The Apocrypha


Recommended Posts

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

Yes, all Catholic, all tracing their authority back to the Apostles.

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I think I have explained my position above.

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

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.

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

Yes, I realize that.

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.

Other than again mis-stating our position concerning the Jews I have no problem with the rest of your statement.

Edited by SteveVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You're quite welcome.

Well I have seen many textbooks and yes, it matters greatly who compiled it

But such does not make them true. If the Flat Earth Society publishes a textbook and states the correct pressure of air at sea level such is true irrespective of who published it. Or if Preston Hall wants to publish a book any included errors do not become true because it was Preston Hall that compiled it.

Human beings do that and they determine what is correct and what is not.

Yes they do. Just like how the Catholic Church may have published a textbook (though we've got a version missing several chapter and have some different books in the set) and the LDS Church has determined for itself that it is correct. What you can't seem to comprehend is that the LDS belief is not:

The Catholic Church compiled this work, they had priesthood authority from God to determine the canon of scripture for us, therefore we accept this book because they compiled it.

No, they read it, received a witness of it and determined it was truth for themselves. Both as individuals and as a Church.

Please show me where I have tried to tell anyone here what they believe?

Misrepresenting why the LDS Church believes the Bible is the Word of God despite correction is the obvious one for me.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Laying aside the fact that Jesus wasn't a Greek-speaking Jew (though he might have known a small amount of conversational Greek) and thus is unlikely to have used the Septuagint, there were at least three other forms of the Old Testament available, or are the Samaritan Pentateuch, the biblical books found at Qumran, and the proto-Masoretic text all chopped liver?

So, again, how do we know exactly what the Bible consisted of for Jesus? What, for instance, would he have considered Canticles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laying aside the fact that Jesus wasn't a Greek-speaking Jew (though he might have known a small amount of conversational Greek) and thus is unlikely to have used the Septuagint, there were at least three other forms of the Old Testament available, or are the Samaritan Pentateuch, the biblical books found at Qumran, and the proto-Masoretic text all chopped liver?

So, again, how do we know exactly what the Bible consisted of for Jesus? What, for instance, would he have considered Canticles?

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laying aside the fact that Jesus wasn't a Greek-speaking Jew (though he might have known a small amount of conversational Greek) and thus is unlikely to have used the Septuagint, there were at least three other forms of the Old Testament available, or are the Samaritan Pentateuch, the biblical books found at Qumran, and the proto-Masoretic text all chopped liver?

So, again, how do we know exactly what the Bible consisted of for Jesus? What, for instance, would he have considered Canticles?

You saying the Son of God can't speak in any language?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You saying the Son of God can't speak in any language?

You've got your tense mixed up there. If he's claiming anything he's claiming he didn't, at the time of his mortal ministry, speak every language. It boils down to if you believe during his mortal ministry he was omniscient or if such was 'withheld' from him as part of the experience of being mortal. There could also be an issue of availability but I'm ignorant on the likelihood of someone in Judea having access (either by possession or hearing) to scriptures in one particular language over another. Not entirely sure which argument Volgadon is making, or even if it's a combination of both.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You saying the Son of God can't speak in any language?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Wow, tell me you didn't make that argument. The Septuagint is a translation of Hebrew, but is a different text in many instances than the Masoretic one. It also differs in composition from all of the other three, so how do we know that Christ used the LXX over the others?

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.

Tell me, how many copies of Judith, or Bel and the Dragon were found at Qumran?

What "canticles" are you speaking of in particular?

The Song of Solomon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You want a list? That would take too long and likely would include most of your posts on this thread. Again, you will get a more fulfilling discussion if you would stop telling LDS what you think we believe, and instead ask us what we believe. You might think you have been doing that, but a quick re-read of the thread indicates differently to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Nag Hammadi Library, Qur’an, Talmud, and other books that I don’t know about, have in common? They all either fill in information that the Bible doesn’t have, tell us what happened after, or have a different point of view (hint: Qur’an). With this sea of books to shift through, it’s difficult to know what is good, and adds to Biblical knowledge, and what just confuses things.

Edited by rayhale
Added a book
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Nag Hammadi Library, Qur’an, Talmud, and other books that I don’t know about, have in common? They all either fill in information that the Bible doesn’t have, tell us what happened after, or have a different point of view (hint: Qur’an). With this sea of books to shift through, it’s difficult to know what is good, and adds to Biblical knowledge, and what just confuses things.

The Dead Sea Scrolls also help give the Book of Mormon some evidence as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want a list? That would take too long and likely would include most of your posts on this thread. Again, you will get a more fulfilling discussion if you would stop telling LDS what you think we believe, and instead ask us what we believe. You might think you have been doing that, but a quick re-read of the thread indicates differently to me.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have come here to learn by challenging you and observing your answers.

You might have aquainted yourself with the rules of this site, before just assuming that we're here to provide you a podium from which to challenge our beliefs. Poor assuming, and crummy netiquette on your part.

It could have saved you the effort. The folks who fund this site are interested in spreading our story. If you want to challenge the story, you should seek out another forum (like ornery.com, or mormonapologetics.org, or mormondiscussions.com). I mean, it isn't like this is the only place you can find us. You wanna argue, go find the mormons who wanna argue with you.

Enjoy your comfortable little world. I won't disturb it again.

Yeah. A snarky zinger. Hallmark of the better scholarly mind, apparently. Well, here's a witty rejoinder of equal relevance for ya: "Neener, neener, boogers on you!" Edited by Loudmouth_Mormon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I think the fact that most of us use the KJV is what throws people off. If you read in D&C 91 you'll see we do believe the Apocrypha holds truth. We just do not believe all of it to be inspired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so?

I'll give links to help because of how much there is but I will give an example. The Book of Mormon tells of an old-world prophet named Zenock that prophesied of the coming of the Messiah and was stoned to death for this. According to the Dead Sea Scrolls there was an ancient prophet in the old world known as the Teacher of Righteousness who was driven out of Jewish society and killed for prophesying of the coming of the Messiah. The Teacher of Righteousness is said to have descended from a person named Zadok. The Book of Mormon also tells of a prophet named Zenos who prophesied of the death and resurrection of the Messiah. The Dead Sea Scrolls inform there were many Israelite prophets slain.

Two Gems in Alma 7: When Weaknesses in the Book of Mormon Become Strengths - NothingWavering.org - LDS & Mormon Blog Portal

Is the Book of Mormon really an ancient book?

Parallels With the Dead Sea Scrolls & the Book of Mormon - Authentic Ancient Historic Scriptures

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Questions and Responses for Latter-day Saints - Part VIII: Specific Insights into the Dead Sea Scrolls

Book of Mormon Baptism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share