If the Catholic Church made stuff up, as many non-Catholics claim....

[Nicea325]

This is pretty much the argument that Bart Ehrman makes in his book Misquoting Jesus—that ultimately you can’t be sure that the original text wasn’t changed and, in fact, argues that certain manuscript difference are due to intentional theological “adjustments” rather than scribal errors.

Then I guess the Holy Spirit and Faith is all a bunch of hoopla? Is Bart a skeptic?

 

[joe370]

Dave Noonan;7445934]The early “councils” that you cite were actually only synods–the non-Latinate churches (other than perhaps some spotty participation from the Byzantine Church) didn’t participate–which is why the biblical canons of these churches differ from the one used in the Latin church to this day–the biblical canon has never been addressed in an ecumenical council.

Hey Dave, so those catholic synods could have been wrong about what they included in the NT and what they excluded from the NT???

Perhaps you could share with me some examples of contemporaneous non-Latinate churches, convoking to settle the matter regarding the codification of scripture? I’m no theologian and I love to discover new things.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hey Dave, so those catholic synods could have been wrong about what they included in the NT and what they excluded from the NT???

Perhaps you could share with me some examples of contemporaneous non-Latinate churches, convoking to settle the matter regarding the codification of scripture? I’m no theologian and I love to discover new things.

I don’t think you could even call these synods catholic because they were so limited in participation.

You can review the various biblical canons of the contemporaneous non-Latinate churches here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon (scroll down).

 

[joe370]

By the way Dave, I never mentioned the word ecumenical, and according to old Mr. Webster, council and synod are pretty much the same:

A synod (also known as a council) is a council of a church, usually a Christian church, convened to decide an issue of doctrine, administration or application.

An ecumenical council is so named because it is a synod of the whole church.

 

[Nicea325]

The early “councils” that you cite were actually only synods–the non-Latinate churches (other than perhaps some spotty participation from the Byzantine Church) didn’t participate–which is why the biblical canons of these churches differ from the one used in the Latin church to this day–the biblical canon has never been addressed in an ecumenical council. In my opinion, what you have set out in the last two posts contains some pretty serious distortions of history and frankly, this is one of the BIG reasons that I find the claims of Roman Catholicism so very unconvincing–this tendency by its apologists to just sort of make stuff up (c.f. the OP) or read history so selectively as to present a picture that’s not very accurate.

Just as one example among many, I don’t know of any scholar who have actually studied the matter who’s convinced that there ever was a “Council of Jamnia.” As far as I know, it’s is a total 19th century fiction–so perhaps you could share the source of your information and which PRIMARY sources your sources cite. To describe this as a foregone historical fact and not also note that no one believes it actually occurred seems very deceptive to me. I’m not saying that you’re doing this intentionally, but you really need to look at LOT more critically at the sources behind your information–they are misleading you.

So the fact the councils were synods makes them less validated? So in other words,as of today no one truly knows the correct-fixed canon?

 

[joe370]

I will check wikipedia out. Let’s say we can’t trust those synods because they were not ecumenical. Who had the authority to decide what should rightfully be included in the NT and what shouldn’t?

I don’t think you could even call these synods catholic because they were so limited in participation.

You can review the various biblical canons of the contemporaneous non-Latinate churches here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon (scroll down).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

By the way Dave, I never mentioned the word ecumenical, and according to old Mr. Webster, council and synod are pretty much the same:

A synod (also known as a council) is a council of a church, usually a Christian church, convened to decide an issue of doctrine, administration or application.

An ecumenical council is so named because it is a synod of the whole church.

Right–but calling them “councils” to me invokes more authority than these gatherings actually had. (For example, you’ll never hear a Catholic apologist calling these meetings a “synod”).

But regardless of what one wants to call them, which doesn’t really matter, they were limited in their scope of participation and the vast majority of Christianity didn’t agree with their conclusions–that is, if they even knew about the conclusions. Even by internal Catholic standards this is not “the Pope teaching in union with the bishops.”

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I will check wikipedia out. Let’s say we can’t trust those synods because they were not ecumenical. Who had the authority to decide what should rightfully be included in the NT and what shouldn’t?

The Tradition is that each church decides its own biblical canon; each church can reach its own consensus apparently, because that’s exactly what happened.

 

[joe370]

The Tradition is that each church decides its own biblical canon; each church can reach its own consensus apparently, because that’s exactly what happened.

So the consensus among each church (I thought the CC was the only church until the east west schism, with the exception of schismatics) - regarding the NT was, evidently, just a coincidence, mere happenstance, and regarding the OT, no one really knows who has the correct books?

 

[Nicea325]

The Tradition is that each church decides its own biblical canon; each church can reach its own consensus apparently, because that’s exactly what happened.

The issue I encounter with many non-Catholics is there profound misunderstanding of tradition. Are you referring to [t]radtion or [T]radition? There exist a difference.

 

[Rightlydivide]

=joe370;7445744]Why you keep telling me this I will never know. I already said that I agree with you.

So, the those Jewish leaders, so many years ago, that rejected the NT got it right about the OT, and the CC which recognized what would be included in the NT and what would be excluded from the NT, including the OT, got it wrong? Okeydoke…

Okay. Who wrote the book of Hebrews, by the way, and please prove it, from a sola scriptura standpoint? I want to know, with certainty, the author is in fact Paul or one of his disciples; how can I know this to be true?

Yes, the Jews did get the Old Testament right. Do you have any reason to believe they did not. Does Paul write about or any New Testament author indicate that the Jews had the wrong canon? Are there some indications from this period of time, lets say 100 BC to 100 AD that the Jews had the canon wrong?

Several decades after the beginning of Christianity, the Jews called a council to deal with the matter of scripture. In this council, called the “Council of Jamnia”, the Jewish Pharisees, who survived the devastating destruction of Jerusalem and of their temple in 70 A.D., decided to remove books that were helpful to Christians. They removed the seven books, using various reasons as their authorization, to do so. At the same time the Greek speaking Jews had been using the Septuagint for well over two centuries by this time. It was the Bible of the Greek speaking “Bereans” of Acts 17:10-15. By the actions of Protestant reformers in acceptance of the 39 book Old Testament, which was declared the whole of Scripture by the Jewish Pharisees at Jamnia, non-Catholics have made it tantamount to approval of the Pharisaic Jews who rejected Jesus and the New Testament. In doing so they have shown that they believed that the Jews had more authority in deciding the Canon of Scripture than did the Christian Church that Jesus Christ founded, which by the time of the Council of Jamnia, had existed for about 60 years. A rejection of the authority of Christ’s Church, then as well as now, is a rejection of Him.

I am not sure where you are getting your history from. You have been on this forum long enough to have read threads on Jamnia.
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
I will also point out that this same passage you quoted does not have a source. What is your source Joe?

If the seven books were not added to the Septuagint until the fourth century, by the CC, then how could the council of Jamnia have removed them in the first century

You know the contents of the LXX from the first 3 centuries how exactly? A list from a historian. Doesn’t exist. A copy? No, that does not exist either. Your argument however is based upon a faulty presupposition.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide…

Historical fact: For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren’t. The debates raged between theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers, for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren’t. In the meantime, several Church Councils or Synods, were convened to deal with the matter, notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. The debates sometimes became bitter on both sides. One of the most famous was between Jerome, who felt the seven books were not canonical, and Augustine who said they were. Protestants who write about this will invariably mention Jerome and his opposition, and conveniently omit the support of Augustine. I must point out here that Church Father’s writings are not infallible statements, and their arguments are merely reflections of their own private opinions. When some say Jerome was against the inclusion of the seven books, they are merely showing his personal opinion of them. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However, A persons private opinion does not change the truth. There are always three sides to every story, this side, that side, and the side of truth. Whether Jerome’s position, or Augustine’s position was the correct position, had to be settled by a third party, and that third party was the Catholic Church via council. In concurrence with the opinion of Augustine, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, “The Decree of Damasus,” in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books. Jerome acquiesced under obedience (Hebrews 13:17) - and began the translation, and completed it in 404 A.D… In 405, his new Latin Vulgate was published for the first time. The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Damasus I.

AD 393: Council of Hippo. “It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon (included Wisdom and Ecclesiastes (Sirach)), the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books.”

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Damasus I:

*AD 397: Council of Carthage III. “It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach), twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.”
(canon 47 A.D. 397).
*

The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 again reaffirmed the canons as defined in previous councils…

*CANON XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)
“That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: * Genesis * Exodus * Leviticus * Numbers * Deuteronomy * Joshua the Son of Nun * The Judges * Ruth * The Kings (4 books) * The Chronicles (2 books) * Job * The Psalter * The Five books of Solomon (includes Wisdom and Sirach) * The Twelve Books of the Prophets * Isaiah * Jeremiah * Ezechiel * Daniel * Tobit * Judith * Esther * Ezra (2 books) * Maccabees (2books).
The New Testament: * The Gospels (4 books) * The Acts of the Apostles (1 book) * The Epistles of Paul (14) * The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2) * The Epistles of John the Apostle (3) * The Epistles of James the Apostle (1) * The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1) * The Revelation of John (1 book).
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.”
[This is Canon xxxvj. of Hippo., 393. The last phrase allowing the reading of the “passions of the Martyrs” on their Anniversaries is omitted from the African code.]
*

The Council of Florence, also called Basel, 1431-1445, was yet another Council which confirmed the Canons of both testaments of the Bible. The Council of Trent 1546-1565, the longest lasting Council in Church history.

Continued…

Yes, in the fourth and fifty century these local synods started adding books to the Old Testament. In fact, you mention the Decree of Damasus…I wasnt aware that anyone believed that one either anymore…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gelasianum

 

[Dave_Noonan]

So the consensus among each church (I thought the CC was the only church until the east west schism, with the exception of schismatics) - regarding the NT was, evidently, just a coincidence, mere happenstance, and regarding the OT, no one really knows who has the correct books?

The idea that there was just one church until the 11th century is a common Catholic apologetic construct of history, which to me is so skewed that it is deceptive. (Still waiting on your sources for the Council of Jamnia by the way…) By the 4th century there were probably more Christians living outside of the Roman Empire than there were inside the Roman Empire. To ignore these churches or simply dismiss the majority of early Christianity as “schismatic” is a pretty selective reading of history.

Because the churches have never agreed agree on a biblical canon and it was never a point causing schism, the very idea of “correct books” doesn’t mesh with the facts at hand.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The issue I encounter with many non-Catholics is there profound misunderstanding of tradition. Are you referring to [t]radtion or [T]radition? There exist a difference.

I know the difference. I used “Tradition” intentionally.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Joe
Please cite your sources.

 

[Nicea325]

I know the difference. I used “Tradition” intentionally.

So if you accept Tradition which gave us the NT,then why dodge the same Tradition which gave us the OT? There appears to be a double-standard here. Yes I accept Church Tradition for the NT,but not the OT?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

So if you accept Tradition which gave us the NT,then why dodge the same Tradition which gave us the OT? There appears to be a double-standard here. Yes I accept Church Tradition for the NT,but not the OT?

The Tradition regarding the NT has been historically accepted by the universal church.

The Tradition regarding the OT is that there the biblical canon can be variable.

To illustrate, if the Roman Catholic church were hypothetically to come into full communion with the Greek Orthodox church, do you think the Roman Catholic Church would require to the Greek Orthodox church to change their biblical canon to conform to the Roman Catholic canon? I would say no, because this has never been a point of schism between the two churches.

 

[Javl]

I do not know if this is the direction that Joe wants this thread to go. However, the differences are not the results of development or clarification but represent a departure from the teachings of the Apostles. I agree that an indepth reading of the earliest church writings, although some are obviously heavily interpolated, will result in in understanding this. All is a rather big accomplishment! Anyone who has read them all is to be commended for their time and understanding of the ancient languages because some documents have not been translated yet.

I have read all that have been translated and have been put forth not only by the Catholic Church but also by scholars, many of whom are not Catholic. I agree it is an accomplishment and it has taken many years. Much of it is heavy reading. But whatever the case it has been worthwhile since it all has been the major result of my accepting Catholicism as the one and only true religion that was founded and built by Jesus. None other can come close.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[joe370]

The Tradition regarding the NT has been historically accepted by the universal church.

The Tradition regarding the OT is that there the biblical canon can be variable.

To illustrate, if the Roman Catholic church were hypothetically to come into full communion with the Greek Orthodox church, do you think the Roman Catholic Church would require to the Greek Orthodox church to change their biblical canon to conform to the Roman Catholic canon? I would say no, because this has never been a point of schism between the two churches.

Hey Dave, any chance the holy spirit continued to guide one of these churches to all truth, just as Jesus said in sacred scripture?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
So if you accept Tradition which gave us the NT,then why dodge the same Tradition which gave us the OT? There appears to be a double-standard here. Yes I accept Church Tradition for the NT,but not the OT?

***The Tradition regarding the NT has been historically accepted by the universal church. ***

The Tradition regarding the OT is that there the biblical canon can be variable.

To illustrate, if the Roman Catholic church were hypothetically to come into full communion with the Greek Orthodox church, do you think the Roman Catholic Church would require to the Greek Orthodox church to change their biblical canon to conform to the Roman Catholic canon? I would say no, because this has never been a point of schism between the two churches.

Quick question? Tell me which ecumenical council ratified the NT,hence it is universally accepted?