Cont. of Apocrypha ? from "Rev. 22:18,19 question"

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by LandonL, Oct 6, 2004.

  1. LandonL

    LandonL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    To prevent that thread from being permanently hijacked, I have moved my response to a new thread. The original thread can be found here

    You're kidding me, right? Catholic Bibles? The Catholics use the same New Testament as we do, and their inclusion of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament is based upon the use of the Septuagint by the ENTIRE APOSTOLIC ERA CHURCH.

    To claim that the Catholics violate this passage is preposterous. If that is so, then the Apostles themselves violated this. Common, non-religious (as in: not a rabbi or scribe or some other educated, religious post) Jews in the first century AD had barely a passing knowledge of Hebrew. When the gospel spread to the Gentiles, they adopted the Septuagint because it was written in Greek, the language known throughout the Roman empire. Catholic canon is simply a continuation of this tradition, while Protestants have adopted the Palestinian Jewish canon.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Does the apocrypha reverence God?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Let's get one thing straight before I say anything: When I say 'apocrypha' I'm referring to the Old Testament Jewish apocrypha, much of which the Catholic canon includes. I am not referring to things like the Gospel of Thomas or anything like that. We share the same New Testament with Catholicism.

    And yes, the apocrypha reverences God.

    If you're making that the basis for canonicity, however, let me point out Esther. The non-apocryphal sections of Esther don't even -mention- God once.

    For the record, I don't consider the apocrypha canon. But to claim that the Catholics' utilization of it condemns them to hell is just not so. By that logic, every Christian up to the Reformation is condemned to hell simply because they used a few extra books. This is something with which I cannot agree.

    God bless,
    --Landon
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Before the Council of Jamnia in 92 C.E., Jews did not have a single unified canon of scripture. Some ancient Jewish sects (including the Essenes, as evidenced in the Dead Sea scrolls) included as scripture much of what modern Jews consider to be non-canonical. The Council excluded certain books because they were composed later (mostly between 200 BC and CE 100) than other canonical books, and because they were in use by Christians at the time.

    Protestant scholars sometimes call these books "intertestamental" because they were written between the accepted books of the Old and New Testaments.

    Previously, during in 3rd through 1st centuries BC in Alexandria, Egypt, they had been translated into Greek. This translation has become known as the Septuagint, and included a larger set of books than those that would be later approved by the Council of Jamnia for inclusion in the Tanakh. The rejected books are considered by modern Jews and Protestants to be apocryphal.

    These particular books were rejected by Martin Luther due to some verses that seemed to contradict clear Scripture, especially a verse in Macabees which alludes to purgatory: "it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins".

    Some Protestants, especially during and shortly after the Reformation, have viewed these books as useful for religious purposes, although not to be relied upon for doctrine. Other Protestants, especially in later times, largely ignore them, some even rejecting them as having no value at all.

    Any books that would have me "praying for the dead to be loosed from their sins" is NOT truthful and NOT reverencing God!
     
  3. LandonL

    LandonL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob

    If you happen to recall, what is the citation to that verse?
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr Bob, one must keep in mind that praying for the dead is not the same to the dead. Also, keep in mind that, prior to the resurrection of Christ, the Jewish custom was that the dead resided in Sheol, sins and all. This is an OT culture we're dealing with, not a NT culture, where Sheol is replaced with Heaven/Hell. Keeping these things in mind contextually, I don't agree that the apocrypha are untruthful or irreverent to God. There are many OT era practices that are no longer effectual in the NT era. Animal scrifices is a good example.
     
  5. WallyGator

    WallyGator
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    0
    Johnv,
    You make some good points in your post. I have been confused why Christianity doesn't give the apocrypha dueful consideration. In reading them, I have been inspired by some of their content. I don't see how they are untruthful or irreverent to God.
    WallyGator
     
  6. moeowo2

    moeowo2
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    2 Maccabees 12:46

     

Share This Page

Loading...