Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Demolishing Fallacious Arguments Against the Deuterocanon

Catholics added seven uninspired books to the Old Testament

I am recanting the comments I made in my previous article on the "Apocrypha." The Protestant reasons for rejecting them are wrong. The "Apocrypha" do claim to be inspired [Sirach 24:32-34; Tobit 6:12-22]. Church fathers Cyril, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Jerome, Origen, Tertullian, Polycarp, Athanasius, and others treated the Deuterocanon as Scripture. It appears that the New Testament authors allude/refer to the Apocrypha hundreds of times [1]; see for yourself. The Deuterocanon does in fact have predictive prophecy [Wisdom 2:18-20; Baruch 3:36-38]. The doctrines in the Apocrypha which Protestants cite as unbiblical are in fact in agreement with the Bible. [2] If claims to be prophetic are absolutely necessary for canonicity, then 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ecclesisastes, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, Esther, and Ruth would not be canonical. Luke 1:41, Luke 1:46, Luke 1:67, Luke 1:25-27, and Luke 1:36 appear to show that inspiration/charisma didn't cease for 400 years as Protestants claim when they misinterpret 1 Maccabees 9:27; the continuing inspiration is also evidenced by the predictive prophecy quoted in Wisdom and Baruch above. In addition, why take seriously the ruling of an anti-Christian council (Jamnia) which, along with the Apocrypha, rejected the New Testament, which we know to be the Word of God? I am not sure about the alleged historical errors in the Apocrypha; in the meantime we should assume the Apocrypha is "innocent until proven guilty," just like the rest of the Bible. If the Apocrypha is God's Word, then Protestants subtracted from Scripture and Catholics did not add to it. In this case we must call the Apocrypha not even the Deuterocanon, but more properly the Canon.

[1] http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
[2] coming soon

No comments: