T
The_Serpent
Guest
It is interesting that some Jews were arguing against the Daniel additions. Josephus in his Antiquities 10.11.7 states Daniel wrote several books!
carllebron.blogspot.com/search/label/Daniel%20the%20Prophet
- Status
carllebron.blogspot.com/search/label/Daniel%20the%20Prophet
B
Billy_Buescher
Guest
Maybe it is not a big deal to some not having the 7 books in the OT of some Bibles, but scripture does not seam to say that.
(Mat 4:4 DRB) Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.
(2Ti 3:15 DRB) And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(2Ti 3:16 DRB) All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:
(2Ti 3:17 DRB) That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
What happens when someone does not have every word (all of scripture) that God wanted us to have? How will they be perfect, if they are missing some scripture?
(Mat 4:4 DRB) Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.
(2Ti 3:15 DRB) And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(2Ti 3:16 DRB) All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:
(2Ti 3:17 DRB) That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
What happens when someone does not have every word (all of scripture) that God wanted us to have? How will they be perfect, if they are missing some scripture?
Could an Orthodox Christian, whose canon is larger than the Trent canon,make the same argument?Maybe it is not a big deal to some not having the 7 books in the OT of some Bibles, but scripture does not seam to say that.
(Mat 4:4 DRB) Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.
(2Ti 3:15 DRB) And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(2Ti 3:16 DRB) All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:
(2Ti 3:17 DRB) That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
What happens when someone does not have every word (all of scripture) that God wanted us to have? How will they be perfect, if they are missing some scripture?
Jon
B
Billy_Buescher
Guest
Yes, an Orthodox Christian, could make the same claim, but on whose authority would they make that claim?
They can make that claim on their own, but to be true, would it need to come from the holder of the key of Kingdom of God? the one who can bind and loosen on earth.
I do not know who would be the holder of the key is for the Orthodox Christian.
They can make that claim on their own, but to be true, would it need to come from the holder of the key of Kingdom of God? the one who can bind and loosen on earth.
I do not know who would be the holder of the key is for the Orthodox Christian.
D
dronald
Guest
I decided to write a rebuttal from the Catholic POV based on explanations i’ve read over time, and also to show that even Evangelicals think CARM can be quite stupid:
Wisdom 2:12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training.
13 He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child[a] of the Lord.
14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
15 the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
16 We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
17 Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
19 Let us test him with insult and torture,
that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon are never quoted in the NT. Shall we reject them?
Where in the Bible does it say that this is the criteria if we’re going by ‘Bible alone’? Sorry implicit statements don’t work. I want actual explicit statements.
“The oracles of God to say which books belong in the Bible?” again, there’s nothing in Paul’s letter to assume that the Jews still have authority to choose officially which books belong and which books don’t. In fact, it’s more likely that Paul would give that authority to Christians being lead by the Holy Spirit.
As stated earlier, aren’t the Deuterocanonical’s found in the DSS?
I don’t really have a response for this. Were there any that actually accepted those books?
Hippo, Carthage.
And many didn’t. Who has the authority to decide who’s right?
See again, Hippo, Carthage.
None of those passages seemed to have anything to do with that :S
I suppose you haven’t read:
Wisdom 2:12 “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training.
13 He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child[a] of the Lord.
14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
15 the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
16 We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
17 Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
19 Let us test him with insult and torture,
that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
P
pablope
Guest
Hi, Rita,
I did not look at the link, but this is what I understand, from various reading of apologia, on why the DC books were removed from Protestant Bibles:
Martin Luther rearranged the books somewhat, putting the DC books in like an appendix section, between the OT and the NT. Luther also rearranged the NT books from their traditional listing.
From what I understand, he listed and numbered the books as 1,2, 3, 4…etc, but did not give such numbering on the DC books.
Also, he had opinions on the DC books. And using these opinions, later protestants started to regard the DC books as not useful. These attitude would then affect later protestants, in that contribute to the removal of the books from protestant Bibles.
The separation started like this, and I qoute this writeup:
handsonapologetics.com/King_James_Bible.htm
Now You Read Them, Now You Don’t…
Those who viewed the “Apocrypha” as somehow being the last vestige of “popery” pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible.
In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the “Apocrypha”) as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles.
However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther’s Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments).
The “Apocrypha” remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the “bigger” Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the “Apocrypha.”
The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800’s enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the “Apocrypha” was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.
And the letter from the BFBS stating they will not pay for printing of Bible with the “Apoccrypha”:
British and Foreign Bible Society House,
London, February 10, 1826.
We beg leave to inform you that important reasons have induced the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible society to adopt the subjoined Resolution:—
“That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the Canonical Books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those books, and parts of books, which are usually termed Apocryphal; and that all copies printed, either entirely or in part, at the expense of the Society; and whether such copies consist of the whole or of any one or more of such books, be invariably issued bound; no other books whatever being bound with them: and further, that all money grants to societies or individuals be made only in conformity with the principle of this regulation.”
While the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society have adopted this Regulation for their own guidance, nothing is further from their intention than to interfere, in the smallest degree, with the religious views and opinions, or with the rites and usages, of foreign churches; —they respect that liberty of conscience in others which they themselves so happily enjoy.
The Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society embrace this opportunity of assuring all their continental brethren of their most unfeigned Christian regard, and of their anxious desire to contribute as liberally as possible to the Foreign Societies consistently with their present Resolution; and they shall deem it their privilege and happiness invariably to maintain that pleasing bond of harmony and union which has so long and so beneficially subsisted between the British and Foreign Bible Society and the kindred Institutions of the Continent.
We remain, respectfully,
Your obedient humble Servants,
(Signed) A. BRANDRAM,
Jos. HUGHES,
C.F.A. STEINKOPFF [Secretaries]
The theory of the Jews not accepting the DC books, the council of Jamnia, were later attempts to find a rationale for why the DC books were removed and came after the fact that protestant Bibles did not have the DC books.
P
pablope
Guest
What argument would that be Jon?
But the Orthodox have a different understanding what is “canonical” and what makes the canon…to them, “canonical” means to be read in the Liturgy, and not exactly “inspired” as we have come to understand what is “canonical” and “inspired” today. We equate canonical with inspired, and an Orthodox may not equate them.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
This ‘policy’ had far reaching implications. When the low-church Church of England/Scotland missionaries went to India, they supported the non-Catholic Orthodox Malankara Church. They offered to mass translate the Bible into Malayalam (local language) from Syriac, which until this point was done by hand by various learned monks (Rabbans) and Syriac linguists (Malpans). The Catholics and non-Catholic St. Thomas Christians of South India had the same Bible, but the British missionaries refused to translate the Deuterocanonicals. The short-translated Bible was then distributed and used by them to fomenting discord. This subsequently led to some clergy being excommunicated and forming “Mar thoma church” based on Anglican/protestant doctrine. This new church kept the externals of Syro-Malankara worship but dissected any doctrine and liturgy they found to be in conflict with their protestant faith. They taught that the church they were excommunicated from taught popery and paganism, based on this ‘selected-text’ Bible.
They could make the argument that the Trent canon is smaller, leaving out books they would consider canonical, irrespective of the definition of canon.
Lutherans have often,historically, used the DC’s liturgically and in hymnody. This is, as you say, one definition of canonical. In that sense, we actually have 74 books we could consider canonical.
Billy’s question, however, was, “What happens when someone does not have every word (all of scripture) that God wanted us to have? How will they be perfect, if they are missing some scripture?” Scripture doesn’t seem to take sides as to what is canonical. So, again, could the Orthodox make the same argument against, frankly, ll of the western Church?
Jon
Jon
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
Guys I think Rita (op) has left the building. 
To her defense, I’m not convinced Rita understood right off the kind of reaction a CARM quote would have.Guys I think Rita (op) has left the building.
Jon
The irony in this, ISTM, is that the 1611 King James Bible had the DC’s in it.
Jon
M
MaryT777
Guest
I just hope no one is thinking they are learning about the differences between Catholics and Protestants by reading CARM.
Mary.
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
Yes, to add to her defence I also had no idea what CARM was so God Bless her for having enlightened me today.
T
Tarquin
Guest
Not mentioning something does not equate to rejecting it.
I am not aware that Jesus rejected any book.
He did not pronounce the name all the prophets, but wouldn’t it be foolish to say he rejected those he didn’t mention on the basis that he didn’t mention them?
Or does his not uttering the name of a disciple mean that he rejected that disciple?
And how does anyone have the audacity to claim to know that Jesus did not quote from other books, such as Tobit or the Book of Enoch! We do not know all he said and did:
I am not aware that Jesus rejected any book.
He did not pronounce the name all the prophets, but wouldn’t it be foolish to say he rejected those he didn’t mention on the basis that he didn’t mention them?
Or does his not uttering the name of a disciple mean that he rejected that disciple?
And how does anyone have the audacity to claim to know that Jesus did not quote from other books, such as Tobit or the Book of Enoch! We do not know all he said and did:
Thanks for those links!
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not trying to be a downer, but I would guess there are a substantial number of people who take CARM as being representative of Protestantism.Oh goodness. I hope not.
Jon
G
Gara3987
Guest
That page is riddled with errors. First and foremost, the Deuterocanonical books are the second canon, and were accepted by all Israelites prior to the Council of Javneh. Research the Ethiopian Jewish Canon as they did not follow the decree of the Council of Javneh to remove the Deuterocanonical books.
Secondly, Christ quoted Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch and 1Maccabees; He also quoted Deuteronomy, Hosea, Exodus, Leviticus, Isaiah, and Psalms. However, Christ nor the Apostles referenced Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentatations, and Nahum.
Thirdly, the Canon was officially selected by the Catholic Church during the Council of Rome 382 A.D. Here St. Augustine and St. Jerome were in argument about the correct canon, so Pope St. Damasus officially selected the canon cf., Decretum Gelasianum. It was as St. Augustine stated ‘Roma locuta est, causa finita est’ (Rome has spoken; the case is closed)
Take Care and God Bless.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24423.0.html
An indepth resource for the early fathers who did quote and use the Deuterocanonicals. The justification on the protestant side has always been the idea that by going to the jewish way of doing things, we are going to the apostolic way of doing things. That stance however doesn’t have much validity since we know that second temple judaism was anything but uniform and probably doesn’t have a canon which reflected the later well known Pharasaic canon.
An indepth resource for the early fathers who did quote and use the Deuterocanonicals. The justification on the protestant side has always been the idea that by going to the jewish way of doing things, we are going to the apostolic way of doing things. That stance however doesn’t have much validity since we know that second temple judaism was anything but uniform and probably doesn’t have a canon which reflected the later well known Pharasaic canon.
- Status