jkag89 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

I am not sure how one could be a fan of Aggie football and deny purgatory exists, lol

Merry Christmas to all.

---

---

Back at ya X 2

whatthehey78 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

Tobias, Esdras, Wisdom, Sirach, etc are NOT divine/inspired scripture. The apocrypha is Jewish and was added to some (not all) Bibles.

---

They're all in the Gutenberg bible, published in the century before Luther and company demoted them...

---

Oddly they were also found in the Septuagint that was used by Christ in the Gospels, also included in the Dead Sea Scrolls which were being used at the time of Christ.

---

Yes...for certain, heresy existed before, during, after Christ and as observed herein is with us today. It is a narrow road (few will find it) while the road to destruction is broad and WELL TRAVELED.

---

So if Christ participated in the festival of lights or Hanukkah , based of the Maccabees, as mentioned in the Gospel was he participating in heresy?

---

I faithfully suspect Jesus' participation among Jewish gatherings was more an opportunity to save souls from the unfaithfullness of Judaism idol worship, of which Holy Scripture reveals abundantly. He boldly professed their sin and even condemned them to their face. Was Jesus "celebrating" Hanukkah, OR was He doing God's will in their presence? I think you know the real answer.

---

So Hanukkah is a celebration of the Temple being reclaimed from Pagans and re consecrating it to the God of Israel, the one true God, who Jesus called Father. So what part of these would have been idolatry?

jrico2727 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

Tobias, Esdras, Wisdom, Sirach, etc are NOT divine/inspired scripture. The apocrypha is Jewish and was added to some (not all) Bibles.

---

They're all in the Gutenberg bible, published in the century before Luther and company demoted them...

---

Oddly they were also found in the Septuagint that was used by Christ in the Gospels, also included in the Dead Sea Scrolls which were being used at the time of Christ.

---

Yes...for certain, heresy existed before, during, after Christ and as observed herein is with us today. It is a narrow road (few will find it) while the road to destruction is broad and WELL TRAVELED.

---

So if Christ participated in the festival of lights or Hanukkah , based of the Maccabees, as mentioned in the Gospel was he participating in heresy?

---

I faithfully suspect Jesus' participation among Jewish gatherings was more an opportunity to save souls from the unfaithfullness of Judaism idol worship, of which Holy Scripture reveals abundantly. He boldly professed their sin and even condemned them to their face. Was Jesus "celebrating" Hanukkah, OR was He doing God's will in their presence? I think you know the real answer.

---

So Hanukkah is a celebration of the Temple being reclaimed from Pagans and re consecrating it to the God of Israel, the one true God, who Jesus called Father. So what part of these would have been idolatry?

---

Did Jesus not use the temple to teach those in attendance a different sermon than that of the Pharisees and Sadducees?
Did Jesus not tell the woman at the well "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father."?
Did Jesus not enter the temple and demonstrate His anger as to how His Father's house was being used??? Did he not say, "not one stone will be left standing on another"?

Read your Bible...it's all there. If you've been taught otherwise...flee from her!

whatthehey78 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

Tobias, Esdras, Wisdom, Sirach, etc are NOT divine/inspired scripture. The apocrypha is Jewish and was added to some (not all) Bibles.

---

They're all in the Gutenberg bible, published in the century before Luther and company demoted them...

---

Oddly they were also found in the Septuagint that was used by Christ in the Gospels, also included in the Dead Sea Scrolls which were being used at the time of Christ.

---

Yes...for certain, heresy existed before, during, after Christ and as observed herein is with us today. It is a narrow road (few will find it) while the road to destruction is broad and WELL TRAVELED.

---

So if Christ participated in the festival of lights or Hanukkah , based of the Maccabees, as mentioned in the Gospel was he participating in heresy?

---

I faithfully suspect Jesus' participation among Jewish gatherings was more an opportunity to save souls from the unfaithfullness of Judaism idol worship, of which Holy Scripture reveals abundantly. He boldly professed their sin and even condemned them to their face. Was Jesus "celebrating" Hanukkah, OR was He doing God's will in their presence? I think you know the real answer.

---

What idol was being worshipped? And why is Jewish in bold and occasionally in quotations?

Sapper Redux said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

Tobias, Esdras, Wisdom, Sirach, etc are NOT divine/inspired scripture. The apocrypha is Jewish and was added to some (not all) Bibles.

---

They're all in the Gutenberg bible, published in the century before Luther and company demoted them...

---

Oddly they were also found in the Septuagint that was used by Christ in the Gospels, also included in the Dead Sea Scrolls which were being used at the time of Christ.

---

Yes...for certain, heresy existed before, during, after Christ and as observed herein is with us today. It is a narrow road (few will find it) while the road to destruction is broad and WELL TRAVELED.

---

So if Christ participated in the festival of lights or Hanukkah , based of the Maccabees, as mentioned in the Gospel was he participating in heresy?

---

I faithfully suspect Jesus' participation among Jewish gatherings was more an opportunity to save souls from the unfaithfullness of Judaism idol worship, of which Holy Scripture reveals abundantly. He boldly professed their sin and even condemned them to their face. Was Jesus "celebrating" Hanukkah, OR was He doing God's will in their presence? I think you know the real answer.

---

What idol was being worshipped? And why is Jewish in bold and occasionally in quotations?

---

Idol worship can be ANYTHING besides God. Money, power, self, etc., etc., etc., It does not have to be a physical subject. IMHO, it is why God tells Moses when asked who sent him...I AM, that I AM. In other words, anything else you worship IS NOT.

What did Jesus call the Sanhedrin? You mistake their practices/rituals as pleasing to God. In fact, God removed their ability to continue their sin in His name. Titus unwittingly served God's purpose...and the earthly Temple is no more...and never will be again.

My use of BOLD and quotations are for emphasis only. Sorry, if confusing or disruptive.

Okay. That's your take on it. What specifically about Hanukkah is idolatry?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Okay. That's your take on it. What specifically about Hanukkah is idolatry?

---

Never said Hanukkah (the holiday) was idolatry. Given Jesus' sacrifice, ONCE for ALL and it signifying the end of the Mosaic covenant and initiation of the new covenant for Jews and Gentiles alike...to remain in Judaism is to remain lost/unsaved. Just as continuing to practice animal sacrifice for forgiveness of sin was to continue in sin in God's eyes...IMHO, continuing to celebrate Jewish holidays in disbelief of the Messiah...is questionable and of little real benefit to those who do so.

whatthehey78 said:

---

The apocrypha was formally added during the Council of Trent (mid-1500's) as part of Rome's 'counter' Reformation.

---

Correct, because this is how the Church works to address heresy and questions pertaining to the deposit of faith. The Church works REACTIVELY to put down errors once they arise, not PRO-actively beforehand. Until the Protestant Reformation attempted to remove books that were historically included in the Bible from the Bible - there was no need for the church to formally add or define that these books were Scripture. The books had always been there. The Reformation introduced the question and the church provided the answer.

If I am in the wrong on this, please explain why they were there to begin with? The books were there before the Reformation, they were there for Luther to rearrange and segregate; the books were there at the time of Trent and affirmed at Trent, and the books were there AFTER Trent - even in your original 1611 King James Authorized Version. Those are the facts.

In Fact, when America was founded in 1776 the Apocryphal Books were still being printed and included in virtually ALL Protestant Bibles.

whatthehey78 said:

---

I also notice you ignored - Show me where Jesus or any of the Apostles prayed to the deceased for ANY reason...and do so, without using the "Jewish" apocrypha. You can't without heresy, so don't even try.

---

Again, you are asking me to show you something very specific, but you are limiting what I can use in support of my position. I am asking you to back up your position on why I cannot use books that have been used by the church throughout our history going all the way back to the Apostles, who in fact used the very same books to frame and shape the very NT Scriptures they were inspired to write.

Check out this link (from a Protestant I think) and you might be a little surprised by what you learn

https://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/2019/09/17/does-the-new-testament-or-jesus-quote-from-the-apocryphal-books/

whatthehey78 said:

---

As for the inquisition...

---

Lets just stick to the question at hand of the Biblical Canon and the Apocryphal books for now before we start jumping all the way to the inquisition.

Merry Christmas!

Faithful Ag said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

The apocrypha was formally added during the Council of Trent (mid-1500's) as part of Rome's 'counter' Reformation.

---

Correct, because this is how the Church works to address heresy and questions pertaining to the deposit of faith. The Church works REACTIVELY to put down errors once they arise, not PRO-actively beforehand. Until the Protestant Reformation attempted to remove books that were historically included in the Bible from the Bible - there was no need for the church to formally add or define that these books were Scripture. The books had always been there. The Reformation introduced the question and the church provided the answer.

If I am in the wrong on this, please explain why they were there to begin with? The books were there before the Reformation, they were there for Luther to rearrange and segregate; the books were there at the time of Trent and affirmed at Trent, and the books were there AFTER Trent - even in your original 1611 King James Authorized Version. Those are the facts.

In Fact, when America was founded in 1776 the Apocryphal Books were still being printed and included in virtually ALL Protestant Bibles.

whatthehey78 said:

---

I also notice you ignored - Show me where Jesus or any of the Apostles prayed to the deceased for ANY reason...and do so, without using the "Jewish" apocrypha. You can't without heresy, so don't even try.

---

Again, you are asking me to show you something very specific, but you are limiting what I can use in support of my position. I am asking you to back up your position on why I cannot use books that have been used by the church throughout our history going all the way back to the Apostles, who in fact used the very same books to frame and shape the very NT Scriptures they were inspired to write.

Check out this link (from a Protestant I think) and you might be a little surprised by what you learn

https://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/2019/09/17/does-the-new-testament-or-jesus-quote-from-the-apocryphal-books/

whatthehey78 said:

---

As for the inquisition...

---

Lets just stick to the question at hand of the Biblical Canon and the Apocryphal books for now before we start jumping all the way to the inquisition.

Merry Christmas!

---

Merry CHRISTmas to you as well. Unfortunately there is an abyss between mine and your beliefs. I am Protestant, a sinner saved by His grace and my faith in Him alone...and not by ANY works (good or bad) performed by me. The apocrypha to me is nothing more than a poorly written history with noted errors, drafted by Jews before Christ's presence, and who's goal was not to proclaim Him as their Messiah...but, simply record Jewish history/events unrelated to salvation.

I suspect, were we to meet in person we might even enjoy one another's company and hopefully learn something meaningful about one another besides our differing views. Do have a happy and successful New Year.

Sapper Redux said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Tobias, Esdras, Wisdom, Sirach, etc are NOT divine/inspired scripture. The apocrypha is Jewish and was added to some (not all) Bibles. As for the Jews...sadly, they are not Christian and are not saved without their individual conversion. As for adding the apocrypha to one faith's Canon, it was done after the Canon was determined and simply to excuse prayer to the dead...which IS NOT a saving or scriptural act. Show me where Jesus or any of the Apostles prayed to the deceased for ANY reason...and do so, without using the "Jewish" apocrypha.

IMHO, to call one's self Christina and then practice or follow any Jewish custom/tradition as if it is Christian...is to become a 'Judaizer' and plainly contradicted by the Apostles.

May God bless and Merry CHRISTmas! Prayers for all of you.

---

The Apocrypha is not part of the Tanakh. Those books were important in the late second temple era, but their status as Biblical canon was deeply contested and opinions varied between and within sects.

---

Yes. Rome had to make this claim that the Jewish canon was different than the Christian canon to justify the Apocrypha being included. It doesn't stand up to historical review, but that's what they had to do.

Sapper Redux said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Tobias, Esdras, Wisdom, Sirach, etc are NOT divine/inspired scripture. The apocrypha is Jewish and was added to some (not all) Bibles. As for the Jews...sadly, they are not Christian and are not saved without their individual conversion. As for adding the apocrypha to one faith's Canon, it was done after the Canon was determined and simply to excuse prayer to the dead...which IS NOT a saving or scriptural act. Show me where Jesus or any of the Apostles prayed to the deceased for ANY reason...and do so, without using the "Jewish" apocrypha.

IMHO, to call one's self Christina and then practice or follow any Jewish custom/tradition as if it is Christian...is to become a 'Judaizer' and plainly contradicted by the Apostles.

May God bless and Merry CHRISTmas! Prayers for all of you.

---

The Apocrypha is not part of the Tanakh. Those books were important in the late second temple era, but their status as Biblical canon was deeply contested and opinions varied between and within sects.

---

Additionally, Yeshua excluded the OT Apocrypha in His statement in Matthew 23:35:

"so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."

The Hebrew Tanakh has all the same OT books as a Protestant Bible, with the only difference being the order of the books; that is, theirs starts with Genesis and ends with II Chronicles.

Able is the first righteous man killed in Genesis and Zechariah is the last righteous man killed in II Chronicles (24:20). What Yeshua is saying is that all the righteous deaths from the beginning of scripture to the end of scripture will be on their heads. With this, Yeshua excluded the OT Apocrypha which was known in His day and included death of righteous men.

Either Yeshua was referring to an un-named grandfather of the Zechariah of II Chronicles (being the order of the books), or He was referring to the Prophet Zechariah (1:1), giving an approximate date of the end of inspired scripture, which would also exclude all the the OT Apocrypha, which was written later.

In either interpretation it appears Yeshua intended us to understand what became known as the OT apocrypha was not considered inspired scripture. Almost like He knew!

I think it's more complicated. The Apocrypha would not end up in the final Jewish canon, but when Christianity was first forming, the Jewish canon was contested around what became the Apocrypha (and books like Daniel that did make the cut, but placed into the 'writings' rather than the prophets). The authors of the New Testament seem pretty familiar with the Apocrypha, especially Enoch and Maccabees, and the belief in the imminence of the eschaton that marks the New Testament is inline with groups that did view the Apocryphal texts as authoritative.

Win At Life said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Tobias, Esdras, Wisdom, Sirach, etc are NOT divine/inspired scripture. The apocrypha is Jewish and was added to some (not all) Bibles. As for the Jews...sadly, they are not Christian and are not saved without their individual conversion. As for adding the apocrypha to one faith's Canon, it was done after the Canon was determined and simply to excuse prayer to the dead...which IS NOT a saving or scriptural act. Show me where Jesus or any of the Apostles prayed to the deceased for ANY reason...and do so, without using the "Jewish" apocrypha.

IMHO, to call one's self Christina and then practice or follow any Jewish custom/tradition as if it is Christian...is to become a 'Judaizer' and plainly contradicted by the Apostles.

May God bless and Merry CHRISTmas! Prayers for all of you.

---

The Apocrypha is not part of the Tanakh. Those books were important in the late second temple era, but their status as Biblical canon was deeply contested and opinions varied between and within sects.

---

Additionally, Yeshua excluded the OT Apocrypha in His statement in Matthew 23:35:

"so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."

The Hebrew Tanakh has all the same OT books as a Protestant Bible, with the only difference being the order of the books; that is, theirs starts with Genesis and ends with II Chronicles.

Able is the first righteous man killed in Genesis and Zechariah is the last righteous man killed in II Chronicles (24:20). What Yeshua is saying is that all the righteous deaths from the beginning of scripture to the end of scripture will be on their heads. With this, Yeshua excluded the OT Apocrypha which was known in His day and included death of righteous men.

Either Yeshua was referring to an un-named grandfather of the Zechariah of II Chronicles (being the order of the books), or He was referring to the Prophet Zechariah (1:1), giving an approximate date of the end of inspired scripture, which would also exclude all the the OT Apocrypha, which was written later.

In either interpretation it appears Yeshua intended us to understand what became known as the OT apocrypha was not considered inspired scripture. Almost like He knew!

---

Without a doubt, He knew...as does Rome, but theirs' is another deceptive purpose unrelated to salvation of lost souls.

Sapper Redux said:

---

I think it's more complicated. The Apocrypha would not end up in the final Jewish canon, but when Christianity was first forming, the Jewish canon was contested around what became the Apocrypha (and books like Daniel that did make the cut, but placed into the 'writings' rather than the prophets). The authors of the New Testament seem pretty familiar with the Apocrypha, especially Enoch and Maccabees, and the belief in the imminence of the eschaton that marks the New Testament is inline with groups that did view the Apocryphal texts as authoritative.

---

Agree with you on this.

They held disputed status for sure. Early Christians were well aware of this and you see that when they use the word "canon" they typically had several meanings associated with it.

Canon could mean books that were believed to be from God. This is the more narrow meaning.

Canon could also mean books that were read in church. This was a wider canon that could include books that were disputed but were of thought useful for teaching.

Sapper Redux said:

---

I think it's more complicated. The Apocrypha would not end up in the final Jewish canon, but when Christianity was first forming, the Jewish canon was contested around what became the Apocrypha (and books like Daniel that did make the cut, but placed into the 'writings' rather than the prophets). The authors of the New Testament seem pretty familiar with the Apocrypha, especially Enoch and Maccabees, and the belief in the imminence of the eschaton that marks the New Testament is inline with groups that did view the Apocryphal texts as authoritative.

---

Specifically "familiar" in what way? Familiar as in totally disregarding it as meaningless?
"eschaton" ???
"inline with groups" inline how and exactly what groups?

By the way, there's a reason the Jews won't include Daniel with the prophets as it explicitly defines the time of their Messiah, the Anointed one (70, 7's), whom they crucified. His precious blood is on their hands and Stephen professed so to their dislike.

Faithful Ag said:

---

Fulton Sheen's famous quote seems relevant here:
"There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."

You seem to think you understand what Catholicism teaches but you are clearly misguided and misinformed. You have an obvious anti-Catholic tone which comes across as uncharitable if I'm being polite.

You issued a challenge early on in this thread to which I responded and provided a Protestant link for your reference:

whatthehey78 said:

---

Which New Testament Gospel...chapter and verse? And, you didn't address "WHY" Rome felt it necessary to include the "Apocrypha" on such a "late date" in the first place. Prayer to the dead, ring a bell? I'm certain Jesus, Mary and the Apostles NEVER prayed to the deceased...but to God, and God alone!

ETA - I find it a bit more than interesting, NONE of the New Testament writers mention ANY of the apocrypha books or quote from ANY of its writers. Wonder why??

---

Do yourself a favor and at least check out the link - and then come back here and share your thoughts:

https://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/2019/09/17/does-the-new-testament-or-jesus-quote-from-the-apocryphal-books/

---

Sola Scriptura. I rely on Scripture. That is 66 books in my Bible. As you know, blogs are not Scripture, are more editorials and personal opinion. I am satisfied with Berean methods using inspired Scripture. Thanks for you effort and I apologize if I offended...but, I stand by my comments and will continue to do so. In all sincerity, Merry Christmas to you and yours. Good night.

Point of clarification. Sola Scriptura does not depend on 66 or 72 books. It stands with either number.

Sola Scriptura simply states that Scripture is the norm that norms all else.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Point of clarification. Sola Scriptura does not depend on 66 or 72 books. It stands with either number.

Sola Scriptura simply states that Scripture is the norm that norms all else.

---

As you know...I don't agree with 72 and by definition, Sola Scriptura excludes any idea of human tradition and manipulation.

whatthehey78 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

I think it's more complicated. The Apocrypha would not end up in the final Jewish canon, but when Christianity was first forming, the Jewish canon was contested around what became the Apocrypha (and books like Daniel that did make the cut, but placed into the 'writings' rather than the prophets). The authors of the New Testament seem pretty familiar with the Apocrypha, especially Enoch and Maccabees, and the belief in the imminence of the eschaton that marks the New Testament is inline with groups that did view the Apocryphal texts as authoritative.

---

Specifically "familiar" in what way? Familiar as in totally disregarding it as meaningless?
"eschaton" ???
"inline with groups" inline how and exactly what groups?

By the way, there's a reason the Jews won't include Daniel with the prophets as it explicitly defines the time of their Messiah, the Anointed one (70, 7's), whom they crucified. His precious blood is on their hands and Stephen professed so to their dislike.

---

Familiar as in the author of Jude quoted Enoch and has a ton of allusions to it. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man fits the description of Hell in Enoch but nowhere in the Tanakh, and there are allusions in the epistles of Peter. Early Church leaders including Terullien, Origen, and Justin Martyr considered Enoch extremely important if not divinely inspired. Eschaton referring to the end times; early Christianity was an apocalyptical cult expecting an imminent return of Jesus.

Daniel wasn't included in the prophets because that canon was closed from at least the early 2nd century BCE. Most scholars I've seen say it is likely that the book wasn't written until much later and is a pseudepigraphic work. It's not a normal prophetic book and its focus on eschatology is unusual in Jewish literature. Even if it had been written when the prophetic canon was open, it doesn't neatly fit in the prophetic mold as defined by Judaism of that era. Also, the timing doesn't work. You have to cherry-pick dates to try and make it work.

whatthehey78 said:

---

Sola Scriptura. I rely on Scripture. That is 66 books in my Bible. As you know, blogs are not Scripture and I am satisfied with Berean methods. Thanks for you effort and I apologize if I offended...but, I stand by my comments and will continue to do so. In all sincerity, Merry Christmas to you and yours. Good night.

---

That's great. However, you came out guns blazing about how the Apocrypha was foreign to the early church - and that the books were never referenced or used by Jesus, or his Apostles. I have provided support for the Apocrypha and even included a very in depth link from a Protestant phd for your edification. You won't even click the link? You have no interest in hearing a differing view, facing facts that may counter your worldview, or engaging in a real discussion. You are only here to throw accusations and lob attacks at Catholics and the Catholic Church.

Sapper Redux said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

I think it's more complicated. The Apocrypha would not end up in the final Jewish canon, but when Christianity was first forming, the Jewish canon was contested around what became the Apocrypha (and books like Daniel that did make the cut, but placed into the 'writings' rather than the prophets). The authors of the New Testament seem pretty familiar with the Apocrypha, especially Enoch and Maccabees, and the belief in the imminence of the eschaton that marks the New Testament is inline with groups that did view the Apocryphal texts as authoritative.

---

Specifically "familiar" in what way? Familiar as in totally disregarding it as meaningless?
"eschaton" ???
"inline with groups" inline how and exactly what groups?

By the way, there's a reason the Jews won't include Daniel with the prophets as it explicitly defines the time of their Messiah, the Anointed one (70, 7's), whom they crucified. His precious blood is on their hands and Stephen professed so to their dislike.

---

Familiar as in the author of Jude quoted Enoch and has a ton of allusions to it. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man fits the description of Hell in Enoch but nowhere in the Tanakh, and there are allusions in the epistles of Peter. Early Church leaders including Terullien, Origen, and Justin Martyr considered Enoch extremely important if not divinely inspired. Eschaton referring to the end times; early Christianity was an apocalyptical cult expecting an imminent return of Jesus.

Daniel wasn't included in the prophets because that canon was closed from at least the early 2nd century BCE. Most scholars I've seen say it is likely that the book wasn't written until much later and is a pseudepigraphic work. It's not a normal prophetic book and its focus on eschatology is unusual in Jewish literature. Even if it had been written when the prophetic canon was open, it doesn't neatly fit in the prophetic mold as defined by Judaism of that era. Also, the timing doesn't work. You have to cherry-pick dates to try and make it work.

---

Totally false. Jesus quotes directly from Daniel. If it wasn't written until after the facts therein, HOW could Jesus quote from it?? Not to mention, my Savior (God incarnate) would not misquote or mislead His followers with falsehoods or heresy. Rome on the other hand...

Sorry, but with ALL due respect...I question what you've been taught and more so, whom taught you.

Faithful Ag said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Sola Scriptura. I rely on Scripture. That is 66 books in my Bible. As you know, blogs are not Scripture and I am satisfied with Berean methods. Thanks for you effort and I apologize if I offended...but, I stand by my comments and will continue to do so. In all sincerity, Merry Christmas to you and yours. Good night.

---

That's great. However, you came out guns blazing about how the Apocrypha was foreign to the early church - and that the books were never referenced or used by Jesus, or his Apostles. I have provided support for the Apocrypha and even included a very in depth link from a Protestant phd for your edification. You won't even click the link? You have no interest in hearing a differing view, facing facts that may counter your worldview, or engaging in a real discussion. You are only here to throw accusations and lob attacks at Catholics and the Catholic Church.

---

Never said it was foreign (unknown) by the early (Apostolic) church. What I stated was Jesus and the NT writers never saw it fit to use or directly quote from it. Jesus was not interested in the Maccabean revolt and it was not a part of His saving purpose or God's will.

whatthehey78 said:

---

Never said it was foreign (unknown) by the early (Apostolic) church. What I stated was the Jesus and the NT writers never say fit to use or directly quote from it. Jesus was not interested in the Maccabean revolt and was not a part of His purpose or God's will.

---

. And I provided you a link with dozens and dozens of references and some direct quotes drawn from these books by Jesus Himself and from several of the NT writers. But you go ahead and keep your head in the sand if that makes you feel better, brother. Cheers.

Merry Christmas.

Faithful Ag said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Never said it was foreign (unknown) by the early (Apostolic) church. What I stated was the Jesus and the NT writers never say fit to use or directly quote from it. Jesus was not interested in the Maccabean revolt and was not a part of His purpose or God's will.

---

. And I provided you a link with dozens and dozens of references and some direct quotes drawn from these books by Jesus Himself and from several of the NT writers. But you go ahead and keep your head in the sand if that makes you feel better, brother. Cheers.

Merry Christmas.

---

My interest and faith is in one book. Yours don't fit my criteria relative to saving grace and God's will for His creation. People with all kinds of personal motives write books on all kinds of subjects. A lot of people disagree with a book's author and his/her motive...including the Bible. History has proven Rome tried to withhold God's word from His people and even today relies on the magisterium to interpret God's meaning as if God's people are incapable of understanding their Creator's meaning for their lives. Hmm...wonder why that is??? Are Catholics incapable of understanding God without an aide or tutor?? How did that come about??

I don't need or want your articles. I have what my Creator provided and don't require an interpreter or embellishment from other men. I will rely (solely) on the Holy Spirit for clarity. Jesus IS the way, the truth and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father except through Him. Rome's participation is not required by anyone.

whatthehey78 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

I think it's more complicated. The Apocrypha would not end up in the final Jewish canon, but when Christianity was first forming, the Jewish canon was contested around what became the Apocrypha (and books like Daniel that did make the cut, but placed into the 'writings' rather than the prophets). The authors of the New Testament seem pretty familiar with the Apocrypha, especially Enoch and Maccabees, and the belief in the imminence of the eschaton that marks the New Testament is inline with groups that did view the Apocryphal texts as authoritative.

---

Specifically "familiar" in what way? Familiar as in totally disregarding it as meaningless?
"eschaton" ???
"inline with groups" inline how and exactly what groups?

By the way, there's a reason the Jews won't include Daniel with the prophets as it explicitly defines the time of their Messiah, the Anointed one (70, 7's), whom they crucified. His precious blood is on their hands and Stephen professed so to their dislike.

---

Familiar as in the author of Jude quoted Enoch and has a ton of allusions to it. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man fits the description of Hell in Enoch but nowhere in the Tanakh, and there are allusions in the epistles of Peter. Early Church leaders including Terullien, Origen, and Justin Martyr considered Enoch extremely important if not divinely inspired. Eschaton referring to the end times; early Christianity was an apocalyptical cult expecting an imminent return of Jesus.

Daniel wasn't included in the prophets because that canon was closed from at least the early 2nd century BCE. Most scholars I've seen say it is likely that the book wasn't written until much later and is a pseudepigraphic work. It's not a normal prophetic book and its focus on eschatology is unusual in Jewish literature. Even if it had been written when the prophetic canon was open, it doesn't neatly fit in the prophetic mold as defined by Judaism of that era. Also, the timing doesn't work. You have to cherry-pick dates to try and make it work.

---

Totally false. Jesus quotes directly from Daniel. If it wasn't written until after the facts therein, HOW could Jesus quote from it?? Not to mention, my Savior (God incarnate) would not misquote or mislead His followers with falsehoods or heresy. Rome on the other hand...

Sorry, but with ALL due respect...I question what you've been taught and more so, whom taught you.

---

It was written before Jesus was around. Probably around the 2nd century BCE. You can believe what you want to believe. Folks who analyze the book come away pretty convinced that there's an older element in the first couple chapters and the it's written much later about Antiochus.

Sapper Redux said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

I think it's more complicated. The Apocrypha would not end up in the final Jewish canon, but when Christianity was first forming, the Jewish canon was contested around what became the Apocrypha (and books like Daniel that did make the cut, but placed into the 'writings' rather than the prophets). The authors of the New Testament seem pretty familiar with the Apocrypha, especially Enoch and Maccabees, and the belief in the imminence of the eschaton that marks the New Testament is inline with groups that did view the Apocryphal texts as authoritative.

---

Specifically "familiar" in what way? Familiar as in totally disregarding it as meaningless?
"eschaton" ???
"inline with groups" inline how and exactly what groups?

By the way, there's a reason the Jews won't include Daniel with the prophets as it explicitly defines the time of their Messiah, the Anointed one (70, 7's), whom they crucified. His precious blood is on their hands and Stephen professed so to their dislike.

---

Familiar as in the author of Jude quoted Enoch and has a ton of allusions to it. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man fits the description of Hell in Enoch but nowhere in the Tanakh, and there are allusions in the epistles of Peter. Early Church leaders including Terullien, Origen, and Justin Martyr considered Enoch extremely important if not divinely inspired. Eschaton referring to the end times; early Christianity was an apocalyptical cult expecting an imminent return of Jesus.

Daniel wasn't included in the prophets because that canon was closed from at least the early 2nd century BCE. Most scholars I've seen say it is likely that the book wasn't written until much later and is a pseudepigraphic work. It's not a normal prophetic book and its focus on eschatology is unusual in Jewish literature. Even if it had been written when the prophetic canon was open, it doesn't neatly fit in the prophetic mold as defined by Judaism of that era. Also, the timing doesn't work. You have to cherry-pick dates to try and make it work.

---

Totally false. Jesus quotes directly from Daniel. If it wasn't written until after the facts therein, HOW could Jesus quote from it?? Not to mention, my Savior (God incarnate) would not misquote or mislead His followers with falsehoods or heresy. Rome on the other hand...

Sorry, but with ALL due respect...I question what you've been taught and more so, whom taught you.

---

It was written before Jesus was around. Probably around the 2nd century BCE. You can believe what you want to believe. Folks who analyze the book come away pretty convinced that there's an older element in the first couple chapters and the it's written much later about Antiochus.

---

Your words:
"Probably" =/= Factually
"Folks" ~ Humans...frail and error prone...as are you and I
"pretty convinced" =/= Totally convinced and can PROVE same.

I do believe what I am totally convinced of. I rely on my Creator and His saving grace to guide, shield and protect me. I KNOW He is real and I sincerely question Rome's questionable influence on mankind through the ages. No Church is perfect (not possible)...not mine or yours. What is taught by each is or should be open to question. I chose to seek guidance via Scripture (66 Books) and prayer. I rely on the Holy Spirit...not Rome, who's latest edict on same sex blessings from on high is most disturbing. I can't fathom how Jesus would approve. Rome, like Prime Minister Chamberlin has appeased Satan. Sorry...his actions, like many others are not Christian. Numerous other priests agree.

whatthehey78 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Never said it was foreign (unknown) by the early (Apostolic) church. What I stated was the Jesus and the NT writers never say fit to use or directly quote from it. Jesus was not interested in the Maccabean revolt and was not a part of His purpose or God's will.

---

. And I provided you a link with dozens and dozens of references and some direct quotes drawn from these books by Jesus Himself and from several of the NT writers. But you go ahead and keep your head in the sand if that makes you feel better, brother. Cheers.

Merry Christmas.

---

My interest and faith is in one book. Yours don't fit my criteria relative to saving grace and God's will for His creation. People with all kinds of personal motives write books on all kinds of subjects. A lot of people disagree with a book's author and his/her motive...including the Bible. History has proven Rome tried to withhold God's word from His people and even today relies on the magisterium to interpret God's meaning as if God's people are incapable of understanding their Creator's meaning for their lives. Hmm...wonder why that is??? Are Catholics incapable of understanding God without an aide or tutor?? How did that come about??

I don't need or want your articles. I have what my Creator provided and don't require an interpreter or embellishment from other men. I will rely (solely) on the Holy Spirit for clarity. Jesus IS the way, the truth and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father except through Him. Rome's participation is not required by anyone.

---

If you want to stick your fingers in your ear and close your eyes on the subject that's totally up to you. You are obviously not someone interested in having a charitable discussion. Have a Happy Christmas.

Quote:

---

"The work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire." (1 Corinthians 3:13-15)

---

St Paul explains the concept of purgatory....

whatthehey78 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Point of clarification. Sola Scriptura does not depend on 66 or 72 books. It stands with either number.

Sola Scriptura simply states that Scripture is the norm that norms all else.

---

As you know...I don't agree with 72 and by definition, Sola Scriptura excludes any idea of human tradition and manipulation.

---

Which is fine. I also take the historic view that the apocrypha was not part of the narrow canon.

But Sola Scriptura is not dependent on the number of books, but the sufficiency of the Scripture itself.

Said another way, when we just had the books of Moses, the Scripture was sufficient -> Sola Scriptura

When we had the Law and the Prophets, the Scripture was sufficient -> Sola Scriptura.

When the NT came, the Scripture was sufficient -> Sola Scriptura.

So the number of books is not the important part, but the sufficiency of Scripture itself to be the norm that norms everything else.

Quote:

---

"Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny." (Matthew 5: 25-26)

---

St. Matthew explains the concept of being released from prison after death after full atonement for your sins...

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

"The work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire." (1 Corinthians 3:13-15)

---

St Paul explains the concept of purgatory....

---

With all due respect, that doesn't say or impart the message you and Rome thinks it does. It is the ONLY verse Rome could choose from Scripture that could be misconstrued with enough ambiguity that its congregation, who isn't allowed to do their own study/interpretation just MIGHT accept.

Maccabees was added to reinforce Rome's error. There is NOT ONE instance in Scripture where Jesus, Mary or an Apostle prays to the dead. In fact, Jesus rebukes a disciple for wanting to bury his father by saying "Follow me and let the dead bury their dead." In difference and in error, Rome places emphasis on the subject by praying to the dead and thus the need for maccabees and the apocrypha.

To summarize, Rome had to have a reason to pray to the dead and fabricated a story utilizing Jewish history and phony interpretation of actual Scripture to accomplish their goal, i.e., place the dead in a holding pattern AND THEN prey upon mourners by instituting the heretical idea of selling indulgencies to shorten their sentence. All true...all heretical...all wrong.

I know this because I've witnessed a priest request $$ from the children of their deceased mother for that very reason. SICK and definitely NOT CHRISTIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm done here. Merry CHRISTmas!!!!!!!