praying to virgin mary and the saints

[elvisman]

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

Oh, freedomwriter - you read but you do not learn.

How many times on this thread must you be told that it is not up to historians (secular or otherwise) or individual Church Fathers to decide the canon of Scripture? It is up to the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) having been given the Authority and been led by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15).

How many times must you be shown that Jesus and the Apostles DID, in fact draw references and quote from the Deuterocanonicals?

There is none so blind as he who refuses to see, my spiritually prideful, plagiaristic friend.

And finally - How many times must the question be asked of you:
Why on earth would you accept ANY canon of scripture from a Post-Christ, Post-Temple, Post-Resurrection Jewish rabbinical council?

Apparently, it’s because you reject the teaching of our Lord Jesus that the torch has been past from the OLD covenant to the NEW - Judaism to Christianity - the OLD winskins and OLD wine to the NEW wine and NEW wineskins. (Luke 5:33-39).

Oh, I almost forgot - ummm . . . LOL.

 

[elvisman]

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.

That is a weak argument.
First of all, you’ve been shown about 76 referenced to the DCs from the NT.

Secondly - many of these quotes refer to doctrinal teachings so your argument about them being equally important as those referred to from pagan poetry is utter nonsense.

 

[rinnie]

Oh, freedomwriter - you read but you do not learn.

How many times on this thread must you be told that it is not up to historians (secular or otherwise) or individual Church Fathers to decide the canon of Scripture? It is up to the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) having been given the Authority and been led by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15).

How many times must you be shown that Jesus and the Apostles DID, in fact draw references and quote from the Deuterocanonicals?

There is none so blind as he who refuses to see, my spiritually prideful, plagiaristic friend.

And finally - How many times must the question be asked of you:
Why on earth would you accept ANY canon of scripture from a Post-Christ, Post-Temple, Post-Resurrection Jewish rabbinical council?

**Apparently, it’s because you reject **the teaching of our Lord Jesus that the torch has been past from the OLD covenant to the NEW - Judaism to Christianity - the OLD winskins and OLD wine to the NEW wine and NEW wineskins. (Luke 5:33-39).

Oh, I almost forgot - ummm . . . LOL.

Maybe Just MAYBE you have opened up someones eyes. All we can do is try. The rest is up to God. Good post E.

 

[fbl9]

And finally - How many times must the question be asked of you:
Why on earth would you accept ANY canon of scripture from a Post-Christ, Post-Temple, Post-Resurrection Jewish rabbinical council?

LOL.

You can ask that question all you want and you will never get an answer.

 

[fbl9]

Now could we all get back to the topic of this thread> Hint it has nothing to do with which books are inspired or not.But then again if one does not accept any authority to declare which books make up the bible it makes it very hard to accept any authority in regards to any other teaching.

 

[JonNC]

=SemperReformada;5412275]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.

One might say, however, that because of the Reformers took up this view of the canon, they decided to close off the centuries-long debate at Trent.

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.

And on this point, neither was Luther, since he operated under the same rules as Jerome regarding the liberty allowed by the Church to debate the canon.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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

Absolutely, my friend.

Originally Posted by elvisman
[And finally - How many times must the question be asked of you:
Why on earth would you accept ANY canon of scripture from a Post-Christ, Post-Temple, Post-Resurrection Jewish rabbinical council?

Ahh, that is a good question! One could ask it of Luther, and Cajetan, and Jerome, and many others before Trent.

Jon
[/quote]

 

[SemperReformada]

And finally - How many times must the question be asked of you:
Why on earth would you accept ANY canon of scripture from a Post-Christ, Post-Temple, Post-Resurrection Jewish rabbinical council?

You are referring to the council of Jamnia and there is no evidence that Jamnia even discussed the deutero’s.

From Steve Ray
steve ray:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
Some cautionary points should be noted here:

1. Although Christian authors seem to think in terms of a formal council at Jabneh, there was no such thing. There was a school for studying the Law at Jabneh, and the rabbis there exercised legal functions in the Jewish community.
2. Not only was there no formal council, there is no evidence that any list of books was drawn up at Jabneh.
3. A specific discussion of acceptance at Jabneh is attested only for the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Even so, arguments regarding these books persisted in Judaism centuries after the Jabneh period. There were also subsequent debates about Esther.
4. We know of no books that were excluded at Jabneh. In fact, Sirach, which was read and copied by Jews after the Jabneh period, did not eventually become part of the standard Hebrew Bible (cf. Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary [Prentice-Hall, 1996, c. 1968], vol. 2, 522).

I have yet to hear a single Catholic apologist in a debate mention Jamnia but it’s common argument here at CAF.

 

[SemperReformada]

That is a weak argument.
First of all, you’ve been shown about 76 referenced to the DCs from the NT.

Secondly - many of these quotes refer to doctrinal teachings so your argument about them being equally important as those referred to from pagan poetry is utter nonsense.

Give me your five best quotes (NT quoting the deutero’s) which establish doctrine…if you don’t have 5 give me what you have. I bet they fall apart with even the slightest level of scrutiny.

Let’s see what you have. If your list was borrowed from scripturecatholic it should be an easy enough task to rebut.

 

[elvisman]

You are referring to the council of Jamnia and there is no evidence that Jamnia even discussed the deutero’s.

From Steve Ray

I have yet to hear a single Catholic apologist in a debate mention Jamnia but it’s common argument here at CAF.

So, it’s okay for freedomwriter to bring up Jamnia (Jabneh) to try to debunk the Catholic position but it’s NOT okay for a Catholic to mention Jamnia to defend his position?

**This is HOGWASH, my friend. **PLUS - you’ve taken Steve Ray’s comments out of context. He is making this claim to prove that some of the Deuterocanonicals weren’t even officially rejected at Jamnia - but at some later date.

 

[elvisman]

Give me your five best quotes (NT quoting the deutero’s) which establish doctrine…if you don’t have 5 give me what you have. I bet they fall apart with even the slightest level of scrutiny.

Let’s see what you have. If your list was borrowed from scripturecatholic it should be an easy enough task to rebut.

I went all over this on another post and came to the conclusion that a Protestant’s skepticism doesn’t nullify the truth.

**I could rationalize to you that the sun doesn’t exist - but that doesn’t make it true. ****I could show an O. J. juror video of the murder and they would STILL acquit him. **

Similarly, you won’t be moved and your eyes won’t be opened unless God opens your heart and removes the scales from your eyes, friend.

 

[SemperReformada]

**So, it’s okay for freedomwriter **to bring up Jamnia (Jabneh) to try to debunk the Catholic position but it’s NOT okay for a Catholic to mention Jamnia to defend his position?

This is HOGWASH, my friend. PLUS - you’ve taken Steve Ray’s comments out of context. He is making this claim to prove that some of the Deuterocanonicals weren’t even officially rejected at Jamnia - but at some later date.

It doesn’t matter who references Jamnia, protestant or catholic, the point is that there is no evidence that Jamnia discussed the deutero’s. It’s an argument that has been used by both sides and apparently has been abandoned.

I didn’t take anything out of context in Steve’s article, nothing at all. The point I was trying to make was illustrated perfectly by Steve…the so called council of Jamnia did not discuss the detuero’s. Nothing out of context.

 

[SemperReformada]

I went all over this on another post and came to the conclusion that a Protestant’s skepticism doesn’t nullify the truth.

I could rationalize to you that the sun doesn’t exist - but that doesn’t make it true. I could show an O. J. juror video of the murder and they would STILL acquit him.

Similarly, you won’t be moved and your eyes won’t be opened unless God opens your heart and removes the scales from your eyes, friend.

The list you are using is complete junk and I will demonstrate that for you shortly.

 

[rinnie]

The list you are using is complete junk and I will demonstrate that for you shortly.

Instead of doing that why don’t you do this. Go back to the bible. What did Jesus say? Who did Jesus give his authority to? Did he give it to the Apostles or not? So who do you think we should listen to your opinion, My Opinion. Or the Opinion of God that one that counts. God left us the Church. He gave the Power to the Church to teach. No one else.

So now you answer me where is the authority? The Church has it from Apostolic Succession thats my proof. Where is yours?

Don’t show me what this great writer or that wrote. show me AUTHORITY. Thats what I am looking for.

 

[SemperReformada]

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

Elvisman,

This is the type stuff I am talking about.

Is it possible that Luke described them this way because that’s what they looked like?
Luke24:1-4:

1But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb,
3but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing;…

We will see what else you have but I suspect most of it will be of similar substance.

 

[SemperReformada]

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.

The author of Hebrews is arranging the heroes of faith in a roughly chronological order.

At this point the author of Hebrews alludes to intertestamental literature because he is alluding to Intertestamental history.

So at least here you have something that you can say references an apocryphal book but as I mentioned earlier, so what? It would take quite the leap in logic to go from the above reference to assuming divine inspiration of 2 Macc. Perhaps there is a better case to be made but certainly the above reference doesn’t do it.

 

[elvisman]

The author of Hebrews is arranging the heroes of faith in a roughly chronological order.

At this point the author of Hebrews alludes to intertestamental literature because he is alluding to Intertestamental history.

So at least here you have something that you can say references an apocryphal book but as I mentioned earlier, so what? It would take quite the leap in logic to go from the above reference to assuming divine inspiration of 2 Macc. Perhaps there is a better case to be made but certainly the above reference doesn’t do it.

Yet another example of why Luther wanted to rid the Bible of Hebrews.

 

[SemperReformada]

Let’s look at a supposed quote that Zooey pulled from scripturecatholic

Zooey:

Matt. 2:16 - Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Not even close, try Try Jer 31:15 (cf. Gen 35).

Let’s compare Wisdom vs Jeremiah…
wisdom 11:1-10 douay rheims:

1 She prospered their works in the hands of the holy prophet. 2 They went through wildernesses that were not inhabited, and in desert places they pitched their tents. 3 They stood against their enemies, and revenged themselves of their adversaries. 4 They were thirsty, and they called upon thee, and water was given them out of the high rock, and a refreshment of their thirst out of the hard stone. 5 For by what things their enemies were punished, when their drink failed them, while the children of Israel abounded therewith and rejoiced: 5 “By what things”… The meaning is, that God, who wrought a miracle to punish the Egyptians by thirst, when he turned all their waters into blood, (at which time the Israelites, who were exempt from those plagues, had plenty of water,) wrought another miracle in favour of his own people in their thirst, by giving them water out of the rock.
6 By the same things they in their need were benefited. 7 For instead of a fountain of an ever running river, thou gavest human blood to the unjust. 8 And whilst they were diminished for a manifest reproof of their murdering the infants, thou gavest to thine abundant water unlooked for: 9 shewing by the thirst that was then, how thou didst exalt thine, and didst kill their adversaries. 10 For when they were tried, and chastised with mercy, they knew how the wicked were judged with wrath and tormented.

Jeremiah 31:15:

15 This is what the LORD says:
“A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because her children are no more.”

Now let’s see what the gospel has to say…
Matthew 2:16:

16When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
18"A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more."

We can take Matthews word for it that Jeremiah is the reference or scripturecatholics word for it that through more than a little sophistry the book of Wisdom is the reference. Especiallly since Matthew says “…what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fullfilled…”.

I"ll go with the Matthew

This is why I don’t take the supposed references/quotes/allusions in the NT to the dc’s all that serious. Even when there is a strong connection it doesn’t do anything to establish that the NT authors though the dc’s were inspired and most of the time it’s simply a matter of wishing it were so on the Catholic apologists part.

 

[SemperReformada]

**Yet another **example of why Luther wanted to rid the Bible of Hebrews.

I am unaware that this played a part in Luther’s opinion. Can you provide a reference?

 

[SemperReformada]

elvisman:

First of all, you’ve been shown about 76 referenced to the DCs from the NT…

There may have been 76 items on the list but I bet only a few are of any substance and even those are most likely only historical references.

I’ll pick one or two more of these 76 items to go through but so far I am not seeing anything convincing and a lot that have absolutley no connection to the dc’s unless of course one just has to believe it’s so.