Posted on 10/08/2014 5:36:44 PM PDT by Gamecock
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? The following references can be verified at http://www.newadvent.org/bible.
When we look into the apocrypha itself, we find numerous problems. For example, we see it advocating magic where the smoke of a fish heart on a fire drives away devils.
Tobit 6:5-7, "Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them."
Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.
Salvation by works:
We know from Scripture that alms (money or food given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ is what cleanses us--not money or food given to poor people. "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7).
Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:
2 Maccabbees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."
Can anyone truly accept that money isn't offering for the sins of dead people? Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.
Wrong historical facts:
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."
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.
__________________________________________________
See Related Articles
“...officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 as being inspired.”
This is such a common blunder. That’s how we get proclamations that the Pope invented the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, or the dogma of the Assumption in 1950. Or that the Church invented “transubstantiation” in the 16th Century. Etc.
It makes about as much sense as finding a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church printed in 1992, and proclaiming that all the teachings in it were invented by the Catholic Church in 1992.
Just to be clear:
You don’t believe that Baptism removes Original Sin or forgives actual sins? Or that it causes the indwelling of the Trinity? Or that it gives grace?
It’s just a ritual that makes a person a member of a club?
Parts of Tobit sound as if this book may have inspired Joseph Smith to write one of his own.
If the doctrines contained therein were not in evidence prior to 1992, then that would be a reasonable statement. There was dispute regarding the Biblical canon right up to the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Under dispute was the so-called Deuterocanon or Apocrypha. The Reformation rejected them as being inspired scripture and therefore part of the canon, however the Apocrypha continued to be included as good for edification but not for doctrine. That language is historic, going back to very early Christianity. It paraphrases whom?
It seems perfectly reasonable. Who is more likely than a good angel to know what a fallen angel would dislike?
BTW: Genesis Chapter 1 Genesis Chapter 2 give two totally incompatible accounts of Creation. I guess Genesis isn't part of Scripture, either.
Blessing??? that's what you call the Word of God?
The Holy Spirit, incapable of defending His Word from error, not only allowed the Septuagint to include error in the first place, but allowed that error to remain a part of Scripture until Luther came along and accepted the authority of anti-Christ Rabbis as being superior to Christ, the Apostles, and all Christians prior to himself.
Clearly, the Holy Spirit is imperfect and both could not and did not protect His Holy Word from error.
Therefore, being imperfect, the Holy Trinity cannot be part of the Holy Trinity, meaning there is no Holy Trinity.
Gotcha, Muzlims are right and there is no Trinity.
I suppose you're going to tell us next that Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wasn't the author of both chapters?
Condones the use of magic: See where Jesus made a paste out of mud to heal the man’s blindness. Neither is magic.
Forgiveness by human effort: Man’s participation in his own atonement is insufficient; Catholics agree. But the notion that Man can do nothing to participate in atonement is counterscriptural. Indeed, we are commanded to “pick up our own cross and follow” in the way of Jesus. The passage that is referred to in Maccabees is the Dedication of the Temple. Jesus visited the Temple annually for the yearly festival. Yes, he identified himself as the Temple... and the ante-Nicene fathers celebrated the dedication of the Temple as his birthday (25 December).
Judith 1: It’s a parable. Thus, this is deliberate, not an error. Come on, what Jewish scholar would make such an error, or fail to recognize it? Judith (the name means, “Jewess,” for goodness’s sake!) is deliberately self-declaring itself non-historical, in a way similar to Esther and Job, so that no-one could confuse its literary genre with the historical books.
Baruch 6 (Letter of Jeremiah): Actually, it wasn’t even 70. Depending on what event you use to mark the start of the exile, it was 58, 48 or 43 years. There are varying theories as to why Baruch 6 says seven generations (which can alternately mean anywhere from 140 to 280 years). Some have pointed out that in the Matthean Geneaology, it’s seven generations from the exile to the dedication of the Temple.
sure it is, and always has been...none other has the credentials!
There was no dispute in the Catholic Church. The canon was reaffirmed by Trent only because parts of it were disputed by Protestants.
In the same way, the number of Sacraments (seven) was reaffirmed by Trent. The list of seven was not invented by Trent.
This is a VERY common blunder made by anti-Catholic writers who know no history, but ransack reference books. They often do this: misidentifying some re-statement of a dogma as the moment when the dogma was “INVENTED.”
I have been seeing examples of this same blunder, over and over, for decades. Most anti-Catholic screeds have examples of it.
Arthur McGowan, post #25: Genesis Chapter 1 Genesis Chapter 2 give two totally incompatible accounts of Creation.
You and Arthur might want to have a little sit-down chat together. Just sayin'.
Viewing every opposing viewpoint through the PC lens of “hate” is going to confuse you every time. It’s surprising how many otherwise conservative individuals use it, and here of all places.
oh, good...you get to make your own rules....I thought that Baptism freed us from original sin and that the Sacrament of penance freed us from our mortal and venial sins....now you tell me that I'm wrong....oh well, I tried.
There is no contradiction. Most folks can see what happened here. Try hard and see if you can figure it out.
Michael is going to be deployed as directed by his superior, The Lord Jesus Christ, who has a name (rank) above all archangels. You and I will be hanging on to their coattails as we follow Him into that big gathering not far from Jerusalem. It will happen.
I did some research on this months ago. I did not see anything that says they should be included in the Bible. There were way too many errors.
I’ve reconsider my post 37 and submit for your approval:
Michael is going to be deployed as directed by his superior, The Lord Jesus Christ, who has a name (rank) above all archangels. You and I will be trying our best to keep up as we follow Him to the Mount of Olives and into that big gathering happening not far from Jerusalem. In Eternity, it HAS happened already and God allowed John to witness this and a lot more and to write most of it for others to read and hear it read.
they may have been included but were never accorded the same status as Scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.