Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

[itsjustdave1988]

From the Apostolic Canons (accepted by Trullo):

Canon 85. Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by all of you, both clergy and laity. Of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; one of Joshua the son of Nun; one of the Judges; one of Ruth; four of the Kings;(a) two of the Chronicles; two of Ezra;(b) one of Esther; one of Judith; three of the Maccabees; one of Job; the one hundred and fifty Psalms; three books of Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; the sixteen of the Prophets; and see that those newly come to discipleship become acquainted with the Wisdom of the learned Sirach.(c) And ours, that is, of the New Testament, are the four Gospels, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the fourteen epistles of Paul; two epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you, the bishops, by me, Clement, in eight books, which it is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us, the Apostles. (source)

Hmmmmm…doesn’t look like the 66-book Protestant Bible, unless you accept three books of Maccabees, Sirach, and the two letters of Clement, and omit Revelation in your Bible.

 

[deb216]

I just finished reading this entire thread. What I noted is that Kaycee’s entire argument, every link provided, was based on a single article posted on an anti-Catholic website. There is no need to research further because Webster did the research. There is no need to read further because Webster did the reading. There is no need to think further because Webster did the thinking. A logical debate will not work because Kaycee defers to whatever it is that Webster has written.

Kaycee, you are taking, on faith, the word of someone who is fallible; not because it is right but because you want it to be right. That is a weak foundation. Posters have pointed out the inconsistancies in Webster’s argument. They are fairly easy to discover. I recommend that you honestly research both sides before you draw a conclusion. The results will enlighten you.

I will pray for that.

 

[El_camino]

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.

KAYCEE, I really really really would like to read you answering to this.

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[kaycee]

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.

You are absolutely correct, I was showing canons approved that did not include the apocrypha.

The best you can do is point out that there was controversy in the Church about which books belonged in the canon of Scripture. 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.

The protestant canon is very logicaly arrived at.

The Jews don’t accept the Deuts. Josephus says they don’t, Melito says they dont, Origen says they dont, Jerome says they dont.

The Jews were entrusted with the Oracles of God (Rom 3:1,2).

Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher (20 B.C.- A.D. 40) quoted extensively from virtually every canonical book but never once quoted the Apocrypha as inspired.

Josephus expressed the common Jewish perspective when he said that the prophets wrote from the time of Moses to that of Artaxerxes, and that no writing since that time had the same authority.

The Jewish Talmud teaches that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after the time of Malachi, both of whom lived about four centuries before Christ, while the books of the Apocrypha were composed in the vicinity of two centuries before Christ.

Jesus never quoted the deuts as scripture, but does mention the 3 fold Jewish scripture as the Law, Prophets, and Pslams.

Jesus excludes the Apocrypha in his statement in Luke 11:51 “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple.”

The death of Abel is recorded in Genesis, the first book in the Hebrew canon. The death of Zechariah is included in 2Chronicles, the last book in the Hebrew canon (the order of books is different from the order they are in today). So this seems to confirm the Jewish canon as being the correct one.

The few allusions to the deuts are never associated with “It has been written,” “spoken by the prophet,” “the Holy Spirit spoke,” etc.

Even the name deutrocanical denotes second class status.

Its not written in Hebrew and makes no claims of inspiration, even bemoaning that an existing cessation of prophecy!

The books of the Apocrypha abound in doctrinal, ethical, and historical errors. For instance, Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.), despite the fact that his lifespan was only a total of 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7). Tobit endorses the superstitious use of fish liver to ward off demons (6: 6,7)!

Tobit! “And the** angel, answering, said to him**: If thou put a little piece of its 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.” did the angel really say that?

The theological errors are equally significant. Wisdom of Solomon teaches the creation of the world from pre-existent matter (7:17). II Maccabees teaches prayers for the dead (12:45-46), and Tobit teaches salvation by the good work of almsgiving (12:9) – quite contrary to inspired Scripture (such as John 1:3; II Samuel 12:19; Hebrews 9:27; Romans 4:5; Galatians 3:11).

Certainly plenty of reasons why the more educated ECF’s who were in contact with the Jews denied its inspiration.

 

[lak611]

The protestant canon is very logicaly arrived at.

The Jews don’t accept the Deuts. Josephus says they don’t, Melito says they dont, Origen says they dont, Jerome says they dont.

So this seems to confirm the Jewish canon as being the correct one.

Its not written in Hebrew and makes no claims of inspiration, even bemoaning that an existing cessation of prophecy!

Why should Christians care what the Jews decided to include in their canon in A.D. 90? If we were to follow the Jews, we would not have the New Testament either. Should Christians accept the opinions of a Jewish council specifically convened to deny Christianity? :whacky:

 

[El_camino]

You are absolutely correct, I was showing canons approved that did not include the apocrypha.

They do not include SOME of the apocrypha/deuteros… The closest one there, was the Athanasian Canon which DID include BARUCH. So again, you are still in air about providing an ancient Christian canon (much older than 15th century) that is exactly like the Protestant canon

KAYCEE:

The protestant canon is very logicaly arrived at.

The Jews don’t accept the Deuts. Josephus says they don’t,

THIS IS REDUNDANT… Josephus was Jew.

KAYCEE:

Melito says they dont, Origen says they dont, Jerome says they dont.

HOw about the dozens of other ECF that DID acept them… why would you take Jerome over Augustine ? This does not make sense…

KAYCEE:

The Jews were entrusted with the Oracles of God (Rom 3:1,2).

1. YES, the JEWS, but the JEWS that accepted JESUS (i.e., the CHURCH), not the JEWS that rejected Jesus and that he calls “Children of the father of Lies” (John 8:44) becuase there is “no truth in them”.

So therefore, the Council of JAMNIA in the year 100 A.D., which is when the deuteros where rejected by the JEWS, DOES not have ANY authority as the Jews in that council rejected JESUS.

1. Now, let me ask you a question. Because the JEWS were intrusted the oracles of God (Rom 3:1-2), which according to you is the reason why you should use their canon, IF they were to get together again, like they did in Jamnia, and decide to get RID of Nehemiah or Eclesiastes (which are books that are not cited in the N.T.) like they did with the deuteros, would you have to follow them like you do with the deuteros and reject those books as well?
2. You should know that the ETHIOPIAN JEWS do accept the deuteros. So which Jews are you supposed to follow?

KAYCEE:

The death of Abel is recorded in Genesis, the first book in the Hebrew canon. The death of Zechariah is included in 2Chronicles, the last book in the Hebrew canon (the order of books is different from the order they are in today). So this seems to confirm the Jewish canon as being the correct one.

This makes absolutely no sense, because as you said it, the other can CHANGE, as it has… Maybe JESUS say GENESIS through 2 Chronicles with the deuteros in the MIDDLE… You don’t know!..

KAYCEE:

The few allusions to the deuts are never associated with “It has been written,” “spoken by the prophet,” “the Holy Spirit spoke,” etc.

The fact that they were not direclty cited is not guarantee of anything, as NEHEMIAH and ECLESIASTES are never cited in the N.T., and then you have many books, such as Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, and even Poems from Aratus (greek pagan poet), which are cited and obviously are not in the bible.

KAYCEE:

Even the name deutrocanical denotes second class status.

NO… it denotes they were in dispute, just like the DEUTEROCANONICALS of the New Testament: 2 Peter, 2 y 3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews and Apocalypse… Are you going to reject the deuteros of the N.T. as well?

KAYCEE:

Its not written in Hebrew and makes no claims of inspiration, even bemoaning that an existing cessation of prophecy!

THe dead see scrolls show that many were written originally in HEBREW.

KAYCEE:

The books of the Apocrypha abound in doctrinal, ethical, and historical errors.

THat is YOUR opinion… YOu can say the same thing about the bible as a whole, like when ABRAHAM lied to the PHARAOH about his wife Sarah and let her lay down with the Pharaoh and ALL and GOD did not, at any point, punish Abraham. Was that ethical? Or when the bible says that a hare is a ruminant? is that correct? etc. ALL those are refutable “errors”, which those who don’t accept the authority of scripture (i.e., atheists, muslims, etc) are wont to bring against us, like you bring against the deuteros.

KAYCEE:

Certainly plenty of reasons why the more educated ECF’s who were in contact with the Jews denied its inspiration.

You are wrong KAYCEE, the greatest ECFs and the most educated accepted the deutos, starting for instance, with Justin Martyr, who says “The Jews have mutilated the scriptures”.

Then Augustine, Hyppolytus, Cyprian of Carthage, and MANY MANY others.

You pick and chose the few EFCs that agree with what you want to believe. I think that is all…

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

After reading all that KAYCE has posted, something is clear… Protestants don’t care what any ECF says… If Jerome had defended the deuteros, they would not listen to him at all… For instance, why would they follow Jerome on the Canon, but not follow him on other doctrines that he clearly believed in, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary? … This is very contradictive and it just shows that, as I said, they don’t care what one father or another says, they only care what they want to believe… so the canon they follow is the canon they were taught by whoever modern teacher they have decided to follow, and they have to follow that canon because if they were to see that that is NOT the canon that just shows that their teacher IS wrong and if he/she is wrong about that CANON, it is possible that all their doctrines may be wrong… It shakes THEIR foundation of faith.

I tell you something, the real reason why today’s protestants follow the canon they do is MARTIN LUTHER… plain and simple… when he rejected the deuteros, all the other reformers, which were the ancestors in teaching of today’s thousands of protestant denominations, followed him, and thus, this is why all protestants reject the deuteros of the O.T.

Now, Martin Luther wnated to get rid of the deutors of the N.T. as well, also using arguments like the ones against the deuteros of the O.T., that KAYCEE has been using, but thank God the other Reformers did not LISTEN to him and did not follow him, otherwise today we Catholics would have to defend the deuteros of the N.T. as we have to defend the deuteros of the O.T.

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[Zooey]

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

It doesn’t, does it?? It says “all Scripture”. Period.
And since the Deuteros **are **Scripture…

I just finished reading this entire thread. What I noted is that Kaycee’s entire argument, every link provided, was based on a single article posted on an anti-Catholic website. There is no need to research further because Webster did the research. There is no need to read further because Webster did the reading. There is no need to think further because Webster did the thinking. A logical debate will not work because Kaycee defers to whatever it is that Webster has written.

Kaycee, you are taking, on faith, the word of someone who is fallible; not because it is right but because you want it to be right. That is a weak foundation. Posters have pointed out the inconsistancies in Webster’s argument. They are fairly easy to discover. I recommend that you honestly research both sides before you draw a conclusion. The results will enlighten you.

I will pray for that.

Why should Christians care what the Jews decided to include in their canon in A.D. 90? If we were to follow the Jews, we would not have the New Testament either. Should Christians accept the opinions of a Jewish council specifically convened to deny Christianity? :whacky:

My friend, you have just put your finger on the most important point of all. Indeed, that is the very thing which decided for me, long ago, that it was folly (& worse!) to reject the Deuterocanon…Their rejection leads inexorably to the rejection of Jesus Christ.
Now, I really don’t think that that was what Martin Luther had in mind. But-- it is the logical outcome of depending on those who reject Him, instead of leaning on those who follow after Him.
Something our friend kaycee seems not to care to ponder…

 

[Wisdom]

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.

Well then by your own admission you have the greatest of the pre-nicean fathers as accepting the duteros much like all the fathers before him and the most influential church father at the time of the african councils St Augustine. The fact stands we have all the church fathers before Nicea procliaming the their acceptance of the duterocanicals except for Meltio of Sardis who had a bizarre canon that had duteros in the new testament and only stating he recieved his canon from the OT Jews at that time which of course mean no duteros and no Esther as that was common to the Jews of his day. WE have zero pre-nicean church fathers with the protestant OT canon that you have today and no one saying the duteros were not scripture or could be scripture at the finding of a council. Your case if full of more holes than swiss cheese the case is clear the Nicean and pre-Nicean church which included the apostles and the apostolic fathers accepted the duteros it was not till the second half of the fourth century where some confusion set in most of it influenced by St Jerome.
So the church in your protestant opinion got the old testament wrong the first 400 years or so and then found its way once Jerome and some other fathers found their way by talking to the Jews who failed to mention that the Jews of the first century namely the Essenses, Diaspora Jews of Africa and Qurman and the apostles all likely had different canons than the Rabbis of Jamina some time later. Jerome made a mistake and did not have the canons of Qurman and Ethopian Jews (both of whom accepted the duteros _Qumran partailly the Ehtopians in whole - available to him to know their was dissention in the Jewish ranks pre-temple destrucion. But since we now know better why ignore the history of the canon before the late fourth century.

 

[Wisdom]

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

Uh Yeah that’s what we have been saying all along pay attention please. The post-temple Rabbianl Jerusalem Jews who had kicked out from council the Christians, the diasproa Jews, the Qumran and Essene Jews etc. where the ones who gave Meltio and Jerome thier OT canons and both admit to that they did not get that from the church as Origin clearly spelt out thier is a canon he received from teh Jews and a canon he received from the church. He like all the rest of the fathers Nicea and pre-Nicea accepted the church’s canon except for Melito who did a canon protestants and catholics would reject today. Why oh why do you put so much stocks in the Jews who rejected the new testament and Christ himself but reject the Church which was establsihed by Christ and who canonized the new testament that you magically accept without too much question but agonize of the same church’s decision on the Old Testament which in fact was more unifed in its acceptace of the old testament duteros than its acceptance of the new testament duteros which were usually rejected until Augustine got them to accept them at the African Councils, yeah the same Augustine who wholesale reject for his opinion on the old testament even though he was the most influential of all the church fathers so much so he almost single handidly got James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation into the New Testamet in the late fourth century other wise known as the NT duteros which happened to be the same argument Martin Luther used againt them as he knew they were not acceted into the church till the African Concils that St Augustine influenced. At least Luther was honest in heresy in rejecting the OT and NT duteros your just a hypocrite for accepting one set of duteros and rejecting the other for no logical reason. If your going to be honest about it at least take Luthers route and reject all the church’s duterocanonical decisions. The Church either has the power to accept books at this point in history or it does not you can’t have it both ways.

 

[Wisdom]

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.

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

We agree all that is written about Jesus must be fullfilled we just have differnt books in different categories than the Jamnia Jews and so do you look at a Tanak you don’t have the books in Rabbianal order but a catholic order with books stripped out. Oh shudder the thought of that inconsistency and also Jesus said the last prophet was John the Baptist even Metzer wrote that some books of the OT like Daniel and Esther were written off before the cutt off period most protestants give out for a reason to reject the duteros and of course Jesus gives us the cutoff date of John the Baptist which means we accept people like Baruch, Estehr and people like Daniel without worrying about breaking some man made Rabbinal tradition.

I did not quote Mark Shea nor did many others here who came up with origianl argumentation and which you fail to answer in a convincing manner. A couple of people did not the entier board but your entier argumentation it would seem is from Webster and his apologetics site which is pretty telling of how narrow minded your research truly is. Most of us have given you a wider degree of argumentaiton than one mere webstie minust the couple of people who posted from the Shea site which did have a lot of valid information along with a couple of questionable arguments which in my opinion is the opposite of Webster who had a couple of good points a whole lot of questionable arguments some just appear to be falt out misrepresentations. But hey argue the Shea point with poeple who actually brought it up I didn’t nice try to change the subject though.

Webester is a misleading apologist so we each have our own opinion unless your opinion of him has become a magesterium that you seem to not like having even though Jesus instituted an infallaible church to settle disagreements and not William Webster. JEsus said to take disagreement to the CHURCH not William WEbster when the early Christians had a disagreement they took it to the Church upon Church Council in Acts 15 and funny how that ruling was not questioned by Paul and Barnabas themselves who took it to the magesterium of the time who made an infalliable ruling they did not dare question. But unlike Paul and Baranabas you question the councils of the church. Very unbiblical. The Very new testament itslef that you trust for your salvation and without it would not even know the story of Jesus is guranteed infalliable by the Catholic Church a protestant is just hoping somehow the Catholic church they reject got this one point somehow right even though we got everything else wrong. Considering they put some books in rather late in the game your really crossing your fingers tight if you have no faith in catholic tradition. Even Luther said without the catholic church he would not know the Gospel as it came from the Papist. Funny admission in retrospect but at least he would admit the irony but you won’t.

 

[Renzo]

I tell u guys, Kaycee is a bot…

I mean his last post was even more incoherent that the others

I woder if invincible ignorace can include invincible hardheadness…???

I know i am not addding anything to the debate which makes this post TOTALLY superfluous. But come on, Has there been anything new since the second page?

Peace

 

[kaycee]

Why should Christians care what the Jews decided to include in their canon in A.D. 90? If we were to follow the Jews, we would not have the New Testament either. Should Christians accept the opinions of a Jewish council specifically convened to deny Christianity? :whacky:

Paul states the Oracles of God were already delivered to the Jews. Certainly your understanding that the Jews are no longer the chosen people and the church has supplanted them is in error.
Apparently when the Lord leaves out the deuts and talks about the Law, Prophets and psalms thats not good enough for you.

Tobit endorses the superstitious use of fish liver to ward off demons (6: 6,7)
THIS IS scripture?

 

[Janet_S]

Paul states the Oracles of God were already delivered to the Jews. Certainly your understanding that the Jews are no longer the chosen people and the church has supplanted them is in error.
Apparently when the Lord leaves out the deuts and talks about the Law, Prophets and psalms thats not good enough for you.

Tobit endorses the superstitious use of fish liver to ward off demons (6: 6,7)
THIS IS scripture?

Kaycee,

This is from the following article which was cited by Manny in post #9 (thanks, Manny):

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

“. . .arguments are directed against the contents of the books themselves: God forbids sorcery, yet Tobit uses sympathetic magic to drive away a demon and heal blindness.
Far from presenting an exercise in magic, Tobit presents the ancient Christological symbol of the fish (who is, in Tobit 6:3, literally a catcher of men) salted and roasted on coals (as Christ was scourged and roasted in the sun on the cross) in order to destroy the power of a murderous demon and drive him away from a virginal bride. The fish is used to heal a blind man (cf. John 9) by making things like scales fall from his eyes (cf. Acts 10:18).”

And to everyone else who has participated in the thread: I agree pretty much with Renzo. It’s getting to the point where nothing new is being said, and this discussion has outlasted its purpose. We Catholics have a different worldview from Kaycee, so there will be no meeting of the minds. Catholics accept the divine authority of the Church. Kaycee accepts the opinion of Protestant tradition. I think both sides have brought up a lot of good points.

But still it comes down to this–did Christ establish a Church with divine authority (like in Acts 15) or did He not? Catholics believe He did. When the Church was confronted with controversy and differing opinions about the canon of Scripture, Catholics can be confident that the Holy Spirit led the Church to an infallible decision at the Councils of Carthage, Hippo, Florence, and Trent.

Kaycee and other Protestants have to look elsewhere to confirm the canon of Scripture. Their sources for confirming the canon seem like pick and choose to me (Jerome and Melito here, Athanasius there), but it seems to make sense to Kaycee. As long as Kaycee is satisfied with the explanations of the canon accepted by the Protestants, and unless Kaycee becomes convinced that Christ established a Church with divine authority, he will never agree with us Catholics. Our foundational views are too different.

 

[lak611]

Apparently when the Lord leaves out the deuts and talks about the Law, Prophets and psalms thats not good enough for you.

If you consider that to be the entire Old Testament, then you are eliminating even more books! What about the writings? Do you believe that the Old Testament only consists of the first five books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy–the Law), the Major and Minor Prophets, and the book of Psalms? What about the historical books, Proverbs, etc.? Have you ripped those out of your Bible too?

 

[El_camino]

Paul states the Oracles of God were already delivered to the Jews. Certainly your understanding that the Jews are no longer the chosen people and the church has supplanted them is in error.

So, let me ask you a question. Because the JEWS were entrusted the oracles of God (Rom 3:1-2), which according to you is the reason why you should use their canon, IF they were to get together again, like they did in Jamnia in the year 100 A.D. (almost 70 year after Christ’s death), when they got rid of the deuteros, and decide to get RID of Nehemiah or Eclesiastes (which are books that are NOT cited in the N.T.) like they did with the deuteros, would you have to follow them like you do with the deuteros and reject those books as well?

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

KAYCEE:

Tobit endorses the superstitious use of fish liver to ward off demons (6: 6,7)
THIS IS scripture?

Yes, and JESUS endorses the “superstitious” use of saliva to cure blindness (Mark 8:23-25)… or the necessity to touch someone’s cloak to be cured of uterine bleeding (Mark 5:27-29).

There are many instances in the bible where God does miracles through visible signs that are sometimes weird. This in fact is the basis for the sacraments (visible signs through which God bestows Grace … but you would not know anything about that… right?)… The point is that the case in Tobit is just one more of the many examples!!!

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

Kaycee,

This is from the following article which was cited by Manny in post #9 (thanks, Manny):

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

“. . .arguments are directed against the contents of the books themselves: God forbids sorcery, yet Tobit uses sympathetic magic to drive away a demon and heal blindness.
Far from presenting an exercise in magic, Tobit presents the ancient Christological symbol of the fish (who is, in Tobit 6:3, literally a catcher of men) salted and roasted on coals (as Christ was scourged and roasted in the sun on the cross) in order to destroy the power of a murderous demon and drive him away from a virginal bride. The fish is used to heal a blind man (cf. John 9) by making things like scales fall from his eyes (cf. Acts 10:18).”

And to everyone else who has participated in the thread: I agree pretty much with Renzo. It’s getting to the point where nothing new is being said, and this discussion has outlasted its purpose. We Catholics have a different worldview from Kaycee, so there will be no meeting of the minds. Catholics accept the divine authority of the Church. Kaycee accepts the opinion of Protestant tradition. I think both sides have brought up a lot of good points.

But still it comes down to this–did Christ establish a Church with divine authority (like in Acts 15) or did He not? Catholics believe He did. When the Church was confronted with controversy and differing opinions about the canon of Scripture, Catholics can be confident that the Holy Spirit led the Church to an infallible decision at the Councils of Carthage, Hippo, Florence, and Trent.

Kaycee and other Protestants have to look elsewhere to confirm the canon of Scripture. Their sources for confirming the canon seem like pick and choose to me (Jerome and Melito here, Athanasius there), but it seems to make sense to Kaycee. As long as Kaycee is satisfied with the explanations of the canon accepted by the Protestants, and unless Kaycee becomes convinced that Christ established a Church with divine authority, he will never agree with us Catholics. Our foundational views are too different.

KAYCEE, PLEASE read this…

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…The protestant canon is very logicaly arrived at.

The Jews don’t accept the Deuts.

Some Jews did, some Jews didn’t.

Josephus says they don’t…

Josephus also disagrees with Jesus as being God the Son. His opinion lack credibility when it comes to canonization of the Christian Bible.

Melito says they dont…

Melito omited Esther, as did the Jewish Essenes at Qumran, so it is clear that Protestants do not agree with Melito or other Jews.

Origen says they dont…

Incorrect. For instance, Origen affirms that Maccabees are holy Scriptures. “But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees…’” *Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2 (A.D. 230). *Furthermore, it is clear that his book of Daniel included what Protestants reject. Origen says, “I used the Scripture…which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna…” (Origen,To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:386).

In fact, Origen claimed that some of the Jews removed these sacred books from their Scripture…

**"Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they [the Jews] who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders. **Origen,To Africanus,9(ante A.D. 254),in ANF,IV:389]

Jerome says they dont.

That’s not clear at all. For instance, Jerome explicitly describes Sirach as Scripture while defending doctrine: "Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2] [Jerome, *To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207].

Likewise, Jerome quotes from the Book of Wisdom and explicitly describes it as HOLY SCRIPTURES, among the other seven Scripture passages he used in defense of doctrine…

."…after David’s time, in the reign of Solomon his son,** we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: "God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity."(Wisdom 2:23)** … **Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN" **[Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8}

Again, the Protestant claims can only be clung to by those who haven’t actually bothered to read what these fathers called Holy Scripture. Perhaps they are afraid of what they will find?

The Jews were entrusted with the Oracles of God (Rom 3:1,2).

Yep…and the Jews (according to even their own scholarship) were disagreed at the time of Christ as to what constituted Sacred Scritpure. You picked the opinon of one sect of Jews. The Sadducees believed in only the first five books of the Bible. Which Jews had the oracles of God? The Sadducees, the Pharisees, or the Essenes? The ancient Churches of Christ unanimously disagree with your choice, as they were given oracles from other sects of Jews which they considered Holy Scripture.

Even the name deutrocanical denotes second class status.

Hmmm…so Deutero-nomy must not be part of the Law of Moses based upon the very same polemic?

Its not written in Hebrew …

Fragments of Tobit and Sirach in Hebrew and Aramaic were found among the manuscript evidence at Qumran. Fragments from the larger recension of Daniel which Protestants reject were also found at Qumran. The earliest Hebrew manuscript evidence destoys this Protestant claim.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It doesn’t, does it?? It says “all Scripture”. Period.
And since the Deuteros **are **Scripture…

Zooey, you are a light of truth with regard to recognizing God’s written word. I pray that other Christian brethren come around to your way of thinking.