Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha

  • Thread starter Thread starter spedteacherita
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IgnatianPhilo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Indeed, that adds power to the Deuterocanonical argument.

Zooey, I have a lot of high-church Methodist friends.
 
Whoa!!

I made a huge Faux-Pas posting that link!! Whoops!! Sorry - it was NOT my intention to post something that would be disrespectful and distasteful to my Catholic friends!!

I didn’t post and run either…I was in the hospital for several days and forgot that I had posted this.

I am VERY grateful for those that chose to discuss it, though, and to post alternative information to help with understanding the topic of the Deuterocanonicals…

My apologies!

In Christ,

Rita
 
JonNC said:
To her defense, I’m not convinced Rita understood right off the kind of reaction a CARM quote would have.

Jon
Click to expand...
CARM is no different than CAL. Both are into apologetics and give their viewpoint from their belief system.

I am a huge fan of gotquestions and I am some here hate that site as well. 🤷
 
SAVINGRACE said:
Yes, to add to her defence I also had no idea what CARM was so God Bless her for having enlightened me today. 🙂
Click to expand...
Thank you SG! I was enlightened as well…but…why not use it as a discussion starter?? There will be plenty of Protestants coming from that thought and to discount anybody’s viewpoint from the start does not encourage conversation but puts up a brick wall right away…

Just a thought…

Blessings,

Rita
 
spedteacherita said:
Thank you SG! I was enlightened as well…but…why not use it as a discussion starter?? There will be plenty of Protestants coming from that thought and to discount anybody’s viewpoint from the start does not encourage conversation but puts up a brick wall right away…

Just a thought…

Blessings,

Rita
Click to expand...
Using Carm as a discussion starter is about as effective as using some well known anti Lutheran site as a discussion starter. The comments are bigoted to begin with and some from hateful origins.

Better to just ask the question and go from there in my opinion. Otherwise we could post back and forth from sites and that usually gets nothing much accomplished in my opinion.

For example: CARM’s position is simple. If a Roman Catholic believes in the official Roman Catholic teaching on salvation, then he is not a Christian since the official RCC …

Mary.
 
spedteacherita said:
…but…why not use it as a discussion starter??
Click to expand...
My position is generally that when Protestants are just being ant-Catholic, it is best to just ignore them. (Please note that I’m not just saying that because I’m Catholic: I take the same view of anti-Protestant Catholics.)

Which is not meant as any criticism of you starting this thread though. 🙂
 
Peter_J said:
My position is generally that when Protestants are just being ant-Catholic, it is best to just ignore them. (Please note that I’m not just saying that because I’m Catholic: I take the same view of anti-Protestant Catholics.)

Which is not meant as any criticism of you starting this thread though. 🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks.

But the majority of you, I hope, realize I’m not here to denigrate what others believe. My hope is that if I post something that you all understand that it is not in any way done with any type of malice.

The posts I appreciated most here were the ones that countered with information that will help, not only for myself, but for others who are here but are just reading thru to learn before beginning to join a conversation.

Thanks, Peter!

Rita
 
  1. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.
Click to expand...
This one always gets to me. The first and ONLY Bible the Latin Church used from the time the Canon was set in the 4th century until after the Reformation had begun was the Vulgate which contained these books. This is the dishonesty another poster was talking about. They try to make it sound as if Trent added books that were not there. What Trent did was reaffirm the Canon that the Church used for centuries. The argument used is that the original councils that defined the Canon were “local” rather than “universal” councils. So that logic would have to hold true for the New Testament also since the same councils decided on those books also, but you never hear that.
 
ajcstr said:
This one always gets to me. The first and ONLY Bible the Latin Church used from the time the Canon was set in the 4th century until after the Reformation had begun was the Vulgate which contained these books. This is the dishonesty another poster was talking about. They try to make it sound as if Trent added books that were not there. What Trent did was reaffirm the Canon that the Church used for centuries. The argument used is that the original councils that defined the Canon were “local” rather than “universal” councils. So that logic would have to hold true for the New Testament also since the same councils decided on those books also, but you never hear that.
Click to expand...
Trent did not ‘add’ the Deuterocanonicals’ as they were always being part of the Bible. Yes, it is dishonest to say that they were only being added by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. I agree people are dishonest when saying this but I think it is more so that they are only repeating what is being taught by their religious teachers or seniors.
 
Reuben_J said:
Trent did not ‘add’ the Deuterocanonicals’ as they were always being part of the Bible. Yes, it is dishonest to say that they were only being added by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. I agree people are dishonest when saying this but I think it is more so that they are only repeating what is being taught by their religious teachers or seniors.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Reuben_J said:
Trent did not ‘add’ the Deuterocanonicals’ as they were always being part of the Bible. Yes, it is dishonest to say that they were only being added by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. I agree people are dishonest when saying this but I think it is more so that they are only repeating what is being taught by their religious teachers or seniors.
Click to expand...
Understood, but this is not a casual person in the street, this guy runs an “organization” with a website - I would have to think he would know better. I don’t care what his opinion is, the FACT is that these books were in the Bible long before Trent. Though I did hear him state in a debate that he has never read the Church Fathers so maybe he really does believe it.
 
ajcstr said:
Understood, but this is not a casual person in the street, this guy runs an “organization” with a website -** I would have to think he would know better**.
Click to expand...
It would be nice, but we don’t live in a perfect web. :o
 
spedteacherita said:
Thanks.

But the majority of you, I hope, realize I’m not here to denigrate what others believe. My hope is that if I post something that you all understand that it is not in any way done with any type of malice.

The posts I appreciated most here were the ones that countered with information that will help, not only for myself, but for others who are here but are just reading thru to learn before beginning to join a conversation.

Thanks, Peter!

Rita
Click to expand...
You’re welcome. 🙂

The strange thing is, in a way I feel like the discussion of “CARM” affords us a bit of perspective. I’ll tell you, I can’t even keep track of how many times a Protestant poster says “Well I heard a Catholic say Blank, so there!” (well maybe not those exact words, but you get the idea) and I feel so, so much like replying “Well I heard (or read) a protestant say Blank, so there!” except that I don’t frequent “those” websites. 😉
 
Peter_J said:
You’re welcome. 🙂

The strange thing is, in a way I feel like the discussion of “CARM” affords us a bit of perspective. I’ll tell you, I can’t even keep track of how many times a Protestant poster says “Well I heard a Catholic say Blank, so there!” (well maybe not those exact words, but you get the idea) and I feel so, so much like replying "Well I heard (or read) a protestant say Blank, so there!" except that I don’t frequent “those” websites. 😉
Click to expand...
Actually, Peter, that approach comes up quite frequently here at CAF. “I (heard, read, saw) a ‘protestant’ speaker say thus-and-such,…”, followed by the occasional implication that all protestants believe what said protestant speaker said. This is often followed by a response, typically from one of the Lutheran posters, saying, “well, not exactly,…” 🙂

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Actually, Peter, that approach comes up quite frequently here at CAF. “I (heard, read, saw) a ‘protestant’ speaker say thus-and-such,…”, followed by the occasional implication that all protestants believe what said protestant speaker said. This is often followed by a response, typically from one of the Lutheran posters, saying, “well, not exactly,…” 🙂

Jon
Click to expand...
Next thing we know, you’ll be trying to claim that Jack Chick is not an authentic spokesman for all Reformation Christians.
 
commenter said:
Next thing we know, you’ll be trying to claim that Jack Chick is not an authentic spokesman for all Reformation Christians.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t be surprised. That JonNC comes up with some pretty crazy ideas. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top