Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[rcwitness]

How do we know, from God, what should be considered Scripture and what should not???

 

[lanman87]

How do we know, from God, what should be considered Scripture and what should not???

Well, there is a consensus between all Christians on what constitutes the New Testament.

There is not a consensus on the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament and from what I can tell, there never has been. At the Council of Trent the Latin Church agreed with, despite opposition, the Augustinian view that was reflected at Hippo and Carthage. The Protestants agree with the views of Jerome and many others, that essentially say the Deutero books, while helpful in devotion, don’t meet the standards for God Breathed Scripture (for various reasons).

I would say we can know what should be considered scripture because of the consensus of belief of all who follow God. For the Old Testament, this includes the Jews. It is after all, their covenant with God and their history that is revealed in the Old Testament. As Paul told the Romans. the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

How do we know, from God, what should be considered Scripture and what should not???

Well, there is a consensus between all Christians on what constitutes the New Testament.

There is not a consensus on the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament and from what I can tell, there never has been. At the Council of Trent the Latin Church agreed with, despite opposition, the Augustinian view that was reflected at Hippo and Carthage. The Protestants agree with the views of Jerome and many others, that essentially say the Deutero books, while helpful in devotion, don’t meet the standards for God Breathed Scripture (for various reasons).

I would say we can know what should be considered scripture because of the consensus of belief of all who follow God. For the Old Testament, this includes the Jews. It is after all, their covenant with God and their history that is revealed in the Old Testament. As Paul told the Romans. the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God

The Jews did not give their “concensus” until after they rejected Jesus. Til then, were the Dueteros revered as Scripture? Are not some of them in the Dead Sea scrolls?

And when does this concensus need to take place? For the first 3 centuries, there was a great number of disagreements about even the New Testament.

The oldest bibles we have, include books not accepted into our canons.

 

[Agathon]

As Paul told the Romans. the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God

And Jews wrote the Septuagint which was the OT for the early Church.

 

[steve-b]

FYI, according the the Catholic Encyclopedia

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.

Apparently the Roman Synod and the Synods of Hippo and Carthage were not binding on the entire church.

That’s true. They weren’t ecumenical councils. However, what Pope Damasus decreed, in 382, was validated by all the councils, Local and ecumenical, after that.

The council of Florence, was an ecumenical council. It listed the same canon of scripture Session 11- 4 Feb 1442 (same books by name) as were listed by Damasus in 382.

From: Session 11- 4 Feb 1442
"It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, / Sirach Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John."

The 7 Deuteros are highlighted above
1 & 2 Maccabees
Tobit
Sirach aka Ecclesiastes
Wisdom
Baruch
Judith
Ianman:

If it was then the matter would have been settled. Instead, debate on the place of the Deuterocanonical books continued up to and including the Council of Trent. There was even a minority position at the Council of Trent, headed by Cardinal Seripando, opposed to making the Deutero books equal with the other book of the Old Testament.

Minority positions didn’t prevail.

 

[lanman87]

The Jews did not give their “concensus” until after they rejected Jesus. Til then, were the Dueteros revered as Scripture? Are not some of them in the Dead Sea scrolls?

There are also many non-Biblical works in the Dead Sea Scrolls. We don’t know if they considered the Dueteros scripture or not. The fact that they were part of the library is not surprising considering the many works found at the site. Many scholars say that Jews in Palestine didn’t consider the Duetero books to be Scripture but the Greek speaking Hellenist Jews assumed it was equal with scripture because it was in the Septuagint. And that they were added to the “Old Testament” when it was translated into Greek and was never part of the Hebrew Old Testament. Which is why it was eventually dropped from the Hebrew Canon.

And when does this concensus need to take place? For the first 3 centuries, there was a great number of disagreements about even the New Testament.

The oldest bibles we have, include books not accepted into our canons.

The vast majority of the New Testament was considered scripture by the middle of the 2nd Century. The disputed books by the end of the 3rd Century. It took time for the church to reach a consensus but it did. It never reached a consensus about the Deutero books. Instead it made a ruling without the consensus of the entire church.

 

[lanman87]

Minority positions didn’t prevail.

True, but it does show that those the held that position before the Council of Trent, were considered part of the Catholic Church.

 

[steve-b]

rcwitness:

The Jews did not give their “concensus” until after they rejected Jesus. Til then, were the Dueteros revered as Scripture? Are not some of them in the Dead Sea scrolls?

There are also many non-Biblical works in the Dead Sea Scrolls. We don’t know if they considered the Dueteros scripture or not. The fact that they were part of the library is not surprising considering the many works found at the site.

And when does this concensus need to take place? For the first 3 centuries, there was a great number of disagreements about even the New Testament.

The oldest bibles we have, include books not accepted into our canons.

The vast majority of the New Testament was considered scripture by the middle of the 2nd Century. The disputed books by the end of the 3rd Century. It took time for the church to reach a consensus but it did. It never reached a consensus about the Deutero books. Instead it made a ruling without the consensus of the entire church.

~ 2nd century, the Muratorian canon the canon of scripture was in development. Until it was solidified, it remained in development. Another point, that refutes the notion the Church believed or taught, sola scriptura. There was no understanding of an official canon, till 382.

Note: The authority of the Catholic Church determined it.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Minority positions didn’t prevail.

True, but it does show that those the held that position before the Council of Trent, were considered part of the Catholic Church.

That’s also why the Church, has been given, and obviously needs, the authority it has from Jesus.

 

[rcwitness]

That’s true. They weren’t ecumenical councils. However, what Pope Damasus decreed, in 382, was validated by all the councils, Local and ecumenical, after that.

Can you name a council which recognized Pope Damasus’ decree?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

That’s true. They weren’t ecumenical councils. However, what Pope Damasus decreed, in 382, was validated by all the councils, Local and ecumenical, after that.

Can you name a council which recognized Pope Damasus’ decree?

Since we are discussing the OT books, particularly the 7 books removed by Luther
scroll down to the councils of Hippo and Carthage and beyond

 

[rcwitness]

There are also many non-Biblical works in the Dead Sea Scrolls. We don’t know if they considered the Dueteros scripture or not. The fact that they were part of the library is not surprising considering the many works found at the site. Many scholars say that Jews in Palestine didn’t consider the Duetero books to be Scripture but the Greek speaking Hellenist Jews assumed it was equal with scripture because it was in the Septuagint. And that they were added to the “Old Testament” when it was translated into Greek and was never part of the Hebrew Old Testament. Which is why it was eventually dropped from the Hebrew Canon.

Wiki info on the Septuagint:
Since Late Antiquity, once attributed to a Council of Jamnia, mainstream rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts. Several reasons have been given for this. First, some mistranslations were ascertained.[29] Second, the Hebrew source texts, in some cases (particularly the Book of Daniel), used for the Septuagint differed from the Masoretic tradition of Hebrew texts, which was affirmed as canonical by the Jewish rabbis. Third, the rabbis wanted to distinguish their tradition from the newly emerging tradition of Christianity.[22][30] Finally, the rabbis claimed for the Hebrew language a divine authority, in contrast to Aramaic or Greek—even though these languages were the lingua franca of Jews during this period.[31] As a result of this teaching, translations of the Torah into Koine Greek by early Jewish Rabbis have survived as rare fragments only.

The vast majority of the New Testament was considered scripture by the middle of the 2nd Century. The disputed books by the end of the 3rd Century. It took time for the church to reach a consensus but it did. It never reached a consensus about the Deutero books. Instead it made a ruling without the consensus of the entire church.

So for generations there was not a consensus on all of Scripture? It took the EO Churches centuries to accept Revelations… then it was questioned by Luther, among other books 1500 yrs later!

I dont buy into the necessity for there to be a complete concensus. There never will be.

Do you know the Ethiopian Othodox Bible has these extra New Testament books?..

1. Sirate Tsion (the book of order)
2. Tizaz (the book of Herald)
3. Gitsew
4. Abtilis
5. The I book of Dominos
6. The II book of Dominos
7. The book of Clement
8. Didascalia

 

[steve-b]

The Jews did not give their “concensus” until after they rejected Jesus. Til then, were the Dueteros revered as Scripture? Are not some of them in the Dead Sea scrolls?

Ianman87:

There are also many non-Biblical works in the Dead Sea Scrolls. We don’t know if they considered the Dueteros scripture or not. The fact that they were part of the library is not surprising considering the many works found at the site. Many scholars say that Jews in Palestine didn’t consider the Duetero books to be Scripture but the Greek speaking Hellenist Jews assumed it was equal with scripture because it was in the Septuagint. And that they were added to the “Old Testament” when it was translated into Greek and was never part of the Hebrew Old Testament. Which is why it was eventually dropped from the Hebrew Canon.

The NT was written in Greek. Did that disqualify it because it wasn’t written in Hebrew?
Bottom line, For those who accepted Jesus, the “Hebrew Canon” began in the Septuagint, and completed in the NT

To this day, the Jews who do NOT and did not accept Jesus, have 7 less books in their canon.
Ianman87:

And when does this concensus need to take place? For the first 3 centuries, there was a great number of disagreements about even the New Testament.

The oldest bibles we have, include books not accepted into our canons.

The Vulgate, Jerome’s translation, is the oldest “bible”. It has 73 books.
Ianman87:

The vast majority of the New Testament was considered scripture by the middle of the 2nd Century. The disputed books by the end of the 3rd Century. It took time for the church to reach a consensus but it did.

Close enough
Ianman87:

It never reached a consensus about the Deutero books. Instead it made a ruling without the consensus of the entire church.

Yet 73 books were accepted universally in 382 East and West. Those Eastern churches however, that later became the Orthodox, had one addition to the 73. That is 3 Macc. The Eastern Churches that are and/or remained Catholic, have 73 books. Other than 3 Macc then, there was no other change to the OT canon from 382.

 

[mcq72]

How do we know, from God, what should be considered Scripture and what should not???

How did God’s chosen people decide decide ?

 

[rcwitness]

lanman87:

How do we know, from God, what should be considered Scripture and what should not???

How did God’s chosen people decide decide ?

You tell me… they did not choose until 90 AD. at Jamnia! That was after the destruction of the Temple. Their reasons were to disassociate their Tradition from Christianity.

 

[mcq72]

The Jews did not give their “concensus” until after they rejected Jesus

This is true only from catholic paradigm (magisterium, pope, councils), and we are supposed to be a kingdom of priests.

On the contrary , they had consensus and had no need for a council for almost 1500 years before Christ. (they may have had council in first century, but certainly not to settle the deutero books, but i think to distinguish from NT books !)

 

[steve-b]

I really think you still miss the point. I am not saying or claiming what the canon was. Being with or without them. I am not saying any of that. I am asking how so many including a Pope got it wrong if it was in fact definite and “always believed”. And then asking a follow up whether it was in fact as definite as is claimed? Take note this is merely a post adding to what I already posted without an actual reply to what I asked Lanman added some very good additional points.

I do not need to prove something I never claimed.

If Pope Gregory was invested in the idea the Deuteros weren’t scripture, then I think he would have done something to change it. Actions after all speak louder than words…right? Were any books subtracted (particularly those 7 books) by Gregory from the council of 382, or any other council within the previous 200 years? No.

That says a LOT… agreed?

MichaelP3:

Ps. I know the Catholic arguments quite well. I am really trying to phrase my post in a way to avoid the normal replying (infallibility etc.) that does not answer my post.

I’m not using the infallibility argument.

 

[mcq72]

You tell me… they did not choose until 90 AD. at Jamnia! That was after the destruction of the Temple. Their reasons were to disassociate their Tradition from Christianity.

Ok, except for “they did not choose”. So David did not exactly know what was God’s law, to delight in ? Paul was guessing and so should Timothy when he said you search scripture for in them is salvation ? Jesus was lucky in determining what writ to fulfill ?

As one might suggest , it was carnal for them to have a council at all to determine their own writ (in opposition to going beyond Malachi…to “John”), that already perfectly led them to bring forth the promised and prophesied (recorded in writ) Messiah, that they also rejected.

Wondering if we may also be misusing the ability to discern and tell others what is and what is not God breathed.

 

[mcq72]

For those who accepted Jesus, the “Hebrew Canon” began in the Septuagint, and completed in the NT

but why? Were they ( the soon to be much larger gentile church) “literate” of Hebrew religion, much less their language and Writ ?

The Greek was universal language, a great missionary tool, including OT writ (Septuagint) and writing NT.

For sure the Hebrew bible is contained in Septuagint, as are the deutero books.

I would think closer to home (israel/Judea), the synagogues had the Hebrew scrolls, and is is what Jesus read when twelve. Jerusalem had both , to accommodate all the pilgrims from all parts of the Roman Empire.

 

[mcq72]

To this day, the Jews who do NOT and did not accept Jesus, have 7 less books in their canon.

like guilt by association. Just because they got Jesus wrong , consequently got any writ wrong after Malachi (NT), doesn’t mean they got OT books wrong. I mean it is their history, their “walk”, that breed us.

Is their anything in Deutero books that was prophetic about Jesus, more than other books they accepted, that would create hostility and bias ?

What I do like about your implication is that indeed one must be humble before God, and man, to rightly perceive what is God breathed, and just how then to proceed, and not lord that over others wrongly.

Maybe leave lying dogs alone, not be so dogmatic over this. like maybe Jews are better than us in that they were not dogmatic as to council (though apparently we were not really dogmatic till 1500 years later at Trent, exactly how long Jews had “uncounciled” writ before Christ came)