I am talking about the Deuterocanonical list. Are you? If you tell me you researched that list and agree, this is going to take awhile but we will go through them one at a time.
I am converting to the Catholic Church but I agree with you on the weak arguments from scripturecatholic.com in support of the deutero’s.I suppose…it matters to me.
WHY?
I suppose as a mainline Protestant, call it like it is, I think Catholics and Orthodox have a strong argument for the Deuterocanonical books. I do understand why Protestants put it in a seperate section, whether I agree or not. I, like one of my pastors just told me is the trend at her seminary, believe that a Bible without the Deuterocanonical in some form is a …historical aberration of the last two hundred years. When I see a strong argument, a weak one frustrates me.
Mat 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.
You know what’s interesting to me in this whole thing? When Sola Scriptura believers take on this question of “Catholics adding books” etc. they eventually end up having to admit that a group of people, outside of and not mentioned in the Bible, were divinely inspired, and that the information that was revealed through them was passed down, not written in scripture. I thought that only the written word of God was divinely inspired?No, you have not. All you have done is claim that the Septuagint, widely used at the time of Jesus by Jews and the primary reference of both Jesus and the Apostles, is not something which should be considered a part of Biblical canon because some time after Jesus (not before, but after), the Jews who did not accept him devised a Jewish canon which did not include the deuterocanonicals.
The Jewish canon didn’t include the New Testament either, but you choose to overlook that little detail.
Your claim is basically that a group of people who heard and rejected the teachings of Jesus should be taken as divinely inspired in determining the proper composition of the Old Testament. The Church, on the other hand, although not divinely inspired in determining the canon of the Old Testament, WAS divinely inspired in determining the canon of the New Testament.
That makes no logical sense. All I can say is…
).That’s the same thing that I found. Its sad, because it weakens a strong argument.
In The Canon Debate, a great read
Well, if you listen to the debates w/ Fr. Pacwa, Sungenis, Madrid, Michuta and other professional Catholic apologists you will find their reasoning and argumentation is quite a bit different than you find on various pop-apologetic sites.
I’ve read one of his books but the one you mention above sounds great. Tell us about it or at least PM me.
Notworthy,
Even if this is true, what difference does it make? Christ Himself has no right to change HIs own canon?
That doesn’t make any sense. Either the deutero’s are inspired or they aren’t. There is no changing them one way or the other.
Thanks for the kind words, and I’m so happy to hear that you have decided to join “the dark side” (insert your best Darth Vader wheeze here…) !
Here’s the link that I think best defines the Council. I have a feeling you have your doubts, now that I notice the “” you put in your question.
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.aspThanks for the kind words, and I’m so happy to hear that you have decided to join “the dark side” (insert your best Darth Vader wheeze here…) !
I don’t think the Jews closed the Canon til the 14th century. I could go back and check some notes (AgapeBibleStudy.Com is what I highly recommend… best on-line Bible Study ever! And it’s free!), but I can’t seem to recall just what was actually decided during Jamnia, or whether it could actually be called a Council. It was a group of Pharisees trying to figure out what to do with Judaism with the downfall of the Temple, wasn’t it or am I totally whacked?
I didn’t mean “change” as in whether or not they were inspired, I meant change as in whether or not they were included in the canon. I realize I might not be making a ton of sense but I’m so irritated by this “the Jews wouldn’t have gotten rid of their own scripture to debunk Christ” argument thing she’s had here that I’m replying pretty fast. Reading through this thread it seems to me that when people were refuting this point she was trying to point out that the Jewish OT canon was considered closed before Jesus was born, therefore not being under the authority of Jesus Himself, much less the Church He established. I wasn’t, however, accepting her at her word that the post I replied to above was correct. Just trying to point out how ridiculous her reasoning sounds.
Yeah…I guess I do disagree with some of the points. From what I remember Metzger, Bruce, MacDonald, Brown, and Beckwith all dismiss the notion that the deutero’s were removed at Jamnia.
Thanks for your post. I didn’t understand what you were trying to say.
Well, that’s the same thing I have found. What was your graduate degree in?The consensus of scholars from *The Canon Debate * is that Jamnia and the issue of the canon never occured. Only some specifc books may have been discussed. When I had to do a paper for grad school, in my search engine for research articles, I did not find many who held the older view, which the link seems to support.
Just saying…