www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Inaccuracies of the Apocryphal Books

Mr. Badal is interested in promoting Protestantism but does not realize that just because he desires to do so does not demonstrate the truth of every precept of a few of the thousands of groups under that umbrella is true. Specifically, just because Protestants reject part of the Scriptures does not prove that those Scriptures should be rejected.

CDL

Okay, now you've reduced your argument to a personal belief. That's fine, one generally cannot argue with a personal beleif but, at the same time, one's belief does not make a good argument for convincing others of your position.

I happen to know a man who firmly believes that the world is flat. His belief does not make the world flat, nor is it convincing.

Fr. Deacon Edward

First off, I believe they are called Apocryphal by those that don't accept them and Deuterocanonical by those who do. Also, as I understand it, in the eastern tradition all Scripture is inspired and revered but done so in different degrees. For example, primary importance is placed upon the Gospels, then the NT letters, then the OT, then the deuterocanonical writings. Also, there are surely going to be inaccuracies in the Bible due to the human element. The Holy Spirit just wants to convey a message and does so in human terms so we understand and sometimes we understand mistakes better than reality. Of course, this is why it is soooooo important to be a member of a sacramental church (Catholic, Orthodox) so that we see that it is not scriptura sola but rather Holy Tradition that defines Scripture and not the other way around.

Sounds like many of you really don't believe in inspiration and the continuity of the 66 books of the Bible. All Scriptures flow together.

I think you are mistaken. I do think that you may not be the one to understand inspiration. But instead of accusing why not explain what you mean.

CDL

Dear carson daniel lauffer...

You are a pillar of charity and patience.

-ray

In all respect and charity, I must say that I doubt that any who have posted here and responded to you would deny Biblical inspiration. In fact, it is you who have denied the the totality of inspiration by questioning the inspired nature of the Deuterocanonical books. Orthodox Christians and Eastern Catholics here who have responded to you are simply affirming the two thousand year held complete canon. It is you who on the basis of your own personal opinion and that of others, who is denying the inspiration of certain books and the continuity of Scripture. Your slavish adherence to the conclusions of the unbelieving rabbis of Janmia stands in stark contradiction to the unbroken Tradition of the Christ-bearing Churches. Your opinion is refuted by Orthodox and Catholics together with the Oriental Churches of the Ethiopians, Copts and Armenians. The Canon is the fruit of the prayerful deliberation of the Church meeting in several councils and guided by the Holy Spirit.
Your opinion was not prevalent in the West until the appearence of one flatulent and schatological monk who rejected all authority and tradition in favor of his own counterfeit version of Christianity.

Hmmm...

Okay, then, how do you think the bible came to be? Did it fall from heaven one day? Did God sit down to tea (as he did with the devil in the Book of Job) and dictate it word-for-word to human scribes? How did some books get put in and others left out?

Fr. Deacon Edward

Many protestants, it seems, think of the Bible as Muslims regard the Qur'an - but that idea of the Bible being something that God dictated to people verbatim is not Christian, infact it is closer to Islam than any form of Christianity. What comes closest in Christianity to the way the Qur'an is regarded in Islam is The Logos (the Word made flesh). Christians worship the Word made flesh not the Bible (although we do venerate and hold the Bible in the highest regard), but we are not Bibliolaters.

It took several minutes and serious prayer after reading that post. :rolleyes:

CDL

Fr. Edward:

Yes, all personal beliefs are hard to argue with. Yet, the Holy Catholic and Orthodox Churches have affirmed a belief in the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal writings as equally sacred as the sixty-books of the Bible. Is this not a personal belief?

Yet, I suppose, the same amount of information can be rallied against a Protestant belief in only the 66 books, just like you have done above. However, Jesus never makes any "direct" claim to these Extra-biblical accounts. Paul likewise does not make direct quotes.

So, if we truly believe that God inspired the Human author to compose and write down the intended information to the audience and hearer, why not have the author discuss these other books in detail?

I wonder what the other religion groups really think about Christianity and the horrible divide we really do have on the our theology? We look forward to being corrected by our Lord. I am thankful that my salvation is secured by the Blood of the Lamb. I am thankful that I am justified by faith in Christ.

But the Jews not regard New Testament as Scripture either. Not to mention, the canon of the New Testament come in one package with Old Testament in Councils like Rome, Carthage, Gelasian Decree. And in all of them, the Deuterocanonicals are mention as part of Old Testament Canon.

If we say, the canon is wrong... Then no assurance what so ever that the New Testament canon is right. We will end up with a list of fallibe canon of infallible books.

And if we want to regard the Scripture as the sole authority, then by what authority the Scripture validate itself?
Without relying to any other authority but Scripture, when the Scripture canon was not yet fixed, how can you say that Gospel of John is part of the Canon? How can you say that Epistle of James is part of the Canon?
Where in the Bible ever mentioned the complete list of books that should be regarded as Scripture?

Even in Epistle of Jude, a quote from Apochripal regarding Moses body is there. Since it is quoted, why don't we add "The Assumption of Moses" as part of Scripture?
Or on the contrary, since Epistle of Jude quoted "The Assumption of Moses" it means the epistle not part of 'true' canon so we can trash it out of the New Testament Canon.

Why accept the Jewish council resolution that reject New Testament, yet at the same time pick New Testament Canon which come in one package with Canon of Old Testament including Deuterocanonicals?


The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232) states:

A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent.

No, it is incorporated into the personal belief system of those who accept the teachings of the Church, but it is a corporate belief in so much as the Church is the teaching agent, the pillar and foundation of truth according to Scripture.

Actually, there are citations in the New Testament that derive from the deuterocanonical books, so I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Now you are asking about something we cannot know. Some books of Scripture do reference other works, some reference works that are not a part of Scripture and some reference works that are long since lost to us.

Hmmm...nowhere does Scripture assert that salvation is a one-time deal. Virtually everyplace where salvation is mentioned it is mentioned as an ongoing process. In the Acts of the Apostles, for example, we learn about how the body was being built up by those who were "being saved" (Acts 2:47, NIV).

Fr. Deacon Edward

Joel,

How can I say this? I think you may not be reading any of the responses. A rather long list of references to the Deuterocanonicals has already been posted on this board that includes most of the New Testament authors. If you have read this and still make this claim...I think you know.

CDL

Dear Father Deacon Edward,

Yes, you are right on!

In fact, St Paul mentions the tradition, found NOWHERE in any scriptures, canonical, deuterocanonical, apocryphal etc. of the battle of St Michael with the devil over the body of Moses! Yet, he accepts this oral tradition as a matter of fact.

Our Lord mentions the "seat of Moses" which is also a tradition that developed within Judaism that is outside the scriptures. He does not attack this tradition, only those who abuse what it represented.

For me, one of the most telling references that shows how the early Christians not only knew the orthodox writings that never made it into the final canon of Holy Scripture, but were EXPECTED to know them to provide the necessary context and continuity of the New Testament is contained in the first chapter of John's Gospel beginning at verse 45 when Philip found Nathanel.

In verse 47, we read: Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him and he saith of him: Behold an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile. Nathaniel saith to him: Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said to him: Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered him and said, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the king of Israel!" (Douay-Rheims Version).

Now, I've always wondered why Nathanael seems to make such a "fuss" over what appears to be a minor thing - Christ seeing him under a fig tree.

Would this occasion such a confession of faith in Jesus that Nathanael made?

In fact, the "fig tree" that is being mentioned is a reference to a meeting of Jesus and Nathanael that occurred when they were yet children . . .

This is recorded, I believe in either the Birth of Mary or the Gospel of Nicodemus (both orthodox books that did not form part of the final canon of the New Testament, but I believe they are part of the New Testament deuterocanonicals of the Assyrian Church of the East and of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church).

As I remember it, when Mary and Joseph took the Baby Jesus away from Herod, they came upon a chance meeting with Nathanael's mother. A deadly disease had already claimed the life of one of her sons and the baby Nathanael was slowly dying from it.

Mary, who had obviously witnessed the miraculous power of her Baby, quickly urged Nathanael's mother to place her son on the bed-clothes of her Son - and this happened to be under a fig tree.

When this happened, Nathanael's disease and fever immediately left him and he was perfectly healthy!

When, in the Gospel of John, our Lord Jesus makes this reference to the tree, He is actually making reference to His own miraculous healing of Nathanael so many years before when they were both babies.

Nathanael knew about this very well and he knew that only a small circle of people knew about his miraculous healing, involving his mother and Mary and . . . the Baby Who was the Miracle-worker.

When Christ mentioned this, Nathanael knew right away that he was in the Presence of the Person Who, as a baby, bore such Divine healing power that just touching His bed-clothes showered such rich Graces of healing on him, saving his life.

This is why Nathanael extolls Christ so highly and becomes His lifelong disciple and apostle.

Also, in the Celtic Church especially, the Shepherd of Hermas was always a part of the New Testament Canon of Scripture by way of "local Canon."

In the Ethiopian Orthodox Church today, the eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions are likewise a formal part of their New Testament Canon and they also include the Old Testament deuterocanonical books of Enoch and Jubilees in their "narrow canon" - their "wider OT canon" contains many others, including the Ascension of Elias etc.

The Lutherans, to be sure, had a New Testament that was divested of a number of books, including the Epistle of James which Martin Luther called, "An epistle of straw" because he saw that inspired book as contradicting his view of justification and salvation by faith "alone."

NOWHERE in the New Testament is it said that we are justified by faith "alone."

The only place where "faith alone" is mentioned is in the Epistle of James, 2:24:

Do you see that by works a man is justified and not by faith only? . . . For even as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

However, I am using a Catholic Bible. Perhaps things are different in one of the Protestant translations ).

Alex