Nice try. That “petard” is your own since what you cited in that post were the verses AFTER the ones I posted in the same book and chapter. I am really amazed at how eager you seem to be to hoist up others and boast of your superiority in all things. It reminds me of the MSM and Libs who glom onto any word or statement just so they can criticize and gloat.
And, no, Sirach (AKA Ecclesiasticus) is not Divinely-inspired Scripture. The Council of Laodicea, Jerome and Rufinus of Aquileia, ranked it as an ecclesiastical book suitable for reading but not for establishing doctrine. Rome didn’t get around to declaring it to be canonical until 1546 during the fourth session of the Council of Trent. Which is why I think RCs today HAVE TO accept and defend it as Holy Scripture....you don’t have a choice. But, I do and I reject it along with the other Apocryphal books as from God. They never CLAIM to be either, you know that right?
“And, no, Sirach (AKA Ecclesiasticus) is not Divinely-inspired Scripture.”
Yes, it is.
“The Council of Laodicea,”
Regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor. That’s hardly convincing in any way since the Churches involved all accept Sirach as inspired. Care to explain that? Did that even occur to you? “Gee, Laodicea is in modern Turkey, but in the ancient world it was Greek through and through. And the Greeks accepted Sirach as inspired. So, if I were to use a regional council from Laodicea as proof that Sirach wasn’t considered inspired when the Greeks held and still hold Sirach to be inspired, I might look stupid because it would be an obvious contradiction.” Did that even occur to you?
“Jerome and Rufinus of Aquileia, ranked it as an ecclesiastical book suitable for reading but not for establishing doctrine.”
And lo and behold Wikipedia says: “the Council of Laodicea, of Jerome, and of Rufinus of Aquileia, ranked it instead as an ecclesiastical book.” So clearly you’re cutting and pasting and passing it off as your own. Lovely.
And besides the fact that your just cutting and pasting, it’s also irrelevant. “Ecclesiasticus/Sirach is found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (three copies to be exact). It is also included in the Greek Septuagint, the Old Latin manuscripts, and the Latin Vulgate. The Catholic Church and Churches of the East receive the book as inspired, inerrant, and canonical. Sirach is also included in our oldest biblical manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (ca. A.D. 350), Codex Sinaiticus (A.D. 360), and Codex Alexandrinus (ca. A.D. 400). In other words, the early Church in both the East and West revered this book and read it in Church…not to mention Jews before the Incarnation of Christ.” http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/sirach-about-a-biblical-book-rejected-by-the-reformation/
“Rome didn’t get around to declaring it to be canonical until 1546 during the fourth session of the Council of Trent.”
False. Florence had already done that - and it wasn’t even needed then. Also, all Trent did was end the issue as a discussion after doing the same thing Florence had already done. You might know this if you had read Breen or Michuta’s two books - but of course you haven’t done that, right?
“Which is why I think RCs today HAVE TO accept and defend it as Holy Scripture....you don’t have a choice.”
Look in the mirror. You don’t have a choice. You simply accept what your Protestant masters have told you - without even having read anything for yourself. Have you even read Albert C. Sundberg’s works? His work noting that “Except for Sirach, which was sometimes quoted as scripture in the Talmud and which continued to be copied in Hebrew in Judaism until the twelfth century, all surviving extra-canonical (apocryphal) Jewish religious literature was preserved by Christians” should make you sit up and take notice. That is if you cared about truth. But you don’t seem to. You just seem interested in repeating the same old Protestant falsehoods like your masters trained you to say. http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm
“But, I do and I reject it along with the other Apocryphal books as from God. They never CLAIM to be either, you know that right?”
Neither does the Gospel of Matthew. You know that, right?
What you do and do not reject just makes you look silly since you clearly never even studied the subject. Breen? No. Michuta? No. Sundberg? No. Nobody really. All you’ve done is let your Protestant masters decide for you, right? That and you’ve read a few modest Protestant blogs and seriously slanted articles, right?
Yeah.
But there can be edifying content among uninspired deuteros as with the portion from Sirach and Wisdom, and thus Luther included most in his translation.
As for now, he giveth his beloved sleep. (Psalms 127:2) 111100