Socrates Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Budge' post='1060889' date='Sep 11 2006, 03:48 PM'] Apocrypha doesnt interlock with the rest of the Bible. The Bible is one book, and the verses all interlink with one another. Not true for the Apocrypha. [/quote] Can you explain what you mean by "interlink" and "interlock"? What is the criteria for a passage "interlocking"? Every single verse in the Bible "interlinks" with every single other verse? Could you give an example? (As well as showing how those of the so-called Apocrypha do not.) And who determines which books and verses "interlink" and "interlock" and which do not? Edited September 12, 2006 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 [quote name='Budge' post='1060889' date='Sep 11 2006, 04:48 PM'] Apocrypha doesnt interlock with the rest of the BIble. The Bible is one book, and the verses all interlink with one another. Not true for the Apocrypha. [/quote] I've always felt that Esther doesn't interlock with the rest of the Bible. Let's chuck it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aalpha1989 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 (edited) And John isn't really like the other gospels, what with the feet washing and everything. And all that "My flesh is true bread," stuff, where else in the Bible is that? Let's get rid of that one too.... (still no real answers from budge....) Edited September 12, 2006 by aalpha1989 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 [quote name='Budge' post='1060889' date='Sep 11 2006, 05:48 PM'] Apocrypha doesnt interlock with the rest of the BIble. The Bible is one book, and the verses all interlink with one another. Not true for the Apocrypha. [/quote] Funny, all Christians seemed to consider them part of the Bible for about 1500 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Budge, I'm sure that for every example of a verse in the 7 books that were discarded that does not interlock/interlink/intertwine/intermingle/intermesh with the others we could find one that can and/or at least one in the rest that cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted September 12, 2006 Author Share Posted September 12, 2006 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1060975' date='Sep 11 2006, 05:45 PM'] So then, do you reject the authority of the Apostles? And do you also reject their Canon? If so you reject the fulliness of The Word of God found in Holy Scripture. On what logical grounds do you reject the Apostles Canon, on what authority do you have to do so, and please show proof that their canon does not "interlink." [/quote] Well Budge I await your logical response to my questions. And Eutychus, are you a cowardly bully only picking on the sheep, or can you respond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted September 12, 2006 Author Share Posted September 12, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Bump bump bumpity bump bump Still waiting Budge...or Euty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Where did you get the term interlock in the Scriptures? What is the Greek equivilant, I am seriously intrigued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justified Saint Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 You guys should know you are getting your hopes up if you are expecting a "logical response" -- chances are you won't see those two around this thread again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aalpha1989 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 [quote name='Justified Saint' post='1061278' date='Sep 12 2006, 11:27 AM'] You guys should know you are getting your hopes up if you are expecting a "logical response" -- chances are you won't see those two around this thread again. [/quote] Agreed...whenever good evidence is presented they leave so they do not have to admit that the Catholic Church IS Biblical... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eutychus Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I enjoy reading the fairy tales and history of the Apocryphal books. Well worth the time, however, it flunks the generally acceptable tests for authenticity of God's Word. For example: [quote]Errors in the Apocrypha The books of the Apocrypha abound in doctrinal, ethical, and historical errors. For instance, Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.), despite the fact that his lifespan was only a total of 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7). Tobit endorses the superstitious use of fish liver to ward off demons (6: 6,7)! The theological errors are equally significant. Wisdom of Solomon teaches the creation of the world from pre-existent matter (7:17). II Maccabees teaches prayers for the dead (12:45-46), and Tobit teaches salvation by the good work of almsgiving (12:9) -- quite contrary to inspired Scripture (such as John 1:3; II Samuel 12:19; Hebrews 9:27; Romans 4:5; Galatians 3:11).[/quote] and... [quote]There are several main reasons for the rejection of the Apocrypha. Non-acceptance by the Jewish canon. The Jewish Canon does not include the Apocrypha. This is significant as it was to the Jews that the OT was entrusted (Rom 3:1,2) and they are the custodians of the limits of their own canon. (Some of the Apocrypha books were written in Greek, not Hebrew).[/quote] plus.... [quote]Seeming Exclusion by Jesus Himself. When Jesus or the apostles appealed simply to "the Scriptures" against their Jewish opponents, there is no suggestion whatsoever that the identity and limits of such writings were vague or in dispute. Jesus seems to exclude the Apocrypha in his statement in Luke 11:51 - "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation" (NKJV).[/quote] Not to mention.... [quote]Lack of reference to the Apocrypha in the NT. While the NT quotes mainly from the Greek Old Testament (LXX) it is uncertain as to whether the Septuagint contained the Apocrypha. No direct quotations from any Apocryphal books appear in the NT although they were aware of these books and alluded to them at times. However Hebrews 11:37 may very well refer to 1 Kings 17:22 and not 1 Maccabees, as is often claimed. But none of these allusions rise to the apostles using the Apocrypha as an authoritative source. On the other hand there are literally hundreds of quotations in the NT from the ‘Law and Prophets’ which Jesus called “all the Scripture”. Luke 24:27). [/quote] And lest we forget.... [quote]Rejection by many early church fathers. Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and The great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha. [/quote] Leading to the inclusion by many "for historical purposes" but EXCLUDING them as worthy of being included in the normally accepted books. I trust that will end the yammering, that I'm avoiding this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PadrePioOfPietrelcino Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 [quote name='Eutychus' post='1061395' date='Sep 12 2006, 03:35 PM'] I enjoy reading the fairy tales and history of the Apocryphal books. Well worth the time, however, it flunks the generally acceptable tests for authenticity of God's Word. For example: and... plus.... Not to mention.... And lest we forget.... Leading to the inclusion by many "for historical purposes" but EXCLUDING them as worthy of being included in the normally accepted books. I trust that will end the yammering, that I'm avoiding this topic. [/quote] Well thank you for the cut and paste, You forgot to mention that it flunks the PROTESTANT tests for authenticity, The theological errors are only errors to Protestants, not someone who reads the entire Bible then makes an understanding rather than trying to read an understanding into it. The Jewish Canon wasn't created until 250 years AFTER Christ, The Greek OT was written what 600 years before that, Paul was a Greek speaking Jew, he would have used the complete OT as we the other Apostles. That is why when the Church set the Canon shortly after the Jewish council, they decided to protect the writings which Christand the Apostles followed which were now being rejected by thye Jews. You realize that in cutrtingout the Deuterocanacls (sp?) they (Jewish leaders) also cut out the story of Hanaka one of their most important holidays. The actions and words of Christ support the fact that he DID use the Deutrocannocal text, so whose opinionated interpretation should we use yours or mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 The Jews reject the NT, too. So, I'm guessing there were other motives afoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 (edited) Euty, who gave us the canon of Scripture? (And don't just say "God" - How are we humans to know which books are part of Sacred Scripture and which aren't? By whose authority are we to go by?) Edited September 13, 2006 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.3578d4578768b8f5be5d7af6172f9b23.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now