Why Did You Choose “Catholic? (Why do adults become Catholics?)

CE.com ^ | January 27th, 2012 | George Weigel

[Salvation]

Why Did You Choose “Catholic?”

January 27th, 2012 by George Weigel

Why do adults become Catholics?

There are as many reasons for “converting” as there are converts. Evelyn Waugh became a Catholic with, by his own admission, “little emotion but clear conviction”: this was the truth; one ought to adhere to it. Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote that his journey into the Catholic Church began when, as an unbelieving Harvard undergraduate detached from his family’s staunch Presbyterianism, he noticed a leaf shimmering with raindrops while taking a walk along the Charles River in Cambridge, Mass.; such beauty could not be accidental, he thought—there must be a Creator. Thomas Merton found Catholicism aesthetically, as well as intellectually, attractive: once the former Columbia free-thinker and dabbler in communism and Hinduism found his way into a Trappist monastery and became a priest, he explained the Mass to his unconverted friend, poet Robert Lax, by analogy to a ballet. Until his death in 2007, Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger insisted that his conversion to Catholicism was not a rejection of, but a fulfillment of, the Judaism into which he was born; the cardinal could often be found at Holocaust memorial services reciting the names of the martyrs, including “Gisèle Lustiger, ma maman” (“my mother”).

Two of the great nineteenth-century converts were geniuses of the English language: theologian John Henry Newman and poet Gerard Manley Hopkins. This tradition of literary converts continued in the twentieth century, and included Waugh, Graham Greene, Edith Sitwell, Ronald Knox, and Walker Percy. Their heritage lives today at Our Savior’s Church on Park Avenue in New York, where convert author, wit, raconteur and amateur pugilist George William Rutler presides as pastor.

In early American Catholicism, the fifth archbishop of Baltimore (and de facto primate of the United States), Samuel Eccleston, was a convert from Anglicanism, as was the first native-born American saint and the precursor of the Catholic school system, Elizabeth Ann Seton. Mother Seton’s portrait in the offices of the archbishop of New York is somewhat incongruous, as the young widow Seton, with her children, was run out of New York by her unforgiving Anglican in-laws when she became a Catholic. On his deathbed, another great nineteenth-century convert, Henry Edward Manning of England, who might have become the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury but became the Catholic archbishop of Westminster instead, took his long-deceased wife’s prayer book from beneath his pillow and gave it to a friend, saying that it had been his spiritual inspiration throughout his life.

If there is a thread running through these diverse personalities, it may be this: that men and women of intellect, culture and accomplishment have found in Catholicism what Blessed John Paul II called the “symphony of truth.” That rich and complex symphony, and the harmonies it offers, is an attractive, compelling and persuasive alternative to the fragmentation of modern and post-modern intellectual and cultural life, where little fits together and much is cacophony. Catholicism, however, is not an accidental assembly of random truth-claims; the creed is not an arbitrary catalogue of propositions and neither is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It all fits together, and in proposing that symphonic harmony, Catholicism helps fit all the aspects of our lives together, as it orders our loves and loyalties in the right direction.

You don’t have to be an intellectual to appreciate this “symphony of truth,” however. For Catholicism is, first of all, an encounter with a person, Jesus Christ, who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). And to meet that person is to meet the truth that makes all the other truths of our lives make sense. Indeed, the embrace of Catholic truth in full, as lives like Blessed John Henry Newman’s demonstrate, opens one up to the broadest possible range of intellectual encounters.

Viewed from outside, Catholicism can seem closed and unwelcoming. As Evelyn Waugh noted, though, it all seems so much more spacious and open from the inside. The Gothic, with its soaring vaults and buttresses and its luminous stained glass, is not a classic Catholic architectural form by accident. The full beauty of the light, however, washes over you when you come in.

 

George Weigel is author of the bestselling books The Courage to Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church and Letters to a Young Catholic.

This column has been made available to Catholic Exchange courtesy of the Denver Catholic Register.

 

[xzins]

Will do, Mom, but at my age it never hurts to send a reminder....say about next Monday morn. :>)

[Alamo-Girl]

Praise God!!!

metmom's post truly is a beautiful insight to those Scriptures!

[metmom]

If *I* remember. I’m about at *that age*, too.

I’ll put a post-it note on my monitor.

[metmom]

Praise God!!!

....is right. He gets the credit for that one.

[boatbums]

From my post 331; Yes Absolutely!, what part of yes absolutely is not clear. I showed you a stie and a book that clearly demonstrate that there are over 200 direct and indirect references to the Deutrocanonicals used by both Jesus and the Apostles.

I'm sorry to hear that. You may be surprised to learn that these books were NEVER included in the Jewish canon of Scripture and the reason is crystal clear - they were not recognized as coming from God, God-breathed. Your site lists quotes that "may" allude to some parts of those books, but not all came from them and they are mostly from the non-Apocryphal books of the Old Testament. Also, at NONE of those references, does Jesus or other Scripture writers EVER preface it with the words "it is written"; "thus sayeth the Lord"; "the Scriptures say". If after reading these few paragraphs, you still believe these books are on par with the other Holy Scriptures, then all I can say is you must have a very poor view of what Divinely-inspired really means. From the site http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible:

Rejection by Jesus and the Apostles

1. There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say." There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics. In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God.

2. Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”

Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Rejection by the Jewish Community

3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2

4. The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha, but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.

5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.

Rejection by many in the Catholic Church

6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after, but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.

False Teachings

9. The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.)

•The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7).
•Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11; 12:9).
•Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

Not Prophetic

10. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

Errors in the Apocrypha

The apocrypha (απόκρυφα means "hidden") is a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ that is rejected by the Protestants and officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 as being inspired. These books are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.

But if the Apocrypha is a Scripture, then it should not have any errors. But since it does have errors, as will be demonstrated below, this puts into question whether or not the Roman Catholic Church has properly used its self-proclaimed position as the teaching authority of the Christian Church. If it can error in such an important manner as what is Scripture, can it be trusted to properly teach the Christian Church?

Historical Errors

Wrong historical facts:
•Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."

•Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."

The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

Conclusion

Obviously the apocrypha has serious problems. From magic, to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts, it is full of false and unbiblical teachings. It isn't inspired of God. Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic Church, which has stated the Apocrypha is inspired. This shows the Roman Catholic Church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man's false tradition, rather than God's absolute truth.

From the link http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/BooksOfTheBible.html#Apocrypha:

Some reasons for exclusion: The best evidence shows these apocryphal books were not included in the Jewish Canon of Jesus day. Although some apocryphal books contain a few texts which correspond to New Testament ones, this is also true of some works which are found outside the apocrypha, which the Bible sometimes quotes from. (Acts 17:28; Jude 1:14) Texts from the apocrypha were occasionally quoted in early church writings, and were considered worthy reading even if not included as Scripture, but the apocrypha was not accepted in such early O.T. lists as that of Melito (AD 170, and minus Esther). Some, such as Origen in the 2nd century, and St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus, formally rejected the apocrypha, but used them or parts thereof in practice. The preeminent 3rd century scholar Jerome rejected the Apocrypha, as they did not have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and were not received by all, and did not generally work toward "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church." The ancient 1st century Jewish historian Josephus only numbered 22 books of Scripture, likely reflecting the Jewish canon at the time of Jesus. Anastasius of Antioch in the 4th century, John of Damascus in the 8th century, and Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century and others also rejected the apocrypha in part or in whole. Some of those who affirmed the apocrypha also did so in part.

The 19th century Protestant scholar B.F. Westcott, who is charged by some with being pro-Catholic, commented regarding the decree of Trent:

“This fatal decree, in which the Council…gave a new aspect to the whole question of, the Canon, was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity. How completely the decision was opposed to the spirit and letter of the original judgments of the Greek and Latin Churches, how far in the doctrinal equalization of the disputed and acknowledged books of the Old Testament it was at variance with the traditional opinion of the West, how absolutely unprecedented was the conversion of an eccelesiatical usage into an article of belief, will be seen from the evidence which has already been adduced.” (B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1889), p. 478.)

It is true that apocryphal books were referenced by some church fathers, but so were books which Trent rejected as Scripture. In addition, prior to Trent even those who rejected the apocryphal books as canonical could treat them like Scripture in some ways, while excluding them as doctrinally authoritative. As Jerome explains,in his famous ‘Prologus Galeatus’, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, "he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,and Judith are not in the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament)

The distinction then is that while “good,” they were not for doctrinal use. As the above source states regarding St. Athanasius, “Following the precedent of Origen and the Alexandrian tradition, the saintly doctor recognized no other formal canon of the Old Testament than the Hebrew one; but also, faithful to the same tradition, he practically admitted the deutero books to a Scriptural dignity, as is evident from his general usage.

An excerpt from the Prologue to the “Glossa ordinaria;,”, an assembly of glosses (brief notations of the meaning of a word or wording in the margins of the Vulgate Bible) expresses this distinction:

The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention,or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. (note 124, written in AD 1498, also found in a work attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century, in Latin here: http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphaendnotes3.html)

It likewise states in an introduction to apocryphal books, 'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees...” (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html)

Among other authorities, different canons were sanctioned by the Council in Trullo (Quinisext Council) in 692 and the seventh Ecumenical Council (787) and in the aforementioned disagreement within Roman Catholicism in Luther's time, the Catholic theologian Cardinal Cajetan stated,

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.” Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180.)

Just prior to Trent, the Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament and soon received papal sanction.

Ecclesiastical decrees themselves are not what established writings as Scripture, much less can ecclesiastics declare they are assuredly infallible (when speaking in accordance with their infallibly defined formula, which self-proclamation is the basis for R.C. claims), but as with true men of God, writings which were wholly inspired of Him became established as such due to their unique enduring heavenly qualities and effects, and the supernatural Divine attestation which often is given it. The apocryphal books lack the power of the 66 inspired books, which over time most consistently made discerning saint's (1 Cor. 2:15) “best seller list,” while the apocryphal books remain relatively obscure to this day. Moreover, certain apocryphal writings contain (and thus can promote) serious doctrinal error (such as praying for dead idolaters: 2 Maccabees 12:39-45).

[verga]

Seriously, Seriously?

I went to those sites and realized that they knew nothing about the topic and had not engaged in a shred of legitimate historical research.

How can you say that they were never part of the Jewish canon? Have you even heard of the Septuagint?

[boatbums]

Seriously, Seriously? I went to those sites and realized that they knew nothing about the topic and had not engaged in a shred of legitimate historical research. How can you say that they were never part of the Jewish canon? Have you even heard of the Septuagint?

Right. BOTH sites were written by people who "knew nothing" about the topic and failed to do any "legitimate" historical research. Did you bother to view all their footnotes? Did you think that they just fabricated all the quotations they used? Are your eyes so squeezed shut that you cannot allow an opposing thought?

I HAVE heard of the Septuagint. It is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint:

"The Septuagint ( /ˈsɛptjuːəˌdʒɪnt/), or simply "LXX", is an Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. It is referred to in critical works by the abbreviation [1] or G. It was originally the designation for the Koine Greek translation of the Pentateuch, but came in time to refer to the Greek translation of the Old Testament adopted by Christians, incorporating the translations of all the books of the Hebrew Bible and books later considered apocryphal or deutero-canonical, some composed in Greek and some translations. The translation process was undertaken in stages. It began by the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE,[2][3] initially in Alexandria, but in time possibly elsewhere, too.[4]

It incorporates the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Koine Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean from the death of Alexander the Great (323 BCE) until the development of Byzantine Greek (c.600 CE). Other versions are now preserved only in fragmentary form.

The Septuagint was held in great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its translators.[5] Besides the Old Latin versions, the LXX is also the basis for the Slavonic, the Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Old Testament.[6] Of significance for all Christians and for Bible scholars, the LXX is quoted by the New Testament and by the Apostolic Fathers.

Some scripture of ancient origin are found in the Septuagint but are not present in the Hebrew. These include additions to Daniel and Esther.

These additional books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah (which later became chapter 6 of Baruch in the Vulgate), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Sosanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasseh, the Psalms of Solomon, and Psalm 151. The canonical acceptance of these books varies among different Christian traditions, and there are canonical books not derived from the Septuagint."

If you notice, verga, the Septuagint "incorporated" the translations of all the books of the Hebrew Bible and books later considered apocryphal or deutero-canonical, some composed in Greek and some translations. Those Apocryphal books NEVER were in Hebrew. The link I gave you previously explained that the Jewish leaders did not ascribe divine inspiration to those books and they were set apart from the books considered from God. They were NOT part of the Hebrew Canon and for very good reason, they did not come from divinely inspired prophets of God, therefore, they were NOT considered as part of the Jewish canon. The Dead Sea scrolls - which were collections of many books - were from a group called the Essenes. There are also differences in how these books were regarded by the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox as well as the Anglicans. From the same Wiki site:

The Septuagint includes some books not found in the Hebrew Bible, see Development of the Hebrew Bible canon for details. After the Reformation, many Protestant Bibles began to follow the Jewish canon and exclude the additional books. Roman Catholics, however, include some of these books in their canon while Eastern Orthodox Churches use all the books of the Septuagint except the Psalms of Solomon.[33] Anglican lectionaries also use all of the books except Psalm 151, and the full King James Version (following the Geneva Bible, 1560) includes these additional books in a separate section labeled the "Apocrypha".

When I asked you if you believed these books were equal to the other Scriptures, what I most wanted to know is if you understood just what that means. If these books ARE Divinely inspired, then it calls into question the infallible nature of all Scripture. You are essentially saying God made mistakes when he had men write Scripture and if there are errors, then we have no assurance that the Word of God is really the Word of God and it loses it's authority. No one can be sure we have a trustworthy Bible and, therefore, there is no back up for anything we know about Jesus, his ministry, his life, his teachings, nor what happened before he came. Without the assurance that God is the author of Scripture, we have no firm foundation for knowing how creation started, why it was started, nor who is out there.

Are you an atheist? Either that or you must want to place the Roman Catholic Church ABOVE Scripture and substitute the authority of God's word for man's. You can go there if you want, but I will not. I know better.

[verga]

This single sentence shows complete ignorance of history: If you notice, verga, the Septuagint "incorporated" the translations of all the books of the Hebrew Bible and books later considered apocryphal or deutero-canonical, some composed in Greek and some translations. Those Apocryphal books NEVER were in Hebrew.

Look up the Dead Sea scrolls.

You will find that these books you claim were never in Hebrew were in fact written in ...... wait for it....... Hebrew.Never quoted from the Septuagint.

Did you look up the Jimmy Akin site I showed you? The Septuagint was referenced over 200 times.So if your source is wrong about that, same question what else are they wrong about?

I sent you to the Gutenberg site that has all the book in the Gutenberg Bible 150 years before Trent, when you falsely claim that the deutrocanoincals became part of the canon, yet there they are.

[verga]

Here are several other things for you to chew on: Our first Pope, Peter wrote several of the books, and dictated one of the gospels to his recording secretary. You trust those as infallible. Further in 395 and 397 you fully accept the Church's teaching and infallible decision about the New Testament, but then you rely in the Jewish canon from 60 years after Christ's Resurrection. You do realize that he Jewish people rejected Christ and ALL of His teaching right.

Do you see any discrepancy in your logic?

[verga]

Here are several other things for you to chew on: Our first Pope, Peter wrote several of the books, and dictated one of the gospels to his recording secretary. You trust those as infallible. Further in 395 and 397 you fully accept the Church's teaching and infallible decision about the New Testament, but then you rely in the Jewish canon from 60 years after Christ's Resurrection. You do realize that he Jewish people rejected Christ and ALL of His teaching right.

Do you see any discrepancy in your logic?

[boatbums]

I really have no idea why you seem to want to defend these NON-Canonical books in the Old Testament called the Apocryphal books. I never said they were not included in the Septuagint - which, may I remind you, is a GREEK translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not prove that those books were included in the Jewish canon of Scripture and, even though they have as a nation rejected Jesus as the Messiah, it still does not mean that they had no say in what made up the JEWISH Old Testament. The Apostle Paul said unto the Jewish nation were committed the "Oracles of God" (Romans 3:1-3. If they denied canonicity to those books, then they had that authority. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls:

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of 972 texts from the Tanach and extra-biblical documents found between 1947 and 1956 on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, from which they derive their name. They were specifically located at Khirbet Qumran in the British Mandate for Palestine, in what is now known as the West Bank.

The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they include the oldest known surviving copies of Biblical and extra-biblical documents and preserve evidence of great diversity in late Second Temple Judaism. They are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, mostly on parchment, but with some written on papyrus.[1] These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE and 70 CE.[2] The scrolls are traditionally identified with the ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes, though some recent interpretations have challenged this association and argue that the scrolls were penned by priests in Jerusalem, Zadokites, or other unknown Jewish groups.[3][4]
,br> The Dead Sea Scrolls are traditionally divided into three groups: "Biblical" manuscripts (copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 40% of the identified scrolls; "Apocryphal" or "Pseudepigraphical" manuscripts (known documents from the Second Temple Period like Enoch, Jubilees, Tobit, Sirach, additional psalms, etc., that were not ultimately canonized in the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls; and "Sectarian" manuscripts (previously unknown documents that speak to the rules and beliefs of a particular group or groups within greater Judaism) like the Community Rule, War Scroll, Pesher on Habakkuk (Hebrew: פשר pesher = "Commentary"), and the Rule of the Blessing, which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls.

I noticed that you have yet to address the OBVIOUS problem of there being errors in these books that nullify their Divine source. God does NOT make errors. Before I spend anymore time on this topic, I would appreciate if you would explain how that is not a problem for you. If you do not care to continue the conversation, of course, you have that option, too.

[.30Carbine]

Thank you, Quix, I am really glad I got to watch this video you linked to, exhorting us to remember what we are here to do.

[Quix]

THX THX.

PRAISE GOD.

I think Joya initially shared that video with some of us.

[verga]

I noticed that you have yet to address the OBVIOUS problem of there being errors in these books that nullify their Divine source. God does NOT make errors. Before I spend anymore time on this topic, I would appreciate if you would explain how that is not a problem for you. If you do not care to continue the conversation, of course, you have that option, too.

Well the reason I have not addressed the issue is that they are not errors.

How about addressing the fact that Jesus and the Apostles cited the septuagint 200+ times.

And if you beleive that the Deutrocanonicals contained error how about these errors and contradictions:God is Truth and cannot lie;

1Kings 22:23 Now therefore, behold, Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets; and Jehovah hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2Ch 18:22 Now therefore, behold, Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets; and Jehovah hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Jer 4:10 Then said I, Ah, Lord Jehovah! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the life.

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.

GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood. GE 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood. NU 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.

GE 11:12 Arpachshad [Arphaxad] was the father of Shelah. LK 3:35-36 Cainan was the father of Shelah. Arpachshad was the grandfather of Shelah.

1Sa 17:50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David. 1Sa 17:51 Then David ran, and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.

MT 3:11-14, JN 1:31-34 John realized the true identity of Jesus (as the Messiah) either prior to the actual Baptism, or from the Baptism onward. The very purpose of John's baptism was to reveal Jesus to Israel. MT 11:2-3 After the Baptism, John sends his disciples to ask if Jesus is the Messiah.

Should we throw out these books, I mean if your criteria is "error" BTW I have about 120 more of these errors.

[boatbums]

Well the reason I have not addressed the issue is that they are not errors. How about addressing the fact that Jesus and the Apostles cited the septuagint 200+ times.

I HAVE address that the Septuagint was cited. It was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. They may have also been quoting the Hebrew versions at times simply because that was what the Temple in Jerusalem would have had in scrolls. Paul, as a former Pharisee, would have memorized most of them. However, if you mean they cited the Apocryphal books 200 times, then I disagree. There are very few that could even be said to be direct quotes and they were more closely from recognized Old Testament books. That still doesn't address that at NO TIME did any of those supposed quotes get prefaced by "it is written", "thus sayeth the Lord", etc. You cannot find even one verse that does that or gives credence to Jesus recognizing those books as inspired writings.

It's funny that you dive right into all the standard atheist and skeptic rebuttals to the inerrancy of the Bible. You are even contradicting your own Catholic Catechism which states:

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

I gave you the list of errors in those Apocryphal books, errors in history, geography and doctrine that contradicts other Scripture. Those are not just minor problems, they show that these books were NOT from God. Here's some more information to consider. From the site http://www.jashow.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0704W2.htm:

There is no doubt whatever that the Apocrypha contains errors. Biblical scholar Dr. Rene Pache comments,

Except for certain interesting historical information (especially in 1 Maccabees) and a few beautiful moral thoughts (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon), these books contain absurd legends and platitudes, and historical, geographical and chronological errors, as well as manifestly heretical doctrines; they even recommend immoral acts (Judith 9:10, 13).1

Old Testament scholar Merrill F. Unger writes in his Introductory Guide to the Old Testament, "Certainly a book that contains what is false in fact, erroneous in doctrine or unsound in morality, is unworthy of God and cannot have been inspired by Him. Tried under these criteria the Apocryphal books stand self-condemned."2

Thus, numerous errors in the Apocrypha have been pointed out in standard works, e.g.,

Tobit… contains certain historical and geographical errors such as the assumption that Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser (1:15) instead of Sargon II, and that Nineveh was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus (14:5) instead of by Nabopolassar and Cyaxares…. Judith…. fits readily into the time of the Maccabean uprising (2nd century B.C.), but cannot possibly be historical because of the glaring errors it contains. Thus Nebuchadnezzar was given an impossibly long reign, as was the ruler of Media, while the Assyrians and Babylonians were hopelessly confused and the armies were made to perform impossible feats of mobility…. [In 2 Maccabees] There are also numerous disarrangements and discrepancies in chronological, historical, and numerical matters in the book, reflecting ignorance or confusion on the part of the epitomist, his sources or both.3

Thus, the Apocrypha contains indisputable errors. Any Christian who needs sufficient reason for rejecting the Apocrypha as Scripture need only read the Apocrypha itself. Indeed, "More Christians should read the Apocrypha…. To do so would settle many questions regarding canonicity."4

The Council of Trent and the Apocrypha

How did the Council of Trent ever declare the Apocrypha was Scripture in the first place? Much in the same way Vatican I decreed papal infallibility: expediency.

Theologian Dr. Bernard Ramm observes that, "The story as to how the Apocrypha achieved [the] status of inspired Scripture at the Council of Trent is one of the saddest commentaries on improper scholarship in the history of Western culture."5

Biblical scholar R. Laird Harris observes that for 1,500 years no Roman Catholic was called upon to believe the Apocrypha was scriptural—until the Council of Trent made its fateful decree. He agrees the Council adopted its position "for reasons of expediency rather than evidence."6 Thus, the Council was "unmindful of evidence, of former popes and scholars, of the Fathers of the church and the witness of Christ and the apostles" in making its pronouncement.7

Dr. Rene Pache points out that a key reason for Trent’s decision was to respond to the arguments of the Protestant Reformers who were attempting to defend the principle of sola scriptura—that the Bible alone was the final authority for matters of faith and practice, not church tradition. Thus, Trent found in the Apocrypha a justification for unbiblical Catholic traditions that were rejected by the Reformers.

Why, then, did Rome take so new and daring a position? Because, confronted by the Reformers, she lacked arguments to justify her unscriptural deviations. She declared that the Apocryphal books supported such doctrines as prayers for the dead (II Macc. 12:44); the expiatory sacrifice (eventually to become the Mass, II Macc. 12:39-46); alms giving with expiatory value, also leading to deliverance from death (Tobit 12:9; 4:10); invocation and intercession of the saints (II Macc. 15:14; Bar. 3:4); the worship of angels (Tobit 12:12); purgatory; and the redemption of souls after death (II Macc. 12:42, 46).8

Thus, a strong case can be made that the reason the Council of Trent declared the Apocrypha canonical was simply as a polemical maneuver to support Roman Catholic belief against the Protestant Reformation. To illustrate, two main doctrines in dispute during the Reformation, both supported by the Apocrypha, include salvation by faith/works (Tobit 12:9) and prayers for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46). Concerning these doctrines, the Catholic Church claims that they are scriptural because they are canonical (i.e., apocryphal). For example, concerning prayers for the dead in 2 Maccabees 12:39-36, we find the practice of postmortem intercession where the living are able to make "propitiation for the dead,"9 allegedly loosing them from the consequences of their sins and thus undergirding the Catholic doctrine of indulgences and prayers for the dead in purgatory:

…the troops of Judas went… to pick up the corpses of the slain… they discovered under the shirts of every one of the dead men amulets of the idols of Jamnia—a practice forbidden the Jews by law. All saw at once that this was why they had perished [by the Lord’s judgment] and… all betook themselves to supplication, beseeching that the sin committed might be wholly blotted out… [Judah] collected from them, man by man, the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver, which he forwarded to Jerusalem for a sin-offering. In this he acted quite rightly and properly…. Hence he made propitiation for the dead that they might be released from their sin.

Notice however that these verses 1) do not even mention purgatory and 2) actually reject the Catholic doctrine of purgatory by teaching that deliverance of soldiers who had died in the mortal, and hence unforgivable, sin of idolatry. Regardless,

The acceptance of the Apocrypha at the Council of Trent is suspect because: ...it was used against Luther in support of the Roman Catholic position…. [Further] Not all of the Apocrypha was accepted. Only 11 of the 14 books were and one of those admitted books (2 Esdras) is against prayers for the dead….11

We emphasize once again! Material that is either contradictory, legendary or heretical can hardly be accorded canonical status. The canonical books clearly oppose salvation by works (Galatians chs. 2 & 3) and praying for the dead (Hebrews 9:27; 2 Samuel 12:19; Luke 16:25-26). Stories such as those found in "Bel and the Dragon" are clearly legendary and therefore unauthentic as are the "Additions to Esther," "Prayer of Azriah," "Tobit," "Susanna and Judith." At other places the teaching of the Apocrypha is even immoral, e.g., where Judith was allegedly assisted by God in an immoral action (Judith 9:10-13). Both "Wisdom" and "Ecclesiasticus" teach morality based on expedience. Again, there are numerous errors in the Apocrypha. William H. Green concisely observes: "The books of ‘Tobit’ and ‘Judith’ abound in geographical, chronological, and historical mistakes, so as not only to vitiate the truth of the narratives they contain, but to make it doubtful whether they even rest upon a basis of fact."12 This probably explains why "Many of the great Fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha, for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius."13

The Church’s Classification of Ancient Literature and the Apocrypha

Understanding how the church catalogued Old Testament books further informs us why the Apocrypha cannot be considered Scripture. The early church used four basic classifications to gauge the great variety of literature that comprised or surrounded the Bible: the homologoumena, antilegomena, pseudepigrapha and apocrypha. The first class is called the homologoumena. This term refers to those biblical books that, once accepted into the canon, were never questioned or disputed. In other words, from the start, these books have maintained their canonical status to the present day. This includes approximately 87 percent of the Protestant Old Testament.

The second category is called the antilegomena. It refers to books that were first accepted but later disputed by some. This includes 13 percent of the Old Testament books. We see that some rejected "The Song of Solomon" because it was allegedly too sensual; "Ecclesiastes," because it was allegedly too skeptical; "Esther," because it did not mention the name God; "Ezekiel" because it was mistakenly thought to be anti-Moses, or even Gnostic, and "Proverbs" because a few of the proverbs seemed to contradict one another. Note that the homologoumena and antilegomena comprise 100 percent of the Protestant Old Testament.

The fact of the antilegomena proves two things: 1) that almost 90 percent of the Protestant Old Testament canon was never disputed once accepted and 2) the few books that were first accepted but later disputed withstood the test of time, confirming the credibility of the original selection process and determination.

Thus, the antilegomena was originally accepted into the canon; it was only subsequently disputed by some rabbis. So the real issue for the antilegomena is whether or not the later arguments for exclusion had any validity. They did not. Thus, "The Song of Solomon" is not really sensual; in those few places it is explicit, it merely describes the physical joys of married life. "Ecclesiastes" may have seemed skeptical but look at its final conclusion in chapter 12. The whole point of the book is to show that apart from trust in God, life is indeed futile. To argue that "Esther" is "unspiritual" simply because it does not mention the name of God is a non sequitur. In fact, the omission of God’s name may have been intentional "to protect it from pagan plagiarization and the substitution for it of the name of a heathen god" since the Jews were living in Persian exile among the pagans.14 Regardless, there is an acrostic of the name Jehovah four times in the book in such a manner that a chance origin is ruled out. And even though the direct name of God is absent, His grace and power, seen in the deliverance of His people, is certainly present quite powerfully.15 Concerning "Ezekiel," there are no contradictions with Moses, because none have ever been shown. Any genuine errors or contradictions between "Ezekiel" and the Pentateuch, or the presence of genuine Gnostic teachings, would have excluded the book from consideration as Scripture and/or it would never have been placed in the canon to begin with. Finally, the few alleged contradictions in "Proverbs" are only apparent. For example, consider Proverbs 26:4-5: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." Obviously, the exhortation to "answer a fool according to his folly" and to not do this is dependent upon circumstances, as the context indicates.

The third category is the pseudepigrapha. These are the books that were rejected by all. This includes a large number of false or spurious writings including "The Books of Adam and Eve;" "The Books of Enoch;" "The Books of Sibylline Oracles;" "The Assumption of Moses;" "Psalms of Solomon;" "The Books of Baruch;" "The Story of Ahikar," etc. Although these books claim to have been written by biblical authors "they actually express religious fancy and magic from the period between about 200 B.C. and A.D. 200…. Most of these books are comprised of dreams, visions and revelations in the apocalyptic style of Ezekiel, Daniel and Zechariah."16 The fourth category takes us to the subject under discussion, the Apocrypha, which involved the books rejected by most but accepted by some. We have now seen why these books have been rejected by most.

[verga]

Oikay first off [posting volumes of CR@P that is going to be ignored is a waste of band width, I pretty much stop reading when I find the very first error.

They may have also been quoting the Hebrew versions at times simply because that was what the Temple in Jerusalem would have had in scrolls. There was no "Hebrew" version They were quoting from the Greek and only the Greek. The purpose of the Septuagint was to preserve the text in the common language, which was Greek>

If you knew anything at all about history then you would know that following the Diaspora the only languages spoken were Aramaic and Greek. The majority of Jews did not speak or read Hebrew. The "Council" of Jamina which was a rabbinical school sought to remedy this AFTER Christ's resurrection. 60 years after.

What is your level of education? Serious question, because you have done zero research you are just parroting the rantings of some very ignorant people.

[boatbums]

Oikay first off [posting volumes of CR@P that is going to be ignored is a waste of band width, I pretty much stop reading when I find the very first error. They may have also been quoting the Hebrew versions at times simply because that was what the Temple in Jerusalem would have had in scrolls. There was no "Hebrew" version They were quoting from the Greek and only the Greek. The purpose of the Septuagint was to preserve the text in the common language, which was Greek> If you knew anything at all about history then you would know that following the Diaspora the only languages spoken were Aramaic and Greek. The majority of Jews did not speak or read Hebrew. The "Council" of Jamina which was a rabbinical school sought to remedy this AFTER Christ's resurrection. 60 years after. What is your level of education? Serious question, because you have done zero research you are just parroting the rantings of some very ignorant people.

Okay...Verga....after this last try, I'm done with you. You can keep your hands over your eyes and your fingers firmly planted nice and snug in your ears perfectly oblivious to the truth. I honestly have to question your own educational qualifications as well as your interest in knowing facts concerning the Holy Scriptures. The subject of this thread was "Why did you choose Catholic?". I guess your answer may be so you don't have to do your own thinking.

Have you heard of the Vulgate, by any chance? If not, it was partly Jerome's translation of the Hebrew, yes you heard right, HEBREW Bible, from HEBREW into Latin. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate:

Jerome did not embark on the work with the intention of creating a new version of the whole Bible, but the changing nature of his program can be tracked in his voluminous correspondence. He had been commissioned by Damasus I in 382 to revise the Old Latin text of the four Gospels from the best Greek texts, and by the time of Damasus' death in 384 he had thoroughly completed this task, together with a more cursory revision from the Greek Septuagint of the Old Latin text of the Psalms in the Roman Psalter which is now lost. How much of the rest of the New Testament he then revised is difficult to judge today, but little of his work survived in the Vulgate text.

In 385, Jerome was forced out of Rome, and eventually settled in Bethlehem, where he was able to use a surviving manuscript of the Hexapla, likely from the nearby Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima, a columnar comparison of the variant versions of the Old Testament undertaken 150 years before by Origen. Jerome first embarked on a revision of the Psalms, translated from the revised Septuagint Greek column of the Hexapla, which later came to be called the Gallican version. He also appears to have undertaken further new translations into Latin from the Hexaplar Septuagint column for other books. But from 390 to 405, Jerome translated anew from the Hebrew all 39 books in the Hebrew Bible, including a further version of the Psalms. This new translation of the Psalms was labelled by him as "iuxta Hebraeos" (i.e. "close to the Hebrews", "immediately following the Hebrews"), and was commonly found in the Vulgate, until it was widely replaced by his Gallican psalms beginning in the 9th century.

The Vulgate is usually credited as being the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh, rather than the Greek Septuagint. Jerome's extensive use of exegetical material written in Greek, on the other hand, as well as his use of the Aquiline and Theodotiontic columns of the Hexapla, along with the somewhat paraphrastic style in which he translated makes it difficult to determine exactly how direct the conversion of Hebrew to Latin was.[4][5][6]

As Jerome completed his translations of each book of the bible, he recorded his observations and comments in an extensive correspondence with other scholars; and these letters were subsequently collected and appended as prologues to the Vulgate text for those books where they survived. In these letters, Jerome described those books or portions of books in the Septuagint that were not found in the Hebrew as being non-canonical: he called them apocrypha.[7] Jerome's views did not, however, prevail; and all complete manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate include some or all these books. Of the Old Testament texts not found in the Hebrew, Jerome translated Tobit and Judith anew from the Aramaic; and from the Greek, the additions to Esther from the Septuagint, and the additions to Daniel from Theodotion. Other books; Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees[8] are variously found in Vulgate manuscripts with texts derived from the Old Latin; sometimes together with Latin versions of other texts found neither in the Hebrew Bible, nor in the Septuagint, 4 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasses and Laodiceans. Their style is still markedly distinguishable from Jerome's. In the Vulgate text, Jerome's translations from the Greek of the additions to Esther and Daniel are combined with his separate translations of these books from the Hebrew.

A simple search of the term "Hebrew language" brings up the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language:

Hebrew (/ˈhiːbruː/) (עִבְרִית, Ivrit, Hebrew pronunciation (help·info)) is a Semitic language of the Afroasiatic language family. Culturally, it is considered by Jews and other religious groups as the language of the Jewish people, though other Jewish languages had originated among diaspora Jews, and the Hebrew language was also used by non-Jewish groups, such as the Samaritans. Modern Hebrew is spoken by most of the eight million people in Israel while Classical Hebrew has been used for prayer or study in Jewish communities around the world. The language is attested from the 10th century BCE [2] to the late Second Temple period, after which the language developed into Mishnaic Hebrew. Modern Hebrew is one of the official languages of Israel, along with Arabic.

Ancient Hebrew is also the liturgical tongue of the Samaritans, while modern Hebrew or Arabic is their vernacular, though today about 700 Samaritans remain. As a foreign language it is studied mostly by Jews and students of Judaism and Israel, archaeologists and linguists specializing in the Middle East and its civilizations, by theologians, and in Christian seminaries.

The core of the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible), and most of the rest of the Hebrew Bible, is written in Classical Hebrew, and much of its present form is specifically the dialect of Biblical Hebrew that scholars believe flourished around the 6th century BCE, around the time of the Babylonian exile. For this reason, Hebrew has been referred to by Jews as Leshon HaKodesh (לשון הקודש), "The Holy Language", since ancient times.

Hebrew belongs to the Canaanite group of languages. In turn the Canaanite languages are a branch of the Northwest Semitic family of languages.[4]

Hebrew flourished as a spoken language in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah during the 10th to 7th centuries BCE. Scholars debate the degree to which Hebrew was a spoken vernacular in ancient times following the Babylonian exile, when the predominant language in the region was Old Aramaic.

Hebrew was nearly extinct as a spoken language by Late Antiquity, but it continued to be used as a literary language and as the liturgical language of Judaism, evolving various dialects of literary Medieval Hebrew, until its revival as a spoken language in the late 19th century.

And, one more thing, I post this information - which you so intellectually call "volumes of CR@P" - so that those who really DO want to learn the truth may do so. It is no waste of bandwidth at all. As I already said, you can continue in ignorance and believe the Bible is not the trustworthy word of God - contrary to your OWN Church. I've done the best I can to prove otherwise.

[verga]

Volume of CR@P, ignored, just like you refuse to tell me your education level, I can assume it is no great shakes. The difference was that I was willing to look at all of the evidence and consider it with a critical eye.

You on the other hand listen to people that follow your agenda.

Read my tagline

[Cvengr]

It’s very obvious to those who are sincere to Christ that your efforts are also through faith in Christ, while those who pretend to know it all and insult your efforts have stepped far out of fellowship a long time ago, if indeed they ever were in fellowship at all. Great responses to the adversarial reactions.

[boatbums]

Thank you. I knew that far more people read these threads than ever openly comment. My efforts to defend the Holy Scriptures are all to the glory of God. I appreciate the kind remarks.