The Instigator
WWJD1245
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
janetsanders733
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The Apocrypha is scripture

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
janetsanders733
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,509 times Debate No: 41422
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

WWJD1245

Pro

I believe the Apocrypha is the inspired work of God. It was taken out by the Protestant church.
janetsanders733

Con

Definition of Apocrypha:

[1] The word Apocrypha means "hidden," while the word deuterocanonical means "second canon."

[2] [1] Main Apocrypha Books:

1 Baruch

1 Clement

1 Enoch

1 Esdras

1 Maccabees

2 Baruch

2 Clement

2 Enoch

2 Esdras

2 Maccabees

3 Baruch

3 Corinthians

3 Enoch

3 Kings

Tobit

Judith

Wisdom of Solomon

[2] Why Not the Apocrypha:
1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
2. None of them are written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
3. They don’t claim to have inspiration and or claimed to be “God-breathed”.
4. Not acknowledged as sacred scriptures by Jews(Old Testament Apocrypha).
5. Four centuries went by before they were considered “sacred books” by the Roman Catholic Church.
6. The Apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
8. Josephus a 1st century Jew and Historian, had rejected these books because they did not reflect inspiration of scripture at that time period. Here is what he had to say below.

"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8).

9.
The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the Apocrypha as inspired.

10.
[4]The Council of Jamnia(90 A.D.), had also rejected the Apocrypha, and did not consider it inspired. As the late Biblical Scholar F.F. Bruce puts it "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'” (The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])

Other Hidden Messages within the Apocrypha:

[3]The Apocrypha contains many other hidden messages within its scriptures. The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals 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.

Sources:

[1] http://www.compellingtruth.org...

[2] http://www.bible.ca...

[3] http://www.gotquestions.org...

[4] http://web.cn.edu...

Debate Round No. 1
WWJD1245

Pro

First of all, I would like to address that not all of those books are accepted by the RCC. This is the list of accepted books in the Catholic Bible:

1. Tobit
2. Judith
3. Greek version of Esther with additions
4. Wisdom of Solomon (Book of Wisdom)
5. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
6. Baruch
7. Letter of Jeremiah
8. Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews
9. Susanna (Daniel chapter 13)
10. Bel and the Dragon (Daniel chapter 14)
11. 1 Maccabees
12. 2 Maccabees

My second rebuttal is that 1 Maccabees and Sirach were originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek in the Septuagint.

My third rebuttal is that the books I listed were canonized in the Third Council of Carthage.

You said that since they have no claim to inspiration, they are not inspired. However, there are many books in the Bible that have no claim to inspiration either. Such books include Esther, the books of the Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

The Jews rejection of the Apocrypha does not nullify it's inspiration. The Jews also reject the New Testament.

My question is this: What offensive language is in the Apocrypha?

The Apocrypha does not teach immoral practices. That is a very great misconception. In the book of Tobit, Raphael never tells Tobias to use witchcraft. The things he shows him are remedies and cures. If that is considered witchcraft than all medicine by default is witchcraft. You say that Judith lying is contradictory to scripture. The problem with that is that Esther used the same means to find favor from the king. Like Judith, she used her physical attractiveness to find favor.
The Bible is full of assassination and bloodshed. It is not immoral if it is God's will. I do not understand where you got the notion that the Apocrypha teaches suicide. Please explain that to me and show me your source in the Apocrypha.

I will explain more after I hear your next part of this discussion.
janetsanders733

Con

First of all, I would
like to address that not all of those books are accepted by the RCC. This is
the list of accepted books in the Catholic Bible:

1. Tobit

2. Judith

3. Greek version of
Esther with additions

4. Wisdom of Solomon
(Book of Wisdom)

5. Sirach
(Ecclesiasticus)

6. Baruch

7. Letter of Jeremiah

8. Prayer of Azariah
and the Song of the Three Jews

9. Susanna (Daniel
chapter 13)

10. Bel and the
Dragon (Daniel chapter 14)

11. 1 Maccabees

12. 2 Maccabees

My second rebuttal is
that 1 Maccabees and Sirach were originally written in Hebrew and then
translated into Greek in the Septuagint.

Pro, needs to cite me a source to verify that statement.

My third rebuttal is
that the books I listed were canonized in the Third Council of Carthage.

You said that since
they have no claim to inspiration, they are not inspired. However, there are
many books in the Bible that have no claim to inspiration either. Such books
include Esther, the books of the Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

[1]But, they were
true prophets of God. Pro needs to understand that God in the OT, had a system
of testing things to know which prophet is from him. Deuteronomy 18:22 – “When
a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come
to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has
spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.”

b. Jeremiah 28:9
– “As for the prophet who prophesies of peace, when the word of the prophet
comes to pass, the prophet will be known as one whom the LORD has truly sent.”

The Apocrypha do not have any verifiable prophecies, nor are they
consistent with scripture. They promote evil acts.

The Jews rejection of
the Apocrypha does not nullify it's inspiration. The Jews also reject the New
Testament.

That is correct. The point of my argument is not that Jews
determine scripture. The point of my argument was to show that the Jews were
very meticulous writers, and preserved scripture very well. If any of the Jewish
circles read these books, they would know these were not true prophets of God,
nor are they considered scripture because of their false prophecies.

My question is this:
What offensive language is in the Apocrypha?

The Apocrypha does
not teach immoral practices. That is a very great misconception. In the book of
Tobit, Raphael never tells Tobias to use witchcraft. The things he shows him
are remedies and cures. If that is considered witchcraft than all medicine by
default is witchcraft. You say that Judith lying is contradictory to scripture.
The problem with that is that Esther used the same means to find favor from the
king. Like Judith, she used her physical attractiveness to find favor.

The Bible is full of
assassination and bloodshed. It is not immoral if it is God's will. I do not
understand where you got the notion that the Apocrypha teaches suicide. Please
explain that to me and show me your source in the Apocrypha.

[2]No, what I
mean is that Judith lied about the scriptures. We can’t verify any historical
or archaeological claims made in Judith. Here below are listed some reasons why
these are not the true scriptures.

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."

How is that not superstitious? Does the bible really condone
the smoke from a fish's heart, when burned, will drive away evil spirits? Of course not.

Earning 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).[2]

Using 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."

Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in
Scripture.

Historical
Inaccuracies:

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."

How on earth can these be true prophets of God, and yet
speak inconsistent inaccurate false prophecies in history? This would surely
fail the litmus test put by God to Moses for all prophets to come and speak in
the name of the LORD.


Burden of Proof is on Pro to show how we can trust these scriptures as the true scriptures of God's word the Bible.

Sources:

[1]http://biblicaltestsofaprophet.com...

[2]http://carm.org...

Debate Round No. 2
WWJD1245

Pro

The book of Sirach states that it was originally written in Hebrew and translated into Greek in the prologue of the book.
Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther were not prophets of God nor written by prophets of God. Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20 prophesies concerning Jesus 100 years before His birth. It says the following: (This is in the context of a foolish man talking.)

Therefore, let us encircle the just, because he is useless to us, and he is against our works, and he reproaches us with our legal offenses, and makes known to us the sins of our way of life. He promises that he has the knowledge of God and he calls himself the son of God. He was made among us to expose our very thoughts. He is grievous for us even to behold, for his life is unlike other men's lives, and immutable are his ways. It is as if we are considered by him to be insignificant, and he abstains from our ways as from filth; he prefers the newly justified, and he glories that he has God for his father. Let us see, then, if his words are true, and let us test what will happen to him, and then we will know what his end will be. For if he is the true son of God, he will receive him and deliver him from the hands of his adversaries. Let us examine him with insult and torture, that we may know his reverence and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a most shameful death, for, according to his own words, God will care for him." (Wisdom 2:12-20 CPDV)

There are no prophecies except that one because there were no prophets in Israel. It says that twice in 1 Maccabees. Not every biblical book has to be prophetic. Again, where does the Apocrypha promote evil acts? Though it says almsgiving cleanses sin, what it really means is that it is an act of righteousness. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Therefore, like any good deed, it is commendable before God. Just as the body without the soul is dead, so faith without works is dead.

Tobit and Judith were never meant to be historically accurate. Both of those books are like parables trying to teach a moral lesson instead of a history lesson. Judith is a symbolic book which combines Assyria and Babylon as enemies nations of Israel. Nebuchadnezzar was technically kind of Assyria since he ruled the lands which used to be Assyria. It would be like if you said Alexander the Great was king of Persia. It does not mean he was Persain but instead, he ruled over the lands of what used to be Persia.

You said that there are no verified prophecies fulfilled? Please correct me if I enterpreted that rebuttal wrong.

There are a few fulfillments of prophecies found in Daniel chapter 11. These take place concerning the relations between the Ptolomies of Egypt and The Seleucids of Asia.

When the book of Baruch says that Israel would be in Babylon for 7 generations it means that they would be in that region. It does not say they would be ruled under Babylon for 7 generations. You are right in saying that Jeremiah said that they would be ruled under Babylon for 70 years.

The Apocrypha contains great teachings and words of encouragement. Even if it was not considered as valuable as the other 39 books of the Old Testament, they should be regarded as holy books that we can learn from.
janetsanders733

Con

The book of Sirach
states that it was originally written in Hebrew and translated into Greek in
the prologue of the book.

Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther were not prophets
of God nor written by prophets of God. Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20 prophesies
concerning Jesus 100 years before His birth. It says the following: (This is in
the context of a foolish man talking.)

Again, Pro needs to cite me a source that supports both of
these arguments.

Therefore, let us encircle the just, because
he is useless to us, and he is against our works, and he reproaches us with our
legal offenses, and makes known to us the sins of our way of life. He promises
that he has the knowledge of God and he calls himself the son of God. He was
made among us to expose our very thoughts. He is grievous for us even to
behold, for his life is unlike other men's lives, and immutable are his ways.
It is as if we are considered by him to be insignificant, and he abstains from
our ways as from filth; he prefers the newly justified, and he glories that he
has God for his father. Let us see, then, if his words are true, and let us
test what will happen to him, and then we will know what his end will be. For
if he is the true son of God, he will receive him and deliver him from the
hands of his adversaries. Let us examine him with insult and torture, that we
may know his reverence and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a most
shameful death, for, according to his own words, God will care for him."
(Wisdom 2:12-20 CPDV)

That was something that the true prophets of God had already
spoken. This forgery is re-hashing what they had spoken. This also a “red
herring” because I did not mention anything about the Wisdom of Solomon in my previous
arguments, other than it being accepted by the R.C. church.

There are no prophecies except that one
because there were no prophets in Israel. It says that twice in 1 Maccabees.
Not every biblical book has to be prophetic. Again, where does the Apocrypha
promote evil acts? Though it says almsgiving cleanses sin, what it really means
is that it is an act of righteousness. Abraham believed God and it was credited
to him as righteousness. Therefore, like any good deed, it is commendable
before God. Just as the body without the soul is dead, so faith without works
is dead.

Faith is not a deed or work. Faith is an act that you set
before God. Faith is trusting in God, not working. James meant that if you have
faith, but you don’t show works, then it is dead. Why? Because you do not
really have Christ in your heart. If you really had Christ then your life will
truly show Christ working in it.

I showed you in my previous arguments where it promoted evil
acts. Using superstition in Tobit to ward off evil spirits is superstition.
Paying money to get someone out of Hell(2nd Maccabees). Those are
not biblical concepts found anywhere else in scripture. They contradict Christ
and who he is and what he taught.

Tobit and Judith were never meant to be
historically accurate. Both of those books are like parables trying to teach a
moral lesson instead of a history lesson. Judith is a symbolic book which
combines Assyria and Babylon as enemies nations of Israel. Nebuchadnezzar was
technically kind of Assyria since he ruled the lands which used to be Assyria.
It would be like if you said Alexander the Great was king of Persia. It does
not mean he was Persain but instead, he ruled over the lands of what used to be
Persia.

You said that there are no verified prophecies
fulfilled? Please correct me if I enterpreted that rebuttal wrong.

There are a few fulfillments of prophecies
found in Daniel chapter 11. These take place concerning the relations between
the Ptolomies of Egypt and The Seleucids of Asia.

I would beg to differ with you Pro. Daniel fulfilled every
prophecy that was spoken. King Belshazzar, to King Nebuchadnezzar, and most
importantly the Messiah Jesus Christ. Can you show me one prophecy that has not
been fulfilled? (http://www.propheciesofdaniel.com...)

When the book of Baruch says that Israel would
be in Babylon for 7 generations it means that they would be in that region. It
does not say they would be ruled under Babylon for 7 generations. You are right
in saying that Jeremiah said that they would be ruled under Babylon for 70
years.

Okay, again this is something that was known, because
Jeremiah and Daniel spoke of it before Baruch did. So it is not really a new
prophecy or anything not already known that has been spoken by the prophets of
God.

The Apocrypha contains great teachings and
words of encouragement. Even if it was not considered as valuable as the other
39 books of the Old Testament, they should be regarded as holy books that we
can learn from.

I would disagree with you Con. The Apocrypha contains superstitious
acts, and deeds that contradict scripture. That is why they were not part of
the canon or recognized by the majority of Jews and Christians.

Conclusion:

Pro, has
not cited any sources to his arguments. He has also not really shown why we
should accept these books as “Teachings”. These books are superstitious, and
are dishonorable to God. I think that is the main reason why they are not
recognized amongst many churches today or in the ancient world of the past.

Good job to Pro, though for letting me have this debate. Also good job with conduct,
and responding quickly.

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by WWJD1245 3 years ago
WWJD1245
The con never realized that when i said that Sirach was originally written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, that my source is the Bible. Obviously man's opinion can not annul God's word. Just because one Jew rejects the books does not mean anything. Prove to me Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther were prophets then. If someone says they are, that is their own opinion.
Posted by WWJD1245 3 years ago
WWJD1245
Thank you. I am ready for the debate.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
No, I am just saying I want to make sure that the voting is fair in this for both you and me. I wouldn't want someone to vote for me because my opening statment is much longer than yours.
Posted by WWJD1245 3 years ago
WWJD1245
Thank you for mentioning that. First of all, many people will say that since the Jews rejected those books as part of their canon that it is not scripture. Others will say there is false teachings in it. However, none of that is true. Many early church fathers and Christians accepted the books and taught out of them.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
Wait is this your opening argument? Cause I think for the sake of this debate, you should add more.
Posted by WWJD1245 3 years ago
WWJD1245
Me too. This will be fun.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
Okay, sounds good. Looking forward to this debate.
Posted by WWJD1245 3 years ago
WWJD1245
1st round opening arguments, 2nd round rebuttals, and 3rd round rebuttals and closing statements
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
How will this debate work?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
WWJD1245janetsanders733Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Pro, however he didn't give sources to back up what he was saying.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
WWJD1245janetsanders733Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments with sources to back them up. Pro did not really prove his point and he did not really have as many good arguments.