Jesus quoting the Deutero Canonicals

[Canto]

We all sprang from what was called the Catholic(universal) Church then.

Both the original Russian copy of the Bible and the British copy were in place and use long before the *Roman Catholic Church *came into being.

If we all sprang from the Catholic Church why such variation in doctine amongst Protestant faiths. Wouldn’t Jesus want us singing from the same songsheet? Didn’t Paul speak of one faith, one baptism. Yet with baptism there is such division among countless Christian faith’s.

The British copy of the Bible was there before the Roman Catholic Church??? Never had that before, though I did hear that the Roman Catholic Church began translating the scriputures into English in the 600s.

The Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. It get’s the name Roman as that’s where the headquaters is, Rome at the time of Christ was the centre of the world. If you had a major company you’d have your skyscraper in New York City and not in the middlle of nowwhere right? Generally the Church refers to it simply as the Church or Catholic Church.

As communication wasn’t great at the time of Christ then were many heresis. They were confined to specific areas though and were not universal. The Church began being called the Catholic Church by about 100 AD to distinguish itslef as the true universal Church of Christ.

What the early Church taught and the RCC teaches today matches

staycatholic.com/early_church_fathers.htm
catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp

You are Kepha (Cephas) and upon this Kepha (Cephas) I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Who came up with the canon of the New Testament.
What was their name(s),
when, and with what authority?

The Bible does not give us a contents page for the New Testament. Marcion rejected all the Gospels except a purged version of Luuke and rejected all the Epistles except 10 Pauline ones and rejected the whole Old Testament. Some lists included books in the current canon, some did not.

Perhaps the Church at the Council of Rome (382) by decree of Pope Saint Damasucs aka Bishop of Rome oficially declaired the canon?

 

[Tietjen]

Now there is no claim here that he is NOT praying to the Mary. How can you say you do not pray TO the dead?

Ooops. Back later, I’m being summoned.

I pray TO Mary. I pray TO Saints. I pray TO God. I do NOT pray to the dead. That would be a waste of my time. See O.S. you are simply not getting it. Prayer does NOT equal worship. Worship is reserved for God alone. Prayer, is simply “communicating with” or “requesting from”. Remember back in the old days when you might hear someone request something from someone else. They might say, “I pray you sir…” So, when you insist on assuming prayer = worship, you are showing your ignorance and people are shaking their heads and laughing.

Now, let me talk to you about your SDA affiliation:
Some of the reasons why I believe the SDA to be a “cult” are based on their beliefs:

1. Holistic human nature (fundamental beliefs 7, 26) - Humans are an indivisible unity of body, mind and spirit. They do not possess an immortal soul, and death is an unconscious sleep (commonly known as “soul sleep”).
2. Conditional immortality (fundamental belief 27) - The wicked will not suffer eternal torment in hell, but instead will be permanently destroyed.
3. Heavenly sanctuary (fundamental belief 24) - At his ascension, Jesus Christ commenced an atoning ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. In 1844, he began to cleanse the heavenly sanctuary in fulfillment of the Day of Atonement.
4. Investigative Judgment (fundamental belief 24) - A judgment of professed Christians began in 1844, in which the books of record are examined for all the universe to see. The investigative judgment will affirm who is worthy of salvation, and vindicate God as just in His dealings with mankind.

Then there is Ellen White herself, whose still regarded as a prophet with her writings being second only to the Bible. She says this about the Catholic Church:
Originally Posted by White:

God’s word has given warning of the impending danger; let this be unheeded, and the Protestant world will learn what the purposes of Rome really are, only when it is too late to escape the snare. She is silently growing into power. Her doctrines are exerting their influence in legislative halls, in the churches, and in the hearts of men. She is piling up her lofty and massive structures in the secret recesses of which her former persecutions will be repeated. Stealthily and unsuspectedly she is strengthening her forces to further her own ends when the time shall come for her to strike. All that she desires is vantage ground, and this is already being given her. We shall soon see and shall feel what the purpose of the Roman element is. Whoever shall believe and obey the word of God will thereby incur reproach and persecution.

White and the SDAs view the Catholic Church as a cult and refer to the Pope as an anti-Christ.

Then there was the early belief that Christ had a sinful nature while on earth. Admittedly, most SDAs today no longer support that teaching but it still resides in the history of the organization as well as in the hearts of some of the more “historic Adventists.”

So, if this is your “Church” I can certainly understand why you appear to be so misinformed concerning the Church Christ founded. You’re Church wasn’t invented until 1863 so you’re coming to the party somewhat late.

 

[thistle]

I don’t believe Jesus lied. I believe what He said. He said that if we believe and perservere until the end, He will give us eternal life. He will raise our dead mortal soul from the grave and give us a new soul that will be immortal. That is what He has promised us who believe and follow His commands.

Romans 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Romans 6:12 * Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body*, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

Romans 8:11 *But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken **your mortal bodies ***by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

1 Cor 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

1 Cor 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Of course that will be at the resurrection.

2 Cor 4:11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

I can list severl more if you care to read them. And before you tell me the body is not the soul, I must warn you I can show you Scriptures that tell you the soul and the body are one.

You are living in a fantasy world. The body and soul are most certainly not the same. However, the thread is not about this and we are supposed to stay on topic. On the other hand if you would care to discuss the topic of the soul you could open a new thread in which I will participate.

 

[Lampo]

Any “suthority” that claims doctrines that cannot be found in Scripture is not any “authority” at all. Even the earliest Catholic Church leaders believed that. In fact it is in the Catholic belief that unless a doctrine can be substantiated by Scripture, it is not to be used.

It is the false belief that tradition ursurps Scripture that is where the error comes.

Is it the Magesterium that tells you it is guided by the Holy Spirit? Or did you decide that yourself?

You’ve been presented with the truth, it’s up to you to accept it or not. The Magesterium does tell me it is guided by the Holy Spirit. One way it does this is through Scripture. Remember, I’m not the one who has a problem with the authority of the Catholic Church. I submit to it.

The Church existed before the Bible was written; the Church gathered up the different books which make up the Bible, and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church discerned which books were inspired and which were not. If the Church had no authority, then it certainly had no authority to determine what was Scripture. On the other hand, if the Church was entrusted to determine the canon, isn’t it reasonable to argue that the Church had authority to define liturgy and interpret Scripture? And, if one can trust the Church with the bible, then why can’t one trust the Church with other doctrines?

The Church has always taught, at least from the time of St. Paul, that scripture is to be read and interpreted in the light of the Church’s tradition. Remember, [Holy] Tradition pre-dates Scripture. No verse in scripture supports the idea that the bible is our only rule of faith. “Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!”

Why do we accept the New Testament – or for that matter, the entire Bible – as the inspired Word of God? Nowhere does Bible itself claim to be divinely inspired (except perhaps the beginning of Revelation, which speaks only of John’s experience). We accept Scripture as inspired based on the relationship between Christ, the Apostles, and those texts. We trust the texts because the early Church attests to them; we can accept that they are inspired because they are inextricably linked – historically, physically, and spiritually – to the Church, which has the God-given authority to determine and to declare whether they are inspired or not based on the promises and gifts conveyed to the Church by Christ himself.

This is not circular reasoning. We do not accept the Bible simply because the Church tells us it is inspired, nor do we accept the authority of the Church because the Bible asserts that claim. The reasoning is more like a spiral that arises first from the integrity of the documents, from the Scriptural assertions concerning the Church, from the corroborative history, and then from mutual affirmation of each to each. It is a cord of three strands.

Any other reason for accepting the authority of Scripture simply lacks “legs” Any reason for accepting the authority of Scripture, which does not also comprehend the history of the early Church, is ultimately fatal: no Church = no credible witness = no credible Scripture.

Infallibility is tied to the broader quality of indefectibility – the promise that the Church will be “guided into all the truth” and that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Infallibility is a “note” which derives from those promises. To believe in a fallible Church is to believe that Christ did not mean what he said and that he did not deliver on his promises.
*
This argument is based on reasoning originally articulated by Arnold Lunn.*

 

[Ilroy]

This is not an anti-catholic book. It is the word of God. And since you asked, it is the KJV Bible.

You said the Catholic Church canonized the Bible. Remember I said the Roman Catholic Church. That is two different churches. **The *Roman Catholic Church ***did not come into being until the 5th century and the *Codex Sinaiticus *and the *Codex Vaticanus *both came into being in the 4th century. We all sprang from what was called the Catholic(universal) Church then.

Both the original Russian copy of the Bible and the British copy were in place and use long before the *Roman Catholic Church *came into being.

I feel certain also that you should know that the earliest copy of the gospels was produced in *Syriac *about 160 A.D. and included all four of the gospels. That shows the gospels were accepted long before the Catholic Church canonized them.

Yet another thing you got seriously wrong. the term Roman Catholic didn’t come around until the time of the protestant revolt, specifically from the Anglicans, and it was meant as a put down. Many people commonly use it these days but it is not accurate. The Church Catholic is not just Roman…we are all over the world, hence the name Catholic, and we have multiple rites within the Church, the Roman (Latin) rite being just one of them. Yes, it means universal and at first was probably just a descriptive term. But early on it became the accepted name of the Church given to us by Christ Himself.

 

[Ilroy]

1. The Lord Jesus Christ never recognized them or quoted from them.

Not true at all as has been pointed out previously.

1. The apostles and early Christian scholars rejected them as being uninspired.

Untrue and you have given absolutely no proof of this assertion. Some of the Fathers were unsure and some even didn’t think they belonged, but some thought this of other books that are accepted, even by you.

1. Both external and internal evidence prove them to be the uninspired works of men.

What evidence??? You have given an opinion with NO evidence.

1. They are never mentioned in the NT.

Untrue. You have been given examples.

1. They are not included in the Massoretic text of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, or in the jewish Talmud.

They surely ARE in the Septuigint. And who cares if the Jews later rejected them? The same Jews rejected Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

1. None of them lay claim to inspiration.

Nor do many of the books even you accept. The koran has been said to claim inspiration yet I’m sure you don’t accept it.

1. They teach things at variance with the regular canonical books, i.e., praying to the dead in *II Maccabees *12:43-44, and incantations and augury in Tobit 6:1-8.

Untrue. Praying FOR the dead is something done by the Jews before during and after Christ’s time on Earth.

When Jerome spoke of the books of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, and the books of Maccabees, he said:

“The Church, indeed, reads them, but does not receive them among the canonical books, only reading them for edification of the people and not for confirmation of ecclessiastical doctrine.”
(book 3, page 18. CF. John T. Christian, op. cit., p. 183)

For the last part underlined, what writing of Jerome’s is this “quote” from? I would like to look it up in it’s true context. What I have read from Jerome says quite differently. See his Apology Against Rufinus (Book II; 33) and whatever else you feel like reading FROM Jerome, not from a biased commentary on cherry picked verses of his.

 

[ziapueblo]

I feel certain also that you should know that the earliest copy of the gospels was produced in *Syriac *about 160 A.D. and included all four of the gospels. That shows the gospels were accepted long before the Catholic Church canonized them.

Many local churches at that time were in confusion and debating about which books were inspired. Like you said, the four gospels were some of the books that most or all these early communities thought to be inspired. Some were of the opinion that certain books later to be judged canonical (Hebrews, Jude, Revelations, and 2 Peter) were not inspired. While others held that certain books later to be judged non-canonical (Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospels of Peter and Thomas, the letters of Barnabas and Clement) were inspired. This of course is historically accurate. All you have to do is look at secular and religious historical sources for that time period (early second century to about he middle of the fourth).

 

[Old_Scholar]

For the last part underlined, what writing of Jerome’s is this “quote” from? I would like to look it up in it’s true context. What I have read from Jerome says quite differently. See his Apology Against Rufinus (Book II; 33) and whatever else you feel like reading FROM Jerome, not from a biased commentary on cherry picked verses of his.

I will give you the direct quote from the preface of Jerome to the books of the Wisdom of Solomon and the book of Ecclesiasticus. You can read it for yourself on the CCEL website.

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church. If any one is better pleased with the edition of the
Seventy, there it is, long since corrected by me. For it is not our aim in producing the new to destroy the old. And yet if our friend reads carefully, he will find that our version is the more intelligible,
for it has not turned sour by being poured three times over into different vessels, but has been drawn straight from the press, and stored in a clean jar, and has thus preserved its own flavour.

Altogether this pertains to several apocryphal books; as named by Jerome here.

 

[po18guy]

Here is a rather good explanation of the deuterocanonical books, written by a Protestant convert to Catholicism:

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

Christ’s peace.

 

[Old_Scholar]

If I have to ask, what Church do you belong to? I know of no Protestant Church that believes the soul is not eternal. You claim Sola Scriptura but then turn around and admit that Tradition is important as well. Yet you leave us all hanging as to where that Tradition comes from if not from the Church. In an earlier post, you claimed that Catholics responded to the Reformation by adding the 7 books for which this thread first spoke. I must admit that your Church is a mystery to me, as I have not heard so many contradictions to both the Catholic Church and most Protestant Churches. It is almost as if you take a little of this, add a pinch of that, pour in a drop of this and stir.

Up unil the council of Trent, the apocryphal books were always considered deutero-canonical. At Trent they were given the status of canonical.

As I already explained, I certainly think tradition is important but not any tradition that conflicts with the Scriptures. You would probably say my tradition is with a small t while yours is with a large T. If there is any tradition that pertains to faith and morals that is not in Scripture, please list it with a reference for the source.

As for the eternal soul, Scripture tells us that when he received the breath of life, man became a living soul. I have already given several Scriptures that say that the soul dies.

Read:

Ezekiel 18:4 “Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.”

Ezekiel was so sure he repeated it:

Ezekiel 18:20 ***The soul that sinneth, it shall die. ***The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

It is at the judgment that the soul will be made immortal.

Jesus confirmed that souls can and will be destroyed when He taught:

Matthew10:28 *“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body.” *

Jesus will permanently destroy those who sin in the last day. If the soul was immortal, could Jesus kill it?

John 3:16 *For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. *

Isn’t God telling us here that humans can be perish?

1 Cor 15:52-543 For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory”

Notice that Paul is saying that we must be changed in order to possess immortality. And that this occurs at the resurrection. No human has immortality now.

Since you’re RCC, read what Clement said:

On this account He shall inherit many, and shall divide the spoil of the strong; because His soul was delivered to death, and He was reckoned among the transgressors (Chapter 16, Clement 1 to the Corinthians).

Be sober as an athlete of God: the prize set before you is immortality and eternal life, of which you are also persuaded (Ignatius. Letter to Polycarp, Chapter 2).

The second century apologist Tatian and associate of Justin wrote:

The soul is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal. Yet it is possible for it not to die. If, indeed, it knows not the truth, it dies, and is dissolved with the body, but rises again at last at the end of the world with the body, receiving death by punishment in immortality (Tatian. Translated by J.E. Ryland. Tatian’s Address to the Greeks, Chapter XIII . Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

I only listed those early church leaders because I know you are RCC and put a lot of faith in their writings. I do as well, but never when they contradict Scripture.

And as for my church, I am a member of the Church of God as established by Jesus Himself.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Many local churches at that time were in confusion and debating about which books were inspired. Like you said, the four gospels were some of the books that most or all these early communities thought to be inspired. Some were of the opinion that certain books later to be judged canonical (Hebrews, Jude, Revelations, and 2 Peter) were not inspired. While others held that certain books later to be judged non-canonical (Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospels of Peter and Thomas, the letters of Barnabas and Clement) were inspired. This of course is historically accurate. All you have to do is look at secular and religious historical sources for that time period (early second century to about he middle of the fourth).

But when you look at that time period, you will see that neither of them were living then.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Here is a rather good explanation of the deuterocanonical books, written by a Protestant convert to Catholicism:

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

Christ’s peace.

Interesting writing but he is confused about the books. The Torah was canonized in 444 BC and the Prophets and other writings were canonized by 200 BC. When the Septuagint was made, the Jewish people did not like the fact that it contained some of the spurious writings and at a Jewish council in 70 AD again canonized the Old Testament as we know it today without the apocrypha books.

The reason those books were included in the LXX was that the LXX was written for the Greek but the Jews of Palestine never accepted it and that is what brought the council in 70 AD.

Mark Shea doesn’t have it right.

 

[Old_Scholar]

If I have to ask, what Church do you belong to? I know of no Protestant Church that believes the soul is not eternal. You claim Sola Scriptura but then turn around and admit that Tradition is important as well. Yet you leave us all hanging as to where that Tradition comes from if not from the Church. In an earlier post, you claimed that Catholics responded to the Reformation by adding the 7 books for which this thread first spoke. I must admit that your Church is a mystery to me, as I have not heard so many contradictions to both the Catholic Church and most Protestant Churches. It is almost as if you take a little of this, add a pinch of that, pour in a drop of this and stir.

Apparently you are not familiar with some Protestant denominations. Several do not believe the soul is immortal but will become so at the judgment as the Scriptures teach.

Tradition is important as long as it does not conflict with Sola Scriptura. Then it just becomes the tradition of man as Christ called it.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I certainly hope it was not the Lord calling, because He likely has a bone to pick with your theology! You’re an Adventist, right? If so, you follow the teachings of Ellen Gould White, the “Adventist Pope”. Her writings are “inspired” and teach hatred of Catholicism and the Pope. It shows in Adventist’s writings, although it is being soft-pedaled nowadays as the church attempts to lead Catholics away.

We pray to those who are dead to you. They are living to both God, and to us. Can you simply not understand this? YOU think they’re dead. We know they’re living. “God is not God of the dead, but of the living” It’s there in your bible. Please explain the transfiguration. Or, do you disbelieve any concept which contains the prefix “trans”???

We would all be interested to know where the bible teaches “temporary hell”, “Soul sleep” or “soul annihilation”. Is it the writings of Ellen?

Due to your belief in the Holy Trinity, a valid baptism, and the sharing of many other tenets of the Christian faith, we remain brothers, although separated, in Christ.

I’m Catholic. Now, be honest, not embarrassed! Which denomination are you?

Christ’s peace.

I am not an Adventist and have read very little of what Ellen White wrote. I don’t believe her “visions” were real. However I do believe God intended His people continue to honor the Sabbath. I can find nothing to show that He ever changed that. He said it should be done forever.

I appreciate your comment about being brothers. I am a Christian and my church is the Church of God as established by Jesus Christ and set up by Paul. I was raised and baptized as a Baptist. Although I have many differences with Roman Catholics, I have many friends who are members and I certainly respect their choices, although I think they are wrong. Does that make sense?

MGB GMTA

 

[Old_Scholar]

:bigyikes:

I literally had one of those.

You seem to be writing straight out of an anti-Catholic book. Which is it?

First off, if you Bible had nothing to do with the Catholic Church (and just Catholic, though I would consider myself entering the Latin Rite), then how do you know it is inspired? Because it told you so? That is incredibly ridiculous, and you would never have believed it on that assertion alone. Unless I’m overestimating you?

If the Catholic Church didn’t canonize it and say, with authority, that the Bible was infallible, then who could? That, and by the time of the Bible’s canonization (at the Synod of Hippo, 397, I believe) the Church was formally recognized as THE CATHOLIC Church, the word coming from Greek katholikos and most likely in common use by the end of the 2nd century, taking cues from letters written early 3rd.

Why do you believe the Bible is infallible?

But the Roman Catholic Church says the church is infallible and that a mere man is also infallible. How can you believe that?

 

[po18guy]

Interesting writing but he is confused about the books. The Torah was canonized in 444 BC and the Prophets and other writings were canonized by 200 BC. When the Septuagint was made, the Jewish people did not like the fact that it contained some of the spurious writings and at a Jewish council in 70 AD again canonized the Old Testament as we know it today without the apocrypha books.

You conveniently leave out that the 70 AD canon was a specific response to the rise of Christianity, and was reactionary in nature.

 

[po18guy]

I am not an Adventist and have read very little of what Ellen White wrote. I don’t believe her “visions” were real. However I do believe God intended His people continue to honor the Sabbath. I can find nothing to show that He ever changed that. He said it should be done forever.

I appreciate your comment about being brothers. I am a Christian and my church is the Church of God as established by Jesus Christ and set up by Paul. I was raised and baptized as a Baptist. Although I have many differences with Roman Catholics, I have many friends who are members and I certainly respect their choices, although I think they are wrong. Does that make sense?

MGB GMTA

It does, but your church has very peculiar beliefs about the soul, and appears adventist in nature. I will read into it.

 

[mark_a]

I’d like to point out that the Catholic Church declared that the 73 inspired books of the bible are the minimum required to have a complete bible.

There are Eastern Catholics (in union with Rome) and Orthodox and possibly other Apostolic Churches that have 3rd and 4th Maccabees and other books in their bibles.

 

[Old_Scholar]

You conveniently leave out that the 70 AD canon was a specific response to the rise of Christianity, and was reactionary in nature.

But it had a great deal to do with the Jews in Alexandria who were beginning to become Christians and were following the LXX.

The Jews there were beginning to speak and write in Greek and were not using Hebrew. That is why they were not very familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. It was requested that the Jews translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek and that is why the LXX came about.

The Jews at Palestine did not accept the apocryphal books. They did not like the fact that many Jews were losing their ability to speak and read Hebrew.

That is the biggest reason for the council.

The Jewish canon had been considered closed after the last Prophet, Malachi, and most Jews place this date around 200 BC.

 

[mark_a]

But the Roman Catholic Church says the church is infallible and that a mere man is also infallible. How can you believe that?

Its the entire Catholic Church, not the just Roman Catholic Church, that is infallible in teachings involving faith and morals.

The pope gets his infallibility from the Catholic Church, not vice versa.