SteveVH

Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the King of Egypt from 287 to 247 B.C. had established an extensive library at Alexandria and wanted to include the sacred books of the Jews. He requested seventy two Jewish scholars (hence the term “Septuagint”, meaning seventy), six scholars each, from each of the twelve tribes, to translate their sacred writings from Hebrew into Greek so that he and the rest of the Greek-speaking world could understand them, as Greek had become the universal language by that time. So they were originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek. There is no doubt that the Scriptures used by Jesus and the Apostles were the Septuagint because the Palestinian version, adopted by the Protestants at the time of the "Reformation" did not exist in Jesus' time, but were compiled at a later date. The Dead Sea Scrolls verify that that the deuterocanonical books ("apocrypha") were, indeed, written originally in Hebrew. The result is that the Protestant Bible, including the KJV,which the LDS adapted as their preferred translation, is missing seven complete books and portions of others that Christ himself regarded as Scripture.

From a Catholic viewpoint, I think your dilema originates in the Mormon view of the Godhead in which you must at once believe in two conflicting propositions. From the Book of Mormon: "I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity" (Moroni 8:18). "For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles" (Mormon 9:9-10). From the King Follett Discourse: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another" (King Follett Discourse). So you must simultaneously believe that "God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing..." and at the same time that]"God himself was once as we are now..." meaning that he changed from the human state to a divine state, becoming (changing into) God. This, combined with the rejection of the Trinity, leaves you in confusion as to just who God is (is he the Father, or the Son or the Holy Spirit?). Just who is the one God that you should worship and adore?

I am very new to this forum. I have defended the Catholic Church's authority in canonizing Sacred Scripture and have done my best to defend the inclusion of the Apocrypha which was being treated as something of less importance. I have drawn the logical conclusion that if one accepts the canon of Scripture then they must accept the authority of the Catholic Church which canonized it in the first place. Had it not, Joseph Smith would not have had it available to even comment on. I have not come here to play patty cake. I have come here to learn by challenging you and observing your answers. This is exactly what I ask inquirers into the Catholic faith to do. I ask them to approach it from a skeptical point of view. Read the Catechism, read everything they can get their hands on concerning the Catholic faith and ask penetrating questions until they are satisfied that it is for real. I do not ask them to politely ask questions and just accept the answers given if they feel the answers are not adequate. Until one has discovered the truth of our faith for themselves and have come to believe it, they are not accepted into the Church. This is normally about a two year process. We don't give them part of it, baptise them, and then give them the "good stuff" later. The topic of this thread was the "Apocrypha". That is what I discussed from my perspective as Catholic. This necessarily brings up differences in our beliefs. But when someone tells me that the LDS church canonized the Bible on their own, I'm sorry, but I am not just going to sit still and say "well, that's what they believe". The very notion is ludicrous and intellectually dishonest. If you call that telling you what you believe then so be it. In any event, its been real. Enjoy your comfortable little world. I won't disturb it again.

Jesus could read people's hearts and thoughts without them even speaking. I doubt He had any problem understanding any language on the face of the earth. As far as the Scriptures are concerned, He knew them before they were written so it is probably a moot point anyway. He was teaching the teachers and amazing people with His knowledge when He was only twelve.

Is not the purpose of apologetics to defend your faith? Leaving people to prove a negative has never impressed me, nor would it motivate me to learn more. Instead it makes me wonder why you can't prove it. If I told you that Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Issac and Jacob visited me last night in my bedroom and told me to inform the LDS church that they were now to follow me, could you prove that what I claimed was untrue? Because you could not prove it untrue would you follow me? I would hope not. :)

The Septuagint is a Greek trasnslation of a Hebrew document. In other words, it existed in Hebrew first. He didn't have to speak Greek. The documents found at Qumran only povide evidence that the Apocrypha was considered Scripture by the Jews of that time. The entire books of Sirach and Tobit were found there, both in Hebrew and in Aramaic. What "canticles" are you speaking of in particular?

Please show me where I have tried to tell anyone here what they believe? It is difficult to carry on a conversation without bringing in my understanding of what you believe but I am more than willing to be corrected and will always defer to an LDS poster if I have misunderstood. I do not find it fair, however, that a moderator can come on here and "translate" my remarks and then use language that is demeaning toward those holy men that canonized the Scriptures, dsimissing them as "a bunch of dead Catholics".

Yes, actually, we do know exactly what the Jewish Scriptures consisted of for Jesus. They used the Spetuagint (which includes the so-called "Apocrypha") as it was the only version of the Old Testament Scriptures in existence at that time. It is the same version canonized by the Catholic Church some three centuries later. I have tried my best to express that we do not reject the authority of Judaism. You seem to taking this personally and I certainly do not mean it that way. But, of course, Christianity fulfills Judaism because Christ fulfills Judasim. How is this incorrect? My argument that this does not extend to the LDS is based on something entirely different. I believe that Christ kept his promises concerning his Church and therefore there could be no apostasy, not to mention a complete lack of historcal evidence. Judaism was fulfilled in Christianity and Christianity needs no further fulfillment. Tell me what is not logical about this conclusion? This, in no way dictates what you can or cannot believe. I'm explaining what I believe. I think I have explained my position above. No disagreement there. As Paul said, if Christ was not resurrected then we are to be pitied among all men. I'm happy to hang my hat on Christ. Yes, I realize that. Other than again mis-stating our position concerning the Jews I have no problem with the rest of your statement.

Yes, all Catholic, all tracing their authority back to the Apostles. From my conversations the consensus seems to be that the "apostasy" occurred upon the death of last Apostle. Just my experience, not trying to tell you what you believe. The same is true as to what exactly was said to be lost. Priesthood authority, for certain, but I have heard a wide array of opinions from Mormons on this as well.

Ok Dravin. Have a good night.

Thank you for your help, but I am perfectly happy to answer questions on my own. Translation: I meant exactly what I said. Which just happens to line up perfectly with the Catholic Church's determination. Well I have seen many textbooks and yes, it matters greatly who compiled it; who determines that its contents are correct. It goes through many committes and fact checkers before it is published. Facts do not place themselves in books. Human beings do that and they determine what is correct and what is not. I'm not sure what I have done to deserve this treatment, especially from a moderator. If I have offended you please accept my apology.

Yes, the Jews adopted hellenistic ways under Alexander, I believe. I was not trying to give a detailed account. I was asked if anything in the "Apocrypha" stood out to me. I thought the Maccabean revolt was important. I will happily defer to your comments and knowledge and apologize if I got something out of order or didn't fill in the in blanks adequately. Thanks for your input.

Jesus was a Jew and read from the Jewish Scriptures. Do you have some evidence of which I am unaware indicating that He rejected any of it? He understood the Scriptures when those around Him did not, but I am not aware that He ever rejected any of it. Maybe you can enlighten me. To say that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism is silly and tendentious? For whom do you think the Jews had been waiting? Was it not the Messiah? Was not Jesus, the founder of Christianity, the Messiah? Did he not, therefore, fulfill Judaism? The LDS is in a different category altogether. Christianity is not based upon Judaism being a false religion. The LDS's complete basis of existence is based on that very premise. It's validity rests on the one legged stool of the "Great Apostasy". If it didn't happen, then the entire reason for the LDS church disappears. As a Catholic, after two years of asking, I am still waiting for any evidence that it did happen. So I concede nothing to the LDS Church. I mean no offense to anyone in saying this. If I believed I was in a false church then I might consider joining yours, but I don't, so why would I concede this? I accept the authority of Abraham and Moses and Isaiah and the other prophets who played a part in salvation history. The story of the Jews is the story of Christianity. The present day Jews have missed the Messiah, and therefore are lacking the whole story, and are therefore lacking the fullness of truth. You are free to accept or reject anything you wish. In this case, if you accept the Bible as the word of God you are accepting the determination of a purported apostate Church which doesn't make sense to me either. If you reject the Catholic Church as having lost all truth I don't know how you can accept its judgment in determining Scripture.

Tell me, what other churches were in existence prior to the Catholic Church? Please name them. And as I understand the LDS view, the Church fell into apostasy upon the death of the last Apostle, about three hundred years before the canon of Scripture was determined. By that time it should have been well off the tracks. And what "portion" of the canon are you referring to that was accepted. What portion have you rejected?

Hi anatess. We do accept Judaism as the true Church; Judaism that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and his Church. Catholicism is the completion of Judaism. The first Christians were Jews who recognized Christ as the Messiah for whom they had been waiting. Those Jews who did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah are left waiting and wanting. In accepting the Old Testament writings as Scripture we accept the determination of the Jews in that regard (Jesus referred to them as Scripture) and also accept the Jews as God's chosen people. Christianity does not negate Judaism, but rather embraces it and fulfills it. The Jews are our elder brothers and sisters in the faith. Many of them are now called Christians. We would not accept the Old Testament as Scripture if we thought Judaism to be a false religion. Nor should anyone accept the New Testament, determined by the Catholic Church, if they believe it to be a false religion. That seems rather nonsensical; a false religion that determined the true canon of Scripture which all of Christianity accepts as the word of God. Think about it.

With all due respect, I think you have set up a false analogy. When the canon of Sacred Scripture was determined, by four separate councils of Catholic bishops, there were many writings in circulation. Some of these writings contained errors which were readily rejected. Others did not contain error, and were very "inspiring", but were not inspired. The books chosen to be the "inspired word of God" were measured against the Tradition of the Church in order to ascertain their authenticity as inspired. This was done through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not by saying this sounds good and this doesn't. So it was nothing like 1+1=2. They were not dealing with empirical evidence. They were determining what constituted the word of God and what did not. So I maintain that the rest of the Christian world had better hope that the CC was, indeed, guided by the Holy Spirit in making its determination because if it wasn't, we can be sure of nothing. The LDS has not determined any canon, as far as Biblical Scripture is concerned. They accepted the Protestant version of the Bible, even today preferring the King James version. Yes I am aware that Joseph Smith included his comments, but he did not reject any of the canonized books that he found in the Protestant Bible nor did he add any. He did accept their decision not include the deuterocanonical books but this was done by Luther, not by Joseph Smith. Even Luther admitted that were it not for the Catholic Church, the world would not know what was inspired and what was not.

Anatess, we agree on so many things. Only God can read our hearts and He loves those who seek Him sincerely. You bring up an important point however. If we believe that the Holy Spirit speaks truth to us, how then is it that we are not identical in our beliefs? This is an important, if sensitive, issue. To often we are intent in proving our positions on these forums rather than seeking truth. One of my favorite Catholic Saints is Joseph of Cupertino. This man lived in the late 13th century and most likely was mentally retarded, or at least had a very low I.Q. His mother begged the Franciscan monks to take him in as she knew he could never make it on his own in the world. Reluctantly, because of her persistence, they accepted him. He fumbled just about every job they gave him. One day, he was told to take a cart full of apples, pulled by a donkey, into town and sell them. As he was heading into town he found a young woman lying in the brush who was naked, beaten and raped. He took off his tunic, wrapped it around her and took her to the local doctor. He gave the doctor the money he had earned. When he returned, the donkey with the cart of apples was gone; stolen. He walked back to the monastery in his underwear, without the donkey and cart, and without a penny to show for it. The monks now knew for sure that he could not be trusted with the simplest of jobs. After that he was relegated to working in the stables and taking care of the sheep. The monks found him levitating in a state of ecstasy and misinterpreted this as a sign that he was possessed. They tied him down and brought in an exorcist. This kept happening until they were convinced that this was of God. My point in telling you part of his story is that he, while having little intellect, understood the Gospel better than those with sharp minds, but dull hearts. He was the good Samaritan and put flesh on the words of the Gospel by living it. God is not going to ask us how many books we read or how many debates we won. He is going to as us how much we loved, especially the poorest among us. That is what is important. Did we live the Gospel? Did we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless? Did we love those around us and give them a glimpse of the God who loves them. I am a Secular Franciscan, which is a Franciscan order for lay people. I was professed into this order in June 1994. One of my favorite sayings of St. Francis is "Preach the Gospel to all the world, if necessary, use words". As far as bringing some unity between our faiths, I believe we can find unity in living the Gospel together and bringing the love of God to the world. God bless you anatess.

We accept as Old Testament Scripture exactly what Jesus accepted as Scripture. Christianity is nothing more than the fulfillment and continuation of Judaism. Why would I not accept their Scriptures? I'm not certain what you mean about not accepting "the body of the early churches". How can you accept the work as righteous but reject the worker as unrighteous?

:) I am speechles. God bless you.

Are you then saying that you accept, as the word of God, the books that the Catholic Church determined to be inspired but you just don't accept its interpretation of those books? Honestly, I have always found it curious that the LDS Church would accept anything from a Church it believes fell into apostasy three centuries earlier.

No apologies necessary. I see where you were coming from. Also I was trying to speak in general terms as it might not be clear to some who are not familiar with these books and naturally may assume that they are in the same category. Actually there is a lot that sticks out to me in the deuterocanonical books, but IMO, 1 & 2 Maccabees are indispensable from a historic point of view, not mention the inspiring stories of of courage, faithfulness and martyrdom. Maccabees also gives us a close look at Jewish beliefs during the century before Christ. There is a belief among many Protestant biblical scholars that there was a period called they call the "400 years of silence", because they do not have the account of the Maccabean revolt. This is actually a very proud moment in Jewish history which is incomplete without it. It is a story of both infidelity and faithfulness. You are correct about Alexander the Great coming to take Israel, but he was not turned back by any miraculous event. Palestine was occupied by the Persians who were defeated by Alexander in 333 B.C. His conquest spread the Greek culture throughout Palestine and temples to Greek gods began springing up. Alexander died suddenly in 323 B.C. and his kingdom was divided among his generals. Palestine, including Judah, fell under the rule of Ptolemy I, who also had control of Egypt. The Jews were basically free to practice their religion under Ptolemy. The northern Seleucid kingdom, however, conquered Ptolemy and that is where we find the beginning of the Maccabean revolt. The Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, immediately desecrated the Temple and, under penalty of death, commanded the Jews to forsake their belief in one true God and instead worship pagan gods. He even required them to eat foods forbidden by Jewish law. This guy was incredibly brutal. Anyone caught observing the Sabbath was burned. Families who had circumcised their infants were killed and the babies hung from the mothers' necks. Some of the Jews gave in to the king's commands and basically turned their backs on Jewish beliefs and practices. But others swore to remain faithful and began a revolt against the king, started by a faithful Jew named Mattathias and his five sons (very inspiring story). Upon the death of Mattathias, his third son Judas Maccabeus, a military commander and strategist, took over leadership. He was successful in defeating the forces of Antiochus IV within three years from the time that Antiochus had begun his rule. Judas Maccabeus rebuilt that which had been torn down, replaced the holy vessels that had been stolen and reconsecrated the Temple. There was a huge celebration which became an annual commemoration of this great event on the 25th day of the month. Today this is known as Hanukkah, which means "to dedicate". 1 Maccabees tells the entire story. 2 Maccabees focuses more on the religious aspects and implications. They should both be read by anyone interested in the complete story of the Jews up to about a century before the time of Christ. You really should check it out.

Thanks for your post, anatess. There is much with which I agree, in fact I agree with most of what you said. Of course, I would agree that there is nothing more important than praying, which includes, most importantly, listening to the voice of God. Having said that, I approach Scripture from the standpoint of starting at zero; no assumptions, no preconceived notions (as much as possible, anyway). I then read the Gospels concerning the life of this man called Jesus. Do the authors seem trustworthy in their writing? Could they have had a hidden agenda? I find the the authors credible. So what did this man Jesus claim and what did he do to back up his claim? He, according to the witnesses, who I believe to be credible, spoke as no other man has spoken and performed many miracles, things beyond what any mere human could do. In speaking to the Jews concerning a paralytic, he said "Is it easier to say 'your sins have been forgiven' or to say 'stand up, take your mat and walk'"? Only God can forgive sins, as the Jews said, but he backed up his claim with evidence that he truly was God. So, I have read about what he said and what he did and I believe that he must either be who he said he was, or he was insane or he was a complete liar. He does not speak as someone insane, nor do his words and actions make him out to be a liar. So I decide that I do believe that he was who he said he was, the Son of God, and therefore believe all that he said and did. God gave us the gift of reason. Using reason, I can come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God, and God Himself. The voice of God, then, through the Holy Spirit, confirms this truth deep within my soul. I discern the voice of the Holy Spirit through a spiritual process to make sure that I am hearing the voice of God and not my own wishes and desires, or, God forbid, the voice of the enemy. My certainty of faith, then, comes from all of these things. God bless.

Jason, there is a lot to comment on in the referenced post and it would take hours and pages to adequately do so. Generally I will say that interpretation of poetic language such as that found in the Psalms is not as easy as just giving a literal meaning. I would say that the Psalm references are showing God's superiority. But I am also coming from the position that God does not need nor ask the approval or consensus of anyone in order to carry out whatever He decides to carry out. So I would not be looking for the same meaning in those passages as a Mormon might. The references in Genesis could just as well be interpreted as the Trinity "let us make man in our image and likeness".

I see what you're saying. But if I choose to believe in a golden calf and use the Jewish people's worship of the golden calf as evidence of something they once believed that I am now restoring, it doesn't get me too far down the road as far as truth is concerned.

Pam, YOU DID IT! THANK YOU!!! Now if I knew how to give you an official "Thank You" you would have it. Maybe you can enlighten me on why the forum keeps score on how many times we have given and received thanks or receive or given an lol. And how do I do this? I've said thank you in many posts but I guess it isn't official. Thank you for all your help.