The Seven Missing Books

[Norseman82]

Euty,

Do you believe that current acts of the British Parliament are binding on American citizens here in teh USA?

[Eutychus]

[quote]Euty, who gave us the canon of Scripture? [/quote]

The Canon was more or less SETTLED early on, within 100 years by CONSENSUS, and only later on, that CONSENSUS was formally ratified in response to the Arian controversy not to decide what books were generally accepted as authentic and worthwhile and God Breathed.

I would have thought you knew that already, given all the attention the issues surrounding the Canon got with the DaVinci Code movie and all.

Your church mustn't have had the SIX WEEK preparatory sessions, prior to the movie that we did.

Shame, you missed out on some VERY good material, and a good refresher course on what Nicaea was and was not.

[Norseman82]

[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]

UT,

One of the defenses you quoted was:

[quote]Non-acceptance by the Jewish canon.[/quote]

As I recall , the Jewish canon that did not included the 7 books you reject was officially promulgated at the Council of Jamnia around 90 AD. So....if you accept the decision of the Council of Jamnia...do you also accept the non-acceptance of the New Testament by them, as well as their condemnation of Christians that from what I understand was also handed down there? Logically, you must.


Do you???

[KnightofChrist]

-----

Edited September 13, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[Norseman82]

[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.

[/quote]

UT,

One of your defenses quoted is:

[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]

Please tell me: where is the book of Obadiah quoted in the NT?

Also, remember the story of where Jesus was asked about the woman who was married seven times due to her husnbands' deaths and Jesus mentioned that in heaven peoiple become like angels who do not have bodies? That is an allusion to the story of the woman who lost seven sons in Maccabees.


Another one of your quotes:

[quote]II Maccabees teaches prayers for the dead (12:45-46), [/quote]

So......let me get this straight.....if a part of the Bible disagrees with a preconceived theological view, you discard it? If you are so sola scriptura, shouldn't you be letting the Bible form your views instead of letting your views form the Bible????

Also, in 2 Timothy 1:18, Paul asks that God grant Onesiphorus mercy "in that day". What "day" was Paul referring to?

Edited September 13, 2006 by Norseman82

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061395' date='Sep 12 2006, 02:35 PM']
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)![/quote]


Nebuchadnezzar was not a rare name, there where two kings of this name are known to have ruled over Babylon. Sennacherib (the son of Sargon II) built a magnificent palace at Nineveh, he ruled both [u]Assyria[/u] and Babylon. Some scholars hold Sennacherib and Nebuchednezzar I to be the same person.

Now there was only one incident in the entire history of the ancient Jews when a massive, world-conquering Assyrian army almost 200,000-strong had been stopped in its tracks as it marched to conquer Jerusalem. That was the demise of Sennacherib's army in c.700 BC. Sennacherib began to rule Babylon in fact even before his rule over Assyria had commenced.

Biblical accounts of this campaign [Isaiah 37:36; 2.Kings 19] agree much with the Book of Judith on the slaying of a large part of the Assyrian army, the Book of Judith has it happen as the Assyrians fled the area while the rest of the Bible in its brevity makes it sound like it happened at the place where they were camped.

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061395' date='Sep 12 2006, 02:35 PM']
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]

The same (theological errors) argument can be used against the other books of the Bible. For example, in Joshua 2:4-6 the woman lied in order to save the lives of some scouts which Joshua sent out to find out the "lay of the land." And when Joshua’s army took over the city, all the houses of everyone but the woman were burned. The woman was rewarded for her actions! Whereas we see in Exodus 20:16 that lying is forbidden! Does that mean that we should discard Exodus? Or Joshua? According to the circular logic, we must discard one or the other. Which one is it to be? In Genesis (19:30-38) we read that while he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become pregnant, and give birth to his offspring. In second Peter (2:7) we read that Lot was "just" and "righteous." Does that mean that we should discard 2 Peter ? according to this same circular logic and faulty human reasoning we must discard on of these two books.

Another example of how throughout the scriptures God prohibits killing (Ex. 20:13, Dt. 5:17, Mk. 10:19, Lk. 18:20, Ro. 13:9, Ja. 2:11) and yet in many places God actually orders killing (Ex. 32:27, Dt. 7:2, 13:15, 20:1-18) in Second Kings (19:35) we read that An angel of the Lord slaughters 185,000 men. Does this mean we must now reject Exodus and Deuteronomy as well?




[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061395' date='Sep 12 2006, 02:35 PM']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]

As Norseman82, pointed out the by the year 90 AD, the chair of Moses and been passed to the Chair of Peter, the Jews did not have the "entrusted" authority of Rom3:1,2 since they rejected the Book of Romans completely, as well as the authority of the Apostles and Jesus Christ.

Were not the "Apocrypha" Books were a part of the Septuagint version [The LXX]? Did not the LXX play a important part in the the creation of the King's 1611 Version of the Bible? The answer to both of these questions is "YES". The translators chose to base the structure and order of there Canon on the Septuagint. [b[b]]The KJV translators themselves not only believe in the existence of the Septuagint, but also believe that God caused the LXX to be created, that [u]Christ the Apostles used the Septuagint, and that the LXX, was the very word of God.[/u][/b][/b] We know for a fact, that the translators held these books as sacred and wish them to be part of there Bible, by the measures they took to keep part of the KJV.

"One of the participating Archbishops [George Abbott], issued an order in 1615, [u]forbidding on penalty of a year's imprisonment the sale of any Bible omitting them[/u]" (The Dartmouth Bible, A edition of the KJV, © 1961 p. 735).

The creators of the 1611 KJV went to great lengths to form a separation between the Old and New testament even placing a special elaborately engraved title page marking the beginning of the New testament. Yet they placed NO SUCH distinction between the end of the Old Testament and the "Apocrypha". Again this show acceptance of these Books as part of the Old Testament.




[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061395' date='Sep 12 2006, 02:35 PM']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]


More than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: "The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his mind." Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ's words on the occasion of this feast: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?" Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being "set apart," just as Judas Maccabeus "set apart" (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called "apocryphal" books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob's Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) - as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.



[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061395' date='Sep 12 2006, 02:35 PM']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]


The Translators of the KJV held that eleven times Christ and the Apostles referred to or quoted from the "Apocrypha" books. The translators cross-referenced these eleven New Testament passages with the "Apocrypha".
Mat 6:7 Ecclesiasticus 7:14
Mat 23:37 2 Esdras 1:30
Mat 27:43 Wisdom 2:15-16
Luke 6:31 Tobit 4:15
Luke 14:13 Tobit 4:7
John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4:59
Rom 9:21 Wisdom 15:7
Rom 11:34 Wisdom 9:13
2 Cor 9:7 Ecclesiasticus 35:9
Heb 1:3 Wisdom 7:26
Heb 11:35 2 Maccabees 7:7

The deuterocanonical books are indeed quoted in the New Testament. For instance, Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, "For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."

This passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic Gospel writers in their accounts of the Crucifixion: "He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, I am the Son of God'" (cf. Matthew 27:42-43).

Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7.



[quote name='Eutychus' post='1061395' date='Sep 12 2006, 02:35 PM']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]

First, no Church Father is infallible. That charism is reserved uniquely to the Pope! This myth, that early church fathers rejected the "Apocryphal" or Deuterocanonical books, begins to disintegrate when you point out that the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.

But last and most interesting of all in this stellar lineup is a certain Father already mentioned: St. Jerome. In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."


Eutychus and Budge... CHECK, MATE AND MATCH!!!!


(sources where catholicapologetics.net, and envoymagazine.com)

Edited September 13, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[Eutychus]

[quote] The same (theological errors) argument can be used against the other books of the Bible. For example, in Joshua 2:4-6 the woman lied in order to save the lives of some scouts which Joshua sent out to find out the "lay of the land." And when Joshua’s army took over the city, all the houses of everyone but the woman were burned. The woman was rewarded for her actions![/quote]

Uh, may I point out some obvious "theology" here?

1: - she was a pagan.

2: - she was a "hooker"

And she "lied?"

Say it isn't so!!

{ pattern, unbelief, hear the word, change/repent, convert, be saved } She was a forshadowing of US you guys, it was pattern and prologue. And also the mother of Boaz who married Ruth.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1062105' date='Sep 13 2006, 05:35 PM']
Uh, may I point out some obvious "theology" here?

1: - she was a pagan.

2: - she was a "hooker"

And she "lied?"

Say it isn't so!!

{ pattern, unbelief, hear the word, change/repent, convert, be saved } She was a forshadowing of US you guys, it was pattern and prologue. And also the mother of Boaz who married Ruth.
[/quote]


What a weak, and quite pointless response.

[Anomaly]

Euty,
Please answer me this. At what point in History was there a bible that was 'set' and included the Scripture not to take away or add to it?

[KnightofChrist]

Well Budge since your on now can you respond to why you still use a proven gutted Bible?

[Aloysius]

bump

[KnightofChrist]