How To Read and Understand The Bible

[NotWorthy]

Jesus established the priesthood when He gave the Apostles the authority to offer the sacrifice of the mass. He said, “Do this in remembrance of me…”. Naturally, He did not tell them to do something without giving them the wherewithall to do it. This means ordination.

The words “Do this in memory of me” have to be the best of example of how something can get “lost in the translation”. The words *poiein * and ***anamnesis ***literally scream out “priestly sacrifice” and “liturgy”.

 

[NotWorthy]

As a show of good faith, I’ll show you a quick answer on this. This comes from Catholic Answers web site.
I’ll see if I can find authentic proof of this, but I’m still waiting on an answer on John 20.

It seems there are three sources for the Sadducees having a different Canon than the Pharisees.

The Historian Josephus may have indicated they had a different Canon, but we can not be sure. But in any event, Origen and Jerome both make this claim that there were different Canons among the two groups - The Sadducees using just the Torah. Everything else was highly valued, but if it was not in the Torah, then it was not Law.

 

[Ginger2]

I’ll find it in my notes. But not until you answer a question that has been dodged for 5 pages.

Did Jesus give the Apostles the authority to forgive sins in His Name, as Scripture indicates in John 20:20-23?

No.

See thread: Can a Priest Forgive Sins

 

[Ginger2]

As a show of good faith, I’ll show you a quick answer on this. This comes from Catholic Answers web site.
I’ll see if I can find authentic proof of this, but I’m still waiting on an answer on John 20.

Thanks, but you won’t find any proof. It doesn’t exist.

 

[Ginger2]

Jesus established the priesthood when He gave the Apostles the authority to offer the sacrifice of the mass. He said, “Do this in remembrance of me…”. Naturally, He did not tell them to do something without giving them the wherewithall to do it. This means ordination.

I realize that you have your hands full trying to explain all the erroneous statements you are making in various threads, so it is unlikely you will actually read anything to which you are referred. Nonetheless, I offer the following for the benefit of those who may be interested:

Did Jesus Give Priests to the Church?
By Kenneth J. Howell
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp

---

You are in denial.

 

[Ginger2]

It seems there are three sources for the Sadducees having a different Canon than the Pharisees.

The Historian Josephus may have indicated they had a different Canon, but we can not be sure. But in any event, Origen and Jerome both make this claim that there were different Canons among the two groups - The Sadducees using just the Torah. Everything else was highly valued, but if it was not in the Torah, then it was not Law.

Once again speculation.

Where are the Sadducee writings? Where is the list that specifically states their “canon”?

I knew you wouldn’t find anything because I have searched long and hard to find the evidence one way or the other.

Frustrating isn’t it?

 

[NotWorthy]

Once again speculation.

Where are the Sadducee writings? Where is the list that specifically states their “canon”?

I knew you wouldn’t find anything because I have searched long and hard to find the evidence one way or the other.

Frustrating isn’t it?

Almost as frustrating as getting an answer from you on John 20:20-23.

 

[CWBetts]

Once again speculation.

Where are the Sadducee writings? Where is the list that specifically states their “canon”?

I knew you wouldn’t find anything because I have searched long and hard to find the evidence one way or the other.

Frustrating isn’t it?

As well as the Jews of the diaspora! Their canon was the Septuagint. Thats right all those Greek-speaking Jews, like, for instance, THE APOSTLES had the Septuagint as their canon, and guess what? The Septuagint has all those “Apocryphal” books, Like Tobit, Wisdom, and Baruch in there!

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are in denial.

Uh, no…I’m in affirmation. You are in denial.

 

[Ginger2]

As well as the Jews of the diaspora! Their canon was the Septuagint. Thats right all those Greek-speaking Jews, like, for instance, THE APOSTLES had the Septuagint as their canon, and guess what? The Septuagint has all those “Apocryphal” books, Like Tobit, Wisdom, and Baruch in there!

And some that aren’t in the Catholic canon, too.

If using the Septuagint is criteria for inspiration, why not use all the books?

The Septuagint was not the Bible of the Apostles. It was used because the inspired texts in it were written in Greek, the language of the Gentiles. It simplified things.

Jerome didn’t use the Septuagint version to translate the inspired texts. If it was the standard from the start, don’t you think that odd?

Ginger

 

[CWBetts]

And some that aren’t in the Catholic canon, too.

If using the Septuagint is criteria for inspiration, why not use all the books?

The Septuagint was not the Bible of the Apostles. It was used because the inspired texts in it were written in Greek, the language of the Gentiles. It simplified things.

Jerome didn’t use the Septuagint version to translate the inspired texts. If it was the standard from the start, don’t you think that odd?

Ginger

Not odd all. Jerome was translating from the original tongues, utilizing both the Septuagint, and the Pharisaical texts. In learning Hebrew from the Pharisees, he inherited some of their biases. What I consider odd, is that the other early fathers accepted the so-called deuterocanonical texts. Yet the only one the Protestants pay any attention to is St, Jerome. Furthermore, Protestants site a mythical council and can not produce a single early Church document listing the 66 book Canon. Catholics can produce documents from 4 local synods. I think we can see where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

 

[Ginger2]

…Protestants site a mythical council and can not produce a single early Church document listing the 66 book Canon. Catholics can produce documents from 4 local synods. I think we can see where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

What council? I’ve never heard this claim.

Ginger

 

[Randy_Carson]

What council? I’ve never heard this claim.

The “Council” of Jamnia
By Gary Michuta
handsonapologetics.com/deuterocanon.htm

Objection- “At the end of the first century, the Jews gathered together at the Council at Jamnia (also known as Jabneh or Yabneh) to discuss the canon of Scripture. From this Council, the rabbis drew up an authoritative list of sacred books which is identical to the Jewish / Protestant canon.”

Answer: Unfortunately, this short objection suffers from so many inaccuracies and overstatements that the best way to respond is to provide here a description of the real “council” of Jamnia.

After the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 AD, Rabban Jonathan ben Zakkai asked the Roman General Vespasian, who was well disposed to the Rabbi since it was known that he supported peace with the Romans, to spare the city of Jamnia and its rabbinical scholars. Permission was granted and the school set up in the “vineyards of Jamnia.” The problems that faced the new school were serious. The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem made it impossible to continue the prescribed sacrifices required in the Old Testament. Judaism needed to make a radical change from a cultic (sacrifice and Temple centered) religion to a “religion of the Book.” This change, combined with the growth of Christianity (especially its use of the Jewish Greek Old Testament for evangelism) provided Judaism with the occasion to address the question of the canon of Scripture. The information that has come down to us about this canonical activity is fragmentary and certainly open to conjecture.

Note that our objector called this body the *council *of Jamnia. Jamnia was not a council, in the sense of the Council of Trent or the *Council of Nicaea, it was rather was an on-going rabbinical school. The idea of a “council” crept into everyone’s vocabulary via the writings of the famous Jewish historian H. Graetz who was the first to call Jamnia a “synode.” Christians interpreted Graetz’s synode to mean council. However, the word council implies quite a few features that Jamnia did not possess. For example, unlike a Christian council, there were no ballots cast, nor did this body promulgate formal decrees. Rather, Jamnia lasted for a number of years, and its significant opinions is persevered in piecemeal fashion in later Jewish writings. It is difficult to ascertain exactly what Jamnia had for Judaism as a whole. In some ways it acts much like the authoritative body of the Sanhedrin although it never took for itself that name. Therefore, it is inaccurate to speak about the *council of Jamnia. It is more accurate description would be a rabbinical school.

Jamnia never published or promulgated a list the list of books of the canon nor did it discuss the canon as a whole. Most of the debates surrounded the Book of Ecclesiastes and possibly the Song of Songs. Even so, there is no evidence that the decisions of this school were binding upon the Jewish popular at large. In fact, rabbinical disputes over the inspiration of certain books (e.g. the fringe books and Sirach) persisted throughout the first three Christian centuries. For this reason, the Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce wisely warns against stating that the assembly at Jamnia “laid down the limits” of the Old Testament canon.

Like the two-canon theory, the Jamnia theory has fallen on hard times. As the Jewish scholar Sid Leiman concludes:

“The widespread view that the Council of Jamnia closed the biblical canon, or that it canonized any books at all, is not supported by the evidence and need no longer be seriously maintained.”

If there were a candidate for an authoritative closing of the Old Testament canon in the first century AD, Jamnia would probably be it. However, there is no evidence that such a closing occurred this early in the life of this school.

 

[Randy_Carson]

See The Encyclopedia of Talmudic Sages, Gershom Bader ed., Translated by Solomon Katz, (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson, Inc.), 152-154 for various rabbinical accounts of Rabban Johnathan ben Zakkai’s escape from the siege of Jerusalem and his role in beginning the school at Jamnia.

There is some question as to whether the “vineyards of Jamnia” refer to the meeting place of the school (i.e. the met in a vineyard) or that the school of was organized like a vine with grapes. The school began under rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai (70 AD) until the time of the second Jewish Revolt under rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (132 AD). After the Second Revolt, the school of reconstituted at Usha.

W.O.E. Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha (London: SPCK, 1958), 122-123

A.C. Sundberg, "The Old Testament of the Early Church Revisited,” – Graetz may have borrowed this terminology from Jewish Philosopher Baruch Spinoza’s comment about the “concilium Pharisaeorum.”

Lieman, 121.

See ABD, 1.841.

Cox, 44; See M. Yadayim, 3:5.

cf. Encyclopedia Judaica (Coronet Books, reprint 1994) 6.1147.

Bruce, 34.

Lieman, 124. Also see ABD, 1.843 – the evidence for a closed canon prior to the end of the first Christian century is “at best weak and unconvincing.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Council That Wasn’t
The Myth of Jabneh and the Old Testament Canon
By Steve Ray
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

 

[Ginger2]

…Protestants site a mythical council.

Well now I’ve heard it all!!!

For years Catholics have told me the council of Jamnia threw out books from there canon to deny Jesus was the Christ.

I have cited the fallacy of this argument as well as explained there is no evidence of this council ever taking place, to no avail…

That is until recent times when I started a thread and basically asked Catholics to provide whatever info they had on this "council. During the course of the thread Catholics acknowledged there was no council - finally!!!

Now that Catholics have acknowlegded and admitted there was no council, they are creating a new myth - claiming that Protestants invented the myth!!!

Amazing!

Ginger

 

[CWBetts]

Well now I’ve heard it all!!!

For years Catholics have told me the council of Jamnia threw out books from there canon to deny Jesus was the Christ.

I have cited the fallacy of this argument as well as explained there is no evidence of this council ever taking place, to no avail…

That is until recent times when I started a thread and basically asked Catholics to provide whatever info they had on this "council. During the course of the thread Catholics acknowledged there was no council - finally!!!

Now that Catholics have acknowlegded and admitted there was no council, they are creating a new myth - claiming that Protestants invented the myth!!!

Amazing!

Ginger

Its a PROTESTANT myth!!! Catholics don’t need to make it up. The Pharisees had no authority to close the canon, the Church did have the authority and promulgated the Canon in the late 4th century, and then the Reformers monkeyed with in the late 15th/early 16th centuries, throwing out the books that they felt supporter Catholic doctrone

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well now I’ve heard it all!!!

For years Catholics have told me the council of Jamnia threw out books from there canon to deny Jesus was the Christ.

I have cited the fallacy of this argument as well as explained there is no evidence of this council ever taking place, to no avail…

That is until recent times when I started a thread and basically asked Catholics to provide whatever info they had on this "council. During the course of the thread Catholics acknowledged there was no council - finally!!!

Now that Catholics have acknowlegded and admitted there was no council, they are creating a new myth - claiming that Protestants invented the myth!!!

Amazing!

Ginger

You are wrong on several points.

First, the gathering at Jamnia was not a “council” in the Catholic sense of the word.

Second, the gathering did occur despite your assertion that it did not.

Third, Protestants authors have been advancing Jamnia against the Catholic canon; this is well-documented. Ray’s article states:

Since many Protestant authors have appealed to the “Council of Jabneh” in their case against the deuterocanonical books contained in the Catholic Bible, it will serve us well to look at a few examples.

In his popular book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-authored by Ralph MacKenzie [Baker Books, 1995]), Norman Geisler, dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary, denies the Catholic canon of the Old Testament, claiming that the Jewish rabbis at Jabneh excluded the deuterocanonical books received by Catholics and that the canon was fixed (meaning finalized) at Jabneh.

Geisler writes, “The Jewish scholars at Jabneh (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they have always rejected the Apocrypha” (169). And though Geisler seems to deny the authority of the rabbis at Jabneh in one place in his A General Introduction to the Bible (with W. E. Nix [Moody Press, 1996]), he later relays in a chart, “Council of Jabneh (A.D. 90), Old Testament Canon fixed” (286).

Geisler is not alone in his assertion that the Apocrypha was rejected and the final Old Testament canon was fixed at Jabneh. It seems to be a common legend that is used as “proof” to bolster up an ahistorical and incorrect assumption. Before we take a look at the myth, we will demonstrate how it is often appealed to. A couple more quick examples of this false reliance on the “Council of Jabneh” will suffice:

“At the end of the first Christian century, the Jewish rabbis, at the Council of Gamnia [Jamnia], closed the canon of the Hebrew book (those considered authoritative)” (Jimmy Swaggart, Catholicism & Christianity [Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 1986], 129).

“After Jerusalem’s destruction, Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. Around 100, a council of rabbis there established the final canon of the OT” (Ed. Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments [InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1997], 185).

Clearly, Protestants have been using Jamnia is their arguments against the Catholic OT canon; the evidence has been documented, and you are wrong to claim this is a myth invented by Catholics.

Finally, the essence of the situation is that despite what the Jews did or did not do at Jamnia (or later), the authority they once held had passed to the Catholic Church; what does the Church care what the Jews say about the canon? They have been passed over (again!).

 

[Ginger2]

Its a PROTESTANT myth!!! Catholics don’t need to make it up. The Pharisees had no authority to close the canon, the Church did have the authority and promulgated the Canon in the late 4th century, and then the Reformers monkeyed with in the late 15th/early 16th centuries, throwing out the books that they felt supporter Catholic doctrone

OK, if you say so.

I really don’t know where it originated, only that Catholics is where I heard it from and they used it to “prove” the Jews removed books and the catholic bible is complete.

Ginger

 

[Randy_Carson]

While we’re on the subject of the Canon…

The Canon and the Council
Refuting the Argument that Canon was not established until the Council of Trent
By Gary Michuta

*Today, some Protestants are arguing that Luther did not subtract books from the Canon of Scripture, because the canon was not officially adopted until the Council of Trent which began in 1545. Since the canon was not formally recognized prior to Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanonicals, it is not correct to say that He subtracted books from the Bible. *

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

However, what about the claim? Here is my two cents on the matter: After St. Jerome became the first Christian to cause a major stir by attempting to reject the Deuterocanon as Apocrypha, there were a series of local councils that met in North Africa to reaffirm the Christian Old Testament and New Testament. These were the councils of Hippo (393), Carthage I (397), and Carthage IV (419). All three of these reaffirmed the Catholic canon as canonical and divine Scripture. However, they were local councils that were confirmed by the Pope. Therefore, they were authoritatively defined but not with the solemnity of that of an Ecumenical Council. You must remember, however, that solemnity does not effect the authority of the definition given. Usually Ecumenical Councils met to address something that has disturbed the universal Church. By the end of the fourth century, Jerome’s views had caused trouble mainly in North Africa. Regardless of their solemnity these councils are the first to authoritatively define the canon. After them, Innocent I (417) was questioned by a bishop as to the canon and Innocent’s reply repeats the decree of Hippo / Carthage. This is the first Papal decision on the canon. There were a series of decrees attributed to Popes Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas between 266-523 that also reaffirmed the canon as well. By the end of the ninth century, Pope Innocent I could write to the bishops of Gaul (modern day France) that the letter of Pope Innocent I on the canon was the “universal law of the Church.” To this, we could add that there are about a dozen local and regional councils (not to mention popes) during this period who issued decrees that quoted the Deutero’s to confirm doctrine and with the formal introduction normally given to Scripture showing that the issue was largely settled and that bishops throughout the world were confident in appealing to these texts.

Probably the most important council to bring up is the Council of Florence, which promulgated a decreed on canon of Scripture on Feb. 4, 1441. Florence’s decree states that the Catholic canon is given by the Holy Spirit and the Church accepts and venerates them. In terms of solemnity, this decree is greater than the previous ones. However, in terms of authority it is just as authoritative as the rest.

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

Now what about Trent? Why do all these sources say that it wasn’t until Trent that we had a definitive decision on the canon? First, the fathers at Trent decided early on to adopt the canon of Florence without comment. For them, the issue was already closed in previous councils. However, since some otherwise solid Catholics have seem to adopted Jerome’s views on the Deuterocanonicals over and against these previous councils something more was necessary to drive the point home that the matter has already been closed hundreds of years early. So, Trent attached an anathema to its decree on the canon. Trent wasn’t the first council or Church authority to define the canon, but it was the first to anathematize those who did not follow the canon. In terms of the authority of the canon, nothing was really changed, but the solemnity of Trent’s definition was, because of the anathema, far greater than any previous council.