Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

[GMichuta]

KAYCEE, I don’t even know why you posted all this… Nothing changes the original point that JEROME followed the JUDGEMENT of the CHURCHES (even for what you emphasized in bold), and that here he DEFENDED the DEUTEROCANONICAL PORTIONS OF the book of DANIEL!

THE JUDGEMENT of the CHURCHES was to accept the DEUTEROCANONICALS, and Jerome FOLLOWED it, even over his own opinions…

Blessings,

E.C.

Kaycee is correct that we do not have any evidence that Jerome changed his mind. Although the Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that Jerome’s rationale for rejecting the books was false. However, E.C.'s point is very much correct. The Theodotion version of Daniel (which the churches used) included the Deuterocanonical sections. This is only one of a couple of examples that Jerome’s rejection of the Deuteros (including the deutero-sections of Esther and Daniel) was his own and not that of the Christian Church of his day. As I mentioned early, Webster’s treatment of the subject leaves much to be desired.

Gary

www.HandsOnApologetics.com

 

[kaycee]

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

You can find anything like that, can you?

The Council in Trullo and of the Seventh Ecumenical Council approved the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha.

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.

The canons of Hippo and Carthage were given ecumenical authority and therefore the force of law for the whole Church by this Council. Thus, its decrees on the canon have been officially sanctioned.

However, the **Council also sanctioned the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius **that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the **Apostolical canons **which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West. Furthermore, the Apostolical canons were condemned and rejected as apocryphal in the decrees of Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas.

These facts prove that the Council received the canons of Carthage with the understanding that the term ‘canonical’ was to be interpreted in a general sense in that the books listed were authoritatively received for reading in the Church.

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

 

[Nancie_Lew]

Some people reject the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books

That would be the Methodist Church.

United Methodist Book of Discipline (2004), Paragraph 103, Section 3, the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church, Article V provides that “The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor proved thereby, is not to be required of any many that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” By means of exclusion, that same article provides that the books of the Apocrypha are**" not"** canonical.

Why claim to be a Methodist when you do not adhere to all teachings of your church? I notice in some of your posts you criticize Cafeteria Catholics who do not follow every teaching in their church.

Just trying to get in your head.

With all due respect you need to go back and re-read Methodist theology which explains why they do not accept the Detrocanonical Books as part of the Canon otherwise you really shouldn’t claim to be Methodist. It sounds a bit bizarre when you do.

 

[Janet_S]

The Council in Trullo and of the Seventh Ecumenical Council approved the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha.

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.

The canons of Hippo and Carthage were given ecumenical authority and therefore the force of law for the whole Church by this Council. Thus, its decrees on the canon have been officially sanctioned.

However, the **Council also sanctioned the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius **that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the **Apostolical canons **which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West. Furthermore, the Apostolical canons were condemned and rejected as apocryphal in the decrees of Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas.

These facts prove that the Council received the canons of Carthage with the understanding that the term ‘canonical’ was to be interpreted in a general sense in that the books listed were authoritatively received for reading in the Church.

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

Your argument and this quote from William Webster’s article are not clear to me.

I think Webster is saying this: the 7th Ecumenical Council (2nd Council of Nicaea, AD 787) appoved the canons of Trullo (AD 692) which in turn accepted 4 different canons of Scripture:
1)Athanasius’ canon of Scripture
2)Amphilochius’ canon of Scripture
3)Council of Carthage (AD 419) canon of Scripture
4)Apostolic canon 85 canon of Scripture

The canon 3) above (Carthage), lists a canon identical to that of Trent (it includes the deuterocanonical books).

The canons 1) & 2), Webster claims, exclude the deuterocanonical books.

The canon 4) above, Webster claims, includes 3 Maccabees.

What is your point and how did the information above lead you to the following conclusion:

“These facts prove that the Council received the canons of Carthage with the understanding that the term ‘canonical’ was to be interpreted in a general sense in that the books listed were authoritatively received for reading in the Church.”

I just don’t see where you gave any “facts” to prove what you say they proved. I don’t follow your argument at all.

The only thing Webster’s quote seems to say is that the Church accepted 4 separate canons of Scripture, 1 accepted the deuterocanonical books, 2 rejected them, and 1 accepted 3 Maccabees.

 

[lak611]

United Methodist Book of Discipline (2004), Paragraph 103, Section 3, the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church, Article V provides that “The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor proved thereby, is not to be required of any many that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” By means of exclusion, that same article provides that the books of the Apocrypha are**" not"** canonical.

Where does that article say ANYTHING about the Deuterocanonicals? :whacky: The article you quoted does not list the canon of Scripture.

 

[Wisdom]

Since the author is catholic, is it still “close minded bunk”?

No the way you have attempted to fram the question is closed minded. If the quotation of the apocrapha does not matter than why are you making such a big deal about it. Your doing a tapdance in the framing of your argument. I agree with the author’s point that it does not matter if there are quaotes from the apocrapha or not in regards to canoncity as there are many books in the protestants 66 books canon of scripture that are never quoted an they are still are regarded as canonical by yourself yet you fail to mention that as it does not suit your purpose and that’s where the close minded bunk comes from whatever my argument may be you have closed your mind because of your preconceived mindset of the conclusion that the 7 books are not canonical no matter what.

And please try to be a little origianl here your entier argumentation is a cut and paste of William Webster, your going by his misinterpretation of the Church fathers, if he’s wrong your enteir argument goes up in smoke. Do you trust your entire enterpretation of church history and the Bible and your salavtion to William Webster your only source you seem to be quoting with regularity? You better hope he’s right as you’ll be paying the price for it if he’s wrong.

 

[Wisdom]

Sorry, Both opinions existed in the early church before Jerome. The protestant is only following the OT that the Jews accepted and admitted by many ECF’s.

christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart2.html

The opinion of the first two centuries were in agreement with the Councils of Africa and not the opinion of Jerome. The protestant is going against the earliest testimonies of the church fathers and the earliest of the church tradition going back to the apostle themselves to those who studied under the apostles.

**“In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture, Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in

Clement of Rome
“By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, “What have you done?” or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]” (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).
The Letter of Barnabas
“Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]” (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

And from 2 Esdras and Sirach in the latter.

Polycarp cites Tobit

Polycarp of Smyrna
“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!” (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

And the Didache cites Sirach

The Didache

“You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]” (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and Baruch.

Irenaeus

“Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]” (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [A.D. 189]; Daniel 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).

“Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36—5:9]” (ibid., 5:35:1; Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah, as it is here).

The use of made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is to frequent to be necessary.”
**Early Christian Doctrine JND Kelly

 

[Wisdom]

Origen was the greatest biblical scholar of the early patristic age who had direct contact with the Jews. Eusebius preserved the catalogue of Jewish canonical books which Origen says he received from them:

christiantruth.com/Apocryphapart2.html

And you are absolutely wrong about Origen you obviously have not read the man beyond Webster’s one interpretation of the one passage of Eusebius. Origen many times subscribed to the church’s acceptance of the dueterocanicals (itsjustdave gave some quotes you should read) he did note in Eusebius quote this was the canon “According to the Hebrews” but did not say this was the “canon of the church” in fact he says the dueterocanon was given to us by the church. Funny how Webster leaves that obvious clue of the context when one can quote many times Origen acknowledging the dueteros as scriptures in the church.

So what exactly is the proper context that Webster so conveniently leaves out? Well when one reads more of Origen it becomes apparent he was advancing a suggestion “And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery! Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died.”
Origen,To Africanus,4(ante A.D. 254),in ANF,IV:387
Ergo “When disputing with Jews, Christians should confine themselves to such books as they recognized but he added the caution that the further extension of such a self-denying ordinance would necessitate the destruction of the copies of the Scriptures currently read in the churches." JND Kelley

But rather he advocated the preservation and reading of these books instead. Many times in preference to other books found in the Torah.

“Read some passage from the divine books in which there is nothing apparently obscure, they gladly receive it, for example the Book of Esther or of Judith, or even of Tobit, or the precepts of Wisdom. But if they read the book of Leviticus, their mind is constantly offended and refuses it as not its own food.” Origen - Homily on Numbers

No descrimination is made in favor of the books of the first canon. He rejects and treats with irony the adoption of the Jewish canon. In his letter to Julius Africanus, he defends the deuterocanical fragments of Daniel, and implies that the canon must be sought from the authority of the Church, and not from the Jews:

“In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, ‘Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.’ Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community.”

Origen,To Africanus,5(ante A.D. 254),in ANF,IV:387
In Origen’s epistle to Julius Africanus he defends the canonicity of Susanna [Daniel 13], Bel and the Dragon[Daniel 14], the prayers of Azarias[Daniel 3], and the hymn of praise of the three youths in the fiery furnace[Daniel 3].

“And I make it my endeavour not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them.”
Origen,To Africanus,5(ante A.D. 254),in ANF,IV:387

 

[Wisdom]

KAYCEE:

Maybe you could comment on Melito.

The earliest Christian list of the Old Testament canon was that of Melito of Sardis in the mid-second century. He went to Palestine to determine the precise number of canonical Old Testament books. The number he gave was twenty-two, the same as Josephus, though he omitted the book of Esther:

There is only one objection that you can give credibly that is pre-Constantine and rejects the larger Septugient canon which was accepted by the apostolic fathers and the apostles. That lonely objection is Melito of Sardis and that is extremely weak in evidence (if that’s all you have and unfortunately for you it is all you have0 as it is problematic in what historicity and content and obviously carried no weight in the early church as no one seems to have followed its contents unlike the councils of Rome and Africa which were affirmed over and over again with the same results and agreed with the Septugient canon that the earliest of the church fathers agreed with.

Melito is the lone contradition of the pre-Constantine church and is problematic because in his letter he mentions he traveled to the middle east to get the canon from the Jews; it was not the canon he received from the second century church which would have included by evidence of his contemporaries, the book of Esther and the dueterocanicals. The Jews of the middle east did not have Esther fixed in its canon until the third century and of course they had dropped the dueteros after the Christians left the synagogue which contained strong messianic prophecy and support for the main Christian theme of ressurection of the dead. Melito is giving us a second century Jewish OT alright one without Esther. Something the African councils clearly rejected. Also he employs in his New Testamtent the dueterocanical book of Wisdom. Now surely I don’t know of any protestant who supports Melito rather unique canon. Wisdom was one of the most important books (to the early Christians) to prove the Messianic prophecies and unthinkable even to Melito to remove it, thus reassigns it to the New Testament as not to mess with the number of book in the OT the Rabbis told him to keep.

Yet Melito does not comment on the dueteros any more than silence he does not deny their possible canoncity by the church at another time he merely states the Old Testament of the Jews was this and this was minus the disputed Esther is Rabbinal circles at this time. Of course Melito’s new testament was a mess that included the Book of Wisdom in the New Testament as it was too popular a book to merly give up altogether he merely propped it in the New Testamet this would never pass a church council of course but it passed your novelty test . Not to mention he also dropped 3 John from the NT canon. All you have is this one guy who happens to disagree with protestant OT and NT canon as well and your going to use Meltio who admits he went to he middle east to contact the rabbis to get his canon instead of trusting the church that his contemporaries all seemed satisfied with. That’s not much of a case that’s an exception to the rule and not a strong one. Melito is completely silent to the possibility of canonizeing the dueteros at a later date heck he seemed to have canonized Wisdom all by himself anyway. So he does not deny this is a possibility in fact he affirms it by including Wisdom in the New Testament.

 

[Wisdom]

There is only one objection that you can give credibly that is pre-Constantine and that is Melito of Sardis and that is extremely weak in evidence (if that’s all you have and unfortunately for you it is all you have0 as it is problematic in what historicity and content and obviously carried no weight in the early church as no one seems to have followed its contents unlike the councils of Rome and Africa which were affirmed over and over again with the same results and agreed with the Septugient canon that the earliest of the church fathers agreed with.

Melito is the lone contradition of the pre-Constantine church in rejection of the larger canon and is problematic because in his letter he mentions he traveled to the middle east to get the canon from the Jews; it was not the canon he received from the second century church which would have included by evidence of his contemporaries, the book of Esther and the dueterocanicals. The Jews of the middle east did not have Esther fixed in its canon until the third century and of course they had dropped the dueteros after the Christians left the synagogue which contained strong messianic prophecy and support for the main Christian theme of ressurection of the dead. Melito is giving us a second century Jewish OT alright one without Esther. Something the African councils clearly rejected. Also he employs in his New Testamtent the dueterocanical book of Wisdom. Now surely I don’t know of any protestant who supports Melito rather unique canon. Wisdom was one of the most important books (to the early Christians) to prove the Messianic prophecies and unthinkable even to Melito to remove it, thus reassigns it to the New Testament as not to mess with the number of book in the OT the Rabbis told him to keep.

Yet Melito does not comment on the dueteros any more than silence he does not deny their possible canoncity by the church at another time he merely states the Old Testament of the Jews was this and this was minus the disputed Esther is Rabbinal circles at this time. Of course Melito’s new testament was a mess that included the Book of Wisdom in the New Testament as it was too popular a book to merly give up altogether he merely propped it in the New Testamet this would never pass a church council of course but it passed your novelty test . Not to mention he also dropped 3 John from the NT canon. All you have is this one guy who happens to disagree with protestant OT and NT canon as well and your going to use Meltio who admits he went to he middle east to contact the rabbis to get his canon instead of trusting the church that his contemporaries all seemed satisfied with. That’s not much of a case that’s an exception to the rule and not a strong one. Melito is completely silent to the possibility of canonizeing the dueteros at a later date heck he seemed to have canonized Wisdom all by himself anyway. So he does not deny this is a possibility in fact he affirms it by including Wisdom in the New Testament.

 

[Renzo]

This thread has far outlived its educational purpose, this is no longer a debate but a continued repetition, everyone has already posted repeated times the conclusions of all relevant councils and dogma related documents officially sanctioned by the Church long before the protestant reform. Clearly, KAYCEE can’t provide any new supporting evidence other than “interpretations of opinions” that where NOT legally binding from third parties that ultimately ended up accepting the very canon their opinions (circumstantially sometimes and totally out of context in others) where against, and EVEN if they didn’t change their minds BECAUSE they are just opinions it doesn’t matter…

Just look at Janet S answer to KAYCEE’s last post, she (if she is a girl ) totally destroys an argument that if not researched properly seams rational, yet is not, you just have to follow it to the source and read it to see the total randomness of his line of reasoning.

KAYCEE is starting to sound more a troll than a real Christian. Is he even human? He repeats so much I think is a bot, more so since sometimes his answers don’t even have to do with the points he himself quotes from the answers and counters of others. It’s getting annoying.

I pray some new blood comes into this forum with real new arguments or to close it already.

 

[Renzo]

Ok, I just read Wisdom’s last post, same situation that with Janet C’s, again KAYCEE argument is totally destroyed. Now what I would like to hear from KAYCEE is not a new copy-paste from a protestant site or a new (but most probably repeated) opinion of another catholic of old who happened to held a different opinion about some particular fact, but a COUNTER to Janet C or Wisdom’s answers, explaining why they are wrong with some supporting evidence. If Kaycee can’t do that I suggest all my fellow posters to just ignore him unless he states something REALLY NEW.

 

[kaycee]

Your argument and this quote from William Webster’s article are not clear to me.

I think Webster is saying this: the 7th Ecumenical Council (2nd Council of Nicaea, AD 787) appoved the canons of Trullo (AD 692) which in turn accepted 4 different canons of Scripture:
1)Athanasius’ canon of Scripture
2)Amphilochius’ canon of Scripture
3)Council of Carthage (AD 419) canon of Scripture
4)Apostolic canon 85 canon of Scripture

The canon 3) above (Carthage), lists a canon identical to that of Trent (it includes the deuterocanonical books).

The canons 1) & 2), Webster claims, exclude the deuterocanonical books.

The canon 4) above, Webster claims, includes 3 Maccabees.

What is your point and how did the information above lead you to the following conclusion:

Just responding to Gandalf who wanted to see a council that approved the Canon without the deuts.

I assume that the 7th ecumenical council carries a bit more weight than most of the church’s doctors “private opinions”. I am also quite certain that this will also be fluffed off just as easily as the church doctors, popes and cardinals who rejected the deuts.

Gelasius and Hormisdas by papal decree rejected the 7th ecumenical council in regards to the Apostolical Canons. So a papal decree beats an ecumenical council?

 

[Chancellare]

Additionally, in asserting that I Maccabees was not canonical, **Gregory was not sharing his personal opinion as a private theologian, but stating the position of the Church of his day.

Gregory would never have purposefully taught a view contrary to what he knew had been authoritatively established by the Church.

Clearly, when the Church received the Apocryphal books as canonical it defined the term in the sense expressed by Cardinal Cajetan. The term(canonical) had both a broad **and a narrow meaning.
*
Broadly, it included all the books that were acceptable for reading in the Churches, which included the Apocrypha.

But, in its narrower meaning, only the books of the Hebrew Canon were sanctioned as truly canonical for the purposes of establishing doctrine*

The assertion that Gregory’s Morals on Job was not an official Church document is erroneous. In the later Middle Ages, his Morals was the standard commentary for the entire Western Church on Job. That this commentary was written while he was pope and was used as an official commentary for the entire Western Church is proof enough that this work was an official Church document.

Moreover, Gregory never retracted what he wrote about the Apocrypha. Thus, we have the official and authoritative perspective of a bishop of Rome in the late sixth and early seventh centuries regarding the canonical status of the Apocrypha.
http://christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html
The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation William Webster

(Edited By Moderator per Content Rules)

We have to correct your first paragraph assertions. Not all all doctrinal assertions of the Pope constitutes the position of the entire Church. This can only happen if it is done under Papal Infallibility and ex cathedra position. For that to happen, you need to establish it first:

It should be noted that papal infallibility has a very strict definition. Anything less and you only have an opinion of a single individual and does not hold sway for the entire Church:

Infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

* The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
* Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible 
* Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense. These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
* Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

 

[kaycee]

No the way you have attempted to fram the question is closed minded. If the quotation of the apocrapha does not matter than why are you making such a big deal about it.

Because its trying to be passed off as fact?!?

I agree with the author’s point that it does not matter if there are quaotes from the apocrapha or not in regards to canoncity as there are many books in the protestants 66 books canon of scripture that are never quoted an they are still are regarded as canonical by yourself yet you fail to mention that as it does not suit your purpose and that’s where the close minded bunk comes from whatever my argument may be you have closed your mind because of your preconceived mindset of the conclusion that the 7 books are not canonical no matter what.

I assume you would agree that when Jesus mentions “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” (Luke 24:44). This wraps up the entire OT that Jesus and the Jews accepted very nicely.

And please try to be a little origianl here your entier argumentation is a cut and paste of William Webster

Oh please, the admitted error from Mark Shea was being cut and pasted like it was the Gospel of John.

Do you trust your entire enterpretation of church history and the Bible and your salavtion to William Webster your only source you seem to be quoting with regularity? You better hope he’s right as you’ll be paying the price for it if he’s wrong.

Ceratinly William Webster is a fine apologist, but Jesus died for me not Webster. Unlike you, i dont need to believe dogmatically for salvation that the apocrypha is scripture. What you really believe in is church alone specifically the magesterium.

 

[kaycee]

And you are absolutely wrong about Origen you obviously have not read the man beyond Webster’s one interpretation of the one passage of Eusebius. Origen many times subscribed to the church’s acceptance of the dueterocanicals (itsjustdave gave some quotes you should read) he did note in Eusebius quote this was the canon “According to the Hebrews” but did not say this was the “canon of the church” in fact he says the dueterocanon was given to us by the church.

That was never my assertion and Webster clearly says Origen accepted the deuts. He quotes him to testify that the JEWS did NOT accept the Deuts.

 

[kaycee]

That’s not much of a case that’s an exception to the rule and not a strong one. Melito is completely silent to the possibility of canonizeing the dueteros at a later date heck he seemed to have canonized Wisdom all by himself anyway. So he does not deny this is a possibility in fact he affirms it by including Wisdom in the New Testament.

He does not deny that he can fly either. So what.

Josephus again states the Jews do not accept the apocrypha. Apparently the Jews cant deny the deuts enough without it being ascribed to them anyway

 

[Janet_S]

Just responding to Gandalf who wanted to see a council that approved the Canon without the deuts.

I assume that the 7th ecumenical council carries a bit more weight than most of the church’s doctors “private opinions”. I am also quite certain that this will also be fluffed off just as easily as the church doctors, popes and cardinals who rejected the deuts.

Gelasius and Hormisdas by papal decree rejected the 7th ecumenical council in regards to the Apostolical Canons. So a papal decree beats an ecumenical council?

This was the question you were trying to answer:

Originally Posted by GandalfTheWhite
"…show us a Church document that teaches the protestant canon!

You can find anything like that, can you?"

You pointed to these 4 different canons of Scripture to answer Gandalf’s question:
1)Athanasius’ canon of Scripture
2)Amphilochius’ canon of Scripture
3)Council of Carthage (AD 419) canon of Scripture
4)Apostolic canon 85 canon of Scripture

I can’t find Amphilochius’ canon (Webster claims is excludes the deuterocanonical books). Whether it is identical to the Protestant canon, I can’t say. Do you happen to know?

However, the other 3 are not the same as the Protestant canon. Athanasius’ canon is close, but it excludes Esther and includes Baruch.

The Council of Carthage canon is identical to the Council of Trent canon. Therefore, it is not the Protestant canon.

Apostolic canon 85 includes the deutercanonical books and some additional NT books as well. Therefore, it is not the Protestant canon.

So unless Amphilochius’ canon of Scripture is the same as the Protestant canon, you didn’t answer GandalfTheWhite’s question.

I think you are on the wrong side of the debate. You cannot find evidence of a Church document that lists the Protestant canon of Scripture. It’s not a matter of us “fluffing off” anything. You can’t find it because there is none.

The best you can do is point out that there was controversy in the Church about which books belonged in the canon of Scripture. But Catholics agree with you about this–there were discussions about the canon, and there were conflicting opinions among the bishops. This is is why the Church, the bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome, met in council and prayed for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to come to a decision (just like the Church did from Apostolic times in Acts 15.)

The Protestant explanation of how we got the canon of Scripture is incoherent at best. You may point to this bishop or that Biblical scholar who agrees with you on this or that point. But still it all comes down to the divine authority of the Church, which as a Protestant, you cannot accept. Without a divinely authoritative Church, you cannot be sure which books belong in the canon (books that are inspired). All you are left with are opinions. Ultimately, you have decided to go with the opinion of Protestant tradition and exclude the deuterocanonical books or demote them to a subordinate canonicity (I’m not sure which of the two you have done.) That’s your choice, but there’s not much basis in Church history to do this, though.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**The Council in Trullo …**officially accepted the Trullan Canons as part of the sixth Ecumenical Council.

Citing Trullo as authoritative for Catholics is like citing Trent as authoritative for Protestants. St. Bede called the synod “reprobate” (De sexta mundi aetate).

Why do you suppose the Eastern Orthodox also have a larger canon of Scripture, if Trullo’s so-called “ecumenical” Fifth-Sixth Council demanded otherwise?

 

[Renzo]

Ok, since I am being ignored by both parties I will engage in the game…

1. The 7th ecumenical council (or 2nd Council of Nicaea) has nothing supporting KAYCEE claims. Read all canons agreed upon in that council here: newadvent.org/cathen/11045a.htm. I ask this since if this is just a council that helps your argument in that it approves older sources, why don’t just cite directly those, since in this one there is nothing about the point at hand.
2. Please specify what Gelasius pope since the 1st one was pope on 492 and the 7th council was held in 787. If its Gelasius II please give a link to someplace where it says that he did what you are saying he did. What is the number, date or any other identification to find for that supposed papal decree? An even most important if it exist: was it EX CATHEDRA?
3. There was only 1 Hormisdas pope. His papacy endend in 523… so who are we talking about?? You DO KNOW the 2nd Council of Nicaea was in 787 AD, right???.. popes have infallibility not prescience.

So, the answer you gave to Janet C is the same as if u had posted NOTHING Kaycee…

again, this is a never ending story…