SPLIT: Debate on Deuterocanonical books of the Bible


#1

I don’t have this quote in front of me. Can you send it?
Was the person who says this or recommends this a prophet of God?


#2

What Scripture is this?

I don’t have this quote in front of me. Can you send it?
Was the person who says this or recommends this a prophet of God?

2nd Maccabees 43-46.

He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

This passage was in earlier versions of the King James Bible. The author is considered to be inspired by God.


#3

#4

Well, that is your interpretation. I interpret Scripture in the Light of the Teaching of the Church rather than go with Sola Scriptura which itself is fragmented form of Christianity… hence the 30,000 plus Protestant denominations.

I believe the Holy Spirit guide the Church, if He didn’t guide the Church then truly the Gates of Hell prevailed, and Jesus Christ promise to preserve his Church is a big lie and that we are deceived.

I’m have to disagree with you. You are not the first Non-Catholic Christian who came here and say our interpretation is wrong. You just out right throw away our explanation and think your way of interpretation is the right one.

How my friend can you be certain your interpretation is correct? Someone else who claims they are guided by the Holy Spirit may disagree with you. Do you claim your interpretation as infallible?

Tell me does the ECF agree with your beliefs. For I tell you, Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone is only founded during the 1517 Reformation, the man-made religion.

I rather go with the 2,000 yrs old Church teaching than that of an 490 yrs old Protestant doctrines.


#5

Wasn’t this book with the others considered deutro-canonical i.e. not at the same level as the rest of Scripture?


#6

The Council of Hippo 392 AD, the Church canonized the list of Scripture, and Council of Carthage Cin 396 AD, then there was the Council of Florence in 1430. You can look at these council and you will the Catholic Church canonized the 73 Books of the Bible.

That is not what is going on in Revelations

Revelation Chapter 5 verse 8 states,

And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and twenty four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowl full of incense, which are prayers of the saints, and they sang a new song, saying;

Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain and by your blood you ransomed men for God from every tribe and tongue and people, and nation, and have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth.

Note Prayers of the saints. Why are elders offering prayers of the saints?

The Bible disagrees with you.

I know it claims this but as i’ve said above there is no real way to prove this. As a protestant i don’t have to struggle with this because Christ alone is sufficent. There is no need to implore the assistance of those who have died since your church can’t know with any certainty the condition of those who have died.

There are other parts of Revelation that disproves you.

Rev. 6:9-11 – the martyred saints in heaven cry out in a loud voice to God to avenge their blood “on those who dwell upon the earth.” These are “imprecatory prayers,” which are pleas for God’s judgment (see similar prayers in Psalm 35:1; 59:1-17; 139:19; Jer. 11:20; 15:15; 18:19; Zech.1:12-13). This means that the saints in heaven are praying for those on earth, and God answers their prayers (Rev. 8:1-5). We, therefore, ask for their intercession and protection.

Rev. 8:3-4 – in heaven an angel mingles incense with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne of God, and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. These prayers “rise up” before God and elicit various kinds of earthly activity. God responds to his children’s requests, whether made by his children on earth or in heaven.


#7

The Septuagint (IPA: 'sɛptuədʒɪnt]), or simply “LXX”, is the name commonly given in the West to the Koine Greek version of the Old Testament, translated in stages between the 3rd to 1st century BC in Alexandria.

**It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. The name means “seventy” in Latin and derives from a tradition that seventy-two Hellenized Jewish scholars (LXX being the nearest round number) translated the Pentateuch (or Torah) from Hebrew into Greek for one of the Ptolemaic kings, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285-246 BC. As the work of translation went on gradually, and new books were added to the collection, the compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite. The Pentateuch always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon; but the prophetic collection changed its aspect by having various hagiographa incorporated into it. Some of the newer works, those called anagignoskomena in Greek, are not included in the Hebrew canon. Among these books are Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also, the LXX version of some works, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than the Hebrew.[1] Several of the later books apparently were composed in Greek.

The LXX was held with great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its authors. It formed the basis of the Old Latin versions and is still used intact within Eastern Orthodoxy. Besides the Old Latin versions, the LXX is also the basis for Gothic, Slavonic, old Syriac (but not the Peshitta), old Armenian, and Coptic versions of the Old Testament. Of significance for all Christians and for bible scholars, the LXX is quoted by the Christian New Testament and by the Apostolic Fathers. While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the second century AD, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version. The oldest surviving codices of LXX date to the fourth century AD.

**

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

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

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

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

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

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.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

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


#8

QUOTE=Mannyfit75;2326242]Well, that is your interpretation. I interpret Scripture in the Light of the Teaching of the Church rather than go with Sola Scriptura which itself is fragmented form of Christianity… hence the 30,000 plus Protestant denominations.

How do you interpret scripture and know if you have the correct interpretation if your church has never interpreted the scriptures to begin with? Where is this offical and infallible interpretation of the verses of the Bible?

I believe the Holy Spirit guide the Church, if He didn’t guide the Church then truly the Gates of Hell prevailed, and Jesus Christ promise to preserve his Church is a big lie and that we are deceived.

You can believe this all you want to but can you defend your church’s interpretations for its various doctrines? Thats the issue. What i ask you to do is to show from the Scriptures themselves that they do teach what your church claims. In regards to the marian doctrines it can’t for the mere fact that the Scriptures don’t teach these things about her.

I’m have to disagree with you. You are not the first Non-Catholic Christian who came here and say our interpretation is wrong. You just out right throw away our explanation and think your way of interpretation is the right one.

Of course i think i’m right and you think your right and i’m wrong. I understand that.
Now give me your supporting arguments for the claims of these doctrines. Study the Scriptures in their contexts and you will discover they don’t support these doctrines.

How my friend can you be certain your interpretation is correct? Someone else who claims they are guided by the Holy Spirit may disagree with you. Do you claim your interpretation as infallible?

No one has an infallible interpretation. Not even your church. That’s means we must study the scriptures in light of historical contexts, word meanings and various other methods that will help us to understand the scriptures.

Tell me does the ECF agree with your beliefs. For I tell you, Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone is only founded during the 1517 Reformation, the man-made religion.

i don’t know about the EFC. Do you consider protestants heretics?

I rather go with the 2,000 yrs old Church teaching than that of an 490 yrs old Protestant doctrines.

This doesn’t tell me much. Just because a church has been around longer doesn’t mean its always true or right. Keep in mind that the Scriptures warn of false teachers who will come into the church and deceive many. Jesus never promised that the church would be protected from this. Not even protestant churches. Both churches have had their false teachers.


#9

#10

juskasking,

If you wish to investigate the Catholic interpretation of the Bible I recommend reading Dei Verbum

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

I also recommend you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church rather than assumed what we believe.

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church


#11

[quote=justasking4]Again, the canonization conclusion can only be specualtion. It is impossible for them to know with any certainty. It has no way to really know.
[/quote]

What part of the canonization process do you have a problem with? Maybe, if you point it out, I could help you address it.

I know it claims this but as i’ve said above there is no real way to prove this. As a protestant i don’t have to struggle with this because Christ alone is sufficent. I don’t know of any Catholics that struggle with this either. We simply trust Mother Church

[quote]There is no need to implore the assistance of those who have died since your church can’t know with any certainty the condition of those who have died.

[/quote]

Except for the fact that “the prayers of a righteous man our powerful indeed!!!”


#12

This book is considered Deuterocanonical, and is the same level as the rest of Scripture. It’s not either - or.

It wasn’t until the 16th century that Christians decided to make them “not quite inspired”. But the CAtholic Church has always considered them Canonical.

Incidentally, they were a part of the Septuagint, which is what a large majority of the OT quotes that were found in the NT came from.


#13

Numerous places - the Catechism, Papal Encyclicals and other documents.

No one has an infallible interpretation. Not even your church. That’s means we must study the scriptures in light of historical contexts, word meanings and various other methods that will help us to understand the scriptures.

Why are you relying, then, or asking us to rely, solely on a text every aspect of which can be disputed (right down to when the books were written and who wrote them!). Especially given that Jesus left no writings of his own, nor ever explicitly commanded anything to be written.

We try to rely on what the APOSTLES TAUGHT alongside what was written down. What the Apostles taught has been recorded by their earliest followers. This is where ECFs such as Polycarp and Ignatius (both of whom learned from John the Evangelist himself) are SO important in aiding our understanding of scripture.

In this sense of course the early sources are more likely to be accurate recordings of what the Apostles taught - greater age means greater possibility of corruption.

This doesn’t tell me much. Just because a church has been around longer doesn’t mean its always true or right. Keep in mind that the Scriptures warn of false teachers who will come into the church and deceive many. Jesus never promised that the church would be protected from this. Not even protestant churches. Both churches have had their false teachers.

If Christ promised to keep and preserve his ONE Church and guide it in teaching ALL truth then an unbroken line of accumulated teaching and authority leading back to the Apostles is of critical importance. So in this sense older is better - less likely to be corrupt.

And sure, Jesus said false teachers would come. Never that they would dominate His one Church to the extent that any new Church would need to be formed from it. That would mean the gates of Hell HAVE prevailed.


#14

Yes.

Scripture tells us the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. AND warns of the false teachers who will come along.

And most important, as pointed out by Lily, nowhere in scripture does it tell us that a new Church would have to be formed because the faithful men who the teachings have been entrusted to have corrupted God’s inspired word.


#15

That is clearly not true. There has always been God inspired scripture and a second category of canon, not considered to be used for doctrine but OK for readings in church. The New Catholic ency states the Canon was not fixed until Trent. Both views were allowed until Trent. You are mistaken.


#16

True but the list of canon of Scripture in the Council of Trent is the same as those in the Council of Florence in 1430 AD, the same list in the Council of Carthage 396 AD, Council of Hippo 392 AD, and Council of Rome in 382, and the same list that St. Jerome translated the OT, and NT text into Latin, St. Jerome use the translation he got from Origen…


#17

So the Deuterocanonical quotes in the NT cannot be considered trustworthy or are they somehow made trustworthy because they were included in th NT?


#18

The Canon was not considered “infallible defined” til Trent does not mean that the Catholic Church did not accept that the Deutero’s were not included in the Canon until the 1500’s.

Hippo and Carthage were local councils that were convened to help define the canons. Each came up with 46 books of the OT. The Pope approved each one.

The Council of Trent would never have had to “close the Canon” if the Reformers hadn’t invented a new Canon.

Kaycee, Can you show me a Catholic Church Approved Bible’s list of the books of the OT that did not include the Deutero’s? If you can, I promise you that I’ll never make this claim again.


#19

That is clearly a false statement!

First of all, the Councils of Carthage and Hippo did not establish the canon for the Church as a whole. The New Catholic Encyclopedia actually affirms the fact that the Canon was not officially and authoritatively established for the Western Church until the Council of Trent in the 16th century and that even such an authority as Pope Gregory the Great rejected the Apocrypha as canonical:

Gregory the Great - “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed” (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)

"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

christiantruth.com/canon.html

**This is clearly the case as proved by Erasmus and Cajetan the leading scholar in the RCC at the time of the Reformation, who sided with Jerome!

The leading RC scholars at the time of the reformation would not have held to a “protestant” canon if carthage was universally accepted.

Your explanation is clearly the novel one.**


#20

Not so…the canon was only defined by Trent as the result of the so-called reformers error.

A list of various pre-Carthage/Hippo lists that prove you wrong.

[LIST]
*]Mileto, Bishop of Sardis circa 175
[/LIST][LIST]
*]St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons 185
[/LIST][LIST]
*]Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, circa 325
[/LIST][LIST]
*]Pope Damasus in 382, prompted by the Council of Rome, wrote a decree listing the present OT and NT canon of 73 books.
[/LIST][LIST]
*]The Council of Hippo in 393 approved the present canon of 73 books.
[/LIST][LIST]
*]The Council of Carthage (in North Africa) in 397 approved the same OT and NT Canon. This is the council which many Protestants take as authority for the NT canon of books.
[/LIST][LIST]
*]Pope Innocent I closed the issue in 405, approving the 73 book canon.[/LIST]

(From Beginning Apologetics 1, San Juan Catholic Seminars.)

Trent merely affirmed what was already long held by the Church.

Jerome had no authority to make a definitive statement concerning the canon and he knew it. Most of the resistance to the DCs was due to the lack of Hebrew texts for them but that was banished with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contained parts of them in Hebrew.

None of this has anything to do with Maryology though.


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.