Power and authority??????

[kalt]

If the Catholic church, “by her own inherent God given power and authority” gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

If the books weren’t in, why would Luther have to object to them?

Are you a Catholic? Your arguments seem to be set up especially to prove that Catholic teaching is correct. Every point you’ve made in your many posts has been easily refuted. Fess-up. You’re a Catholic trying to make Catholic points, aren’t you.

 

[kalt]

Really not interested in what wiki has to say, what does God’s Word say?

Well, Wiki is a horrible source, but this time it happens to be accurate. Are you saying that you don’t want to deal with the facts because they refute your many claims on the board?

 

[Hesychios]

phoenix3212;5324505:

The deuterocanonicals

were in the canon of scripture at around 400AD. I think the specific year may have been 382? Regardless, the Council of Trent simply reaffirmed that those seven books were part of scripture after Luther so carelessly ripped them out. It didn’t add anything; all it did was state again what was known for an entire millennium: that the deuterocanonicals are inspired!

If it was not there to begin with then Yes it was added.

You are trying too hard to make this case.

All of the Reformers were well aware of these books. They were always part of the Septuagint library, which was the common collection for the Jews outside Palestine and also used in Galilee. The Christians simply continued using them when they gathered separately from the synagogues.

It really had nothing to do “power”. The critical issues over the canon all involved New Testament writings and the decisions involved the whole church. The Old Testament was set.

 

[puppypatrol]

by Christalon – Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

The Apocrypha was a part of the Old Testament Jewish bible long before the birth of Christ. Anywhere in the New Testament where the Apostles or Jesus quotes from Scripture they are quoting the Jewish Old Testament. The Old Testament canon for the Jews included the Law (The Catholioc Pentateuch and some Prophetic Books) the Early Prophets, the Later Prophets (both included in the Catholic Historical and Prophetic Boo\ks) and the Writings (Catholic Wisdom Books) It is only the Catholic canon that includes the entire Hebrew/Palestinian canon, the Protestant canon has deleted 7 of the original Old Testament books. (Again, historical fact)

The only things that have been added are the New Testament canon in 397-419 AD. The Catholic canon ;has been unchanged since then.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I would not have asked if I didn’t

Then by all means don’t let me keep you. Please show me with God’s written Word which books comprise the Christian canon.



God bless

 

[Christalone]

If the books weren’t in, why would Luther have to object to them?

Are you a Catholic? Your arguments seem to be set up especially to prove that Catholic teaching is correct. Every point you’ve made in your many posts has been easily refuted. Fess-up. You’re a Catholic trying to make Catholic points, aren’t you.

Far from it brother, far from it!

 

[Christalone]

Well, Wiki is a horrible source, but this time it happens to be accurate. Are you saying that you don’t want to deal with the facts because they refute your many claims on the board?

I have yet to see any refutation to my claims other than mere opinion.

 

[Eleve]

bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

Or, if you like Latin, the Council of Rome on the canon:

tertullian.org/decretum.htm

 

[YADA]

I have yet to see any refutation to my claims other than mere opinion.

That is not true …

The Septuagint [OT writings that were used by Jewish believers before the birth of Christ] existed for several hundred years before the birth of Christ. The Septuagint was used by Jews in the diaspora being a Greek in its language. It was also used in Palastine - Isreal area.

There also existed a shorter hebrew version of the OT writings that did not contain all of the writings found in the Septuagint. Please remember that no single document actually contained the entire collection of writings - they were written on scrolls of various materials.

Why the differences - some thought that the buetero canonicals may not have existed in hebrew language - only the greek … however some of the scrolls found at Qumran were of the disputed texts and were found in hebrew, greek and aramaic …

Biblical scholars analyszing the New Testament affirm that the source most often quoted by Jesus and the New Testament writers is the Septuagint.

Jerome translated the Septuagint from Greek into the Latin Vulgate … and wrote about the Hebrew Canon and his personal thoughts on the two - yet he defered to the Church and the historical use of the Septuagint …

Martin Luther translated a Hebrew Canon into German [FYI - his was not the first translation into the german language - a false belief some have] … yet Martin did include them in an appendix … Martin Luther also attempted to remove some of the NT books like Revelation and 1st Timothy … Luther also added some words to his translation - to make the texts support some of his new theologies …

The "Bible used by Christians had not changed from the earliest collection as noted by another poster - roughly the council held at the end of the fourth and begining of the fifth century … but in reality - it was the Canon as used even before that …

The Council of Trent was an official “closing” of the canon of scripture - the Bible - to prevent the tinkering of those like Luther - who would change the then 1500 year use of Christian writings …

So dear OP … the Chruch did not “get it wrong in the beginning” and change anything at Trent … the Church acted in Trent to prevent corruption and error by those who would “change / remove / add” to the Canonof the Church - the Bible …

That is Fact not Opinion or Fiction

 

[geometer]

The Jews I believe were the last to declare a cannon of holy scripture. That is why books were removed, because they weren’t included by rabbis.

The septuagint translation came about coersively, rabbis were forced to translate their books because hebrew was outlawed.

 

[YADA]

The Jews I believe were the last to declare a cannon of holy scripture. That is why books were removed, because they weren’t included by rabbis.

The septuagint translation came about coersively, rabbis were forced to translate their books because hebrew was outlawed.

Source ???

 

[kalt]

Far from it brother, far from it!

Well, you are doing as much as any Catholic to prove the truth of the Catholic Church. Good job!

 

[LilyM]

If the Catholic church, “by her own inherent God given power and authority” gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

And why did the Protestant churches to which you belong not get THEIR faith right the first time? Why did they wait till the 1500s at the earliest to break with Rome?

Where was the Holy Spirit’s guidance (or should I say utter silence) on that point for 1500s years if the Protestants have it so right? Where is it now when you all disagree so pointedly with each other on fundamental issues of doctrine?

 

[geometer]

Source ???

“The discussion came before the emperor, Justinian, who in the year 553 issued a novella in which it was expressly stated that “the Hebrews are allowed to read the Holy Writ in their synagogues in the Greek language”; and the emperor advised them to use either the Septuagint or the version of Aquila (Grätz, “Gesch. der Juden,” v. 435).”

This comes from some kind of online “jewish encyclopedia” which is apparently written for christians by christians. Some of it is very odd.

 

[YADA]

“The discussion came before the emperor, Justinian, who in the year 553 issued a novella in which it was expressly stated that “the Hebrews are allowed to read the Holy Writ in their synagogues in the Greek language”; and the emperor advised them to use either the Septuagint or the version of Aquila (Grätz, “Gesch. der Juden,” v. 435).”

This comes from some kind of online “jewish encyclopedia” which is apparently written for christians by christians. Some of it is very odd.

How does this [your quote above] equate to what you said here?

The septuagint translation came about coersively, rabbis were forced to translate their books because hebrew was outlawed.

Your implication was that the Septuagint was a translation that was coerced - frced to include these additioal work and that it therefore was invalid …

I do not see that in the source or info you provided …

 

[Hesychios]

The Jews I believe were the last to declare a cannon of holy scripture. That is why books were removed, because they weren’t included by rabbis.

In a sense you are correct on this point, although I am not sure if they viewed a “canon” of scripture in the exact same way as we do here.

Essentially, first century rabbinical scholars decided to stop reproducing books that were thought to be less than 200 years old or originally written in a language other than Hebrew. Supposedly this was decided at a meeting of Rabbis at Yavne, so it is called the Council of Yavne or Jamnia.

Presumably this is because the books in question were supportive of Christian distinctions in Judaism, and Christian apologists were making converts among the Jews with these books.
Wikipedia:

Today, there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set. Nevertheless, the outcomes attributed to the Council of Jamnia did occur whether gradually or in a definitive, authoritative council. Several concerns of the remaining Jewish communities in Israel would have been the loss of the national language, the growing problem of conversions to Christianity, based in part on Christian promises of life after death. What emerged from this era was twofold:

1. 
   *]A rejection of the Septuagint or Koine Greek Old Testament widely then in use in Hellenistic Judaism along with its additional books not part of the Biblical Hebrew/Biblical Aramaic Masoretic Text.
   *]The inclusion of a curse on the “Minim” which probably included Jewish Christians (Birkat ha-Minim). According to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Min: “In passages referring to the Christian period, “minim” usually indicates the Judæo-Christians, the Gnostics, and the Nazarenes, who often conversed with the Rabbis on the unity of God, creation, resurrection, and similar subjects (comp. Sanh. 39b). In some passages, indeed, it is used even for “Christian”; but it is possible that in such cases it is a substitution for the word “Noẓeri,” which was the usual term for ‘Christian’… On the invitation of Gamaliel II., Samuel ha-Ḳaṭan composed a prayer against the minim which was inserted in the “Eighteen Benedictions”; it is called “Birkat ha-Minim” and forms the twelfth benediction; but instead of the original “Noẓerim” … the present text has “wela-malshinim” (=“and to the informers”). The cause of this change in the text was probably, the accusation brought by the Church Fathers against the Jews of cursing all the Christians under the name of the Nazarenes.”
   
   Sociologically, these developments achieved two important ends, namely, the preservation of the Hebrew language at least for religious use (even among the diaspora ) and possibly the final separation and distinction between the Jewish and Christian communities, though the separation is more complex than just a single event…
   
   See…

1. 
   

   The septuagint translation came about coersively, rabbis were forced to translate their books because hebrew was outlawed.

   This statement is not correct. The translation was made in Alexandria long before the birth of Christ. It was a translation made by Jews for Jews.
   
   It is easily conceivable that synagogues in the empire were pressured or coerced in some fashion to use the Septuagint by Justinian’s government (as you suggest in post #34 above), that’s a bit of history I had not been exposed to before, but by that time the Septuagint library was 700 to 900 years old.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If the Catholic church, “by her own inherent God given power and authority” gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

Gabriel of 12;

For clarification here; Catholics do not call the “Deuterocanonical” books “Apocrypha”. Which include the books of Tobit, Judith, 1,2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch and Sirach. These 7 books, which Protestants call “Apocrypha” were removed from the bible by Protestants not Catholics. These books have been included in the Catholic official canon of the bible since the fourth century. Although Catholic scholars have debated them over the centuries, never the less, the Catholic Church kept them in the bible, because Jesus and the Apostles taught from these books.

The Council of Trent only closed the centuries debate of these “Deuterocanonical” books, and anyone who rejects them from the Council of Trent on… will excommunicate themselves from the Catholic Church. Trent did not canonize any bible books, Trent only closed the argument over these books once and for all, that they remain in the bible. So in a nutshell, the Catholic Church through the workings of the Holy Spirit got it right the first time. It was the Protestants who removed books and added to the bible.

It was the Protestants who later added the Catholic 7 Deuterocanonical books to their version of the bible and renamed them “Apocrypha”, which is to label them as uninspired of God. Deutero is a word to describe these 7 books as coming down to us in the second “Deutero” language “Greek” instead of “Hebrew”. Or as the Early Catholic Fathers emphasized them as the “second” (last) books to be canonized because they raised much debate about their authenticity without “Hebrew” counterparts.

But Trent finally settled all debates over the “Deutero” books once and for all, again the Council of Trent did not add them to the already Canon (list) books of the bible. “Trent” heard the scholarly debates over the 7 books, and kept them in the bible as inspired of God. Trent did not add these books to the already existing bible canon.

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;5330559]Gabriel of 12;

For clarification here; Catholics do not call the “Deuterocanonical” books “Apocrypha”. Which include the books of Tobit, Judith, 1,2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch and Sirach. These 7 books, which Protestants call “Apocrypha” were removed from the bible by Protestants not Catholics. These books have been included in the Catholic official canon of the bible since the fourth century. Although Catholic scholars have debated them over the centuries, never the less, the Catholic Church kept them in the bible, because Jesus and the Apostles taught from these books.

Boy, am I happy you posted this. This is exactly what Luther was doing! As many scholars and theologians of his time, including Cardinal Cajetan who also questioned their canonicity, Luther was participating in this debate regarding the dc books, which was allowed and encouraged by the Church.

The Council of Trent only closed the centuries debate of these “Deuterocanonical” books, and anyone who rejects them from the Council of Trent on… will excommunicate themselves from the Catholic Church. Trent did not canonize any bible books, Trent only closed the argument over these books once and for all, that they remain in the bible. So in a nutshell, the Catholic Church through the workings of the Holy Spirit got it right the first time. It was the Protestants who removed books and added to the bible.

And Trent happened after Luther’s translation, after his death. What is more, Luther did include the dc precisely because it was considered part the Bible for centuries. But they had also been in dispute for centuries, so even though he had already been excommunicated and not abliged to obey Rome, he still included them in an appendix. This was all prior to Trent. Luther did not violate Trent because he was dead by then. He did not “rip” the dc out of the Bible! I do not believe Luther would approve of a Bible without the dc books.

Catholics can criticize what Protestants (sadly even Lutherans) did in removing the dc’s in later centuries, but Luther acted in a way acceptable and consistent with Church practice of his time until his excommunication, did not remove the books in his translation even after his excommunication, and did not violate Trent.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Boy, am I happy you posted this. This is exactly what Luther was doing! As many scholars and theologians of his time, including Cardinal Cajetan who also questioned their canonicity, Luther was participating in this debate regarding the dc books, which was allowed and encouraged by the Church.

And Trent happened after Luther’s translation, after his death. What is more, Luther did include the dc precisely because it was considered part the Bible for centuries. But they had also been in dispute for centuries, so even though he had already been excommunicated and not abliged to obey Rome, he still included them in an appendix. This was all prior to Trent. Luther did not violate Trent because he was dead by then. He did not “rip” the dc out of the Bible! I do not believe Luther would approve of a Bible without the dc books.

Catholics can criticize what Protestants (sadly even Lutherans) did in removing the dc’s in later centuries, but Luther acted in a way acceptable and consistent with Church practice of his time until his excommunication, did not remove the books in his translation even after his excommunication, and did not violate Trent.

Jon

“Hi” Jon, thanks for that clarification, the time frame does make sense as you presented here. It is true Martin Luther argued the d.c books from St. Jerome’s view and the Jewish canon. And his original bible translation included all of the Catholic canon (list). You may have to correct me here, but did Luther include the d.c books under the title of “Apocrypha”? I am glad to hear your reasoning why Luther did not violate “Trent”.

Peace be with you

 

[JonNC]

“Hi” Jon, thanks for that clarification, the time frame does make sense as you presented here. It is true Martin Luther argued the d.c books from St. Jerome’s view and the Jewish canon. And his original bible translation included all of the Catholic canon (list). You may have to correct me here, but did Luther include the d.c books under the title of “Apocrypha”? I am glad to hear your reasoning why Luther did not violate “Trent”.

Peace be with you

And peace also with you.
I do not know how Luther listed the dc in his original. I have a German language Luther Bible and it is listed as “Apokryphen”. My own take is that both communions would do well to use words that don’t annoy the other when possible. Seems to me we could agree on “Deuterocanonical”. It is a little thing, I know.

Jon