For Christians who reject the deuterocanonical books (apocrypha)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robyn_p
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Novocastrian said:
What, like Matthew 23.2-3?
Click to expand...
Nice cherry-picking! Taken out of context, yes, those isolated verses may theoretically be used to endorse what the Pharisees did, I suppose even regarding the Corban (Mark 7:1-23).

However, keep reading. I was thinking more of the rest of Matthew 23, which is our Lord’s seven-fold condemnation of the Pharisees. For information, that is a total and complete condemnation.

The Pharisees rejected Christ and were complicit in His death. What is the reasoning behind any Christian going to them and asking for the “approved” scriptures?

This strikes me as surreal.

Please address the fact that no Christian relied on the Pharisaic canon for over 1,500 years. Is the adoption of the Pharisaic canon a “restoration” as the Mormons claim?
 
po18guy said:
Nice cherry-picking! Taken out of context, yes, those isolated verses may theoretically be used to endorse what the Pharisees did, I suppose even regarding the Corban (Mark 7:1-23).

However, keep reading. I was thinking more of the rest of Matthew 23, which is our Lord’s seven-fold condemnation of the Pharisees. For information, that is a total and complete condemnation.

The Pharisees rejected Christ and were complicit in His death. What is the reasoning behind any Christian going to them and asking for the “approved” scriptures?

This strikes me as surreal.

Please address the fact that no Christian relied on the Pharisaic canon for over 1,500 years. Is the adoption of the Pharisaic canon a “restoration” as the Mormons claim?
Click to expand...
Now stay with me here; but shouldn’t the Jewish people be competent in choosing the authoritative Scriptures of their Hebrew Bible? Or are you saying they were not careful and became incompetent?
 
Dave_Noonan said:
No. The Pharisees? There is no evidence for this whatsoever. Zero.
Click to expand...
You say so! I heartily suggest that you read the introduction to the protestant Revised Standard Version of the Bible. I don’t think that they had the Catholic Church write their introduction for them.

And, what have you to say about the Orthodox, since they accept the same books? As I recall, they did not slavishly obey the Roman Pontiff in selecting their books…

No one on earth has yet to demonstrate just where the reformers obtained their authority to re-invent Christ’s Church.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Their lack of presence in the Hebrew canon and their myriad errors. Doesn’t mean they aren’t valuable, they just aren’t as great as the rest of scripture.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.

What are the errors found in the deutero-canon that aren’t found in the rest of Scripture though? Are they historical or theological? Or both?

Also what do you think of Wisdom 2? I have a hard time reading that and not seeing divine inspiration there. It’s one of the more plain prophecies of Christ’s death in scripture, to me at least. Just curious what your thoughts on that are.
 
cajunhillbilly said:
I actually am beginning to think they should be included.
Click to expand...
They are included in the Anglican Bible, just not within its canon-proper. Although the Articles call them ‘Apocryphal’, it’s clear that their actual status and function is deuterocanonical.
 
dronald said:
Read em. So there was never universal (or “Catholic”) understanding of the Canon of Scripture, ever.
That correct?
Click to expand...
At the start of the church, there was not. But the councils fixed that up. The east did indeed use some traditional books in their canon like 3 and 4 Maccabees, but the east did recognize the authority of the councils that made the official canon. They just kept some of their traditions, which Rome was fine with. As long as they accepted the canon proclaimed at Rome, Hippo, Carthage, and Florence as the official canon, they were fine.
 
po18guy said:
  1. What was Luther’s authority to formulate a canon, and from where did he get it?
  2. Full disclosure, please. The DC remained in the 1545 Luther Bibel, but they were downgraded by no less than the authority of Dr. Luther and placed between the two testaments. That placement was perhaps the best thing he did in one sense, as they were anticipatory of Christ.
Click to expand...
  1. Luther never had authority to formulate a canon, therefore he never did. He did, however, have the Catholic liberty and privilege to question books of the canon as did every Catholic prior to Trent, and there were numerous who did. In fact, there were those at Trent who did argue against them, IIRC.
  2. Luther’s opinion of them do not constitute a canon, but instead his opinion of them. No Lutheran, or anyone else that I know of, is obliged to agree with Luther about them.
Jon
 
po18guy said:
Those books were/are/will be used in the Mass/Divine Liturgy of the Christian Church, both east and west, Catholic and Orthodox, now for nearing 2,000 years and until the Parousia.

This is all a question of authority. Man’s versus the Church’s.
Click to expand...
Many Lutheran parishes use them in the lectionary. Additionally, reference to them is apparent in our hymnody.

Jon
 
Bradthecatholic said:
At the start of the church, there was not. But the councils fixed that up. The east did indeed use some traditional books in their canon like 3 and 4 Maccabees, but the east did recognize the authority of the councils that made the official canon. They just kept some of their traditions, which Rome was fine with. As long as they accepted the canon proclaimed at Rome, Hippo, Carthage, and Florence as the official canon, they were fine.
Click to expand...
So the Orthodox accept the Catholic canon exactly as it is proclaimed with no room for 3 Maccabees, but they just like to read it anyways?

Do I have that right?
 
Bradthecatholic said:
At the start of the church, there was not. But the councils fixed that up. The east did indeed use some traditional books in their canon like 3 and 4 Maccabees, but the east did recognize the authority of the councils that made the official canon. They just kept some of their traditions, which Rome was fine with. As long as they accepted the canon proclaimed at Rome, Hippo, Carthage, and Florence as the official canon, they were fine.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, Orthodoxy accepts as ecumenical the seven general councils of the Church.

Jon
 
dronald said:
So the Orthodox accept the Catholic canon exactly as it is proclaimed with no room for 3 Maccabees, but they just like to read it anyways?

Do I have that right?
Click to expand...
As far as I am aware, the Eastern Orthodox have not closed the Old Testament Canon.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
They had [opinions]. None of them had [authority] to bind the faithful. That authority is reserved for the Church as a Whole.
Click to expand...
True, Jose, and Luther falls into that same category.

Then again, the Church as a whole has never agreed on a canon.

Jon
 
dronald said:
So the Orthodox accept the Catholic canon exactly as it is proclaimed with no room for 3 Maccabees, but they just like to read it anyways?

Do I have that right?
Click to expand...
The east kept their own traditional canon, but still recognizing that the canon authorized at the councils was the official canon.

I just don’t understand why Protestants have to deny the books inspired by the Holy Spirit. History tells us they’re inspired, Protestants say they aren’t…
 
Bradthecatholic said:
The east kept their own traditional canon, but still recognizing that the canon authorized at the councils was the official canon.

I just don’t understand why Protestants have to deny the books inspired by the Holy Spirit. History tells us they’re inspired, Protestants say they aren’t…
Click to expand...
So according to you the Eastern Canon is closed, but they still like to read extra books because of tradition. Do I have this?
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Their lack of presence in the Hebrew canon and their myriad errors. Doesn’t mean they aren’t valuable, they just aren’t as great as the rest of scripture.
Click to expand...
You mean the Pharisees (condemned seven-fold by Christ) didn’t use them. The same Pharisees who demanded that Christ be put to death. Now, that’s a good source to follow.

And regarding the “myriad errors” in scripture argument, I would be careful there, as atheists employ the same reasoning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top