The Apocrypha

[Guest]

Steve, I would just like to express my appreciation for all your contributions to these threads. Your knowledge and love for scripture is admirable.

I know this sounds wierd, but for some reason, your posts remind me of Jason... and I see Jason as one of the stalwart soldiers of Christ that could have been 1 of the 2,000 strippling warriors of Helaman if he would have been born in that day and age...

[SteveVH]

No it doesn't. It accepts some of its results, not the same thing.

Edit: On further reflection it would probably be more accurate to say it agrees with some of its conclusions rather then it accepts some of its results. My original comment was kinda rushed.

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.

[SteveVH]

Steve, I would just like to express my appreciation for all your contributions to these threads. Your knowledge and love for scripture is admirable.

I know this sounds wierd, but for some reason, your posts remind me of Jason... and I see Jason as one of the stalwart soldiers of Christ that could have been 1 of the 2,000 strippling warriors of Helaman if he would have been born in that day and age...

:)

I am speechles. God bless you.

[SteveVH]

Steve, my fault. I forgot the comma between "other" and "non-canonical."

However, to accept the Bible as sacred and authoritative does not require me to accept the body of the early churches any more than your accepting the Old Testament as scripture requires your accepting the authority of early Judaism.

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?

[Guest]

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.

Steve, we believe the Holy Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Just because we don't believe that the Catholic Church contains the full gospel doesn't mean that it doesn't contain any. This holds true for all other religions, or the lack thereof.

Also contained in the LDS Articles of Faith: If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

And yes, there are lots of those all over the place. The LDS Church do not hold exclusive rights to virtue, love, or praise...

Make sense?

[Guest]

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'd like to butt in here for a little bit - if I may.

A very simple "in other words" to what volgadon was saying is that - as a Catholic, you accept the Old Testament as Scripture but do not accept the Judaism is the true Church.

Similarly, we accept the Holy Bible as scripture but do not accept Catholicism as the true Church...

Really heavy words there - the claim for the "true Church". Catholics claim it, LDS claim it... which is truly true? That's always been an intriguing question to me... something in which there is no answer until God Himself comes down and tell us so. :)

[Dravin]

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?

Tell me. If I say 1+1 = 2. And you also agree that 1+1 = 2 are you conceding that I have the authority to determine math? Or do we just happen to agree upon an independent truth? The works are inspired because they are inspired, not because they have the Catholic Church Stamp of Approval . The LDS determines its own canon as evidenced by the fact that it is not identical to the Catholic Church, what books were considered is of course heavily influenced by history but does not mean because the Catholic Church happened to put certain books together that the reason we believe (some of) those books are valid is because the Catholic Church says they are. Once again, I point out the differing canon.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Dravin

[volgadon]

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.

I was born in Israel and grew up there. This story is extremely familiar for most Israelis, we even learn it in kindergarten and school.

Anyway, your analysis bears a closer look. Many of the Jews had adopted hellenistic ways before Antiochus' decrees. At some point a pietist movement known as the hasidim instigated a revolt, which was as much national-political as it was religious. Antiochus reacted by retaking Jerusalem, savaging the town, and creating a polis there. His decrees were a reaction to the revolt, not the cause of it. At some stage, probably when the revolt began to lose momentum, Judah Maccabbee became the leader of the revolt.

1 Maccabbees is basically a Hasmonean court history. It somewhat minimises Judah's role. 2 M utilises different sources, and was written by a Cyrenian Jew.

[SteveVH]

Tell me. If I say 1+1 = 2. And you also agree that 1+1 = 2 are you conceding that I have the authority to determine math? Or do we just happen to agree upon an independent truth? The works are inspired because they are inspired, not because they have the Catholic Church Stamp of Approval . The LDS determines its own canon as evidenced by the fact that it is not identical to the Catholic Church, what books were considered is of course heavily influenced by history but does not mean because the Catholic Church happened to put certain books together that the reason we believe (some of) those books are valid is because the Catholic Church says they are. Once again, I point out the differing canon.

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.

[volgadon]

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.

At most, this requires accepting that a portion of our canon was agreed upon by a body of churches which fell in to apostasy, and that the forerunners of the RCC were among them.

[volgadon]

We accept as Old Testament Scripture exactly what Jesus accepted as Scripture.

And how do we know exactly what Jesus accepted as scripture?

Christianity is nothing more than the fulfillment and continuation of Judaism.

Rather a silly and tendentious argument to make unless you are willing to concede the same position to the LDS. If you don't it remaiins a case of special pleading and wholly fails to address my point.

Why would I not accept their Scriptures?

Do you accept the authority of Judaism, or do you merely accept their canon, all the while adding to it and interpreting earlier scriptures on the basis of later ones?

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 can accept certain results as being correct without having to accept the whole. This isn't an all or nothing situation. Life rarely is.

[SteveVH]

I'd like to butt in here for a little bit - if I may.

A very simple "in other words" to what volgadon was saying is that - as a Catholic, you accept the Old Testament as Scripture but do not accept the Judaism is the true Church.

Similarly, we accept the Holy Bible as scripture but do not accept Catholicism as the true Church...

Really heavy words there - the claim for the "true Church". Catholics claim it, LDS claim it... which is truly true? That's always been an intriguing question to me... something in which there is no answer until God Himself comes down and tell us so. :)

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.

[SteveVH]

At most, this requires accepting that a portion of our canon was agreed upon by a body of churches which fell in to apostasy, and that the forerunners of the RCC were among them.

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?

[mordorbund]

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.

I was referring to this story as told by Josephus (Antiquities 11.8.4-5), where Jerusalem was spared by a dream to Alexander, and obedience to a dream by the High Priest:

Now Alexander, when he had taken Gaza, made haste to go up to Jerusalem; and Jaddua the high priest, when he heard that, was in an agony, and under terror, as not knowing how he should meet the Macedonians, since the king was displeased at his foregoing disobedience. He therefore ordained that the people should make supplications, and should join with him in offering sacrifice to God, whom he besought to protect that nation, and to deliver them from the perils that were coming upon them; whereupon God warned him in a dream, which came upon him after he had offered sacrifice, that he should take courage, and adorn the city, and open the gates; that the rest should appear in white garments, but that he and the priests should meet the king in the habits proper to their order, without the dread of any ill consequences, which the providence of God would prevent. Upon which, when he rose from his sleep, he greatly rejoiced, and declared to all the warning he had received from God. According to which dream he acted entirely, and so waited for the coming of the king.

5. And when he understood that he was not far from the city, he went out in procession, with the priests and the multitude of the citizens. The procession was venerable, and the manner of it different from that of other nations. It reached to a place called Sapha, which name, translated into Greek, signifies a prospect, for you have thence a prospect both of Jerusalem and of the temple. And when the Phoenicians and the Chaldeans that followed him thought they should have liberty to plunder the city, and torment the high priest to death, which the king's displeasure fairly promised them, the very reverse of it happened; for Alexander, when he saw the multitude at a distance, in white garments, while the priests stood clothed with fine linen, and the high priest in purple and scarlet clothing, with his mitre on his head, having the golden plate whereon the name of God was engraved, he approached by himself, and adored that name, and first saluted the high priest. The Jews also did all together, with one voice, salute Alexander, and encompass him about; whereupon the kings of Syria and the rest were surprised at what Alexander had done, and supposed him disordered in his mind. However, Parmenio alone went up to him, and asked him how it came to pass that, when all others adored him, he should adore the high priest of the Jews? To whom he replied, "I did not adore him, but that God who hath honored him with his high priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit, when I was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; whence it is that, having seen no other in that habit, and now seeing this person in it, and remembering that vision, and the exhortation which I had in my dream, I believe that I bring this army under the Divine conduct, and shall therewith conquer Darius, and destroy the power of the Persians, and that all things will succeed according to what is in my own mind."

[Dravin]

And what "portion" of the canon are you referring to that was accepted.

Um... isn't the original subject of this thread the Apocrypha with a side of how it isn't part of the LDS standard works (aka canon)? Though technically he doesn't even have to reference any Apocrypha, we could have the same books in our Bibles and it would still only represent a portion of our canon. Or did the Roman Catholic Church determine the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price to be amongst its canon and nobody noticed?

Edited March 12, 2011 by Dravin

[SteveVH]

And how do we know exactly what Jesus accepted as scripture?

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.

Rather a silly and tendentious argument to make unless you are willing to concede the same position to the LDS. If you don't it remaiins a case of special pleading and wholly fails to address my point.

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?

Do you accept the authority of Judaism, or do you merely accept their canon, all the while adding to it and interpreting earlier scriptures on the basis of later ones?

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.

I can accept certain results as being correct without having to accept the whole. This isn't an all or nothing situation. Life rarely is.

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.

[Dravin]

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.

Let me translate that for you: "I don't." Nice, simple, to the point, and it more directly addresses Volgadon's question.

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.

We have determined the Bible is the word of God for ourselves. Once again, that the Catholic Church compiled the book is not what makes it true. This is like arguing that if my textbook is correct that it is correct because of who compiled it when it is correct because it is correct. And we don't reject the Catholic Church as having lost all truth, this has been pointed out to you before on the boards.

Your insistence that I accept the Bible as the Word of God on the word of a bunch of dead Catholics is at once laughable and on the other hand offensive as it denies my own testimony of scripture.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Dravin

[SteveVH]

I was born in Israel and grew up there. This story is extremely familiar for most Israelis, we even learn it in kindergarten and school.

Anyway, your analysis bears a closer look. Many of the Jews had adopted hellenistic ways before Antiochus' decrees. At some point a pietist movement known as the hasidim instigated a revolt, which was as much national-political as it was religious. Antiochus reacted by retaking Jerusalem, savaging the town, and creating a polis there. His decrees were a reaction to the revolt, not the cause of it. At some stage, probably when the revolt began to lose momentum, Judah Maccabbee became the leader of the revolt.

1 Maccabbees is basically a Hasmonean court history. It somewhat minimises Judah's role. 2 M utilises different sources, and was written by a Cyrenian Jew.

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.

[Dravin]

The LDS has not determined any canon, as far as Biblical Scripture is concerned.

Yes it has. The LDS Church has determined that the Bible is amongst it's canon. Which would be a determination on biblical scripture about its canon (which would fall under the umbrella of any canon).

Edited March 12, 2011 by Dravin

[SteveVH]

Let me translate that for you: "I don't." Nice, simple, to the point, and it more directly address Volgadon's question.

Thank you for your help, but I am perfectly happy to answer questions on my own. Translation: I meant exactly what I said.

We have determined the Bible is the word of God for ourselves.

Which just happens to line up perfectly with the Catholic Church's determination.

Once again, that the Catholic Church compiled the book is not what makes it true. This is like arguing that if my textbook is correct that it is correct because of who compiled it when it is correct because it is correct. And we don't reject the Catholic Church as having lost all truth, this has been pointed out to you before on the boards.

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.

Your insistence that I accept the Bible as the Word of God on the word of a bunch of dead Catholics is at once laughable and on the other hand offensive as it denies my own testimony of scripture.

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.

Edited March 12, 2011 by SteveVH

[SteveVH]

Yes it has. The LDS Church has determined that the Bible is amongst it's canon. Which would be a determination on biblical scripture about its canon (which would fall under the umbrella of any canon).

Ok Dravin. Have a good night.

[volgadon]

Tell me, what other churches were in existence prior to the Catholic Church? Please name them.

It suffices to name a few. Alexandria, Antioch, Caesaraea, Constantinople, Carthage, Rome. Then there are the Armenians, Georgians, Caspians, and Copts.

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.

Actually, I don't know when the apostasy was complete. The apostasy is more about the loss of authority then the absolute loss of truth.

And what "portion" of the canon are you referring to that was accepted.

What portion have you rejected?

See Dravin's reply.

[volgadon]

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.

Do we know what exactly the Jewish scriptures consisted of for Jesus? For example, do we know if he considered Canticles scripture or merely a drinking song? Was Enoch part of his canon? Was the Wisdom of ben Sirach? How many of the Psalms were? So on, and so on.

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?

To say that catholicism is, when really you are rejecting the authority of Judaism and saying they don't have a fullness. At the same time, you are arguing against the validity of a similar LDS position.

The LDS is in a different category altogether. Christianity is not based upon Judaism being a false religion.

Were that the case then you would be Jewish. That you are not shows that you don't consider it a true 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?

Much as you might say that Christianity rests upon the one-legged stool of Christ being the messiah.

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.

Right, and we consider that you are missing the whole story, and therefore lack 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.

Again, you accept the determination of a group whose authority you don't recognise.

We accept part of your canon, adding it to our own. We also don't consider you as having lost all truth.

[john doe]

Okay boys and girls, let's try to keep this civil. And Steve, you are not going to gain points with moderators or members of the LDS Church by coming here as a catholic trying to tell us what we believe. We probably have a better understanding of that than you think you do. It would behoove you to ask more questions and pontificate less when it comes to our beliefs.

[madeleine1]

hi-

Catholic understand that Jews are still God's chosen people under the covenant of Abraham. Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and law. He is not the fulfillment of something false, but something very profound and the ultimate truth of God's Saving work among us.

We call this "Salvation History", that is, God's work among us humans, which is Revealed fully in Jesus Christ, the Word of God.

Also, we don't view Protestant churches as "false". We view them as our separated brethren, who by virtue of their baptisms, are members of the Kingdom of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

To Catholic churches.... There is a schism between most of the east and west, but the west does not deny the east is anything other than Catholic. We accept fully and completely that they possess the same Apostolic succession/authority as we do in the west. This includes all churches, Assyrian, Chaldean, Orthodox, Coptic etc. We, together, are the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Last to all other non-Christians, we don't view their religions as "false", only lacking in the fullness of truth. We don't deny God's work among all people, and all religions contain some level of the truthfulness of God. Imprinted with the desire for His Love, He calls to us and our hearts respond. The Holy Spirit searches the hearts of all, and calls them according to the Father's purpose.

It is not ours to say we know the mind of God, but we don't fail to recognize His work among all Creation.

Peace.

Edited March 12, 2011 by madeleine1