Debate with anti-catholic bigot... help appreciated

[exoflare]

(cont…)

Early church fathers did not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture either – including Jerome, who wrote the Latin translation of the Bible held as THE RCC standard of Biblical scholarship for centuries. Check also such pillars of theology as Athanasius, Cyril and Origen – none saw the Apocrypha as part of the canon.

 I like how you act as if these were the only church fathers that ever existed because you think their view supports your own in this one instance.  And where do any of these people state this exactly?  In any case, none of these people would have any authority by themselves to decide the canon of scripture on their own so it really wouldn't matter whether or not they did.

 But here's an interesting quote from Jerome:

“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29-68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

 Even Cardinal Cajetan, the Pope's designated condemner of Luther at Augsburg (1518), published his "Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament" and it DID NOT INCLUDE the Apocrypha!

 Was he the Pope... writing a doctrine to the whole church?  If not, how does this have any bearing on the real doctrine?

 The impact of the Reformation caused a Counter Reformation and at the Council of Trent, the RCC specifically absorbed (they would say "elevated") the Apocrypha (and condemned anyone who refused to do so). This was done 1,000 years after the Apocrypha were written -- something never done in the entire history of the church anywhere by anyone.

 The part you conveniently leave out is that NONE of the books in the Bible were infallibly declared a part of scripture before this time!  Scripture was discussed at Hippo and Carthage, and the Deuterocanonicals were declared to be canon here.  However, the canon was not defined infallibly and made a dogma here since Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils.  It was finally decided to settle the matter for good shortly after, during the Council of Trent, in order to put a lid on heretics like Luther.  This isn't uncommon when a huge controversy erupts over church teaching that has not yet been infallibly defined.

 I believe the Council of Trent quote went something like this:

“. . . if anyone receives not as sacred and canonical the books with all their parts as they have been used in the Catholic Church, let him be anathema.”

Amen. And so ends the story of where we got the Bible.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

exoflare-

** If you understood the Apocrypha (meaning “hidden” or “doubtful”) history, you would know they were held separately from the full canon of Scripture in nearly every Bible BY THE RCC prior to Luther’s time. They had good reasons. There is not a single quotation from the Apocrypha to be found anywhere in the New Testament as a legitimizing cross-reference. The New Testament never refers to any document outside the canon as authoritative.

**" 2: this is just an outright lie, isn’t it? And anyways, I’m pretty sure there are several other books in the OT that are never quoted in the NT that are still accepted as canonical by protestants… not sure I can name them all, though.

Ha, the ORIGINAL KJV had the DC books, so right there, he has some stuff to consider.

In terms of “cross references” there are long long passages all through the OT that are not “referenced”. But anyway there are DC refereces, eg Wis2:12-20 which is impossible to deny.

** Early church fathers did not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture either – including Jerome, who wrote the Latin translation of the Bible held as THE RCC standard of Biblical scholarship for centuries. Check also such pillars of theology as Athanasius, Cyril and Origen – none saw the Apocrypha as part of the canon.
**" 4: Did Jerone really leave the “apocrypha” out of his vulgate translation? Even so, I guess it wouldn’t matter because he wasn’t the authority on which books were canon anyway.

Jerome did include them. Also this guy is way ignorant of the facts, to protestants there is only one Church Father…Augustine… in fact to them he was the only Christian who lived between the Apostles and Luther…by the way, Augustine fully accepted those books in “On Christian Doctrine Book 2” he lists them all without distinction. Kind of interesting to know they dont mention him.
As far as other ECF, from what I have looked into it varied, eg many accepted Baruch but not other DC books. Many accepted the DC chapters in books like Daniel and Esther.

** Even Cardinal Cajetan, the Pope’s designated condemner of Luther at Augsburg (1518), published his “Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament” and it DID NOT INCLUDE the Apocrypha!**

Many protestants mention this Cajetan, but I havnt seen any of them produce a full quote and source…which leads me to conclude it was an cut and paste off an anti-C site…so I dont really regard it as anthing.

** The impact of the Reformation caused a Counter Reformation and at the Council of Trent, the RCC specifically absorbed (they would say “elevated”) the Apocrypha (and condemned anyone who refused to do so). This was done 1,000 years after the Apocrypha were written – something never done in the entire history of the church anywhere by anyone.
**In paragraph 6 he mentions the council of Trent as where the “apocrypha” were finally accepted as canon. The part he leaves out is, weren’t ALL the other books of the NT and OT first accepted (by an ecumenical council) here too??

Actually I never got the impression that the Church was worried about people adding and removing from the canon when I read that section of Trent. It was written in a “just a friendly reminder” way, there was no specific condemnations on the DC. The truth is they simply listed all the books of the Bible, no arguing or anything. Look HERE. Its not as combative as people think.

** I believe the Council of Trent quote went something like this:

“. . . if anyone receives not as sacred and canonical the books with all their parts as they have been used in the Catholic Church, let him be anathema.”**

Again this is the usual scare tactics which cut and pasters use, totally unfounded, here is they true quote (from the above link):
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.
Notice the key words above? KNOWINGLY AND DELIBERATELY REJECTS, not quite what your friend quoted was it.

 

[exoflare]

Hehe, Catholic Dude you’re awesome.

Just want to take this opportunity to say THANKS to everyone who helped me on here. I definitely wouldn’t have been able to formulate that large a response so quickly if it weren’t for you all!

Like I said, I’ll let you know how he responds… But I have a feeling it won’t be pretty. Other people on that same e-mail thread have complained before about his haughty attitude, on all sorts of issues. He started bragging about how I was going to embarrass myself and he’s been teaching “church history” for 20 years and blahblahblah… Also when I ask him jokingly “where do you get your information, from Jack Chick pamphlets?” he said he’s never heard of Jack Chick at all. But then apparently he got most of the info from some author named Norman Geiser, who I eventually deduce is just another nutty anti-Catholic.

I guess it’s all sort of funny though, amusing anyway…

 

[arieh0310]

exoflare:

But then apparently he got most of the info from some author named Norman Geiser, who I eventually deduce is just another nutty anti-Catholic.

Actually, Geisler is a fairly prominent Protestant theologan and apologist. I have one of his works, “The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics”, which is fairly good but his section on the canon of scripture is laughable. I really don’t understand his argument it seems to me that he thinks there is a “Most Holy Table of Contents” somewhere.

Anyway, great job on the retort.

 

[exoflare]

arieh0310:

Actually, Geisler is a fairly prominent Protestant theologan and apologist. I have one of his works, “The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics”, which is fairly good but his section on the canon of scripture is laughable. I really don’t understand his argument it seems to me that he thinks there is a “Most Holy Table of Contents” somewhere.

Anyway, great job on the retort.

Wow, if I’m not mistaken that’s the very same book he said he was getting his information from!

 

[arieh0310]

exoflare:

Wow, if I’m not mistaken that’s the very same book he said he was getting his information from!

I just re-read the article Geisler wrote, “Apocrypha, Old and New Testament”, and I have to admit that he has some good arguments, on the surface. However, the Catholic position seems much stronger than the Protestant one. The biggest reason, in my opinion, is that the same arguments he raises against deuterocanonical Old Testament books MUST, in all fairness, be use against the deuterocanonical New Testament books.

In the end, it seems the only real reason the Old Testament books are excluded and the New Testament ones are not is that Purgatory has a strong “Sola Scriptura” argument in 2 Mac.

 

[exoflare]

What exactly do you mean by “deuterocanonical New Testament books” … are those referring to the books of the NT (James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation) that Luther treated in the same fashion?

 

[arieh0310]

exoflare:

What exactly do you mean by “deuterocanonical New Testament books” … are those referring to the books of the NT (James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation) that Luther treated in the same fashion?

Yes, from New Advent:
*
The New has its deuterocanonical books and portions of books, their canonicity having formerly been a subject of some controversy in the Church. These are for the entire books: the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of John, Jude, and Apocalypse; giving seven in all as the number of the New Testament contested books.*

 

[exoflare]

arieh0310:

I just re-read the article Geisler wrote, “Apocrypha, Old and New Testament”, and I have to admit that he has some good arguments, on the surface. However, the Catholic position seems much stronger than the Protestant one. The biggest reason, in my opinion, is that the same arguments he raises against deuterocanonical Old Testament books MUST, in all fairness, be use against the deuterocanonical New Testament books.

In the end, it seems the only real reason the Old Testament books are excluded and the New Testament ones are not is that Purgatory has a strong “Sola Scriptura” argument in 2 Mac.

I don’t suppose when you have time you could sort of give me a brief outline of what exactly his arguments are? Why do they seem any good at all, even if just on the surface?

 

[arieh0310]

exoflare:

I don’t suppose when you have time you could sort of give me a brief outline of what exactly his arguments are? Why do they seem any good at all, even if just on the surface?

This article has done my work for me: catholic-convert.com/DesktopModules/UserDocuments/UserDocuments_ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=270

If you do not have Word, try this HTML version: 66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ln1a036D5fUJ:www.catholic-convert.com/DesktopModules/UserDocuments/UserDocuments_ViewDocument.aspx%3FDocumentID%3D270+norman+geisler+apocrypha+old+and+new+testament&hl=en&client=firefox-a

 

[Veritas41]

As a former Protestant, I had always been taught to believe that the deuterocanonicals (Protestants incorrectly refer to as the “Apocrypha”) were “added” to the Bible during the Council of Trent. One thing I point out to quickly counter this is the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Bible contains the deuterocanonicals, yet the Orthodox Church broke communion with Rome in 1054, 500 years before Trent. Whenever I ask a Protestant how to explain this, they’re always stumped.

 

[exoflare]

Veritas41:

As a former Protestant, I had always been taught to believe that the deuterocanonicals (Protestants incorrectly refer to as the “Apocrypha”) were “added” to the Bible during the Council of Trent. One thing I point out to quickly counter this is the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Bible contains the deuterocanonicals, yet the Orthodox Church broke communion with Rome in 1054, 500 years before Trent. Whenever I ask a Protestant how to explain this, they’re always stumped.

LOL that’s a good one too, thanks!

 

[LittleDeb]

wow, Wow, and WOW! I need to print this thread to use as a reference.

[Also wanted to bump it to the top to get it a few more reads!]

 

[mcgov]

This is terrific! I can’t wait to hear his response!!

 

[exoflare]

LOL

Surprisingly, the guy still hasn’t replied yet…

 

[exoflare]

Man, how disappointing. Here’s his half-baked reply. Mind you, everyone on that e-mail thread is seeing all of these replies from both me and him.

He only responds to the part where I say:
<< As for the rejection of these books by the “RCC” up until that time, I’ll ask you once again to tell us which council or papal decree (you know, actual Catholic teaching of some sort) reject these books. Meanwhile, these councils seem to have approved them. >>

And his “reply”:

**I DID answer your question – Council of Trent proclaimed the Apocrypha as canon – with the full support of the Pope. I quoted the admonition from Trent that proclaimed anyone who rejected these books “anathema.” (In RCC terms that is a very bad word)

** Yes that was his WHOLE reply! What a friggin’ coward, I tell you… But at least he’s not able to fool anyone else on that e-mail thread, even if he’s stuck in denial himself. This is how I replied:

LOL Did you even read the question? You claimed the Catholic Church had rejected these books before, so I’ll ask you for the THIRD time which council or Pope was it that rejected these books prior to the Council of Trent? And how do you explain all the previous councils that approved the very same canon that included the “Apocrypha”? You’re not fooling anybody here if your only recourse is avoiding the question.

 

[RCCDefender]

Okay, so I was so eager to reply that I may be repeating other posts.

scripturecatholic.com has tons of crossreferences. My old standby “Why Do Catholics Do That?” does as well.

Interestingly enough, Luther was all ready to toss out James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, and Revelation.

Our Old Testament is the Septuagint, which the Jews used universally right up to the time of Jesus. When the temple was destroyed in 70 the hard core rabbis of Jamnia who still denied the divinity of Christ had to get together to quell the growing defacto of Judaism. They needed a new form of Judaism that would bring Jews together while undercutting the claims of Christianity. They came up with a revised canon called the Jamnian canon.

There’s a whole chapter about the origins of the Old Testament in “Why Do Catholics Do That?” You’ve got to get that book!

And I promise I’m not Kevin Orlin Johnson, nor am I related to him.

But maybe I should get some kind of comission for all the promoting I do for Him! :whacky:

 

[mercygate]

exoflare:

Man, how disappointing. Here’s his half-baked reply. Mind you, everyone on that e-mail thread is seeing all of these replies from both me and him.

He only responds to the part where I say:
<< As for the rejection of these books by the “RCC” up until that time, I’ll ask you once again to tell us which council or papal decree (you know, actual Catholic teaching of some sort) reject these books. Meanwhile, these councils seem to have approved them. >>

And his “reply”:

I DID answer your question – Council of Trent proclaimed the Apocrypha as canon – with the full support of the Pope. I quoted the admonition from Trent that proclaimed anyone who rejected these books “anathema.” (In RCC terms that is a very bad word)

****Yes that was his WHOLE reply! What a friggin’ coward, I tell you… But at least he’s not able to fool anyone else on that e-mail thread, even if he’s stuck in denial himself. This is how I replied:

LOL Did you even read the question? You claimed the Catholic Church had rejected these books before, so I’ll ask you for the THIRD time which council or Pope was it that rejected these books prior to the Council of Trent? And how do you explain all the previous councils that approved the very same canon that included the “Apocrypha”? You’re not fooling anybody here if your only recourse is avoiding the question.

exoflare, I know it feels good, but it would be great if you could eschew comments like “You’re not fooling anybody here . . .” Just make your point (as you have so ably done) and leave it hanging, unanswerable. The gratuitous taunt just exacerbates an already hostile situation and drives the wedge further between you and your interlocutor.

 

[exoflare]

mercygate:

exoflare, I know it feels good, but it would be great if you could eschew comments like “You’re not fooling anybody here . . .” Just make your point (as you have so ably done) and leave it hanging, unanswerable. The gratuitous taunt just exacerbates an already hostile situation and drives the wedge further between you and your interlocutor.

It does sound like a taunt, doesn’t it? I didn’t mean it that way exactly, but you’re right that I should avoid saying things like that. In all seriousness, this guy really does seem like he’s actively trying to deceive the others by using these tired old strawman arguments. When I said “you’re not fooling anyone” I was completely serious.

Anyhow, I’ll keep in mind what you said.

 

[exoflare]

Okay, got another reply to that last one just now. Looks like the bigot finally has shown his true face and given up.

**This is tedious. Why do these discussions always devolve into neener-neener word parsing while the main points get obscured?

The RCC NEVER included the Apocrypha in the Bible as canonized Scripture before the Council of Trent. The writings were provided as addenda but NEVER as canonized Scripture. That is a crucial distinction which might be lost on you. Luther ALSO included the Apocrypha in a like manner, so he did not “leave the books out” of the Bible as is wrongly proposed by some.

On that basis, by implication only, the RCC “rejected” their inclusion. My educated guess is they looked at them repeatedly over the centuries and the writings just did not measure up to the standards of canonization – do we have a CSPAN tape to review? Probably not.

What is clear from the record is that RCC scholars and Papal officials never canonized the writings officially for the church as a whole until Trent – and this was clearly a political overraction to Luther’s Reformation, not a “light bulb” event of realization after 1,500 years of excluding the writings. There were no “new” discoveries or compelling linguistic changes to explain this sudden shift – except the vulnerability of the RCC to the charge of using non-Scriptural writings to fleece the population into paying to get Grandma out of so-called Purgatory.

Their solution? “OK, we’ll make the writings Scripture by fiat! That’ll fix Luther! This will make Purgatory official, prayers for the dead, and all that Mary stuff too.”

Its also clear that you, personally, cannot argue the correctness of their decision. I have offered a few arguments from my own study without getting deeply into the subject (I just can’t muster the time right now). I have not just shopped a few internet websites to throw at you (even though I probably could).

So, we can agree to disagree if you have no desire to learn. I won’t get into neener-neener with you over this any longer.**