Deutrocanonical Books-Apologetics

[kaycee]

Which leads us to modern day protestant practice of not having the books in their Bibles at all! Look what hypocrites if they now suddenly support the view of reading the scriptures in thier liturgy and in private devotion how come we don’t see protestants apart from Anglicans reading these books from their pulpit and having these books published in their NIV, NASB, KJV and NKJV ESV etc. Its as if they substituted the recommendation of reading these books for the Purpose Driven Life. There are far more evangelicals that have read that book than having read the 7 duteros. But the few fathers whom they love to quote that regarded these books in seperate fashion recommend these books to be read in the churchs and in private these books not the Purpose Driven Life.

 

[kaycee]

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

Mostly because Augustine thought they were inspired in the Septuagint as did many early Christians, just because they were within the same covers. He believed the story about the 70 rabbis. He could not read Hebrew. Jerome was a Hebrew scholar.

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

It was already 1 of 2 existing beliefs in the church with the more educated theologians following Jerome. Most likely the Anti Reformation mentality played a part since the reformers where siding with Jerome, Cajaten, Ximenes, Seripando. Unfortunately this side seems to have been steamrolled at Trent. B.F.Westcott comments.

"This fatal decree, in which the Council…gave a new aspect to the whole question of, the Canon, was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity]. How completely the decision was opposed to the spirit and letter of the original judgments of the Greek and Latin Churches, how far in the doctrinal equalization of the disputed and acknowledged books of the Old Testament it was at variance with the traditional opinion of the West, how absolutely unprecedented was the conversion of an eccelesiatical usage into an article of belief, will be seen from the evidence which has already been adduced…

 

[MrS]

Jerome was a Hebrew scholar.

.

Do you know why??

 

[Janet_S]

Do you know why??

Are you asking why Jerome learned Hebrew?

This is the story I heard–Jerome was a big-time sinner before his conversion. After his conversion, he struggled a lot with impure thoughts. He learned Hebrew to take his mind off “other things.” Apparently it worked.

 

[lak611]

Are you asking why Jerome learned Hebrew?

This is the story I heard–Jerome was a big-time sinner before his conversion. After his conversion, he struggled a lot with impure thoughts. He learned Hebrew to take his mind off “other things.” Apparently it worked.

This is very interesting. I never knew this. Mastering a language would keep one very busy, so it makes sense.

 

[colliric]

Wisdom;2153069:

Certainly God Breathed Scripture is the most important of readings in the service, AND we do plenty of it! Who says we support the view of reading the Deuts? Looks like your the only one saying that. All were saying is there were 2 classes of writings, God Breathed scripture and Deuts that were allowed for Church reading. That is what is historical. Do not infer that we believe non inspired works should be read, we don’t!

This is a modern protestant mentality. The Reformation leaders did not hold this position, Luther in fact kept these books in his bible as “Apocrypha” because “they make good reading” as they are about God, even though “they are not scripture”.

If you look into the history of the publication of the KJV bible which was the biggest protestant bible until the last 50 years or so, you begin to get an idea of when this thinking was changed, and also when it has started to be reversed(because it really has in terms at least of the KJV which is finally being published cheaply in Full version again).

Until the 20th century the vast majority of Protestant bibles contained the Deutrocanon books as “Apocrypha”, because the KJV was published with it ever since 1611. So were the early bible translations of the 20th century including the RSV and others.

That then changed when the NIV and other later bible came along, mostly because modern protestants apparently do not agree with the founders of their own movement on that issue and apparently do not even agree with the earlier 20th century protestant publishers who put the “Apocrypha” still in out of not being totally “anti-catholic” and allowing protestants to read books that the catholics have, so they can make their own decision.

Such modern closure to the “Apocrypha”, is saddening, especially in the case of the KJV, because excluding the Deuterocanon denies protestants even the full original version of that, one of their own bibles. It’s all for the sake of “anti-catholocism” which seems to have risen drastically since the rise of “Pentecostal” protestantism. Anglicanism is however surprisingly trying to pull back the other way, both with reading of “apocrypha” and of pushing to get full versions of the KJV out. The latest wide release of the KJV by Penguin books finally released a “1611” version for less than $20 in it’s “Classic” line of books.

 

[kaycee]

kaycee;2154962:

This is a modern protestant mentality. The Reformation leaders did not hold this position, Luther in fact kept these books in his bible as “Apocrypha” because “they make good reading” as they are about God, even though “they are not scripture”.

If you look into the history of the publication of the KJV bible which was the biggest protestant bible until the last 50 years or so, you begin to get an idea of when this thinking was changed, and also when it has started to be reversed(because it really has in terms at least of the KJV which is finally being published cheaply in Full version again).

Until the 20th century the vast majority of Protestant bibles contained the Deutrocanon books as “Apocrypha”, because the KJV was published with it ever since 1611. So were the early bible translations of the 20th century including the RSV and others.

That then changed when the NIV and other later bible came along, mostly because modern protestants apparently do not agree with the founders of their own movement on that issue and apparently do not even agree with the earlier 20th century protestant publishers who put the “Apocrypha” still in out of not being totally “anti-catholic” and allowing protestants to read books that the catholics have, so they can make their own decision.

Such modern closure to the “Apocrypha”, is saddening, especially in the case of the KJV, because excluding the Deuterocanon denies protestants even the full original version of that, one of their own bibles. It’s all for the sake of “anti-catholocism” which seems to have risen drastically since the rise of “Pentecostal” protestantism. Anglicanism is however surprisingly trying to pull back the other way, both with reading of “apocrypha” and of pushing to get full versions of the KJV out. The latest wide release of the KJV by Penguin books finally released a “1611” version for less than $20 in it’s “Classic” line of books.

I fail to see the relevance.Since the Reformers like Jerome recognized that the apocrypha was not God Breathed whats the point. We are not tied to tradition for traditions sake.

 

[Mannyfit75]

colliric;2157915:

I fail to see the relevance.Since the Reformers like Jerome recognized that the apocrypha was not God Breathed whats the point. We are not tied to tradition for traditions sake.

I also fail to see the relevance to use St. Jerome as the primary Biblical Scholar who says it is apocryphal. Yet the Church over ruled him and say the Books are Canonical, and of course St. Jerome recanted in his remarks… which I know you disagree strongly.

 

[MrS]

Are you asking why Jerome learned Hebrew?

This is the story I heard–Jerome was a big-time sinner before his conversion. After his conversion, he struggled a lot with impure thoughts. He learned Hebrew to take his mind off “other things.” Apparently it worked.

I widely known and oft repeated story, and the sin in question was lust… without denial.

You are absolutely correct… and I would have said so in Hebrew, but my sins have me still working on Latin.

.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

So, the author is disqualifying his work from the Bible by suggesting the possibility that he had not written perfectly?

1 Corinthians 7:10-12
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

I guess Paul is telling us that some portion of his letter to the Corinthians is not from God, right?

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Wisdom]

Mostly because Augustine thought they were inspired in the Septuagint as did many early Christians, just because they were within the same covers. He believed the story about the 70 rabbis. He could not read Hebrew. Jerome was a Hebrew scholar.

It was already 1 of 2 existing beliefs in the church with the more educated theologians following Jerome. Most likely the Anti Reformation mentality played a part since the reformers where siding with Jerome, Cajaten, Ximenes, Seripando. Unfortunately this side seems to have been steamrolled at Trent. B.F.Westcott comments.

"This fatal decree, in which the Council…gave a new aspect to the whole question of, the Canon, was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity]. How completely the decision was opposed to the spirit and letter of the original judgments of the Greek and Latin Churches, how far in the doctrinal equalization of the disputed and acknowledged books of the Old Testament it was at variance with the traditional opinion of the West, how absolutely unprecedented was the conversion of an eccelesiatical usage into an article of belief, will be seen from the evidence which has already been adduced…

Well Origen could read Hebrew as I suspect the writers of the new testament who quoted the Septugeint 70 percent of the time and not Hebrew. Origen who was taught be Rabbis and thought the dueteros were inspired and scripture but acknowledged they had a different canon he also said it had no bearing on what was Chistian Scripture. Also Luther could not read Hebrew either but he was the driving force for the Reformers putting the dueteros in seperate category in the Bible that the councils of africa and Florence never authorized. In your opinion the more educated followed Jerome. but this is not case just your bias. Augustine was the church’s greatest theologian Jerome was not he was a gifted linguist to say Augustine was inferior is plain stupid they had different gifts and both brilliant. Also Origen was just as gifted a linguist as Jerome and almost as gifted as Augustine in theology but came away siding with the Dutererso as scripture so brilliant people could come away with a difference of opinion to say one side is simply intellectually inferior because they disagree with you is another example of protestant bias. Luther’s biogrophers admit he did not know HEbrew yet your guys respect his opinion on the matter you guys like to have it both ways.
Cassiodorus and Isidore of Seville were the most brilliant minds of the western monostaries that followed the post Augustine post Jerome era and they knew Hebrew and they followed the teachings of the african councils and in the east the influence of those who accepted the Dueteros like John Damascene gradually swayed them to revert to the churchs pre-nicean opinion. The history of this is far more nuanced and complicated than your friend Webster presents and whom who accept this findings without doing your homework and that is not only not scholarly but a dishonest tactice your repeat time and time again. Also your source Westcott not only doubts the church’s authority to decalre the OT dueteros as scripture but the church’s authority to declare the NT dueteros as scripture you know the same books you happen to have in your Bible. Yet you try to have it both ways again like I said Luther was consistent as he through out james jude hebrews and revelation but you do not. You accept these books and why? Westcott suggest as Luther did the historical reasons to accept these books are just as suspect at the OT dueteros as they were influenced heavily by the power of the church and not constant opinion as they were routinely rejected for nearly 400 years by a large part of the church. Now that is both Westcott and Luther’s opinion and not the catholic church. WE are consistent on the matter as was ironically Luther you are inconsistent having the OT canon of Westcott and NT canon of the catholic church.

 

[Wisdom]

So, the author is disqualifying his work from the Bible by suggesting the possibility that he had not written perfectly?

1 Corinthians 7:10-12
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

I guess Paul is telling us that some portion of his letter to the Corinthians is not from God, right?

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Yeah the only book of the NT that says its scripture is Revelation. If this is the criteria your going to throw out a lot of the books of the Bible. Many bible books have moments of self deprication and apparent opinoins of the human author. The scriptures are not dictations as some protestants mistake the book to be some sort of Quran they are human works that are God breathed ergo influenced by the Holy Spirit. The four gospels are a perfect example they reflect four different accounts of Jesus that reflects the different viewpoints of the human author and written in different styles to different audiences but at the core are influenced by the same truth.

 

[kaycee]

So, the author is disqualifying his work from the Bible by suggesting the possibility that he had not written perfectly?

1 Corinthians 7:10-12
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

I guess Paul is telling us that some portion of his letter to the Corinthians is not from God, right?

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

The comparison makes no sense. Paul got revelation directly from Jesus. His advice is given as from one of the greatest Apostles to ever live and his wisdom should be heeded.

The Maccabees author plainly admits he might make a mistake, care to quote any other vessels used for God Breathed scripture that make a similar statement?

Charity given to the poor does NOT purge sin!

Tobias 4:11, “For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.”
Tobias12:9, “For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.”

You dont actually believe this heresy, do you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The comparison makes no sense. Paul got revelation directly from Jesus. His advice is given as from one of the greatest Apostles to ever live and his wisdom should be heeded.

The Maccabees author plainly admits he might make a mistake, care to quote any other vessels used for God Breathed scripture that make a similar statement?

And Paul plainly admits that what he wrote was not from God. Doesn’t sound very 'God-breathed" to me…it was just his own fallible opinion.

Charity given to the poor does NOT purge sin!

Who said anything about purging? That would be infused righteousness. You believe you are a snow-covered dunghill. So, we simply want to cover over the sin, remember?

1 Peter 4:8
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

See? The giving of alms is one way that we love others. Giving alms covers over a multitude of sins…just like Tobias says.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[MrS]

Charity given to the poor does NOT purge sin!

?

“… faith, hope and love,… and the greatest of these is love…”

It is a given that love = charity.

I guess that with your statement… then there is little chance that faith or hope will purge our sins either.

purge… purgatory…

.

 

[kaycee]

Well Origen could read Hebrew as I suspect the writers of the new testament who quoted the Septugeint 70 percent of the time and not Hebrew. Origen who was taught be Rabbis and thought the dueteros were inspired and scripture but acknowledged they had a different canon he also said it had no bearing on what was Chistian Scripture.

He was clearly wrong. He also never found a verse he would’nt allegorize into multiple meanings.

Also Luther could not read Hebrew either but he was the driving force for the Reformers putting the dueteros in seperate category in the Bible that the councils of africa and Florence never authorized.

Clearly incorrect, There were many Fathers who were of the same opinion. Jerome was just one of the bigger names. Cajetan and Seripando 2 big names of the Reformation and Trent agreed with Luther!

In your opinion the more educated followed Jerome. but this is not case just your bias.

Again, clearly untrue. The Glossa ordinaria was the official Biblical commentary used during the Middle Ages in all the theological centers for the training of theologians

The importance of the Glossa ordinaria relative to the issue of the Apocrypha is seen from the statements in the Preface to the overall work. It repeats the judgment of Jerome that the Church permits the reading of the Apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of faith.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states
"So great was the influence of the Glossa ordinaria on Biblical and philosophical studies in the Middle Ages that it was called ‘the tongue of Scripture’ and 'the bible of scholasticism’

Augustine was the church’s greatest theologian Jerome was not he was a gifted linguist to say Augustine was inferior is plain stupid they had different gifts and both brilliant. Also Origen was just as gifted a linguist as Jerome and almost as gifted as Augustine in theology but came away siding with the Dutererso as scripture so brilliant people could come away with a difference of opinion to say one side is simply intellectually inferior because they disagree with you is another example of protestant bias. Luther’s biogrophers admit he did not know HEbrew yet your guys respect his opinion on the matter you guys like to have it both ways. Cassiodorus and Isidore of Seville were the most brilliant minds of the western monostaries that followed the post Augustine post Jerome era and they knew Hebrew and they followed the teachings of the african councils and in the east the influence of those who accepted the Dueteros like John Damascene gradually swayed them to revert to the churchs pre-nicean opinion. The history of this is far more nuanced and complicated than your friend Webster presents and whom who accept this findings without doing your homework and that is not only not scholarly but a dishonest tactice your repeat time and time again.

Oh Please! Just because you dont do your homework and buy the Catholic apologist distortions, then call those with impeccable footnotes, Hacks, Anti-Catholics and other names when confronted with the evidence says ALOT.

What I find dishonest is the insistance by many that Carthage and Hippo were binding on the entire church when a long line of Church Fathers are produced Including the New Catholic Encyc stating the opposite!

Also your source Westcott not only doubts the church’s authority to decalre the OT dueteros as scripture but the church’s authority to declare the NT dueteros as scripture you know the same books you happen to have in your Bible. Yet you try to have it both ways again like I said Luther was consistent as he through out james jude hebrews and revelation but you do not.

The Luther Bible contains those books you claim he threw out!

Did you say something about being dishonest.

 

[Janet_S]

What I find dishonest is the insistance by many that Carthage and Hippo were binding on the entire church when a long line of Church Fathers are produced Including the New Catholic Encyc stating the opposite!

 

[Janet_S]

The Luther Bible contains those books you claim he threw out!

Did you say something about being dishonest.

You’re not exactly honest about this either.

While Luther did not remove the NT books James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation from his 1522 edition of the NT, he categorized them as “inferior,” the same way he did the 7 deuteros in the OT. He set them apart and placed these 4 books at the end of his NT. He criticized them in his prefaces because they contradicted his theology. This is the same treatment he gave the 7 deutercanonical OT books. He classified these 4 NT books and 7 OT books as inferior and separated them from the rest of Scripture.

I’ll put it this way–his first edition of the NT does not look like yours.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You’re not exactly honest about this either.

While Luther did not remove the NT books James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation from his 1522 edition of the NT, he categorized them as “inferior,” the same way he did the 7 deuteros in the OT. He set them apart and placed these 4 books at the end of his NT. He criticized them in his prefaces because they contradicted his theology. This is the same treatment he gave the 7 deutercanonical OT books. He classified these 4 NT books and 7 OT books as inferior and separated them from the rest of Scripture.

I’ll put it this way–his first edition of the NT does not look like yours.

In Michuta’s new book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, the author makes the point that Luther viewed books of the Bible on a continuum of canonicity (my word, not Gary’s). Some were more equal than others.

Thus, the ones that fit his theology were definitely “in”, others were “not so much”, and poor Jimmy would have been in the stove if he had not been stopped by more level-headed associates.

Of course, we know what became of the deuteros.

I’d recommend that Kaycee read it, but he’d probably rather wait for James White, William Webster or James Swan to “refute” it. And of course, their book will be “unadulterated truth”.

Kaycee’s latest attack on Tobias and Maccabees was a pure “cut N paste” from CARM - which I discovered earlier today.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Mannyfit75]

In Michuta’s new book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, the author makes the point that Luther viewed books of the Bible on a continuum of canonicity (my word, not Gary’s). Some were more equal than others.

Thus, the ones that fit his theology were definitely “in”, others were “not so much”, and poor Jimmy would have been in the stove if he had not been stopped by more level-headed associates.

Of course, we know what became of the deuteros.

I’d recommend that Kaycee read it, but he’d probably rather wait for James White, William Webster or James Swan to “refute” it. And of course, their book will be “unadulterated truth”.

Kaycee’s latest attack on Tobias and Maccabees was a pure “cut N paste” from CARM - which I discovered earlier today.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

They do look like the material from CARM…