|
|
Post by messianicmama on May 4, 2013 20:49:28 GMT -8
I have a Catholic Bible that I bought for the Hanukkah story in Maccabees. I've read Sirach. It's very interesting. I liked it. I'm curious about the rest of the Apocrypha. There are done interesting things in there that really line up with  observant and godly living. Anyone else read any of the Apocrypha? What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 5, 2013 7:06:35 GMT -8
We used to have a Catholic Bible, but it finally fell apart. The Apochraphal books are ok as long as you don't give them anything near the status of scripture. One of the big reasons Catholics tend to have the gift of faith is because they study Maccabees, so there is probably some good instruction in the Apochraphia. Just be careful and turn your discernment filters on Max. But don't worry; if you should stumble just do 3 Hail Mary's and 2 Our Fathers and you should be OK!  Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by malachib on May 5, 2013 13:15:59 GMT -8
But why not consider it Scripture? The Church & the unbelieving sages codified the Bible...ancient Catholic & Orthodox sources use it. Why should we not consider it Scripture? For that matter, why do we consider our Protestant Bibles scripture? Should we?
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 5, 2013 19:14:20 GMT -8
But why not consider it Scripture? ... ancient Catholic & Orthodox sources use it. Why should we not consider it Scripture? Relatively speaking, Catholics are not ancient. Even if they were, just because something is ancient doesn't mean it is good or wise. Witchcraft, for example, prefers "ancient knowledge," which is supposedly superior to all other knowledge. So does paganism, which is as close as the Catholics can come to a claim of being "ancient," as they definitely did incorporate a lot of paganism into their religion. The Apocrypha is where they get their justification for most of these practices, which is reason enough to not canonize these books. None of these books was written in Hebrew, the language of almost all Biblical writing prior to Yeshua (and there is evidence for much of the "New Testament" having been written in Hebrew also). Further no Jewish sects ever claimed it as scripture, and they were the custodians of scripture prior to Yeshua. No early "Christian" churches ever acknowledged any of them as scripture, and none of the writers of any Apocryphal books ever claimed inspiration. It wasn’t until 1546 at the Council of Trent that the Apocrypha was recognized as holy writ by the Catholic church. The Apocrypha includes doctrines that are contradictory to the rest of scripture. To name just a very few: practicing magic-- Tobit 6:5-8 buying salvation-- Ecclesiasticus 3:30 sinlessnes of Mary-- Wisdom 8:19-20 Many, many things have been written from the time of Adam on. Not all of them should be in scripture. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by messianicmama on May 5, 2013 22:42:06 GMT -8
Well, toplay devil's advocate, the Catholic Bible inspired the Protestant one and more pagan practices and anti- teaching has come from Paul than the apocrypha. And the letters were not said to be Gd inspired by the authors any more so that the apocryphal books. I'm not saying we should all rush out and staple it into our Bible's but I don't think we should rule it out with careful examination. Part of stripping away the bad in Christianity is also looking for good things that have been passed over. There might be a lot of wisdom in the apocrypha. We won't know unless we read it. And if we are well versed in and wise and string in or beliefs we will be able to judge it by what it teaches. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank T. Clark on May 6, 2013 7:02:31 GMT -8
The "Protestant" Bible was not inspired by the Catholic Bible but was a return to an earlier tradition. Martin Luther, holding to Jewish and other ancient precedent, excluded the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament of his translation of the Bible, referred to as Luther's canon, placing them in a section he labeled "Apocrypha" ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon |
|
|
|
Post by messianicmama on May 6, 2013 7:10:36 GMT -8
The "Protestant" Bible was not inspired by the Catholic Bible but was a return to an earlier tradition. Martin Luther, holding to Jewish and other ancient precedent, excluded the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament of his translation of the Bible, referred to as Luther's canon, placing them in a section he labeled "Apocrypha" ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canonOkay, let's say that's true. Question still stands, is there no chance they got it wrong? Is there no wisdom or truth in any book outside of the Protestant Bible? Bear in mind, Luther was violently anti-semitic and his doctrines were used by the Nazis to convince the Lutheran German people that rounding up Jews and interning them would be a righteous idea. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 6, 2013 11:03:36 GMT -8
Okay, let's say that's true. Question still stands, is there no chance they got it wrong? Is there no wisdom or truth in any book outside of the Protestant Bible? Bear in mind, Luther was violently anti-semitic and his doctrines were used by the Nazis to convince the Lutheran German people that rounding up Jews and interning them would be a righteous idea. Obviously there is a chance for something good in other writings. If that were not the case none of you would be perusing my posts on the slim chance I'd say something useful!  That does not mean that everything written is correct, and if there is ANYTHING wrong or that disagrees with scripture, the writing cannot be canonized. For example: - "And thou shalt no more observe the Sabbath, but shalt instead observe a different day of your own choosing so long as that day shalt honor some deity."
There, now staple that into your Bible ... no? But "it is written!" Oh well, there goes my chance to be honored as a biblical author ...  And all because I disagreed with what God said ... oh well-oh well-oh well ... but hopefully you won't let this stop you from reading my future posts,  As for their "getting it wrong," I'm guessing they were a lot smarter than me, and much more well versed in the Bible. They were also probably led by the Ruach HaChodesh, and God never gets it wrong. The men who put the Apocryphal books in the Bible were not led by God, as they had their own agenda which was acquisition of power and justifying their methods. There is a present day "talking point" of extreme liberalism which, trying to discredit the Bible, says that all ancient writings are not included, therefore the Bible is incomplete. I've been confronted with this many times. We should not fall into the trap of believing any part of this nonsense. Of course there are many things written. Of course there is some good in some of these documents. But there is much bad, and much more irrelevant. Much also is in complete disagreement, and much-much more that was never intended to be addressed to believers. The argument is wrong on so many levels as to be dismissed out of hand, even without resorting to scripture (which they wouldn't believe anyhow). But I do admire your chutzpah, advocating for the devil on a "Christian" forum!  Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by messianicmama on May 6, 2013 12:45:12 GMT -8
Well, I see your point. I guess for me I'm okay with a gray area- books that are apparently accurate, theologically sound and full of truth/wisdom, but unsure of "inspiration." I don't really understand the concept of Gd inspired books. I don't think Paul believed he was writing Scripture, nor do I think any of the letter writers had that in mind. Paul's letters were written to specific congregations in response to specific questions, and I think the fact that Christianity applied it universally is part of the reason non-believers scream about inconsistencies. Anyway, I don't believe that most of the authors of the scripture were written by Gd using the entranced hand of the authors as much as I do believe the authors were godly, wise, upstanding and knowledgeable. If the books were divinely intuited, fine, but if not, that doesn't take away from them for me. I know I'm probably on my own on this one, but that's my feeling. I know that Paul was only allowed into the canon because the Catholic church couldn't do what they wanted without misinterpretation of his writings. And there are books where we don't even know who wrote them. Sure it could just be a mystery of Gd, but it could also be theological conveniences on part of the canonizers. Anyway, for me I an open to finding wisdom in extra-biblical sources and I believe it may be just as godly as stuff found in our Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on May 7, 2013 9:47:09 GMT -8
James 3:12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
When I read in a book that Sarah committed suicide and Rebekah was 9 when she married Jacob who was 40. That is all the salt I need. I read no further.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 8, 2013 11:43:05 GMT -8
Well, I see your point. I guess for me I'm okay with a gray area- books that are apparently accurate, theologically sound and full of truth/wisdom, but unsure of "inspiration." If they are not inspired by God, then they have no spiritual wisdom and are therefore not on the same level for the purposes of study of spiritual things. There is a HUGE difference in good advice and Godly advice. These letters were written to and for believers. Furthermore, they were copied and distributed throughout the known world, so Paul certainly knew these were to be used for the edification of the church as a whole. The concept of God-inspired books is really quite simple; we are talking about an infinite God who is able to inspire men's thoughts- especially men who He has called and who are completely sold out to Him. If He can work miracles through them, guide their steps, and comfort them even in gruesome death so their witness wouldn't be destroyed, then why is it so difficult to think He can inspire them to write a letter? And non-believers scream about inconsistencies because they are non-believers. Any excuse will do so they do not have to submit their will to God. I know; I was one for many years. Then you have a problem. On what then do you base your salvation? On just the words of someone who wrote what he "felt" to be right? How could these men know the truth about something so completely spiritual if they were not writing in the spirit? As for Paul, I'd reject the statement he only made it into cannon because the Catholics wanted to twist what he said. Many people have certainly done this, but the NT was pretty much universally finalized by the mid 300's. The Catholic Bible wasn't canonized until the Council of Trent in the 16th Cen. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 8, 2013 22:24:26 GMT -8
To claim a book "has no spiritual wisdom" is dubiois. I gather wisdom from science, nature, animals, insects, etc. Yes, G-d is the ultimate source from which everything good flows, butsomethings are innate. It is only dubious to non believers. Again, there is obviously wisdom in science and nature, as they reflect the wisdom of their Creator! But let's not confuse true science and pure nature with the perverted systems taught in our schools AND many churches today! Those who find "wisdom" in what men say about these topics have confused wisdom with foolishness! Those books are pure evil. There is no wisdom in them on any level, and spiritually they are food for the damned, period! I have to wonder about your motivation for using these as examples of spiritual wisdom here? I said there is a difference in good advice and Godly advice; so, no, God doesn't give bad advice, but men can give "good" advice that is against the will of God. God knows the future; He knows His plans for you in that future and what provisions He's made for you there. Men do not. So if all your friends are saying "Take the job; it's a great opportunity" but you have this niggling voice that says "I have something better for you, just wait," well ... Yeshua Himself talked about the scriptures being the word of God, as did other writers: - Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? (Matthew 15:3). Yeshua speaking of scripture as commandments of God.
- I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished (Matthew 5:18). Sounds to me as if Yeshua is placing all scripture to that time (the OT) as His own.
- He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him - the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak (John 12:48,49). Outstanding example of inspiration.
- Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away (Matthew 24:35). Hmmmmm, more divine "scripture".
- But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you (John 14:26). And more explaning of inspiration.
- But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, He will testify of Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning (John 15:26,27). And yet more explanation of inspiration.
- However, when He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come (John 16:13). Even more explanation of inspiration!
So again, saying the Bible is incomplete, or has too much, or is comparable to the Quran or Popular Science is to try to bring it to the same level as any other document, which means it is open to any interpretation. You should know better, as this is a forum composed mostly of people who have rejected the mythological approach to interpreting scripture. Your science is mythology; your spiritual readings are mythology; even your interpretations of the Bible may be mythology- but the Bible is NOT mythology!!! It says what it means and it means what it says, because it was written and compiled under the direction of an omnipotent Elohim. Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by Frank T. Clark on May 9, 2013 5:41:44 GMT -8
alon, again I wish it was possible to give a thumbs up without having to make a comment. To you brother I say  God will defend His Word through us to those who believe. Those who don't believe... 
|
|
|
|
Post by messianicmama on May 12, 2013 8:58:37 GMT -8
Wow. This got ridiculously out of hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on May 12, 2013 17:54:52 GMT -8
Wow. This got ridiculously out of hand. My decision to remove some of the posts here is based on the rules of the site. I do wish that all parties involved re-read the rules of the forum before posting anymore on this thread. The main violation has been made on attacking the inspired word of Hashem. From the rules of the site, 8. We believe that the books of B'resheet (Genesis) to the book of Revelation to be the inspired word of God. Therefore, all authority when discussing spiritual matters will be decided by the words contained in these books and is the basis for discussion taking place on the forum. Any teaching that attempts to invalidate these books of the Bible as being the authoritative inspired word of God will not be acceptable here on the forum. Read more: theloveofgod.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=guidlines&action=display&thread=2009#ixzz2T8LxhzfrPlease refrain from attacking each-other even though we can disagree and learn from such we still need to keep the subject Kosher. Shalom to everyone, Yedidyah |
|
observant and godly living. Anyone else read any of the Apocrypha? What do you think?
God will defend His Word through us to those who believe. Those who don't believe... 
