Purgatory

[BobRyan]

Flat out if the bible is GOD why doesn't someone step up and SAY THAT THEN.

No one has said the "Bible IS God".

God wrote the TEN Commandments with his own hand -- so are those tablets of stone "GOD" or the "Word of God". Why are you going down the road of "the Bible IS God" as if "tablets of stone ARE God" would have to be said if one is to believe the Bible and God writing those TEN Commandments??

Is it a rabbit trail that goes nowhere or are you in someway serious about that?

 

[BobRyan]

REASONS FOR REJECTING THE APOCRYPHA AS SCRIPTURE

1. The Lord Jesus Christ and the writers of the N.T. quote from the O.T. dozens of times: never once from the Apocrypha.
2. Josephus and the Talmud are very clear that the Apocrypha is not part of the inspired Jewish Scriptures.
3. The community who copied out the Dead Sea Scrolls never referred to Apocryphal books with the words "It is written" or "God says" as they did with the O.T.
4. Philo, the Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria around 40 AD quotes from almost every O.T. book; never from the Apocrypha.
5. None of the books of the Apocrypha ever claim inspiration or divine origin. Phrases like "Hear the word of the Lord" which occur so often in the O.T. are never found in the Apocrypha. Moreover, three times in 1 Maccabees, the writer stresses that there was no prophet in the land at the time he wrote (1 Macc. 4:46; 9:27; 14:41).
6. Some Apocryphal books contain basic errors of fact. eg. Judith 1:1 says that Nebuchadrasser [sic] was king of Nineveh rather than Babylon.

[Filched and adapted from the book Nothing but the Truth by Brian Edwards]

Remember it is not the Catholic Apocrypha that we are talking about -- because there is no such thing.

Rather it is the JEWISH Apocrypha -- so I would make this edit to your statement

REASONS FOR REJECTING THE JEWISH APOCRYPHA AS SCRIPTURE

0. the Jews themselves rejected the Jewish Apocrypha as canon.
1. The Lord Jesus Christ and the writers of the N.T. quote from the O.T. dozens of times: never once from the Apocrypha.
2. Josephus and the Talmud are very clear that the Apocrypha is not part of the inspired Jewish Scriptures.
3. The community who copied out the Dead Sea Scrolls never referred to Apocryphal books with the words "It is written" or "God says" as they did with the O.T.
4. Philo, the Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria around 40 AD quotes from almost every O.T. book; never from the Apocrypha.
5. None of the books of the Apocrypha ever claim inspiration or divine origin. Phrases like "Hear the word of the Lord" which occur so often in the O.T. are never found in the Apocrypha. Moreover, three times in 1 Maccabees, the writer stresses that there was no prophet in the land at the time he wrote (1 Macc. 4:46; 9:27; 14:41).
6. Some Apocryphal books contain basic errors of fact. eg. Judith 1:1 says that Nebuchadrasser [sic] was king of Nineveh rather than Babylon.
7. The RCC's own Jerome - who translated the Vulgate - rejected the JEWISH Apocrypha as being canon - in harmony with the facts about the Hebrew Bible - known to all true Hebrew scholars of his day.
8. The Jewish Apocrypha SAYS that there is no revelation from God during the time it is written.


And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)

And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)

And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)

 

[BobRyan]

Notice how "every topic" is circled back to "the Jewish Apocrypha"???

Why is that?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Remember it is not the Catholic Apocrypha that we are talking about -- because there is no such thing.

I don't recall having said it was.

 

[herbert]

And God did not write the Apocrypha. It is not inspired, does not meet the requirements for canonicity and thus is man's word and not God's.

Hello,

You seem quite confident that you're not mistaken about the status of the Deuterocanonical texts (i.e. that their human authors weren't operating according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit such that the texts they composed would rightly come to be affirmed as God-breathed).

So I'd like to ask you to please identify your "requirements for canonicity" as well as the means by which you come to recognize them as authoritative (as a matter of faith) and thus distinguish them from expressions of mere human opinion.

Thank you.

Herbert

 

[herbert]

Anything not found in scripture is automatically controversial.

Hello-

Let me ask a few questions of you in hopes of getting a clearer idea of what you're saying:

1) I notice that your statement "Anything not found in scripture is automatically controversial" is itself "not found in Scripture." Do you, therefore, by applying your own standard to itself, consider your own statement to be just as controversial as the claim that individual members of Christ's Body, though bound ultimately for Heaven, undergo “final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.”? If not, why not?

2) Is a claim or belief necessarily controversial if it is not explicitly taught in Scripture? In other words, if I believe that "Christ stumbled," for example, is such a belief necessarily controversial? Could I not be justified in deducing from the content of Scripture the idea that at some point in His life "Christ stumbled"? If not, why not?

3) Could a claim or belief not be explicitly taught in Scripture but still be worthy of belief (or understood as being in line with the content of Scripture) according to some other logical or rational basis? If not, why not?

4) How do you distinguish between mere human opinion and divinely-revealed truth?

Thanks.

Herbert

 

[Revmitchell]

4) How do you distinguish between mere human opinion and divinely-revealed truth?

Thanks.

Herbert

Scripture

 

[herbert]

Scripture

Hello, again-

Thanks for your response. I appreciate it. Your response, though, leads me to another question. I'll just add it as #5 to my list. I'll mark #4 red because you provided at least a one-word response to it:

1) I notice that your statement "Anything not found in scripture is automatically controversial" is itself "not found in Scripture." Do you, therefore, by applying your own standard to itself, consider your own statement to be just as controversial as the claim that individual members of Christ's Body, though bound ultimately for Heaven, undergo “final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.”? If not, why not?

2) Is a claim or belief necessarily controversial if it is not explicitly taught in Scripture? In other words, if I believe that "Christ stumbled," for example, is such a belief necessarily controversial? Could I not be justified in deducing from the content of Scripture the idea that at some point in His life "Christ stumbled"? If not, why not?

3) Could a claim or belief not be explicitly taught in Scripture but still be worthy of belief (or understood as being in line with the content of Scripture) according to some other logical or rational basis? If not, why not?

4) How do you distinguish between mere human opinion and divinely-revealed truth?

5) Is there a place in Scripture which demands that a person should "distinguish between mere human opinion and divinely-revealed truth" according to, as you put it "Scripture"?

If there isn't a verse found in Scripture which essentially demands that "a person should distinguish between mere human opinion and divinely-revealed truth according to Scripture" then it seems to me that your own test for a doctrine's validity renders itself invalid on account of the fact that it fails its own test. Am I missing something? If so, what am I missing?

Thanks.

Herbert

 

[annsni]

Hello,

You seem quite confident that you're not mistaken about the status of the Deuterocanonical texts (i.e. that their human authors weren't operating according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit such that the texts they composed would rightly come to be affirmed as God-breathed).

So I'd like to ask you to please identify your "requirements for canonicity" as well as the means by which you come to recognize them as authoritative (as a matter of faith) and thus distinguish them from expressions of mere human opinion.

Thank you.

Herbert

Here is a very good book on the Canon of Scripture. It may be worth picking up to read.
http://www.christianbook.com/the-ca...ce/9780830812585/pd/1258?event=AFF&p=1011693&

 

[herbert]

Hello-

I am asking you a couple specific questions in response to your post above. Could you or would you please identify your "requirements for canonicity" as well as the means by which you come to recognize them as authoritative (as a matter of faith) and thus distinguish them from expressions of mere human opinion?

Thanks.

Herbert

 

[Revmitchell]

Hello, again-

Thanks for your response. I appreciate it. Your response, though, leads me to another question. I'll just add it as #5 to my list. I'll mark #4 red because you provided at least a one-word response to it:

1) I notice that your statement "Anything not found in scripture is automatically controversial" is itself "not found in Scripture."

I made no claim as to whether my statement was or was not in scripture. However, you have now made the claim that it is not. Prove to me that no where in scripture it does not say that.

2) Is a claim or belief necessarily controversial if it is not explicitly taught in Scripture? In other words, if I believe that "Christ stumbled," for example, is such a belief necessarily controversial? Could I not be justified in deducing from the content of Scripture the idea that at some point in His life "Christ stumbled"? If not, why not?

3) Could a claim or belief not be explicitly taught in Scripture but still be worthy of belief (or understood as being in line with the content of Scripture) according to some other logical or rational basis? If not, why not?

I have never made such a claim. The problem with Catholic apologists is you guys do not seem to understand about context or basic hermenuetical processes.

4) How do you distinguish between mere human opinion and divinely-revealed truth?

Scripture

5) Is there a place in Scripture which demands that a person should "distinguish between mere human opinion and divinely-revealed truth" according to, as you put it "Scripture"?

If there isn't a verse found in Scripture which essentially demands that "a person should distinguish between mere human opinion and divinely-revealed truth according to Scripture" then it seems to me that your own test for a doctrine's validity renders itself invalid on account of the fact that it fails its own test. Am I missing something? If so, what am I missing?

Thanks.

Herbert

Yea you are missing something. You do not know what God's word says. I suggest you study it instead of listening to man's opinion.

 

[herbert]

Hello, Revmitchell-

Please notice that all I've really done here in conversation with you is asked questions. I have considered your words, and asked that you provide further clarity so that I may better understand your position(s).

Early on, you said that "Anything not found in scripture is automatically controversial." Since that statement is not found in Scripture, it seemed to me that, logically speaking, you'd have to consider the statement itself to be controversial. If you don't see it that way, could you please explain why? As I read your responses, I can't help but wonder:

Does Revmitchell...

1) ...believe there to be a verse somewhere in the Bible which says something very much like "Anything not found in scripture is automatically controversial"? (If so, could you please share it?)

2) ...not believe the Bible says such a thing (and thus realize the fact that the statement "Anything not found in scripture is automatically controversial" is not divinely revealed) but still believe a person to be justified in judging doctrines according to such a principle? (If this is the case, could you explain why the principle is itself exempt from its own application and why the principle, though not divinely-revealed, should be affirmed by all Christians and not treated as one would treat other matters of private opinion?)

3) ...fail to apply his principle consistently and is therefore avoiding a direct response to me because he doesn't have one?

I made no claim as to whether my statement was or was not in scripture. However, you have now made the claim that it is not. Prove to me that no where in scripture it does not say that.

By considering the statement "Anything not found in scripture is automatically controversial" in light of the fact that you claim to distinguish between divinely-revealed doctrine and human opinion through "Scripture" I see my questions as straightforward, to the point, honest, and fair, based upon what you offered. Further, I am asking them in all sincerity and not for rhetoric's sake. I would genuinely like to hear your responses.

I have never made such a claim. The problem with Catholic apologists is you guys do not seem to understand about context or basic hermenuetical processes.

What is it about my questions which has given you the idea that I don't understand basic things about Scripture and hermeneutics?

Yea you are missing something. You do not know what God's word says. I suggest you study it instead of listening to man's opinion.

I, having access to the Scriptures, do "know what God's Word says." Here is a little bit about my background to provide some context for you. I was a Baptist until the age of 30. I used to hold to Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and Justification by Faith Alone. Those three doctrines were, to me, among the most foundational doctrines of the Christian Faith. I was not exactly a Calvinist myself at that time, but my Pastors often were and I certainly accepted certain elements of Calvinist doctrine (to the extent that I saw them as authentically Biblical). Through an unexpected journey, I came to realize that Christ established the Catholic Church and I was confirmed in 2008.

Thanks for your time!

Herbert

 

[BobRyan]

Hello,

You seem quite confident that you're not mistaken about the status of the Deuterocanonical texts (i.e. that their human authors weren't operating according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit such that the texts they composed would rightly come to be affirmed as God-breathed).

So I'd like to ask you to please identify your "requirements for canonicity" as well as the means by which you come to recognize them as authoritative (as a matter of faith) and thus distinguish them from expressions of mere human opinion.

Thank you.

Herbert

Luke 24:27 Christ taught them "beginning with Moses" and then "From ALL the scriptures" - -- the JEWs rejected the jewish apocrypha as being included in the canon. So also did the RCC's own Jerome reject the Jewish Apocrypha.

That means we have full agreement on the OT books of 39, and the NT books of 27.

Not even an issue to discuss or debate.

Hardly a topic for derailing a thread on Purgatory

 

[herbert]

Hello, BobRyan-

I am afraid that things are not as simple as you suggest.

As far as derailing the conversation goes, the status of the Deuterocanonical texts is quite on topic. For it is in 2nd Maccabees 12:38-46 that we read the following:

"Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. 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 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 in mind; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 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. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin."

So it is that I see it as thoroughly reasonable to ask the following of annsni:

Could you or would you please identify your "requirements for canonicity" as well as the means by which you come to recognize them as authoritative (as a matter of faith) and thus distinguish them from expressions of mere human opinion?

For if we can identify those objective requirements for canonicity to which annsni alludes, the status of the above text will weigh more heavily into the conversation.

Interestingly, for the sake of a discussion on Purgatory, the importance of the above text doesn't hinge on the question of whether or not it came to us by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For even if we dismiss the possibility that the Catholic Church has rightly identified the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture, we do have an early Jewish record which is reflective of some practical theological considerations of the time. So as a matter of historical theological record, this passage does weigh into our conversation.

Also, it is hard for me to square your dismissal of the Deuterocanonical texts on one hand with your wholehearted acceptance of the writings of Ellen G. White as genuinely prophetic on the other. Your own Church presents ideas such as this one concerning the status of her work:

"The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church."

That sounds a lot like 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 to me. And I don't bring her into this to further derail the discussion. I bring her up for the same reason I asked what I asked of annsni... because it is important that we Christians, all of us, recognize those objective and universally binding factors by which we can, together, distinguish between divinely-revealed truths and mere human opinion. In other words, the "objective" means by which we distinguish between divinely-revealed truths and human opinion cannot be arrived at subjectively. They would, in that case, have lost their objectivity. But Christianity isn't some new form of Biblicist Gnosticism. It is a public, objective thing which stands to reason and history. It is a public thing, founded upon a divinely-revealed objective principle.

Catholics believe that this objective principle is maintained in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Christ and born on Pentecost.

In other words, Catholics see the Church founded by Christ as the very provision, instituted by Him, by which the genuine and authentic Christian Faith is shared over the course of the centuries.

In contrast, you say "Scripture, rightly interpreted."
Others say "Scripture, rightly interpreted."

But when you and other adherents to Sola Scriptura disagree, there is no higher Court of Appeal to which you might turn than Scripture (Well, that's not exactly the case for you personally, as you have the inspired writings of Ellen G. White to look to). And, incidentally, it is Scriptural interpretation which is the very thing from which your initial disagreement(s) grow... Mind you, I am not suggesting that Scripture is the cause of your disagreements. Your disagreements arise in your minds, which are fallibly attempting to access infallible text (2nd Peter 3:16). This is, again, what led GK Chesterton to say the following:

"The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement..."

And so here we sit, in disagreement. So it is utterly important and central to the question of Purgatory that we determine the following:
A) Those objective and faith-binding means according to which we may distinguish between human opinion and divine revelation.
B) Those "requirements for canonicity" to which annsni alluded as well as the means by which she has come to recognize them as authoritative (as a matter of faith) and thus distinguish them from expressions of mere human opinion?

Finally, and I don't think it's an inconsequential point, as a Baptist I remember reading "Letters to Malcolm" by CS Lewis. I was very surprised to see that in the book he flatly states "Our souls demand purgatory." Though he was a faithful Anglican of his day (though by his own definitions the Anglican Communion is no more; see his essay "Priestesses in the Church?"), he held to the doctrine and saw it not simply as compatible with the content of Scripture, but as a natural corrollary to the Bible's teaching concerning salvation and the very nature and ontology of humankind.

Though I didn't bring it up at the time, the question of CS Lewis's view on Purgatory is definitely related to the following two questions I asked of Revmitchell:

2) Is a claim or belief necessarily controversial if it is not explicitly taught in Scripture? In other words, if I believe that "Christ stumbled," for example, is such a belief necessarily controversial? Could I not be justified in deducing from the content of Scripture the idea that at some point in His life "Christ stumbled"? If not, why not?

3) Could a claim or belief not be explicitly taught in Scripture but still be worthy of belief (or understood as being in line with the content of Scripture) according to some other logical or rational basis? If not, why not?

Thanks for chiming in BobRyan!

Herbert

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Could you or would you please identify your "requirements for canonicity" as well as the means by which you come to recognize them as authoritative (as a matter of faith) and thus distinguish them from expressions of mere human opinion?

Hello Herbert. Just in case you missed this (it's in Post #40):

REASONS FOR REJECTING THE APOCRYPHA AS SCRIPTURE

1. The Lord Jesus Christ and the writers of the N.T. quote from the O.T. dozens of times: never once from the Apocrypha.
2. Josephus and the Talmud are very clear that the Apocrypha is not part of the inspired Jewish Scriptures.
3. The community who copied out the Dead Sea Scrolls never referred to Apocryphal books with the words "It is written" or "God says" as they did with the O.T.
4. Philo, the Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria around 40 AD quotes from almost every O.T. book; never from the Apocrypha.
5. None of the books of the Apocrypha ever claim inspiration or divine origin. Phrases like "Hear the word of the Lord" which occur so often in the O.T. are never found in the Apocrypha. Moreover, three times in 1 Maccabees, the writer stresses that there was no prophet in the land at the time he wrote (1 Macc. 4:46; 9:27; 14:41).
6. Some Apocryphal books contain basic errors of fact. eg. Judith 1:1 says that Nebuchadrasser [sic] was king of Nineveh rather than Babylon.

[Filched and adapted from the book Nothing but the Truth by Brian Edwards]

Also, of course, the very fellow (Jerome) who put the Apocrypha in his Vulgate Bible did not believe that it was inspired Scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Hello, BobRyan-

I am afraid that things are not as simple as you suggest.

As far as derailing the conversation goes, the status of the Deuterocanonical texts is quite on topic. For it is in 2nd Maccabees 12:38-46 that we read the following:

"Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. 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 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 in mind; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 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. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin."

1. These jews died in the mortal sin of idolatry -- idolatry is not a venial sin even by Catholic standards. Worshiping pagan gods is not a "small infraction" in the RCC. And will not earn the people of God - "heaven" even by Catholic standards. These are not pagans that they are trying to get "absolved" but rather - they are Jews, the people of God -- yet worshipping pagan gods!

2. Absolve from sin - is not purgatory. Rather purgatory is paying for temporal suffering owed by venial sins -- not mortal sins. The text does not say anything about purging the dead of a bad character so that while dead - and before their resurrection they can get out of purgatory and go to heaven.

3. the text says that NO BENEFIT at all would be anticipated for the dead -- were it not for the resurrection. So then no focus at all on "while dead the great benefit of getting out of purgatory and going to heaven"

 

[BobRyan]

And what is more - the animal sacrifices offered for "absolution of sin" (not purging character) - in the example you gave -- are specifically shadow services that Hebrews 10 claims to be abolished by the death of Christ. Another words they are not a type of "purgatory" rather they are a type of the sacrifice of Christ according to Hebrews 10.

 

[herbert]

1 of 2 to Martin

Martin,

Thanks for the response. Your post is helpful. As a matter of fact, it demonstrates why I worded my request as I did. I asked the following:


Could you or would you please identify your "requirements for canonicity" as well as the means by which you come to recognize them as authoritative (as a matter of faith) and thus distinguish them from expressions of mere human opinion?


I was hoping to hear of two things:

1. Objective requirements for Scriptural canonicity.
   
   
2. The identification of some objective means by which we may come to recognize that all christians are bound to the "requirements for Scriptural canonicity."

Your response fails to provide either. Your response, rather than demonstrating the objectivity of your position, reveals its arbitrariness. For what you’ve presented, far from representing clear and objective principles which are universally binding upon Christians, represents a group of, at best, “points to consider.” These points, any Christian is free to accept or reject. They represent an admixture of philosophical, historical, cultural, and linguistic considerations which are anything but “binding” upon all believers. Just as easily as a Christian came up with a list and titled it “Reasons for Rejecting the Apocrypha as Scripture” another could create a competing list and call it “Reasons to Accept the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture.” Neither of the lists would be much more than interesting to consider. In order to recognize a doctrine as truly binding upon Christians, something entirely different than this list will be needed. Still, allow me to respond to these points individually:

REASONS FOR REJECTING THE APOCRYPHA AS SCRIPTURE 1. The Lord Jesus Christ and the writers of the N.T. quote from the O.T. dozens of times: never once from the Apocrypha.

1. Are you suggesting that a book of the Old Testament must be referred to in the New Testament in order to rightly be placed there?
   1. Is this one of the requirements for canonicity that I asked about? If so, what of the fact that roughly a third of the Old Testament isn’t referenced in the New Testament?
2. Do we receive these books in collections or “sets” or “canons” or do we consider the individual qualities of each book to determine whether or not it passes muster? If one or the other, why?
   1. And if we accept the books in collections or “sets,” by what authority do we accept one “set” over another?
      
      
   2. And whose responsibility is it to weigh these myriad considerations?
      
      
   3. What of the fact that the Sadducees rejected all but the Pentateuch? Should I appeal to their witness? If not, why not?
      
      
   4. And what of the Samaritan Pentateuch vs. the Masoretic Pentateuch? Which is preferable to the other?
3. If roughly 2/3rds of the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament come from the Septuagint, and the Deuterocanonicals were found therein, why weren’t the NT writers careful to distinctly identify the seven Deuterocanonical books as uninspired?
   
   
4. Hebrews 11:35 reads: “Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection.” There is no reference of such an event in the Old Testament books which you accept. However, just such an event is recounted in 2nd Maccabees, Chapter 7.

2. Josephus and the Talmud are very clear that the Apocrypha is not part of the inspired Jewish Scriptures.

1. Are Christians justified in adopting the position of Josephus with regard to Scripture?
   1. Would Josephus, for example, recognize the 27 books of the New Testament as legitimate Scripture?
2. Are Christians justified in adopting or rejecting Scripture according to the Talmudic witness?
   1. If so, what of the fact that Talmudic writings, following the lead of the 2nd Century Greek writer, Celsus, refer to Christ as the illegitimate son of a Roman Soldier named Panthera?
      
      
   2. While we’re at it, why should we not appeal to the witness of the Sanhedrin of 1st Century Jerusalem, for example, to identify our Scriptural Canon?
3. In light of the political, historical, and cultural upheaval which has existed among Jewish communities, especially since Christ’s Resurrection, is it reasonable to appeal to their witness as a standard for Christian belief. Dr. Rachael Turkienicz writes of a particularly tense conflict which existed among the Pharisees and the Sadducees that may have played a role in the exclusion of certain Deuterocanonical texts from any official listing of Scriptures which was held to among Post-Resurrection Jews. She writes:
   1. “It has also been suggested that the exclusion of the Books of the Maccabees can be traced to the political rivalry that existed during the late Second Temple Period between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Sadducees, a priestly class in charge of the Temple, openly rejected the oral interpretations that the Pharisees, the proto-rabbinic class, openly promoted. The Maccabees were a priestly family, while the rabbis who may have determined the final form of the biblical canon at Jamnia were descended from the Pharisees. Is it possible that the exclusion of the Books of Maccabees was one of the last salvos in the battle between the Pharisees and Sadducees?” (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/omitting-the-maccabees/)

3. The community who copied out the Dead Sea Scrolls never referred to Apocryphal books with the words "It is written" or "God says" as they did with the O.T.

1. Are Christians bound by the witness of the Qumran Community? If so, why?
   
   
2. More significant than the somewhat arbitrary demand that the Essenes use the phrase “It is written” or “God says” in direct reference to the Deuterocanonical texts is probably the fact that four copies of Tobit were found among the texts discovered in Aramaic as well as one in Hebrew. Beyond that, other copies of Deuterocanonical works were found there, as well.
   
   
3. Esther, however, was not found among the texts.
   1. What principle of inclusion or exclusion are you attempting to consistently apply to the question of the status of the Deuterocanonical texts.

4. Philo, the Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria around 40 AD quotes from almost every O.T. book; never from the Apocrypha.

1. Of what consequence is it for a Christian that a Jewish philosopher who was writing as a Jew within a particularly unique Greco-Roman cultural context did or didn’t quote from the Second Canon (as well as a number of other Old Testament texts), especially in light of the fact that, because of the pre-eminence of the Pentateuch, the vast majority of his quotations come directly from those first five books?
   
   
2. What Christian principle does such an accident of history represent which has any bearing whatsoever on the “binding” doctrines and beliefs of Christians?

 

[herbert]

2 of 2 to Martin

5. None of the books of the Apocrypha ever claim inspiration or divine origin. Phrases like "Hear the word of the Lord" which occur so often in the O.T. are never found in the Apocrypha. Moreover, three times in 1 Maccabees, the writer stresses that there was no prophet in the land at the time he wrote (1 Macc. 4:46; 9:27; 14:41).

1. There are other Old Testament texts which don’t include phrases such as “Hear the word of the Lord,” also. Are they being called into question, as well? If not, why not?
   
   
2. Again, in light of the pre-eminence of the Pentateuch and the less-than-settled state of affairs concerning the question of Scriptural canonicity among Jewish texts in general, is a person justified, as a matter of faith, in rejecting these texts based upon a factor such as this?
   
   
3. Since the Deuterocanonical texts were written during the OT/NT intertestamental period, would you expect them to discuss the various prophets travelling the countryside speaking on behalf of God? Further, how does this consideration relate to the New Testament?

6. Some Apocryphal books contain basic errors of fact. eg. Judith 1:1 says that Nebuchadrasser [sic] was king of Nineveh rather than Babylon.

1. As far as Judith is concerned, there are clear cultural and linguistic explanations which account for such things. Judith is understood as a type of parable which tells a particular kind of tale of a People’s plight. The name Judith, for example, means “Lady Jew” and the book opens with an obvious blunder if it means to be understood as actual history. For every reader would know from verse 1:1 that Nebuchadnezzar was King of the Babylonians.

Also, of course, the very fellow (Jerome) who put the Apocrypha in his Vulgate Bible did not believe that it was inspired Scripture.

1. It is true that St. Jerome had a bias in favor of the Hebrew texts. This tendency on his part, however, waned over time and by the beginning of the 5th Century AFTER Pope Damasus had identified the texts of Scripture St. Jerome referred to, for example, Sirach, as Scripture.
   
   
2. St. Jerome was a Catholic who submitted to the authority of the Church despite having scholarly opinions which, at times, caused him to take issue with the direction in which things were headed. Still, though, he remained faithful to the authority of the Church and there is no reason to believe that he saw his scholarly opinion as final or infallible.
   
   
3. The Church doesn’t operate as a democracy. During the height of the Arian heresy Orthodoxy was against the ropes. So although he’s an important figure in Catholic history, the fact that, for a time, St. Jerome held to a position which proved to be mistaken isn’t a mark against him or the Catholic Church.
   
   
4. Also, in his prologue to the book of Judith (AD 407), St. Jerome says the following of the Book of Judith, which affirms its Canonical status even among those present at the Council of Nicaea: “Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean [Aramaic] words, it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work translating more sense from sense than word from word. I have removed the extremely faulty variety of the many books; only those which I was able to find in the Chaldean words with understanding intact did I express in Latin ones. Receive the widow Judith, an example of chastity, and declare triumphal honor with perpetual praises for her. For this one has the Rewarder of her chastity given as imitable not only for women but also for men, Who granted her such strength, that she conquered the one unconquered by all men, she surpassed the insurpassable.”

Some other things to consider:

1. For even when we attempt to consistently apply various cultural, historical, and linguistic considerations to the question of the status of the Deuterocanonical texts, we encounter a host of problems which render them anything but clear and unambiguous. As Dr Turkienicz, the Jewish Scholar mentioned above discusses here, the fundamentally unsettled nature of the Jewish Canon itself presents those who attempt to appeal to Jewish witness with an insurmountable problem:
   
   1. "The canonization process of the Hebrew Bible is often associated with the Council of Jamnia (Hebrew: Yavneh), around the year 90 C.E. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai managed to escape Jerusalem before its destruction and received permission to rebuild a Jewish base in Jamnia. It was there that the contents of the canon of the Hebrew Bible may have been discussed and formally accepted. However, this is a scholarly proposition that has lost adherents in recent years. Be that as it may, some of the debates surrounding these discussions–whenever and wherever they may have taken place–do appear in rabbinic literature, although we have no complete surviving record of these debates. Therefore, we can only speculate on why some materials were excluded from our canon and others included." (http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/omitting-the-maccabees/)
      
      
   2. In other words, the idea of formally categorizing Scriptural texts was simply not a major consideration for Jews. Hence the practical pre-eminence of the Pentateuch and the (practically) relegated status of the other OT texts. Dr. Turkienicz says that as far as inclusion and exclusion of texts from “canonical lists” is concerned, even Jews have little to go on but historical speculation. Add to that the fact that certain Jewish communities during Christ’s life didn’t then (and still don’t) accept anything but the Pentateuch as valid Scripture and that Post-Resurrection identification of a particular Canon was itself influenced by sectarian infighting among Jewish groups and those who attempt to seek clarity from the Jews are fighting quite an uphill battle, especially, and most profoundly, in light of the fact that whatever the various Jewish witnesses decided Christians are subject to Christian, not Jewish authority structures, the latter of which, unlike the Catholic Magisterium, does not rest in the promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
      
      
   3. In other words, without presenting clear evidence for the existence of a truly formalized and “closed” canon recognized by all Jews, your points are all quite insignificant. In the absence of a universally defined canon recognized by Jews, what truly final and conclusive evidence does an appeal to Jews, especially post-Resurrection Jews, have on Christians?
2. The witness of Orthodoxy
   
   1. Without getting into the broader questions concerning Orthodoxy and the Canon of Scripture, I am going to quickly point out one thing. Though not under the authority of the Bishop of Rome, the Orthodox Church in America accepts the Deuterocanonicals, as well. As Christian closely in touch with their past, their witness should be considered when approaching this question, as well. From the Orthodox Church in America’s Website we read the following straightforward and simple statement on the matter:
      
      1. “These books—Tobit, Judah, more chapters of Esther and Daniel, the Books of Maccabees, the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Sirach, the Prophecy of Baruch, and the Prayer of Manasseh—are considered by the Orthodox to be fully part of the Old testament because they are part of the longer canon that was accepted from the beginning by the early Church. The same Canon [rule] of Scripture is used by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Jerusalem Bible (RC) these books are intermingled within the Old Testament Books and not placed separately as often in Protestant translations (e.g., KJV).”
   2. Notice, we don’t see an appeal to Jewish Tradition coming from the Orthodox Church in America. Rather, we see an appeal to “the beginning,” to the “early Church.”
3. In closing, as I said above, what we need is an objective principle of Canonical inclusion or exclusion to which Christians are universally bound and thus by which we all may together come to distinguish between divinely-revealed truths and human opinions. That very principle resides in the one provision instituted by Christ for just that purpose, the Catholic Church, the true and faithful servant to God’s Word.

Herbert

 

[BobRyan]

From http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=348599&language=en

I answer that, nothing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory, nor is it possible to offer convincing arguments on this question. It is probable, however, and more in keeping with the statements of holy men and the revelations made to many, that there is a twofold place of Purgatory. One, according to the common law; and thus the place of Purgatory is situated below and in proximity to hell, so that it is the same fire which torments the damned in hell and cleanses the just in Purgatory; although the damned being lower in merit, are to be consigned to a lower place. Another place of Purgatory is according to dispensation: and thus sometimes, as we read, some are punished in various places, either that the living may learn, or that the dead may be succored, seeing that their punishment being made known to the living may be mitigated through the prayers of the Church.

Father Echert

================================

Oh no wait!

I think we are supposed to be spending all of our time on the Jewish-apocrypha -- that even the Jews reject as canon and so also did Jerome reject the Jewish Apocrypha as canon.