Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Paul wrote that 'All Scripture is God-breathed'. Does he mean the old testament to Timothy since most of the new testament was not written yet. There were a few books removed by the protestants. Martin Luther kept 7 of those books (Apocrypa) in the appendix and those where completely removed by 1826. Do you try and read other first century writings? I feel God's presence when I read the bible and reading the accounts of those mighty people of God brings me closer to God. But I look at the context it was written/spoken than tread into legalism (1 Peter 3 ). As Vicky pointed out in another thread 'Word of God' always means 'Jesus Christ' .

I would say that Paul does indeed have the New Testament in mind here as well. The reason being, Paul quotes the Gospels and calls them Scripture. Peter quotes Paul and calls his writings scripture.

Also, the Protestants didn't remove books. The apocrapha were never considered inspired, not by the Jews, the earily church or Jerome. The Catholic church made them scripture to counter the Protestants saying that their doctrnes had no scriptural basis. They did so at the council of Trent in the 1500s.
Also, not EVERY reference to "the word of God" in scripture refer to Jesus. This is obvious from the context of several passages.

Peace,
Matt

Hi Matt,

Can you please shed some more light on this.

1) Paul quoting gospels as scripture
2) The issue with protestant removing/ catholics including books. What really happened?

I am a protestant and have always believed that we removed a few books that are not necessary. Lately I have been wondering 'what is necessary?' :dontknow:

Regards,
Saji

1) In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter writes, “Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. ” Clearly, Peter regarded the writings of Paul as inspired Scripture.

A further indicator that the New Testament writers understood their writings as Scripture is in 1 Timothy 5:18, wherein it is declared, “For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,' and 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.'” While the first reference is taken from the book of Deuteronomy (25:4), the second is derived from the Gospel of Luke (10:7). Clearly, Luke’s writings are being viewed as similar in authoritative value to the Pentateuch. Luke’s writings are also here referred to as “Scripture.”

2) God entrusted the Old Testament scriptures to the nation of Israel. "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." - Romans 3:1-2 NASB

It was Israel who was entrusted with the Old Testament. The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. If God entrusted the OT cannon to them, I trust that their decision was God's.


The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha, but few early Christians believed they belonged in the canon of Scripture. The Apocrypha teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. While many Catholics accepted the Apocrypha previously, the Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Apocrypha support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and “alms giving” atoning for sins. However, due to the historical and theological errors, the books must be viewed as fallible historical and religious documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

For Protestants, the bible is the "Supreme Court", if you will. This is Sola Scriptura. There are lesser courts, like history, scholars, confessions, revelations of the spirit, but these are all subject to the authority of scripture. The Catholic Church does not believe this. They believe in what some call, "Sola Ecclesia". "The Church alone". This means that the magisterium, the papacy, the Roman Church, is the "Supreme Court". So the Apocrypha are considered scripture because the Roman church says so and for no other reason.

Actually Mavos, praying for the dead appears in 2 Maccabees. Prayer for the dead is well-documented within early Christianity, both among prominent Church Fathers and the Christian community in general

I believe we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for "the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16).

We ask prayers for fellow Christians one earth, why wouldnt we not ask prayers from our fellow Christians in heaven?

Exactly my point. Maccabees is apocryphal.

Please provide: names, dates, places, sources, references from books.

But even if that is the case, who cares. IF it isn't in scripture, I don't believe it. The reality is that at the point of death, one’s eternal destiny is confirmed. Either he is saved through faith in Christ and in heaven where he is experiencing rest and joy in God’s presence awaiting the resurrection of life, or he is in Hades, awaiting the resurrection of condemnation . “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27)

First off, that verse from James applies to living not the dead. Second, 1 Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father, "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Who would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. We don't need any others. The intercession of anyone other then Christ or the Holy Spirit is elevating creatures to a status they never were intended to have.

Because it's idolatry, and blasphemous. Prayer is a form of worship. We are to worship God. We are only every told to pray to God and Christ in scripture. Besides, why would I go to them if I can go to CHRIST and God himself. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can "...approach the throne of grace with confidence...". It's completely unnecessary. The saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in Heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination - activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13).

Matt

Maccabees was included in the Septuagint, which Jesus and the Apostles used.

Look in Wikipedia under Prayer for the Dead.

As i said, it is in Scripture, which Paul alluded to in 2 Tim 3:16, in 2 Maccabees in the Septuagint.

Of course one should pray directly to Jesus! But that does not mean it is not also a good thing to ask others to pray for one as well.

Peter and Paul, asked others to intercede for them, “So Peter was kept in prison, but the church was earnestly praying to God for him” (Acts 12:5).

Paul sought prayer on his behalf from all the Roman believers in Romans 15:30. He also urged the Colossians to intercede for him in Colossians 4:2-3.

The following is only a partial list of those for whom we are to offer intercessory prayers: all in authority (1 Timothy 2:2); ministers (Philippians 1:19); the church (Psalm 122:6); friends (Job 42:8); fellow countrymen (Romans 10:1); the sick (James 5:14); enemies (Jeremiah 29:7); those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44); those who forsake us (2 Timothy 4:16); and all men (1 Timothy 2:1).

Clearly, intercessory prayer is part of the Christian life for all believers.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can discern the vast qualitative difference between holding a seance to have the dead speak through you and a son humbly saying at his mother’s grave, "Mom, please pray to Jesus for me; I’m having a real problem right now."

The difference between the two is the difference between night and day. One is an occult practice bent on getting secret information; the other is a humble request for a loved one to pray to God on one’s behalf.

Cheers!

Praying For The Dead ( from Chick publications )

Can the living help the dead by praying for them? According to Catholic doctrine, they can:

"Communion with the dead. In full consciousness of this communication of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and because it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins she offers her suffrages for them. Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective." Pg. 250, #958

Three statements here contradict the Bible. Let's look at each:

1. "It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead."
According to God's Word, it is neither holy nor wholesome to pray for the dead. Christians are instructed to pray for the living, but not one example exists of true Christians praying for the dead. This is another tradition of men.

2. Praying for the dead can help loose them from their sins.

Here is a tradition built upon a tradition. The Scriptures never suggest that this statement is true. As we have already learned, one must be loosed from their sins before death.

3. Our prayers make their intercession for us effective.
Like building blocks, they keep piling, tradition on top of tradition, all without any scriptural foundation. Now, we have reached a peak, where our prayers are supposedly capable of:

"...making their intercession for us effective."

The obvious question is: Why do we need others interceding for us?

Isn't it enough to have God the Son interceding for us? Does the Creator of the Universe need the help of mortal men and women to persuade the Father on our behalf?


What a degrading attitude towards Jesus Christ. The Catholic position insults the Lord by portraying Him as an incapable, powerless bystander who needs the help of anyone He can grab to persuade the Father. This is not the picture of Jesus presented in the Bible. Jesus declared of Himself:

"...All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Matthew 28:18

Here's another Biblical portrait of Jesus Christ:

"Which he (God) wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church," Ephesians 1:20-22

How different this is from the Catholic picture of Jesus, which reduces the Lord to a spiritual weakling devoid of power and authority. Dear Catholic friend, Jesus Christ does not need help from anyone! He is well able to do the job:

"Wherefore he (Jesus) is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." Hebrews 7:25

Before you pray for another deceased loved one, please understand that these are all man-made rules. God never asked you to pray for the dead, nor did He promised it would do any good.

As a young Catholic, I always assumed that all these rules were somehow coming from God. But they' re not! Read the Bible and see for yourself. The Catechism teaches traditions of men, not commands of God.

The Same Pattern

Surely, you have noticed that Jesus has taken yet another serious demotion. From the One and only Divine Intercessor at the Father's right hand, Jesus is hurled down into the crowd of dead humans and is relegated to being one of many intercessors. Why does the Catholic religion keep doing this to the Lord Jesus Christ?

Conclusion

Once again, you are faced with several important decisions:

Will you continue praying for the dead, knowing that it is a tradition of men and not a command of God?

Will you cling to a doctrine which degrades the Lord Jesus Christ so that church tradition can be exalted?

Will you knowingly reject the Word of God to follow man' s traditions?
These are decisions you must make. As you ponder these things, remember the words of Jesus:

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9

My friend Bethelboy, you LOVE to quote the Early Church to prove the Trinity doctrine, which is NOT explicitly taught in the Scriptures, so as such it could rightly be said that it is a tradition of men, and yet reject other beliefs by that same Early Church. :dontknow:

The Orthodox position is such that, while it is true that at death the destiny of man is sealed, perhaps prayers for the deceased could have some positive effect on their souls. There are no guarantees however. It is up to God.

I would suggest that you and Mavos ponder this. If the Early Church never apostasized then how can you pick and choose which beliefs to accept?

You cannot have it both ways my friend. :read:

A humans approach to our Father in heaven is through our Master Jesus Christ who appears "... in God's presence on our behalf."

Hebrews 9:24...

" For Christ did not go into a sanctuary made by human hands and just a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in God's presence on our behalf.

Nor did he go into heaven to sacrifice himself again and again, the way the high priest goes into the Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now, at the end of the ages, he has appeared once for all to remove sin by his sacrifice.

Indeed, just as people are appointed to die once and after that to be judged, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people. And he will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to bring salvation to those who eagerly wait for him."

.02,

gogh

:coffeeread:

Getting back to Deborah's original question...

When Paul wrote many of his letters, these were probably the first Christian writings, so I think Paul was referring primarily to the Old Testament, although he probably viewed Jesus' verbal teachings as "scripture".

By the time of the later letters (such as Peter), Paul's letters may have been familiar enough, and referenced so widely, that Peter recognized them as being "inspired", and thus worthy of being called "scripture".

However, even the Jews hadn't finalized their own "canon" of scripture until late into the 1st century, and Christians certainly had no sense of a "canon" until at least the 2nd century... and even then, only inspired by the sectarian Marcion, who wanted to chop out large parts of scripture.

So even if Peter and Paul refer to "scripture", they certainly had a different concept of it to us. They were not thinking "the 66 books of the Bible", because some of those books hadn't even been written yet.

I suspect it is only in the 60's of the 1st century, when the apostles were starting to die off, did the clear necessity to preserve Jesus' words IN WRITING began to become obvious, and the idea of Christian "scripture" really began to take off.

Dear Yannis, Both Mavos and myself do quote the Early Church Fathers and their belief at an early point in time that the Father,Son and HS are all called God yet God is One. Do we need them to make a case for the triune nature of God? Not at all!

I would agrue there is no need to rely on their words to prove it. In fact the triune nature of God was consealed in the OT but revealed in the NT.

Since the Father,Son and Holy Spirit created " all things " I would say the Trinity could not be called as you say " tradition of men " but the nature of God as revealed to man ( Progressive revelation ).

When I look at creation,the resurrection and salvation I see the triune God at work in all three and can provide the Scriptual support for each.

Please give me One, just one occurence, from scripture of a living person praying for a deceased person. Chapter and verse please.


So if your belief in the Trinity is from " the tradition of men " I suggest you pray, read the Scriptures and ask God to reveal His nature to you through the scriptures.

Also your words here rob Jesus of His role , perhaps prayers for the deceased could have some positive effect on their souls.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.


They chose to reject Jesus as their intercessor and now they end up with you as an intercessor?

Sola scriptura that is how one picks and chooses which beliefs to accept?

BB:happyheart::heartbeat::happyheart:

As i wrote to Mavos, look at 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, which was part of the Scriptures back in Jesus and the Apostles time, in the Septuagint.

"[A]nd they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

When Paul wrote 2 Tim 3:16, the New Testament wasnt compiled by the Church yet. Paul was speaking about the Septuagint, which included 2 Maccabees.

As far as "sola scriptura", that is a tradition of men, for that concept is nowhere found in the Scriptures. 20,000 Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press's World Christian Encyclopedia proves it.

In fact, there is not one single verse in the entirety of Holy Scripture that teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

There is not even one that comes close.

Oh yes, there are innumerable places in the Bible that speak of its inspiration, of its authority, and of its profitability — but there is no place in the Bible that teaches that only Scripture is authoritative for believers.

If such a teaching were even implicit, then surely the early Fathers of the Church would have taught this doctrine also, but which of the Holy Fathers ever taught such a thing?

Thus Protestantisms most basic teaching self-destructs, being contrary to itself. But not only is the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura not taught in the Scriptures — it is in fact specifically contradicted by the Scriptures that teach that Holy Tradition is also binding to Christians (2 Thessalonians 2:15; I Corinthians 11:2).

The apocrypha (απόκρυφα means "hidden") is a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ that is rejected by the Protestants and officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 as being inspired. These books are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.

But if the Apocrypha is a Scripture, then it should not have any errors. But since it does have errors, as will be demonstrated below, this puts into question whether or not the Roman Catholic Church has properly used its self-proclaimed position as the teaching authority of the Christian Church. If it can error in such an important manner as what is Scripture, can it be trusted to properly teach the Christian Church?


Problems in the Apocrypha

When we look into the apocrypha itself, we find numerous problems. For example, we see it advocating magic where the smoke of a fish heart on a fire drives away devils.

Condones the use of magic

Tobit 6:5-7, "Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them."

Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.


Teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort.

Salvation by works:

•Tobit 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness."
•Tobit 12:9, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."

We know from Scripture that alms (money or food, given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ is what cleanses us, not money or food given to poor people. "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin," (1 John 1:7).

Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:

2 Maccabbees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."


Can anyone truly accept that money isn't offering for the sins of dead people? Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.

Historical Errors

Wrong historical facts:

•Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."

•Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."

The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years." (HUGE ERROR)

Conclusion

Obviously the apocrypha has serious problems. From magic, to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts, it is full of false and unbiblical teachings. It isn't inspired of God. Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic Church, which has stated the Apocrypha is inspired. This shows the Roman Catholic Church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man's false tradition, rather than God's absolute truth.

BB:happyheart::heartbeat::happyheart:

Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible


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 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. 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.

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).”

Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zecharias was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus referring to Abel and Zacharias, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

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.2

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.

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. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.

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.
4

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.

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.

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.)

•The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7).
•Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11; 12:9).
•Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43).
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).



Sources

•Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995, pp. 157-75.
•Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999, pp. 28-36.



1. See http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp for a list of the books that the Roman Catholic Church accepts. Also see, Michael D. Coogan, ed., The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, third edition, New Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 4, for a list of the Apocrypha. Interestingly, Catholics refer to these extra books as the Deuterocanonical books while Protestants refer to them as part of the Apocrypha.

2. Some scholars debate whether the exact Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures was discovered by the Jews until around 100 A.D. so Paul may not be referring to some authoritative list of books. However, the principle of the "oracles of God" still holds. The Jews rejected the Apocrypha as being part of the oracles of God.

3. There are various divisions of the Hebrew canon. The Protestant Old Testament Canon contains 39 books while the Hebrew canon has 22 or 24. These are the exact same books as the Protestants have, but they are just arranged differently and some of the books are combined into one. For example, Kings is one book. There is not 1st Kings and 2nd Kings. Also, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) are one book in the Hebrew Canon.

4. It is true that the Catholic Church accepted the Apocryphal books at earlier councils at Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), and Florence (A.D. 1442). However, these were not universal Church councils and the earlier councils were influenced heavily by Augustine, who was no Biblical expert, compared to the scholar Jerome, who rejected the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament Canon. Furthermore, it is doubtful that these local church council's decisions were binding on the Church at large since they were local councils. Sometimes these local councils made errors and had to be corrected by a universal church council.

BB:happyheart::heartbeat::happyheart: