Do I Have Breasts?

Why is the Apocrypha denied as a biblically canonical text?

The “Westminster Confession of Faith” came complete with “Scriptural Proofs” to help answer this question. It cites Romans 3:2, which says, “…unto them were committed the oracles of God.” The “Confession” also cites 2 Peter 1:21: “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” The Apocrypha is heretical; this proves it.

It should be noted that these passages do not even mention the Apocrypha. They do not, in fact, have much to do with the above question.

At least in academia there is a standard on citation.

The cite should, of its own intent, be of direct correlation to the topic being researched. If you were arguing the invalidity of Communism, it is unlikely that you would consult a Chinese cookbook, despite the connection between China and Communism.

The citation must also accurately reflect authorial intent. For instance, although Gandhi’s famous quote, “An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind”, could take on some alternate meaning like “Where violence increases, so does spiritual blindness,” the author only means to make a statement about retribution and peace.

Somehow these academic principles have lost their place when the Scriptures are referenced.

Here’s one of my favorites. The theory states that “it is a matter of Christian devotion that we live healthy lives—we ought to look good, watch our diet, and refrain from physically deterrent habits like smoking and getting tattoos.” Why? The citation states, “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.” The idea, then, is “You wouldn't want to attend a church with chipped paint or threadbare carpeting,” as one author has said. The Christian has certain aesthetic responsibilities, and this biblical reference proves it, right?

It may come as a surprise to some readers that this phrase has nothing to do with what goes into the body, what is on the body, or anything generally anatomical or health related. Instead, the concern is what comes forth from the body—in other words, the conduct of the Christian individual. Specifically, the author is saying that sexual immorality is impermissible within the church because our bodies were made for service to the Lord. Plus, if this passage were relaying a message about physical intake and physical exterior, it would be at odds with the rest of Pauline literature. Paul’s ministry was validated on the basis of the principle that “it is not what enters a man that defiles him”; he adapted the diet of a Gentile, which was previously unacceptable for a Jew.

No, you wouldn’t want to attend a church with chipped paint. But citing this source does not help that argument.

Some cite the Song of Solomon to resemble the “marital” relationship between God (the “Lover”) and the Jews or the church (the “Beloved”). If that is the case, then there must be some explanation as to what the author is referring to when he describes the Beloved’s eyes, legs, hair, and breasts. As a male, I know that I don’t have breasts. So if I am supposed to be the Beloved, according to the metaphor, what are my breasts?