praying to virgin mary and the saints

[SemperReformada]

:blushing: Not at all! Zooey simply has learned from experience to keep scripturecatholic.com/ in her favorites. (I don’t somehow like the look of my Bible’s pages with grease & salt from potato chips on them…uch

You should perhaps look at a rubttal of scripturecatholics work regarding the deuterocanonicals because the list is a rather poor attempt at proving NT quotation from the deutero’s.

 

[freedomwriter]

No, you said that the reason you say the deuterocanon is (in your personal opinion) not part of the canon, was that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted them.
I gave you a whole pile of references where they did just exactly that, and now, you say that wasn’t what you meant…and I suspect that you never, ever, expected to find anyone here who would not only call you on that, but provide the backing for it.

So…Freedomwriter is of 2 opinions; either (A) the deuterocanon doesn’t count for you because Jesus never quoted it, nor did the rest of Scripture, or (B) the deuterocanon doesn’t count for you, because you say its not in the canon of Scriptures.
Now, (A) is an honest opinion. It’s mistaken–see those quotes!!, but its honest, & honesty is a virtue.
But (B), au contraire, is an opinion based on…nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.Its an opinion based on an opinion. You can hold to it like stick-tights to a mule, laddie, but it’s still just** your** opinion…which, like an oral agreement, “isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on”.

I just knew it!! Hey,** I :nerd:said this would happen**; and :wink:here we go:

:curtsey:

Zooey your just going round in circles. The apocrypha were not books that were found to be part of the canon of scripture. For one the test of propheticity by the Jewish community for the acceptance of the apocrypha was denied. Not one book claims to be written by a prophet like the Protestant Bible. The Jews acknowledge that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the apocrypha books were written. So you see its not my opinion it was done by the Jewish community. The list of scriptures doesn’t show where Jesus or the disciples quoted the apocrypha. So you just go on with your silly self lol:thumbsup:

 

[rinnie]

Catholics pray the rosary and recite prayers to Virgin Mary. Also, Catholics pray to the saints. Another thing, catholics also use statues of the saints, Virgin Mary, and of Jesus. But dosent’ this contradict what the bible says? Instead of praying to Mary and the saints for help, why not just pray to God? And why have false idols?

Wow what a question. First of all lets address the false idols issue. So are you saying that the Blessed Mother is not the Mother of Christ and is a false idol? I don’t think so. The Blessed Mother was in the image of a Women and was not false at all.

The Catholic Church observes that the glories of Mary were always for the sake of her son. To insist on the sublimity of Marys roles was a way of glorifying her son. Efforts to minimize Marys role seemed to flow from lack of Fath in Jesus. So denial of the teaching on Marys motherhood of God seems to say you deny that Jesus was her son.

Now how could praying to the saints and asking them to interceed for you contradict scripture. I think it is you who are doing that. If we are not asked to pray for eachother why did God tell Job’s friends to pray for them, and not just tell Job’s friends to just pray for themself? You answer me these 2 questions and we can move on.

If you understood the bible and the Catholic faith instead of condemning it you would have read this little piece in the bible. Let me show it to you.

God never forbade religious statues. As a matter of fact he commanded them. He said to make tow cherubim of gold (statues of angels) (ex. 25:18-20)

As a matter of fact you will see all of this when you enter a Catholic Church that you condemn. Now why would God ask for these statues if its a sin? Can’t wait to hear from you?

 

[elvisman]

Luther didn’t get rid of James or any of the other NT books accepted as canonical by both of us.

During the time between Carthage/Hippo and Trent, there was no consensus as to the canonical status of the dc’s, none.

Augustine understood that Carthage and Hippo were provinicial in nature and had absolutely no right to settle case for the church. That is why he wrote:

Augustine gave advice to determine which books were truly canonical because even after Carthage and Hippo there was no consensus. He certainly did not appeal to either Carthage or Hippo as the final say.

Some folks will point at the Vulgate and say that the church sent out the Vulgate and since the Vulgate included the dc’s it must mean that the church had settled the case. The Vulgate did include the dc’s but it also included Jeromes prologues to the dc’s that clearly disparaged their canonicity.

During the middle ages we have the main scriptural commentary (glossa ordinaire) accepting Jerome’s views on the dc’s and placing them on a level beneath the rest of canonical scripture.

Even at Trent there was debate as to the status of the dc’s.

So, Trent did settle the case (at least for the RCC) but it is patently false to assume that Hippo and Carthage settled the case since between the two councils and Trent we find anything but the issue of the OT canon be solved and that was my point on the other post.

I’m not so sure that Trent’s ruling on the canon was soley in response to the reformation since there was quite a movement in the RCC which rejected the canonocity of the dc’s.

**You’re right. Luther DIDN’T delete those books. I said he TRIED to but his contemporaries talked him out of it. This is a metter of historical fact. **

It is also a matter of historical fact that he called the Epistle of James the “Epistle of Straw”. He also edited the scriptures and added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 so it would read, ". . . thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith"

---

As for the declaration at Trent - this was in response to the abuses and heresies that came forth from the Protestant Rebellion’s rendering of Scripture and deletion of the Deuterocanonicals.

Whatever Jerome’s view of the DC’s was, as an obedient Catholic, he KNEW it wasn’t up to him to decide the matter so this point is moot.

 

[elvisman]

Jesus nor the disciples quoted any of the apocrypha books.

**Ummmm . . . ever going to answer posts 112 & 113? **
I didn’t think so.

 

[elvisman]

Zooey your just going round in circles. The apocrypha were not books that were found to be part of the canon of scripture. For one the test of propheticity by the Jewish community for the acceptance of the apocrypha was denied. Not one book claims to be written by a prophet like the Protestant Bible. The Jews acknowledge that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the apocrypha books were written. So you see its not my opinion it was done by the Jewish community. The list of scriptures doesn’t show where Jesus or the disciples quoted the apocrypha. So you just go on with your silly self lol:thumbsup:

Wrong again, my anti-Catholic friend.
You see - when you make sweeping generalizations such as “the Jews” or “the Jewish community”, you illustrate your ignorance.

As a matter of historical fact, the African Jews (Ethiopian) accept the Deuterocanonicals (which you incorrectly refer to as "Aprocrypha"). Their OT canon is IDENTICAL to the Catholic Church’s canon.

**What I’ll never understand is WHY Protestants will accept the post-Christ, post-Resurrections “canon” by Jewish leaders who not only threw out the DCs but declared the Gospels as being unfit as scriptures. **

These post-temple Jewish leaders hated the early Christians and did their best to try to eradicate** the world of Christianity - and THESE are the guys whose canon you follow? **

The plain fact is that Jesus and the Apostles studied from and quoted from these books. This has already been proven on this thread numerous times but you guys refuse to accept it.

 

[rinnie]

Zooey your just going round in circles. The apocrypha were not books that were found to be part of the canon of scripture. For one the test of propheticity by the Jewish community for the acceptance of the apocrypha was denied. Not one book claims to be written by a prophet like the Protestant Bible. The Jews acknowledge that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the apocrypha books were written. So you see its not my opinion it was done by the Jewish community. The list of scriptures doesn’t show where Jesus or the disciples quoted the apocrypha. So you just go on with your silly self lol:thumbsup:

Talking about some head spinning. The Council of Tent did not establish a new list of books but rather confirmed the canonicity of ALL PARTS of the list fixed in tradition more than a thousand years earlier.

The COT resolved any doubts in this area for Catholics declaring all the books of the OT and NT we equally inspired in the entirety.

 

[elvisman]

Where in the NT do you see Jesus or the disciples quoting the Apocrypha. All Zooey did was print a lot of scriptures lol. Don’t go by what Zooey says you show me where these quotes are.

I ALREADY showed you these passages back in Post #112 and you glossed over it because you had no comeback.
I’ll post them again here:

**Lk 24:4, “…two men stood by them in dazzling raiment.” Found in 2 Macc 3:26.

**Heb 11:38, “They wandered in deserts and mountains…”
This is found in 1 Macc 2:28-30 and 2 Macc 5:27.

Heb 11:35, “…Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection.” The ONLY place in the O.T. that you will find reference to that is 2 Macc 7:1-29.

Jn 10:22, “Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication…” The inauguration of this feast is found in 1 Macc. 4:36 & 52-59.

Oh – here are but a few more references to the Deuterocanonicals that you reject - from the lips of Jesus himself:

Jn 14:23, “…If anyone love Me, he will keep My word…” This is in Sirach 2:18.

Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, “…all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them…” Extension of Tobit 4:15

Lk 25 35-36, “I was hungry and you gave me food…I needed clothes and you clothed me.” Based on Tobit 4:16.

Remember, my ill-informed friend - just because you reject it doesn’t make it untrue.
On the contrary - all it does is make you that much more faithless . . .

 

[rinnie]

Wrong again, my anti-Catholic friend.
You see - when you make sweeping generalizations such as "the Jews" or “the Jewish community”, you illustrate your ignorance.

As a matter of historical fact, the African Jews (Ethiopian) accept the Deuterocanonicals (which you incorrectly refer to as "Aprocrypha"). Their OT canon is IDENTICAL to the Catholic Church’s canon.

What I’ll never understand is WHY Protestants will accept the post-Christ, post-Resurrections “canon” by Jewish leaders who not only threw out the DCs but declared the Gospels as being unfit as scriptures.

These post-temple Jewish leaders hated the early Christians and did their best to try to eradicate** the world of Christianity - and THESE** are the guys whose canon you follow?

**The plain fact **is that Jesus and the Apostles studied from and quoted from these books. This has already been proven on this thread numerous times but you guys refuse to accept it.

Thats the teaching you get when you have a born again christian trying to teach a Catholic their faith!

 

[Zooey]

Zooey your just going round in circles. The apocrypha were not books that were found to be part of the canon of scripture. For one the test of propheticity by the Jewish community for the acceptance of the apocrypha was denied. Not one book claims to be written by a prophet like the Protestant Bible. The Jews acknowledge that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the apocrypha books were written. So you see its not my opinion it was done by the Jewish community. The list of scriptures doesn’t show where Jesus or the disciples quoted the apocrypha. So you just go on with your silly self lol:thumbsup:

Apocrypha, schmapocrypha.
You just like the word because it gives you something to type besides nonsense about how everything has to be decided by the Jews. (Whichever Jews you happen to be talking about…In this case, the same ones who rejected the entire New Testament).

Wrong again, my anti-Catholic friend.
You see - when you make sweeping generalizations such as "the Jews" or “the Jewish community”, you illustrate your ignorance.

As a matter of historical fact, the African Jews (Ethiopian) accept the Deuterocanonicals (which you incorrectly refer to as "Aprocrypha"). Their OT canon is IDENTICAL to the Catholic Church’s canon.

What I’ll never understand is WHY Protestants will accept the post-Christ, post-Resurrections “canon” by Jewish leaders who not only threw out the DCs but declared the Gospels as being unfit as scriptures.

These post-temple Jewish leaders hated the early Christians and did their best to try to eradicate the world of Christianity - and THESE are the guys whose canon you follow?

It would seem that our poor “freedomwriter” is having too hard of a time finding somebody, anybody to agree with him. Tactics of desperation…
**

elvisman:

The plain fact

is that Jesus and the Apostles studied from and quoted from these books. This has already been proven on this thread numerous times but you guys refuse to accept it.**

 

[JonNC]

**You’re right. Luther DIDN’T **delete those books. I said he TRIED to but his contemporaries talked him out of it. This is a metter of historical fact.

It is also a matter of historical fact that he called the Epistle of James the “Epistle of Straw”. He also edited the scriptures and added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 so it would read, ". . . thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith"

---

As for the declaration at Trent - this was in response to the abuses and heresies that came forth from the Protestant Rebellion’s rendering of Scripture and deletion of the Deuterocanonicals.

Whatever Jerome’s view of the DC’s was, as an obedient Catholic, he KNEW it wasn’t up to him to decide the matter so this point is moot.

Some points.

1. Luther had every right to say that the d-c’s should be removed from the canon, just like every other Catholic had that right until Trent.
2. Luther did not say James was a book of straw. What he said was:

“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.”

Clearly he was making a comparison, as well as a value judgement (considered wrong by Lutherans). It must also be noted that he made the comment in the preface of his first version of the NT in 1522. He removed the comment in all later versions. I don’t know about others, but I’ve made comments that I later retracted, and preferred not used against me.

1. Whether or not you agree with his explanation, it is that it was necessary to add “allein” in the German to correctly translate the meaning from Greek and Latin.

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text…"
"…if the translation is to be clear and vigorous, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

The word does not appear in any English version I am aware of, because it isn’t necessary in English.

The liberty Luther exercised in his opinion of canon (permitted by the Church) was no different than that of those who were his contemporaries, or those who preceded him. He cannot be held to Trent’s standards, anymore than Jerome can. And as he had already been excommunicated, he no longer was obligated to the authority of Rome. One can only speculate what would have happened had he and Rome reconciled, and wish they had.

Jon

 

[elvisman]

Some points.

1. Luther had every right to say that the d-c’s should be removed from the canon, just like every other Catholic had that right until Trent.
2. Luther did not say James was a book of straw. What he said was:

Clearly he was making a comparison, as well as a value judgement (considered wrong by Lutherans). It must also be noted that he made the comment in the preface of his first version of the NT in 1522. He removed the comment in all later versions. I don’t know about others, but I’ve made comments that I later retracted, and preferred not used against me.

1. Whether or not you agree with his explanation, it is that it was necessary to add “allein” in the German to correctly translate the meaning from Greek and Latin.

The word does not appear in any English version I am aware of, because it isn’t necessary in English.

The liberty Luther exercised in his opinion of canon (permitted by the Church) was no different than that of those who were his contemporaries, or those who preceded him. He cannot be held to Trent’s standards, anymore than Jerome can. And as he had already been excommunicated, he no longer was obligated to the authority of Rome. One can only speculate what would have happened had he and Rome reconciled, and wish they had.

Jon

Whatever his intention, Luther DID call James the “Epistle of Straw”.** I understand that Luther shot his mouth off from time to time and regretted it later.**

**As for agreeing with the canon of scripture and allowing the liberty of opinion and teaching that opinion as fact are 2 very different things. You mistake liberty for “rights”. Besides, Jerome wasn’t the only Church Father and didn’t have the authority to declare the canon. T****he writings of *Barnabus, Polycarp, ***Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria are replete with references to the Deuterocanonicals.

**The canon of both OT and NT Scripture was settled by the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in 382. This was done under the authority of Pope Damasus I. **

**It was soon affirmed and reaffirmed many times after this: **
**At the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. **
By Pope Innocent I in 405 (in a letter to Bishop Exuperius - Toulouse)
In 419, at yet another council at Carthage, it was again affirmed this canon
**The members of this council asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” **

It was affirmed again at th 7th ecumenical council of Nicaea in 787 and was affirmed again explicitly at the ecumenical councils of Florence in 1442, Trent in 1546, Vatican I in 1870, and Vatican II in 1965.

 

[JonNC]

Whatever his intention, Luther DID call James the “Epistle of Straw”.** I understand that Luther shot his mouth off from time to time and regretted it later.**

As for agreeing with the canon of scripture and allowing the liberty of opinion and teaching that opinion as fact are 2 very different things.

The canon of both OT and NT Scripture was settled by the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in 382. This was done under the authority of Pope Damasus I.

**It was soon affirmed and reaffirmed many times after this: **
At the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397.
**By Pope Innocent I in 405 **(in a letter to Bishop Exuperius - Toulouse)
In 419, at yet another council at Carthage, it was again affirmed this canon
The members of this council asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church."

It was affirmed again at th 7th ecumenical council of Nicaea in 787 and was affirmed again explicitly at the ecumenical councils of Florence in 1442, Trent in, Vatican I in 1870, and Vatican II in 1965.

Other than the first part, which we’ll just have to disagree on, I won’t quibble with anything you said as to councils and timelines. As our communions dialogue, our leaders will have to come to agreement on the d-c books. I don’t know how difficult it will be, compared to other doctrines. The fact that Luther never removed them from his translation implies he held them in higher regard than is often reported, and might be a good sign for dialogue.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Catholics pray the rosary and recite prayers to Virgin Mary. Also, Catholics pray to the saints. Another thing, catholics also use statues of the saints, Virgin Mary, and of Jesus. But dosent’ this contradict what the bible says? Instead of praying to Mary and the saints for help, why not just pray to God? And why have false idols?

Gabriel of 12;

The Catholic (universal) Church Jesus built upon (“Rock”) Peter have members in heaven, and on earth and under the earth (purgatory), all of these bow their knee before Jesus, see Philippians 2:10-11. Jesus established God’s Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. Jesus is our Lord Savior Priestly King from the Davidic King line, the One God promised that will never end. Every Davidic King always ruled God’s kingdom with his Mother at his right hand, it was never the wife of the King who ruled with him.

God is God of the living not the dead, we are sons and daughters of the Living God. Under our Lord Jesus as our King. We petition our King through his faithful subjects (servants) who have proved themselves worthy of Sainthood, be it an Apostles, Martyr, or Saint who lived and walked the life of Christ witnessed by others, and manifested by the Holy Spirit by confirming their life followed by signs and wonders (miracles). In essence our King intercedes for all of us to the Father in heaven, witnessed by our brothers and sisters in sainthood who are in the beatific vision of God, who are praying and interceding on our behalf also.

We are all one family in the blessed Trinity. So to have a picture or statue of a child of God, helps our humanity to raise our prayer to the One God in heaven.

 

[elvisman]

Other than the first part, which we’ll just have to disagree on, I won’t quibble with anything you said as to councils and timelines. As our communions dialogue, our leaders will have to come to agreement on the d-c books. I don’t know how difficult it will be, compared to other doctrines. The fact that Luther never removed them from his translation implies he held them in higher regard than is often reported, and might be a good sign for dialogue.

Jon

You said it, brother. Dialogue is good.
Peace.

 

[freedomwriter]

I ALREADY showed you these passages back in Post #112 and you glossed over it because you had no comeback.
I’ll post them again here:

Lk 24:4, “…two men stood by them in dazzling raiment.” Found in 2 Macc 3:26.

Heb 11:38, “They wandered in deserts and mountains…”
This is found in 1 Macc 2:28-30 and 2 Macc 5:27.

Heb 11:35, “…Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection.” The ONLY place in the O.T. that you will find reference to that is 2 Macc 7:1-29.

Jn 10:22, “Now there took place at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication…” The inauguration of this feast is found in 1 Macc. 4:36 & 52-59.

Oh – here are but a few more references to the Deuterocanonicals that you reject - from the lips of Jesus himself:

Jn 14:23, “…If anyone love Me, he will keep My word…” This is in Sirach 2:18.

Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, “…all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them…” Extension of Tobit 4:15

Lk 25 35-36, “I was hungry and you gave me food…I needed clothes and you clothed me.” Based on Tobit 4:16.

Remember, my ill-informed friend - just because you reject it doesn’t make it untrue.
On the contrary - all it does is make you that much more faithless . . .

Here we go round in cirlcles LOL.

1. Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher quoted from virtually every canonical book, but never once quoted the apocrypha as inspired text.
2. Josephus, a Jewish historian excluded the apocrypha
3. Jewish teachers acknowledged that their prophetic line ended in the 4th century. Yet catholics acknowledge the apocryphal books were written after this time.
4. Jesus and the Nt writers never once quoted the apocrypha as scripture.
5. Jewish scholars at Jamnia did not acceept the apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. The Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon and have always rejected the apocrypha.
6. Many of the early fathers of the Christian church spoke out against the apocrypha including Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius and the great Roman Catholic Bible translator Jerome.
7. Jerome the greatest biblical scholar of the early medieval periood and translator of the Latin Vulgate, Explicitly rejected the apocrypha as part of the canon. He even disputed Augustines unjustified acceptance of these books.
   There you go my ill informed friend. God Bless you my Friend:thumbsup:
   If you need more info let me know. LOL

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here we go round in cirlcles LOL.

1. Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher quoted from virtually every canonical book, but never once quoted the apocrypha as inspired text.
2. Josephus, a Jewish historian excluded the apocrypha
3. Jewish teachers acknowledged that their prophetic line ended in the 4th century. Yet catholics acknowledge the apocryphal books were written after this time.
4. Jesus and the Nt writers never once quoted the apocrypha as scripture.
5. Jewish scholars at Jamnia did not acceept the apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. The Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon and have always rejected the apocrypha.
6. Many of the early fathers of the Christian church spoke out against the apocrypha including Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius and the great Roman Catholic Bible translator Jerome.
7. Jerome the greatest biblical scholar of the early medieval periood and translator of the Latin Vulgate, Explicitly rejected the apocrypha as part of the canon. He even disputed Augustines unjustified acceptance of these books.
   There you go my ill informed friend. God Bless you my Friend:thumbsup:
   If you need more info let me know. LOL

Gabriel of 12;

What is comical is that the first Christians where Jewish before mr.Philo. The Jews did not reject the DC books until 100 a.d or c.e if your Jewish. The mistake you make is that Jesus and the apostles quoted and taught from the Septuagint which contained the D.C books. I would love to discuss the seperations of Catholic Christians from their Jewish roots dealing with the Mishna (Torah) and the sort.But this thread deals with praying to the blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints of God.

The problem you have with such great Catholic Saints such as Jerome and I would include St. Augustine is that they were obedient to Jesus and the authority he placed on earth Peter and his successors in the Popes. The Popes placed Jesus and the Apostolic Teachings authoritative over the (Jewish Jamnia) argument that these D.C books did not contain the hebrew counterparts. Of which all arguments against these books were silenced and were included in the bible as inspired of God with the Popes approval and councils.

Not to mention during this period after the Catholic Christians were excommunicated from the synagogue by the liturgical prayer (Birkat HaMinim) to bring God’s wrath against them and to discredit Jesus as a false prophet because he taught from them, Again; because these books had no Hebrew counterparts. Which brings me to an update that the Hebrew counterparts were found in 1947 from the dead sea scrolls, putting to rest the Jewish and Protestant arguments to rest once and for all.

If you need more info; regarding the conflict between Jewish and Catholic Christians when they rejected their own (Hebrew translated to Greek) books and why to discredit Jesus and his followers let me know? Especially the quotes from Jesus and the apostles using the Septuagint in the New Testament, this will take a few pages although;

So my question to you is? who would you follow Jesus and the apostles who taught from these books you reject, or the Jews who persecuted and excommunicated the followers of Jesus because Jesus quoted from these books to prove him a false prophet? If you follow Jesus then you follow the Catholic books of the canon which includes the D.C books. IF you reject the D.C books then you follow the Protestants and the Jews from Jamnia who used the D.C books to disprove Christianity.

A little side note; Catholics call the books deuterocanonical the Protestants call them apochrypha. It would do you good to know the meaning of each.

Peace be with you

 

[SemperReformada]

Gabriel of 12;

What is comical is that the first Christians where Jewish before mr.Philo. The Jews did not reject the DC books until 100 a.d or c.e if your Jewish. The mistake you make is that Jesus and the apostles quoted and taught from the Septuagint which contained the D.C books.

First, can you provide some evidence that the Jews of the first century accepted the deutero’s?

Secondly, simple quotation proves nothing at all so even if the NT makes use of the dc’s it doesn’t prove anything at all. For example, the apostle Paul quotes pagan poets and writers (1 Corinthians 15:33; Acts 17:28); Jude quotes from the Jewish apocryphal books of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Obviously an author may cite something from a work that he takes to be true without thereby ascribing divine authority to that work.

 

[rinnie]

Here we go round in cirlcles LOL.

1. Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher quoted from virtually every canonical book, but never once quoted the apocrypha as inspired text.
2. Josephus, a Jewish historian excluded the apocrypha
3. Jewish teachers acknowledged that their prophetic line ended in the 4th century. Yet catholics acknowledge the apocryphal books were written after this time.
4. Jesus and the Nt writers never once quoted the apocrypha as scripture.
5. Jewish scholars at Jamnia did not acceept the apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. The Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon and have always rejected the apocrypha.
6. Many of the early fathers of the Christian church spoke out against the apocrypha including Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius and the great Roman Catholic Bible translator Jerome.
7. Jerome the greatest biblical scholar of the early medieval periood and translator of the Latin Vulgate, Explicitly rejected the apocrypha as part of the canon. He even disputed Augustines unjustified acceptance of these books.
   There you go my ill informed friend. God Bless you my Friend:thumbsup:
   If you need more info let me know. LOL

What you seem to forget there are many Biblical scholars and although we respect them, and are gratefull for their work they do not teach our faith. That is for the Church to do. All they can do is express their opinion. As far as teaching it must be done with the authority given from above. That comes from God and is taught in the Catholic Church.

 

[SemperReformada]

As for the declaration at Trent - this was in response to the abuses and heresies that came forth from the Protestant Rebellion’s rendering of Scripture and deletion of the Deuterocanonicals.

Whatever Jerome’s view of the DC’s was, as an obedient Catholic, he KNEW it wasn’t up to him to decide the matter so this point is moot.

The dc’s were in dispute from the time of Carthage up until Trent. We have Tridentine council fathers debating the issue because they clearly saw that accepting the dc’s would violate tradition. So, I don’t see how anyone can say that Trent’s ruling on the dc’s was solely because of the reformation.

You say Jerome was obedient but obedient to what or to who? The RCC church did not rule on the OT canon until Trent so he wasn’t being disobedient.

As mentioned before, Augustine didn’t see councils of Carthage or Rome as settling the issue of the dc’s as you claim. The folks in the middle ages didn’t see the early councils as settling the issue and even at Trent we see the council fathers didn’t see the issue as being settled.
jedin:

“(Seripando was) Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici”; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 270-271

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 278.

Jedin also documents a group of excellent scholars that stood against “tradition” as being on the same level of authority as scripture:

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 281-282.