-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
L
Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works: Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin. Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
Magic:
Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.
Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.
S
Covered this already. But to even begin to use this point as a negative you first have to be working under the assumption that Purgatory is wrong[/QUOTE]
Considering it's the Old Testament I fail to see the problem.
He was commanded by Raphael to do that, and it is no more magic than Jesus healing a blind man with mud or blood on doorposts preventing the Angel of Death from killing the Israelites.
R
what i wrote was all basic fact about the apocryphal books...if necessary i can support all of it...
the apocryphal books were not in the original hebrew manuscripts of the old testament...in fact several of them were never written in hebrew at all...they are only present in the greek septuagint and the latin versions...
the apocryphal books were not in the original hebrew manuscripts of the old testament...in fact several of them were never written in hebrew at all...they are only present in the greek septuagint and the latin versions...
R
the convention was to categorize the books by literary type... for example tobit and judith were placed with esther...all books of the 'short story' genre... sirach and the wisdom of solomon were placed with the other poetic and wisdom books... baruch and the letter of jeremiah were placed with the prophetic literature... the two books of the maccabees were put last because they act as a kind of historical 'bookend'
I have read the Apocrypha for interest when I was taking New Testament survey. We learned that some of these books were valuable in knowing what happened between Malachi and Matthew, and the 1 Maccabees is considered a good historical (but not inspired!!) version of the events which led to the Maccabean Revolt.
Rachel accurately covered what the books are about and their accuracy in her first post.
As for these books being in the Septuagint, not so much!!
Those books really are to justify erroneous doctrines found in the Catholic church, like purgatory and praying for the dead, which really is just another way for the "church" to collect money to say masses for the dead, because the shed blood of Christ on Calvary is not enough, and even works are not enough.
My grandmother was a young French woman during WWI in France. The people were starving to death, their children were emaciated, and the priests would come demanding money and making them feel guiltly because their dead relatives were crying out for help from purgatory. So the children starved and the masses were said, when the Vatican was the richest corporation in the world. Very sad, that such a terrible doctrine would be used to starve children in a time of war and deprivation when the church was so incredibly rich!!!
I found an excellent article which covers what I learned in Seminary. It is what I have been taught. No early church father believed in these verses, and they were not accepted by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent, meaning even the Catholic hierarchy did not accept them. To post they are in any way, shape or form the Word of God shows a total lack of understanding of the canon, and why the 66 books were accepted as inspired and the Apocrypha were not!
Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!
Rachel accurately covered what the books are about and their accuracy in her first post.
As for these books being in the Septuagint, not so much!!
Those books really are to justify erroneous doctrines found in the Catholic church, like purgatory and praying for the dead, which really is just another way for the "church" to collect money to say masses for the dead, because the shed blood of Christ on Calvary is not enough, and even works are not enough.
My grandmother was a young French woman during WWI in France. The people were starving to death, their children were emaciated, and the priests would come demanding money and making them feel guiltly because their dead relatives were crying out for help from purgatory. So the children starved and the masses were said, when the Vatican was the richest corporation in the world. Very sad, that such a terrible doctrine would be used to starve children in a time of war and deprivation when the church was so incredibly rich!!!
I found an excellent article which covers what I learned in Seminary. It is what I have been taught. No early church father believed in these verses, and they were not accepted by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent, meaning even the Catholic hierarchy did not accept them. To post they are in any way, shape or form the Word of God shows a total lack of understanding of the canon, and why the 66 books were accepted as inspired and the Apocrypha were not!
Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!
B
One of the signatures of Scripture is accuracy. Many of the so called errors contained within the Old Testament are a simply lack of understanding by the reader. Other problems stem from the nature of ancient Hebrew. Hebrew is an incredibly accurate but tight language. In short the slightest smudge can cause errors to creep in because of the nature of Hebrew. To combat this 2 things were developed. One was the conversion to pre-Koine Greek known today as the Septuagint. The other was called counting, which is still used to reproduce the Torah.
It is interesting to note that all these so called error do not effect the message in the slightest. One of the keys to the Old Testament is that each book presents a picture of Christ. This claim is not found in the Apocrypha. Not a single of these extra books has a picture of Christ.
On thing I did not say which you infer is that they contain nothing of value to the reader. Perhaps the assumption that as a believer you would understand what edification means was not as solid of a foundation as I thought to speak from. When the Church or a person is edified it means they are strengthened in some way. That they are upheld by truth. So when I said, in agreement with the Early Church Fathers, that the books of the apocrypha were valuable for edification it means that they have value to be transmitted. The phone book has value to those seeking a phone number. The dictionary has value to those seeking a definition. The encyclopedia has value to those seeking information. Should we then call these Scripture because they have value? Certainly not and nor should the apocrypha be assigned Holy value as Scripture when they are not.
Many books are mentioned in the Bible that are not contained in the Bible. Most noteworthy is the Book of Enoch. The book is of such value that the name was included in Scripture but the book itself is not. The Book of Enoch was well known in its day and to the most studious it still is. It contains good and valuable information yet is not Scripture. The Only reason the Roman Church added the books of the Apocrypha is because of Luther's accusations and because the Roman Church needed them to maintain its stance that certain practices were of God.
Instead of addressing the accusation of Luther they condemned him and then added to God's Word in a way that has never been done before or since. So again read them, glean from them but do not assign them a place with the holy.
In Christ,
Bishop SEH
It is interesting to note that all these so called error do not effect the message in the slightest. One of the keys to the Old Testament is that each book presents a picture of Christ. This claim is not found in the Apocrypha. Not a single of these extra books has a picture of Christ.
On thing I did not say which you infer is that they contain nothing of value to the reader. Perhaps the assumption that as a believer you would understand what edification means was not as solid of a foundation as I thought to speak from. When the Church or a person is edified it means they are strengthened in some way. That they are upheld by truth. So when I said, in agreement with the Early Church Fathers, that the books of the apocrypha were valuable for edification it means that they have value to be transmitted. The phone book has value to those seeking a phone number. The dictionary has value to those seeking a definition. The encyclopedia has value to those seeking information. Should we then call these Scripture because they have value? Certainly not and nor should the apocrypha be assigned Holy value as Scripture when they are not.
Many books are mentioned in the Bible that are not contained in the Bible. Most noteworthy is the Book of Enoch. The book is of such value that the name was included in Scripture but the book itself is not. The Book of Enoch was well known in its day and to the most studious it still is. It contains good and valuable information yet is not Scripture. The Only reason the Roman Church added the books of the Apocrypha is because of Luther's accusations and because the Roman Church needed them to maintain its stance that certain practices were of God.
Instead of addressing the accusation of Luther they condemned him and then added to God's Word in a way that has never been done before or since. So again read them, glean from them but do not assign them a place with the holy.
In Christ,
Bishop SEH
B
At first the Roman Church is simply upholding the monolithic nature of Islam. They are indeed correct in pointing a common father in the person of Abraham. The issue is defined by the promise vs the flesh. The line of Christ is of the promise through Issac. The line of Islam is of the Flesh. The flesh does not have the promise but only the flesh. Islam, like all the world religions will one day be burned up. The promise will stand though the rest of the world has been burned up.
I believe, and I say this of myself, that the Roman Church was at that time and remains today, terrified of Islam and the fanatical nature of its adherents and doctrines. Christianity teaches us not to fear death. Islam teaches to seek death. The tie between the promise and the flesh begins and ends with Abraham. The promise was born out in Jesus and He is alive today. The flesh was born out to death in Mohammed who, like King David, is dead and buried.
The Roman Church made the error of appeasement and because of that questions such as yours have arisen among those that seek answers.
In Christ,
Bishop SEH
I believe, and I say this of myself, that the Roman Church was at that time and remains today, terrified of Islam and the fanatical nature of its adherents and doctrines. Christianity teaches us not to fear death. Islam teaches to seek death. The tie between the promise and the flesh begins and ends with Abraham. The promise was born out in Jesus and He is alive today. The flesh was born out to death in Mohammed who, like King David, is dead and buried.
The Roman Church made the error of appeasement and because of that questions such as yours have arisen among those that seek answers.
In Christ,
Bishop SEH
S
Really now? Not even Wisdom?
Wisdom 2: 12-20:
[SUP]12 [/SUP]Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]He is become a censurer of our thoughts.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.
I already included a response to this earlier. The so called "Apocrypha" was not added at Trent; lists of canonical books from councils at Hippo and Carthage in the 4th century include what you call apocrypha. The situation before Trent allowed for dispute on the OT canon, and the various lists of OT canonical books issued by local councils bear this out, what Trent did was officially declare, once and for all, that those books are canonical.
The only doctrine that could conceivably be said to be supported from the Deuterocanon is prayer for the dead.
What are you a bishop in anyway? The ACNA?
Wisdom 2: 12-20:
[SUP]12 [/SUP]Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]He is become a censurer of our thoughts.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.
I already included a response to this earlier. The so called "Apocrypha" was not added at Trent; lists of canonical books from councils at Hippo and Carthage in the 4th century include what you call apocrypha. The situation before Trent allowed for dispute on the OT canon, and the various lists of OT canonical books issued by local councils bear this out, what Trent did was officially declare, once and for all, that those books are canonical.
The only doctrine that could conceivably be said to be supported from the Deuterocanon is prayer for the dead.
What are you a bishop in anyway? The ACNA?
Last edited:
One of the teachings in the apocrypha is that there is a purgatory after death, where one is cleansed from sin. This goes against scripture, where we are told that only the blood of Jesus can cleanse us of all unrighteousness.
Purgatory denies the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, claiming that we must suffer in purgatory, in addition to His sacrifice. This goes against scripture. I believe it is the non biblical book of 2 Macabees 12:43-46 that Catholics use to support this belief.
Just one of many teachings that are not biblical, and for this reason I reject them.
Purgatory denies the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, claiming that we must suffer in purgatory, in addition to His sacrifice. This goes against scripture. I believe it is the non biblical book of 2 Macabees 12:43-46 that Catholics use to support this belief.
Just one of many teachings that are not biblical, and for this reason I reject them.
S
It actually mentions prayer for the dead, not Purgatory. Purgatory itself is the natural outcrop of the teaching that nothing imperfect can enter heaven, and since Early Christian theology did not have the "snow covered dunghill" concept of Luther, Purgatory was where the righteous dead were purified of any attachment to sin they may have left.
The very idea of praying for the dead would be to suggest they "need help" getting out of somewhere.
When you say imperfect, you need to look at what scripture teaches in regard to this - those covered by the blood of Jesus are seen as righteous before God, the penalty of their sin paid for by Jesus. It's His work, not ours. There is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, we have crossed over from death to life.
A person who dies not being born again is eternally condemned, there is no second chance for them once they've died. Salvation is offered to us while we're alive, once we die it's too late.
There is no such thing as purgatory. If you believe in the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice to cleanse a person from all sin, then you will reject any idea or teaching of purgatory.
When you say imperfect, you need to look at what scripture teaches in regard to this - those covered by the blood of Jesus are seen as righteous before God, the penalty of their sin paid for by Jesus. It's His work, not ours. There is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, we have crossed over from death to life.
A person who dies not being born again is eternally condemned, there is no second chance for them once they've died. Salvation is offered to us while we're alive, once we die it's too late.
There is no such thing as purgatory. If you believe in the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice to cleanse a person from all sin, then you will reject any idea or teaching of purgatory.
B
Note: I have numbered the quotes for easy reference. I added them.
1. The canon of the Old Testament was closed By God in or about 350 bc when He ended direct interaction with the Nation of Israel. I personally find it interesting the the Alexandrian Canon occurred in or around 330 bc. While the Palestinian Canon close in 95 ad after every single book of the Bible had been written. The latter canon was closed when the entirety of the Scripture had come into being. Until the untrained Augustine whose skill set was in speaking and in Latin and could barely read Greek and only painfully by his confession in the work by the same name, Jerome's collection which set aside the Apocrypha as its own section and not treating them as Scripture. Neither did many of the ECF's which the Roman Church is so fond of quoting until where they disagree with the Roman Church is pointed out. At that time they qualify the ECF's . A double standard to be sure.
2. The OT of which the Apocrypha was added to numbers mere 39 not 66. Further the NT contains no errors at all due to the nature of Koine Greek. There are issues with transliteration which is why it is necessary to study the original language of Koine Greek while the Roman Church only go back to the Latin, a transliteration itself. Further the Roman Church relies heavily on the Greek OT where the Reformed Churches, when they commission a Bible prefer to work primarily from the Hebrew OT, using the Greek sparingly and only as needed.
3. The text is the only support for that "T"radition.
4. Yes there were divisions among the ECF's The later the ECF the more likely there were to accept the Apocrypha. The closer to the Apostolic era the more likely they were to reject the apocrypha. The Council of Trent was unifying for the Roman Church because they could not then nor can they now stand up to the 95 theses. I will be the first to say the Luther got some things wrong and like his Roman counterparts, he was up for messing with what he saw as Scripture. The interesting thing I have noted at that the same 6 NT books that have had the greatest concern are still there while to get the Apocrypha you have to align yourself with the statist teachings of the Roman Church.
I will say this, The Way has never in our history had a problem with canon. 66 books it all there ever has been and all there will ever be barring the appointment of a true apostle by God.
In Christ,
Bishop SEH
1. The canon of the Old Testament was closed By God in or about 350 bc when He ended direct interaction with the Nation of Israel. I personally find it interesting the the Alexandrian Canon occurred in or around 330 bc. While the Palestinian Canon close in 95 ad after every single book of the Bible had been written. The latter canon was closed when the entirety of the Scripture had come into being. Until the untrained Augustine whose skill set was in speaking and in Latin and could barely read Greek and only painfully by his confession in the work by the same name, Jerome's collection which set aside the Apocrypha as its own section and not treating them as Scripture. Neither did many of the ECF's which the Roman Church is so fond of quoting until where they disagree with the Roman Church is pointed out. At that time they qualify the ECF's . A double standard to be sure.
2. The OT of which the Apocrypha was added to numbers mere 39 not 66. Further the NT contains no errors at all due to the nature of Koine Greek. There are issues with transliteration which is why it is necessary to study the original language of Koine Greek while the Roman Church only go back to the Latin, a transliteration itself. Further the Roman Church relies heavily on the Greek OT where the Reformed Churches, when they commission a Bible prefer to work primarily from the Hebrew OT, using the Greek sparingly and only as needed.
3. The text is the only support for that "T"radition.
4. Yes there were divisions among the ECF's The later the ECF the more likely there were to accept the Apocrypha. The closer to the Apostolic era the more likely they were to reject the apocrypha. The Council of Trent was unifying for the Roman Church because they could not then nor can they now stand up to the 95 theses. I will be the first to say the Luther got some things wrong and like his Roman counterparts, he was up for messing with what he saw as Scripture. The interesting thing I have noted at that the same 6 NT books that have had the greatest concern are still there while to get the Apocrypha you have to align yourself with the statist teachings of the Roman Church.
I will say this, The Way has never in our history had a problem with canon. 66 books it all there ever has been and all there will ever be barring the appointment of a true apostle by God.
In Christ,
Bishop SEH
S
History doesn't bear that out. Before and during the time of Christ there were Jews that accepted more or fewer books than modern Judaism. Also I am unaware if Augustine participated in those councils, but they were composed of many other men other than him.
There is good reason for looking back to the Vulgate and the Septuagint for the OT as the earliest complete manuscripts of the LXX (which include the apocrypha I might add) are a full 500 years older than the earliest complete Masoretic text. Also practically every Bible you can lay your hands on today that isn't the KJV does not contain an OT straight from the Masoretic text, but the so called "Critical text" is used which is the Masoretic text heavily modified with LXX and Vulgate readings.
The Tradition of praying for the dead is well supported among the Early Church Fathers and in early Christianity. A fact you should be familiar with if you are as intimate with the ECF's as your posts would imply.
Actually Clement of Rome, Polycarp, the Didache, and Justin Martyr all quote the Deuterocanon as authoritive, and those are the earliest and most prominent Early Fathers (and document). Finally Protestants are in the minority among Christians in rejecting all of the Deuterocanon. Everyother Apostolic Church has a OT canon at least as long as the RC canon, and therefore every church that had it's genesis before the 15th century.
Indeed it has. As is evidenced by the fact that in history and now there is still disagreement among the churches on the canon of the OT.
What modern Protestants have is a kind of concillatory canon with all the books that have been disputed removed. You may say that we added, but in our view you took away.
There is good reason for looking back to the Vulgate and the Septuagint for the OT as the earliest complete manuscripts of the LXX (which include the apocrypha I might add) are a full 500 years older than the earliest complete Masoretic text. Also practically every Bible you can lay your hands on today that isn't the KJV does not contain an OT straight from the Masoretic text, but the so called "Critical text" is used which is the Masoretic text heavily modified with LXX and Vulgate readings.
The Tradition of praying for the dead is well supported among the Early Church Fathers and in early Christianity. A fact you should be familiar with if you are as intimate with the ECF's as your posts would imply.
Actually Clement of Rome, Polycarp, the Didache, and Justin Martyr all quote the Deuterocanon as authoritive, and those are the earliest and most prominent Early Fathers (and document). Finally Protestants are in the minority among Christians in rejecting all of the Deuterocanon. Everyother Apostolic Church has a OT canon at least as long as the RC canon, and therefore every church that had it's genesis before the 15th century.
Indeed it has. As is evidenced by the fact that in history and now there is still disagreement among the churches on the canon of the OT.
What modern Protestants have is a kind of concillatory canon with all the books that have been disputed removed. You may say that we added, but in our view you took away.
One book of the Apocrypha I know for sure is true is 2 Esdras. 2 Esdras stated that the end of this age(this world) will end while Esau is in ruler ship
2 Esdras 6:9 "For Esau is the end of this age, and Jacob is the beginning of the age that follows"
Edom are the Romans, which were founded by Magdiel and Iram who were the chief sons of Esau. Rome and its descendants still rule with an Iron fist, the Apocrypha stated that when this age ends, Esau will be in power at that time.
2 Esdras 6:9 "For Esau is the end of this age, and Jacob is the beginning of the age that follows"
Edom are the Romans, which were founded by Magdiel and Iram who were the chief sons of Esau. Rome and its descendants still rule with an Iron fist, the Apocrypha stated that when this age ends, Esau will be in power at that time.
Has anyone considered that The Holy Spirit had a little of something to with the bible that we have today. Don't you think He would have protected it and presented the true word of God. The king James is the only translation that was done by a person in power and saw to it that it was done. The translators were not christians, just scholars in linguistics. The Holy Spirit shaped it and molded it till it was as close to being correct as humanly possible. Don't forget that God had His hand in it. We always try to reason God's work with our human minds and that is just impossible.
W
What about everybody before 1610 They are just born to earlly maybe. Here is something 400 years 1611 - 2011 400 is also the letter tov which is a picture of the cross meaning a sign a mark or a covenant. 400 is used for a period of time dealing with bondage or darkness israel in egypt malachi to Yeshua just saying maybe there is something there maybe not what do you think is it just a coincidence?