If you followed the links, you would see that, even in the preview portion of the articles, the encyclopedia addresses the fact that the sections of Daniel were part of the pre-Christian cana.
It is silly to allege that they were written in Greek, rather than Hebrew. The reason the Hebrew texts aren't found is because the Jews acknowledge destroying them. One can only say that the Septuagint versions of Daniel 13 include Greek idioms, but the same can be true for many portions of the Septuagint. The very loose translations of the Septuagint are precisely why Jerome endeavored to write a translation based on the Masoretic texts.
>> As I am sure you are aware, the Apocrypha was not first disputed by Luther. Jerome disputed it in the fifth century. <<
Some people at the time interpreted Jerome's words at the time that way, accusing him of heresy. Jerome strenuously denied that interpretation, considering it outrageous slander. His cordonning off of the deuterocanonicals into an appendix had a very obvious reason: What he was writing was a translation of the Hebrew scriptures, and there were no Hebrew scriptures available to him. He pointed out that the Jews rejected the deuterocanonicals not because he believed the Christians should only accept as scripture what the Jews do... that's ridiculous, since the Jews reject the gospel!... but because he was explaining that there were no manuscripts to translate!
>> The Catholic church itself did not declare the books canonical until the Council of Trent in 1546. <<
Ignoring previous posts, you suffer from a common Protestant delusion about the nature of ecumenical councils. That's the first INFALLIBLE statement; it's not the first statement. They only state something infallibly after a heresy has emerged making a false assertion. the Catholic church upheld the canonical status of the books by word and deed throughout its entire history. Your assertion is like claiming that that the Supreme Court only decided in 2000 that states couldn't change election laws after an election had already been completed.
>> I believe you have misrepresented sola scriptura. <<
Sola sciptura is used 1000s of times a day around here to declare something is false because it is not in the bible. The term is an invention of Luther; I use it as Luther did.
>> This is opposed to the teaching of the Catholic church, which declares that the pope, when acting in the capacity of his office, makes a declaration it is also inerrant (divinely inspired). <<
Infallibility is used to CLARIFY doctrine, not to invent doctrine. Read the phrasing of an infallibly issued text. The Pope is careful to establish that the doctrine is the way that the Church has unanimously interpreted scripture throughout history. Without such an assertion, the Pope is merely stating his opinion.
>> Martin Luther was a godly man (though by no means inerrant) <<
Martin Luther preached people should subscribe to any ungodly passion that occurred to them. His serial adulteries were not moral failures, but actual recommended prescriptions. It is in response to such teachings that the Catholic church asserted that works are an essential element of salvation, not because salvation occurs through works (the Catholic church has proclaimed it does not throughout history, contrary to Protestant misconception), but because, as St. Jude's epistle points out, faith without works is death; Luther's "faith" was not the saving faith, as demonstrated by his wickedness.
The modern Lutheran church's understanding of Sola Fides is not what Martin Luther taught, and is in full accord with the Catholic Church's teachings on Faith and Works, as attested to by the leadership of both churches (Missouri Synod excluded, not because they disagree, but because they refused to consider the issue with them evil Catlicks).
>> The Catholics themselves have rejected books from the Septuagint. III Macabees, I Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh. <<
False. The Prayer of Manasseh occurs at the end of the book of Jeremiah in the Catholic bible. "I Esdras" (actually, you mean 3 Esdras) was very rarely published alongside 1-2 Esdras in the Septuagint. Various versions of the Septuagint used either 1-2 Esdras or 3 Esdras; 3 Esdras is merely a truncation of 1-2 Esdras, which has become known as the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
As for 3 Maccabees, it's authorship was believed to be post-Christian, and no pre-Christian publication of it has ever been found. It is not part of the Septuagint, but is merely an optional addition found in many versions of the Septuagint. It was not deemed inauthentic or heretical. The Catholic church simply could not make the claim for it which it did for the deuterocanonical books, that it had been universally accepted by the entire church since the first preachings of the apostles.
As for your sources, "Jesus is Lord," it is amusing to me that your bible "expert" didn't even know that Susanna and Manasseh are IN the Catholic bible.
His other reasons, debunked;
1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
False. At least five of the "apocryphal" books have been proven to have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The fact that there is no proof for the other two is thoroughly consistent with the fact that our only pre-Jamnian, Hebrew-language books is the Dead Sea Scrolls, a compilation which also lacks certain books in the Protestant old Testament.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
Silly. Most of the other OT writers didn't do so either.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
False. The apocryphal books were regarded as sacred scriptures by the Essenes. The Sadducees did reject them, along with all other Old Testament books, except the five books of Moses. The Pharisees' canon was not fixed, and the New Testament actually even makes reference to books which were eventually rejected by Christians AND Jews, such as the Book of Jubilees (also known as the Apocalypse of Moses).
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
There is no historical evidence of there being ANY church besides the Catholic/Orthodox Church, which accepted the Septuagint in its entirety. Except for a few side-by-side translations, there are no otherwise complete, extant copies of an Old Testament known to history that did not excluded the deuterocanonical books.
>> The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places. <<
This obviously stems from the author's misunderstandings. It's quite silly, actually. Does he not think that anyone ELSE noticed that for the first 1800 years? Also, consider the geneaologies of Jesus and the events around the crucifixion for apparent contradictions.
>> The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. <<
Thus proving only that Martin Luther and his followers misunderstood the bible.
>> It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation. <<
Nowhere does it condone suicide or magical incantation. As for assassination and lying, those are also depicted in the rest of the Old Testament (reference Deborah and Abraham).
>> No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times. <<
That is both false and a ridiculous standard: There are 22 Old Testament books in the Protestant canon which are never directly referred to in the Old Testament. There are three books in the deuterocanonicals which are, in fact (Wisdom, Sirach and 2 Maccabees). There are also at least two non-canonical books which are referenced.
First of all, that is not quite accurate. Second, you mentioned Luther's "serial adulteries", which were those? Or are you talking about Luther's friend Phillip of Hesse?
And finally, the JDF was a good intentioned publicity stunt. The LCMS was a participant in the talks until the Appendix of the agreement was added, which basically recended the rest of the document. At that point, signing the document would have been wrong since it really didn't say anything.
Oh? Well, according to part of that Britannica article: "Two of the Old Testament Hagiographa (Ketuvim; see above The Hebrew canon)—Daniel and Esther—contain, in their Greek translations, numerous additions." As I understand it, these were the portions removed by the Protestants.
Ignoring previous posts, you suffer from a common Protestant delusion about the nature of ecumenical councils. That's the first INFALLIBLE statement; it's not the first statement.
Not according to a Catholic site. At http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm it says:
"The practice of the Church up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome who rejected the Old Testament apocrypha on the grounds that these books were never part of the Jewish canon. These were permissible to be read in the churches for the purposes of edification but were never considered authoritative for establishing doctrine. The Protestants did nothing new when they rejected the apocrypha as authoritative Scripture. It was the Roman church that rejected this tradition and ‘canonized’ the ecclesiastical books." It also affirms what I said about Jerome. I think it is you, not I, who needs to check their data. Here is another source asserting that the dispute over the Apocrypha predates the Reformation. Cite your sources, for I see no backup for your contention.
Martin Luther preached people should subscribe to any ungodly passion that occurred to them. His serial adulteries were not moral failures...
Where do you get that Martin Luther was a serial adulterer? I have not heard it before, I have not read it anywhere before, and multiple internet searches failed to yield anything. Cite your sources.
Luther, moreover, preached justification through faith in Jesus. This is a Biblical teaching. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9. Works are the result of faith, but do nothing to save us. Luther wrote to this affect.
"Works must be done, but it does not follow from this that works save....Works save externally, that is, they testify that we are just and that in a man there is the faith which saves him internally, as Paul says: 'With the heart man believeth unto rigteousness, ande with the mouth confession is made unto salvation'" --Martin Luther (What Luther Says, v.3, p.1509)
"This text, then, applies to our doctrine of justification, according to which a man must be rigteous before all works and is accepted by God without all works, through that grace alone which his faith believes and aprehends the mercy of God which is set forth in Christ. In this confidence in the mercy of God the true church goes about, with a humble confession of her sins and unworthiness, confidently expecting God to forgive her through Christ." Martin Luther (What Luther Says, vol.1, pg. 490)
The term is an invention of Luther; I use it as Luther did.
False. Sola scriptura says that the Bible alone is inerrant. You are not using it as Luther did. If you are, cite Luther.
Without such an assertion, the Pope is merely stating his opinion.
That is all he is doing. The Pope is all too human. "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." Matthew 23:8-9
As for 3 Maccabees, it's authorship was believed to be post-Christian, and no pre-Christian publication of it has ever been found.
My point simply being that it was included in the Septuagint and the Catholic church excluded it. As for the other books, your source (http://biblescripture.net/Canon.html)lists them as absent.
One thing you need to understand about the reasons is that they are a conglomeration.
Also, consider the geneaologies of Jesus and the events around the crucifixion for apparent contradictions.
They are not contradictions and you know it. Here is a page listing some ways in which the Apocrypha contradicts scripture: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a109.htm As for your other "debunkings", cite some sources.