praying to virgin mary and the saints

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by elvisman
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?

Luther about Hebrews

“Who wrote it is not known, and will probably not be known for a while; it makes no difference. We should be satisfied with the doctrine that he bases so constantly on the Scriptures. For he discloses a firm grasp of the reading of the Scriptures and of the proper way of dealing with them.”

ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm#b3

Luther questioned the apostolic authorship (once again, not alone in this), not its content.

Jon

 

[freedomwriter]

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.

Show me where Jesus or the disciples quoted the apocrypha. You provide a lot of scripture but nowhere in the NT do you see them quoted by Christ himself. How many times do i need to ask you for the answer. I am tired of asking you but i do not see the quotes in the NT. The NT explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and Law Rom 3:2. The Jews should be considered the custodians of the limists of their own canon. And they have always rejected the apocrypha. The Christian church has rejected the apocrypha as part of the canon to this day. Why? Because it lacks the primary determining factor of canonicity: propheticity, that is , the apocryphal books lack evidence that they were written by accredited prophets of God. I could go on and on but this is getting old. Humble yourself youngster lol:thumbsup:

 

[Zooey]

Show me where Jesus or the disciples quoted the apocrypha. You provide a lot of scripture but nowhere in the NT do you see them quoted by Christ himself. How many times do i need to ask you for the answer. I am tired of asking you but i do not see the quotes in the NT. The NT explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and Law Rom 3:2. The Jews should be considered the custodians of the limists of their own canon. And they have always rejected the apocrypha. The Christian church has rejected the apocrypha as part of the canon to this day. Why? Because it lacks the primary determining factor of canonicity: propheticity, that is , the apocryphal books lack evidence that they were written by accredited prophets of God. I could go on and on but this is getting old. Humble yourself youngster lol:thumbsup:

They’ve always rejected the New Testament….in toto.
Should we then expect you to stop shaving, start eating kosher, and begin praying in:hypno: Hebrew???..Probably not, huh?? :dts:Then this argument is completely and entirely nonsensical.
Sheesh. Talk about riding a hobby horse all the way to London and back again…

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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

Just an aside Jon. Your openness to dialogue and your courtesy and candor are refreshing and much appreciated. You’re welcome at any thread of mine even if we mutually will come to a conclusion to “agree to disagree” on many issues.

Peace,
Robert

 

[SemperReformada]

Luther about Hebrews

ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm#b3

Luther questioned the apostolic authorship (once again, not alone in this), not its content.

Jon

Thanks Jon.

 

[JonNC]

Just an aside Jon. Your openness to dialogue and your courtesy and candor are refreshing and much appreciated. You’re welcome at any thread of mine even if we mutually will come to a conclusion to “agree to disagree” on many issues.

Peace,
Robert

Thanks, Robert. I talk the talk of charity and dialogue and seeking unity. I pray the Holy Spirit guides me to walk the walk. It is what Christ called for.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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

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

Gabriel of 12;

I have read and heard from both Catholic and Jewish sources that Jamnia council never happened, others opinion that the School of Jamnia under pressure hurridely put their canon together and rejected the D.C books because they could not find their Hebrew counterparts and also to discredit Jesus as a false prophet.

Now others view whether or not this happened at Jamnia, the fact remains that the Jews after the first century removed these D.C books from their canon, the main reason was due to the fact Jesus and his apostles quoted and taught from them, and they could not locate their Hebrew counterparts.

This complexity of views about Jamnia makes neutral ground for public figures not to include the topic of Jamnia in their public works or debates. The one thing that remains fact, that they all agree upon; is that the Jews removed the D.C books way later after 70 a.d.(temple destruction) then added the Mishnah which is their Oral Traditional teachings from the Torah put down in writing hundreds of years later.

There can not be no question that the first century Jews read, taught from the Septuagint including Jesus and the apostles. I believe over 300 quotations in the New Testment reference the Septagint and D.C books.

Jamnia is a time and place that all opposing views can agree that the Jews removed the D.C books, because no professional will risk his license or reputation to name another time and place when the Jews themselves do not agree exactly when they removed the D.C books. The fact remains they had them during the first and second century, then removed them, since the Jewish Septuagint contained them through the times of Jesus and the recording of the New Testament Gospels and Letters.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks Jon.

Welcome.

You, elvisman, and I would all agree that Luther deserves criticism. I think we’d all also agree the criticism should be as accurate as can be.

Jon

 

[SemperReformada]

This complexity of views about Jamnia makes neutral ground for public figures not to include the topic of Jamnia in their public works or debates. The one thing that remains fact, that they all agree upon; is that the Jews removed the D.C books way later after 70 a.d.(temple destruction) then added the Mishnah which is their Oral Traditional teachings from the Torah put down in writing hundreds of years later.

I know of absolutely no evidence that the 1st century Jews accepted the dc’s. Can you provide some for us to review? I can certainly provide evidence to the contrary, that the Jews did not accept the dc’s but unless I missed it, I have seen no evidence supporting the claim that the Jews of the 1st century accepted the dc’s as inspired.

There can not be no question that the first century Jews read, taught from the Septuagint including Jesus and the apostles. I believe over 300 quotations in the New Testment reference the Septagint and D.C books.

Okay, so what? Which version of the LXX did they quote from? Which books were included in the LXX that you are talking about? How do we know which books were included?

 

[JonNC]

Gabriel of 12;

I have read and heard from both Catholic and Jewish sources that Jamnia council never happened, others opinion that the School of Jamnia under pressure hurridely put their canon together and rejected the D.C books because they could not find their Hebrew counterparts and also to discredit Jesus as a false prophet.

Now others view whether or not this happened at Jamnia, the fact remains that the Jews after the first century removed these D.C books from their canon, the main reason was due to the fact Jesus and his apostles quoted and taught from them, and they could not locate their Hebrew counterparts.

This complexity of views about Jamnia makes neutral ground for public figures not to include the topic of Jamnia in their public works or debates. The one thing that remains fact, that they all agree upon; is that the Jews removed the D.C books way later after 70 a.d.(temple destruction) then added the Mishnah which is their Oral Traditional teachings from the Torah put down in writing hundreds of years later.

There can not be no question that the first century Jews read, taught from the Septuagint including Jesus and the apostles. I believe over 300 quotations in the New Testment reference the Septagint and D.C books.

Jamnia is a time and place that all opposing views can agree that the Jews removed the D.C books, because no professional will risk his license or reputation to name another time and place when the Jews themselves do not agree exactly when they removed the D.C books. The fact remains they had them during the first and second century, then removed them, since the Jewish Septuagint contained them through the times of Jesus and the recording of the New Testament Gospels and Letters.

Gabriel,
I have never had reason to doubt what you say, and wouldn’t start now. Question, why did the Jews remove the d-c’s following the apostolic era? What would be their motivation? Were there doubts among the Jews as to their canonicity prior?
Jon

 

[SemperReformada]

Welcome.

You, elvisman, and I would all agree that Luther deserves criticism. I think we’d all also agree the criticism should be as accurate as can be.

Jon

The thing I see here at CAF is that Catholics are unaware of their church’s history and many times act as if Luther was the first person ever to be anti-semitic, have various doubts about NT books, reject the deuterocanonicals, add the word alone to Romans, etc.

Then, when confronted with evidence to the contrary many seem to simply skim over it and repeat the same arguements later in the thread or again in a new thread…

Anyway, one of the best sites I have found about Luther is www.beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com the seem to address Luther, warts and all.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Thanks, Robert. I talk the talk of charity and dialogue and seeking unity. I pray the Holy Spirit guides me to walk the walk. It is what Christ called for.

Jon

And the congregation says, AMEN!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The thing I see here at CAF is that Catholics are unaware of their church’s history and many times act as if Luther was the first person ever to be anti-semitic, have various doubts about NT books, reject the deuterocanonicals, add the word alone to Romans, etc.

As a rank amateur apologist, I wish I had more time to study all of the history of the Catholic Church. But to confess, I do have gaps in my personal study. That being said, I think I still do know a lot of Catholic history, but it also has to be conceded that a lot of alleged “history” of the Catholic Church is inaccurate or in some cases completely false. I pause when someone states a historical fact as “well we all know that…” It starts me thinking on whether or not we really do all think that and if so, what is that belief based upon. That being said, I find that many protestants on this site reject pre-reformation history altogether, and operate from the assumption that the history of the christian church starts some time in the 15th century.

SemperReformada:

Then, when confronted with evidence to the contrary many seem to simply skim over it and repeat the same arguements later in the thread or again in a new thread…

I haven’t found that to be the case every time, although sometimes the response is engendered by the conclusion that one person’s “history” (i.e. “we all know”) is another’s urban legend. Without concrete examples of blowing off historical arguments, its hard for me to accept what you are saying as a generality among CAF posters. That being said, I again acknowledge that I am an amateur apologist and despite my best efforts my knowledge of Church history is not on par with a professional apologist or a trained theologian.

SemperReformada:

Anyway, one of the best sites I have found about Luther is www.beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com the seem to address Luther, warts and all.

I always appreciate a link to competent material. I hope the cite is well documented and the historical discussion is supported by good primary sources. Oftentimes I find that the sources for Catholic History when posted on non-Catholic sites is shabbily supported by only secondary sources that cite each other - no real meat to it at all.

And Welcome to the forum.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

Common sense first off, then Jesus and the apostles who were Jews referenced the D.C teachings in the New Testament would you like me to post the list here or P.M them to you? There are two many to list here and it is way off topic, Thirdly the Jews never rejected them until after 100 a.d.

I can understand your logic from the New testament quoting the D.C books. But this thinking can be attributed to one who does not believe the New Testament as the inspired Word of God, or blatently is blind to the Truth of Catholic Apostolic teaching and prejudiced oneself against ones own idea of truth.

IF you were to study every quotation Jesus makes from the D.C’s along with the apostles, one rejects this fact too early. Again there are over 300 quotations referencing the Septagint and D.C books. Until you have visited every quotation. It may be too early for you to argue this fact.

 

[SemperReformada]

Despite what Mark Bonocore (scripturecatholic) and other Catholics may want to believe about the NT quoting from the apocrypha or deutero’s, we have the following opinion of scholars:
Bruce Metzger:

In discussing the subject of parallels and allusions to the Apocrypha found in the New Testament, it is sometimes urged that no passage from the Apocrypha is ever expressly quoted by a New Testament author as proceeding from a sacred authority. This is doubtless true.

Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford University, 1963), p. 171.

F.F. Bruce:

The Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek New Testament (1979) has an index of Old Testament texts cited or alluded to in the New Testament, followed by an index of allusions not only to the ‘Septuagintal plus’ but also to several other works not included in the Septuagint. Many of these last are resemblances rather than conscious allusions; only one is a straight quotation explicitly ascribed to its source. That is the quotation from ‘Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam’ in Jude 14; this comes recognizably from the apocalyptic book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9).

F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), pp. 51.

Roger Nicole:

It is to be noted that the whole New Testament contains not even one explicit citation of any of the Old Testament Apocrypha which are considered as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. This omission can scarcely be viewed as accidental.

Roger Nicole, ‘New Testament Use of the Old Testament’ in Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), p. 138.

G. Douglas Young:

Does the New Testament quote the Apocrypha? The answer is a categorical no. There is not a single quotation from any of the 14 or 15 books. No doubt the New Testament writers knew of the existence of these books. Not in a single instance, however, is one of them quoted, either as inspired Scripture, or as authority, or in any way. Not in a single case is one of them quoted in any way for any purpose. Professor C. C. Torrey, who, in his The Apocryphal Literature, lists a very large number of alleged Apocryphal quotations or allusions, is forced to admit of the New Testament that “in general, the Apocryphal Scriptures were left unnoticed” (p. 18). The alleged quotations are from books outside of those under consideration here, the Apocrypha. An example is the quotation of Enoch in Jude. All that can be said is that the New Testament authors have some acquaintanceship with earlier written materials, to which at most they allude indirectly, or with facts which eventually appear in both Biblical and non-Biblical documents.

Douglas Young, ‘The Apocrypha’ in Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), p. 175.

Even a cursory look at the list provided by Zooey from scripturecatholic and by elvisman from (??) would lead one to doubt the veracity of the list and coupled with the above opinion of biblical scholars I would imagine a Catholic would at least have to admit the case for the NT quoting the dc’s is not as strong as was first presented earlier in the thread.

 

[SemperReformada]

Common sense first off, then Jesus and the apostles who were Jews referenced the D.C teachings in the New Testament would you like me to post the list here or P.M them to you? There are two many to list here and it is way off topic, Thirdly the Jews never rejected them until after 100 a.d.

The issue isn’t whether anyone quoted from the LXX or even if Jesus or the apostles quoted the dc’s. The issue is whether Jesus or the apostles quoted the dc’s as either inspired or as an authority and the answer to that question is a resounding no. At best you may be able to pull out a quote or two or an allusion from the dc’s regarding a historical matter but that’s about it.

If you feel compelled to provide a list feel free to provide your best quote which establishes the NT authors believed the dc’s to be canonical.

If the Jews of the first century accepted the dc’s as inspired it should be a simple matter to show evidence of this. I am only aware of evidence showing that the Hebrew canon of the 1st century lacked the dc’s.

IF you were to study every quotation Jesus makes from the D.C’s along with the apostles, one rejects this fact too early. Again there are over 300 quotations referencing the Septagint and D.C books. Until you have visited every quotation. It may be too early for you to argue this fact.

It’s true I haven’t read every possible quotation supposedly from the dc’s but usually the lists I am presented with falls apart after one or two looks and it’s hardly worth my time or effort to investigate every single one when the first one falls apart.

 

[SemperReformada]

As a rank amateur apologist, I wish I had more time to study all of the history of the Catholic Church. But to confess, I do have gaps in my personal study. That being said, I think I still do know a lot of Catholic history, but it also has to be conceded that a lot of alleged “history” of the Catholic Church is inaccurate or in some cases completely false.

You are 100% correct. Many people object to what they imagine the Catholic church to be and not what it is and seem bent on accepting Jack Chick type material instead of trying to understand what it is the RCC actually teaches.

I pause when someone states a historical fact as “well we all know that…” It starts me thinking on whether or not we really do all think that and if so, what is that belief based upon. That being said, I find that many protestants on this site reject pre-reformation history altogether, and operate from the assumption that the history of the christian church starts some time in the 15th century.

Most peoples idea of church history is what happened last year. Most folks I know have no idea what happened during the reformation or why and have much less of a clue about anything pre-dating the reformation.

I haven’t found that to be the case every time, although sometimes the response is engendered by the conclusion that one person’s “history” (i.e. “we all know”) is another’s urban legend. Without concrete examples of blowing off historical arguments, its hard for me to accept what you are saying as a generality among CAF posters. That being said, I again acknowledge that I am an amateur apologist and despite my best efforts my knowledge of Church history is not on par with a professional apologist or a trained theologian.

I may have overstated my case. After thinking about it, I would only deal with those who fit the behaviour I described and obviosly I only deal personaly with a very small percentage of Catholics on this forum.

I always appreciate a link to competent material. I hope the cite is well documented and the historical discussion is supported by good primary sources. Oftentimes I find that the sources for Catholic History when posted on non-Catholic sites is shabbily supported by only secondary sources that cite each other - no real meat to it at all.

And Welcome to the forum.

Peace,
Robert

I think you will enjoy the site. It is not a Catholic site so some or most or maybe all of what they post will challenge you but I think (or at least hope) that it will be presented in a way that is not off putting.

Regardless, I think you at least will find the information on Luther to be very helpful because as I pointed out, they discuss Luther, warts and all.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I have never had reason to doubt what you say, and wouldn’t start now. Question, why did the Jews remove the d-c’s following the apostolic era? What would be their motivation? Were there doubts among the Jews as to their canonicity prior?
Jon

Gabriel of 12;

Good question; What is complicated here that goes without saying, is that we have much going on here after the destruction of the temple in 70.a.d. Pagan Rome had begun to recognize Christianity no longer a Jewish sect, because Gentiles were now entering into Christianity. The Jews excommunicated the Christians from the synagogues, while the Jews were being persecuted by pagan Rome, both Jews and pagan Rome began to persecute the Christians. The Christians were converting many Jews from teachings that God had left them, while the leadership of the Jews began to close in ranks and figure out what happened and what they were going to do as a people of God.

Jamnia becomes a place and time when the Rabbi’s at Jamnia began to teach the Spiritual aspects of the Torah, coming under persecution by pagan Rome, they put together their canon, and the same time arguing against the growing Christians, and making any Jew who converts to Christianity excommunicated, while at the same time using the Hebrew texts from the Septuagint only as canon, all others remained in Greek were considered not inspired of God, proving Jesus a false teacher.

The one point I would like to point out, is that we have no record before the destruction of the Temple in 70 a.d that the Jewish community as a whole rejected the D.C books. So the burden of proof lays with those who oppose the Jews rejecting them at a later time after the second tempe destruction 70 a.d.

What we do have are the Essenes living and possessing the Septuagint which included the D.C books except Esther. A Jewish author notes probably because Esther did not make the canon yet. It is not confirmed yet that the Essenes were the community to the dead sea scrolls, it is only speculated.

Were their doubts among Jews about the d.c books in the first century. One has to consider when dealing with the first century Jews, there was not just one tribe of Jews, there was a coming together if you will from the dispora, where we have Jews from babylon captivity, and other provinces moving back toward Jerusalem. This alone would bring a diversity and explanation of the Jewish sects. Yes one may suggest that there may have been disagreement, where other Jews accepted the D.C books just as Jesus and the apostles did.

What both Jews and Catholic Christians agree is that the D.C books were removed from the Septuagint which was accepted (included) by the first century Jews (such as the Essenes). One now must take into consideration the first century Jew thinking and understanding with the temple in place, are not of the same thinking and belief of Jews after the destruction. A Change took place.

Boy we are sure way off topic here;

 

[elvisman]

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

Luther about Hebrews

ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm#b3

Luther questioned the apostolic authorship (once again, not alone in this), not its content.

Jon

Hmmm . . . guess I should have pasted the rolling eyesrolleyes, as I was making a poor attempt at humor . . .

 

[elvisman]

Despite what Mark Bonocore (scripturecatholic) and other Catholics may want to believe about the NT quoting from the apocrypha or deutero’s, we have the following opinion of scholars:

Even a cursory look at the list provided by Zooey from scripturecatholic and by elvisman from (??) would lead one to doubt the veracity of the list and coupled with the above opinion of biblical scholars I would imagine a Catholic would at least have to admit the case for the NT quoting the dc’s is not as strong as was first presented earlier in the thread.

Semper - why do you keep accusing me of getting my information from ScriptureCatholic? I admire that site and refer to it oftem but I got this information from several sources including Jimmy Akin.

I also find it interesting that the “scholars” you quoted are ALL Protestants. Whereas they all have impressive credentials, they have a Protestant bias.

Perhaps we should start a new thread on this topic because we all seem to have veered way off course from the original topic.