Temporal and Eternal Punishment

I say the above to point out that this rabbit trail about WHY The Apocrypha is merely a story book and not scripture - is not really needed!

I SHOW IN The details of the apocryphal account that it denies the primary arguments of Catholicism! The very fact that they would even want it mentioned at all - attests to the fact that they had NOTHING ELSE to go on but a text that debunks Catholicism on many many points.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I think it was more than just a few individuals - I have never come across an early church leader that accepted the RC canon. Perhaps you have?

I don't believe the OT books have ever been 'canonised' by the church catholic....as I understand it every branch of the catholic church has different canons.

 

Would favourable quotations from the deuterocanonicals by the church fathers count as acceptance of the canon?
Catholic Answers : The Fathers and the Deuterocanonicals

So there is no canon? Catholics couldn't possibly have added to something that didn't exist, could they?

 

What a "train wreck" of a thread. This is a classic derailment!!!



In HIS service;
Jim

 

It might show that some of them accepted the apocrypha, but it might just show that they used the apocrypha, as the Anabaptists did in the sixteenth century. The NT writers quoted from the book of Enoch, but no church other than the Ethiopic, to my knowledge, includes that in the OT canon.

The definition of Catholic, according to Vincent of Lerins, was something believed always and everywhere. Different branches have had different canons, so only those on which they agree, can by definition, be considered Catholic. The early church writers who spoke of the canon recognised only the books of the Hebrew Canon. So primitive catholicism would have to recognise those. Later branches of the catholic church recognised different books in addition, but this recognition cannot by definition be considered catholic, for it was neither universal nor believed always.
The 39 books are considered canonical by everyone, and have always been so considered, and are therefore canonical by catholic consent. Others are not. Even the eastern Orthodox and RCs are not agreed, and neither of these has a greater claim to being catholic than the other (nor for that matter does the Assyrian Church of the East, the Copts and others churches with apostolic succession).

 

I. The Apocrypha.
A. Fourteen books found between Old and New Testaments.
1. I Esdras, II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The Rest of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiaticus, Baruch, The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, I Maccabees, II Maccabees.
2. The word "apocrypha" means "secret" or "hidden."
3. These books were included as a part of the Old Testament Canon by the Council of Trent, 1546 A.D.
B. Written in Greek.
C. Never quoted in the New Testament.
D. Never accepted by the Jews.
E. Rejected by Protestants but accepted by Roman Catholics.
1. They are rejected by the Protestants as wholly spurious and not to be allowed even an inferior place in the Sacred Canon.

(notes in the Analytical Dixon Bible, Dixon Publishing Co.)

 

They were never accpeted by the Jews.</font>[/QUOTE]Please correct me if I am wrong, but last I checked, the Jews don't accept any of the New Testament either. I am not sure this is a trong argument against a manuscript.

They were never accepted by the Christians outside of the Catholic Church.</font>[/QUOTE]Again, please educate me on this. Were not the early Christians Catholic? When did the Catholic Church begin?

Joseph Botwinick [/QUOTE]

 

The early Christians were not Catholic. They were true born again Christians. Catholicism started near the beginning of the fourth century when Constantine paganized "Christianity" introducing much of the pagan culture into the church, and making "Christianity" the official state religion of the land. He himself made a false profession of faith that he might use "Christianity" for his own political gain. This was the beginning of the Catholic Church, which true believers have been opposed to ever since its inception.
DHK

 

Good point.

The thread is on temporal punishment vs eternal punishment. When it gets too hot for the RC position - all they have to do is quote the apocrypha and suggest a few rabbit trails and "presto"! The subject changes TO the historic works of the Apocrypha and why they were or were not included WITHOUT regard to the fact that the incident quoted from the Apocrypha does nothing but refute Catholicism!

You have to admit it works pretty well and you would be silly not to use it if you are RC on this thread and things started looking bad.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It started on page one, in the twelfth post, when Briony-Gloriana tried to defend purgatory using the Apocryphal book, II Macabbees.

 

The name catholic simply means universal. the Greek katholikos meaning “according to the whole. it was used as early as the time of Ignatius (c.110). Far from being invented in the fourth century to describe a centralised church, it originated in the first or second century and described the number of Churches scattered throughout the world, that held the same faith and practice in the absence of a centralised authority. A centralised catholicism is a contradiction of terms. It was the sum total of churches that collectively and individually held to the 'rule of faith' (the apostles' creed) and were governed by the successors of the apostles. No one bishop was higher than any other, as Cyprian clearly testified during his disagreements with Stephen the bishop of Rome. The 'catholic' church then is simply another name given to the churches which held the apostolic faith from the first or early second century. Nothing hierarchical about the name, and the name existed long before the rise of the papacy to universal bishopric and temporal power, which is dated from the time of Gregory the Great. As for Constantine - yes, very real changes in catholic practice were brought into being. Never before were bishops appointed by emperors, as began, if I am not mistaken, at the time of the reign of Constantine's sons (who made sure Arians filled important bishoprics). Never before could an unbaptised pagan dictate or even suggest church policy, as happened at Nicaea. Never before were imperial punishments enacted against dissenters. In fact the primitive catholic church was clear that bishops could ONLY be appointed by neighbouring bishops, with the consent of the home congregation - that is catholicism. What is called Roman Catholicism asserts that centuries of innovations and departures from the faith are actually a part of the essence of the faith. In so doing they actually have separated themselves from the catholic church.

 

I'm assuming that the 'you' here is not directed against me, even though it is my words about Jerome that you quote. But if so, then may I suggest that you READ what I wrote:

"Many early church writers listed the books of the OT as virtually the same as the protestant bible - including Jerome"

Let me break this down - many early church writers [i.e. from the second to the fourth century], listed the books of the OT[ie gave lists of the accepted canon of the OT] as virtually the same [that is, the same list] as the protestant bible [in other words, they listed the 39 books of the Hebrew canon, which is the canon that Protestants use] - including Jerome [that means that I am asserting that Jerome held to the same canon as Protestants].

Again, if this was not directed at me, please ignore my breakdown.

Your reference to the RCC is anachronistic. Where did you get that from? Dave Hunt? Jack Chick? it was Leo, the bishop of Rome, if I am not mistaken, who wanted the apocrypha in the Latin Vulgate. There was no RCC at the time, except in seed form. The bishop of Rome had made no claims to universal jurisdiction over the churches (or even over all the churches of the west), he had no temporal power - they didn't even bow before images that early on. and transubstantiation was about six centuries away.

 

Excellent quote, but I am not aware of it. Could you provide the reference? Too many times these kind of quotes are made up out of nowhere, so I like to be able to look them up for myself.

 

Excellent quote, but I am not aware of it. Could you provide the reference? Too many times these kind of quotes are made up out of nowhere, so I like to be able to look them up for myself. [/QUOTE]
That is as much documentation as the notes provided in my Bible give me. It does not provide the original source, and I wasn't about to spend all day looking for it.
DHK

 

In every issue of Christian doctrine, there are detractors within Christendom. I believe you would be hard pressed to find universal support of any Christian belief at any point in time, even the early church.

 

I'm surprised to see you ditch Vincent of Lerins, especially since his rule that to be catholic a teaching had to be "believed everywhere, always and by all" was REAFFIRMED BY THE FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL!!!! [Session 3, Chapter 4].

 

First time I heard of Daniel Bel and the Dragon as "13th and 14th chapter of Daniel". Then Tobit includes "the letter of Jeremy".
There's also a 3 Corinthians, which is apart of the Acts of Paul.
There were other such "New Testament apocrypha" which were read as scripture by the Church, for a time, such as the epistles of clement, and Barnabas.

 

I have a copy of those books also. They aren't called "The Lost Books of the Bible," for no reason at all. They were "lost" on purpose.
DHK

 

Yes but the "proof" she used - debunks practically all of Catholicism.

Since it can not be denied that the text "exists" and is an ancient text and a well known text among both Jews and Christians.

And since it debunks the Catholic position...

What difference does it make that they are "also wrong" about it being inspired???

The text is already very useful in dismanteling the Catholic argument.

In Christ,

Bob