Protestant Consensus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter M.I.Knight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
michaelp:
Respectfully, this are the post facto RCC ways of dealing with such varying beliefs that I do not accept.

You must still give a good reason why the Pope, who is supposed to be the carrier of the unwritten tradition that contained the canon, did not agree with this “unwritten tradition.” Did he not believe it? Or, more likely, did not have any concept of it the way the RCC does today.
Click to expand...
As mentioned earlier, the Pope can have opinions that may fly contrary to the Catholic Church. Here is one modern day example:

CCC 2267: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

Pope John Paul II: “Today, however, as a result of steady immprovement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
 
40.png
funkyhorn:
…others include John Calvin, Erasmus, Eichorn, Dr. Whiston, James Martineau, John Oecolampadius, Zwingli, Karlstadt…
Click to expand...
Oops, I didn’t mean to stick Erasmus in there (since he was technically Catholic), but it is said that he had reservations about James, Ephesians, and Hebrews.

Sorry. Thats what I get when I Cut&Paste first and ask questions later.
 
40.png
michaelp:
But we do learn and are sharpened!!–Even if neither of us is convinced of the other position. I think that it is worth it. At the very least we will understand each other better and not talk past each other.

After all, I have more in comon with RCs than I do all liberal Protestants. What a great thing it is to hold a common confession about who Christ is.

Michael
Click to expand...
Amen, Michael! We must find common ground. The early Christians were able to convert most of pagan Rome. They were united in one mind and one heart. What an amazing feat! They were a minority group who, by their faith and love, were able to convert the masses. It’s a different story today. An unbeliever would say: “Why should I believe? There are more than 30,000 Christian denominations and they can’t even agree with eachother!” United, we can once again convert the pagans en mass.(with God’s Grace of course) A house divided will fall. Come home Michael–to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!

:blessyou:
 
40.png
josiah:
Mr. Knight. As a protestant, I accept the same NT books as you do. However, we would probably differ over the OT books that were included in the canon. The reason why I don’t believe that the Apocrypha belongs to the OT canon is because the Hebrews didn’t recognize it. Josephus (Jewish historian) denied it. The amount of errors that are contained it. It’s not quoted from in the NT. Finally, Jesus himself never recognized.

Hope this answers your question.

Josiah
Click to expand...
Hmm. Sure, okay. So why does the book of Jude refer to a book not in the ‘accepted’ canon? Pretty sure that he quotes from a book of Enoch. Your thoughts?
 
40.png
SusanG:
Hmm. Sure, okay. So why does the book of Jude refer to a book not in the ‘accepted’ canon? Pretty sure that he quotes from a book of Enoch. Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
If my memory serves me correctly the books of enoch belong to a category called OT pseudepigrapha and is not a part of the apocryphal books.

Josiah
 
Mind if I ‘but’ in. I’m Catholic and have read some of these disputed canons. They seem scriptural enough for me. No one forced me to read them, and I’m glad no one has taken them away. Seeing that my Church uses these books to make statements about belief, especially controversial belief, it seems to me that the real reason some people won’t accept these books is because of their context.

I don’t like non-Catholic commentary because so much of it seems to be contradictory, to both Catholicism, and to other Christian commentary. I may get different sermons from different preists, but it nothing like I used to get. Different scripture from different preacher.

The Eucharist is Christ.
I am enjoying this debate muchess…🙂
 
40.png
michaelp:
The LXX in Christ’s day more than likely did not include the Deuterocanonical books. At the very least, it did not contain the list advocated by Rome.
Click to expand...
This statment is unbelievable.

Consider but a fraction of the available evidence for the LXX/Deut combo:

  1. *]The Bible of modern day African Jews contains the deuts.
    *]All the Churches with ancient roots (Catholic (Western and Eastern) and Orthodox) include the deuts.
    *]The religious observation of Chanukah comes straight out of 1/2 Macabbees. (Even today some Jewish leaders are embarrassed (albeit mildly) that the scriptural underpinnings of this feast were not included in their Bible by the ancient Jewish “sages”.
    *]Jesus and the Apostles observed Chanukah (cf. John 10:22-36)
    *]In AD 367 Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria (Ground Zero for the LXX), proposed a list of LXX books which agrees with the ones we now have.
    *]The oldest major codicies contain the deuts (with one exception – and that has any number of possible reasonable explanations independent of the canon).
    *]These codicies contain the deuts interspersed among the other writings indicating they were considered of equal weight with the books of the Hebrew canon.
    *]Major Church Councils and leaders of that time concluded that the deuts were indeed a part of the Septuagint OT
    *]Hebrews 11:35-38 is undeniably a reference to 2 Maccabees 6/7
    *]Matthew 27:42-43 is undeniably a reference to Wisdom 2:12-20
    *]And most importantly, only the Christian church would have the perfect knowledge to accurately ascertain if a book was prophetic regarding the Christ. The Magisterial authority of the Chair of Moses had already been replaced by the Magisterial authority of the Chair of Peter. ONLY the Magisterium of the Catholic Church had the authority to determine the Canon of Scripture.

    There is simply overwhelming first- and second-tier evidence that the deuts (and other writings) were widely considered as part of the Septuagint. Protestant use of third-level evidence to deny this can only be attributed to bias. For example, the Hebrew canon is well known. The fact that the book of Esther was not found at Qumran is never used as a basis to conclude that Esther was not part of the Hebrew canon. On the other hand, you continue to insist that the lack of a book from one LXX collection is somehow proof that it was not in the LXX. Such reasoning, besides ignoring the obvious fact that the Writings did not have a fixed canon, is inconsistent with the argument you put forward, to say the least.

    But arguing over the canon of the LXX is a sideshow to the issue of authority. The early Church considered the LXX as sacred because the Apostles had used it and Our Lord had quoted from it. The extent of the canon was an open issue because it was ill-defined. Various solutions were proposed and one was selected (and confirmed repeatedly) at Council(s) with the approval of the pope. And there it sat for over 1,000 years until Luther came along. And the deuts were not tossed because of some “lack of inspiration.” Rather the “protestors” tossed the deuts because the deuts didn’t support their novel doctrines. We know this based on the plain statements of the leaders of that “protest” movement. They formed their doctrines and then went about de-canonizing Scripture that did not agree with them. (Hey, they must have been the first generation of liberal academics! :rolleyes: )
 
40.png
stumbler:
This statment is unbelievable.

Consider but a fraction of the available evidence for the LXX/Deut combo:

  1. *]The Bible of modern day African Jews contains the deuts.
    *]All the Churches with ancient roots (Catholic (Western and Eastern) and Orthodox) include the deuts.
    *]The religious observation of Chanukah comes straight out of 1/2 Macabbees. (Even today some Jewish leaders are embarrassed (albeit mildly) that the scriptural underpinnings of this feast were not included in their Bible by the ancient Jewish “sages”.
    *]Jesus and the Apostles observed Chanukah (cf. John 10:22-36)
    *]In AD 367 Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria (Ground Zero for the LXX), proposed a list of LXX books which agrees with the ones we now have.
    *]The oldest major codicies contain the deuts (with one exception – and that has any number of possible reasonable explanations independent of the canon).
    *]These codicies contain the deuts interspersed among the other writings indicating they were considered of equal weight with the books of the Hebrew canon.
    *]Major Church Councils and leaders of that time concluded that the deuts were indeed a part of the Septuagint OT
    *]Hebrews 11:35-38 is undeniably a reference to 2 Maccabees 6/7
    *]Matthew 27:42-43 is undeniably a reference to Wisdom 2:12-20
    *]And most importantly, only the Christian church would have the perfect knowledge to accurately ascertain if a book was prophetic regarding the Christ. The Magisterial authority of the Chair of Moses had already been replaced by the Magisterial authority of the Chair of Peter. ONLY the Magisterium of the Catholic Church had the authority to determine the Canon of Scripture.

    There is simply overwhelming first- and second-tier evidence that the deuts (and other writings) were widely considered as part of the Septuagint. Protestant use of third-level evidence to deny this can only be attributed to bias. For example, the Hebrew canon is well known. The fact that the book of Esther was not found at Qumran is never used as a basis to conclude that Esther was not part of the Hebrew canon. On the other hand, you continue to insist that the lack of a book from one LXX collection is somehow proof that it was not in the LXX. Such reasoning, besides ignoring the obvious fact that the Writings did not have a fixed canon, is inconsistent with the argument you put forward, to say the least.

    But arguing over the canon of the LXX is a sideshow to the issue of authority. The early Church considered the LXX as sacred because the Apostles had used it and Our Lord had quoted from it. The extent of the canon was an open issue because it was ill-defined. Various solutions were proposed and one was selected (and confirmed repeatedly) at Council(s) with the approval of the pope. And there it sat for over 1,000 years until Luther came along. And the deuts were not tossed because of some “lack of inspiration.” Rather the “protestors” tossed the deuts because the deuts didn’t support their novel doctrines. We know this based on the plain statements of the leaders of that “protest” movement. They formed their doctrines and then went about de-canonizing Scripture that did not agree with them. (Hey, they must have been the first generation of liberal academics! :rolleyes: )
Click to expand...

  1. Stumbler, what you have presented has been covered in many ways throughout this thread. I don’t know if you have just jumped in or just disagree with what was said earlier, but you just disregared all the evidence that has thus far been presented. Even most RC scholars say, at least, that we don’t know if the LXX contained the Deuteros. Most evidences suggests that the Alexandrian community did not include the Deuteros in their canon. Now, this does not mean that they or the biblical writers did not know of them (as your argument seems to imply I suggest) and you have therefore presented a straw man based upon your own interpretation of what you think that I said.

    The fact remains that the first century evidence concerning the canon of the Alexandrian community is summed up by the testimony of Josephus and Philo–both of whom used the LXX and both of whom did not recognize the deuteros as canonical.

    BTW: Athanasius did not include the Deuteros as you have asserted.

    Michael
 
40.png
josiah:
If my memory serves me correctly the books of enoch belong to a category called OT pseudepigrapha and is not a part of the apocryphal books.

Josiah
Click to expand...
Yes? You only further to serve my point. You stated earlier that the apocryphal books cannot be considered canon, one of the reasons being that they are not being quoted from in the NT. Here exists an ‘accepted’ book quoting from a book that is nowhere to be found. If we assume that its quotability makes it worthy of canon why is it not part of canon.

And if it is not suitable to be considered canon, why is it quoted from in NT?
 
40.png
SusanG:
Yes? You only further to serve my point. You stated earlier that the apocryphal books cannot be considered canon, one of the reasons being that they are not being quoted from in the NT. Here exists an ‘accepted’ book quoting from a book that is nowhere to be found. If we assume that its quotability makes it worthy of canon why is it not part of canon.

And if it is not suitable to be considered canon, why is it quoted from in NT?
Click to expand...
Beautifully stated SusanG! Thank YOU!
 
Why thanks CM!:o

In my past I worked feverishly as our friend does now to preserve/promote the sola scriptura doctrine, I know it well. It does my heart good to be able to present those ‘little’ facts that caused me to go digging for truth beyond what I had been spoon fed all those years.

Blessings
 
40.png
michaelp:
BTW: Athanasius did not include the Deuteros as you have asserted.

Michael
Click to expand...
Peace to you:

(With many thanks to Mark Shea)

St. Athanasius’ opinions are not infallible, and dogma develops over time. Until the Church dogmatically defines the Canon at Trent, nobody is a heretic for having an opinion about the Deuterocanonicals’ place in the Canon of Sacred Scripture, no matter how few they (like Sts. Athanasius and Jerome) are in number. It’s the Church’s dogmatic definition of the Canon, not their opinions that count. It’s not dissenters’ consensus that “negatively defines” Dogma: it’s a Council and/or Pope speaking ex cathedra. That’s why the protestant reformers are heretics: their obstinate post-baptismal denial of a dogmatically defined truth of the Church, such as the Canon of Sacred Scripture.

Forgive me because I know you don’t like lists, but for the benefit of others reading, and since you yourself, Michael, have repeatedly shown the sense of importance you give to the opinions of those of the time who were not able to proclaim defined dogma of the Church;

Widespread acceptance of the deuterocanonicals is to be found in these early Christan writings: (thanks, Mark) the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.

(Apologies for summary including those already mentioned)

And to Pope Damasus, St. Jerome only said the deuterocanonicals were not regarded as canonical by the Jews he himself knew. He emphasized his own deference to the Church’s authority in (eventually, dogmatically) defining the Canon. True to his word, when Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included them in the canon, even though the Canon would not be dogmatically defined until Trent.

(And denied by Protestant Reformers led by Luther and others.)

Here’s my source: envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

Highly recommended.

I pray I didn’t break anything by my paraphrasing Mark, in case you’re afraid to read Mark’s article without a prejudice. From your performance here, I sense you may find that difficult. I also the Holy Spirit will give you courage to read it in the presence of the Lord and that He will protect you from all error of understanding if you will read it all.

Surely the Catholic readers and lurkers here who love our Holy Mother Church, and so, trust Her Wisdom, (which is that of the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus our Christ) with our eternal lives will love Mark’s masterful article, too.

There is nothing so clear and compelling as Catholic faith explained by a former anti-Catholic.

Be not afraid! Absolute Truth is not an abstract concept, but a living person you already love whose name is Jesus Christ!

That’s my first and last here.
“The blessed Virgin Mary was good enough for Jesus… You telling me she’s not good enough for you?” -Fr. John Corapi, S.O.L.T.
 
I’ve realized that this reasearching buisness is difficult.And I am crammed for time. Can anyone please refer me to any internet sites that deal with the cannon.
 
In the current contemporary world where “HISTORY” is our greatest “guide,” why worship a "shepparding God who loves in spite of (name removed by moderator)ERfECTION?

in-spi-ra-tion (insp-rashn)n. 1. Stimulation of the mind or emotions to a high level of feeling or activity. The condition of being so stimulated. 2. An agency, such as a person or work of art, that moves the intellect or emotions or prompts action or invention. 3. Something, such as a sudden creative act or idea, that is inspired. 4. The quality of inspiring or exalting: a painting full of inspiration. 5. Theology. Divine guidance or influence exerted directly on the mind and soul of humankind. 6. The act of drawing in, especially the inhalation of air into the lungs.
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

JN 21:25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

To know God, is to begin to know a very lot more, than HUMANS can grasp. One would think humility would be born, NOT selfish Pride in One’s own ability to interprit.
 
I have not had time to read this thread fully so forgive me if I repeat anything.

There seems to be a major assumption that the disputed O.T. books from the LXX were not first written in Hebrew. In the Early Church period there were three main sources or streams of the Old Testament:
  1. The Hebrew scriptures used in Jerusalem (and used by Jesus,) of which we have no transcription today.
  2. A second variation of Hebrew which was adopted by the Jews as their main scripture after the Christians ‘stole’ the LXX.
  3. The Greek LXX translations which came from a Hebrew source other than those mentioned above. These translations included the ‘apocrypha’. They were copied and have come down to us via Christian writers who were not interested in the original Hebrew and thus its Hebrew has been lost.
With this in mind, I would like to pose a question which was asked by one of my university lecturers (a presbyterian minister):
Luther’s rule for deciding what should be considered O.T. canon was that we must have the original Hebrew for it. On these grounds the Deuterocanonical books were ruled out. What would the Protestant churches do, then, if we find their original Hebrew?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top