-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ESV with the Apocrypha
- Thread starter JFox1
- Start date
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Which books of the Apocrypha, in your opinion, are inspired of God?... There are no Catholic doctrines in the disputed books of the Old Testament. They were written by Jews before the time of Christ.
The RCC uses passages in those unbiblical books to support pergatory, and when they were a bigger deal...buying indulgences.
If we allow these unbiblical books to be included in our Bibles what is the criteria? Want to add The Purpose Driven Life? Plenty of people use it as their rule of life and godliness. How about the koran? How about thoughts by Oprah?
If we allow these unbiblical books to be included in our Bibles what is the criteria? Want to add The Purpose Driven Life? Plenty of people use it as their rule of life and godliness. How about the koran? How about thoughts by Oprah?
SummaScriptura
Member
Apologies for my not responding yet....Given this evidence, how can you support your statement that, “There are no Catholic doctrines in the disputed books of the Old Testament.“?
I started a reply but I am researching another citation which I've not yet found and I've been swamped here the past few days. Tomorrow looks pretty booked too. I WILL reply. Stay tuned.
SummaScriptura
Member
Let me first address your question about Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach 3:29, from the NAB.
Firstly, we need to bear in mind that we are reading an Old Testament book, Sirach. Under the Old Covenant the term "atonement" is not parallel to the New Testament concepts of forgiveness, redemption and salvation. O.C. atonement was a temporary covering for individual sins which continually needed renewing. Consider these other examples of O.C. atonement:
Exodus 30:11-16The LORD said to Moses, “When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for his life to the LORD when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. Each one who is numbered in the census shall give this: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as an offering to the LORD. Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the LORD's offering. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the LORD's offering to make atonement for your lives. You shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the LORD, so as to make atonement for your lives.”
Numbers 16:46And Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer, and put fire on it from off the altar and lay incense on it and carry it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone out from the LORD; the plague has begun.”
Numbers 31:50And we have brought the LORD's offering, what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD.”
2 Samuel 21:3And David said to the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? And how shall I make atonement, that you may bless the heritage of the LORD?”
Proverbs 16:6By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the LORD one turns away from evil.
By projecting an anachronism on Sirach 3:29 (3:30) both Catholics and Protestants make the twin error as seeing this as a verse of the Old Testament which teaches salvation by works. Nothing could by further from the case.
My understanding of the historical background for Sirach 3:29 (30) runs like this: The temple tax which was due from all Jews was paid to the temple yearly. During the Babylonian captivity when teh temple did not exist, believing Jews were permitted to give their tax as alms for the poor who lived near them in the Diaspora. So, the donation to the temple which was a kind of "atonement money" was switched to the practice of almsgiving. During the time of Sriach, though the temple was rebuilt, the practice had been maintained as a solution especially for Jews who lived far from the temple.
Personally I prefer the NRSV and ESV of the verse. Sirach 3:30 (NRSV) "As water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sin."<snip>Now let me quote the other passage that I sited:
Water quenches a flaming fire, and alms atone for sins.
This verse, taken as-is, is used by the Catholic church to support taking alms for the forgiveness of sins.
Given this evidence, how can you support your statement that, "There are no Catholic doctrines in the disputed books of the Old Testament."?
Firstly, we need to bear in mind that we are reading an Old Testament book, Sirach. Under the Old Covenant the term "atonement" is not parallel to the New Testament concepts of forgiveness, redemption and salvation. O.C. atonement was a temporary covering for individual sins which continually needed renewing. Consider these other examples of O.C. atonement:
Exodus 30:11-16The LORD said to Moses, “When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for his life to the LORD when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. Each one who is numbered in the census shall give this: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as an offering to the LORD. Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the LORD's offering. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the LORD's offering to make atonement for your lives. You shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the LORD, so as to make atonement for your lives.”
Numbers 16:46And Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer, and put fire on it from off the altar and lay incense on it and carry it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone out from the LORD; the plague has begun.”
Numbers 31:50And we have brought the LORD's offering, what each man found, articles of gold, armlets and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and beads, to make atonement for ourselves before the LORD.”
2 Samuel 21:3And David said to the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? And how shall I make atonement, that you may bless the heritage of the LORD?”
Proverbs 16:6By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the LORD one turns away from evil.
By projecting an anachronism on Sirach 3:29 (3:30) both Catholics and Protestants make the twin error as seeing this as a verse of the Old Testament which teaches salvation by works. Nothing could by further from the case.
My understanding of the historical background for Sirach 3:29 (30) runs like this: The temple tax which was due from all Jews was paid to the temple yearly. During the Babylonian captivity when teh temple did not exist, believing Jews were permitted to give their tax as alms for the poor who lived near them in the Diaspora. So, the donation to the temple which was a kind of "atonement money" was switched to the practice of almsgiving. During the time of Sriach, though the temple was rebuilt, the practice had been maintained as a solution especially for Jews who lived far from the temple.
Last edited by a moderator:
SummaScriptura
Member
I interact with Catholics all of the time and when pressed to use “scripture” to defend their beliefs, many will site passages in the Apocrypha, such as what I quoted from that website. Let’s look at two of the passages that I sited:
II Maccabees 12:38-45, is used a proof text to support praying for the dead and ultimately the belief in purgatory:Then Judas assembled his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was coming on, they purified themselves according to the custom, and they kept the sabbath there. On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers. Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
This text alone doesn’t teach the complete Catholic doctrines of purgatory or praying for the dead, but by reading it you can see where the Catholic church has used this passage to conflate that doctrine.<snip>
There are two hermeneutical principles which come into play with this passage which preclude the development of a doctrine based upon the passage:
1. No doctrine should be established on the basis of one passage of Scripture. "Every matter must be established on the basis of two or three witnesses." Upon this principle, no doctrine of praying for the dead is established.
2. No doctrine should be established on the basis of a passage of history. The genre of the 2nd Book of Maccabees is historical. Historical books by nature are not books of docrtrine or instruction. Though the passage is an important historical insight upon one event during the Maccabean period, it cannot be used to derive instruction for the practice of the Church.
I will say it again, there are no Catholic doctrines in the disputed books of the Old Testament.
I will say it again, there are no Catholic doctrines in the disputed books of the Old Testament.
I don't disagree with your position, so we are in the same page both hermeneutically and historically. But, your approach to both is not the same approach that the Catholic church uses (at least as far as I can tell). The sad fact is that the Catholic church teaches these doctrines (prayers for the dead and alms for atonement), from the apocrypha in a way that violates the very principles that you explained. Here are quotes from the Catholic catechism:
So at best, we would have to say that due to poor hermenutics and a total misunderstanding of the Old Testament priesthood - coupled with a lack of understanding of the completed work of Christ on the Cross, the Catholic church teaches these doctrines by incorrectly using verses from the apocrypha. Do you agree with me?958 Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
1479 Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted.
Last edited by a moderator:
SummaScriptura
Member
Yes, they do teach error in this regard, as they do from other books of the Bible. We are in agreement then.I don't disagree with your position, so we are in the same page both hermeneutically and historically. But, your approach to both is not the same approach that the Catholic church uses (at least as far as I can tell). The sad fact is that the Catholic church teaches these doctrines (prayers for the dead and alms for atonement), from the apocrypha in a way that violates the very principles that you explained. Here are quotes from the Catholic catechism:
So at best, we would have to say that due to poor hermenutics and a total misunderstanding of the Old Testament priesthood - coupled with a lack of understanding of the completed work of Christ on the Cross, the Catholic church teaches these doctrines by incorrectly using verses from the apocrypha. Do you agree with me?
SummaScriptura
Member
By the way, I do appreciate your coming back and replying with further detail earlier in the thread.
There are two hermeneutical principles which come into play with this passage which preclude the development of a doctrine based upon the passage:
1. No doctrine should be established on the basis of one passage of Scripture. "Every matter must be established on the basis of two or three witnesses." Upon this principle, no doctrine of praying for the dead is established.
2. No doctrine should be established on the basis of a passage of history. The genre of the 2nd Book of Maccabees is historical. Historical books by nature are not books of docrtrine or instruction. Though the passage is an important historical insight upon one event during the Maccabean period, it cannot be used to derive instruction for the practice of the Church.
I will say it again, there are no Catholic doctrines in the disputed books of the Old Testament.
Even worse than that, there are NO major catholic dictrines that are found in the Bible either!
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Is there gonna be an answer to this question?Which books of the Apocrypha, in your opinion, are inspired of God?
Is there gonna be an answer to this question?
ZERO, as NONE were written by author that was inspired by/from God!
SummaScriptura
Member
I believe a discussion of the inspiration of Scripture would be helpful and I would be glad to participate. Open another thread, and send me the link and we can discuss the inspiration/non-inspiration of the disputed books of the Old Testament.Which books of the Apocrypha, in your opinion, are inspired of God?
Hint: my answer will not have anything to do with "which books in my opinion".
franklinmonroe
Active Member
No, thanks. We have had several discussions around the topic of Inspiration since I've been a regular here and I'm not really interested in covering that ground again right now.I believe a discussion of the inspiration of Scripture would be helpful and I would be glad to participate. ...
Why not just a short answer and list the so-called 'apocryphal' books you hold as inspired of God?
Last edited by a moderator:
Is there gonna be an answer to this question?
My stand is that with the testimony of the texts themselves and their treatment throughout church history, no, they are not inspired. They are interesting to read, but unreliable for doctrine.
SummaScriptura
Member
I have a different view based upon my study of the usage of these books historically in the Church.My stand is that with the testimony of the texts themselves and their treatment throughout church history, no, they are not inspired. They are interesting to read, but unreliable for doctrine.
The question of "inspiration" is not left open to an individual's choice, I beleive, (so Luther's opinion is thus discounted, I'm afraid). I do not believe in the formal canons of the Church councils, either, but rather in the informal canons of the usage of the Church over time, at least in part. The Church body in agregate over centuries has given us its judgment as to what is Scripture useful for its own edification and encouragment. Are the disputed books of the Old Testament among them? The answer to that question can lead us in the right direction on the question of the Holy Spirit's inspiration of Scripture.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a different view based upon my study of the usage of these books historically in the Church.
The question of "inspiration" is not left open to an individual's choice, I beleive. I do not believe in the formal canons of the Church councils, but rather in the informal canons of the usage of the Church over time, at least in part. The Church body in agregate over centuries has given us its judgment as to what is Scripture useful for its own edification and encouragment. Are the disputed books of the Old Testament among them? The answer to that question can lead us in the right direction on the question of the Holy Spirit's inspiration of Scripture.
the problem is that the Lord jesus, Apostles etc NEVER recognized them as being such!
SummaScriptura
Member
So, let me see if I understand your position...the problem is that the Lord jesus, Apostles etc NEVER recognized them as being such!
You believe that if the Lord Jesus, or the Apostles, or etc (whatever that might mean), do not "recognize" a specific book, it should not be considered Scripture.
Is that your view? If so, please define "recognize".
I have a different view based upon my study of the usage of these books historically in the Church.
The question of "inspiration" is not left open to an individual's choice, I beleive, (so Luther's opinion is thus discounted, I'm afraid). I do not believe in the formal canons of the Church councils, either, but rather in the informal canons of the usage of the Church over time, at least in part. The Church body in agregate over centuries has given us its judgment as to what is Scripture useful for its own edification and encouragment. Are the disputed books of the Old Testament among them? The answer to that question can lead us in the right direction on the question of the Holy Spirit's inspiration of Scripture.
I am genuinely interested in your definition of inspiration. Would you mind elaborating on your views of inspiration? I take a cookie-cutter approach (from what I was taught in college) about the inspiration of the scriptures and the canon in general - 66 books. The Council of Trent pretty much sealed the canon as we know it today in western Christianity for both Catholics (72 books) and Protestants (66 books).
Given the discrepancy that exists between Protestant / Catholic / Eastern churches, which books do you believe should have been included? Also, what about other writings such as found in the pseudepigrapha? What knowledge and/or doctrines do you think the church is missing today by not including them?
So, let me see if I understand your position...
You believe that if the Lord Jesus, or the Apostles, or etc (whatever that might mean), do not "recognize" a specific book, it should not be considered Scripture.
Is that your view? If so, please define "recognize".
the Jews had officially ratified the OT canon of Books by time of Jesus, and all 27 books tob be recognized later were inspired/written and meing read as authorative books already during the Apsotolic era!
the apostolic church already had the canon of OT books that were officially recognized, NO Apocrapha/Deutrocanonical books in there, and Apostolic church also received as from God and learned from the 27 books that were later raitified as in the canon!