On Roman Catholic Authority

[hoosierdaddy]

Jonathan>>You are correct, “It is written” was used literally and figuratively to the Sadducees and the Pharisees as well as the crowd (remember following the Law and the stoning incident in John?)

Also, what was Jesus referring to as being “written?”

He quoted from the Septuagint. Every Protestant scholar agrees on that. The Septuagint. What the Church uses for her OT. Which, contrary to your assertion, has those books in it which you call ‘apocrypha.’

Well, Jesus wasn’t quoting the NT because the NT was assembled by the Catholic Church in 382 AD as “official canon” which INCLUDED the deuterodcanonical books.

Hey Jonathan, I thought you would comment on all three of my answers but that’s ok. Maybe you just wanted my explanation and you’re satisfied with that. :thumbsup:

Thanks for enlightening me. I really had no idea about that. There has to be something more to it or else I would not have been taught that the Apocrypha (I’m not the only one to call it that) was uninspired. I was taught that in order for Scripture to be inspired (in the OT) it had to be written in Hebrew. I found some info here in regards to the Septuagint, etc.

christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_apocrypha_inspired_of_god

Here it says: There is abundant evidence that none of these books was ever received into the canon (that which conforms to “rule”) of the Hebrew Old Testament. Though they appear in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament – known as LXX), that is not necessarily a reliable criterion. Professor G.T. Manley notes: “[These books] do not appear to have been included at first in the LXX [3rd/2nd centuries B.C.], but they found their way gradually into later copies, being inserted in places that seemed appropriate…” (The New Bible Handbook, Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1962, p. 39).

Also on that site it says that the Apocrypha was written at a time when there was NO revelation from God. Between the time of Malachi and Jesus Christ there was no revelation given from God, yet this is the time when the Apocryphal books were written. This is a curious matter huh?

When Jesus said “it is written…” He was talking to satan. This is the only way that we can fight against the devil; with the Word of God. Rev. says that we overcome him by the Blood of the Lamb and the Word of our testimony (Scripture) but it doesn’t mention Tradition there.

 

[Reformed1]

1. Which books are you referring to in the Septuagint?
2. If Jesus paraphrases or quotes from a book in the Septuagint, then the Church believed (rightly) that the whole text must be included. Why? To get the context of the quote and to understand what Jesus understood during his ministry on earth. That’s what it gains for us.

1.) 3 Maccabees, for example, was included.

2.) I’m not sure if I follow you. If non-canonical books such as 3 Maccabees were included in the septuagint, and it appears that they were, than any quotes from the septuagint would at best only imply that the scipture being quoted and maybe the book it was being quote from were looked at as being inspired. Even this would likely depend upon the context of the quote.

 

[PRmerger]

The Church must be faithful to the Word of God.

Indeed. The Church must be faithful to the Word of God.

Do you believe that the 45,000 Protestant denominations which all claim to be faithful to the Word of God all teach the Truth? Can any of these denominations which claim faithfulness to Scripture teach false doctrine?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Indeed. The Church must be faithful to the Word of God.

Do you believe that the 45,000 Protestant denominations which all claim to be faithful to the Word of God all teach the Truth? Can any of these denominations which claim faithfulness to Scripture teach false doctrine?

Indeed – in fact, some Protestant churches have serious quarrels with other Protestants. And all of them have elaborate reasons why they’re right and the other church is wrong.

So I say the test is to ask, “It is possible your church is wrong?” and go with the Church that answers “No.”

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Indeed. The Church must be faithful to the Word of God.

Do you believe that the 45,000 Protestant denominations which all claim to be faithful to the Word of God all teach the Truth? Can any of these denominations which claim faithfulness to Scripture teach false doctrine?

Exactly. The Church must be faithful to the Word of God. No, they don’t all teach the truth but I do believe that at times when some find out they were wrong they correct themselves. But remember that most Protestant churches are in full agreement on the Gospel. All Protestant churches are faithful to the Word of God insofar as they know it. None reject the Word of God.

If we can’t get it right with just one source, how do you guys think you will get it right with one man ruling over hundreds of thousands of parishes with more than one source of “authority”? It’s difficult enough with the Bible alone let alone bringing “Tradition” into the equation.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Indeed – in fact, some Protestant churches have serious quarrels with other Protestants. And all of them have elaborate reasons why they’re right and the other church is wrong.

So I say the test is to ask, “It is possible your church is wrong?” and go with the Church that answers “No.”

Maybe so. But they still stick to Scripture. They may be in error which the Lord will have to correct them of but they are still faithful to the Word of God. It is the only source they use; they don’t put other sources on par with Scripture.

I forgot…PRmerger…don’t you think it would have been a bit more honest to use much more of my quote than one small sentence? You can make it look like I said anything when you only use one small sentence. But if it’s ok to do that, then I apologize. I’ll just know it’s ok when I do it in the future.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Indeed. The Church must be faithful to the Word of God.

Do you believe that the 45,000 Protestant denominations which all claim to be faithful to the Word of God all teach the Truth? Can any of these denominations which claim faithfulness to Scripture teach false doctrine?

If you can show me 45,000 Protestant denominations, you will be my hero.

The best guess estimates are around 3-4000. Independent “non denominatinal churches” don’t count or else the number would have to be millions.

 

[PRmerger]

If you can show me 45,000 Protestant denominations, you will be my hero.

The best guess estimates are around 3-4000. Independent “non denominatinal churches” don’t count or else the number would have to be millions.

Well, let’s just say that I concede that there’s “only” 3,000 Protestant denominations.

All of these 3,000 denominations will claim faithfulness to the same Word of God…

yet have come to vastly different conclusions. How can this be?

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you can show me 45,000 Protestant denominations, you will be my hero.

The best guess estimates are around 3-4000. Independent “non denominatinal churches” don’t count or else the number would have to be millions.

I can’t believe the same person wrote both the paragraphs in the above quote.:whacky:

I would think trying to hold two such disparate ideas in the same skull would cause cracking and potholes.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Well, let’s just say that I concede that there’s “only” 3,000 Protestant denominations.

All of these 3,000 denominations will claim faithfulness to the same Word of God…

yet have come to vastly different conclusions. How can this be?

How can the “one true Church” come up with 3,000 different teachings that happen to not be in the one Bible that God gave us? How can this be?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, let’s just say that I concede that there’s “only” 3,000 Protestant denominations.

All of these 3,000 denominations will claim faithfulness to the same Word of God…

yet have come to vastly different conclusions. How can this be?

They probably employ the same kind of thinking that produced this prize:

If you can show me 45,000 Protestant denominations, you will be my hero.

The best guess estimates are around 3-4000. Independent “non denominatinal churches” don’t count or else the number would have to be millions.

My emphasis.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

1.) 3 Maccabees, for example, was included.

2.) I’m not sure if I follow you. If non-canonical books such as 3 Maccabees were included in the septuagint, and it appears that they were, than any quotes from the septuagint would at best only imply that the scipture being quoted and maybe the book it was being quote from were looked at as being inspired. Even this would likely depend upon the context of the quote.

Reformed1:

Do you understand where the Protestants in the 1500s got their canon? Do you understand how the rabbis in Jamnia circa 70 AD determined what was the Hebrew Tanakh?

Why is it that for 400 years Christians read as scripture and debated over and commented over what the Catholic Church officially discerned (with the Holy Spirit) as the OT canon and the Protestants use a post-Jesus era canon designed to remove any prophecies pertaining to Jesus as the Messiah?

Just to avoid the question re the Church’s teaching authority?

If you did a little research in how the main Protestant sects picked and chose what they wanted in their bibles, you might want to reconsider exactly what church has the canon right.

The Church of England (Anglican) requires the books of the “Apocrypha” to be included in any edition of the Bible authorized for use in public worship (Art 3 of the 39 Articles).

The Presbytarian (Calvinist) churches in 1827 decided to omit all of the books from their editions of the Bible. This has had the most influence on American Protestants and their editions of the Bible until recently.

Now, you can find newer translations like the GNB and NRSV with these books included.

As to 3 Maccabees only some Orthodox Churches consider it canonical.

As to 4 Maccabees: no major church (Catholic or Orthodox) consider it canonical.

Your decisions (as you are a Protestant) are based upon some one in the 1500s or 1800s who decided to change the canon. Talk about recent ideas and nonscriptural bases!

Reformed1, it’s a good thing you’re not a member of the Ethiopic church: they have the largest Bible of all including Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Joseph Ben Gorion’s medievel history of the Jews, the Sinodos, well, your total canon would be 81 books!

Your tradition is Western Catholicism. If you take your ideas and look to other Christian churches of the East (in communion with Rome and not) and with the Syriac and Ethiopic churches, you just might appreciate the Catholic Bible you hold in your hand (especially if it’s the RSV which used Vatican and Catholic manuscripts for the OT and NT).

 

[RNRobert]

Indeed – in fact, some Protestant churches have serious quarrels with other Protestants. And all of them have elaborate reasons why they’re right and the other church is wrong.

I recall reading about a Protestant couple who converted to Catholicism. Before their conversion, they attended some sort of interdenominational discussion on the Lord’s Supper. They said the debate at times got so heated as to be blasphemous.

 

[Reformed1]

Reformed1:

Do you understand where the Protestants in the 1500s got their canon? Do you understand how the rabbis in Jamnia circa 70 AD determined what was the Hebrew Tanakh?

Why is it that for 400 years Christians read as scripture and debated over and commented over what the Catholic Church officially discerned (with the Holy Spirit) as the OT canon and the Protestants use a post-Jesus era canon designed to remove any prophecies pertaining to Jesus as the Messiah?

Just to avoid the question re the Church’s teaching authority?

If you did a little research in how the main Protestant sects picked and chose what they wanted in their bibles, you might want to reconsider exactly what church has the canon right.

The Church of England (Anglican) requires the books of the “Apocrypha” to be included in any edition of the Bible authorized for use in public worship (Art 3 of the 39 Articles).

The Presbytarian (Calvinist) churches in 1827 decided to omit all of the books from their editions of the Bible. This has had the most influence on American Protestants and their editions of the Bible until recently.

Now, you can find newer translations like the GNB and NRSV with these books included.

As to 3 Maccabees only some Orthodox Churches consider it canonical.

As to 4 Maccabees: no major church (Catholic or Orthodox) consider it canonical.

Your decisions (as you are a Protestant) are based upon some one in the 1500s or 1800s who decided to change the canon. Talk about recent ideas and nonscriptural bases!

Reformed1, it’s a good thing you’re not a member of the Ethiopic church: they have the largest Bible of all including Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Joseph Ben Gorion’s medievel history of the Jews, the Sinodos, well, your total canon would be 81 books!

Your tradition is Western Catholicism. If you take your ideas and look to other Christian churches of the East (in communion with Rome and not) and with the Syriac and Ethiopic churches, you just might appreciate the Catholic Bible you hold in your hand (especially if it’s the RSV which used Vatican and Catholic manuscripts for the OT and NT).

I guess I misunderstood you.

I thought what you were saying is that since the septuagint was quoted by the apostles and the books you guys consider deuterocanonical are contained in the septuagint it therefore follows that the deutero’s were in fact viewed by the apostles (and Jesus too) as inspired and deserving of canonical status.

The flaw in that line of reasoning is that there are other books in the septuagint that you do not consider inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

Independent “non denominatinal churches” don’t count or else the number would have to be millions.

Exactly why don’t these independent non-denoms count? You don’t consider them Christians? Aren’t they also claiming to be faithful to the Word of God?

Your post demonstrates precisely why the Word of God cannot be the final arbiter in Scriptural disputes. You need the Church, i.e. the Magisterium, to be the infallible proclaimer of Truth. Otherwise each and every Christian who has a disagreement with his pastor on a biblical issue can simply splinter off, become his own pope, and form his own church, based on his individual interpretation.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Scripture IS the final arbiter in disputes. When there are disagreements you go to the Church and they solve the matter BASED ON SCRIPTURE. If they are wrong and refuse to correct themselves, you leave. I thank God for the Protestant Reformation!

God has placed His Word above His Name…and you think men have the right to “authority” outside of the Word?

Sola Scriptura…God’s gift.

 

[PRmerger]

I forgot…PRmerger…don’t you think it would have been a bit more honest to use much more of my quote than one small sentence? You can make it look like I said anything when you only use one small sentence. But if it’s ok to do that, then I apologize. I’ll just know it’s ok when I do it in the future.

It’s my preference to specify which part of the post I’m addressing. I personally find it cumbersome when a poster quotes the entire post–I always think, blah,blah,blah…been there, read that…what’s the poster getting to?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

It’s my preference to specify which part of the post I’m addressing. I personally find it cumbersome when a poster quotes the entire post–I always think, blah,blah,blah…been there, read that…what’s the poster getting to?

LOL I see now. I’m sorry.

 

[PRmerger]

I forgot…PRmerger…don’t you think it would have been a bit more honest to use much more of my quote than one small sentence?

Oh–and another thing…I don’t think there was anything inherently dishonest about how I presented your quote (as in movie ads claiming critics thought the movie “SPECTACULAR…!” when the actual movie critic wrote, “this film is a spectacular waste of time!”). I certainly did no injustice to your quote.

You can make it look like I said anything when you only use one small sentence.

But I didn’t.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I guess I misunderstood you.

I thought what you were saying is that since the septuagint was quoted by the apostles and the books you guys consider deuterocanonical are contained in the septuagint it therefore follows that the deutero’s were in fact viewed by the apostles (and Jesus too) as inspired and deserving of canonical status.

The flaw in that line of reasoning is that there are other books in the septuagint that you do not consider inspired./