Canon of Scripture

[jmcrae]

From catholic.com

Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage III
“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

I’m not aware of any dispute that these two synods/councils included the books in question nor their authenticity so I’m not sure what you mean by they didn’t discuss the OT since they listed it in the above citations.

It was as a point of fact, to state what it was that they were making the New Testament to be equal with.

Imaginary conversation:

A. What genre of book library is this going to be?

B. It is going to be a New Testament Bible.

A. What is a Bible?

B. The current Bible that we use right now consists of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus …

A. Oh, that. Now I get it!

 

[mgrfin]

Now, why do you believe the Catholic Church is what it claims to be?

The Jews were constantly disputing among themselves about God, and their beliefs and their practices. Look at the number of questions they had for Jesus to resolve… They had the scriptures, but had private interpretations that left their beliefs a mess.

They choked themselves on the Law, and interpretations of the Law.

The same thing happened to the Protestants of the 16th Century and thereafter. With one heretic like Luther, their ‘freedoms’ led them to thousands of beliefs of christian communities of today.

Tell me what do you think the Catholic Church claims to be, and if you are correct, I will tell you why?

peace

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Jews were constantly disputing among themselves about God, and their beliefs and their practices. Look at the number of questions they had for Jesus to resolve… They had the scriptures, but had private interpretations that left their beliefs a mess.

They choked themselves on the Law, and interpretations of the Law.

The same thing happened to the Protestants of the 16th Century and thereafter. With one heretic like Luther, their ‘freedoms’ led them to thousands of beliefs of christian communities of today.

Tell me what do you think the Catholic Church claims to be, and if you are correct, I will tell you why?

peace

Mgrfin,

If you want to discuss anything with me now or in the future I suggest you don’t throw out the word “heretic” as I am quite sure that you wouldn’t appreciate it if I did the same.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The Jews were constantly disputing among themselves about God, and their beliefs and their practices. Look at the number of questions they had for Jesus to resolve… They had the scriptures, but had private interpretations that left their beliefs a mess.

So you agree that they reocognized the scriptures without anything similar to an infallible magesterium?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Tell me what do you think the Catholic Church claims to be, and if you are correct, I will tell you why?

peace

I’m not sure what you are after here. If you want to tell me what the Catholic church teaches feel free to do so.

 

[mgrfin]

Mgrfin,

If you want to discuss anything with me now or in the future I suggest you don’t throw out the word “heretic” as I am quite sure that you wouldn’t appreciate it if I did the same.

What Luther taught were heresies.

He denied the Primacy of the Pope and of General Councils.
He said that man was saved by 'faith only".
He did away with true belief in the Eucharist.
He denied the Seven Sacraments, save for his Eucharist and Baptism.
He taught OSAS
He taught in the primacy of Scripture alone
etc., etc.

These were heretical teachings. How should I refer to them?

peace

 

[Pwrlftr]

What Luther taught were heresies.

He denied the Primacy of the Pope and of General Councils.
He said that man was saved by 'faith only".
He did away with true belief in the Eucharist.
He denied the Seven Sacraments, save for his Eucharist and Baptism.
He taught OSAS
He taught in the primacy of Scripture alone
etc., etc.

These were heretical teachings. How should I refer to them?

peace

In a conversation w/ a non-Catholic I would recommend you not use the term heretic. Using the term heretic is inflamatory and does nothing to further the conversation.

You can disagree with me on whatever you like and defend your position as vigorously as you like, but using inflamatory langauge adds nothing to the conversation.

I could easily say the same thing about various pope (label them as heretics) and it will do nothing for the conversation.

So, again, if you wish to enter into conversation w/ me, you can disagree with me all you want and be as passionate about it as you choose but if you start throwing out charges of heresy I will simply place you on ignore as I will assume you have nothing of any substance to say.

It’s entirely your choice.

 

[peary]

In a conversation w/ a non-Catholic I would recommend you not use the term heretic. Using the term heretic is inflamatory and does nothing to further the conversation.

You can disagree with me on whatever you like and defend your position as vigorously as you like, but using inflamatory langauge adds nothing to the conversation.

I could easily say the same thing about various pope (label them as heretics) and it will do nothing for the conversation.

So, again, if you wish to enter into conversation w/ me, you can disagree with me all you want and be as passionate about it as you choose but if you start throwing out charges of heresy I will simply place you on ignore as I will assume you have nothing of any substance to say.

It’s entirely your choice.

Maybe the correct term instead of heretic should be “know-nothings”. That would solve a multitude of problems LOL

 

[mgrfin]

In a conversation w/ a non-Catholic I would recommend you not use the term heretic. Using the term heretic is inflamatory and does nothing to further the conversation.

You can disagree with me on whatever you like and defend your position as vigorously as you like, but using inflamatory langauge adds nothing to the conversation.

I could easily say the same thing about various pope (label them as heretics) and it will do nothing for the conversation.

So, again, if you wish to enter into conversation w/ me, you can disagree with me all you want and be as passionate about it as you choose but if you start throwing out charges of heresy I will simply place you on ignore as I will assume you have nothing of any substance to say.

It’s entirely your choice.

The anathemas of Trent are real, and still exist. Your choice is to do what you choose. It is a free country.

peace

 

[Deconi]

Faith.

Here’s what I cannot understand, Lifter. How is it that you have “faith” in something ‘Catholic’ (The Bible) and not only choose to remain non-Catholic, but want to undermine Her claim that they are inspired and inerrant?

Is it your wish to remove some books?

In so doing, argue ‘unconsciously’ that there are other books that should be in there?

This is what’s called heretic thought, which is why your views come from under that premise! It isn’t derogatory to you personally. It is the term for ‘the view’ that you assume.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Here’s what I cannot understand, Lifter. How is it that you have “faith” in something ‘Catholic’ (The Bible) and not only choose to remain non-Catholic, but want to undermine Her claim that they are inspired and inerrant?

The canon was established by God, not the church. The church may have recognized the canon but it’s is certainly not the author of the canon.

I remain non-Catholic because I see absolutely no reason to accept much of what is dogmatic to your church and see plenty of reason to reject much of what your church declares to be dogmatic.

Is it your wish to remove some books?

As you are probably aware, the books have been removed.

Unless I am forgetting something my single point on this thread has been that the ealier councils had no authority to bind the accpeptance of the OT canon on the church universal.

In so doing, argue ‘unconsciously’ that there are other books that should be in there?

I’m not sure what you mean.

This is what’s called heretic thought, which is why your views come from under that premise! It isn’t derogatory to you personally. It is the term for ‘the view’ that you assume.

I am well aware of what a heretic is and it will do you no good in discussion w/ non-Catholics to throw that term out there.

 

[peary]

The canon was established by God, not the church. The church may have recognized the canon but it’s is certainly not the author of the canon.

The Church decided the Canon. Why? Because the Church has always had the authority to bind and loose - the same authority given to the apostles. What is more, it ‘defined’ exactly and specifically what constituted the Canon of sacred scripture as late as the Council of Trent. The New Testament scriptures came OUT OF the Church. It wasn’t the other way around!

I remain non-Catholic because I see absolutely no reason to accept much of what is dogmatic to your church and see plenty of reason to reject much of what your church declares to be dogmatic.

Good for you! Alice in Wonderland said: “Any road will take you there if you don’t know where you’re going.” Have a nice journey!

As you are probably aware, the books have been removed.

The Catholic Bible retains all the books from the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament). The Church never removed a book. It was the protestants that did that.

Unless I am forgetting something my single point on this thread has been that the ealier councils had no authority to bind the accpeptance of the OT canon on the church universal.

Since the early Christians were Jews, the Old Testament was accepted without a problem, and the OT was retained as valid sacred writings by the earlier councils. History is on this side.

I’m not sure what you mean.

Does that surprise anyone?

I am well aware of what a heretic is and it will do you no good in discussion w/ non-Catholics to throw that term out there.

I still like the term “know-nothings” LOL

 

[Pwrlftr]

Peary,

You need to learn how to use the quote function. Please edit your post.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Peary:

The Catholic Bible retains all the books from the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament).

Not true. First there were different versions of the septuagint that contained different indexes of books. Some contained such books as III and IV Maccabbees which your church rejects.

So it is clearly not true that “the Catholic church retains all the books from the Septuagint”.

You may want to re-consider your “know nothing” comment. Something about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.

Peary:

The Church never removed a book. It was the protestants that did that.

Well, my issue is not that your church reduced the canon but added to it by placing uninspired books in it’s canon of scripture.

Peary:

Since the early Christians were Jews, the Old Testament was accepted without a problem, and the OT was retained as valid sacred writings by the earlier councils. History is on this side.

It isn’t true that the OT was accepted w/out a problem. Jerome comes to mind as do others so you can’t say that the OT was accepted w/out a problem As I posted earlier, there was a rejection of the apocrypha all the way up until Trent. Heck, as I showed earlier, even at Trent there was opposition.

Curiously, the Jews reject the apocrypha as well and there is no valid argument for establishing the canonicity of the apocrypha based on the scriptures.

 

[peary]

Not true. First there were different versions of the septuagint that contained different indexes of books. Some contained such books as III and IV Maccabbees which your church rejects.

So it is clearly not true that “the Catholic church retains all the books from the Septuagint”.

You may want to re-consider your “know nothing” comment. Something about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.

Well, my issue is not that your church reduced the canon but added to it by placing uninspired books in it’s canon of scripture.

It isn’t true that the OT was accepted w/out a problem. Jerome comes to mind as do others so you can’t say that the OT was accepted w/out a problem As I posted earlier, there was a rejection of the apocrypha all the way up until Trent. Heck, as I showed earlier, even at Trent there was opposition.

Curiously, the Jews reject the apocrypha as well and there is no valid argument for establishing the canonicity of the apocrypha based on the scriptures.

History of the Canon of the Old Testament:

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

 

[Pwrlftr]

History of the Canon of the Old Testament:

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Thanks but what is it I am supposed to pull out of this?

 

[Philthy]

**Is the Bible self-authenticating? **
I believe the Bible, being a collection of inspired works, bears witness to which books are truly inspired.

What do you think?

Hi Ginger! :yup:

Several years ago God woke me from my spiritual slumber and prompted me to read the entire New American Bible from cover to cover. I didnt know anyone who had ever done that and I was completely alone in doing so. I knew virtually nothing of Christian history. I was faithful and read it in a little over a year. I would write verses down that spoke to me or stirred my heart or faith. Over a year later I was involved in a study of Wayne Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” with some Protestant friends and the issue of the authenticity of Scripture came up. Part of what Dr Grudem argued was that Scripture could be recognized in much the same fashion you described - that it would be self authenticating. I thought this was an interesting idea which I liked. Not long afterwards I learned that the Protestant and Catholic canons were different. I realized that I was in a unique position to test this hypothesis: Since I had read the bible entirely ignorant that there were 2 canons, I could look at the verses I had written down which spoke to my heart and see if some had come from outside the Protestant canon. As it turned out many of them did. I realized that if the self authenticity of Scripture held any validity, then the Catholic canon was inspired.
I now know the history of how the canon developed and the Catholic version of events makes more sense to me, but I treasure the pure fact that when confronted with the entire canon I found something in just about all the deuterocanonicals which stirred my heart - especially Sirach. It gives me a peace the intellectual arguments dont match…

 

[peary]

Thanks but what is it I am supposed to pull out of this?

Your hair.

 

[Philthy]

2 Macc denies divine inspiration.

So does Luke

 

[Pwrlftr]

So does Luke

How does Luke deny inspiration?