[Gophack]

Jesus never quoted them in His teachings..there is no NT teaching on this OT practice

The deuterocanonicals were in the OT Jesus and the apostles knew and used when they were teaching and preaching.

See this link Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament where there are 112 references to the deuterocanonical books in the 4 Gospels ALONE, and hundreds of references to the deuterocanonical books in the remainder of the NT.

It is clear from the article above, and the references I cite, that these seven books (and parts of Esther and Daniel) were used by the apostles to teach, and were in the bible they used to teach and spread the Gospel. If these books weren't intended by God to be in the Bible, why didn't Jesus say something about it? Why did the apostles teach using them?

It is clear that these books were always in the OT until a Jewish group removed them because they didn't like what they had to say. All early church fathers referenced these books.

Anyway, God bless you.

[Catholicguy]

Common sense, schmmon sense..."I don't personally feel they are inspired...is enough of a basis to justify their being axed.

The Protestants try to turn the arguement on its head. "You Catholics need Macc that to prove...".when it is just the OPPOSITE. They were axed BECAUSE they taught Purgatory. The Protestants want to pretend we invented stuff to source our doctrine and so we included non-inspired texts to prove..blah blah blah. They are the ones that destroyed Scripture and they also want us to prove they shouldnt have done that...sheesh..it is such a pathetic tactic..and shameless as it is anti-historical, not just ahistorical

[RnMomof7]

Go I have looked and found NO Direct quotes to Matthew and infact some seem not at all connected or only broadly..I decided that the RC church does not know how to cross reference scripture or they are desperate to tie this non inspired literature to Jesus..Yes the Jews shared a common culture that would have included some literature but that does not make it infallible or inspired . SHOW ME SOME DIRECT QUOTES
Here are some of my findings I did Matthew and decided it is a waste of time and energy




Matthew 4:4 Wisdom 16:26.......................deut 8:3
Matthew 4:15 1 Maccabees 5:15 .............Isa 9;1
Matthew 5:18 Baruch 4:1
Matthew 5:28 Sirach 9:8............ 2 Sam11;2-5, Job31;1
Matthew 5:2ss Sirach 25:7-12............???no relationship visible
Matthew 5:4 Sirach 48:24....???no relationship
Matthew 6:7 Sirach 7:14.....1 kings 18:26
Matthew 6:9 Sirach 23:1, 4......ps38;9,69;17-19
Matthew 6:10 1 Maccabees 3:60.....(no such verse..chapter ends at 59)
Matthew 6:12 Sirach 28:2........EX34;7, Ps 32;1
Matthew 6:13 Sirach 33:1........... no quote
Matthew 6:20 Sirach 29:10s...no quote ,
Matthew 6:23 Sirach 14:10 ........no quote
Matthew 6:33 Wisdom 7:11......no quote
Matthew 7:12 Tobit 4:15........no quote
Matthew 7:12 Sirach 31:15......no quote
Matthew 7:16 Sirach 27:6.......no quote ,broad connection
Matthew 8:11 Baruch 4:37...........Isa49;12
Matthew 8:21 Tobit 4:3.......no quote broad application to Dan 7:13, actually poor application to Tobit it misuses the "saying "as understood by the Jews

Matthew 9:36 Judith 11:19.....Numbers 27;17,Ezk34;5,Zech 10;2
Matthew 9:38 1 Maccabees 12:17.......No relationship
Matthew 10:16 Sirach 13:17...LOL no relationship
Matthew 11:14 Sirach 48:10...Mal 4;5
Matthew 11:22 Judith 16:17.......Not a quote indirect application
Matthew 11:25 Tobit 7:17 Ps 8:2 (indirect ) Tobit no relationship
Matthew 11:25 Sirach 51:1...just a praise verse no quote
Matthew 11:28 Sirach 24:19....Jer 31;25 (indirect no quote)...no relationship to Sirach

Matthew 11:28 Sirach 51:23......no quote ..Poor relationship
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:24s...no quote poor relationship
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:28s...no quote poor relationship
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 51:26s..no quote fair relationship..direct quote Jer 6;16
Matthew 12:4 2 Maccabees 10:3......no quote poor relationship
Matthew 12:5 Sirach 40:15...no quote no relationship
Matthew 13:44 Sirach 20:30s........no quote no relationship
Matthew 16:18 Wisdom 16:13........no quote no relationship
Matthew 16:22 1 Maccabees 2:21.....no quote no relationship
Matthew 16:27 Sirach 35:22... Pro 24 ;12..no direct quote but application to Sirach
Matthew 17:11 Sirach 48:10......no quote nor relationship
Matthew 18:10 Tobit 12:15.......no quote , no relationship
Matthew 20:2 Tobit 5:15...no quote , no relationship
Matthew 22:13 Wisdom 17:2...........no quote no direct application
Matthew 23:38 Tobit 14:4..........1 kings 9;7f, Jer22;5 (direct reference) Tobit no quote good application)
Matthew 24:15 1 Maccabees 1:54 ......Dan9;27 (stated as a quote of daniel in the text) Poor Mccabees application
Matthew 24:15 2 Maccabees 8:17...no quote no direct application ( this is a historical application)
Matthew 24:16 1 Maccabees 2:28....... No quote No prophetic application..historic one only
Matthew 25:35 Tobit 4:17........Isa 58;7, Ezek 18 7, 16.....NOapplication infact seems the opposite
Matthew 25:36 Sirach 7:32-35......Isa 58;7,Ezek18;7, Job31;32 No direct quote to sirach..good application)
Matthew 26:38 Sirach 37:2..no quote
Matthew 27:24 Daniel 13:46........Deut 21 6-8
Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:13......almost direct from Ps 22;8...no direct application in Wisdom
Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:18-20 no direct quote fair application

I quit here it is a waste of time. there are NO DIRECT quotes from the mouth of Jesus

For others that would like to kill some time here is a link

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/alpha.htm

[KennyV]

In defending the use of the deuterocononicals by Jesus and the apostles you provided a link with 112 references from the New Testament that you say refers to these Old Testament books (By James Akin.)

I think most people who see a list this large just assume that it is correct, and do not take the time to check into each reference. I'm certainly one of those people who doesn't have the time to check everything out.

I did, however, recognize one of these and am a little disappointed. The list says that Matthew 4:15 refers to
1 Maccabees 5:15. I don't have a Catholic Bible with me so I can't check up on this right now.

It doesn't really matter. Maybe 1 Maccabees 5:15 does have this information and maybe it doesn't.

But let's look at Matthew 4:14, just one verse prior to the verse that says refers to 1 Maccabbees 5:15.

Matthew 4:14 says, " This fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy: "

Let's be fair here. Matthew is specifically saying that verse 15 is a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, which can be found in Isaiah 9:1-2.

To say that 1 Maccabbees 5:15 is referenced by Matthew 4:15 is not accurate, even if the information is in there, because the author tells us exactly what he is referring to.

This is misleading and makes me wonder about the other 111 references.

I mostly just read the posts and follow the debates. It's clear that on both sides of arguements people sometimes take liberties. However, being a person in search of the truth wherever it leads me, I become distrustfull of the material posted that I cannot check out or don't have time to check out when something I can check out is misleading (again, on either side of the debate.)

When someone posts something that is misleading, some people will accept it. Some others, however, will form a bias or skepticism to whomever posted it.

Anyhow, that's what I had to say....your comments are welcomed.