.
 

Neither their authors nor the circumstances of their writings are known.The Jews nor the early Christians accepted them as inspired scripture.The books themselves dont claim inspiration.There's no"Thus saith the Lord"'s .Although the N.T has 263 direct quotes from and 370 allusions to the O.T,there's not a single reference to the books of the apocrypha.It was at Trent,Ap.8th1546,that the pope declared tradition+the apocrypha to be canonical and authoritative.
 

God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
 

It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.
 

Catholics mearly defined what THEY would use as Scripture, NOT what Scripture WAS.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Yowm said:

I asked because you seemed to totally ignore the presentation you quoted and threw out a red herring instead.

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

The OP is challenging the books found in the Septuagint that are not in the temple canon. So it's not a red herring, but in fact what you are doing is a red herring.