PDA

View Full Version : Purgatory ?



grams
Feb 23rd 2013, 09:41 PM
I do not believe purgatory is in the bible !

I also do not believe in purgatory!

What is your thinking on this ?

Nick
Feb 23rd 2013, 09:47 PM
Purgatory is a Catholic invention and I hear the Vatican might be changing their view on it.

Vhayes
Feb 23rd 2013, 09:54 PM
I Corinthians 3
14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

I think this is the scripture the Roman Catholic church used to build their doctrine.

I do not know exactly WHAT the Catholic church teaches about purgatory but I would guess it has man-made thoughts added to scripture.

Watchman
Feb 23rd 2013, 10:01 PM
Purgatory isn't in the Bible...its in Colorado-->snow skiing area.

Nick
Feb 23rd 2013, 10:09 PM
Purgatory isn't in the Bible...its in Colorado-->snow skiing area.

If that's your idea of Purgatory what is heaven like?

Watchman
Feb 23rd 2013, 10:16 PM
If that's your idea of Purgatory what is heaven like?
Much, much better! :monkeyd:

BroRog
Feb 23rd 2013, 11:16 PM
I do not believe purgatory is in the bible !

I also do not believe in purgatory!

What is your thinking on this ?No such place as purgatory, which is an imaginary place Catholics paid money to avoid.

TomH
Feb 23rd 2013, 11:25 PM
If that's your idea of Purgatory what is heaven like?


Making it through Purgatory without pulling a Bono.

whitetiger
Feb 23rd 2013, 11:29 PM
It may not be a place to stay but something happens as St. Paul alluded to in Scripture with burning up but we are still saved.

adampjr
Feb 23rd 2013, 11:49 PM
I personally feel that most of the passages seem to have more to do with how we will experience heaven and rewards we will get there, not a third end. I'm not Catholic, and the Eastern Church has no teachings on purgatory that I am aware of, so I really don't understand this doctrine well enough.

whitetiger
Feb 24th 2013, 02:36 AM
In a way the Orthodox does, it's called toll houses. http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/tollhouse_pomaz.aspx. I can't see that in the verse but we all have opinions :)

adampjr
Feb 24th 2013, 03:53 AM
In a way the Orthodox does, it's called toll houses. http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/tollhouse_pomaz.aspx. I can't see that in the verse but we all have opinions :)

Point taken (sort of), I maintain it's a tad bit different, but it could be that my understanding of purgatory is off.

mailmandan
Feb 24th 2013, 12:53 PM
I Corinthians 3
14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

I think this is the scripture the Roman Catholic church used to build their doctrine.

I do not know exactly WHAT the Catholic church teaches about purgatory but I would guess it has man-made thoughts added to scripture.

In 1 Corinthians 3:15, the Catholic Catechism interprets "the fire" as cleansing and purifying, the soul suffers to make expiation for sin (Catechism, paragraph 1031). However, Paul is speaking about the testing of works and says nothing about the suffering of souls. He is simply teaching that in the Day of Judgment, the works of every Christian will be tested "the fire will test each one's work" and everyone will be rewarded accordingly.

Catholics also use 2 Maccabees 12:38-46 to support purgatory, but the book of Maccabees is apocryphal and is not part of the inspired Scriptures.

You are accursed by the Roman Catholic Church for denying the doctrine of purgatory - If any one says, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened to him; let him be anathema (Council of Trent, Session 6).

God's Word says - "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Romans 5:9). We shall be saved from God's wrath THROUGH HIM, and not because we have personally suffered for our sins in purgatory. The blood of Christ cleanses us from ALL sin (1 John 1:7). Not just some or most of our sins. I completely reject the doctrine of purgatory because it denies the sufficiency of Christ's atonement for sin on the cross.

whitetiger
Feb 24th 2013, 11:00 PM
Catholics also use 2 Maccabees 12:38-46 to support purgatory, but the book of Maccabees is apocryphal and is not part of the inspired Scriptures.

Maccbees is a part of the Roman Canon and Eastern Canon but not a part of the Protestant Canon.

adampjr
Feb 24th 2013, 11:21 PM
Catholics also use 2 Maccabees 12:38-46 to support purgatory, but the book of Maccabees is apocryphal and is not part of the inspired Scriptures.



Not exactly, it's been part of our canon for millenia, why do you believe it is uninspired?

mailmandan
Feb 26th 2013, 12:26 PM
Not exactly, it's been part of our canon for millenia, why do you believe it is uninspired?

Why reject the Apocrypha as the inspired Word of God?

1. They are not included in the original Hebrew O.T. preserved by the Jews. Rom. 3:1-2 states that God used the Jews to preserve His Word; therefore, we know that He guided them in the rejection of the Apocryphal books from the canon of Scripture.

2. They were not received as inspired Scripture by the churches during the first four centuries after Christ.

3. They were not written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and prophets of the O.T.

4. They do not claim to be the inspired Word of God. Unlike the inspired Scriptures, the Apocryphal books contain no statements such as "thus saith the Lord" or "these are the words of God."

5. They contain teachings contrary to the biblical books. II Maccabees teaches praying to the dead and making offerings to atone for the sins of the dead. Consider this quote from II Maccabees 12:43-45: "He also took up a collection ... and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. ... For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen asleep would arise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead ... Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." It is a holy and pious thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins(2 Maccabees 12:46). The Bible, though, says there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Ti. 2:5-6). Also Heb. 10:10-14 says believers have been perfected forever through Christ's one sacrifice. Thus, the dead in Christ need no human, earthly prayers or offerings. At death the lost go immediately to a place of torment; thus there is no purpose in praying for them (Lk. 16:22-23). II Maccabees also contains the heresy that deceased saints are interceding in heaven for those on earth (15:11-14). The Bible teaches that it is the Lord Jesus Christ, our great High Priest, who is interceding for us in Heaven--not deceased saints (Heb. 4:14-16; 8:1-2; 1 Jn. 2:1-2).

6. In quality and style, the Apocryphal books are not on the level of Bible writings. Even a hurried reading of the Apocryphal books reveals the fact that here we are touching the uninspired writings of men apart from divine inspiration. These writings are not "God breathed," as 2 Tim. 3:16 says all Scripture is. There is not in the Apocryphal books the supernatural depth and breadth of thought, the rich complexity yet simplicity of language, which goes beyond mere writings of men.

7. The Apocryphal writings are not quoted by the Lord Jesus or the Apostles, while every part of the O.T. Scriptures are quoted. This is a very important point. Though some claim to find allusions to the Apocrypha in certain N.T. passages (Mt. 7:12; 27:43-54; Rom. 9:21; Eph. 6:13-17; Heb. 1:3; Jam. 1:6,19; 5:6), this is not a proven fact. While it is possible that the N.T. writers were familiar with the Apocrypha, it is plain that they did not directly quote from these books. The supposed allusions to the Apocrypha in the N.T. could just as easily be allusions to other O.T. histories or to facts given directly by revelation. We must remember that the N.T. Scriptures are not the product of man, but of God.

8. Some Apocryphal books, though written as history, are actually fiction. This is a form of deception not found in divinely inspired books of the Bible. "Ostensibly historical but actually quite imaginative are the books of Tobit, Judith, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, which may be called moralistic novels" (Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, p. xi). Noteworthy examples of ancient fiction they might be, but such books have absolutely no place among the seven-times purified Word of God (Ps. 12:6-7).

9. The Apocryphal books were rejected from the canon of Scripture by the early church leaders. "It is a significant fact that the best of the early Fathers adopted the Hebrew canon as giving the authoritative Scriptures of the O.T." (Analytical, p. 1083).

10. The book of Tobit contains many false things.

First, there is the account of a supposed high and good angel of God who lies and teaches the use of magic! In Tobit 5:4 we are told that the angel's name is "Raphael," but later he lies to Tobit, claiming to be "Azarias the son of the great Ananias, one of your relatives" (Tobit 5:12). This angel professes to be "one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One" (Tobit 12:15). Yet he not only lies about his name, but teaches magic. "Then the angel said to him, `Cut open the fish and take the heart and liver and gall and put them away safely.' ... Then the young man said to the angel, `Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?' He replied, `As for the heart and the liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again. And as for the gall, anoint with it a man who has white films in his eyes, and he will be cured'" (Tobit 6:4,6-8). The Bible clearly condemns magical practices such as this (consider De. 18:10-12; Le. 19:26,31; Je. 27:9; Mal. 3:5).

Second, the false doctrine of salvation through works is taught in the book of Tobit. "For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin" (Tobit 12:9). "So now, my children, consider what almsgiving accomplishes and how righteousness delivers" (Tobit 14:11). These false teachings must be contrasted with Lev. 17:11, which says "it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul," and with Tit. 3:5 which says, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit."

Third, Tobit taught that help is only to be given to the deserving. "Place your bread on the grave of the righteous, but give none to sinners" (Tobit 4:17). Contrariwise, in Ex. 23:4-5 God taught even in O.T. times that His people were to do good to their enemies and not only toward the righteous.

11. The book of Judith contains the account of how a supposedly godly widow destroyed one of Nebuchadnezzar's generals through deceit and sexual offers. It is also important to note that Judith's counsel regarding resisting Nebuchadnezzar was contrary to that given by God's prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 38:1-4). God warned the Israelites to submit to Nebuchadnezzar rather than to resist, because the Babylonian captivity and destruction of Israel was a judgment from God upon the Jew's rebellion and idolatry.

The Apocrypha were formally canonized by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 A.D. at the Council of Trent. ‘If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema’ (Council of Trent, Session IV, first decree).

adampjr
Feb 26th 2013, 02:26 PM
Why reject the Apocrypha as the inspired Word of God?

1. They are not included in the original Hebrew O.T. preserved by the Jews. Rom. 3:1-2 states that God used the Jews to preserve His Word; therefore, we know that He guided them in the rejection of the Apocryphal books from the canon of Scripture.

2. They were not received as inspired Scripture by the churches during the first four centuries after Christ.

3. They were not written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and prophets of the O.T.

4. They do not claim to be the inspired Word of God. Unlike the inspired Scriptures, the Apocryphal books contain no statements such as "thus saith the Lord" or "these are the words of God."

5. They contain teachings contrary to the biblical books. II Maccabees teaches praying to the dead and making offerings to atone for the sins of the dead. Consider this quote from II Maccabees 12:43-45: "He also took up a collection ... and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. ... For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen asleep would arise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead ... Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." It is a holy and pious thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins(2 Maccabees 12:46). The Bible, though, says there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Ti. 2:5-6). Also Heb. 10:10-14 says believers have been perfected forever through Christ's one sacrifice. Thus, the dead in Christ need no human, earthly prayers or offerings. At death the lost go immediately to a place of torment; thus there is no purpose in praying for them (Lk. 16:22-23). II Maccabees also contains the heresy that deceased saints are interceding in heaven for those on earth (15:11-14). The Bible teaches that it is the Lord Jesus Christ, our great High Priest, who is interceding for us in Heaven--not deceased saints (Heb. 4:14-16; 8:1-2; 1 Jn. 2:1-2).

6. In quality and style, the Apocryphal books are not on the level of Bible writings. Even a hurried reading of the Apocryphal books reveals the fact that here we are touching the uninspired writings of men apart from divine inspiration. These writings are not "God breathed," as 2 Tim. 3:16 says all Scripture is. There is not in the Apocryphal books the supernatural depth and breadth of thought, the rich complexity yet simplicity of language, which goes beyond mere writings of men.

7. The Apocryphal writings are not quoted by the Lord Jesus or the Apostles, while every part of the O.T. Scriptures are quoted. This is a very important point. Though some claim to find allusions to the Apocrypha in certain N.T. passages (Mt. 7:12; 27:43-54; Rom. 9:21; Eph. 6:13-17; Heb. 1:3; Jam. 1:6,19; 5:6), this is not a proven fact. While it is possible that the N.T. writers were familiar with the Apocrypha, it is plain that they did not directly quote from these books. The supposed allusions to the Apocrypha in the N.T. could just as easily be allusions to other O.T. histories or to facts given directly by revelation. We must remember that the N.T. Scriptures are not the product of man, but of God.

8. Some Apocryphal books, though written as history, are actually fiction. This is a form of deception not found in divinely inspired books of the Bible. "Ostensibly historical but actually quite imaginative are the books of Tobit, Judith, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, which may be called moralistic novels" (Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, p. xi). Noteworthy examples of ancient fiction they might be, but such books have absolutely no place among the seven-times purified Word of God (Ps. 12:6-7).

9. The Apocryphal books were rejected from the canon of Scripture by the early church leaders. "It is a significant fact that the best of the early Fathers adopted the Hebrew canon as giving the authoritative Scriptures of the O.T." (Analytical, p. 1083).

10. The book of Tobit contains many false things.

First, there is the account of a supposed high and good angel of God who lies and teaches the use of magic! In Tobit 5:4 we are told that the angel's name is "Raphael," but later he lies to Tobit, claiming to be "Azarias the son of the great Ananias, one of your relatives" (Tobit 5:12). This angel professes to be "one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One" (Tobit 12:15). Yet he not only lies about his name, but teaches magic. "Then the angel said to him, `Cut open the fish and take the heart and liver and gall and put them away safely.' ... Then the young man said to the angel, `Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?' He replied, `As for the heart and the liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again. And as for the gall, anoint with it a man who has white films in his eyes, and he will be cured'" (Tobit 6:4,6-8). The Bible clearly condemns magical practices such as this (consider De. 18:10-12; Le. 19:26,31; Je. 27:9; Mal. 3:5).

Second, the false doctrine of salvation through works is taught in the book of Tobit. "For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin" (Tobit 12:9). "So now, my children, consider what almsgiving accomplishes and how righteousness delivers" (Tobit 14:11). These false teachings must be contrasted with Lev. 17:11, which says "it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul," and with Tit. 3:5 which says, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit."

Third, Tobit taught that help is only to be given to the deserving. "Place your bread on the grave of the righteous, but give none to sinners" (Tobit 4:17). Contrariwise, in Ex. 23:4-5 God taught even in O.T. times that His people were to do good to their enemies and not only toward the righteous.

11. The book of Judith contains the account of how a supposedly godly widow destroyed one of Nebuchadnezzar's generals through deceit and sexual offers. It is also important to note that Judith's counsel regarding resisting Nebuchadnezzar was contrary to that given by God's prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 38:1-4). God warned the Israelites to submit to Nebuchadnezzar rather than to resist, because the Babylonian captivity and destruction of Israel was a judgment from God upon the Jew's rebellion and idolatry.

The Apocrypha were formally canonized by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 A.D. at the Council of Trent. ‘If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema’ (Council of Trent, Session IV, first decree).

Lol, since this is about purgatory, I could have used the cliff notes version about this. But thanks for the reply. I guess we just view the LXX differently, and references to the canon go much farther back than the council of Trent, but some of these points are well taken and I'll have to think about them.

yogosans14
Mar 3rd 2013, 02:17 AM
No, its a pagan idea invented by the catholic church

adampjr
Mar 3rd 2013, 03:54 AM
No, its a pagan idea invented by the catholic church

So is it pagan or was invented by the catholic church?

yogosans14
Mar 3rd 2013, 05:36 PM
So is it pagan or was invented by the catholic church?

Alls I know is I am still young in the Bible so my accusations may not be professional, forgive me on that. But I DO NOT SEE ANY SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE OF PURAGOTRY.

I still debate in my head whether hell is a real place of torment or not.

grams
Mar 4th 2013, 11:53 AM
Alls I know is I am still young in the Bible so my accusations may not be professional, forgive me on that. But I DO NOT SEE ANY SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE OF PURAGOTRY.

I still debate in my head whether hell is a real place of torment or not.

Well there is no Puragotry ~ Jesus went to the cross for all sins ! NOT Some or Part....... ALL SINS

And yes there is a hell !

Realist1981
Mar 4th 2013, 03:34 PM
As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs - Johann Tetzel

Time to pony up and get them folks out of the fire.

grams
Mar 5th 2013, 12:16 AM
As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs - Johann Tetzel

Time to pony up and get them folks out of the fire.

No Purgatory .........
Hey , do you live in Michigan ? What church do you go to ?

Realist1981
Mar 5th 2013, 03:01 AM
I live in New Orleans but I'm Michigan.

grams
Mar 5th 2013, 11:08 AM
Sure do pray that were your at is better then Detroit? Every city around here is getting worse. But Detroit is hard to believe

Realist1981
Mar 5th 2013, 05:11 PM
Im meant I live in New Orleans but I'm FROM Michigan. How did I mess that up lol?
Anyways I'm from Flint, MI so I know how bad Flint and DET are. It's a shame. I only have one relative still living in Flint. Everybody else moved and my Auntie who still lives there will be moving soon too. So there will be no reason to stop there except passing through to Grand Blanc

guero
Mar 5th 2013, 06:00 PM
These arguments that the Old Testament Apocrypha are not the inspired Word of God are unsound - many of the premises are either false or misleading or the conclusion does not follow from the premises.





1. They are not included in the original Hebrew O.T. preserved by the Jews. Rom. 3:1-2 states that God used the Jews to preserve His Word; therefore, we know that He guided them in the rejection of the Apocryphal books from the canon of Scripture.


The presumption is that Romans 3:1-2 implies that only the "original Hebrew Old Testament" is the "inspired word of God." Romans 3:1-2 merely states that unto them [the Jews] were committed the oracles of God. It does not say that the oracles of God would only write in the Hebrew language. In any case, many of the Old Testament Apocrypha were either written in Hebrew or later translated from Greek into Hebrew. And all of the Old Testament Apocrypha were written by Jews.





2. They were not received as inspired Scripture by the churches during the first four centuries after Christ.


This is not true. In fact numerous allusions to Old Testament Apocryphal books can be found in the New Testament. Many of these are enumerated, for example, in the footnotes to the original King James Version. Furthermore the writings of Church Fathers such as Augustine and Athanasius demonstrate that these books were in use in the early Church.






3. They were not written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and prophets of the O.T.


The argument is:

(a) Only Hebrew was used by the inspired historians and prophets of the Old Testament
(b) The writers of the Old Testament Apocrypha did not write in Hebrew
(c) Therefore the Old Testament Apocrypha are not inspired

There is no proof of (a) unless it is a presumption of (c) and (b) is not true. Some of the Old Testament Apocrypha were written in Hebrew.







4. They do not claim to be the inspired Word of God. Unlike the inspired Scriptures, the Apocryphal books contain no statements such as "thus saith the Lord" or "these are the words of God."


This would eliminate the Book of Proverbs from the Old Testament canon, but add the Book of Enoch







5. They contain teachings contrary to the biblical books.


This is also a circular argument: "The Old Testament Apocrypha are not biblical books because they contain teachings contrary to the biblical books."







II Maccabees teaches praying to the dead


II Maccabees shows an example of praying for the dead, not praying to the dead:

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. (2 Maccabees 12:44, KJV)




5. They contain teachings contrary to the biblical books. II Maccabees teaches praying to [for] the dead and making offerings to atone for the sins of the dead. Consider this quote from II Maccabees 12:43-45: "He also took up a collection ... and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. ... For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen asleep would arise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead ... Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." It is a holy and pious thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins(2 Maccabees 12:46). The Bible, though, says there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Ti. 2:5-6). Also Heb. 10:10-14 says believers have been perfected forever through Christ's one sacrifice. Thus, the dead in Christ need no human, earthly prayers or offerings. At death the lost go immediately to a place of torment; thus there is no purpose in praying for them (Lk. 16:22-23). II Maccabees also contains the heresy that deceased saints are interceding in heaven for those on earth (15:11-14). The Bible teaches that it is the Lord Jesus Christ, our great High Priest, who is interceding for us in Heaven--not deceased saints (Heb. 4:14-16; 8:1-2; 1 Jn. 2:1-2).


This is also an invalid argument. You are saying that since 2 Maccabees contradicts your interpretation of the New Testament passages cited then what is stated in 2 Maccabees must be false and there fore 2 Maccabees cannot be biblical (i.e. the inspired Word of God).

Another possibility is that your interpretation of some or all of the proof texts is not correct. Take, for example, the statement:



At death the lost go immediately to a place of torment; thus there is no purpose in praying for them (Lk. 16:22-23)


The parable of Lazarus and the rich man describes the fate of a rich man who apparently gave no alms and had no mercy on the poor. It cannot be generalized to apply to anyone guilty of any sin whatsoever.

or:



The Bible, though, says there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Ti. 2:5-6)


where you are referring to:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:5–6)

Yet just two verses previously Paul also wrote:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men (1 Timothy 2:1)




6. In quality and style, the Apocryphal books are not on the level of Bible writings. Even a hurried reading of the Apocryphal books reveals the fact that here we are touching the uninspired writings of men apart from divine inspiration. These writings are not "God breathed," as 2 Tim. 3:16 says all Scripture is. There is not in the Apocryphal books the supernatural depth and breadth of thought, the rich complexity yet simplicity of language, which goes beyond mere writings of men.


This is entirely subjective and, in my opinion, false. Can you honestly say this about:

Seek not death in the error of your life: and pull not upon yourselves destruction with the works of your hands. For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth: For righteousness is immortal (Wisdom of Solomon 1:12–15, KJV)

or:

My son, if you come forward to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for temptation. Set your heart right and be steadfast, and do not be hasty in time of calamity. Cleave to him and do not depart, that you may be honored at the end of your life. Accept whatever is brought upon you, and in changes that humble you be patient. For gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.Trust in him, and he will help you; make your ways straight, and hope in him.You who fear the Lord, wait for his mercy; and turn not aside, lest you fall.You who fear the Lord, trust in him, and your reward will not fail (Sirach 2:1–8, KJV)

[I am quoting from the King James Version, which included the Old Testament Apocrypha in the original edition]




7. The Apocryphal writings are not quoted by the Lord Jesus or the Apostles, while every part of the O.T. Scriptures are quoted. This is a very important point. Though some claim to find allusions to the Apocrypha in certain N.T. passages (Mt. 7:12; 27:43-54; Rom. 9:21; Eph. 6:13-17; Heb. 1:3; Jam. 1:6,19; 5:6), this is not a proven fact. While it is possible that the N.T. writers were familiar with the Apocrypha, it is plain that they did not directly quote from these books. The supposed allusions to the Apocrypha in the N.T. could just as easily be allusions to other O.T. histories or to facts given directly by revelation. We must remember that the N.T. Scriptures are not the product of man, but of God.


The following Old Testament books were also not quoted anywhere in the New Testament:

Joshua
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Lamentations
Obadiah
Nahum
Zephaniah

Should we remove these books from the Bible?





8. Some Apocryphal books, though written as history, are actually fiction. This is a form of deception not found in divinely inspired books of the Bible. "Ostensibly historical but actually quite imaginative are the books of Tobit, Judith, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, which may be called moralistic novels" (Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, p. xi). Noteworthy examples of ancient fiction they might be, but such books have absolutely no place among the seven-times purified Word of God (Ps. 12:6-7).


By this same argument should we remove the parables of Jesus from the Gospels, since they are moralistic stories?

(Psalm 12 actually refers to the seven-times purified promises of God - it does not refer to Scripture)




9. The Apocryphal books were rejected from the canon of Scripture by the early church leaders. "It is a significant fact that the best of the early Fathers adopted the Hebrew canon as giving the authoritative Scriptures of the O.T." (Analytical, p. 1083).


This is not true. See #2 above.


I will have to go through what you wrote about the Books of Tobit and Judith. Needless to say, if one wants to reject any book of the Bible one can find fault with it. Would you say that Jesus taught magic when He told Peter to catch a fish and take a coin out of its mouth? (Matthew 17:27) Should we reject the story of how a dead man was raised back to life by touching the bones of Elisha? (2 Kings 13:21) Was Jesus doing magic when he spat into dirt to make a paste of it to rub over someone's eyes? (John 9:6) Should we take Chapter 38 out of the Book of Genesis because of the story of Judah and Tamar?

(Actually, this is all quite exasperating)