There are so many different beliefs today among Christians. It brings up the thought of just how important are the scriptures and are they ALL inspired. If they are does it seem to matter if we don't all speak the same things? And if we are not all of the same judgement?

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2000

Answers

No Brother Kelley.....

As a neo-orthodox theologian....which I've had her pegged since day one....Nelta's question was truly appropriate from someone who approaches the Bible the way she does...(i.e., "Is it really inspired?").

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2000

The Scriptures are all inspired by God. If they are not, then which ones are and which ones are not. We either accept them or we don't. It is not a cafeteria thing that we can go through the line and pick and choose what we like and leave what we don't like. II Timothy 3:16-17 indicates that they are God breathed. Paul told Timothy that there would be those who would come along wanting their ears to be tickled and find teachers that would do it for them. The only reason that we don't speak the same thing is because some are trying to interpret the Scriptures according to I and II Opinion, not within the context of what the writer put down on paper through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2000

IMO the reason people are confused re: Scripture is because they don't do as the Bereans did. They simply read something such as "The Late Great Planet Earth, by Hal Lindsey, and go from there. "The earth will die but not to worry, we Christians will be Raptured from the earth and then we get to watch the destruction from our grandstand seats in heaven."

(Acts 17:11 KJV) "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

The following verses give us an idea as to how to study the Bible.

(Isa 28:10 KJV) "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:"

(Isa 28:11 KJV) "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people."

(Isa 28:12 KJV) "To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear."

(Isa 28:13 KJV) "But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

I belonged to a little church in Half Moon Bay, CA, and wanted to discuss such things as The Kingdom of God, Revelations etc. No one was interested and it was very frustrating. I would try to stir things up by pointing out something like the following. RE: "the little Book." (Rev 10:8 KJV) "And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth."

What in the world could this be? In history the Bible was unavailable to the average person. It was usually a large book kept in the Cathedral and written in Latin. Gutenberg came along, designed a printing press and used this invention to the Glory of God and printed the Guntenberg Bible. Latter King James subsidized the distribution of the Bible to the general populace. Hence we now have the "Little Book". It is even smaller today as it can be placed on a CD along with concordances,dictionaries etc.

"Here a little, there a little."

If you read Isa above you will also find that God said, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people."

History and the present shows us that God is using English to "speak to this people." And today English is pretty much a universal language.

"Here a little there a little." Till the picture becomes clear and you begin to see the Kingdom of God in operation of formation.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2000

Paul told Timothy that "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." (II Tim. 3:16). When Paul wrote this He was talking about the OT, due to the fact that the canon of the NT was not fully written yet. But, we also know that this does apply to the NT. Those who deny the inspiration of the OT and the NT then deny the very fabric of Christianity. If we cannot rely on the scriptures, then how can we truly know for sure what is truth? Truth then becomes not an absolute but relative. God, has not left us with some ambiguous book to ponder to see if it is true or not. In fact, He gave us the Bible as a guide and a truth book filled with absolutes. How do I know this? I know it due to facts. For example, there are over 300 propheices concerning Christ Jesus- He fulfilled each one (a fact that no one can deny). Next the archeological evidence that is presented daily as new artifacts are uncovered reveal that what the Bible says is true (which Josheph Smith's Moron- Mormon bible cannot claim). See, inspiration does lend it self to go a long way. But when you talk about how to interpret the Bible such as systmatic theology or hermeneutics, then that is another thread all together.

Nelta, your question should be that not of inspiration but of interpretation. How can we all look at the same scripture and read it different ways? There are times when we must say that it is living as Hebrews 4:12 says and what one pearl of wisdom and truth I see one day will reveal itself to be more another day. But, overall how we look at the scriptures is that we must let them speak for themselves. Thomas Campbell thought this way and it is a very good rule of thumb. When we open the Bible, let us instead of inserting our own bias' rather let the Bible influence our bias or influence the way we think on a matter. THe scriptures will always back themselves up, especially on important matters such as baptism or faith.

-- Anonymous, January 04, 2000

God did not give us the Bible directly, but through the apostles who wrote down what Jesus had taught them. The Bible was not put together definitively until about 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage. Until that time there was disagreement as to which books circulating at that time should be put in the Bible. The bible alone cannot be the source of God's Word, since it is open to so many interpretations and it comes from the Church in the first place. Read 1 Timothy 3:15 to see what is the real pillar and foundation of truth. (Hint, it's not the bible).

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

Mr. Beerman (interesting name),

You wrote:

God did not give us the Bible directly, but through the apostles who wrote down what Jesus had taught them. The Bible was not put together definitively until about 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage. Until that time there was disagreement as to which books circulating at that time should be put in the Bible. The bible alone cannot be the source of God's Word, since it is open to so many interpretations and it comes from the Church in the first place. Read 1 Timothy 3:15 to see what is the real pillar and foundation of truth. (Hint, it's not the bible).

Actually, you are incredibly misinformed. You show a great deal of ignorance at church history by touting statements such as this and the others you have posted on other threads.

What about Origen's list or CLement's or what about Nicea? You say the Bible comes from the church...what about the Old Testament? Where was the church when it was put together? The Bible comes from God my little Catholic friend. The Bible is indeed the ONLY authority on all spiritual matters, yea even the church. The church bends her knee to the authority of the Word, oh Roman friend of mine.

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

I looked up I Timothy 3:15, and I discovered that it IS in the Bible. I also saw that the Church is the pillar and support of the truth. It is not the Truth itself, but that which supports the Truth. The Truth Mr. Beerman, is that the Church bends to Scripture, not Scripture to the Church. Until I read Michael's response that you are RC, I was going to mention that you follow after their faulty hermeneutic. But as a RC you already know that.

The letters to Timothy and Titus were written to evangelists so that they would know how to set the Church in order. In the same letters, II Timothy 3:16, 17 Paul states, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." The Scriptures did NOT just come through a bunch of men. They were inspired by God. One of these inspired writers wrote that the Scriptures were was to be used to make complete the man of God. I realize that it was Paul that wrote that and not the first Pope, but he was an apostle, nonetheless.

You, as Michael pointed out, show a complete lack of understanding how the Scriptures came to us. All that these pompous councils did was to affirm what was already accepted. Learn of what you speak before making absurd comments like above. Bruce's book on "The Canon of Scripture" is a good place to start. Unless the facts don't matter.

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

BTW, Nelta's question just goes to give further evidence of her neo- orthodox views - hath God said?

II Peter 1:20 & 21, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." If you understand "prophecy" to be "God's revealed knowledge" rather than just future telling - then we all stand judged according to the Word and our interpretations do not matter. There is only one truth in the Word. It is our responsibility to know the Truth contained therein, not to open it up for a head count to determine what that truth is.

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

I see a little Roman Catholic coming out party. That is just what they taught me before I did something they didn't want me to do, Read the Bible!! Our friend must have the newest version of the "Scriptures" it is called the Bendable Bible. It is great everyone can interpret it the way they want. But that is not what our God said! If God created the everything (and He did). He can give us His revelation in its completeness. I think Jude 3 states this with clarity.

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

Michael,

I'm glad to be considered your friend. Thank you. You asked about Origen and Clement. There were many others who listed the books that they considered canonical as well. Some of these lists differed. Some included the Shepherd of Hermas while others excluded books that we consider canonical now. What about Origen? Here's a juicy quote from Origen:

"The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition." (Fundamental Doctrines 1, preface, 2)

Clement?

"The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was sent by God. Receiving their instructions and being full of confidence on account of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed in faith by the word of God, they went forth in the compete assurance of the Holy Spirit, preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is coming. Through countryside and city they preached; and they appointed their earliest converts testing them by the spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty; for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier." (Letter to Corinthians, 42,1)

I have two questions:

How do we know which books really belong in the Bible? I agree with you that the Bible is inspired by God.

How were the first Christians saved who lived for the first 100+ years before the bible was put together or the first 20+ years before it was even written down?

I agree that the Church bends her knee to the authority of the Word, but you are assuming that the Word is only the written Word. It seems that history tells us that the Church existed before the New Testament did.

The church is the new Israel of God, and assumed the books that were being used by the Jews at the time to be canonical.

Mr. Sheridan,

I agree that the Church is not Truth itself. Jesus said that He is the Truth. The Church only passes on the truth that Jesus taught.

Question: If the Bible is the only source of truth, where does it say in the Bible that the Bible alone is the source of truth? 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." There seems to be two places where you can find the Word of God, oral or written.

The facts do matter to me.

One final question for everyone: If we can come to the knowledge of truth just by reading the bible alone, why is there over 20,000 Christian denominations, each one with a slightly different interpretation of Scripture, but all claiming to be Bible-based? Surely one cannot claim that he is the only one who is inspired to correctly understand Scripture and everyone else is wrong?

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2000

The argument is made, "Men wrote the Bible. Men are full of error. Therefore the Bible is full of error." This argument is logally flawed. One could just as well say, "You made this argument, you are full of error, therefore your argument is full of error, so why should I accept your argument." Just because men err, it does not logically follow that men err all the time, nor does it follow that a supernatural outside force, namely God, could not prevent such error in the creation of such an important work as the giving of God's very words to men.

One of the oldest of Satan's traps is to cast doubt on the reliability of God's Word. In the garden of Eden, the serpent asked Eve, "hath God said?" In today's language: "Are you sure sure God reallllllly said that?" [with a whining snigger of mockery in the voice] Psalms 12:6-7 says, "The words of the LORD are pure words ... Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." The question arises, do we believe in a God who is powerful enough to not only inspire scriptures but also powerful enough to preserve them? Or do we believe in a weak namby-pamby God who is totally incapable of doing as he promised and who allows error to creep into His word? If the answer is the second, then I say, with F.F. Bruce, "Your God is too small!"

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2000

Muslims call Christians and Jews "the People of the Book," and, I believe, with good reason. Judaism was founded not on traditions and rituals, but on the very words of God, given through Moses and written down in the Torah, and later on in the writings of the Prophets. As Milton Steinberg said in his book, Basic Judaism, "Judaism is a book religion, deriving from, centering about, and making explicit the contents of a sacred document."

Men, however, in their vanity, love tradition and ritual, and have always tried to supplant these in place of the Word of God. But God has always soundly condemned this practice as being a form of idolatry. As the prophet Isaiah said, "They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men." "To the Law and the Testimony! [i.e. the written Scriptures, the Bible.] If they speak not by these words, there is no light in them."

Jesus also held great reverence for the Book. He called it "Truth." When questioned on various subjects, and even tempted by the Devil himself, He did not say, "What does Rabbi So-and-so say," but rather, "What do the Scriptures say?" He also soundly condemned the empty traditions of the Pharisees, quoting Isaiah.

His disciples saw it no differently: they appealed not to men, not to tradition, but to Scripture. Paul constantly appealed to the Scripture, and he called the Bereans a more noble people because they carefully judged everything he said according to the Book. Peter said his written words, and Paul's, were to be considered Scripture. And there is ample evidence that Matthew intended his Gospel to be Torah for the people under the New Covenant. These too were the very written words of God!

Would God abandon His "Sola Scriptura" approach and build His church more so on traditions built by its leaders? The answer is that He would not, and did not. God has not changed, and neither has man, loving ritual and tradition more than God's Word. Let us strip away all of the traditions and creeds and build our faith solely on the Book, and we will find we are living the same dynamic faith as those people of the first century, and that we are all one in Christ.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2000

John,

I hope you're not implying that I am making an argument that the Bible is not inspired and free from error, because that is not what I am doing. I agree wholeheartedly that there is no error in the Bible and it is a sure norm for our faith. I am contending however, that the bible is not the only source we can look to discover the Word of God as given to us by Jesus.

Here's some passages that talk about the importance of tradition:

1 Cor. 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. 2 Thess. 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. 2 Thess. 3:6, shun those acting in a way that is not according to the tradition received from us.

And a quote from Athanasius 360 A.D. "let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called Christian." (Four Letters to Serapion of Thmius 1,28)

The truth is, no matter how far you go back in reading the Church Fathers or even the Bible, what they say sounds exactly like what the Catholic Church continues to say today.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2000

When tradition and the Bible are at odds, when that "tradition" is given ex cathedra from the Pope, and is therefore "infallible," which do you choose to follow? The Bible or tradition? The Bible or the Pope?

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2000

oops ... forgot to end my italics after "ex cathedra."

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2000

I know that word can be flustering:-)

I don't know of any cases where the bible contradicts what the pope declares ex cathedra since he has only made two such statements, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul at the end of her life. At most you can argue that the Bible is inconclusive with regard to these, not contradictory. However, the Catholic Church does say that all ecumenical Church Councils that assert doctrine to be divinely revealed are infallible. But I still don't know of any statements that are in contradiction to Scripture.

Of course, the real argument is what does Scripture actually say? For example, Catholics see the passage of Mt. 16:18 as establishing the primacy of Peter, yet other Christians do not.

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2000

A thought I had today:

Nowhere in Scripture do I see where men should pray to anyone other than to God through Jesus Christ. Nowhere do I see that deceased "saints" hear prayers and mediate for us with Jesus, nor do I even see any hint that such a thing is even possible. I see the Scriptures plainly teach that there is one Mediator between God and man: Jesus Christ. I see no evidence that there are, need to be, or even can be, mediators between men and the Mediator (that doesn't even make sense!).

Would you rather pray to God through Jesus Christ, boldly coming before the Throne of Grace as Scripture plainly exhorts us to do, and have assurance that your prayers are heard? Or pray to a "saint," where there is no Biblical justification to do so, and run the risk that your prayer will not be heard or honored? Do we follow what God has said, or the traditions of men? "To the Law and the Testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them."

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

Sorry, I probably started a new thread :)

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

John Wilson,

It is absolutely correct that Jesus is the only mediator between us and God the Father. Catholics would assert that as well. However, is it possible to have a mediator between us and Jesus, to ask others to pray for us? That's all Catholics do when they "pray to" the saints, they are asking them to intercede for them to Jesus who is God. The word pray originally meant "to ask."

Moreover, there are also Scripture passages that refer to intercessory prayer being asked of the saints: Rom 15:30, join me by your prayers to God on my behalf, Eph. 4:3 pray for us, 2 Th 1:11, we always pray for you, Eph 6:18, make supplication for all the saints and for me, Rev. 5:8 the angel offers the prayer of the saints to God Rev 6:9 the souls of those who had been killed for their faith are asking the Lamb to avenge their blood.

The term saint comes from the Latin sanctus, meaning "holy one." Anyone who is joined to Christ on earth and is a member of his body, the Church (Eph 1:22-23) can be called a holy one or a saint. This union to Christ does not end when someone dies, rather that person continues to be a member of the Body of Christ and is still able to intercede for us, even more so because of a more direct relationship to God.

Scripture passages that refer to the souls of those who have died as still existing and capable of prayer: Mk 12:26-27 He is a God of the living, not of the dead, Mk 9:4 Jesus seen conversing with Elijah and Moses, Heb 12:1 We are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, Lk 16:19- 30 departed rich man intercedes for his brothers

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Beerman, you wrote:

However, is it possible to have a mediator between us and Jesus, to ask others to pray for us?

That indeed is the question. A question you do not answer, because it simply isn't addressed in Scripture.

Moreover, there are also Scripture passages that refer to intercessory prayer being asked of the saints: Rom 15:30, join me by your prayers to God on my behalf, Eph. 4:3 pray for us, 2 Th 1:11, we always pray for you, Eph 6:18, make supplication for all the saints and for me, Rev. 5:8 the angel offers the prayer of the saints to God Rev 6:9 the souls of those who had been killed for their faith are asking the Lamb to avenge their blood.

All but the last of these references refer to living people; the context makes that obvious. The last one does not say that the souls have any contact whatsoever with the living or are passing the prayers of the living along.

This union to Christ does not end when someone dies, rather that person continues to be a member of the Body of Christ and is still able to intercede for us, even more so because of a more direct relationship to God.

Again, prove this by Scripture. Just making blanket statements doesn't prove anything.

Scripture passages that refer to the souls of those who have died as still existing and capable of prayer: Mk 12:26-27 He is a God of the living, not of the dead

It does not say they are capable of intercession ...

Mk 9:4 Jesus seen conversing with Elijah and Moses

They are supernaturally manifested on earth, so this is a special case, and the context does not say they are passing along intercession of any kind ...

Heb 12:1 We are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses

Again, it does not say they are capable of intercession ...

Lk 16:19- 30 departed rich man intercedes for his brothers

Not on their own behalf, nor does it indicate he has had any contact with them whatsoever. Further, it indicates they are unbelievers and probably wouldn't be praying to him anyway.

I have yet to see any Scriptural evidence for praying to dead saints, rather than directly to God through Jesus Christ, which is what the Bible makes plain we are to do.

In His Service,

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

John,

I'm not quite sure where your difficulty is. I have already shown the scripture for the following questions.

Is it OK to ask others (still living) to pray for us? Yes

Can others who are living actually pray for us? Yes

Do people who die continue to live on? Yes

Can they still pray to God? Yes

Can they pray for others? Yes

The last remaining difficulty seems to be that they can't hear us when we ask them to pray for us. There is evidence in the bible of angels hearing human beings speaking to them. Why not souls of those who have died? Tobit 12:12 actually describes the angel Raphael hearing the prayer of Sarah and presenting the prayer to God, then being sent by God to Sarah and Tobit with the answer to their prayers.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2000

Tobit? Tobit?

Mmm, Beerman, now you have opened up another can of worms, one you will find more difficult to defend. Prove Tobit is inspired!

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2000

A study of history will reveal that all Christians accepted the deuterocanonical books (what Protestants call apocrypha) up until the time of Martin Luther. He disagreed with certain of the passages in them and chose to go with the books of the Old Testament written only in Hebrew.

The Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) was translated in the second century B.C. from Hebrew to Greek, then there were a few books written that we only have manuscripts in Greek (the seven deuterocanonical) and used by the Jews in Alexandria and other Greek-speaking areas. This is the Old Testament that was also used by the Apostles and the Early Christians. You can see this because when they quote from the Old Testament in Greek, it is word for word from the Septuagint, which would probably not be the case if they were using a Hebrew OT.

As the Christian Church grew apart from the Jewish religion made up of those who refused to believe in Christ, eventually there was a definitive break and Christians were no longer allowed in synagogues. Around the year 90 A. D. in the Council of Jamnia, the Jewish leaders met and declared their canon of the Old Testament to be only the Hebrew Books currently in use in Palestine. Thus the Old Testament that excludes the deuterocanonical books was selected by Jews who did not even believe in Christ!

Following are quotes from Patristic sources listing the canonical books of the Old Testament.

Melito of Sardis includes the book of Wisdom (Fragment in Eusebius, bk 4, ch. 26) c. 177 A.D.

Origen (c. 244 A.D.) writes in Commentaries on the Psalms (Psalm 1, apud Eusebium, Hist. Eccl. 6,25) that Maccabees should be included

Council of Laodicea mentions Esther as canonical (c. 343 A.D.)

Hilary of Poitiers includes in his canonical list Esther, Judith and Tobias in his Commentaries on the Psalms (prologue, 15) c. 365 A.D.

St. Damasus describes the books to be included in the Old Testament, "It is likewise decreed: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts"...including Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Tobias, Esther, Judith and 1 and 2 Maccabees. 382 A.D.

the Apostolic Canons of 400 A.D. include Esther, Maccabees, Sirach.

Innocent I writes to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405 A.D. and includes all of the deuterocanonical books as belonging to the Old Testament.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2000

Beerman,

I would dispute that the apostles accepted the deutocanical books. If so, how come none are quoted in the New Testament writings?

In the NT, 38 books among the Old Testament and the apocropha are quoted, well, actually, 38 books among the Old Testament are quoted. No quotations are taken from the apocropha in any of the 27 books commonly considered to be canonical NT. Of the 39 books of the OT, only Esther is not quoted. If Jesus and the apostles accepted them, why don't they quote them (or at least elude to the stories they contain)?

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Just because early church fathers quoted from time to time from the apocrypha, does not necessarily mean they accepted them as scripture. I quote extensively from C.S. Lewis ... but I don't think "Mere Christianity" ought to be added to the Canon.

("Tobit or not Tobit, that is the question")

I just ran real quickly through some of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers to see how much they quoted from scripture, and how much they quoted from the Apocrypha. Here is what I found:

"The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians" contains about 96 Biblical quotes, and one from Wisdom of Sirach and one quote from Judith. "The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus" has about 14 quotes or paraphrases from the Bible, none from the apocrypha. "The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians" contains 58 Biblical quotes or references, and one from Tobit. "The Epistle Concerning the Martyrdom of Polycarp" contains about 6, none from the apocrypha. "The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians" contains about 92, none from the apocrypha. "The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians" contains about 53, including 2 references to an apocryphal section of Daniel. "The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians" contains about 28, none from the apocrypha. "The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans" contains about 12, none from the apocrypha. "The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians" contains about 45, none from the apocrypha. "The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans" contains about 36, none from the apocrypha. "The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp" contains about 10, none from the apocrypha.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Or to summarize:

Canonical books:	450
Apocrypha:	an "iffy" 5

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

---

Also, why isn't the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch included in the canon since it is alluded to in the letter of Jude? Jude 6, 9 and 14-15. We can't make the quotations found in the New Testament as the sole criteria for what was accepted as canonical.

However, there are allusions to the books of the Maccabees in Hebrews.

Hebrews 11:35 reference to the mother of the seven sons who were willing to die for their faith in view of the future resurrection 2 Mc 6:18-7:42. See especially 2 Mc. 7:23 "He in his mercy will give you back both breath and life, because you now disregard yourselves for the sake of the law."

Hebrews 11:38 "they wandered about in deserts and on mountains, in caves and crevices of the earth.

reference to 1 Mc. 2:28-30 "Thereupon Mattathias fled to the mountains with his sons, leaving behind in the city all their possessions. Many who sought to live according to righteousness and religious custom went out into the desert to settle there, they and their sons, their wives and their cattle, because misfortunes pressed so hard on them."

see Luke 1:42 "most blessed are you among all women on earth" reference to Judith 13:18 "Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the creator of heaven and earth, who guided your blow at the head of the chief of our enemies"

Here is a clear prophecy that refers to the virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus who strikes a clear blow to the head of the chief spiritual enemy, Satan. That is a fulfillment of Genesis 3:15 where the offspring of "the woman" strikes at the head of the serpent.

Acts 10:4 describes an angel who appears to Peter to say that his prayers have ascended as a memorial offering to God. In the book of Revelation 8:3 the angel is the one who offers the prayers of the holy ones, along with the incense, to God. Also found in Tobit 12:12.

Tobit was actually written in Aramaic as they actually confirmed in 1955 when portions of Tobit in both Aramaic and Hebrew were recovered from Cave IV at Qumran as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These portions were in substantial agreement to the Greek version we have today.

The book of Sirach was discovered in Hebrew near Masada and dated to before the birth of Christ. James 1:19, "everyone should be quick to hear, but slow to speak." Sirach 5:13 "Be swift to hear but slow to answer"

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

---

John Wilson,

My quotes from the Church Fathers are not just where they are mentioning something from these books in question, but where they actually make a list of what books they consider to be inspired and therefore included in the Bible. These lists include the books you call apocryphal. I'm sorry about the confusion.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

---

HTML fix

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000