Apostles quoting the "apocrypha"

Thats a post-facto justification

the original justification was that because the Jews didn't use the Deuterocanon therefore the Christians shouldn't,because surely the Jews have older manuscripts? And if those lack the Deuterocanon why should we use as canon what the Apostles didn't?

But as time went on it was found out that the Church did in fact have it correct in terms of canon, because the Septuagint was in fact earlier than any Hebrew manuscript and we also found much of the Deuterocanon alongside other canonical books as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls

which indicated that the Church was correct in asserting that the Israelites had also used the books as canon.

But in reference to your question, I'm unsure about them directly quoting from the Deuterocanon however the wording on most OT quotes in the Gospels and such indicate that the Apostles generally quote the Septuagint, not the Masoretic or proto-Masoretic. This indicates that the Apostles probably accepted the Deuterocanon as canon, considering that the Septuagint included the Deuterocanon.

Furthermore we know that they were only really removed from Jewish canon *after* Christ's resurrection and such.

lolwut? The apostles could have quoted it as literature/history with some truth in it. Paul quoted pagan philosophers like Epimenides. Doesn't make their works canon.

APOCRYPHA TIGGERS BTFO

Can you please calm down and explain the significance of this?
I would come in with a argument since I already know how this is going to go down, but since I know nothing, I'll listen to the argument again.

Whoever has not read or hear Wisdom and Sirach at least once in their life is absolutely blind

Attached: wisdomofromans.PNG (925x1294, 58.92K)

What the winnie the pooh did you just winnie the pooh say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the winnie the pooh out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my winnie the pooh words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, winnie the pooher. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're winnie the pooh dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your winnie the pooh tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're winnie the pooh dead, kiddo.

You know I posted that IN FAVOR of the Deuterocanon?

Attached: winnie the pooh you.png (171x259, 98.64K)

You know the law and the prophets are the Old Testament right? The apocrypha itself denies its own inspiration by denying the existence of prophets at that time.

Deuterocanon is seven books and two version of protocanon books. Deuterocanon Esther speaks nothing about it's inspiration (protocanon nethier). Deuterocanon Daniel just as protocanon Daniel do the same. Likwiese for Judith. Baruch (and Letter of Jermiah), Sirach Wisdom and Tobit all claims thier inspiration.
Closest thing is two passages in both Maccabees. First one goes like this “there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.”
The author is reporting a past event that began when prophetic activity ceased for a while. Such time periods are not unusual. Even in the Bible inspired prophecy / prophetic writings are not continuous states – rather they stand out precisely because they are unusual (e.g., Moses, Elijah, Jesus, the Apostles). That the author of 1 Maccabees is reporting on one such time period is no is no indication that prophets would never come on the scene again (cf. 1 Maccabees 14:41). Also notice that those are all in past tense.
And of course Psalm 74:9. Self Explanatory.
Second is " Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me" from 2 Mac. But it's just common humbling style like one in 2 Corinthians xi. 6. Not every Holy authory have to be 100% certian. See 1 Cor. 7:40.

yeah, Church Fathers/any theologian before the Reformation always quote Sirach/Wisdom

the 1st issue is that Protestants mess up the biblical separation of Mind/Body/Will, confusing the Mind of the writer with the Holy Spirit influencing (or becoming one) with their will, which is why you see them take issue with 2 Mac.

The 2nd issue with Protestant interpretation, is that they take everything literally, even when Hosiah literally tells us the Holy Spirit will speak through the prophets using similitude (metaphors).

so in disregarding "Apocrypha" they end up taking weirdo stances on theology that ends up messing other things in their understanding

It's literally an anglicization of the Greek word for "hidden." That the term has become infused with Protestant polemics should tell you all you need to know about the legitimacy of that contrived definition.

What bothers me most about their exegesis is that they're lead by the nose by the modern numbering conventions found within contemporary translations of the Bible. So they end up hurling little nuggets of scripture at people to support whatever argument they're trying to make while ignoring the larger context of the passage they're quoting from.

Kind of like how Caths always quote 2 Timothy 3:16 by itself and leave out verse 17?

Face it, we all can quote as many or as few verses or fragments of verses that we want. Please find a better objection.

This guy has it right. They admit to not being prophets there. So nothing is taken to be the word of God.

Not seeing the direct quoting that's easily found in NT.

…where do we always quote 3:16 and leave out 3:17? In what argument?

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Amen.

Two or three days ago, this very thing happened. In post 647282. That's why it was on my mind. Below is the text in question copied from that post:

This is unbiblical in itself.

I never understood where this doublethink came from when even in English II Timothy 3:16 clearly says 'profitable' and not 'sufficient'.

Rule 33.

This sounds like some anti-Christian (((liberal))) category like "proto-orthodox"
They don't but it wouldn't matter if they did. The quran claims its own inspiration.
So why does the author find it so unique as to record it?
Of course, a prophet did come, Jesus Christ.
It never says anything about a prophet coming after that time so this is moot
You're gonna have to point out where in 2 Corinthians 11:6 Paul acknowledges the possibility of error in the epistle
Absolutely they do, if it is from God it is sure and it is nothing but blasphemy to say otherwise
The only thing you could be referring to is "I think that I too have the Spirit of God", which, very consistent with Roman interpretation elsewhere, fixes solely on the specific words used with nothing but contempt for the question of authorial intent. If we stop trying to make the bible say what we want it to and instead ask ourselves what he is saying, it's obvious that it's sarcasm. One would never come to a literal interpretation of words like this if it were just someone speaking to them instead of a bible verse they can twist to their own purposes.

This is stupid argument. Judges, Ruth, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon is not quoted ethier.

>This sounds like some anti-Christian (((liberal))) category like "proto-orthodox"
Protocanon and deuterocanon are both catholic terms from middle ages. Before that we just called all 73 books "canon".
It is you who says "apocrypha itself denies its own inspiration". I corrected you.
Ask Psalmist he did the same Psalm 74:9
And John Baptist before him, and Simeon before him, and Anna before him, and whoever wrote Wisdom before him and Sirach before him etc. Judith, Esther, Tobit Daniel, Baruch with Letter and were all wirtten even before that.
It never says anything about a prophet not coming after that time so this is moot
.You're gonna have to point out where in 2 Corinthians 11:6 Paul acknowledges the possibility of error in the epistle
First you have to point out where author of Maccabees says that he might made error. All he does is to say that maybe his style was not as good as it could have been. Just like Paul who says that he is indeed "rude (untrained, idiótés) in speech". Not to mention letters of other apostles whose literary style is not so perfect to say the least.
Good thing that you are not the one who says what is blasphemy and what's not.
Paul "thinks" that he have spirit of God. Or rather he is humble enough to say it that way. To condemn Maccabees and prise Paul is hypocrisy.
When read in context (vv 25.-40.) possibility that Paul uses sarcasm here is absolutely zero. He is serious in his advice. It's very serious matter mariage and even more serious virginity.
If someone whom I know is wise man and man with Spirit of God during conversion would start by saying "No one told me this but hear my advice - you know that I am wise thanks to God" then proceed with advice and end by saying "I think that I siad it in accordance to God's will" then it's natural conclusion that he dounts a little his inspirtation.

It does
Missing the necessary recognition that a psalm is poetry but that 1 Maccabees is intended to be a literal history. The psalmist isn't saying there are literally no prophets, he's using poetic hyperbole to express the hopelessness of Israel at that time.
Not an argument
He's saying that he might have failed to communicate his intended, which is error
And it's sarcasm. What you're trying to twist him to say is the opposite of his intent, he's expressing the certainty of it not the doubt. Like if I were to say "I'm pretty sure I'm correct", this would be sarcasm to express my certainty of being right
Not an argument.

Really? And is this change due to the mythical Luther who we are told, made Catholics to call start calling it deuterocanon? I'm impressed how much influence he had there.
Doesn't the deuterocanon include itself with the New Testament? So if we all agree that Matthew 11:13 is scripture, that settles it.

You're proposing that these two passages are not certainly the inspired words of God?

Where are they in scripture?

As proven above that's false
I could say that same about author of 1 Maccabees, that he is using hyperbole. Or I could go with literal meaning of the text and say that both authors express similar peroid in time, when there was no prophet among them which would of course not mean that they themselves are not under inspriration.
You were the first who made this laughable jump in logic:

It is you who gave zero arguments for your claims
Not in context as shown in last paragraph here

"Mythical Luther" was one who started to use term "apocrypha" for them even though historicaly and etymologicaly it makes no sense
I am not sure what you mean by it. DC is part of OT. Though there are who call few books in NT, like Letter of James, Deuterocanonical as well because some like Luther denied their inspiration.
That Deuterocanon is Scripture? Yes, we could use this verses to support it against Talmudic lie of "400 years of silence"
No you dum-dum. I am proposing two things:

And he also made Catholics start to call it deuterocanon? Is that your claim?

I mean that nobody is claiming to believe it but not believe the New Testament. So you must also believe that. So then the words of the Gospel according to St. Matthew can put this to sleep. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

You wrote that "it's natural conclusion that he dounts a little his inspirtation."

So in other words, you are trying to say Paul wasn't sure. I am just trying to figure out exactly what you're saying here before moving any further.

Because if this is what you're saying (and I'm not sure if it is) you are incorrect.

You have to remember that Paul writing these was a very honest man. If he thought he had the Spirit, then he really did think so. If you want to say he was wrong in thinking that, you've pressed your case too far.

As for Psalm 74, did you read verse 8? Verse 8 and 9 is describing what some people said in their hearts, not a fact.

Didn't we just read that all the prophets and the law prophesied until John? Why are you placing other people from the New Testament before John?

They must have had his sermons on VHS, then.

Or the Holy Spirit actually revealed a mystery to him? Do you think it could possibly be?

No. Learn to read. Though I admit, it wasn't term made in middle ages but during counter-reformation. Sixtus of Siena was this man.
Hellenistic Jews did before they converted or died out.
There is jump in logic here that is beyond me.
Notice that Prophets prophesied until John, not stopped after last of the twelve minor ones.
True. From which you cannot logically conclude: "these two passages are not certainly the inspired words of God"
I am saying that while writing this Paul "thought" that he had Holy Spirit. Not "knew". Him actually having Holy Spirit in this moment is relevant as much as to conclude that Holy Authors were not always 100% sure of thier inspiration even though they were inspired.
Verse 8 is describing what attackers thought, not the nation, which is evident from words: They said in their heart, the whole kindred of them together: Let us abolish all the festival days of God from the land. Why would attackers mentioned from verse 3 onwards had need to cry that there is no prophet of God nor signs of Him in Israel? If you want to see boarder context of verse 9 it would be verse 10: How long, O God, shall the enemy reproach: is the adversary to provoke thy name for ever?
Because they were prophets who prophesied before John. You did read Luke 2, did you?

It's still true despite your protest
Sure, you could say it, it would have nothing to do with the text of 1 Maccabees, but you could say it.
Yes you could do that too, problem is that not only is it a strenuous interpretation of the psalm to make it relevant, but it also contradicts several books of the Old Testament which tell us there were prophets at that time (the Babylonian captivity, probably early in it, see verses 3-7 of the psalm).
Except I didn't, and even though I pointed out it is a strawman ("Of course, a prophet did come, Jesus Christ"), you decided to ignore that fact and persist in it.
Did you forget to make an argument?
What he actually said is "And if I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I desired: but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I could attain unto", or "If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do", or "If it is well written and to the point, I am pleased; if it is poorly written and uninteresting, I have still done my best". Poorly written meaning failing to communicate as intended.
Keeping in mind when Paul says the Lord he specifically means Jesus, what does the Lord's mercy have to do with trustworthiness? It is because he is being inspired by the Holy Spirit, who is alltrustworthy.
His opinion is inspired
Completely irrelevant
It is, and you haven't made an argument.

Then show me where Baruch, Tobit, Additions to Esther and Daniel, Wisdom and Sirach (I've dealt already with both Maccabees) deny their inspiration. Because I am sure that you are not stupid enough to think that deutecanon came as packed deal.
ut it would be infinitely closer to text than going from statement A "There was no prophets during that time" to conclusion Z "that means that book I am writing is not inspired"
I can take the very same critique and say that even though author of Maccabees even though stating that there was no prophets it is strenuous interpretation to claim that it's but hyperbole since several books of the Old Testament which tell us there were prophets at that timet, Sirach and whoever wrote Wisdom or rather second part of it.
Exept you did in the very first sentence of this post.
When person A says "person B said " quotation from person B "" is sufficient argument. But let me dumb down.
Author of 2 Maccabees is saying this:

Maccabees denies the existence of prophets at that time.
No prophet no scripture
Keep up those English lessons
I'm not surprised you intend to continue knocking down the same strawman
>When person A says "person B said " quotation from person B "" is sufficient argument
Are you having an autistic fit or something?
It is a failure that cannot be in the words of God.
Irrelevant
Still no arguments
And you haven't made an argument
Quoting the disputed text verbatim is not an argument
You go ahead and make an argument and then we'll talk

It's obviously an allusion to a literary record extant at the time. Paul was writing to readers. You don't reference a sermon that the listener has never heard, that you know they have never heard, at least not in passing like that. Obviously Paul's audience was familiar with whatever sermon attributed to Enoch that Paul is citing. The only way that Paul's audience would be familiar with Enoch's sermon is if it was recorded in text for them to read later, since Enoch left Earth a long time before Paul was writing. So the citation is either to some lost collections of sayings by Enoch that is never referenced elsewhere in surviving manuscripts, or the Book of Enoch. Paul was probably referring to the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch was not an obscure work at the time of Paul's writing, so it's reasonable to conclude that he was alluding to it.

Ignoring the fact that sacred author don't have to be prophet - All those books save second part of Wisdom was written before time mentioned in Maccabees.
Salomon, men who wrote 2-4 Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah or even Luke etc. disagree.
Says one who cannot understand simple sentences.
It cannot be strawman if you literally claim that author describing historical period of time in which there was no prophets by it claims that he is not inspired. Not to mention that you claim that deuterocanonicals are packaged deal.
Are you? Or maybe you don't understand basic logic? You claimed that author of second Maccabees denied his inspiration. I quotes said author in which he said that he is sorry if his literally style is not so perfect.
Then Pauline epistles are not Scripture for Peter says: "in all Paul's epistles are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."
You cannot just claimed that everything that you don't like is not argument. You have to prove it. We still DO NOT discuss IF Paul was inspired. We discuss that Paul THOUGHT the he MIGHT be uninspired IN THIS PARTICULAR TIME. And those passages STILL show that Paul doubted a bit his inspiration.
On the contrary, I showed context of his words and highlighted points of interest that beyond doubt show that tone of those words are not sarcastic, on the contrary, they are serious.
I did. Context of is Paul's advice. He says that this advice is not from the Lord but of think. i.e. he is not sure if he is inspired. But he does not rule out possibility of his inspiration. But even though he still over and over highlights that this is his own adivce not direct revelation form God.
If someone whom I know is wise man and man with Spirit of God during conversion would start by saying "No one told me this but hear my advice - you know that I am wise thanks to God" then proceed with advice and end by saying "I think that I siad it in accordance to God's will" then it's natural conclusion that he doubts a little his inspirtation.
I am eagerly wait to see how much of arguments will you ignore this time. For it will show how wrong you are.

It's Jude, not Paul.

Noting the capitulation, you are mistaken. Ephesians 2:19-21

Maybe if you don't believe that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, that would have to suffice as the explanation.

What if they weren't? What if it was part of the wisdom of God revealed by the Spirit at the time? How do you think Paul knew in 1 Cor. 15 that "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed," and the significance of Adam and Christ as talked about in that chapter? Was that obviously taught in some lost collection of sayings according to you?

Couldn't it also be that supposed book of Enoch is not scripture at all, but it just took the quotes here to make it seem like it was the source?

If we understand it as reference to the old and new testament as books, not doctrines, then we must understand it in broadest sense possible since we still have new and old testament authors who were nethier prophets nor apostles.
Solomon, author of Proverbs, Kohelet, Song of Songs was not a prophet (unless of course you accept that he wrote first part of WIsdom then he is but only then).
Ezra and Nehemiah of whom 1 and 2 Esdras come were not prophets.
People who wrote 2-4 Kings were not prophets.
Luke was not prophet. He wasn't apostle nethier.
I was talking about sentences from 1&2 Maccabees here. I am not Baptist Orgien, I did not write them
To quote myself: author describing historical period of time in which there was no prophets by it claims that he is not inspired.
All prophets are inspired. All inspired authors are inspired. Not all inspired authors are prophets. Inspired author who is describing time that there were no prophets do not deny his inspiration.
And I am kind enough to ignore this blatant lie that you present, since in 1 Maccabees 9:27 authors say that there were no prophets "among them" not "among us"
400 years of silence in anti scriptural, talmudic lie. Simeon the Prophet was old man and he lived during that period. Anna the Prophetess too. And "all prophets prophesied until John" not "until Malachi"
Not to mention that Judith was written by high priest before fall of Jerusalem, Tobit was wirrten during Assyrian captivity and Baruch (and Letter) during Babylonian one.
And then tell me my friend where does author 2 Maccabees says that he "failed to communicate its message". All he did is to say that his book may be "poorly written and uninteresting". Or to use synonym "idiotos in speach".
To quote myself again, maybe you didn't see it:
He says that this advice is not from the Lord but of him. i.e. he is not sure if he is inspired. But he does not rule out possibility of his inspiration. But even though he still over and over highlights that this is his own adivce not direct revelation form God.
You ignored context and just jumped in logic saying that if Paul say that he is by mercy of God worthy o Trust he means that he thinks that he is inspired (i.e. he speaks of Lord) even though the very sentence reads: I do not have a command from the Lord, but I give my opinion.

Definition of sarcasm
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
Both satire and irony have inherent humour in them.
But even more importantly, you still ignore the context of this advice. Why would Paul use satire or irony here. He is not discussing something, nor gives correction. He is just giving advice and he is saying that according to him those are his personal thoughts.
But ignoring context is argument for your lack of genuineness.
Parallel use of phrase "commandment of the Lord" in chapter 14 proves that it have nothing to do with earthly ministry of Christ but it's about inspiration by His Spirit.

Does the Bible contain any allusion to any other works at all?

Or are all apparent allusions instead direct revelations of God to the author of long lost words never heard by the audience?

Did the writer experience a vision of Enoch? Don't you think he would have described such a vision in more detail? Wouldn't the writer have tried to avoid confusing readers as to whether he was making an offhand reference to a popular work via mentioning its author's name (a vanishingly rare practice, I'll admit) or instead nonchalantly dropping a direct revelation by God of the words of a dead man in passing?

If you think any Scripture is "in passing" then I don't know how to answer you.

I take it very seriously, and I also take the prophecies about God preserving every word as literal. That means that there are no hidden gnostic oral traditions or lost scriptures. When scripture says God does preserve his word "from this generation for ever," I regard that as true.