R
If the Scripture is inspired then why do the Protestant reject the Deutrocanonical Books?
- Status
S
sambos671
Guest
S
sambos671
Guest
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
S
SyCarl
Guest
No backtracking. Jerome gives a number of quotations from the New Testament that he did not find in his Septuagint. Yes the Church had used the Septuagint because it was in the common language of the empire. But note his comment that the Apostles used the Hebrew where it differed with the Septuagint. While not disparaging the Septuagint, he thought the Hebrew was better. That is why he translated from it. Could it be that his version of the Septuagint was different from that which is now used? It doesn’t lend great weight to its reliability.Nice attempt at back tracking
Lets look a little critically at what he is saying. Interesting to note that as he quotes his own prologue he makes this statement So it seems that the LXX was already widely accepted by the church at that time. He runs into problems because he’s using Hebrew text to fill out the Latin translation. So at this point which version is already accepted? Well, the LXX. Which makes historical sence when reading the ECF and understanding that Christianity moved from Palistine into a primarily Greek speaking world as it was centered in Turkey and Greece and finally Rome. He then he states:
S
sambos671
Guest
sambos671;4467624:
You’re right I thought I wasI would like this discussion but again maybe this is not the place for it. I’m not fundalmentalist though I did spend some time in fundalmentalist churches (ie independent baptist) before my questioning became problematic.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Rightlydivide;4467661:
A good response. I am not used to that around here! Some other time then! I am very busy trying to clearly show this website(which Manny used) is the Catholic equivalent of a Chick website. It is dishonest and I am sick of seeing it around here. Catholics do not need to resort to pathetic websites like that. They should appeal to the authority of their church (specifically Hippo and Carthage) and the ambiguous amount of evidence to show I cannot prove the DC SHOULD NOT be in there. But I am not a Catholic apologist…but I HAVE read the good ones to know a good Catholic argument. What kind of Protestant are you if I may ask? Not to derail too much thoughYou’re right I thought I was
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi, Question to all ? Suppose, the Jews decided to call a council in order to remove Isaiah and Jeremiah from the Old Testament and then voted to do it ? 
=onenow1, Christianity was in effect for between 35-65 years before the Jewish Council of Jamnia was called. Post Christianity:Jewish Council had absolutely no authority whatsoever as I see it, but most importantly, that the Body of Christ, within the Catholic Churrch has seen to the Deuters being included, for the past 2000yrs.
Peace, onenow1
opcorn:
=onenow1, Christianity was in effect for between 35-65 years before the Jewish Council of Jamnia was called. Post Christianity:Jewish Council had absolutely no authority whatsoever as I see it, but most importantly, that the Body of Christ, within the Catholic Churrch has seen to the Deuters being included, for the past 2000yrs.
Peace, onenow1
opcorn:
S
sambos671
Guest
but don’t you see that you are showing a case for it? He thinks the Hebrew text was what apostles were using yet doesn’t exclude the LXX. So it has its value even to Jerome and includes what he calls the hidden texts (apocrypha) in the translation. So where he sees the short coming of the greek text he corrects with the Hebrew. Sort of like what translators do today. Get to the earliest source possible. Just because the KJ translators didn’t have the Qumran text to review doesn’t mean that its a bad translation or should be disregarded. However, it can be supplimented by the Qumran find to improve it where uncertainty lies. Kind of what Jerome was talking about. Though it was more difficult for him to say it for fear of exclusion from fellowship. Which in those days meant separation from community. Much more detrimental than today.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Part of the problem is you have been reading the internet too much. The scholarly consensus is that Jamnia MAY have occured and IF it did, it was very limited in scope and did not specifically discuss the full contents of a canon. But try telling that to people around here…if its on the internet, they believe it…Hi, Question to all ? Suppose, the Jews decided to call a council in order to remove Isaiah and Jeremiah from the Old Testament and then voted to do it ?
=onenow1, Christianity was in effect for between 35-65 years before the Jewish Council of Jamnia was called. Post Christianity:Jewish Council had absolutely no authority whatsoever as I see it, but most importantly, that the Body of Christ, within the Catholic Churrch has seen to the Deuters being included, for the past 2000yrs.
Peace, onenow1
Your 2000 years statement is not proven as well.
S
sambos671
Guest
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
S
SyCarl
Guest
I am not saying that the Septuagint is a bad translation. I am saying that Jerome did not really change his views on the canonicity of the Deutercanonicals. I am also saying that we cannot be sure that the contents of the Septuagint have remained the same.
I understand most biblical scholars today feel that the majority of Old Testament quote in the New Testament come from the Septuagint. Jerome seems to have felt just the opposite. Was the Septuagint changed to correspond with the New Testament? If there were changes, how can we be certain what books were in the Septuagint in Jesus’ day?
While the Dead Sea Scrolls may show some of these works in Hebrew that does not mean they were canonical as there were other non-canonical writings with the. It does affect the argument that they weren’t written in Hebrew although there are other reasons for rejecting them
S
sambos671
Guest
sambos671;4467788:
No thank you. I’ve done enough straying.However, there is one constant. I still love our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
S
SyCarl
Guest
Catholics often say we should not accept the Jamnia canon because it was anti-Christian. Even if that is true, the books they didn’t recognize contain very little messianic prophecy compared to the ones they left in. I cannot see anti-Christian as being a reason they excluded them.Hi, Question to all ? Suppose, the Jews decided to call a council in order to remove Isaiah and Jeremiah from the Old Testament and then voted to do it ?
=onenow1, Christianity was in effect for between 35-65 years before the Jewish Council of Jamnia was called. Post Christianity:Jewish Council had absolutely no authority whatsoever as I see it, but most importantly, that the Body of Christ, within the Catholic Churrch has seen to the Deuters being included, for the past 2000yrs.
Peace, onenow1
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Rightlydivide;4467804:
Blessings to you and your family. I hope all goes well then.No thank you. I’ve done enough straying.
S
sambos671
Guest
They may have very well been canonical for the community at Qumran which was a particular sect of Jews. What I find interesting is the parallels between the community at Qumran and early christian teaching. A good read btw is Flussers’ 2nd Temple Period Writings. But that aside. But any view of the LXX and the Hebrew comparison begs the question when was the OT closed? History seems to indicate it was more fluid then most suppose. Ie… What does Paul mean when he says “all scripture is inspired”? Just the Tanakh? The Bereans would have had access to the Greek translations. Josephus seems to indicate the Greek additions were never accepted by Jews but then again he was a Zelot another particular sect of Jews. Was Jamnia where the Jews finally settled the books that could defile the hand? Or was it a school of thought like Hillel? It is clear the early church used the LXX. Yet Jerome a true scholar wants to get as close to the autographs as possbile. Many questions have you sorted them out? We could do all sorts of speculation. But where does authority finally lie? How would you determine to exclude the DC?
O
onenow1
Guest
=Onenow1 One fact my friend, one of us has to be wrong .
However Antiquity is in our favor ! Along with the bible and Tradition !
I do not have faith in scholarly consensus, I have faith in the Church Jesus established.
There is indeed more evidence for it then against it. 2000yrs that is.
As far as reading the internet too much, not so in fact very little.
With the exception of these forums that I mostly read.
Regardless if it was Jamnia or a 100 yrs later it was post Christian.
The Canon, or list of inspired books of the Old Testament was debated in several Church Councils, and by infallible decision by the Catholic Church, was finalized in 397 in the Council of Carthage. 46 books
The Canon of the New Testament was debated in several Church Councils, and by an infallible decision made by the Catholic Church at the same Council of Carthage in 393, 27 books.
The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity was decided at the Council of Nicea I in 325. The doctrine is manifested in the Nicene Creed.
Fundamentalists also hold to this doctine decided by Catholics.
Most of the evidence assuridly rests with the CC.
Peace, onenow1popcorn:
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Carthage was a local regional synod and was not infallible.
Your church does not teach that Hippo and Carthage were infallible. It teaches that Trent was infallible.
- Status