Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

[kaycee]

It doesn’t matter…:nope: no different than me skipping over Numbers.

It:nope: doesn’t matter. Personal opinions don’t matter. Period.

Because they did what I do with Numbers: skim. Skip lists of names & shekels of this & temple weights of that.

I am not sure you understand what Jerome thru Cajetan are saying.

The Canon to them consists of inspired books and uninspired deuts which were read for edification, not doctrine.

“It is so because Dr Luther says it is so”–Luther’shttp://bestsmileys.com/movingeyes/2.gif “reasoning” for removing the books from the canon.

Actually it seems to me that the sole reason the deuts are accepted as inspired is because the RCC says they are in stark contradition to the historical facts and the learned doctors of the church.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

My point is that Hippo and Carthage were not recognized by the majority of the church who retained Jeromes view of the deuts.

Oh c’mon. You are yet to show us that majority of the Church disagreed with Deuts. Up to now all you were able to do is to show us separate cases of few people’s personal opinions. Sorry, but your argument has seriously no value. These are personal opinons - nothing more and nothing less. Just like the fact that you disagree with Deuts doesn’t make them not part of the canon, so quoting Jerome is pointless. When we say that Church hold this position doesn’t mean that ALL catholics agreed with it. If that were true we would be on the same level as protestantism is now.

Saying that until reformation Deuts. weren’t considered as cannon (or were greatly disputed in the Church) is not only untrue but also doesn’t make any sense. You think that Church was just playing around with dogma and so when Luther decided to throw away a part of the Bible, the Church decided to do the exact opposite? No, it was dogmatically defined as the answer to the heresies of reformation. But dogma aren’t just sudden opinions that happen to pop into Pope’s mind. What the dogma did was that it restated the position of the Church to protect the Truth.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Actually it seems to me that the sole reason the deuts are accepted as inspired is because the RCC says they are in stark contradition to the historical facts and the learned doctors of the church.

You’re in denial of reality. For instance, every Christian manuscript of Sacred Scripture of other than fragmentary size holds to the larger recension of Daniel which Origen said was held by “every Church of Christ”, and which Jerome included in his Daniel citing the “judgment of the Churches.” Consequently, every Christian Church before the advent of Protestantism accepted the larger recension of Daniel, which ONLY the Protestant reject, yet the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox continue to accept.

The evidence is overwhelming yet Protestants cannot explain why they reject that which every Church of Christ before them accepted as Sacred Scripture.

I’ve already showed the evidence of history which you seemed unable to respond to, here: How Big is your Daniel? and here: Canon of Carthage different from the Canon of Trent?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=137641

 

[VociMike]

Kaycee, I notice that in spite of your claims to have done so, you have not pointed to a council that lists the Protestant canon.

Nor have you explained why, if the Protestant canon was accepted by the majority of the Church, they decided at Trent to reverse that and, in a completely pointless and self-damaging act, throw more fuel on the raging fires of the Reformation by suddenly declaring their own canon (according to your claims) invalid.

Your claims would be infinitely more plausible in light of Trent (not true, but at least plausible) if you did not claim that the Protestant canon was accepted by the majority of the Church, but in your desire to “have it all” by making the “majority” claim, you end up trying to portray the Catholic Church as Animal House, which responds to the tremendous challenges of the Reformation by doing something completely stupid and pointless just because.

 

[GMichuta]

This question came up during my debate with James White. As you can see by the quote, Gregory was merely acknowledging that some (namely Jerome) see Maccabees as not canonical Scripture, but only useful for the edification of the Church. In fact, this passage in Gregory is almost Jerome verbatum. As to whether Gregory’s statement reflects that of the early Church, I recommend, with all due modesty, my own book that just went to press this week called Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (GrottoPress, 2007). I pretty much present and analyse every quotation of the Deuterocanon in the first three hundred years of the Church. The evidence is clear that the Deuterocanon were considered inspired Scripture and that a minority opinion (started by Jerome) rejected them at the end of the fourth century. Gregory is merely acknowledging that even if one wishes to follow Jerome, Gregory’s usage of Maccabees is still valid. The other objections raised are also effectively destroyed in the book as well. I have some material on the Deuterocanon on my website www.HandsOnApologetics.com

 

[Church_Militant]

This question came up during my debate with James White. As you can see by the quote, Gregory was merely acknowledging that some (namely Jerome) see Maccabees as not canonical Scripture, but only useful for the edification of the Church. In fact, this passage in Gregory is almost Jerome verbatum. As to whether Gregory’s statement reflects that of the early Church, I recommend, with all due modesty, my own book that just went to press this week called Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger (GrottoPress, 2007). I pretty much present and analyse every quotation of the Deuterocanon in the first three hundred years of the Church. The evidence is clear that the Deuterocanon were considered inspired Scripture and that a minority opinion (started by Jerome) rejected them at the end of the fourth century. Gregory is merely acknowledging that even if one wishes to follow Jerome, Gregory’s usage of Maccabees is still valid. The other objections raised are also effectively destroyed in the book as well. I have some material on the Deuterocanon on my website www.HandsOnApologetics.com

Hi Gary!
Thanks for swinging by with this. I have bookmarked your site and will try to pick up your book soon.

Am I right in saying that essentially you and I agree as to why we should accept the DCs as inspired? IOW, they were quoted and referred to by Our Lord and the apostles all over the New Testament?
Pax tecum,

 

[Janet_S]

My original question for Kaycee: Should the 20 NT books (never disputed) be considered “inspired/God breathed” while the other 7 NT books (had been disputed) be considered useful for edification but never used to determine doctrine?

Kaycee’s response: The books were eventually agreed upon within a relative short time. The deuts were never agreed upon even 1500 years later.

My response: You claim the 7 NT books were agreed upon within a relative short time. If this were true, why was there still controversy about canonicity of NT books at the time of the Reformation, even among Catholics?

Be honest Kaycee. The same reasoning you use for for dropping the 7 OT deuterocanonicals (or “demoting” their canonicity) could be used to drop (or “demote”) the 7 NT books with controversial canonicity (James, Revelation, Jude, Hebrews, 2&3 John, 2 Peter.) There is no difference.

What this discussion really is about is that you have decided to be a Protestant, hence you have already determined (because of Protestant tradition) what the correct canon of Scripture is.

Now you are just looking for a way to rationalize the Protestant decision to drop 7 books from the OT. If you were being consistent, you would drop another 7 books from your Bible. However, you are not being consistent. You are being ahistorical.

This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Books from both the OT and NT canon were questioned at the time of the Council of Trent.

1. The New Testament and the Council of Trent (1546)

This ecumenical synod had to defend the integrity of the New Testament as well as the Old against the attacks of the pseudo-Reformers, Luther, basing his action on dogmatic reasons and the judgment of antiquity, had discarded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse as altogether uncanonical. Zwingli could not see in Apocalypse a Biblical book. (OEcolampadius placed James, Jude, II Peter, II and III John in an inferior rank. Even a few Catholic scholars of the Renaissance type, notably Erasmus and Cajetan, had thrown some doubts on the canonicity of the above-mentioned Antilegomena. As to whole books, the Protestant doubts were the only ones the Fathers of Trent took cognizance of; there was not the slightest hesitation regarding the authority of any entire document. But the deuterocanonical parts gave the council some concern, viz., the last twelve verses of Mark, the passage about the Bloody Sweat in Luke, and the Pericope Adulteræ in John. Cardinal Cajetan had approvingly quoted an unfavourable comment of St. Jerome regarding Mark, xvi, 9-20; Erasmus had rejected the section on the Adulterous Woman as unauthentic. Still, even concerning these no doubt of authenticity was expressed at Trent; the only question was as to the manner of their reception. In the end these portions were received, like the deuterocanonical books, without the slightest distinction. And the clause “cum omnibus suis partibus” regards especially these portions.–For an account of the action of Trent on the Canon, the reader is referred back to the respective section of the article: II. The Canon of the Old Testament in the Catholic Church.

 

[Janet_S]

So Kaycee (and William Webster) claim Jerome’s view about the deuterocanonical books is the majority view. What proof is there of that? What about Augustine’s view? Why do Kaycee and Webster come down on the side of Jerome rather than Augustine?

If Jerome’s view is the majority view, why isn’t it reflected in the Council documents of Carthage, Hippo, Florence, and Trent? Where is there any discussion in council documents of the 2 tiers of canonicity? How does one know from reading these documents which books have subordinate canonicity?

 

[Milliardo]

Kaycee, again I will repeat, as most do here–these are opinions, which are all well and good, but where is the evidence that the Church prior to Luther ever agreed that the Deuterocanonicals were not inspired? Please show us that evidence, not opinions made by people. It is the Church that said they were inspired and worthy of inclusion; 1000 years of its use prior to Luther. For 1000 years before him no one asked that the Church remove them, and all of them submitted to the Church’s judgment. I emphasized that clearly. Now, having said that, please provide for us any evidence the Church agreed to such a view.

 

[kaycee]

Oh c’mon. You are yet to show us that majority of the Church disagreed with Deuts. Up to now all you were able to do is to show us separate cases of few people’s personal opinions. Sorry, but your argument has seriously no value. These are personal opinons - nothing more and nothing less. Just like the fact that you disagree with Deuts doesn’t make them not part of the canon, so quoting Jerome is pointless. When we say that Church hold this position doesn’t mean that ALL catholics agreed with it. If that were true we would be on the same level as protestantism is now.

Saying that until reformation Deuts. weren’t considered as cannon (or were greatly disputed in the Church) is not only untrue but also doesn’t make any sense. You think that Church was just playing around with dogma and so when Luther decided to throw away a part of the Bible, the Church decided to do the exact opposite? No, it was dogmatically defined as the answer to the heresies of reformation. But dogma aren’t just sudden opinions that happen to pop into Pope’s mind. What the dogma did was that it restated the position of the Church to protect the Truth.

**
The Eastern Church generally followed the views of Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem and Ephiphanius. For example, the sixth century bishop, Anastasius of Antioch, taught that the Old Testament canon consisted of twenty-two books. This did not include the books of the Apocrypha.
**
John of Damascus** in the eighth century expressed the same view as that of Athanasius.He stated that the Apocryphal books of Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus were not received as canonical but were placed in a subordinate category by the Church. This view was repeated by Nicephorus, the patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century. He cited the number of canonical Old Testament books at twenty-two and stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not received as canonical by the Church. The perspective of the Trullan Council was also reiterated by Zonaras and Theodore Balsamon, the Patriarch of Antioch in the twelfth century. Both wrote commentaries on the canons of the council of Carthage in the fourth century. They wrote that those books which were authorized for reading in the Church were the same as the ones listed by Athanasius, Amphilochius and Gregory of Nazianzus.

In the Western Church, opinions among theologians varied on the extent of the canon and the status of the Apocrypha. Some followed Augustine while others followed Jerome. Cassiodorus, the sixth century Roman writer, statesman, and monk, related the opinion of both Augustine and Jerome without rendering a judgment as to which was correct.108 But an examination of the historical record reveals that though some followed Augustine, and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, the majority followed the judgment of Jerome. **

Too many names to list who held to the majority view, for more info go to. christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

 

[lak611]

**
The Eastern Church generally followed the views of Athanasius**, Cyril of Jerusalem and Ephiphanius. For example, the sixth century bishop, Anastasius of Antioch, taught that the Old Testament canon consisted of twenty-two books. This did not include the books of the Apocrypha.
**
John of Damascus** in the eighth century expressed the same view as that of Athanasius.He stated that the Apocryphal books of Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus were not received as canonical but were placed in a subordinate category by the Church. This view was repeated by Nicephorus, the patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century. He cited the number of canonical Old Testament books at twenty-two and stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not received as canonical by the Church. The perspective of the Trullan Council was also reiterated by Zonaras and Theodore Balsamon, the Patriarch of Antioch in the twelfth century. Both wrote commentaries on the canons of the council of Carthage in the fourth century. They wrote that those books which were authorized for reading in the Church were the same as the ones listed by Athanasius, Amphilochius and Gregory of Nazianzus.

In the Western Church, opinions among theologians varied on the extent of the canon and the status of the Apocrypha. Some followed Augustine while others followed Jerome. Cassiodorus, the sixth century Roman writer, statesman, and monk, related the opinion of both Augustine and Jerome without rendering a judgment as to which was correct.108 But an examination of the historical record reveals that though some followed Augustine, and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, the majority followed the judgment of Jerome.

Too many names to list who held to the majority view, for more info go to. christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

You are still just listing names. These are all just opinions. You have yet to show a Church Council that supported a shorter canon.

 

[GMichuta]

Hi Gary!
Thanks for swinging by with this. I have bookmarked your site and will try to pick up your book soon.

Am I right in saying that essentially you and I agree as to why we should accept the DCs as inspired? IOW, they were quoted and referred to by Our Lord and the apostles all over the New Testament?
Pax tecum,

Thanks for the bookmark. I will notify everyone once the book is ready.

I’m sorry if I’m a bit lost. There are so many different things going around in this thread that I’m not sure of your exact position. I agree that the Deuteros are inspired and therefore canonical. I know this chiefly because they are part of the books that were handed on by Christ’s apostles to the Church to be read in the liturgy as Sacred Scripture. Whenever there was a dispute, the Church re-affirmed the original canon, as noted in the posts above. One has to be careful appealing to NT usage. It is true that they are used in the NT (BTW - The 1611 King James Version had 11 cross-references to them in the NT and 102 in the OT, so Protestants once affirmed their usage as well).

But use does not equal canonicity because the NT also uses the pseudopigrapha as well. So the important thing is not THAT they were used, but HOW they are used in the NT. In my debate, I appealed to two important texts (Matthew 27:34 = Wisdom 2:15-16 / Hebrews 11:35 = 2 Mac. 7:1, 13-14). If one looks closely at how they are used in their context, it is clear that the inspired author must have accepted them as authentic members of the inspired corpus. Also, both these references were in the 1611 KJV and a few subsequent editions before they, and the “Apocrypha” were removed.

Et cum spiritu tuo.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

**kaycee,

please answer this question because I’m getting really confused.

What are you trying to prove by posting what different fallible individuals believed (like me or you)?

Are you trying to say that this means that it was indeed the teaching of the Church? The problem is that we catholics don’t define it’s teachings. Today many catholics believe that women should be ordained as priests. This doesn’t change the fact that the Church is (and always has been) teaching that this is impossible. The only way to stir up the discussion is to…:

…show us a Church document that teaches the protestant canon!

You can find anything like that, can you?

Well then explain us how come come the church has been teaching it and there is no prove.

Also people explain to us why the Church suddenly defined the current canon as dogmatic as an answer to the reformation!

Finally let me ask you:

Why are you quoting Jerome as some sort of authority but don’t believe in doctrines regarding Mary?**

 

[Reformed1]

Thanks for the bookmark. I will notify everyone once the book is ready.

I’m sorry if I’m a bit lost. There are so many different things going around in this thread that I’m not sure of your exact position. I agree that the Deuteros are inspired and therefore canonical. I know this chiefly because they are part of the books that were handed on by Christ’s apostles to the Church to be read in the liturgy as Sacred Scripture. Whenever there was a dispute, the Church re-affirmed the original canon, as noted in the posts above. One has to be careful appealing to NT usage. It is true that they are used in the NT (BTW - The 1611 King James Version had 11 cross-references to them in the NT and 102 in the OT, so Protestants once affirmed their usage as well).

But use does not equal canonicity because the NT also uses the pseudopigrapha as well. So the important thing is not THAT they were used, but HOW they are used in the NT. In my debate, I appealed to two important texts (Matthew 27:34 = Wisdom 2:15-16 / Hebrews 11:35 = 2 Mac. 7:1, 13-14). If one looks closely at how they are used in their context, it is clear that the inspired author must have accepted them as authentic members of the inspired corpus. Also, both these references were in the 1611 KJV and a few subsequent editions before they, and the “Apocrypha” were removed.

Et cum spiritu tuo.

Gary,

I finished listening to your deate with James White on the deuteros a few weeks ago and have a question for you.

At one point, you and James were discussing whether or not the canon listed at Trent matched identically with the canon listed by some earlier councils such as maybe Rome and Carthage.

I think you admitted that there was a slight difference and if I remember right you said Trent passed over some part of the canon listed in the earlier councils in slience. I haven’t taken the time to research this but was curious if you could take a few minutes to explain what you two were talking about.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

 

[Nancie_Lew]

It doesn’t matter…:nope: no different than me skipping over Numbers.





It:nope: doesn’t matter. Personal opinions don’t matter. Period.

“It is so because Dr Luther says it is so”–Luther’shttp://bestsmileys.com/movingeyes/2.gif “reasoning” for removing the books from the canon.

Because they did what I do with Numbers: skim. Skip lists of names & shekels of this & temple weights of that.

I do NOT announce, “Zooey will not have the book of Numbers in the Bible!! http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/4.gifRip it out!! [literally] Print one without it!! http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/8.gifI won’t have it!!http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/8.gif I won’t have it, I say!!!”

Did you both skip… and skim… your Methodist manual? Methodists don’t accept the Deutrocanonical books. Why are you defending them?

 

[kaycee]

That’s funny…I have yet to see anyone of authority reject the DCs, but i do see someone of authority quoting from and referring to the DCs. DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

A careful examination of these alleged parallels proves unconvincing. As Catholic theologian Daniel J. Harrington admits:

Can one prove that Jesus or the New Testament writers knew and used the apocrypha? One way to answer this question is to consult the list of loci citati vel allegati in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. Both Sundberg and McDonald have culled this source for references to the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, and have produced their own lists that are very impressive at first glance. But what do such lists prove?

The first problem emerges with the Latin adjective allegati. How strong are those alleged references? This in turn raises the question whether we are dealing with verbal similarities, or background information, or conceptual parallels, or merely “will-o-the-wisps” proposed by modern scholars. Each of these references must be weighed on its own merits. On closer examination many of the alleged sources or parallels disappear.

The second problem is that even if one could prove that Jesus or a New Testament writer did use one of the apocrypha, this alone would not prove that they regarded the text as sacred scripture or as canonical. After all, Acts 17:28 has Paul quoting the Greek poet Aratus, and no one regards Aratus as canonical. Also Jude 14-15 contains a quotation from 1 Enoch 1:9. In the rhetorical context of both passages, the quotations are presented as possessing some intrinsic authority but not necessarily as scriptural or canonical. Moreover, neither Jesus nor any New Testament author introduces a real or alleged quotation from the apocrypha with a fulfillment formula such as “all this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet” (Matt 1:22).

The most that can be proved from the loci citati vel allegati is that Jesus and the New Testament writers may have used some of the apocrypha. Nothing can be inferred about the authority, canonicity, or sacred character that they may or may not have attributed to these books. (Harrington, The Canon Debate, “The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today,” Lee Martin McDonald & James A. Sanders eds. [Hendrickson Publishers, 2002; ISBN: 1-56563-517-5, hardcover], Chapter 12, p. 200; bold emphasis ours)

 

[Church_Militant]

A careful examination of these alleged parallels proves unconvincing. As Catholic theologian Daniel J. Harrington admits:

Can one prove that Jesus or the New Testament writers knew and used the apocrypha? One way to answer this question is to consult the list of loci citati vel allegati in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. Both Sundberg and McDonald have culled this source for references to the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, and have produced their own lists that are very impressive at first glance. But what do such lists prove?

The first problem emerges with the Latin adjective allegati. How strong are those alleged references? This in turn raises the question whether we are dealing with verbal similarities, or background information, or conceptual parallels, or merely “will-o-the-wisps” proposed by modern scholars. Each of these references must be weighed on its own merits. On closer examination many of the alleged sources or parallels disappear.

The second problem is that even if one could prove that Jesus or a New Testament writer did use one of the apocrypha, this alone would not prove that they regarded the text as sacred scripture or as canonical. After all, Acts 17:28 has Paul quoting the Greek poet Aratus, and no one regards Aratus as canonical. Also Jude 14-15 contains a quotation from 1 Enoch 1:9. In the rhetorical context of both passages, the quotations are presented as possessing some intrinsic authority but not necessarily as scriptural or canonical. Moreover, neither Jesus nor any New Testament author introduces a real or alleged quotation from the apocrypha with a fulfillment formula such as “all this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet” (Matt 1:22).

The most that can be proved from the loci citati vel allegati is that Jesus and the New Testament writers may have used some of the apocrypha. Nothing can be inferred about the authority, canonicity, or sacred character that they may or may not have attributed to these books. (Harrington, The Canon Debate, “The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today,” Lee Martin McDonald & James A. Sanders eds. [Hendrickson Publishers, 2002; ISBN: 1-56563-517-5, hardcover], Chapter 12, p. 200; bold emphasis ours)

Yet he does not refute it. He merely points out possibilities. The number of passages is extensive and so, (IMO) the weight of evidence is in the favor of the DCs.

The case of Jude’s letter actually quotes the sources as authoritative, basically stating them as fact and using the book of Enoch as prophetic, (“14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying,…”)

The case against the DCs, (as well as Sacred Tradition) is weak at best. I’m still with the ECF and the apostles.

 

[Wisdom]

A careful examination of these alleged parallels proves unconvincing. As Catholic theologian Daniel J. Harrington admits:

Can one prove that Jesus or the New Testament writers knew and used the apocrypha? One way to answer this question is to consult the list of loci citati vel allegati in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. Both Sundberg and McDonald have culled this source for references to the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, and have produced their own lists that are very impressive at first glance. But what do such lists prove?

The first problem emerges with the Latin adjective allegati. How strong are those alleged references? This in turn raises the question whether we are dealing with verbal similarities, or background information, or conceptual parallels, or merely “will-o-the-wisps” proposed by modern scholars. Each of these references must be weighed on its own merits. On closer examination many of the alleged sources or parallels disappear.

The second problem is that even if one could prove that Jesus or a New Testament writer did use one of the apocrypha, this alone would not prove that they regarded the text as sacred scripture or as canonical. After all, Acts 17:28 has Paul quoting the Greek poet Aratus, and no one regards Aratus as canonical. Also Jude 14-15 contains a quotation from 1 Enoch 1:9. In the rhetorical context of both passages, the quotations are presented as possessing some intrinsic authority but not necessarily as scriptural or canonical. Moreover, neither Jesus nor any New Testament author introduces a real or alleged quotation from the apocrypha with a fulfillment formula such as “all this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet” (Matt 1:22).

The most that can be proved from the loci citati vel allegati is that Jesus and the New Testament writers may have used some of the apocrypha. Nothing can be inferred about the authority, canonicity, or sacred character that they may or may not have attributed to these books. (Harrington, The Canon Debate, “The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Early Church and Today,” Lee Martin McDonald & James A. Sanders eds. [Hendrickson Publishers, 2002; ISBN: 1-56563-517-5, hardcover], Chapter 12, p. 200; bold emphasis ours)

Sure is a lot of doubletalk in these statements lets see “You can’t prove that Jesus apostles used the dueteros and even if you culd prove it that doesn’t prove canonicity” Well then we can’t win either way with that sort of statement. This is the most closed minded bunk that gives us a lock box into any valid argument concerning the useage of the dueteros in the early church. Ok then what were all the criteria for the Jews for the Old Testament Canon and why doesn’t that same critieria apply to the New Testament? At least be honest about all of this like FF Bruce who concludes there is no way of knowing what the criteria was of the Jews or the Early Christians. Each believed they had an authority to rule on the matter in case of the Jews the Rabbinical Jews of the second and third century which did not include any Christian Jews opinion on the matter and of course the early christian church which used the duteros as its regular scripture up till the councils of Africa without too much dispute. IT was only after reading the traditions of man ie Jerome did some reject the duteros but this was the opinion of man not the finding of any church council nor the practice of the church the first four centuries.

 

[Zooey]

Why do you belong to the Methodist church? They don’t use the deutrocanonical books …do they?

They’re in the lectionary! Now, there is no mandate to use the lectionary; but if you do, then there are the deuterocanonicals!

So it’s okay for a pope or any catholic to dissent from what the church teaches?

Define dissent here? Certainly, for a pope to decide that he doesn’t choose to use the deuterocanonicals in hid private devotions is, so far as I am aware, fine. Private devotions are…well. They’re private.
Stating that you choose not to use them, OK.
What is not OK, ishttp://bestsmileys.com/angry1/23.gif “Dr Luther http://bestsmileys.com/angry1/22.gifsays they shall not be used!!”…Thereby, taking them away from everybody, based on a personal preference.

Did you both skip… and skim… your Methodist manual? Methodists don’t accept the Deutrocanonical books. Why are you defending them?

The Methodist “manual”? You mean the Discipline AKA " The Little Red Book" ? (Which is actually a large brown book…but I digress…)
The Discipline pertains to actions & theological questions. It covers the proper conduct, in case of a church trial, or other event where needed. It has nothing to do with what parts of the Bible we do or do not read.
The lectionary used by the Methodist Church is held in common with other Christian churches. It assigns the Scripture lessons to be used for each day of the year. And, yes, it includes the Deuterocanonicals…

May I point out, that even if the Little Red Book and the lectionary did not include the Deuterocanon, I would read & defend them anyway? They are part of the Holy Scriptures, & I would simply refuse to have my conscience ridden roughshod over, by anyone…
And the late:shrug: Dr Martin Luther? **He may put that into his pipe and **http://bestsmileys.com/smoking/6.gif **smoke it! **

 

[Wisdom]

The Wesleys were Anglicans and believed themselves to be Anglicans till the day they died and all evidence is they viewed the apocrapha identical to the Anglican church which would have them in their Bibles and not taken out and would have readings in the lectionary from the apocrapha and an ecouragement of reading them for life lessons and instruction of manners but not to establish doctrine. Anglicans and early Methodistalso used the duterocanical books freely in"Book of Homilies" which did establish doctrine. So there was a blurring of the lines sometimes in the articles of these churchs. But the Reformers really have not done what modern Evangelicals have done in practice eliminated the apocrapha from their Bibles entirely and refuse to read them for life lessons and instruction of manners. And this brings up a point they refuse to adress why have they gone to an even more extreme step than the Refromers refusing to read these books of Judeo-Christian piety and ripping them out of the Bible. Oh I guess it is better they read instead some more Left Behind or Purpose Diven Life drivel than the insirational books that the writers of the new testament took upon themselves to mirror in their own writings.
The Reformers never said to rip them out and burn them and forget they ever existed and don’t read them but that is exactly what modern evangelicals have done.