Protestant Consensus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter M.I.Knight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M.I. Knight:
Dear Josiah,

Thanks for giving me your source. I will now go and research your information to make sure it is true. If I find out it is not true, you will be the first to know. Thanks and God bless you.
Click to expand...
Dear Mr Knight:

Do your research thoroughly and you will surely discover the truth behind all the anti-dueterocanonical arguments. I’m not an apologist, but I’ve read the arguments on both sides, (including those that Mr. Josiah is trying to make), and you will find that the Catholic and Orthodox teachings are true and valid. Keep in mind, that the protestant truly believes what he/she is saying. Most of the time they are not intentionally trying to be anti-Catholic. Take your time, and read everything–you will find the truth! There is a plethora of information and historical validation.
:blessyou:
 
Mickey,

I was just reading your last post and I was just wondering what you thought about the information that I’ve laid out on the table. I know that your initial reaction is probably something like “Heretical protestant…what does he know” but that’s okay. I’m curious how you filter what I’ve said. Does it make sense? I’m not trying to bash only trying to reason. Let me know.

Josiah
 
40.png
josiah:
Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and The great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha.
Click to expand...
I am sitting in my den, reading a collection of works by Origen in which he cites the book of Wisdom right along side the other books.

This seems to contradict your claim.

I just thought Mr. Knight should know this.
 
Dear Friends,

Thankyou for all the Catholic and Protestant information. I will now go and research this information myself. Thanks and God Bless you all.
 
Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:

Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a “virgin” shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a “young woman” shall conceive.

Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make “His paths straight.” Hebrew - make “level in the desert a highway.”

Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - I desire “mercy” and not sacrifice. Hebrew - I desire “goodness” and not sacrifice.

Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4 - in His name will the Gentiles hope (or trust). Hebrew - the isles shall wait for his law.

Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.

Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 - teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).

Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has “perfect praise.” Hebrew - thou has “established strength.” Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” :blessyou:
 
in 1529,martin luther proposed to adopt the 39-book canon used by rabbinic judaism as the ot canon. luther justified his decision to delete seven books from the ot by appealing to st jerome who, around ad400,had expressed concerns that these greek books had no hebrew counterparts. however,research into the dead sea scrolls found at qumran has discovered ancient hebrew copies of some of the dispute books, making their rejection unsupportable on those grounds. the principle reason luther seems to have opposed the additional books of the christian ot is that they taught doctrines he DIDNOT LIKE, such as praying for the dead (maccabees2,12:42–45). but here is the real question: which ot would you rather use–the ot used by jesus,the nt writers and the early church, or the ot used by later jews who rejected christ and persecuted CHRISTIANITY?:blessyou:
 
40.png
josiah:
Mickey,

I was just reading your last post and I was just wondering what you thought about the information that I’ve laid out on the table. I know that your initial reaction is probably something like “Heretical protestant…what does he know” but that’s okay. I’m curious how you filter what I’ve said. Does it make sense? I’m not trying to bash only trying to reason. Let me know.

Josiah
Click to expand...
Well Josiah,
You have misinterpreted or been misinformed about St. Jerome’s Statements about the Deuterocanonicals.
I think that you should consider that Jerome, (unlike Martin Luther), humbly submitted his private judgement to the authority of the Church and included all seven books in his Latin Vulgate translation. Now, since you cited him as a case in point, let me suggest that you follow his lead and acknowlege that these books were in the OT of Jesus’ day.

Supposedly they were questioned because they had no Hebrew counterparts, yet there were copies of some of these books found with the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid 1900’s, so that answers that concern.

I might also point out that when people try to say that they are not quoted in the NT they are patently wrong, since even Protestant scholars Gleason Archer and G.C. Chirichigno, In their book Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey state that out of some 373 quotes of the OT in the New, 340 of them are from the Septuagint. That means that over 90% of the OT quotes of the NT are from the very sources that you have want to reject. Even so, some non-Catholic denoms today also accept these books as canon.

The non-Catholics that reject them follow the same Jewish scholars who rejected Christ. then Martin Luther, who started all this mess was so fouled up that he not only rejected these books but took out 4 books of the NT as well because they don’t line up with his new doctrines of Scripture alone and faith alone. He refered to James as “the epistle of straw” and said he hated the book of Esther and wished that it had never been written. This is the “scholar” that you follow in rejecting these books which were included in the canon by the early church (since they used the Septuagint) and that is the main reason that “the Jews became more and more disenchanted with it.” (according to Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce). For 16 centuries there was no challenge to the OT canon as Catholics have it today. Yet non-Catholics follow the advice of one MAN who rejected books of the uncontested NT canon because they didn’t support his new doctrines.

Me…Sorry, but there’s no way I’d listen to Martin Luther about the Bible. That’s just wrong.
Nor would I believe the new doctrines that he (and subsequent men) have espoused for the last 487 years in spite of the scriptural and historical evidence that shows that the early church didn’t believe them either. I reject them because (among other things) the people who preach them cannot even agree among themselves. Yet the Catholic Church has a 2,000 year history of consistent doctrines and loving protection of the scriptures, in spite of some of the human failings of men along the way. Those doctrines are the same… and that’s that.
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
josiah:
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Here in the above verse, Jesus divides the written word of God into three categories…
Click to expand...
Jesus mentions three major categories of Scripture, but He makes no statement that confines Scripture to these three categories alone. Just because Jesus mentions three categories of writings in the OT doesn’t exclude the possibility that there are other writings or categories of writings, especially since Jesus’ purpose isn’t to define Scripture here…he simply mentions three parts of it. Concluding that Jesus defines Scripture as these types of writings alone doesn’t make sense since Jesus teaches from the deuterocanon and quotes from the Greek translation, which include the historical texts in addition to the law, prophets, and psalms.
40.png
josiah:
…Jesus seems to exclude the Apocrypha in his statement in Luke 11:51 - “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation” (NKJV)…
Click to expand...
Jesus DOES use the deuterocanonicals in his teachings:

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.
40.png
josiah:
…Matt. 5:18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.

A Catholic Bible commentary says the following about the above verse:

jot or tittle: “Jot” refers to yôd, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet; “tittle” is a slight serif on a Hebrew letter that distinguishes it from another, similarly formed letter.
Source: The New Jerome Bible Commentary, copyright 1990, 1968, by Prentice Hall, Inc., ISBN 0-13-614934-0, page 641.
So it would seem, based on the above Catholic commentary, that Catholics do, in fact, accept that Christ was referring to scripture in the Hebrew language, and NOT a Greek translation!..
Click to expand...
And, Jesus DID use the Greek translation:

Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint – “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” Hebrew - a commandment of men (not doctrines).

Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 - Jesus says, “I desire “mercy” and not sacrifice.” Hebrew - I desire “goodness” and not sacrifice.

Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10 - Jesus quotes Isaiah from the Greek translation–heart grown dull; eyes have closed; to heal. Hebrew - heart is fat; ears are heavy; eyes are shut; be healed.
 
40.png
Josiah:
As a protestant, I accept the same NT books as you do.
Click to expand...
For what reason? There was never a consensus as to the NT canon EXCEPT when the Church produced one in the late 4th century.

It seems to me that the only defensible basis for the NT canon is the action of the late 4th century church. They at least claim some authority. By what authority do Protestants claim that they can distinguish sacred from non-sacred NT writings?
 
40.png
Josiah:
The reason why I don’t believe that the Apocrypha belongs to the OT canon is because the Hebrews didn’t recognize it.
Click to expand...
You’re forgetting that the Septuagint was translated, approved and circulated by the Jewish authorities. It was rejected after 350 years of use, not because of some fundamental flaw, but because it was such an effective tool for the Christians.

The “Hebrew canon” argument also seems flawed to me because Protestants, out of necessity, must reject the Hebrew text. Otherwise you would have Jesus born not of a “virgin,” but a “young woman” (and countless other text discrepencies introduced by new Jewish translations designed to hurt the Christian sect). Aren’t Protestants saying in effect “we accept the Hebrew canon, but reject the Hebrew text”?

I would further point out that (in obvious hindsight) the Septuagint was all part of God’s plan. It was precisely the combination of factors present at that time (including the Hellinized Jewish diaspora, the widely-accepted Setuagint, the use of Greek in the Gentile world, and God’s command to evangelize the Gentiles) that allowed the church to spread so effectively against such great odds. A purely Hebrew OT would not have been useful for most Jews nor to the early church evangelists nor to the Gentile audience.
 
40.png
Josiah:
Jesus himself never recognized [them].
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Jesus knew the church was going to use the Septuagint which contains the deuterocanonicals. Jesus quotes directly from the Setuagint. And neither Jesus (nor the apostles) ever states that these books are to be avoided. A sin of ommission then? 😛
 
40.png
Josiah:
Let’s look at how Christ declared the Hebrew canon. Luke 24:44/Luke 11:51. . .
Click to expand...
On the contrary, there was no closed OT canon when Jesus arrived. The Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch. The Pharisees accepted a fuller canon including Psalms and the prophets. Depending on the audience, Jesus referred only to their particular books. In Luke 11 Jesus is speaking at a gathering of Pharisees. And the simple fact is that there is nothing in the context of these verses that indicates Jesus was setting a canon, throwing out scrolls, or defining criteria for Scriptural canonicity.
 
40.png
Josiah:
Catholics do, in fact, accept that Christ was referring to scripture in the Hebrew language, and NOT a Greek translation!
Click to expand...
Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience. He is widely regarded as having written in Aramaic. We don’t have the Aramaic original, but we do have the Greek translation which, for example, uses “iota” (smallest letter of the Greek alphabet) not “jot.” The Hebrew “jot” is a reverse translation guess. It could just have easily been “yod” from the Aramaic (NOTE: The ancient Syriac Peshitto does use “yod” in Matthew).
 
Church Militant:
Well Josiah,
You have misinterpreted or been misinformed about St. Jerome’s Statements about the Deuterocanonicals.
I think that you should consider that Jerome, (unlike Martin Luther), humbly submitted his private judgement to the authority of the Church and included all seven books in his Latin Vulgate translation. Now, since you cited him as a case in point, let me suggest that you follow his lead and acknowlege that these books were in the OT of Jesus’ day.

Supposedly they were questioned because they had no Hebrew counterparts, yet there were copies of some of these books found with the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid 1900’s, so that answers that concern.

I might also point out that when people try to say that they are not quoted in the NT they are patently wrong, since even Protestant scholars Gleason Archer and G.C. Chirichigno, In their book Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey state that out of some 373 quotes of the OT in the New, 340 of them are from the Septuagint. That means that over 90% of the OT quotes of the NT are from the very sources that you have want to reject. Even so, some non-Catholic denoms today also accept these books as canon.

The non-Catholics that reject them follow the same Jewish scholars who rejected Christ. then Martin Luther, who started all this mess was so fouled up that he not only rejected these books but took out 4 books of the NT as well because they don’t line up with his new doctrines of Scripture alone and faith alone. He refered to James as “the epistle of straw” and said he hated the book of Esther and wished that it had never been written. This is the “scholar” that you follow in rejecting these books which were included in the canon by the early church (since they used the Septuagint) and that is the main reason that “the Jews became more and more disenchanted with it.” (according to Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce). For 16 centuries there was no challenge to the OT canon as Catholics have it today. Yet non-Catholics follow the advice of one MAN who rejected books of the uncontested NT canon because they didn’t support his new doctrines.

Me…Sorry, but there’s no way I’d listen to Martin Luther about the Bible. That’s just wrong.
Nor would I believe the new doctrines that he (and subsequent men) have espoused for the last 487 years in spite of the scriptural and historical evidence that shows that the early church didn’t believe them either. I reject them because (among other things) the people who preach them cannot even agree among themselves. Yet the Catholic Church has a 2,000 year history of consistent doctrines and loving protection of the scriptures, in spite of some of the human failings of men along the way. Those doctrines are the same… and that’s that.
Pax vobiscum,
Click to expand...
CM, I just love reading your posts. Your church history and doctrinal statements are a symphony of logic, reason, and truth. I can only hope to be as good and apologist as you are one day.
Peace of the Lord be with you!👍
 
40.png
Josiah:
Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and The great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha.
Click to expand...
Origen quotes from the deuterocanonicals without distinction. Jerome accepted the deuteros fully. That a few fathers may have expressed concern about the status of some or all of the deuteros is wholly insufficient as evidence for rejecting them.

Clearly, as is widely acknowledged by serious Protestant historians, the vast majority of the early church fathers supported the inclusion of the deuteros in the canon. For example:

"In post-NT times, the Christian Fathers down to the later 4th cent. almost all regarded the LXX as the standard form of the OT. . . "
– The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p 1260

“Down to the 4th century, the Church generally accepted all the books of the Septuagint as canonical. Greek and Latin writers alike (e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian) cite both classes of Books without distinction….”
– The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p 70-71

“For the great majority [of Western Fathers], however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense.”
– renowned church historian and patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper, revised edition of 1978, 55-56

"instigated by the use made of it (the Septuagint) by Christians against themselves, the Jews condemned this version and made the Hebrew canon their Bible, thus rejecting the books of the Apocrypha from their list of canonical writings, and departing from . . . the custom of Christian churches which continued with isolated remonstrances to make the Greek OT canon, with which the Vulgate agrees almost completely, their standard. "
– The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, General editor: James Orr, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1939
 
40.png
Josiah:
The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (ca. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of divinely inspired canon.
Click to expand...
It is a Protestant myth that the (non-authoritative) council at Jamnia (Jabneh/Javneh) set the Hebrew canon. There is no evidence that this group produced a list of books, discussed more than a couple of the deuteros, or set a final canon. (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 861) This unsubstantiated claim was first circulated by Protestant author H.E. Ryle and it was quickly snatched up by eager Protestant apologists.

The Hebrew canon was in flux until about AD 300, obviously well after the NT writings were completed. For more info:
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
 
40.png
Josiah:
Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher (20 B.C.- A.D. 40) quoted extensively from virtually every canonical book but never once quoted the Apocrypha as inspired.
Click to expand...
Again, there was no infallible canon at that time. A Sadduccee teacher would have only quoted from the Pentateuch. Obviously, such a self-imposed limitation does not prove anything about canonicity.
 
40.png
josiah:
Mickey,

I was just reading your last post and I was just wondering what you thought about the information that I’ve laid out on the table. I know that your initial reaction is probably something like “Heretical protestant…what does he know” but that’s okay. I’m curious how you filter what I’ve said. Does it make sense? I’m not trying to bash only trying to reason. Let me know.
Click to expand...
Dear Josiah,

No. What you said does not make sense. All your (logic)? was addressed by Mary Hart, Church Militant, Funkyhorn, and Stumbler. Please read their posts. According to the Catholic encyclopedia, a believer accepts the whole deposit of faith as proposed by the Church ( the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition). A heretic acepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. Are you a heretic? That is not my judgement call.
:blessyou:
 
40.png
stumbler:
It is a Protestant myth that the (non-authoritative) council at Jamnia (Jabneh/Javneh) set the Hebrew canon. There is no evidence that this group produced a list of books, discussed more than a couple of the deuteros, or set a final canon. (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 861) This unsubstantiated claim was first circulated by Protestant author H.E. Ryle and it was quickly snatched up by eager Protestant apologists.

The Hebrew canon was in flux until about AD 300, obviously well after the NT writings were completed. For more info:
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
Click to expand...
Yes, but they Jews at Jamnia did condemn the gospels, didn’t they? That in itself should be sufficient evidence for ignoring whatever it was that they did decide there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top