Dangerous biblical study

[itullian]

yeah, He just dropped them out of Heaven.

 

[itullian]

why do YOU read the Bible since your interpretation is only one of thousands.
boywonder knows best, i guess.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Thank you Alan and Shannon you gave a very thoughtful and to the point response. I really want to address your comment but first I feel obligated to school all of these rude mini historians. So for the last time and ONLY because Catholics should know their history better…

1. The deuterocanonical books were NEVER in the Jewish canon. The Jews were given the oracles of God and so they SHOULD be the ones to know what books are authoritative and which are not. They were NEVER laid up in the temple and were never authoritative to Jews. Heuchler is confusing the Greek septuegent with Jewish canon. This is attested by Josephus and many other reliable historical sources.

The dueterocanonicals were in the Septuagint. Paul studied from and used the Septuagint. The early Church USED the Septuagint because many Jews who came to Christ were Hellenized Jews and and thus spoke Greek.

1. The Jews never proclaimed any canon until after the advent of the Church. And by then the Jewish Rabbi’s and scribes had lost the authority to “canonize” anything. Their obligation was to submit to the Apostles and to the Church.

3)One possibility you seem to ignore for biased reasons is that the Palestinian Jews, seeing that the new Church was using the Septuagint the Jerusalem scribes banned it because of hostility towards Hellenized Jews and the Greek composition of it.

So your premise that the Jewish authorities had the right over the Church to attest to what was canonical is flawed.

1. Augustine was pro deuterocanonical because he THOUGHT they were in the Jewish canon. He could not read Hebrew. The first catholic bishop who COULD read both Hebrew and Greek was… Guess who…

Augustine was “pro-deuterocanonical” because Augustine was a Bishop and a theologian of the highest order. There were many other ECF’s in the east that knew both Greek and Hebrew and also accepted the Septuagint AND the dueterocanonicals therin as inspired and part of tradition.

1. Jerome! And surprise, he did not think of them as historical and in FACT did differentiate them in his vulgate which is admitted by most catholic scholars and cardinals today.

You have your terms mixed up. Jerome didn’t consider them “inspired”, nowhere did Jerome say that they weren’t historical.

Secondly, Jerome, as brilliant as he was, was a priest, not a Bishop. He gave an opinon. And he was overruled by several different Councils as well as the Pope.

1. This is not a fact but in my opinion If the 60 some odd men in Trent had known what we know today they NEVER would have voted those books into canon. Especially in light of the fact that they are chalked FULL of error ie the temple being rebuilt 100 years before it was destroyed, nebekenezer ruling over the wrong area etc etc… But just like Newton… They made a mistake.

Trent did know, just as they knew in the Councils of Hippo(391), Carthage(393, 397,& 419). Trent reaffirmed the conclusions of these previous Councils because they had set the canon a thousand years before Luther decided to alter it.

So, again, your history is mistaken.

The difference between my reading of history and yours is that you START with the conclusion and then try to make the facts fit. As a protestant I can look at the facts and make the best available conclusion.

Right, because stating that Trent was the first time that the Church attested a Canon is not presupposing your conclusion while ignoring the fact that the Church closed the canon a thousand years prior?

Simply put, you’re doing exacly what you’re accusing us of doing. You’re presupposing protestantism is true and then reading only the history that fits your conclusion while ignoring the evidence to the contrary.

So spare us your invectives.

 

[itullian]

didn’t Jesus use the Septuagint?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

didn’t Jesus use the Septuagint?

Going from the Bible alone we can’t say. But since Jesus spent a portion of his childhood in Egypt(Alexandria was the birthpalce of the Septuagint) and then later in Galilee it’s safe to say that He might have used it or at least been familiar with it. He generall spoke Aramaic(which is a combination of Hebrew and Syriac), maybe Greek or even Latin(how else could he speak to Pilate).

I’m not sure but I do believe that there are some references to the deuterocanonicals that Jesus made in the Gospels, but I’ll leave that to others here.

 

[Boywonder23k]

The books are binding because they are God breathed. They are NOT binding because a Church said so. That IS the point sir.

The verse in mathew has several easy harmonizations. In the ancient world people often had two names for example Moses father in law had two names. The temple being Rebuilt before it was destroyed is not reconcilable. Ironically that same verse is used by many evangelicals as evidence against the apocrypha. Reference Norman Geisler and Ralph McKinzies work. But again this is not the primary reason for rejecting those books. Simply another good reason.

The grey pilgrim is nothing if not thorough! This actually isn’t the point of the thread but I’ll take the time to engage anyways simply because you tried so hard.

In response to your bullitins

2 how could Jesus have held the Jews responsible for scripture if they didn’t know what was inspired and what wasn’t? The Jews may not have had an official canon but they knew full well which books were inspired and did not treat the apocrypha as such. This is noted by Josephus who is a very reliable source. There is no evidence at all that the apostles or Jesus regarded the books as inspired. Because Jesus is God it wouldn’t matter what geographic location he grew up in or what language he spoke. If scripture was literally breathed by God Jesus would know full well which books were
Inspired. Jesus implicitly speaks against the septuegent in mathew as noted by Norman geisler.

1. Josephus was writing about times BEFORE Christ and so this point does not apply. For very unbiased reasons.
2. Your assertion about Augustine is simply false and unsupported. It is a fact of history that he thought that the Jews consideres those books inspired. If only he had known…
3. So now you will marginalize Jerome? Arguably One of the greatest scholars in catholic history? The apocrypha were used under the false pretense that the Jews agreed they were inspired books!!

That’s the long way of saying… I don’t agree with any of your points lol!! I don’t have any necessary bias. I am open to the books being legitimate there just simply isn’t any good reason to think that they are. On the other hand a catholic CAN NOT say the same. For a catholic those books MUST be right no matter what. Otherwise the whole house of cards collapses. So who is more likely to take an unbiased view of history? Think about it.

 

[itullian]

The books are binding because they are God breathed. They are NOT binding because a Church said so. That IS the point sir.

The verse in mathew has several easy harmonizations. In the ancient world people often had two names for example Moses father in law had two names. The temple being Rebuilt before it was destroyed is not reconcilable. Ironically that same verse is used by many evangelicals as evidence against the apocrypha. Reference Norman Geisler and Ralph McKinzies work. But again this is not the primary reason for rejecting those books. Simply another good reason.

The grey pilgrim is nothing if not thorough! This actually isn’t the point of the thread but I’ll take the time to engage anyways simply because you tried so hard.

In response to your bullitins

2 how could Jesus have held the Jews responsible for scripture if they didn’t know what was inspired and what wasn’t? The Jews may not have had an official canon but they knew full well which books were inspired and did not treat the apocrypha as such. This is noted by Josephus who is a very reliable source. There is no evidence at all that the apostles or Jesus regarded the books as inspired. Because Jesus is God it wouldn’t matter what geographic location he grew up in or what language he spoke. If scripture was literally breathed by God Jesus would know full well which books were
Inspired. Jesus implicitly speaks against the septuegent in mathew as noted by Norman geisler.

1. Josephus was writing about times BEFORE Christ and so this point does not apply. For very unbiased reasons.
2. Your assertion about Augustine is simply false and unsupported. It is a fact of history that he thought that the Jews consideres those books inspired. If only he had known…
3. So now you will marginalize Jerome? Arguably One of the greatest scholars in catholic history? The apocrypha were used under the false pretense that the Jews agreed they were inspired books!!

That’s the long way of saying… I don’t agree with any of your points lol!! I don’t have any necessary bias. I am open to the books being legitimate there just simply isn’t any good reason to think that they are. On the other hand a catholic CAN NOT say the same. For a catholic those books MUST be right no matter what. Otherwise the whole house of cards collapses. So who is more likely to take an unbiased view of history? Think about it.

the books ARE right. i trust Christ’s church.

 

[JackHandy]

Just a thought, in case it might be helpful. The bible is in fact part of sacred tradition, the written part. Since all of sacred tradition is true, none of it can conflict. Use the tradition of the church in your understanding of the bible and you won’t go wrong.

Also, remember that to protestants the bible is the only authority. Knowing the bible and how the church interprets it can only be of help in maybe winning some of them over. Just remember to do your just diligence.

One more thought. I don’t know about you, but sometimes when I need to know how much an acre is in square feet it is nice to have a reference book on the shelf to go to!

God Bless

Jack Handy

 

[victorbuhagiar]

The problem with those who twist the Bible passages, is that they have their own agenda first and know nothing about the past. The Bible was written 1900 years ago roughly. It was written in a syntax of its day and for the people of the day with their own ideas and not ours. If one has no thorough understanding of the languages of those days one will find himself in error.

We should read the bible with a Catholic interpretation.

God bless.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

The books are binding because they are God breathed. They are NOT binding because a Church said so. That IS the point sir.

So on what principle do you reject the Koran and the Book of Mormon or the writings of Mary Baker-Eddy? All of these works of themselves also claim to be divinely inspired?

Nowhere in the Bible does it list what books belong in the Bible. The Church-inspired by the Holy Spirit through a council-did this(see Acts 15:28).

The Bible IS inspired because the Church which proclaims them confirms it-the same Church which guarded them against persecutions and which produced them(remember, the Apostles and their secretaries who wrote the NT were all men of the Body of Christ-the Church),

The Church binds the Canon because it was the Church whom received it from the Apostles.

That is the point, sir.

The grey pilgrim is nothing if not thorough! This actually isn’t the point of the thread but I’ll take the time to engage anyways simply because you tried so hard.

In response to your bullitins

2 how could Jesus have held the Jews responsible for scripture if they didn’t know what was inspired and what wasn’t? The Jews may not have had an official canon but they knew full well which books were inspired and did not treat the apocrypha as such. **This is noted by Josephus who is a very reliable source. **

Jpsephus is hardly a “reliable” source. He was a known braggard and a brown-noser to his patron the Roman emperor. Yet he is the ONLY source we have regarding events in Palestine in the 1st century. Since Paelstine was considered by the Romans as a back-water corner of the Roman empire and relatively unimportant they simply disregarded it.

The point is that we have to parse Josephus’ words because he WAS a Jew and wrote from that perspective. The only reason you regard him so highly is because of your theological bent, not because of any objectivity.

There is no evidence at all that the apostles or Jesus regarded the books as inspired. Because Jesus is God it wouldn’t matter what geographic location he grew up in or what language he spoke.

Assertions not arguments…

If scripture was literally breathed by God Jesus would know full well which books were Inspired. Jesus implicitly speaks against the septuegent in mathew as noted by Norman geisler.

Yet it is never recorded where Jesus dictated to the Apotles what scriptures were “literally God-breathed” nor did Jesus ever tell any of His Apotles, while He was on earth, to write anything down?

As to your second assertion I have just one thing to say: prove it. Show me in Matthew where Jesus explicitly spoke against the Septuagint.

1. Josephus was writing about times BEFORE Christ and so this point does not apply. For very unbiased reasons.

So there weren’t hellenized Jews before Christ?

1. Your assertion about Augustine is simply false and unsupported. It is a fact of history that he thought that the Jews consideres those books inspired. If only he had known…

So Augustine wasn’t a Bishop of the Church and a theologian?

You’re also using the term “Jews” equivocally. Because, as we have seen, there are Jews in Paelstine who spoke Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew(which by the 1st century was becoming more esoteric like Latin is today) and Diaspora or Hellenized Jews outside of Paelstine.

Which “Jews” do you think Augustine was referring to?

1. So now you will marginalize Jerome? Arguably One of the greatest scholars in catholic history? The apocrypha were used under the false pretense that the Jews agreed they were inspired books!!

1)It’s not “marginalizing” when you state the facts. Jerome was in no place to authoritively define anything because he was only a priest. I love Jerome and am ever grateful for the work he did, but that doesn’t mean that he’s a supreme authority over the Church. He showed this by submitting to the Church’s decisions in their Councils.

What I find even more amazing is that you think that by hammering an opinion of his that you will get traction. If you truly knew the man and his orthodoxy, you would be shocked to find his invectives aimed directly at you and your protestantism. He was especially vitriolic towards those who attacked Mary’s perpetual virginity.

"My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! (Matthew 16:18 ) This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. (Exodus 12:22) This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."St Jerome, Letters, #15

So I would be wary of your approach in using Jerome. He was a Catholic Christian.

 

[TarkanAttila]

The books are binding because they are God breathed. They are NOT binding because a Church said so. That IS the point sir.

Prove it. That is OUR point.

Without the teaching authority of the Church, the pillar and ground of Truth, you cannot. You have no basis to say the Gospels are divinely inspired, except in history. And history also says the Deuterocanon is Word of God, and it says it is WoG because the Church discovered it to be so. It did not MAKE Scripture the Word of God. It found it to be.

Point being: when you leave the Church, you risk making errors - as the Mormons and Christian Scientists did in canon of Scripture. And indeed as every Protestant does by excluding the Greek books.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

cont’d

That’s the long way of saying… I don’t agree with any of your points lol!! I don’t have any necessary bias.

They are not “points”, they are proofs. You’re simply confusing your subjective opinions with objective truths and you think that this is some sort of opinion-sharing session.

What is really “laughable” is your assertion that you don’t have a bias. It’s stains all of your answers and remarks. You ignore and disregard that which obviously disproves your assertions by saying “I don’t agree”. Its no different than you just putting your fingers in your ears and screaming, “LALALALALA!”

I am open to the books being legitimate there just simply isn’t any good reason to think that they are.

Again, assertions without arguments. You’re begging the question.

On the other hand a catholic CAN NOT say the same. For a catholic those books MUST be right no matter what. Otherwise the whole house of cards collapses. So who is more likely to take an unbiased view of history? Think about it.

Again, your logic just doesn’t follow.

We have no reason to believe that they are neither inspired or at the least historical. In fact we have every reason to believe that they are exactly what the Church has confirmed them to be.

As far as your “unbiased” view of history, here is Canon 24 from the Council of Carthage(419):Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, 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.
•The Judges.
•Ruth.
•The Kings, iv. books.
•The Chronicles, ij. books.
•Job.
•The Psalter.
•The Five books of Solomon.
•The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
•Isaiah.
•Jeremiah.
•Ezechiel.
•Daniel.
•Tobit.
•Judith.
•Esther.
•Ezra, ij. books.
•Macchabees, ij. books.
◦The New Testament.
■The Gospels, iv. books.
■The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
■The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
■The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
■The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
■The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
■The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
■The Revelation of John, j. book.
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

Council of Carthage

Again, thats a thousand years before Trent and this list was confirmed by the Pope.

boywonder, I was a protestant, and then an atheist, before I cam back to God. He brought me back to Himself through my personal studies of ancient history and most notably the early Church.

I wasn’t a Catholic who inserted the Church into history. I was a open-minded seeker who found the Catholic Church in history. You, on the other hand, are a protestant desperate to legitimize your theology so you’re imposing it onto history. You’re trying to revise history to better suit your claims.

So spare me your invectives about historical bias. At no time as a protestant did I learn about the early Church except to hear about the source of the fish symbol and a few passing references to Christian martyrs, and now I know why. “To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.”(John Cardinal henry Newmann).

.

 

[TarkanAttila]

God bless his soul, Luther, while he really did seem to want to be a true Christian, was also a hyper-scrupulous fellow, and this scrupulosity and inability to cope with the fact that God loves him and accepts his faith (faith requires both belief and works, or else it is a dead faith, see James) despite his every sin led him to adopt the errors he did.

God have mercy on his soul for the errors Luther caused among poor modern folk like this one. I’ll bet BoyWonder here doesn’t even know Luther had a great love for the Blessed Virgin, and even prayed to her. Nor that sola scriptura was not really “the Bible ALONE”, but “nothing should CONTRADICT the Bible”. Big, big difference.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Just a thought, in case it might be helpful. The bible is in fact part of sacred tradition, the written part. Since all of sacred tradition is true, none of it can conflict. Use the tradition of the church in your understanding of the bible and you won’t go wrong.

Also, remember that to protestants the bible is the only authority. Knowing the bible and how the church interprets it can only be of help in maybe winning some of them over. Just remember to do your just diligence.

One more thought. I don’t know about you, but sometimes when I need to know how much an acre is in square feet it is nice to have a reference book on the shelf to go to!

God Bless

Jack Handy

The problem with most protestants is that they take the word “tradition” and universally apply it to Jesus’ condemnation in Matthew’s gospel. They equivocate Catholic Sacred tradition with “the traditions of men” and roundly condemn us though that verse. We all know that they are taking it out of context but that means nothing to them. They have their hearts set on their beliefs rather than if they are actually true or not. And they read that theology into the Bible.

What boywonder is trying to argue is that because we have a heirarchical structure of deacons, priests, and bishops that it is pointless to read or study the Bible.

The assertion is as preposterous as it is humorous.

 

[TarkanAttila]

The problem with most protestants is that they take the word “tradition” and universally apply it to Jesus’ condemnation in Matthew’s gospel. They equivocate Catholic Sacred tradition with “the traditions of men” and roundly condemn us though that verse. We all know that they are taking it out of context but that means nothing to them. They have their hearts set on their beliefs rather than if they are actually true or not. And they read that theology into the Bible.

What boywonder is trying to argue is that because we have a heirarchical structure of deacons, priests, and bishops that it is pointless to read or study the Bible.

The assertion is as preposterous as it is humorous.

Well said, not that they will admit it.

I still can’t understand how they read into John 6 and the Synoptic Gospels that Christ’s presence is only symbolic in the Last Supper. That’s silly.

 

[Hokomai]

The REAL treasure of the Bible is experienced best by simply listening to it and not trying to figure it out. You become much more intimate because by not defending against what doesn’t make sense, you’re allowing it into your mind and hear to do its work. My favorite way is in a comfy position.

Alan

I think you are not alone among believers. explains a lot!

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

God bless his soul, Luther, while he really did seem to want to be a true Christian, was also a hyper-scrupulous fellow, and this scrupulosity and inability to cope with the fact that God loves him and accepts his faith (faith requires both belief and works, or else it is a dead faith, see James) despite his every sin led him to adopt the errors he did.

God have mercy on his soul for the errors Luther caused among poor modern folk like this one. I’ll bet BoyWonder here doesn’t even know Luther had a great love for the Blessed Virgin, and even prayed to her. Nor that sola scriptura was not really “the Bible ALONE”, but “nothing should CONTRADICT the Bible”. Big, big difference.

Well. boywonder seems to care because he seems rather adamant in proving that I know nothing about history-Church history or otherwise.

Luther’s sad life and his image of his abusive father led him to see God in the same light-as this divinely severe Judge sitting in a hard and cold courtroom. That relationship stained all his notions about God as Father. It’s really quite sad and I actually pity Luther because of what he endured and how harsh he was on himself. But in the same token he became a hard and harsh man, becoming full of his own knowledge he also became full of pride. That pride is shown in the letters he wrote.

What really make me sad is that when you demonstrate the historical record how it just gets passed over or ignored. For some reason some people would rather love what they want to be the truth rather than the truth itself.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I think you are not alone among believers. explains a lot!

It makes more sense when you’ve understood that God is the center of the universe, and not you.

I wonder why you keep poking into threads which you couldn’t possibly give any insight. This is pretty much a Protestant vs. Catholic thread.

What really make me sad is that when you demonstrate the historical record how it just gets passed over or ignored. For some reason some people would rather love what they want to be the truth rather than the truth itself.

Amen. Amen.

 

[Hokomai]

It makes more sense when you’ve understood that God is the center of the universe, and not you.

This is pretty much a Protestant vs. Catholic thread. I wonder why you keep poking into threads which you couldn’t possibly give any insight.

In the last four weeks I have read three books on biblical studies. I am working hard on my insights into belief of all sorts, including Catholic and Protestant beliefs. When you express your beliefs, you interest me. Does that explain why I am here?

Incidentally, I hope you did not intend the remark you made about the centre of the universe to read as it does.

 

[TarkanAttila]

In the last four weeks I have read three books on biblical studies. I am working hard on my insights into belief of all sorts, including Catholic and Protestant beliefs. When you express your beliefs, you interest me. Does that explain why I am here?

Incidentally, I hope you did not intend the remark you made about the centre of the universe to read as it does.

Never said you had no right to look at the thread. But when you make little quips like the one you did it doesn’t impress me, and you come off as another troll.

My dear Hokomai, you should know full well by now most of the Catholics on this forum, at least, don’t literally, physically believe that. -_- A grain of salt, man. Take it with a grain of salt.