Apocrypha Books

[Pegasus]

Just to make myself clear, and NOT to argue: I never stated anything of the sort. I merely included it in the list for exactly the reasons I stated.

I was not arguing or accusing. I was discussing the subject.

 

[jaybird]

Post up the comparison. Remember, the poster was claiming those Apocryphal quotes were quoted or alluded to in the NT.

how about this one:
Matthew 7:16-20
16 By their fruit you will recognize them.Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?(B) 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.(D) 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Sirach 27:6-7 (Apocrypha)
6 (A)You can tell how well a tree has been cared for by the fruit it bears, and you can tell a person's feelings by the way he expresses himself. 7 Never praise anyone before you hear him talk; that is the real test.

 

[smaller]

I don't have a problem with the inclusions in the older catholic texts.

Wouldn't consider some of them necessarily scripture, such as Bel and the dragon, which is a lame account of Daniel, though with some interesting side note observations such as how the phony priest class operated to scam people and how Daniel caught them in their tracks. I'd consider Susanna a similar account of the forensic/investigatory intellect of Daniel, not necessarily scripture.

There are other odds and ends bits and pieces writings that are semi-interesting, such as the revelation of the mystery of the cross from the Acts of John for example. It was rejected for docetic overtones which was a hot topic at the time of reviews, but could have made the cut, maybe.

Nice site for extensive collection of various works:
http://fam-faerch.dk/pseudigrapher/Index.html
http://fam-faerch.dk/pseudigrapher/Index.html
http://fam-faerch.dk/pseudigrapher/Index.html
If you've never read Origen's responses against Celsus it sounds like a common debate one might hear or engage in today between a believer, Origen and the typical phony spin doctoring from the unsaved and ignorant of the faith.

 

[Pegasus]

how about this one:
Matthew 7:16-20
16 By their fruit you will recognize them.Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?(B) 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.(D) 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Sirach 27:6-7 (Apocrypha)
6 (A)You can tell how well a tree has been cared for by the fruit it bears, and you can tell a person's feelings by the way he expresses himself. 7 Never praise anyone before you hear him talk; that is the real test.

Proverbs 11:30

 

[Jim Parker]

I bet I can find everyone of those quotes elsewhere in the OT.
Pick out your 5 favorite ones word for word from the deutercanon books and put the NT quote under it.
I'll show you where an allusion is not a quote and where it is found elsewhere in the OT.

And what do you imagine you would accomplish by that tail chasing?

 

[jaybird]

Proverbs 11:30

close but i dont think those are the same teachings.

proverbs is teaching the rewards or righteousness is life.
the Mt and Sr teachings are how to recognize good and bad comparing it to a tree and its fruit.

 

[Pegasus]

And what do you imagine you would accomplish by that tail chasing?

First thanks for the list.

I went through roughly 25% of the references. Best case scenario is word key source. If Jesus mentions a lamb or a yoke, your list gives the Apocryphal work credit. Could not find one direct quote nor a "it is written, or it says in scripture " quote in the NT referencing the Apocryphal works. Best non canonical quote is from Jude quoting Enoch. Only the Ethiopian Orthodox consider portions of Enoch as inspired.

Jesus did use rabbinical teaching techniques of his time especially the parables. I can see the familiarity of these rabbinical teaching techniques in Ben Sira but Jesus does not directly quote the works of him.

The intro of Ben Sira admits it is a commentary on the Torah and Prophets. That would be akin, for a Catholic, to read Cardinal Newman's Biblical commentary. Very good work but not inspired Holy Scriptures.

 

[By Grace]

By Grace said: ↑
Just to make myself clear, and NOT to argue: I never stated anything of the sort. I merely included it in the list for exactly the reasons I stated.

I was not arguing or accusing. I was discussing the subject.

I was posting "defensively" and doing so with an abundance of caution in mind.
Therefore, we move forward.

There is a totally discredited theory among liberal scholars that the Synoptic Gospels had one common source named Quelle, or the Q document. Supposedly that was developed because the same phrases are in each of the 3 Synoptics, The heart of that discredited theory is to denigrate the Gospels to be nothing more than copies of fictional accounts of a person named Jesus... You can see where that is going.

Therefore, I am wondering two things:

1) Does the poster who posted those "similarities actually believe in the Q document theory?
2) Supposing that he does, has the poster uncovered any evidence from primary sources supporting that theory?

 

[historyb]

should Apocrypha books be part of the scriptures? whats everyone's thoughts?

If your talking about the deuterocanonals than they were there before some Protestants removed them. The Catholic, Orthodox, and many others still use the complete Bible including my church and the deuterocanonals are part of the liturgical calendar

 

[Jim Parker]

Very good work but not inspired Holy Scriptures.

The notion of what "holy inspired" has changed over time.
The apocrypha were good enough for the whole church for about 2000 years. The original KJV included them.
Then different sects decided they were no longer "really" scripture and we end up with the nonsense we have to day; something to argue about and divide the Kingdom of God over.

Ain't that swell?

 

[Pegasus]

If your talking about the deuterocanonals than they were there before some Protestants removed them.

The notion of what "holy inspired" has changed over time.
The apocrypha were good enough for the whole church for about 2000 years. The original KJV included them.
Then different sects decided they were no longer "really" scripture and we end up with the nonsense we have to day; something to argue about and divide the Kingdom of God over.

Ain't that swell?

That seems to be the party line. Which is not accurate in the least as explained earlier in the thread.

Here:

http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/apocrypha-books.68498/#post-1300703

 

[Edward]

Apparently the current version of our Bible is totally complete for it's salvific purpose.

Matthew 24:35
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.../

I have faith that God was able to keep a good translation in circulation.

 

[Jim Parker]

That seems to be the party line. Which is not accurate in the least as explained earlier in the thread.
Here: http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/apocrypha-books.68498/#post-1300703

The Scriptures to which the writers of the NT referred were the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the OT complied around 200 BC. It was the most commonly used because very few people spoke the Hebrew in which the OT had been written but everyone spoke Greek. The LXX contained the apocrypha.

The concept of "inspired, inerrant scripture" is a modern one developed in reaction to the very liberal interpretations of many leading modern scholars and which led to the "Fundamentalist" movement of early 20th century USA.

The early church based it's determination on NT canon in part on apostolic authorship which resulted in the Didache being excluded because, though containing apostolic teaching, it was not the work of any specific apostle.

So when people start talking about what is "inspired" and what is not, for the most part, they are speaking from a lack of information. It is far from the "cut and dried" results so often offered as irrefutable fact. It is a bit arrogant for any man to declare "God hath said this but not that."

But you don't have to read the if you don't like them. I don't care much for "Numbers"; I find it tedious. And I don't spend much time with the Revelation since it is John's best effort at rendering his ecstatic, apocalyptic visions into human language. Because of the ambiguity of his visions, it, as well as Daniel's apocalyptic, ecstatic visions, Revelation has been used by a wide variety of charlatans to fabricate astounding and wonderful new ear-tickling new winds of doctrine.

iakov the fool

 

[jaybird]

The early church based it's determination on NT canon in part on apostolic authorship which resulted in the Didache being excluded because, though containing apostolic teaching, it was not the work of any specific apostle.

.iakov the fool

so how did Luke, Mark, and the writings of Paul make it to the canon?

 

[Douglas Summers]

should Apocrypha books be part of the scriptures? whats everyone's thoughts?

It should be studied, but by mature Christians. It is an important part of Israel's history 400 years before Christ first advent. Things that are important: Festival of lights, ancestry of the Herods and how they came to fit into the trials of Israel. The Kingdoms political order as Profit, Priest and King over Israel (Maccabees clan) Hellenistic Jews, Antiochus and the abomination of the temple sacrifice. It is a good study along with the family tree.

 

[Jim Parker]

so how did Luke, Mark, and the writings of Paul make it to the canon?

They were considered apostles by the early church. Paul even stated that he was an apostle.
Rom 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God
Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
Paul calls Mark and Luke his "fellow laborers" (Phm 1:23-24) They were "fellow laborers" in the apostolic work.

 

[jaybird]

They were considered apostles by the early church. Paul even stated that he was an apostle.
Rom 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God
Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
Paul calls Mark and Luke his "fellow laborers" (Phm 1:23-24) They were "fellow laborers" in the apostolic work.

was there not a difference between the 12 and the many that would be called later to be apostles (fellow laborers) by the 12?

 

[Jim Parker]

was there not a difference between the 12 and the many that would be called later to be apostles (fellow laborers) by the 12?

There was. They were the original followers called to be apostles.
Others followed.

 

[jaybird]

The early church based it's determination on NT canon in part on apostolic authorship which resulted in the Didache being excluded because, though containing apostolic teaching, it was not the work of any specific apostle.
iakov the fool

i dont see how the Didache would be any different than Mark or Luke. Mark and Luke are not the teacjhings of Mark and Luke, but the teachings of Jesus, same as Didache does with the 12.

 

[historyb]

The Scriptures to which the writers of the NT referred were the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the OT complied around 200 BC. It was the most commonly used because very few people spoke the Hebrew in which the OT had been written but everyone spoke Greek. The LXX contained the apocrypha.

The concept of "inspired, inerrant scripture" is a modern one developed in reaction to the very liberal interpretations of many leading modern scholars and which led to the "Fundamentalist" movement of early 20th century USA.

The early church based it's determination on NT canon in part on apostolic authorship which resulted in the Didache being excluded because, though containing apostolic teaching, it was not the work of any specific apostle.

So when people start talking about what is "inspired" and what is not, for the most part, they are speaking from a lack of information. It is far from the "cut and dried" results so often offered as irrefutable fact. It is a bit arrogant for any man to declare "God hath said this but not that."

But you don't have to read the if you don't like them. I don't care much for "Numbers"; I find it tedious. And I don't spend much time with the Revelation since it is John's best effort at rendering his ecstatic, apocalyptic visions into human language. Because of the ambiguity of his visions, it, as well as Daniel's apocalyptic, ecstatic visions, Revelation has been used by a wide variety of charlatans to fabricate astounding and wonderful new ear-tickling new winds of doctrine.

iakov the fool