Early Church Fathers - Lets be honest

  • Thread starter Thread starter ConfusedTim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hisalone said:
Gabriel of 12;5822334:
Gabe can you stop it for a minute. I know you saw this list and assumed it to be correct and then copied and pasted it in rebutal of my post. Gabe believe me I cannot go verse by verse. I showed that the other list was faulty. This list is also faulty.

Wisdom11:4 When your people grew thirsty, they called to you, Lord, and you gave them water flowing out of solid rock.5 The disasters that punished the Egyptians saved your people when they were in trouble.
The Punishment of the Egyptians
6-8Because those enemies decreed that the babies of your people should be killed, you stirred up the sources of their everflowing river and made it foul with blood.
In the desert you let your people go thirsty, to give them a taste of how you had punished their enemies. And then, when they least expected it, you gave them plenty of water.

As you can see verse 7 is not talking about the holy innocents but the ruling of Pharoh that all male babies from the Hebrew women be killed.

Gabe there are those that have more time on their hands than I that have gone through these lists and have debunked each and every verse.
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is that since you disagree, we are the ones that are wrong because you have been granted the chrism of infallibility by the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
 
CWBetts said:
Hisalone;5823161:
So what you are saying is that since you disagree, we are the ones that are wrong because you have been granted the chrism of infallibility by the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
What Im saying is that the the lists which claim that the NT quotes apocrapha sources are very questionable as I have demonstrated.
Click to expand...
 
Hisalone said:
Your post does not address any of the points made.
Was the Council of Rome a universal or provisional council?

Did you address that?
NO

Did the Council of Rome close or finalize the cannon so that the issue was settled within Catholicism?

Did you address that?
NO
Click to expand...
I studied Biblical & Theological Foundations RELI 552A from Dr. Robert Kugler [see his credentials here Robert Kugler • Religious Studies • Lewis & Clark ] in Spring 2001 right after he returned to [then] Gonzaga University from a sabatical where he was studying the Dead Sea Scrolls [yes - very cool] and I do not believe he would agree with you. And he is a Lutheran not a Catholic

If the Catholics added the Duetercannonical books at Trent … then you produce the extant Bible manuscripts [or Bibles] that did not have them … where are they? Can you name one ?..

Here is what we have [and to your argument that they are not old enough - much of antiquity is lost through the ravages of time but we look at what we have and use that as a basis … you - perhaps - look at it say that what came before was vastly different -] … there are older more fragmented pieces …

For Greek Texts:
The Codex Saniaticus [housed in St Petersburg Russia] dates from the 4th century … it contains books that your protestant bible does not including much of the Duetrcanonical works plus the new testament writings, and some additional Chhristian writings [Shephard of Hermas and the Letter of Barnabus - I think] …

The Codex Vaticanus [housed in the Vatican] also dates to the 4th century … this manuscript covers both Henrew [old] and Christian [new] …with only a few missing frm both the old and new * you probably would not like this one because it is in the care and leeping of the Church … This is probably the oldest [according to most biblical scholars] …

So I will offer the Codex Alexandrinus [housed in England] from the 5th century … this one also covers old and new testaments and includes the deuterocanonical books and the apocryphal 3rd and 4th Maccabbees * …

Remember this … of very old New Testaments manuscripts in Greek fewer then 50 out of the more then 2000 are very complete …

The Vulgate versions are dated around the 8th century but there are older forms of the scriptures in latin that date centuries earlier …

And one must not forget what “Canons” are from the ancient Christian perpsective … these writings are the representation of the faith. The Church was the instrument that decided what was representative of the teachigs of Christ and the Good News of Salvation, the principlesor standards accepted as axiomatic and universally held - thus the “canon” of Scripture is work of the Church … it is the Church’s “Book” … the “Bible” did not give birth to the Church No, the Church gave birth to the Bible … they accepted the Septuagint and determined which Christian writings would be joined to it*. … **

And as an earlier poster asked … why do you have no qualms or conditions regarding the New Testament works included? … Luther questioned many of them and added words to others … through time they [those ultimately included and many that were not] embodied much more controversy then the Deutercanonicals … 🤷*
 
YADA said:
Here is what we have [and to your argument that they are not old enough - much of antiquity is lost through the ravages of time but we look at what we have and use that as a basis … you - perhaps - look at it say that what came before was vastly different -] … there are older more fragmented pieces …

For Greek Texts:
The Codex Saniaticus [housed in St Petersburg Russia] dates from the 4th century … it contains books that your protestant bible does not including much of the Duetrcanonical works plus the new testament writings, and some additional Chhristian writings [Shephard of Hermas and the Letter of Barnabus - I think] …

The Codex Vaticanus [housed in the Vatican] also dates to the 4th century … this manuscript covers both Henrew [old] and Christian [new] …with only a few missing frm both the old and new * you probably would not like this one because it is in the care and leeping of the Church … This is probably the oldest [according to most biblical scholars] …

So I will offer the Codex Alexandrinus [housed in England] from the 5th century … this one also covers old and new testaments and includes the deuterocanonical books and the apocryphal 3rd and 4th Maccabbees * …

Remember this … of very old New Testaments manuscripts in Greek fewer then 50 out of the more then 2000 are very complete …

The Vulgate versions are dated around the 8th century but there are older forms of the scriptures in latin that date centuries earlier …

**

You do realize that none of the LXX manuscripts you mention match the Catholic OT canon don’t you?
Click to expand...
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
Gabriel of 12;
Sorry I missed this post;
Here is a little more clarification Hisalone;

And here are some of the quotations
from the Deuterocanon in the New Testament

***Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents. ***
Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 15:6 - branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.
Click to expand...
Please just take the one supposed quote which is highlighted above and prove/demonstrate that it comes from the dc’s.
 
Wisdom 11:7: in rebuke for the decree to slay the infants, thou gavest them abundant water unexpectedly,

Matthew 2:16: Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men.
 
SemperReformada said:
You do realize that none of the LXX manuscripts you mention match the Catholic OT canon don’t you?
Click to expand...
Ya mean “word for word”? … :rolleyes: … Sheesh …

They more closely represent the Catholic OT canon they they do the Protestant OT canon …

As I said from antiquity the ravages of time have taken theire toll … and as I noted - many of these old manuscripts do not match the NT canon upon which you accepted the Church’s witness and for which we agree …

So answer which of those ancient manuscripts matches your version of today ?..
 
CWBetts said:
Wisdom 11:7: in rebuke for the decree to slay the infants, thou gavest them abundant water unexpectedly,

Matthew 2:16: Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your post.

If we look a little more at the surrounding text in Matthew 2 we see a very revealing statement…

16Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by (Q)the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and (R)slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi.
***17Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: ***
18"(S)A VOICE WAS HEARD IN RAMAH,
WEEPING AND GREAT MOURNING,
RACHEL WEEPING FOR HER CHILDREN;
AND SHE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED,
BECAUSE THEY WERE NO MORE."

verse 17 tells us the prophesy is from Jeremiah…not the book of Wisdom. The rest of the list of supposed dc quotations falls to a similar fate. Most people get it from scripturecatholic.com and it just isn’t that good, not good at all.
 
YADA said:
Ya mean “word for word”? … :rolleyes: … Sheesh …

They more closely represent the Catholic OT canon they they do the Protestant OT canon …

As I said from antiquity the ravages of time have taken theire toll … and as I noted - many of these old manuscripts do not match the NT canon upon which you accepted the Church’s witness and for which we agree …

So answer which of those ancient manuscripts matches your version of today ?..
Click to expand...
No, I don’t mean word for word. I mean we don’t have in our possesion one single manuscript of the LXX which matches book for book the canon of the RCC (OT of course).

The fact is, we can’t go back and prove what books were contained in the LXX of Jesus’ time or if there was one single edition or many various editions,each containing a different collection of books.
 
YADA said:
I studied Biblical & Theological Foundations RELI 552A from Dr. Robert Kugler [see his credentials here Robert Kugler • Religious Studies • Lewis & Clark
Click to expand...
] in Spring 2001 right after he returned to [then] Gonzaga University from a sabatical where he was studying the Dead Sea Scrolls [yes - very cool] and I do not believe he would agree with you. And he is a Lutheran not a Catholic

If the Catholics added the Duetercannonical books at Trent … then you produce the extant Bible manuscripts [or Bibles] that did not have them … where are they? Can you name one ?..

Here is what we have [and to your argument that they are not old enough - much of antiquity is lost through the ravages of time but we look at what we have and use that as a basis … you - perhaps - look at it say that what came before was vastly different -] … there are older more fragmented pieces …

For Greek Texts:
The Codex Saniaticus [housed in St Petersburg Russia] dates from the 4th century … it contains books that your protestant bible does not including much of the Duetrcanonical works plus the new testament writings, and some additional Chhristian writings [Shephard of Hermas and the Letter of Barnabus - I think] …

The Codex Vaticanus [housed in the Vatican] also dates to the 4th century … this manuscript covers both Henrew [old] and Christian [new] …with only a few missing frm both the old and new * you probably would not like this one because it is in the care and leeping of the Church … This is probably the oldest [according to most biblical scholars] …

So I will offer the Codex Alexandrinus [housed in England] from the 5th century … this one also covers old and new testaments and includes the deuterocanonical books and the apocryphal 3rd and 4th Maccabbees * …

Remember this … of very old New Testaments manuscripts in Greek fewer then 50 out of the more then 2000 are very complete …

The Vulgate versions are dated around the 8th century but there are older forms of the scriptures in latin that date centuries earlier …

And one must not forget what “Canons” are from the ancient Christian perpsective … these writings are the representation of the faith. The Church was the instrument that decided what was representative of the teachigs of Christ and the Good News of Salvation, the principlesor standards accepted as axiomatic and universally held - thus the “canon” of Scripture is work of the Church … it is the Church’s “Book” … the “Bible” did not give birth to the Church No, the Church gave birth to the Bible … they accepted the Septuagint and determined which Christian writings would be joined to it*. … **

And as an earlier poster asked … why do you have no qualms or conditions regarding the New Testament works included? … Luther questioned many of them and added words to others … through time they [those ultimately included and many that were not] embodied much more controversy then the Deutercanonicals … 🤷

MY favorite Aquinas quote is Arguement based on authority is weakest.

I have no qualms with Christians setting the NT cannon.
I do lean heavily that the Hebrew scriptures ought to be set by the Hebrews. The claim that there was no prophet in the land while some of these contested books were written also weighs heavily against them.
There are books in the LXX that are not in the cannon and uninspired books with the dead sea scrolls.
My point that Catholics added seven books to the bible is no more outlandish than to say Protestants took away seven books. I think that it has been comfortably established that the final choice for Catholics was at Trent.*
 
Hisalone said:
MY favorite Aquinas quote is Arguement based on authority is weakest.

I have no qualms with Christians setting the NT cannon.
I do lean heavily that the Hebrew scriptures ought to be set by the Hebrews. The claim that there was no prophet in the land while some of these contested books were written also weighs heavily against them.
There are books in the LXX that are not in the cannon and uninspired books with the dead sea scrolls.
My point that Catholics added seven books to the bible is no more outlandish than to say Protestants took away seven books. I think that it has been confortably established that the final choice for Catholics was at Trent.
Click to expand...
It has been established that the canon wes set at 4 councils in the 4th century
 
CWBetts said:
Wisdom 11:7: in rebuke for the decree to slay the infants, thou gavest them abundant water unexpectedly,

Matthew 2:16: Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men.
Click to expand...
Amazing that you didnt read my previous post
Hisalone said:
Gabriel of 12;5822334:
Gabe can you stop it for a minute. I know you saw this list and assumed it to be correct and then copied and pasted it in rebutal of my post. Gabe believe me I cannot go verse by verse. I showed that the other list was faulty. This list is also faulty.

Wisdom11:4 When your people grew thirsty, they called to you, Lord, and you gave them water flowing out of solid rock.5 The disasters that punished the Egyptians saved your people when they were in trouble.
The Punishment of the Egyptians
6-8Because those enemies decreed that the babies of your people should be killed, you stirred up the sources of their everflowing river and made it foul with blood.
In the desert you let your people go thirsty, to give them a taste of how you had punished their enemies. And then, when they least expected it, you gave them plenty of water.

As you can see verse 7 is not talking about the holy innocents but the ruling of Pharoh that all male babies from the Hebrew women be killed.

Gabe there are those that have more time on their hands than I that have gone through these lists and have debunked each and every verse.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
SemperReformada said:
Thank you for your post.

If we look a little more at the surrounding text in Matthew 2 we see a very revealing statement…

16Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by (Q)the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and (R)slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi.
***17Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: ***
18"(S)A VOICE WAS HEARD IN RAMAH,
WEEPING AND GREAT MOURNING,
RACHEL WEEPING FOR HER CHILDREN;
AND SHE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED,
BECAUSE THEY WERE NO MORE."

verse 17 tells us the prophesy is from Jeremiah…not the book of Wisdom. The rest of the list of supposed dc quotations falls to a similar fate. Most people get it from scripturecatholic.com and it just isn’t that good, not good at all.
Click to expand...
OH I FORGOT!!! An event can NEVER be prefigured in more than one place!!!:rolleyes:
 
CWBetts said:
OH I FORGOT!!! An event can NEVER be prefigured in more than one place!!!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
CW you should quit while you are behind.
I showed what the reference to wisdom was and SR shows a direct quote from Matthew.
Time to drop back and punt.
 
CWBetts said:
OH I FORGOT!!! An event can NEVER be prefigured in more than one place!!!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You are surely kidding right? The Holy Spirit inspired the text contained with in the gospel of Matthew and that same Holy Spirit reveals where the prophecy in question came from but Mark Bonnocore’s list at scripturecatholic.com trumps the obvious?

You know your church might be infallible but your apologists certainly aren’t.
 
SemperReformada said:
You are surely kidding right? The Holy Spirit inspired the text contained with in the gospel of Matthew and that same Holy Spirit reveals where the prophecy in question came from but Mark Bonnocore’s list at scripturecatholic.com trumps the obvious?
Click to expand...
I am saying that the passage in Wisdom and the Passage in Jeremiah are bith referring to the same thing. Just as the Gen 22 and Psa 22 both refer to the crucifixion
 
CWBetts said:
I am saying that the passage in Wisdom and the Passage in Jeremiah are bith referring to the same thing. Just as the Gen 22 and Psa 22 both refer to the crucifixion
Click to expand...
Wisdom is about the Hebrew boys in Egypt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top