R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Keep it clean or I am out of this thread. You should be ashamed of yourself.
- Status
S
Salvatore123
Guest
No, Rightly,
I am the one who is gone.
We have been nice to you in the beginning, and yet you have been condescending and rude to everyone who has posed a legitimate question to you.
Your arrogance and pride are so apparent that it is disappointing to see . . .
Good luck.
I am the one who is gone.
We have been nice to you in the beginning, and yet you have been condescending and rude to everyone who has posed a legitimate question to you.
Your arrogance and pride are so apparent that it is disappointing to see . . .
Good luck.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I absolutely can go without making any comments about another poster. I do not think everyone else can…except Poco and Byzman who seem mostly nice. I asked a question. Answer it and ask one yourself. No tone. No nothing. Watch me. Keep it short.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Precisely. The Supreme Court interprets and determines,not the citizens. The church and Bible are no different. Honestly, I believe Rightly does not want to ADMIT it was the Catholic Church because then he would have to admit he has adhered to a Catholic position…
N
Nicea325
Guest
Are you kidding? How was Salvatores comparison to the U.S. Supreme offensive? I mentioned it first and he elaborated on it and it is all true. If that offended you,then it is clear your back is up against the wall and your pride simply will not allow you to admit it. Really sad rightly-it is you who ought to be ashamed,not us.
N
Nicea325
Guest
LOL! I am giving opinions? Sure,so much for my years of education and research on historical matters as a under-grad and graduate student.Rightlydivide all on his own has debunked ancient history with his: Because I say so and my one source (Josephus) is all I need. Truly laughable Rightlydivde.
But you cannot answer the obvious: WHEN,BY WHOM,BY WHAT AUTHORITY. Oh yes it has destroyed your position and you simply cannot admit it! Your pride blinds you pretty bad,so on the contrary,nice try.
I have no need to run,but you sure have done a great job of it by not answering. But you have the nerve to say people who can answer? Reall funny.Let us all know when you come to your senses that your pride is to thick to swallow.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Gentlemen-
I’m coming to this thread late, and I see that I have missed quite a donnybrook.
I’m not going to bother reading the thread in its entirety (since it is likely to be locked at any moment due to the lack of charity exhibited on both sides), but based on the few posts I’ve read, I’ll offer some data in a post or two that might be helpful. If I’m off-base, then feel free to ignore me.
Post #1: Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller
Paul’s disciple, Timothy, was a Greek, and the Old Testament that Timothy would have been most familiar with from the time of his youth (cf. 2 Tim 3:14-17) was the Greek Septuagint. Because of his travels outside of Israel, Paul, too, would have been familiar with and would have used the Greek version of the Old Testament writings. Therefore, in this passage of scripture, Paul encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned from the Septuagint.
This has important implications for a controversy concerning seven books of the Old Testament now known collectively to Catholics as the “Deuterocanonicals” and to Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. Catholics consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired scripture while Protestants reject them. The Greek Septuagint contains these seven books while the Hebrew version of the Old Testament does not.
There is no doubt that the Septuagint was known to and used by Jesus, Paul and Timothy and yet, in the 16th century, Martin Luther removed these seven books from the Bible because they contain passages that support distinctly Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead and purgatory—doctrines which he rejected. Luther justified his action in part upon the fact that the Jews themselves rejected the Deuterocanonicals as part of their canon.
This development in the history of the Jewish canon is interesting in itself. Beginning as early as 90 A.D. at the so-called “Council of Jamnia”, Jewish leaders began to re-think which books of the Bible should and should not be considered scripture. In the second century, the Jews finally removed the Deuterocanonical books from their canon of scripture, and this was due in large part to the fact that the early Christian Church was using the Deuterocanonicals to support the Christian belief in the resurrection from the dead. The Jewish scriptures were being used to win converts to the Christian faith! Consequently, the Jews ultimately rejected the Deuterocanonical books some two centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. Martin Luther used their decision to justify his own.
This leads to a couple of obvious questions: “Why would the Holy Spirit guide a group of rabbis on matters related to the Old Testament canon when there was already a Christian Church in existence that was under His infallible guidance as Jesus had promised? And why should Luther accept the revised Hebrew canon instead of the canon of the Septuagint that had been in continuous use in the Church for over fifteen centuries?
Luther picked that truncated canon for the same reason the rabbis did: in order to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church which did not fit his new theology.
I’m coming to this thread late, and I see that I have missed quite a donnybrook.
I’m not going to bother reading the thread in its entirety (since it is likely to be locked at any moment due to the lack of charity exhibited on both sides), but based on the few posts I’ve read, I’ll offer some data in a post or two that might be helpful. If I’m off-base, then feel free to ignore me.
Post #1: Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller
Paul’s disciple, Timothy, was a Greek, and the Old Testament that Timothy would have been most familiar with from the time of his youth (cf. 2 Tim 3:14-17) was the Greek Septuagint. Because of his travels outside of Israel, Paul, too, would have been familiar with and would have used the Greek version of the Old Testament writings. Therefore, in this passage of scripture, Paul encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned from the Septuagint.
This has important implications for a controversy concerning seven books of the Old Testament now known collectively to Catholics as the “Deuterocanonicals” and to Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. Catholics consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired scripture while Protestants reject them. The Greek Septuagint contains these seven books while the Hebrew version of the Old Testament does not.
There is no doubt that the Septuagint was known to and used by Jesus, Paul and Timothy and yet, in the 16th century, Martin Luther removed these seven books from the Bible because they contain passages that support distinctly Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead and purgatory—doctrines which he rejected. Luther justified his action in part upon the fact that the Jews themselves rejected the Deuterocanonicals as part of their canon.
This development in the history of the Jewish canon is interesting in itself. Beginning as early as 90 A.D. at the so-called “Council of Jamnia”, Jewish leaders began to re-think which books of the Bible should and should not be considered scripture. In the second century, the Jews finally removed the Deuterocanonical books from their canon of scripture, and this was due in large part to the fact that the early Christian Church was using the Deuterocanonicals to support the Christian belief in the resurrection from the dead. The Jewish scriptures were being used to win converts to the Christian faith! Consequently, the Jews ultimately rejected the Deuterocanonical books some two centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. Martin Luther used their decision to justify his own.
This leads to a couple of obvious questions: “Why would the Holy Spirit guide a group of rabbis on matters related to the Old Testament canon when there was already a Christian Church in existence that was under His infallible guidance as Jesus had promised? And why should Luther accept the revised Hebrew canon instead of the canon of the Septuagint that had been in continuous use in the Church for over fifteen centuries?
Luther picked that truncated canon for the same reason the rabbis did: in order to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church which did not fit his new theology.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
**Post #2: **
The “Council” of Jamnia
By Gary Michuta
handsonapologetics.com/deuterocanon.htm
Objection:* “At the end of the first century, the Jews gathered together at the Council at Jamnia (also known as Jabneh or Yabneh) to discuss the canon of Scripture. From this Council, the rabbis drew up an authoritative list of sacred books which is identical to the Jewish / Protestant canon.”*
Answer: Unfortunately, this short objection suffers from so many inaccuracies and overstatements that the best way to respond is to provide here a description of the real “council” of Jamnia.
After the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 AD, Rabban Jonathan ben Zakkai asked the Roman General Vespasian, who was well disposed to the Rabbi since it was known that he supported peace with the Romans, to spare the city of Jamnia and its rabbinical scholars.1 Permission was granted and the school set up in the “vineyards of Jamnia.”2 The problems that faced the new school were serious. The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem made it impossible to continue the prescribed sacrifices required in the Old Testament. Judaism needed to make a radical change from a cultic (sacrifice and Temple centered) religion to a “religion of the Book.” This change, combined with the growth of Christianity (especially its use of the Jewish Greek Old Testament for evangelism) provided Judaism with the occasion to address the question of the canon of Scripture.3 The information that has come down to us about this canonical activity is fragmentary and certainly open to conjecture.
Note that our objector called this body the “Council of Jamnia”. Jamnia was not a council, in the sense of the Council of Trent or the Council of Nicaea, it was rather was an on-going rabbinical school. The idea of a “council” crept into everyone’s vocabulary via the writings of the famous Jewish historian H. Graetz who was the first to call Jamnia a “synode.”4 Christians interpreted Graetz’s synode to mean council. However, the word council implies quite a few features that Jamnia did not possess. For example, unlike a Christian council, there were no ballots cast, nor did this body promulgate formal decrees. Rather, Jamnia lasted for a number of years, and its significant opinions is persevered in piecemeal fashion in later Jewish writings. It is difficult to ascertain exactly what Jamnia had for Judaism as a whole. In some ways it acts much like the authoritative body of the Sanhedrin although it never took for itself that name.5 Therefore, it is inaccurate to speak about the council of Jamnia. It is more accurate description would be a rabbinical school.6
Jamnia never published or promulgated a list the list of books of the canon nor did it discuss the canon as a whole. Most of the debates surrounded the Book of Ecclesiastes and possibly the Song of Songs.7 Even so, there is no evidence that the decisions of this school were binding upon the Jewish popular at large.8 In fact, rabbinical disputes over the inspiration of certain books (e.g. the fringe books and Sirach) persisted throughout the first three Christian centuries. For this reason, the Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce wisely warns against stating that the assembly at Jamnia “laid down the limits” of the Old Testament canon.9
Like the two-canon theory, the Jamnia theory has fallen on hard times. As the Jewish scholar Sid Leiman concludes:
“The widespread view that the Council of Jamnia closed the biblical canon, or that it canonized any books at all, is not supported by the evidence and need no longer be seriously maintained.”10
If there were a candidate for an authoritative closing of the Old Testament canon in the first century AD, Jamnia would probably be it. However, there is no evidence that such a closing occurred this early in the life of this school.
The “Council” of Jamnia
By Gary Michuta
handsonapologetics.com/deuterocanon.htm
Objection:* “At the end of the first century, the Jews gathered together at the Council at Jamnia (also known as Jabneh or Yabneh) to discuss the canon of Scripture. From this Council, the rabbis drew up an authoritative list of sacred books which is identical to the Jewish / Protestant canon.”*
Answer: Unfortunately, this short objection suffers from so many inaccuracies and overstatements that the best way to respond is to provide here a description of the real “council” of Jamnia.
After the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 AD, Rabban Jonathan ben Zakkai asked the Roman General Vespasian, who was well disposed to the Rabbi since it was known that he supported peace with the Romans, to spare the city of Jamnia and its rabbinical scholars.1 Permission was granted and the school set up in the “vineyards of Jamnia.”2 The problems that faced the new school were serious. The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem made it impossible to continue the prescribed sacrifices required in the Old Testament. Judaism needed to make a radical change from a cultic (sacrifice and Temple centered) religion to a “religion of the Book.” This change, combined with the growth of Christianity (especially its use of the Jewish Greek Old Testament for evangelism) provided Judaism with the occasion to address the question of the canon of Scripture.3 The information that has come down to us about this canonical activity is fragmentary and certainly open to conjecture.
Note that our objector called this body the “Council of Jamnia”. Jamnia was not a council, in the sense of the Council of Trent or the Council of Nicaea, it was rather was an on-going rabbinical school. The idea of a “council” crept into everyone’s vocabulary via the writings of the famous Jewish historian H. Graetz who was the first to call Jamnia a “synode.”4 Christians interpreted Graetz’s synode to mean council. However, the word council implies quite a few features that Jamnia did not possess. For example, unlike a Christian council, there were no ballots cast, nor did this body promulgate formal decrees. Rather, Jamnia lasted for a number of years, and its significant opinions is persevered in piecemeal fashion in later Jewish writings. It is difficult to ascertain exactly what Jamnia had for Judaism as a whole. In some ways it acts much like the authoritative body of the Sanhedrin although it never took for itself that name.5 Therefore, it is inaccurate to speak about the council of Jamnia. It is more accurate description would be a rabbinical school.6
Jamnia never published or promulgated a list the list of books of the canon nor did it discuss the canon as a whole. Most of the debates surrounded the Book of Ecclesiastes and possibly the Song of Songs.7 Even so, there is no evidence that the decisions of this school were binding upon the Jewish popular at large.8 In fact, rabbinical disputes over the inspiration of certain books (e.g. the fringe books and Sirach) persisted throughout the first three Christian centuries. For this reason, the Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce wisely warns against stating that the assembly at Jamnia “laid down the limits” of the Old Testament canon.9
Like the two-canon theory, the Jamnia theory has fallen on hard times. As the Jewish scholar Sid Leiman concludes:
“The widespread view that the Council of Jamnia closed the biblical canon, or that it canonized any books at all, is not supported by the evidence and need no longer be seriously maintained.”10
If there were a candidate for an authoritative closing of the Old Testament canon in the first century AD, Jamnia would probably be it. However, there is no evidence that such a closing occurred this early in the life of this school.
- See The Encyclopedia of Talmudic Sages, Gershom Bader ed., Translated by Solomon Katz, (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson, Inc.), 152-154 for various rabbinical accounts of Rabban Johnathan ben Zakkai’s escape from the siege of Jerusalem and his role in beginning the school at Jamnia.
- There is some question as to whether the “vineyards of Jamnia” refer to the meeting place of the school (i.e. the met in a vineyard) or that the school of was organized like a vine with grapes. The school began under rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai (70 AD) until the time of the second Jewish Revolt under rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (132 AD). After the Second Revolt, the school of reconstituted at Usha.
- W.O.E. Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha (London: SPCK, 1958), 122-123
- A.C. Sundberg, "The Old Testament of the Early Church Revisited,” – Graetz may have borrowed this terminology from Jewish Philosopher Baruch Spinoza’s comment about the “concilium Pharisaeorum.”
- Lieman, 121.
- See ABD, 1.841.
- Cox, 44; See M. Yadayim, 3:5.
- cf. Encyclopedia Judaica (Coronet Books, reprint 1994) 6.1147.
- Bruce, 34.
- Lieman, 124. Also see ABD, 1.843 – the evidence for a closed canon prior to the end of the first Christian century is “at best weak and unconvincing.”
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Post #3: Luther and the Canon
Recently, many Protestant apologists have been attempting to discredit the deuterocanonical books of the Bible by claiming that it would not be possible for Luther to delete books from a canon that had not been finalized.
In a private email, Gary Michuta, author of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, provided me with the following response to this issue:
This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to take attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.
Even if something like the definition given at Trent happened before Luther, Luther would have rejected it as being in error and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of it any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.
However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter. After the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha (St. Jerome), there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not affect the authority of the definition given. Usually Ecumenical Councils met to address something that has disturbed the universal Church. By the end of the fourth century, Jerome’s views had caused trouble mainly in North Africa. Regardless of their solemnity, these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was questioned by a bishop as to the canon, and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. This is the first Papal decision on the canon. There were a series of decrees attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas (266-523) that also reaffirmed the canon, as well. By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that Pope Innocent I’s letter on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.” To this, we could add that there are about a dozen local and regional councils (not to mention popes) during this period who issued decrees that quoted the Deutero’s to confirm doctrine and with the formal introduction normally given to Scripture showing that the issue was largely settled and that bishops throughout the world were confident in appealing to these texts to quiet heresies.
Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decree on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority, it is just as authoritative as the rest.
In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture, and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has not authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:
“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [Second Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 251).
So Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later [namely] that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.
Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on to adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils, something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter had already been closed hundreds of years earlier. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.
Recently, many Protestant apologists have been attempting to discredit the deuterocanonical books of the Bible by claiming that it would not be possible for Luther to delete books from a canon that had not been finalized.
In a private email, Gary Michuta, author of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, provided me with the following response to this issue:
This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to take attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.
Even if something like the definition given at Trent happened before Luther, Luther would have rejected it as being in error and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of it any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.
However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter. After the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha (St. Jerome), there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not affect the authority of the definition given. Usually Ecumenical Councils met to address something that has disturbed the universal Church. By the end of the fourth century, Jerome’s views had caused trouble mainly in North Africa. Regardless of their solemnity, these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was questioned by a bishop as to the canon, and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. This is the first Papal decision on the canon. There were a series of decrees attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas (266-523) that also reaffirmed the canon, as well. By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that Pope Innocent I’s letter on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.” To this, we could add that there are about a dozen local and regional councils (not to mention popes) during this period who issued decrees that quoted the Deutero’s to confirm doctrine and with the formal introduction normally given to Scripture showing that the issue was largely settled and that bishops throughout the world were confident in appealing to these texts to quiet heresies.
Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decree on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority, it is just as authoritative as the rest.
In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture, and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has not authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:
“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [Second Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, 251).
So Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later [namely] that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.
Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on to adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils, something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter had already been closed hundreds of years earlier. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Randy,
Wasn’t I charitable by refraining from asking that Rightly be burned at the stake? St. Thomas More would have . . . by now . . .
Wasn’t I charitable by refraining from asking that Rightly be burned at the stake? St. Thomas More would have . . . by now . . .
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Lest anyone miss the fine print, let me highlight this quote from post #2 along with the footnote:
**As the Jewish scholar Sid Leiman concludes:
“The widespread view that the Council of Jamnia closed the biblical canon, or that it canonized any books at all, is not supported by the evidence and need no longer be seriously maintained.”10 **
**10. Lieman, 124. Also see ABD, 1.843 – the evidence for a closed canon prior to the end of the first Christian century is “at best weak and unconvincing.” **
**
**
**As the Jewish scholar Sid Leiman concludes:
“The widespread view that the Council of Jamnia closed the biblical canon, or that it canonized any books at all, is not supported by the evidence and need no longer be seriously maintained.”10 **
**10. Lieman, 124. Also see ABD, 1.843 – the evidence for a closed canon prior to the end of the first Christian century is “at best weak and unconvincing.” **
**
**
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Randy - in response to your posts, note that we Catholics have been asked, after several hundred posts, to now prove what BOOKS should be considered scripture, as “Christ and the Apostles certainly knew what scripture was . . .”
You see, he has now resorted to saying that “only God” can do certain things . . . but that is very misleading to those who have read the last posts.
NO ONE on this thread, NO ONE, has claimed that God is not the ultimate source of sacred scripture. Yet, one who is new to the thread, will read the last couple of pages, and come away with, “well geez - how in the world did a Catholic say that Jesus didn’t know what scripture was”, when that was never said nor even intimated by anyone.
Quite simply, he has refused to say HOW God imparted his will that certain books that were written by men, albeit under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, be considered or, using his word, “recognized” that a book was or was not part of the canon.
We are no where NEAR the level of what you quoted (although I agree with everything you have said).
I quit when he refused to tell me how God told mankind what should or should not be considered scripture and he then said it “stinks” that we Catholics did not know what scripture was.
My response to him was: then YOU tell us WHO (meaning the first man or men) was the first to know what was inspired, WHEN was this knowledge given to those you cite, and BY WHOSE AUTHORITY was this insight given to them.
(Edited)
You see, he has now resorted to saying that “only God” can do certain things . . . but that is very misleading to those who have read the last posts.
NO ONE on this thread, NO ONE, has claimed that God is not the ultimate source of sacred scripture. Yet, one who is new to the thread, will read the last couple of pages, and come away with, “well geez - how in the world did a Catholic say that Jesus didn’t know what scripture was”, when that was never said nor even intimated by anyone.
Quite simply, he has refused to say HOW God imparted his will that certain books that were written by men, albeit under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, be considered or, using his word, “recognized” that a book was or was not part of the canon.
We are no where NEAR the level of what you quoted (although I agree with everything you have said).
I quit when he refused to tell me how God told mankind what should or should not be considered scripture and he then said it “stinks” that we Catholics did not know what scripture was.
My response to him was: then YOU tell us WHO (meaning the first man or men) was the first to know what was inspired, WHEN was this knowledge given to those you cite, and BY WHOSE AUTHORITY was this insight given to them.
(Edited)
U
UnityofTrinity
Guest
Did not St.Paul quoted the Ascension of Moses as Scripture to describe the power of Satan?
Did not St.Jude used the Book of Enoch as his authority?
Did not the Essenes have their own canon?
St.Paul, like many of his contemporaries, could not know a closed canon simply because it does not exist. Note in the Gospel that Jesus always refer to Scripture in his opponent’s sense. Thus you would not find him quoting Isaiah to a bunch of Saduccees.
Did not St.Jude used the Book of Enoch as his authority?
Did not the Essenes have their own canon?
St.Paul, like many of his contemporaries, could not know a closed canon simply because it does not exist. Note in the Gospel that Jesus always refer to Scripture in his opponent’s sense. Thus you would not find him quoting Isaiah to a bunch of Saduccees.
B
Byzman
Guest
Rightly,
You must understand though, that they are getting frustrated because you haven’t answered their questions. If you think about, you are ignoring certain questions to try to prove your argument. Which, again, understanding where we are coming from is indeed a weak one at that.
No one is saying that there wasn’t recognized Scripture in His time. I mean Christ stood up in the midst of the crowd and read from the scroll of Isaiah and said this was fulfilled in Him!
What consisted of all the recognized Scriptures is the question you need to ask yourself. Did they use books such as the Deuterocanonical Books? Wisdom of Sirach was used by the Jews until after the time of Christ. Paul alluded to Wisdom of Solomon…James used Sirach…John used the Book of Tobit…Matthew uses Wisdom of Solomon 2…and so on.
Was it a closed canon or not? We Catholics along with Protestant Scholars say it was not.
Of course…there is what you could say…timeless classics…the Torah, the Prophets(which I believe contained Baruch, from reading various Fathers). But others were also circulating…it took the Church to say Yes to the Deuterocanonical Books, for the Holy Spirit came upon Christians leading us into truth!
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
- No, not as scripture.
- Possibly. But that does not make it scripture. He does not cite it as scripture.
- Good question. We do not know. If people say they know, they have overstated their case. On a side note, does a minor sect of people holding to a different canon mean that it was not closed? No, I would say. But I will say that what the Essenes believed concerning a canon cannot be proven.
B
Byzman
Guest
Rightly,
C’mon man…seriously? You using your argument to say citing “not as scripture” fails big time. The NT quotes the OT frequently without the author citing it as Scripture. You can’t use this argument if it fails in other circumstances.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
It isn’t cited as scripture.
If it was, the Bible would be wrong.
There are three levels at work here. Directly cited as scripture. Quoted in an authorative manner but not stated as scripture.
Allusion.
Search these boards, what I just stated is not any different than several Catholics have sad about that passage on this board over the last four years.
Here, let the Catholic Encyclopedia state what I just said. You know, not everything I say is wrong…
B
Byzman
Guest
Buddy…c’mon again!
Where in my previous post did I say it was cited as Scripture…I said you argument fails simply by saying that it wasn’t cited as scripture, as if you were saying that if it indeed were scripture it would be quouted and cited as such.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
“as if you were saying”…
Now…I am being criticized not for what I do say…but for what is…“as if”. Great…
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Reviewed, pruned, and closed.
- Status