The Roman Catholic Apocrypha

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in OUR Bible

ellauri111.html on line 106: Roman Catholics may tell you, "You Protestants are missing part of the Bible. We have the rest of it." These people's leaders (popes, priests, etc.) have led them astray to this wrong belief. This comment about missing books can throw people off, but it no longer has to. These popish additions to the Bible are commonly called the Apocrypha or sometimes the Deuterocanonical books. This is a short treatise on WHY these books are not in the Bible.
ellauri111.html on line 108:

What is (should read: are) the Apocrypha anyway?

ellauri111.html on line 110: The Apocrypha is a collection of uninspired, spurious books written by various individuals. The Catholic religion considers these books as scripture just like a Bible-believer believes that the 66 books in the Authorized Version of 1611 of the Bible are the word of God, i.e., Genesis to Revelation. We are going to examine some verses from the Apocrypha later in our discussion.
ellauri111.html on line 112: At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic institution pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic. In reality, it seems obvious that the Bible is the last source of truth for Catholics. Roman Catholic doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible names. In my reading of Catholic materials, I find notes like this: "You have to keep the Bible in perspective." Catholics have been deceived into not believing that the Bible is God's complete revelation for man (but they can come out of these deceptions in an instant if they will only believe the Bible as it is written) .
ellauri111.html on line 114: So why the Apocrypha Isn't in OUR Bible?
ellauri111.html on line 116: Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew). All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin. Jehovah only knows Hebrew. You better pick it up if you want to talk to him.
ellauri111.html on line 126: The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places. Failed born again Christians can expect a maximum of 2.
ellauri111.html on line 128: The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
ellauri111.html on line 154: Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?
ellauri111.html on line 156: The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value (e.g., details of the Maccabean revolt), the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:
ellauri111.html on line 158: "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read." King James Version Defended page 98.
ellauri111.html on line 160: In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James himself said this about the Apocrypha:
ellauri111.html on line 164: The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629. Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed. From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles--Catholic Bibles and some pulpit Bibles excepted.
ellauri111.html on line 166: Not even all Catholic "Church Fathers" believed the Apocrypha was scripture.
ellauri111.html on line 168: Not that this really means anything. The truth is not validated by the false. Nevertheless, this may be of interest to some... Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:
ellauri111.html on line 176: According to Edward Hills in The King James Version Defended p. 98 other famous Catholics with this viewpoint include Augustine (354-430 who at first defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.
ellauri184.html on line 161: Tämä on julkaistu englanniksi kirjassa ’The Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament' (Oxford; Clarendon Press 1913). Edesmennyt professori Aapeli Saarisalo mainitsee kirjassaan ’Hyvä Opettaja’ tämän tekstin etiopiankielisen version:
ellauri402.html on line 829: Apocryphal_New_Testament_(1924)/Apocalypses/The_Apocalypse_of_Paul">Tää oli Danten ja Chaucerin ihan lemppari. Hipon Augustinus ei voinut sietää sitä. (Jatkuu seuraavassa nummerossa.)
xxx/ellauri293.html on line 167: Kirje koostuu 21 luvusta. Se on vapaamuotoinen teologinen kirjoitelma, joka voidaan jakaa kahteen osaan. Ensimmäinen osa (luvut 1–17) käsittelee kristinuskon opillisia kysymyksiä, ja erityisesti sitä, kuinka vanhan liiton aikaiset Apocrypha_of_the_Old_Testament">ilmoituxet on tulkittava uuden liittosopimuxen valossa. Se pyrkii osoittamaan, että ainoastaan kristityt ovat tulkinneet Mooseksen lain oikein (tietysti). Toinen osa (luvut 18–21) käsittelee oikeaa kristillistä vaellusta käyttäen vertauskuvana kahta tietä, valon tietä ja pimeyden tietä. Don't underestimate The Power of The dark side of The force. Tämä osa muistuttaa vastaavanlaisia kohtia Didakhessa ja Hermaan Paimenessa. Tää Didakhe on tullut ennenkin vastaan, albumeissa 216 ja 217.
22