God's Word in 66 books

AliveinJesus · Site Admin Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 64

God's Word in 66 books

The Roman Church lays claim to producing the first complete Bible and being inspired as to which books should be included in the final Scriptures. Therefore we are meant to be indebted to the Church of Rome for the New Testament. We are also meant to accept the RC dogma that the Apocrypha is inspired of God.

But...
is this right?
Let's look at some facts.

The New Testament

At the Council of Carthage in 397 the Catholic Church had the 27 books of the New Testament which had been used by individual people and the churches for the previous 300 years.

When Athanasius fought to preserve the Trinity at the council of Nicea in 325 AD he used almost every one of the 27 books in his arguements against Arius who was claiming the Trinity to be a false teaching. Athanasius said these books were the 'springs of salavtion, do not add or take away'.

At the council of Laodicea in 363 AD it was decreed that only canonized books of the NT should be used in the Church's. No list of these books was made as it was already the case that the majority of churches had been using these 27 books for years. Are we to think that almost 300 years passed with confusion while we waited for the church to decide in 397AD which books were in and which were out?

Far from it! God's Word is ordained by Him and for years early church leaders used these 27 books in order to teach the message of the Gospel.

We can produce almost all the New Testament from the church fathers writings and quotations before the year 150 A.D. proving that there was no church government to approve of what was in or out. The Scripture is God breathed, its origin is with God, it is not man given (2 Pt.1:21).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Apocrypha

While reading the following facts and information bear in mind these first few things. The apocrypha was in existence during the time Christ was on the earth yet not once in the New Testament did He or the apostles quote from it.

With over 250 OT quotes in the NT not one is from the apocryphal writings.

These books were not used by the rabbis and never considered scripture by the Jewish community.

They were not even sanctioned by the RC church until the Council of Trent in
1546 AD. Why did it take them so long to decide they were canon? Simply because they knew many of their dogma's where coming under intense scrutiny and these books were necessary to uphold RC doctrine.

Some of these books were written in, what is commonly called the inter-testamental era. There were 400 years of silence in this era when God did not speak nor have prophets. 1 Maccabees 9:27 confirms that were no prophets among the people at that time so these books can not be considered inspired by God. They hold important and useful historical information but they are not God breathed scripture.

So if God was silent and there was no prophets or inspirational scripture where does this leave the apocrypha?

The apocrypha, meaning 'hidden things' consists of 13 books, 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, an addition of Esther, additions to Daniel, Wisdom of Solomon. Ecclesiasteicus (also known as the wisdsom of Jesus the son of Sirach) Baruch, the letter of Jeremiah, the prayer of Manasses and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

The Hebrew Bible follows a 3 fold division. That is to say they incorporate, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Jewish scribes denied canonical status so these books were never included in the Hebrew Bible. The apocrypha does not claim to be the Word of God and it contains many statements contradictory to Bible truths.

2 Maccabees 14: 41-42 commends suicide

2 Maccabees 12:44 is the only place prayers for the dead are found which contradicts recieved Scripture. Examples - King David prayed earnestly for his son while he was still living, but accepted his loss upon his death and ceased praying. Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazarus; He didn't pray. There is no biblical example of praying for the dead.

Almsgiving with expiatory value and having the ability to deliver someone from death. Tobit 12:9, 4:10

The doctrine of the pre existence of souls is found in Wisdom 8:19-20. Not only is this unbiblical but it is a teaching of the Mormon church and is found in their false book of Mormon.

The worship of angels is found in Tobit 12:12, but what does Paul say about this;
Do not let anyone disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, dwelling on visions, puffed up without cause by a human way of thinking (Colossians 2:18).

Invocation and intercession of the saints 2 Maccabees 15:14; Baruch 3:4
The Bible clearly tells us there is ONE mediator and ONE intercessor between God and man. 1 Tim 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

and what does the Bible say about communing with the dead...

Isaiah 8:19-20 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.

There is NO communication or intercession between the living and the dead that is of God - any communication with spirits is of the devil. Visions and sightings of the dead, as well as words from the dead are ALL satans lies to lead you astray.

Place of purgatory is found in Maccabees 12:42, 46. Although the RC church has twisted some NT verses to suit this doctrine the word purgatory and the place of purgatory is NEVER mentioned in scripture. Jesus says to the thief on the cross 'today you will be with me in Paradise'. There was no stopping off to be 'put through the fires of purgatory'... it was TODAY you will be with me.

Jesus said ' I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Do we believe in the words of Jesus? Do we believe in the teachings of our dear Lord and Saviour? If so then accepting teachings which are supported largely by the apocryphal books, but found no where else in scripture, is spiritually deadly.

Click the link below to find an interesting article called 'the Centre of the Bible'. What makes it even more interesting for this topic is that if you include the Apocrypha this wonderful verse is no longer at the centre of scripture, and it's a verse that is simple in truth, but powerful in action.

christisthelight · Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 8

Which books of the Old Testament did the Apostles accept as Scripture? Did they accept the 46 books as in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible or the 39 books as in the King James version? The Septuagint was accepted among the Hellenistic sect of Judaism (of which St. Paul was a member) and this canon did indeed include the same Old Testament books as the present-day Catholic Bible. In addition, the entire New Testament was written in Greek (Hellenist) with the exception of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which was written in Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ). Over 85% of the quotes from the Old Testament that are used in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. The Palestinian Old Testament canon was not compiled until between 70-90 A.D. and then, it was done so by the non-Christian Jews in violent reaction to early Judeo-Christianity. The Palestinian canon was the one chosen by Martin Luther based on the acceptance of it by the 16th century German-Jewish community of Luther's time. This canon excludes the seven books that were accepted by the Apostles as Scripture. Why was the canon of the Protestant Old Testament decided by Jews and not Christians? In addition, why did Luther attempt to eliminate the Book of St. James and the Book of Revelation? Is it because the first contradicted his dogma of "faith alone" as opposed to grace, faith and works "combined?" And the second book proving the Catholic Church's stance on nothing "impure" entering into Heaven therefore "necessitating" purgation ?

During the Reformation, did the Protestants "re-evaluate" all the deutero-canonical and apocryphal Christian writings such as the Gospel of St. James, the Acts of St. Paul, the Apocalypse of St. Peter, the Gospel of St. Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of St. Thomas and the myriad of other writings from the first and second centuries of the Christianity? No. The Protestants accepted the New Testament as defined by the Catholic Church in the late 4th century. Why accept the Canon as defined and preserved by the Catholic Church yet not accept the other teachings of this same Church?