How do you counter these verses?


#1

These are some verses used for not having deutronomical books ( apocrypha)

Luke 24:27

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Romans 3:1-2

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

2 peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

How do you counter them I know the fact they say the jews had the knowledge but jews persecuted Jesus and rejected his authority. What else can I use?


#2

I see no reason to counter them for they do not contradict the realty that the Old Testament includes the books that Protestants call such.


#3

You'll have to explain just ow those verses reject the Deuteronomical books, because, quite frankly, they don't.


#4

I'm also failing to see how these verses reject the Deuterocanonical books.


#5

Who is using these phrases to argue against the Deuterocanon? I see zero value in arguing against those books. It now appears that the Book of Daniel was written in the timeframe of the Deuterocanon (165 BC). Do they throw Daniel out, too? I’ll bet not.

Jesus said “The Law and the Prophets prophesied until John” (Baptist). Matthew 11:13, Luke 16:16 He did not say that they stopped, or that there was some hokey, man-made “intertestamental period” that bible Christians have been forced to come up with, claiming against the words of Christ that God was silent in the 400 years leading up to Christ.

The Book of 2 Maccabees speaks of the resurrection and eternal life. If God, who took flesh shortly after these words were written (and Who rose from the dead to eternal life), did not inspire these words, then just who did?

Here is a good article about the Deuterocanon: 5 Myths about 7 Books.

Those who ignore 7 books of scripture follow the “canon of man”, and not the canon of scripture.


#6

[quote="Chiefsinner, post:1, topic:323583"]
Luke 24:27

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

[/quote]

If this throws out deuterocanon then it disqualifies wisdom books like Proverbs, Job or historical books, like Chronicles, Samuel...

Romans 3:1-2

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

If this throws out the deuterocanon then it disqualifies the New Testament. It also does not admit to the Jews such as those in Ethiopia or the diaspora, as I understand, who embraced the deuterocanon.

2 peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Someone will especially have to explain how this verse would disqualify the Deuterocanon as divinely inspired. It sounds like this might be a case of horrific eisegesis, reading into that text words that are not there.


#7

Essentially what Protestants are claiming when they bring up these verses is a syllogism along these lines:

  1. To the Jews were given authority over the OT canon.
  2. The Jews have rejected the Deuterocanonical books.
  3. Therefore, the Deuterocanonical books are invalid.

The problem is that the argument is ahistorical. The Jews did not reject these books until 70 A.D., and the only reason they did so then was because Christians were using them as support for teachings about Jesus, and Purgatory, and the like, which Jews rejected. But at the time of Christ, these books were commonly accepted, and indeed were in the Greek Septuagint text of the Old Testament which was used and quoted by Christ and the apostles.

A Catholic can also counter this Protestant claim by citing Romans 11:25: "Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." That is to say, in the Christian era, God has removed authority from the Jews and that authority -- including authority to define the canon -- has passed to the Church.

This is not to say the Jews are not still God's chosen people, it's just that authority has been removed from them until the fullness of the Gentiles is come into the faith.

At any rate, the burden is essentially on Protestants to explain how it is that they reject books that all Christians universally accepted until the 16th century, despite the pronouncement of the Jews in 70 A.D. For 1500 years, no one suspected that had any bearing whatsoever on the Canon.

Don't let the anti-Catholic put the burden of proof on you. Turn it back on them.


#8

[quote="po18guy, post:5, topic:323583"]
Who is using these phrases to argue against the Deuterocanon?

[/quote]

Christian apologist Sam Shamoun, for instance. He's recently published a series on this issue in which he uses verses cited in the OP in support of the Protestant canon: part 1 / part 2 / part 3 / part 4 / appendix.


#9

Expanding on what MarcoPolo wrote, above:

[quote="Chiefsinner, post:1, topic:323583"]
These are some verses used for not having deutronomical books ( apocrypha)

Luke 24:27
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

[/quote]

"Beginning with Moses and all the prophets..." does not mean that He only discussed Moses and the prophets with the disciples. Indeed, it infers He discussed other writings, as well as those.

[quote="Chiefsinner, post:1, topic:323583"]
Romans 3:1-2
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

[/quote]

The Jews did in fact give us the Septuagint, including the Deuterocanonicals. The title "Septuagint" is a direct reference to the (approximately) seventy Jewish elders who translated it.

[quote="Chiefsinner, post:1, topic:323583"]
2 peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

[/quote]

Completely irrelevant to the question of whether the Deuterocanonicals are canon. This text is only a syllogism regarding inspired texts.

[quote="Chiefsinner, post:1, topic:323583"]
How do you counter them I know the fact they say the jews had the knowledge but jews persecuted Jesus and rejected his authority. What else can I use?

[/quote]

Jews were also the first disciples. It doesn't seem agreeable to me to use "Jewishness" as an argument here. This, especially in light of the fact that Jews gave us the Deuterocanonical books. (as mentioned above)


#10

I think the questioner has run into Protestants who say: "Well the Jews have been entrusted with "the oracles of God" St. Paul says so!

The argument goes on . . . "Since the Jews don't have the "apocrypha" in their Bible, either should you Catholics!"

If that is the case I have written a small article for Protestants who use that argument and will share it here . . . .

Oracles of God

ROMANS 3:2 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.

This is allegedly why Protestants accept the Pharisees at Jamnia (Javneh).

**Which **Jews now entrusted? The Jews who became fulfilled Jews (Christians) such as Peter, Paul, etc. OR . . . the Jews who rejected Christ and thrust the word of God away from themselves (think Pharisees)? The Samaritan's who claimed to be Jews but rejected newer Old Covenant fulfillments saying it is all unnecessary (We've got Moses, We don't NEED any new precepts")? The Pharisees are NOT custodians of Tradition. That's WHY there is no Temple, Levitical Priesthood, Temple Genealogy, etc. to this day. Catholics are "Fulfilled Jews".

WHY think the Pharisees were still the authentic custodians of oracles by the time Jamnia rolled around (in almost 100 A.D.)? Should we ask the Pharisees to give us the New Testament Canon too? No.

Consider what Jesus said . . .

MATTHEW 21:42-45 42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the scriptures: 'The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes? 43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it. 44 And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one, it will crush him." 45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.

St. Paul says the same thing . . .

*ACTS 13:46 * 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.

And WHY reduce “oracles of God” down to Scripture ALONE when the Bible doesn’t? Esp. when oral testimony was considered oracles of God too. The people knew this was the case with John the Baptist. His testimony didn’t have to be written down first to become an oracle of God.

Also consider:

MATTHEW 2:23 23 And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

Where in the Old Testament was the verse: “He shall be called a Nazarene”?

Nowhere. Yet it is an Oracle of God. That’s WHY Matthew cites the Prophets (notice it’s even Prophets plural and not singular) and Jesus as this fulfillment. Yet not one verse about this in OT!

The Rabbinic School of Jamnia (sometimes wrongly called the “Council”) would reject the New Testament and purposed curses upon Christians.

Why accept the Pharisees at Jamnia? Especially since the Jews themselves couldn’t settle their own Canon (Sadducees accepted only the Torah, Pharisees accepted the Prophets as well, some modern-day Jews even have a different Canon than the Pharisees at Jamnia had)—not to mention the curses they proclaim on Christians at Jamnia. Who was given authentic authority from Christ (John 20:21, etc. etc.)?


#11

Just a clarification. When I said there is no Temple, I mean in the sense of a structure
in Jerusalem that our spiritual ancestors thought of as a microcosm of the universe.

Of course the Temple DOES exist today. In one sense this "Temple" is Jesus. In another sense, the "Temple" is His bride the Church.

Likewise the Priesthood exists today in it's fulfilled form. Jesus as our ONE true high Priest and the rest of Christians having a share in Jesus' Priesthood only.

This "share" is different for some and others. Bishops, Presbyters, have a different share in the Priesthood of Jesus than we as laity or the "priesthood of all the Baptized" or sometimes is called "the priesthood of all believers". 1st Peter is a fulfillment of Exodus for example concerning the "priesthood of all believers".

1st Peter 2:7-9 7 To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, "The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner," 8 and "A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall"; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

This is a very sublime calling and we as Catholics do not appreciate this great commission well enough.


#12

CaptFun responds in RED

[quote="Chiefsinner, post:1, topic:323583"]
These are some verses used for not having deutronomical books ( apocrypha) < Really? There are actual scripture from elsewhere that somehow take issue with the Septuagint (version of OT used in Jesus' time until a certain Jewish (and NON-Christian Council left them a few books OUT of its canonizations)?

Luke 24:27

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. < Where did he*** end?*** This doesn't "prove" that references from the Septuagint books -- that were "left off the Canon" by the Jamnia Jewish Council (after Jesus the Messiah had come and was being followed by other Jews, the apostles) -- weren't cited by the time he finished. Hardly a solid proof. THIS is exhibit "A"? :shrug:

Romans 3:1-2

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

< By THIS time the "have been" above was more readily applied to the faithful Jews who followed the Messiah (Jesus) ... rather than implying a sort of ongoing authority to the non-Christian Jewish Council that excluded the books in question.

Also by the time this was written, the Jewish nation and leaders had been militarily conquered and stripped of nationhood, temple, synagogue and priesthood. The priesthood of Judaism that remained was in the Church and the New Covenant, the Eucharist instituted by Jesus and the teachings of his deputized apostles and their deputized successors (Bishops, etc.)

2 peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. < Can people seriously be using Peter, who was persecuted by the Sanhedrin in the beginning of the Book of Acts and told NOT to preach in the name of Jesus -- to justify a Council of THAT group later ... in opposition to the teachings and Canonizations of the Church? Peter's See as the Bishop of Rome is continued in the Papacy which in the time of St. Jerome and a Christian Council's establishment of the Canons (OT and NT) included the "disputed books"

How do you counter them I know the fact they say the jews had the knowledge but jews persecuted Jesus and rejected his authority. What else can I use?

[/quote]

That Council of Jamnia (sometime between 70-90 AD) may well have been run by the Sadducees from the look of things. And their exclusions of some books, like Maccabees which alluded to an afterlife and resurrection (teachings of the Christian leaders) may have been more for THAT reason than for the sometime stated reason that certain Septuagint books were not
written in Hebrew.

Sadducees disputed with Jesus over the Resurrection. The Pharisee party believed in things like angels (prominent in Tobit) for instance.

The book of Sirach includes many statements that sounded like the teachings of Jesus as well. But made a century or two prior to His earthly ministry.

An online search turned up the similarities of these OT "Dueterocanonical books" scriptures with certain of the New Testament. I quote the scriptures for comparison below.

Matt. 6:19-20 - **Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows **Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matthew 6:19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and thieves break in and steal.

20 But store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor decay destroys, nor thieves break in and steal.

21 For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.

Sirach 29:11 Dispose of your treasure as the Most High commands, for that will profit you more than the gold.

Some others for Sirach being referenced in Matthew and Mark:

**Matt. 7:16,20 - **Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows **Sirach 27:6 - **the fruit discloses the cultivation.

*Mark 4:5,16-17 - **Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows **Sirach 40:15. *

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from *1 Macc. 1:54 **and **2 Macc. 8:17. *

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matthew 24:15 - "When you see the desolating abomination spoken of through Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those in Judea must flee to the mountains,

1 Maccabees 2:27 Then Mattathias went through the city shouting, "Let everyone who is zealous for the law and who stands by the covenant follow after me!" 28 Thereupon he fled to the mountains with his sons, leaving behind in the city all their possessions.

**The main thing is though: WHY did the "reformers" use as their "authority" for the Old Testament scriptures a group that did NOT accept Jesus as the Messiah, though He had come, and by THAT time had: 1) Established HIS Church and given IT authority ... even unto - writing scripture (the New Testament) interpreting scripture (as Phillip is seen doing in Acts for the Ethiopian official he later baptizes) and much more.

Today even many "non-Catholic" versions of the Bible now include the books in question - even if in a separate section and called the Apocrypha instead of Duetero-Canonical books. Why include them at all if they are not scripture?**


#13

[quote="Trebor135, post:8, topic:323583"]
Christian apologist Sam Shamoun, for instance. He's recently published a series on this issue in which he uses verses cited in the OP in support of the Protestant canon: part 1 / part 2 / part 3 / part 4 / appendix.

[/quote]

Well now, I guess old Sam has a right to his opinion. Sam is right and 1.5 billion Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are all wrong. I like those odds!

Seems to me that the Mosaic Covenant, once fulfilled, no longer retained the authority over the scriptures. I wonder what Sam reads, since the Jews reject the New Testament?


#14

[quote="po18guy, post:13, topic:323583"]
Well now, I guess old Sam has a right to his opinion. Sam is right and 1.5 billion Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are all wrong. I like those odds!

Seems to me that the Mosaic Covenant, once fulfilled, no longer retained the authority over the scriptures. I wonder what Sam reads, since the Jews reject the New Testament?

[/quote]

Well, there are over 1.5 billion Muslims, and they accept neither the Old Testament nor the New. So, the Qur'an must be the word of God! :p (The way you formulated it, your response seemed to involve an ad populum fallacy.)

If you'd like to blog a rebuttal to the series, I'll gladly read it.


#15

[quote="Trebor135, post:14, topic:323583"]
Well, there are over 1.5 billion Muslims, and they accept neither the Old Testament nor the New. So, the Qur'an must be the word of God! :p (The way you formulated it, your response seemed to involve an ad populum fallacy.)

[/quote]

This will probably reverse before the end comes, but there are still more Christians. I was adding only RC and EO.

[quote="Trebor135, post:14, topic:323583"]
If you'd like to blog a rebuttal to the series, I'll gladly read it.

[/quote]

If Jesus Christ could not convert the unwilling, how on earth am I going to? I pray. Let them resist the Holy Spirit.


#16

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.