How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[PRmerger]

-Then you should agree that believing that some of the teachings of the CC are incorrect is NOT being necessarily anti-catholic, correct? Not a minor distinction.

You are absolutely correct!

There’s a huge gulf between those who don’t agree with the CC on some of her teachings and those who are anti-Catholic.

I don’t believe any reasonable Catholic here thinks that someone who says, “I think the CC is wrong about ____” is an anti-Catholic.

Now, to be sure most of us Catholics have encountered quite a few rabid anti-Catholics --many on this CAF–so if we’re quick to slam someone and shut them down you can understand why. Not saying it’s right, just trying to give an explanation as to why some Catholics here are extra-jumpy.

That, and the fact that we keep having to defuse some of the same old arguments, each time a new poster comes and thinks he’s saying something new. (i.e. “It says Joseph did not have relations with Mary UNTIL she bore Jesus” so Mary was not a perpetual virgin. Ad nauseum. These discussions have been put to rest and they keep rising like one of those pitiful B-movie zombies. )

As for having a different opinion of some doctrines held by the CC and its people, I AM NOT anti-catholic nor desirous of slamming catholics.

Well, of course. That’s why we’re friends!

Who’s been calling you anti-Catholic?? I’ll have to set them straight! Grrrrr!!

 

[Dokimas]

You are absolutely correct!

There’s a huge gulf between those who don’t agree with the CC on some of her teachings and those who are anti-Catholic.

I don’t believe any reasonable Catholic here thinks that someone who says, “I think the CC is wrong about ____” is an anti-Catholic.

Now, to be sure most of us Catholics have encountered quite a few rabid anti-Catholics --many on this CAF–so if we’re quick to slam someone and shut them down you can understand why. Not saying it’s right, just trying to give an explanation as to why some Catholics here are extra-jumpy.

That, and the fact that we keep having to defuse some of the same old arguments, each time a new poster comes and thinks he’s saying something new. (i.e. “It says Joseph did not have relations with Mary UNTIL she bore Jesus” so Mary was not a perpetual virgin. Ad nauseum. These discussions have been put to rest and they keep rising like one of those pitiful B-movie zombies. )

Well, of course. That’s why we’re friends!

Who’s been calling you anti-Catholic?? I’ll have to set them straight! Grrrrr!!

Maybe the rabid anti-catholics should have a rabid shot and the rabid vermine that bit them should be inocculated as well. I recommend the love of Jesus.

 

[simspt]

Do you believe the DC’s are inspired by God, which means they are both inerrant and infallible since the author is God, the Holy Spirit? If so, then why would you consider the DC’s as the inspired word of God when they are known to contain several errors? Do you homework and use Yahoo or Google and search the DC’s and known errors and see for yourself and see if you stick with the convictions you claim or you give them up in favor of the truly inspired word of God.

The same early Church that is responsible for the NT canon viewed noncanonical writings as scripture and inspired. Inspiration and writings being given scriptural status by the early Church must not of been the exclusive criteria the Church used when deciding on the canon. If you trust the early Church with its decision to include or exclude documents that eventually made up the NT then what about the view the early Church had towards these other writings.
Some start off with the presupposition that any hermeneutical method that undermines confidence in the complete truthfulness of all Scripture is unorthodox. So when someone disagrees with them they question their view on inspiration and inerrancy. What seems to be neglected is the fact that the real debate is one of hermeneutics and must be addressed before discussing the theory of inspiration and inerrancy. Discovering the meaning intended by the author must precede asking whether that intended meaning is true. The Bible contains many different literary forms and must be interpreted on those grounds. Whether or not something in the Bible should be taken literally or not is a matter of interpretation, not inerrancy or inspiration.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

=Amy1966;6690625

What should be the core issue? Does God error when men are inspired directly by the Holy Spirit concerning the Scriptures? If you say yes, then add all the books of religion you care to. If not, then you must dismiss the DC’s as inspired since the errors are obvious and numerous, just do a simple Yahoo search and it will not take long for you to find the errors i speak of that theologians, including Augustine, argued on. What made Augustine unique it that he distinguished divine conical from non-divine conical in which the DC’s fit. Jerome warned about marking theses as divine, but was ignored

.

God’s inspired word is never in error. The DC books are contested because no Hebrew counterparts could justify their authenticity as did the other books from the Septuagint which St.Jerome translated into his vulgate not by his choice but by his obedience to the Church (which is the pillar and foundation of Truth). St. Augustine like St. Jerome did not have any single authority to remove any of the already canonized books of the bible including the DC books as did Martin Luther who (removed 7 bible books) made himself infallible above the Church and every great Saint before his time, who kept the DC books in the canon.

What is new here are the errors found in translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, to Latin to English. Jesus and his apostles quoted from these books, Jesus teachings reflect from the Septuagint and DC books. The typo errors, or translation never negates the authenticity (canon) of these DC books. What is interesting is that the Hebrew counterparts that were missing to these disputed books, which was the main reason **the Jews who persecuted the Chrisitians removed them from their canon **and why Jerome and Augustine disputed them was found in the dead sea scrolls.

Now men from afar have come up with new errors from translation to refute these canon books of the bible. Sorry this is not working, The pillar and foundation of Truth of has spoken. “Anyone who removes any of these books of the canon will excommunicate themselves” from the Church Jesus Christ built upon Peter.

The Deuterocanonical books do not contain error, because Jesus and the Apostles quoted the teachings from these books in the New Testament. Show me an error in the Word of God and I will show you a devil.

The Jews never recognized them as divine as some claim they did.

You statement above is a false statement. Jesus was a Jew, the Apostles were all Jews and they quoted from these books. Jesus revealed teachings are prefigured in these DC books. The Jews after the first century removed them from their canon of books, inorder to prove Jesus a false prophet because Jesus teachings and quotes are contained in the “Greek text” only (DC books), because they could not find the Hebrew counterparts to these DC books. “Now you know the rest of the story”

It is wrong for you to try and justify these DC books as having error by attaching the Catholic Saints Jerome and Augustine who NEVER REMOVED THEM FROM THE CHURCHES CANON. Your new founded errors are mans new way to disprove God’s inspired Word, when these books were “Never removed” from the canon books of the bible after the Church canonized them from the 3rd, 4th centuries up until Trent which closed all arguments against these DC books.

One view of Scripture is the first stepping stone as to where they will be in the end./

QUOTE]

“I will not put my Trust in the Gospel, Less the Catholic Church had not told me to do so”
quote by St. Augustine

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Dear Amy what you have addressed here is not a Catholic Teaching. You have been greately misinformed or greatly decieved.

The NT scriptures support the Catholic teaching of Baptism is how one dies to self and enters the Kingdom of God. The man made theology of “faith alone” is never taught in the New Testament canon, nor is the protestant man made “faith alone” supported by the New Testament. “Faith alone” is only supported once in the New Testament, here read it for yourself;

James 2: 14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?

James 1:22
Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves.
23
**For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, **he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror.
24
He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he looked like.

Revelations 14:13 I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." “Yes,” said the Spirit, "let them find rest from their labors, for their works accompany them."

Heres your confusion; You are confusing those who enter the Kingdom of God through baptism (these are on the milk) with those who are in the Kingdom of God “working out their salvation with fear and trembling” (see Philipians 2:12b-13).

You see the New Testament does not support Protestant man made theologies in the Sola anything. Your theology only deals with those who are in need of milk from the gospel which is entrance into the Kingdom of God. Even this theology is mixed among non catholics and protestants. That is why you protest the scriptures that support Catholic teaching of works and faith, which deals on the meat of the gospel, which your theology never attains, because it teaches or focuses on entrance into the Kingdom only, never “work our your salvation with fear and trembling”.

Please when you try and comment on Catholic doctrine maybe you should emphasize
“what is entrance into the Kingdom of God” here you will find some common ground with Catholic Apostolic Tradition and Scripture. Know the difference here of those saints who are in the Kingdom of God “working out their salvation with fear and trembling” these are not the same ministries as protestants and non catholics error in combining the two biblical principles, when the Apostles clearly reveal two distinct principles on the gospels, one on the milk and those on the meat of the gospel. The Catholic Church defines both here from sacred scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Wait a minute? you want me to view a “VERSION” of the Holy Bible books from a 1100 year later Johny come lately bible from a King James “version” and use this KJV to over ride what the Apostles used and their successors were handed from them in the Canon books of the bible that they the apostolic successors authenticated as “inspired of God” which included the DC books, and 1100 years later your KJV relabled them as “Apocrypha” = not inspired of God? are you kidding me? Your King James “VERSION” is a version of the original Holy Catholic Bible which your King James Version was never, ever canonized by the Early Church Fathers who succeeded from the original apostles. “Lord have mercy”

The reason being for this disclaimer is because the true books of the Bible that are truly inspired by its author the Holy Spirit do not contain error. The error occurs when men with an agenda add to the word of God and call it inspired of God, thus making Him the God of error.

Then you agree with me, that Luther makes himself infallible (a god) when he added or translated the “Word Alone” to Romans 3:28 and removed 7 bible books canonized by the Early Church Fathers and ended up with a Version of the Holy Catholic Bible.

Do a Yahoo search and see if it is not so; it is not hard to see the glaring errors and then you have to wonder why the Eastern Orthodox use some that the Roman Catholics rejected and vice versa; another clue of the fallibility of men and not of the infallible and inerrant Holy Spirit.

Tell me is your Yahoo search “The pillar and foundation of Truth”? Let me know if it is before It waste yours and my time on looking elswhere instead of the “pillar and foundation of Truth” which the bible makes clear is here on earth. Why does one need to go outside of the Truth to find a truth from a man? This does not make sense to me.

 

[SemperReformada]

God’s inspired word is never in error. The DC books are contested because no Hebrew counterparts could justify their authenticity as did the other books from the Septuagint which St.Jerome translated into his vulgate not by his choice but by his obedience to the Church (which is the pillar and foundation of Truth). St. Augustine like St. Jerome did not have any single authority to remove any of the already canonized books of the bible including the DC books as did Martin Luther who (removed 7 bible books) made himself infallible above the Church and every great Saint before his time, who kept the DC books in the canon.

Do realize that while Jerome translated the DC books for the Vulgate he also prefaced each one of the DC’s with a prologue that clearly expressed his opinion that the DC books did not belong in the canon of scripture? So when the church sent out the Vulgate it sent out a book which included DC’s along w/ the Jeromes commentary rejecting their canonocity. Why do you think the church did that? Maybe the issue of the OT canon wasn’t settled at that point?

Jesus and his apostles quoted from these books, Jesus teachings reflect from the Septuagint and DC books.

First off we do not know what books were included in the septuagint of the first century or how many different versions there may have been. So you can’t equate “LXX=deuterocanonical”.

You claim that “Jesus and his apostles quoted from these (the DC’s) books.” First, simple quotation does not imply inspiration. To be fair, lack of quotation would not necessarily disprove inspiration either.

Can you prove your point by providing the one singular best example of the NT quoting from the DC’s in such a way that would lead someone to believe that the NT writer believed the DC’s to be on par w/ inspired scripture? I realize you can go to scripturecatholic.com or several other sites and come up w/ a rather long list of supposed quotations but I am asking you to provide just one supposed quote which proves your point.

Thanks

 

[T_More]

Can you prove your point by providing the one singular best example of the NT quoting from the DC’s in such a way that would lead someone to believe that the NT writer believed the DC’s to be on par w/ inspired scripture? I realize you can go to scripturecatholic.com or several other sites and come up w/ a rather long list of supposed quotations but I am asking you to provide just one supposed quote which proves your point.

Thanks

I’ll answer. Hebrews 11:35 and 2 Macc. 7.

 

[SemperReformada]

I’ll answer. Hebrews 11:35 and 2 Macc. 7.

Thanks for your response.

Here is Hebrews 11:35 …

**35Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. **

and here is a portion of 2 Macc 7
2 Macc 7 from the DR:

11 And said with confidence: These I have from heaven, but for the laws of God I now despise them: because I hope to receive them again from him. 12 So that the king, and they that were with him, wondered at the young man’s courage, because he esteemed the torments as nothing. 13 And after he was thus dead, they tormented the fourth in the like manner. 14 And when he was now ready to die, he spoke thus: It is better, being put to death by men, to look for hope from God, to be raised up again by him: for, as to thee thou shalt have no resurrection unto life. 15 And when they had brought the fifth, they tormented him. But he looking upon the king,

16 Said: Whereas thou hast power among men, though thou art corruptible, thou dost what thou wilt: but think not that our nation is forsaken by God. 17 But stay patiently a while, and thou shalt see his great power, in what manner he will torment thee and thy seed. 18 After him they brought the sixth, and he being ready to die, spoke thus: Be not deceived without cause: for we suffer these things for ourselves, having sinned against our God, and things worthy of admiration are done to us: 19 But do not think that thou shalt escape unpunished, for that thou attempted to fight against God. 20 Now the mother was to be admired above measure, and worthy to be remembered by good men, who beheld seven sons slain in the space of one day, and bore it with a good courage, for the hope that she had in God:

21 And she bravely exhorted every one of them in her own language, being filled with wisdom: and joining a man’s heart to a woman’s thought, 22 She said to them: I know not how you were formed in my womb: for I neither gave you breath, nor soul, nor life, neither did I frame the limbs of every one of you. 23 But the Creator of the world, that formed the nativity of man, and that found out the origin of all, he will restore to you again in his mercy, both breath and life, as now you despise yourselves for the sake of his laws. 24 Now Antiochus, thinking himself despised, and withal despising the voice of the upbraider, when the youngest was yet alive, did not only exhort him by words, but also assured him with an oath, that he would make him a rich and a happy man, and, if he would turn from the laws of his fathers, would take him for a friend, and furnish him with things necessary. 25 But when the young man was not moved with these things, the king called the mother, and counselled her to deal with the young man to save his life.

26 And when he had exhorted her with many words, she promised that she would counsel her son. 27 So bending herself towards him, mocking the cruel tyrant, she said in her own language: My son, have pity upon me, that bore thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee suck three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up unto this age. 28 I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also: 29 So thou shalt not fear this tormentor, but being made a worthy partner with thy brethren, receive death, that in that mercy I may receive thee again with thy brethren. 30 While she was yet speaking these words, the young man said: For whom do you stay? I will not obey the commandment of the king, but the commandment of the law, which was given us by Moses.

31 But thou that hast been the author of all mischief against the Hebrews, shalt not escape the hand of God. 32 For we suffer thus for our sins. 33 And though the Lord our God is angry with us a little while for our chastisement and correction: yet he will be reconciled again to his servants. 34 But thou, O wicked and of all men most flagitious, be not lifted up without cause with vain hopes, whilst thou art raging against his servants. 35 For thou hast not yet escaped the judgment of the almighty God, who beholdeth all things.

36 For my brethren, having now undergone a short pain, are under the covenant of eternal life: but thou by the judgment of God shalt receive just punishment for thy pride. 37 But I, like my brethren, offer up my life and my body for the laws of our fathers: calling upon God to be speedily merciful to our nation, and that thou by torments and stripes mayst confess that he alone is God. 38 But in me and in my brethren the wrath of the Almighty, which hath justly been brought upon all our nation, shall cease. 39 Then the king being incensed with anger, raged against him more cruelly than all the rest, taking it grievously that he was mocked. 40 So this man also died undefiled, wholly trusting in the Lord.

41 And last of all after the sons the mother also was consumed. 42 But now there is enough said of the sacrifices, and of the excessive cruelties.

What leads you to believe the author of Hebrews thought 2 Maccabees to be inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

What leads you to believe the author of Hebrews thought 2 Maccabees to be inspired?

Hebrews 11 is basically a litany of OT references: Abel, Enoch, Sarah, Moses…when we get to v. 35, what OT character is being referenced?

It seems that there was a woman in Maccabees who urged her 7 sons to refuse to submit to the king in order that their resurrection might be achieved.

"Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. " Hebrews

“being put to death by men, to look for hope from God, to be raised up again by him: for, as to thee thou shalt have no resurrection unto life” Macc

 

[simspt]

Do realize that while Jerome translated the DC books for the Vulgate he also prefaced each one of the DC’s with a prologue that clearly expressed his opinion that the DC books did not belong in the canon of scripture? So when the church sent out the Vulgate it sent out a book which included DC’s along w/ the Jeromes commentary rejecting their canonocity. Why do you think the church did that? Maybe the issue of the OT canon wasn’t settled at that point?

First off we do not know what books were included in the septuagint of the first century or how many different versions there may have been. So you can’t equate “LXX=deuterocanonical”.

You claim that “Jesus and his apostles quoted from these (the DC’s) books.” First, simple quotation does not imply inspiration. To be fair, lack of quotation would not necessarily disprove inspiration either.

Can you prove your point by providing the one singular best example of the NT quoting from the DC’s in such a way that would lead someone to believe that the NT writer believed the DC’s to be on par w/ inspired scripture? I realize you can go to scripturecatholic.com or several other sites and come up w/ a rather long list of supposed quotations but I am asking you to provide just one supposed quote which proves your point.

Thanks

Do you think the early Church viewed the DCs as authoritative and indicated they had scriptural status?
If the Church received Scripture from Judaism on its way to canonization not closed yet except for the the Law and Prophets then the early Church quoting Christian literature alongside OT literature would not necessarily establish canonicity. However the concept on inspiration by the early Church was broad and included many writings that never made it into the canon.
Its interesting that many Protestants (not you necessarily) like to use Athanasius’s NT list for support on canonical issues but ignore his OT list which includes the apocryphal books. Why give his list authority status for one, but not the other?
One thing IMO is abundantly clear, for the first three or four hundred years of Christianity the Church did not appeal to a closed canon for its doctrine but to many documents thought to be inspired texts including the DCs.

 

[simspt]

I find it interesting that Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) apart from Psalms was the OT book used more often by the Church Fathers than any others for ethical teaching.

 

[SemperReformada]

Hebrews 11 is basically a litany of OT references: Abel, Enoch, Sarah, Moses…when we get to v. 35, what OT character is being referenced?

It seems that there was a woman in Maccabees who urged her 7 sons to refuse to submit to the king in order that their resurrection might be achieved.

"Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. " Hebrews

“being put to death by men, to look for hope from God, to be raised up again by him: for, as to thee thou shalt have no resurrection unto life” Macc

I agree with what you posted but remember my original post in this thread was addressed to Gabriel of 12 because he said
G12:

Jesus and his apostles quoted from these books, Jesus teachings reflect from the Septuagint and DC books.

First of all there is no such thing as “the septuagint” because there were multiple versions of the septuagint, some included such books and Macc 3 and Macc 4 and others omitted books held to be canonical by the RCC. We have no way of knowing which books were contained in “the septuagint” which Jesus and the apostles used.

Secondly, I do not believe there are any DC quotes in the NT but concede there are some very close allusions. One of which is the Heb 11:35 / 2 Macc 7 connection supplied by G12.

What I don’t see is compelling evidence to sway someone to believe that 2Macc7 was considered inspired by the author of Hebrews.

If I were Catholic I’m not sure exactly how I would go about defending the DC’s but I certainly would not make the argument that the NT quotes from the DC’s as this argument is simply not true and even if there was a quote from a DC there certainly is no quote anywhere in the NT that would lead one to believe the DC was thought to be inspired by the NT writer.

 

[PRmerger]

If I were Catholic I’m not sure exactly how I would go about defending the DC’s but I certainly would not make the argument that the NT quotes from the DC’s as this argument is simply not true

Not certain what you mean here, SR. You’ve acknowledged that there are certainly many NT quotes from the DCs, yes?

and even if there was a quote from a DC there certainly is no quote anywhere in the NT that would lead one to believe the DC was thought to be inspired by the NT writer.

We are not saying necessarily that the NT writer considered the DCs to be inspired.

We are saying that the Church, which gave you Hebrews, considered the DCs to be inspired.

If we used the criterion that the writer must consider a text inspired in order for it to be inspired we would not have a very big Bible, would we?

 

[pismopal]

It is unrealistic to ask non Catholics…protestants if you like…to agree with any point , which if acknowledged in the positive, would weaken their anti Catholic authority position. Much anti Catholic energy is simply not wanting to be Catholic…forget about logical conclusions:shrug:

 

[SemperReformada]

It is unrealistic to ask non Catholics…protestants if you like…to agree with any point , which if acknowledged in the positive, would weaken their anti Catholic authority position. Much anti Catholic energy is simply not wanting to be Catholic…forget about logical conclusions:shrug:

That was certainly helpful. Did you learn that during RCIA?

 

[pismopal]

That was certainly helpful. Did you learn that during RCIA?

No…I am able to put 2 and 2 together and it comes to 4. I did learn a lot about the Church that Christ left for us in RCIA…and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Does your denomination have a program similar to RCIA…Cathechism?

 

[pismopal]

That was certainly helpful. Did you learn that during RCIA?

And your sarcasm was offered in the spirit of…what?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Do realize that while Jerome translated the DC books for the Vulgate he also prefaced each one of the DC’s with a prologue that clearly expressed his opinion that the DC books did not belong in the canon of scripture? So when the church sent out the Vulgate it sent out a book which included DC’s along w/ the Jeromes commentary rejecting their canonocity. Why do you think the church did that? Maybe the issue of the OT canon wasn’t settled at that point?

It appears you are jumping loops and hurdles of history to support your new claim of St. Jerome’s “opinion” determined the DC books as non canonical? Let us keep it simple here without having to venture into “wonderland”. Jerome did not and does not speak for the Church, St. Jerome obeyed the “Church” and included the DC books in his translation. What you fail to realize here is that St. Jerome never determined the canon of books, the Catholic Church canonized the bible books as we have them today. St. Jerome translated the “already authenticated canon books”.

St. Jerome’s opinion was heard by the Church, and contrary to St. Jerome’s opinion, St. Jerome obeyed the Pope and included the DC books in his Vulgate. Martin Luther 1100 years later removed the DC books and relabeled them as “uninspired of God” = apocrypha, who not only doubted the DC books as St. Jerome and the second century Jews, Luther left his mind and called God’s Word in the DC books as uninspired. Luther did a lot worse than that of St. Jerome.

It would of been better had Luther just added his opinion of the DC books, instead of making himself “infallible” to remove 7 bible books from the bible. So your late argument to use St.Jerome a Catholic Saint who obeyed the Catholic church by jumping loops and hurdles to make it appear as though St. Jerome agrees with Protestants to remove them from the Canon bible is just ludicrous. Protestants need to stop trying to pit Catholic Saints against the Catholic Church, this is not happening.

First off we do not know what books were included in the septuagint of the first century or how many different versions there may have been. So you can’t equate “LXX=deuterocanonical”.

 

[simspt]

What I don’t see is compelling evidence to sway someone to believe that 2Macc7 was considered inspired by the author of Hebrews.

If I were Catholic I’m not sure exactly how I would go about defending the DC’s but I certainly would not make the argument that the NT quotes from the DC’s as this argument is simply not true and even if there was a quote from a DC there certainly is no quote anywhere in the NT that would lead one to believe the DC was thought to be inspired by the NT writer.

Apart from the NT writers do you think the early church viewed the DCs as having authority and scriptural status?