THE MASKED ANGEL:
Forgive how late this is being posted: something came up I had to take care of the day before, but to make up for it, my next CARM refutation will come a day early, and how appropriate that it will be on the Assumption of Our Lady. As usual, the article in question is in black with my refutations in red:
Catholics and Protestants
disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the Old Testament Scriptures. The dispute between them is over seven books,
part of what is known as the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach
(Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and
additions to Daniel and Esther.
[Overall true, but here’s my question: how come this one got the
different parts right but the article in the previous post got it wrong? Did no
one proofread it? I admit that’s a stupid question, as the following will show.]
However, there are a number of reasons why the
Old Testament Apocrypha should not be part of the Canon, or standard writings
of Scripture.
[Several hundred years of Christianity disagree with CARM on this,
as you will soon see.]
Rejection by Jesus and the
Apostles
1. There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the
Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New
Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like
"thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the
Scriptures say."
[There are so many errors with that statement, I don’t
know where to begin, so instead, I will refer people to the following link:
http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html]
There are references in the New Testament to
the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts
17:22-34), but none of these are cited as
Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics.
[Yet that
doesn’t change the fact Jude and Acts are both part of the Canon; unless CARM
wants to admit the sources used in those parts are not the word of God, then
they have nothing.]
In contrast,
the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such
as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the
Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by
God.
[Again, I refer people to this link to show that’s
not the case at all: http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html]
2. Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as
Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From
the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of
Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was
killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be
charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”
[That’s not
what Jesus was talking about at all. In the first, He’s talking about the
hypocrisy of the Pharisees; in the second, He’s telling His followers to not be
like the Pharisees. I would love to know how CARM reached their conclusion
because there is not one---NOT ONE---biblical scholar who would agree with
their conclusion.]
Rejection by the Jewish Community
3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this
inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the
Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired
revelation of God.
[Notice how CARM never
reveals why Jews at that time rejected the books to begin with? The reason was
because they couldn’t find any proof the books were ever written in Hebrew.
Never mind the fact at the time they were written, most Jews didn’t speak or
know Hebrew anyway but once they did, they wanted to get rid of anything with
Gentile ties and sadly the books got caught in the middle.]
4. The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha, but
do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This
probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as
highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.
[Perhaps but
that doesn’t mean the books can’t be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Overall
though, I don’t see what CARM is trying to get at with this. If it’s saying
that only books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls should be considered canon, then
it has to accept Tobit and Sirach as inspired. But if it’s saying we shouldn’t
accept books if they are not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, then it would have
to throw out ¾ of the Bible.]
5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.
Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly
rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. In fact, the
Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel
before the Apocrypha was written.
[So what? They also
rejected Jesus as the foretold Messiah. And does CARM really agree with
Josephus that only 22 books in the OT are inspired?]
Rejection by many in the Catholic
Church
6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha.
The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal
council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and
a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the
Protestant Reformation.
[Nope. Wrong. They were
accepted as canon in 327. ]
7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and
many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the
great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the
Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried
translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four
centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with
Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
[Historically inaccurate
and misleading. I refer people to this link: http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html]
8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of
Trent and after, but were placed in a separate section because they were not of
equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes,
but it is not inspired.
[Where books are placed has
NOTHING to do with whether they are inspired. I thought CARM knew better than
that.]
False Teachings
9. The Apocrypha contains a
number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha).
(To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.)
[Here’s a
link to my other post showing how this notion is wrong: http://atheistsareidiots.blogspot.com/2013/08/reproblems-in-apocrypha.html ]
Not Prophetic
10.The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics
of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural
confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive
prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as
authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even
acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1
Macc. 9:27; 14:41).
[CARM is just shooting itself in the foot right and left with this
one. Not prophetic? The historical books of the OT don’t contain any
prophecies. What are they even talking about when they say “supernatural
confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works”? By that logic, nothing
Jesus said should be believed because He never wrote any of His teachings down.
No predictive prophecy? Again, I refer people to this link:
No messianic
truth revealed? See link above.
Not cited as
authoritative by any books after them? Again, see link above.
No prophets?
The first verse doesn’t even say that and verse two takes place AFTER the war
was already over. Neither of them prove much of anything.]
There you go...CARM fails again.
There you go...CARM fails again.
No comments:
Post a Comment