Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kaycee said:
AGAIN, Hippo and Carthage were not binding on the entire church. Are you more of an official expert than the New Catholic Encyclopedia, which states that the canon was not officially settled for the Western Church as a whole until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century:

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…for example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books…According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent…The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent.”
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church then made the final call them Canonical NOT St. Jerome. He is not the Pope, Pope Damascus I is and he concur the Books are Canonical.

Unless, you can find an eddict or Papal Bull that said these books are not Canonical, then you are wrong but time and time again YOU ARE WRONG.

St. Jerome is Not the Pope. He translated the Greek, Hebrew text into Latin but he is not infallible in terms of moral and faith. Since this is faith issue, regarding the Bible, the Pope my friend has more credit than St. Jerome. The Pope, and the Magisterium of the Church call them Canonical!
 
Let us cut away all the fat and griesel of Jerome’s commentary and get down to the facts.

Jerome’s commetaries are just that, commentaries.

He is never refered to as an “Early Church Father”

Jerome is just a pawn in a higher game of Go’d’s ultimate will.

Jerome was commissioned to create a accurate translation from the Greek and Hebrew to Latin.

Regardless of his own personal opinions, he recognized the authority of the Catholic Church and did what he was commissioned to do.

Nothing more, Nothing less.
 
kaycee said:
Correct, not scripture, not to be used for doctrinal purposes, not God Breathed, but good for edification.
Click to expand...
But the quotes he gives are Fathers who only say that the Deuteros are not canonical, but they do NOT say that these books are not scripture. In fact, these very same Fathers explicitly call these non-Canonical books divinely-inspired Holy Scripture.

William Webster is a liar.

Blessings
 
mardukm said:
But the quotes he gives are Fathers who only say that the Deuteros are not canonical, but they do NOT say that these books are not scripture. In fact, these very same Fathers explicitly call these non-Canonical books divinely-inspired Holy Scripture.

William Webster is a liar.

Blessings
Click to expand...
William Webster is an unwitting Devil’s Advocate.
 
mardukm said:
Dear kaycee,

No. The Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils ALREADY gave approval for the Deuterocanonical books to be regarded as Holy Scripture. What Trent did was DOGMATIZE the matter - i.e., make it a rule of faith under anathema.
Blessings
Click to expand...
👍
Nancie_Lew said:
I don’t know if this was brought up earlier in the thread but contrary to the Catholic Church it seems that as early as about 170 A.D. there was a listing of the New Testament Canon known as the Muratonian Fragment. It was written in Latin and mentions certain works as fictitious or contested. Sounds like the works that were contested were the apocrypha books.
Click to expand...
We are not discussing the **New **Testament Canon. That is accepted by all, in the same form.
What is under discussion here, is the Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testamnt Canon.
 
mardukm said:
But the quotes he gives are Fathers who only say that the Deuteros are not canonical, but they do NOT say that these books are not scripture. In fact, these very same Fathers explicitly call these non-Canonical books divinely-inspired Holy Scripture.

William Webster is a liar.

Blessings
Click to expand...
:eek: Sorry you feel the need to name call. I was hoping that the discussion could remain civil. Unfortunately this tends to happen when the facts are against you.

It is clear the many Fathers separated the deuts, as you admit. Whatever the terms they used for this seperation created 2 different categories of writings which you also must admit by the very name (deuts) given to them.

Most of the time the Fathers say that the Deuts can be read in church but must not be used for doctrine. Those are the facts.

How you can claim Webster to be a liar is baffling. :confused:
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Unless, you can find an eddict or Papal Bull that said these books are not Canonical, then you are wrong but time and time again YOU ARE WRONG.
Click to expand...
Does Canon 60 of the council of Laodicea count?

Canon 60. It is proper to recognize as many books as these: of the Old Testament, 1. the Genesis of the world; 2. the Exodus from Egypt; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua the son of Nun; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther; 9. First and Second Kings;(b) 10. Third and Fourth Kings;(c) 11. First and Second Chronicles; 12. First and Second Ezra;(d) 13. the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms; 14. the Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. Song of Songs; 17. Job; 18. the Twelve [minor] Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle [of Jeremiah]; 21. Ezekiel; 22. Daniel.

No Deuts.
 
Wisdom said:
Uh maybe you haven’t noticed but Westcott wasn’t that impressed by the inclusion of the NT dueteros as well and sees major holes in how they were included into the canon as he apparetnly thinks the church does not have authority to sudenly include them at the african councils after they were consistently dismissed before meaning their historicty was questioanble to say the least by the questioning and doubtful scholar that Westcott is in regards to these questionable books of the OT and NT canon. I mean if your going to be consistent like Westcott and Luther you would too have to drop the NT dueters also but your a hypocrite and try to have it both ways. At least Luther and Westcott only appear to be sure of the protocanonical books of the NT and don’t try to claim the duteros of the NT got magical inclusion by Council which is the way you potray the OT dueteros. Be consistent Like Luther and reject our NT dueteros as you clearly don’t believe in church authority over the canon.
Click to expand...
Certainly Luther questioned several books as did the early church when it took much longer to recognize the same books!

Luther’s Bible included them as scripture.

The problems most had with the NT “deuts” were minor compared to the glaring historical and doctrinal errors of the OT deuts! To use this in defending the OT deuts is like comparing Rape/Murder (OT deuts) to Jaywalking (NT deuts) but saying both are breaking the law. :rolleyes:
 
kaycee said:
Does Canon 60 of the council of Laodicea count?

Canon 60. It is proper to recognize as many books as these: of the Old Testament, 1. the Genesis of the world; 2. the Exodus from Egypt; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua the son of Nun; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther; 9. First and Second Kings;(b) 10. Third and Fourth Kings;(c) 11. First and Second Chronicles; 12. First and Second Ezra;(d) 13. the book of one hundred and fifty Psalms; 14. the Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. Song of Songs; 17. Job; 18. the Twelve [minor] Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle [of Jeremiah]; 21. Ezekiel; 22. Daniel.

No Deuts.
Click to expand...
**Really? **
Care to add the Epistle of Jeremiah to the Canon?
You left out part of the Canon 60:

And the books of the New Testament: 4 Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; seven catholic epistles, namely, 1 of James, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of Jude; fourteen epistles of Paul, 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians, 1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians, 2 to the Thessalonians, 1 to the Hebrews, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, and 1 to Philemon.

NOTICE THE ABSENCE OF REVELATIONS IN THE NEW?

There was some confusion about the number of canons decreed by the Council. The 59th canon restricted the readings in church to only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments. The 60th listed the Biblical canon. Its New Testament canon contains 26 books, ommitting Revelation. Its Old Testament list contains the 22 book canon of the Tanakh plus the Book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy. This 60th canon is missing from some manuscripts containing decrees of the council, giving rise to the impression that the 60th canon was added later. Such a list would be required in order to obey the 59th canon, so adding such a list, if absent, would be helpful. Cyril of Jerusalem circa 350 produced a list matching that from the Council of Laodicea.
 
kaycee said:
:eek: Sorry you feel the need to name call. I was hoping that the discussion could remain civil. Unfortunately this tends to happen when the facts are against you.

It is clear the many Fathers separated the deuts, as you admit. Whatever the terms they used for this seperation created 2 different categories of writings which you also must admit by the very name (deuts) given to them.

Most of the time the Fathers say that the Deuts can be read in church but must not be used for doctrine. Those are the facts.

How you can claim Webster to be a liar is baffling. :confused:
Click to expand...
Because Webster claims that the Church ONLY considered the books used for doctrine as HOLY SCRIPTURE. That is a lie. The Church ALSO considered the books used for edification as HOLY SCRIPTURE.

When you admit to the facts, then you can see the truth about Webster.

Blessings
 
kaycee said:
The problems most had with the NT “deuts” were minor compared to the glaring historical and doctrinal errors of the OT deuts! To use this in defending the OT deuts is like comparing Rape/Murder (OT deuts) to Jaywalking (NT deuts) but saying both are breaking the law. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Wow, are they really that bad? You admitted before that the Church said they were “edifying” and suitable to be read in Church. Now you say they contained glaring historical and doctrinal errors. Why would books this glaringly wrong be endorsed by the Church for any reason? Yet we know (and you admitted) they were.
 
JoeyWarren said:
**Really? ****** Care to add the Epistle of Jeremiah to the Canon?
You left out part of the Canon 60:
And the books of the New Testament: 4 Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; seven catholic epistles, namely, 1 of James, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of Jude; fourteen epistles of Paul, 1 to the Romans, 2 to the Corinthians, 1 to the Galatians, 1 to the Ephesians, 1 to the Philippians, 1 to the Colossians, 2 to the Thessalonians, 1 to the Hebrews, 2 to Timothy, 1 to Titus, and 1 to Philemon.

NOTICE THE ABSENCE OF REVELATIONS IN THE NEW?
There was some confusion about the number of canons decreed by the Council. The 59th canon restricted the readings in church to only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments. The 60th listed the Biblical canon. Its New Testament canon contains 26 books, ommitting Revelation. Its Old Testament list contains the 22 book canon of the Tanakh plus the Book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy. This 60th canon is missing from some manuscripts containing decrees of the council, giving rise to the impression that the 60th canon was added later. Such a list would be required in order to obey the 59th canon, so adding such a list, if absent, would be helpful. Cyril of Jerusalem circa 350 produced a list matching that from the Council of Laodicea.
Click to expand...
I am not saying they were right! They clearly were not! Their list is **different **from Carthage and Hippo. All were local, were all infallible??? Was Trullo??

All were accepted by the 6th and 7th Councils.

The seventh Ecumenical Council officially accepted the Trullan Canons as part of the sixth Ecumenical Council. The importance of this is underscored by canon II of Trullo which officially authorized the decrees of Carthage, thereby elevating them to a place of ecumenical authority.

So now we have supposedly several lists of scripture all** infallibly** declared??? :eek:

Roman Catholic historian, Charles Joseph Hefele, affirms that this was the case:

“That the seventh Ecumenical Synod at Nicea ascribed the Trullan canons to the sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks. They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon.”
 
kaycee said:
Roman Catholic historian, Charles Joseph Hefele, affirms that this was the case:

“That the seventh Ecumenical Synod at Nicea ascribed the Trullan canons to the sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks. They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon.”
Click to expand...
Yet another reminder to post your links when copying someone else’s material–it is forum rules.

For anyone interested, kaycee’s response comes from William Webster at this site:
christiantruth.com/sippocanon.html
 
Janet_S said:
Wow, are they really that bad? You admitted before that the Church said they were “edifying” and suitable to be read in Church. Now you say they contained glaring historical and doctrinal errors. Why would books this glaringly wrong be endorsed by the Church for any reason? Yet we know (and you admitted) they were.
Click to expand...
Some great signature verses. Any takers?

Tobias 4:11, “For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.”

Tobias12:9, “For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.”

Tobias 6:8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its (fish)heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them."

Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

12 Maccabees 15: 39-40
I will also here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers…"
 
kaycee said:
Some great signature verses. Any takers?

Tobias 4:11, “For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.”

Tobias12:9, “For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.”

Tobias 6:8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its (fish)heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them."

Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”

Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

12 Maccabees 15: 39-40
I will also here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers…"
Click to expand...
We’ve already talked about alms, we’ve already talked about the fish, so instead of answering you, I will include links to previous posts and articles. Both you and Nancie have already made these charges, and we have answered them.

**Could you answer my question though. Why did the Church recommend these 7 deuterocanonical books as edifying and suitable to read when they had glaring doctrinal and historical errors? **

**And could you answer this question posed long ago from VociMike: "I repeat: If this was the majority view (it wasn’t, but just for the sake of argument), and the Protestants were just adopting the majority canon, what would possibly have possessed the Catholic Church to suddenly declare them inspired (as if the Catholic Church didn’t have enough on its plate at that time!)? **

Please, if you don’t mind, I’m asking you to think about this and to speculate. What would possess the Church to do both these things?

Regarding doctrinal and historical errors of the deuterocanonical books, you can find relevant posts (from this thread) and articles here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2021275&postcount=160

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2021621&postcount=163

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2023759&postcount=168

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2024008&postcount=169

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2027417&postcount=179

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2027450&postcount=180

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2040360&postcount=228

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2040390&postcount=229

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2040563&postcount=233

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2041020&postcount=234

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806fea2.asp

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html
 
kaycee said:
It is clear the many Fathers separated the deuts, as you admit. Whatever the terms they used for this seperation created 2 different categories of writings which you also must admit by the very name (deuts) given to them.

Most of the time the Fathers say that the Deuts can be read in church but must not be used for doctrine. Those are the facts.
Click to expand...
Actually most of the time no difference is noted by the fathers, however some did note a difference and since the only fathers Webster quotes and recognizes are these then it would seem by those who don’t study the whole of patristics but selctions by Webster it would seem this way. Of course what is funny is that these same fathers believed in catholic doctrine anyway praying to saints, praying for the dead, faith and works for salvation the supposedly controversial aspects of these books. So much is overblown about the contents of the books. What is not overblown is who has the authority to canonize the church or the Jews. Its not as if catholics and protestants agree about the interpretation of the 27 nt books anyway as catholics see these (praying to saints, praying for the dead, faith and works for salvation) same things revealed to us in the NT and protestants don’t. So even if we were not to hold to doctrine found in the dueteros catholics have been able to find these same teachings in the new testament and of course their tradtiion which the fathers agreed upon.
 
kaycee said:
I am not saying they were right! They clearly were not! Their list is **different **from Carthage and Hippo. All were local, were all infallible??? Was Trullo??

All were accepted by the 6th and 7th Councils.

The seventh Ecumenical Council officially accepted the Trullan Canons as part of the sixth Ecumenical Council. The importance of this is underscored by canon II of Trullo which officially authorized the decrees of Carthage, thereby elevating them to a place of ecumenical authority.

So now we have supposedly several lists of scripture all** infallibly** declared??? :eek:

Roman Catholic historian, Charles Joseph Hefele, affirms that this was the case:

“That the seventh Ecumenical Synod at Nicea ascribed the Trullan canons to the sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks. They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon.”
Click to expand...
Since you brought up the Trullan canons the Trullan council approved both the Laodicea and Carthage synods. However, the synod of Laodicea (canon 59.1) forbids the reading of any non-canonical (deutro) books in the church, and allows the “canonical books of the old and new Testaments” to be used for that purpose while Carthage O.Ks the deutro canons.

How can the Trullan synod approve the acts of both Laodicea and Carthage if they contradict each other? The church would be in err and therefore fallible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top