S
stumbler
Guest
That’s my understanding. But I’ve also never seen a Protestant who was phased by that.
- Status
B
BlueMit11
Guest
Well, when people so blatantly abandon reason, they must realize on some level that they are truly going against the Truth. Perhaps they have too much pride to finally admit they were wrong? Either way, the frowny face was well merited.That’s my understanding. But I’ve also never seen a Protestant who was phased by that.
J
josiah
Guest
Everyone thank you for your feedback. You all gave me something to think about. However, I didn’t see any posts that tried to reconcile the fact that there are alot of errors in the apocrypha. I’m sure that most of you believe as I do in the inerrancy of Scripture. Including the apocrypha would seem to undermine that.
Peace
Josiah
Peace
Josiah
M
michaelp
Guest
It seems to be that many of you have some misconceptions about the validity of the LXX (Septuaguint) argument.
You must understand that it is disputed whether or not these books were included in the LXX since the earliest copies that we have are fourth-century and each extant copy of the LXX contains lists of the deuterocanonical books that differ. Even if they were, this does not necessarily prove that the Alexandrian community believed them to be inspired since people would often include writings on one scroll that were both canonical and those that contained general religious value.
The majority of the evidence suggests and Josiah has so well presented that the LXX probebly did not contain the Deuterocanonical books and if they did, the evidence is conclusive that they were mixed up as to what books it contained. Even the RC Church does not mirror the LXX in its canon, because all the extant copties are different. You may need to do some first hand research on this yourselves.
As well, you all must understand that Josiah and myself, being Protestants are under no obligation to accept or reject the Apocrapha. If the evidence suggests that we should accept it, I would accept it. That does not mean that I become RC, it just means that I have the freedom to look at the evidence objectively. Part of what it means to be a Protestant is that we are able to think for ourselves (as dangerous as you see this). Therefore, when we reject the Apocrapha, it is not because our tradition demands it. RCs on the other hand must accept it out of necessity, no matter what the evidence says.
In short, I don’t think you ought to accuse Josiah of following along with his traditions, since being Protestant means that we are able to think for ourselves.
Respectfully, that is one of the great things about the Protestant recovery of knowledge, truth, and ownership in your beliefs.
Hope that you all are doing well.
Michael
You must understand that it is disputed whether or not these books were included in the LXX since the earliest copies that we have are fourth-century and each extant copy of the LXX contains lists of the deuterocanonical books that differ. Even if they were, this does not necessarily prove that the Alexandrian community believed them to be inspired since people would often include writings on one scroll that were both canonical and those that contained general religious value.
The majority of the evidence suggests and Josiah has so well presented that the LXX probebly did not contain the Deuterocanonical books and if they did, the evidence is conclusive that they were mixed up as to what books it contained. Even the RC Church does not mirror the LXX in its canon, because all the extant copties are different. You may need to do some first hand research on this yourselves.
As well, you all must understand that Josiah and myself, being Protestants are under no obligation to accept or reject the Apocrapha. If the evidence suggests that we should accept it, I would accept it. That does not mean that I become RC, it just means that I have the freedom to look at the evidence objectively. Part of what it means to be a Protestant is that we are able to think for ourselves (as dangerous as you see this). Therefore, when we reject the Apocrapha, it is not because our tradition demands it. RCs on the other hand must accept it out of necessity, no matter what the evidence says.
In short, I don’t think you ought to accuse Josiah of following along with his traditions, since being Protestant means that we are able to think for ourselves.
Respectfully, that is one of the great things about the Protestant recovery of knowledge, truth, and ownership in your beliefs.
Hope that you all are doing well.
Michael
R
rlg94086
Guest
It’s also one of the worst things. How many Protestants decide for themselves that certain sins are okay because they determine that it’s not spelled out clearly enough in the Bible. It’s very seductive not to submit to authority.
Good to have you back Michael
.God Bless,
Robert.
M
michaelp
Guest
Good to be here Robert.It’s also one of the worst things. How many Protestants decide for themselves that certain sins are okay because they determine that it’s not spelled out clearly enough in the Bible. It’s very seductive not to submit to authority.
Good to have you back Michael
God Bless,
Robert.
BTW: I am not in the habit of justifying sins . . . at least I try not to.
M
Mickey
Guest
Dear Josiah,
The following is an excerpt from an article by Mark Shea. I hope it answers your question.
The deuterocanonical books contain historical, geographical, and moral errors, so they can’t be inspired Scripture.
This myth might be raised when it becomes clear that the allegation that the deuterocanonical books were “added” by the Catholic Church is fallacious. This myth is built on another attempt to distinguish between the deuterocanonical books and “true Scripture.” Let’s examine it.
First, from a certain perspective, there are “errors” in the deuterocanonical books. The book of Judith, for example, gets several points of history and geography wrong. Similarly Judith, that glorious daughter of Israel, lies her head off (well, actually, it’s wicked King Holofernes’ head that comes off). And the Angel Raphael appears under a false name to Tobit. How can Catholics explain that such “divinely inspired” books would endorse lying and get their facts wrong? The same way we deal with other incidents in Scripture where similar incidents of lying or “errors” happen.
Let’s take the problem of alleged “factual errors” first. The Church teaches that to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must have in mind what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion.
For example, when Jesus begins the parable of the Prodigal Son saying, “There was once a man with two sons,” He is not shown to be a bad historian when it is proven that the man with two sons He describes didn’t actually exist. So too, when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the “rich man” who stole a “poor man’s” ewe lamb and slaughtered it, Nathan is not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or identify the two men in his story. In strict fact, there was no ewe lamb, no theft, and no rich and poor men. These details were used in a metaphor to rebuke King David for his adultery with Bathsheba. We know what Nathan was trying to say and the way he was trying to say it. Likewise, when the Gospels say the women came to the tomb at sunrise, there is no scientific error here. This is not the assertion of the Ptolemiac theory that the sun revolves around the earth. These and other examples which could be given are not “errors” because they’re not truth claims about astronomy or historical events.
Similarly, both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors, not because they’re presenting bad history and erroneous geography, but because they’re first-rate pious stories that don’t pretend to be remotely interested with teaching history or geography, any more than the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are interested in astronomy. Indeed, the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like “Jack the Giant Killer” or “Aladdin.” Just as one wouldn’t wave a medieval history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins “once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the land,” so Catholics are not reading Tobit and Judith to get a history lesson.
M
Mickey
Guest
Article continued:
Very well then, but what of the moral and theological “errors”? Judith lies. Raphael gives a false name. So they do. In the case of Judith lying to King Holofernes in order to save her people, we must recall that she was acting in light of Jewish understanding as it had developed until that time. This meant that she saw her deception as acceptable, even laudable, because she was eliminating a deadly foe of her people. By deceiving Holofernes as to her intentions and by asking the Lord to bless this tactic, she was not doing something alien to Jewish Scripture or Old Testament morality. Another biblical example of this type of lying is when the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh about the birth of Moses. They lied and were justified in lying because Pharaoh did not have a right to the truth - if they told the truth, he would have killed Moses. If the book of Judith is to be excluded from the canon on this basis, so must Exodus.
With respect to Raphael, it’s much more dubious that the author intended, or that his audience understood him to mean, “Angels lie. So should you.” On the contrary, Tobit is a classic example of an “entertaining angels unaware” story (cf. Heb. 13:2). We know who Raphael is all along. When Tobit cried out to God for help, God immediately answered him by sending Raphael. But, as is often the case, God’s deliverance was not noticed at first. Raphael introduced himself as “Azariah,” which means “Yahweh helps,” and then rattles off a string of supposed mutual relations, all with names meaning things like “Yahweh is merciful,” “Yahweh gives,” and “Yahweh hears.” By this device, the author is saying (with a nudge and a wink), “Psst, audience. Get it?” And we, of course, do get it, particularly if we’re reading the story in the original Hebrew. Indeed, by using the name “Yahweh helps,” Raphael isn’t so much “lying” about his real name as he is revealing the deepest truth about who God is and why God sent him to Tobit. It’s that truth and not any fluff about history or geography or the fun using an alias that the author of Tobit aims to tell.
A
adnauseum
Guest
Do I understand you to be saying that while much of what you said is factually wrong, still there should be enough smoke as to cause us to suspect a fire?
For me, you lost me when you tried to imply Origen rejected the apocrypha, which I happened to know to be false because the direct evidence was literally in my lap at the time.
From that point on you might as well have been speaking arabic. I saw your motives completely differently.
Sorry, but it’s true. I don’t respect the “one free fib” rule. You are making serious charges against the Church. You have an obligation to take it seriously and not play fast and loose with the facts.
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
Hi josiah!
I think it might be more accurate to say that the Bible is “inerrant” rather than “infallible”.
In any case, the Bible is inerrant in that which is was intended to teach. The Bible was never intended to be used as a history or geography textbook.
In Christ,
Nancy
S
stumbler
Guest
Mickey lists some good points starting in post 47 above.
Also, I think the Protestant complaint of “error” in the deuteros is logically inconsistent on their part. The exact same charge of “error” is made by non-Judeo-Christians against the Bible as a whole. The same logic used by Protestants to defend their Bible against the accusations of atheists ought to be applied here. Considerations of genre, purpose, audience, etc. need to be employed.
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
M.I. Knight:
I have a question for those who believe in “Sola scriptura”. How do you know which books belong in the Bible?================================================================================================
Hi M.I., Thats a tough one, Seems many are walking with a bible in thier hand with a different thickness. Many like to pull pages out that they feel do not apply for today.This really applys to many of us not just protestants. Oh I dont believe in this or that and out the pages come.Just keep what is in red and throw out the rest. That way you know what Jesus said.God Bless
B
BlueMit11
Guest
So you have thought for yourself and gone back to each book and scripture and justified their inerrancy? If you haven’t, why not? The only other conclusive reason you should accept them as inerrant is because of the teaching authority of the Church. I am curious, as others have asked, what exactly your justification for accepting scripture is. Is it some circular argument that uses Scripture itself as a source? Is it some subjective argument that says that you “feel” it is inerrant? If you can come up with a better reason than the Church that Jesus Christ himself established and gave authority to determined it, then you’ll really impress me.
M
michaelp
Guest
I am somewhat of a skeptic by nature, so . . . yes . . . I do question all of the books to some degree. I believe that the method that I use is the same method that common sense would tell us to use.
Here is the method with the Old Testament: Whatever Scripture Christ used we should use and accept since there was obviously no canon controversy in His day (outside of that which existed between the Sadducees and the Pharisees–but Christ cleared this one up on numerous occations). He referred to the Scriptures as if everyone believed in the same canon. The overwhelming amount of evidence by unbiased research says that Christ and the Apostles did not use the Deuterocanonical. Now anyone can scew the evidence to fit whatever scheme they would like. But intellectual honesty must be our guide, not folk theology (theology bent on tradition rather than objective justification). That is why I find it persuasive that those who are not necessarily bound to “infallible” tradition (i.e. non-catholics) ALL come to the same conclusion–the deuterocanonicals are not part of the canon.
Here is my method with the New Testament: Whatever books that were written by an Apostle or close associate of an apostle (so that a living Apostle could validate), written in the first century, contain religious value, did not contradict previous revelation, and/or were accepted by the majority of the Body of Christ, I accept. I do not see the Body of Christ as an institutional authority, but as a Spirit led body that has both individually and collectively the witness and power of the Holy Spirit within them (what you seem to right off as purely subjective, meaning of no value).
Hope this helps,
BTW: Did you get my point about the fallacy of using the LXX?
Michael
S
stumbler
Guest
I think you are misrepresenting the “argument” on this thread. Where does Josiah make the point you claim? If you wish to make a new argument, then do so. But to then claim Josiah has presented it “so well” is very misleading.
And as to your new claim, you need to provide some evidence that “the LXX probebly did not contain the Deuterocanonical books.”
Are you now saying that the LXX does contain deuteros? You’re exact argument seems confused.
Furthermore, each extant copy of the Bible contains textual errors. Does that mean they are all wrong? Do you hold that those chapters and/or books with errors should be tossed out?
Catholics do not make an argument based on the “belief” of the “Alexandrian community”. Nor do we say that the books of codex A or the books of codex B prove canonicity. It seems you misunderstand the Catholic position.
What proves them to be inspired is the action of the Church Councils under the authority of the Pope who were given the power of binding/loosing by Christ. Augustine sums it up nicely when he said “I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.”
You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the Catholic argument.
By what man-made criteria do you, as an individual, determine divine inspiration?
Not exactly. Catholics make a choice to obey the leaders of Christ’s church. Protestants make a choice to follow their personal opinions.
Respectfully, I don’t find this argument at all persuasive. Under what authority and using what technique does a Protestant “thinking for himself” determine the canonicity of a particular writing? How is it that a Protestant “thinking for himself” is right but I, as a Catholic “thinking for myself” that the Church has authority, am somehow wrong?
The sad reality is that modern Protestants accept their canon because it was passed on to them by other Protestants. And going to the source, what authority did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others have to set their canon? What signs did they present us that prove they knew God’s will?
M
michaelp
Guest
I did not say that it would be persuasive to you, I just said that he has done a good job . . . even if you disagee with his conclusions.
Like I said, you have to decide which Deuterocanonical books that you wish to find in the LXX. The earliest copies are only fragments and do not contain the Deuterocanonical’s at all (although they are only fragments). The two complete sets that we have date to 350 and contain different lists. Which list do you go by?
Have you studied the issues about the canon of the LXX?
Your right, in fact to NT alone has over 300,000 variants in the extant manuscripts. But the only way that this arguement you make could be a true comparison is if one of the variants was a missing book. Have you studied textual criticism?
Some Catholic do, some don’t. Most informed Catholics will not refer to the LXX in any way as definitive proof. I think that it is wise of you to punt your reasoning to the Catholic church rather than the evidence, if you want to defend the inclusion of the Deuterocanonicals. It is better to appeal to your authority than to try to make other arguments. Then the argument becomes: Is your authority valid . . . but that is a different issue.
Like I said, since the evidence seems lacking, this is an understandable recourse.
This is the argument that other Catholics made here on this thread concerning the LXX, not me.
Apostolicity is the primary criteria. Read my response above.
You are just saying the same thing that I said, just with a Catholic spin.
Because once you have given decision making authority over to someone/something else, you necessarily de facto hand over your right to think for yourself.
Read my argument a couple of posts above.
I appreciate your time. I know that it takes a while to think these things through. I hope that you are having a good day.
Michael
M
MarkAnthonyCozy
Guest
I have learned quite a bit reading these posts. One thing is for sure, I don’t possess enough intelligence to be a Protestant.
I would need to have a lot of faith in myself, or in God giving me special knowledge, to oppose anyone who dedicates their life to Jesus Christ. Whether they be Catholic or Protestant.
I just know my Savior, Jesus Christ. And I have come to know him more fully by yielding my pride and self awareness to the simplicity of the Host elevated before God’s people.
I am made happy in the simplicity of a child before my Father in heaven basking in the warmth of the Holy Spirit. What else could there possibly be?
Let us not lose that love that first brought us, and follow where the love of Christ leads us.
Consensus?
I would need to have a lot of faith in myself, or in God giving me special knowledge, to oppose anyone who dedicates their life to Jesus Christ. Whether they be Catholic or Protestant.
I just know my Savior, Jesus Christ. And I have come to know him more fully by yielding my pride and self awareness to the simplicity of the Host elevated before God’s people.
I am made happy in the simplicity of a child before my Father in heaven basking in the warmth of the Holy Spirit. What else could there possibly be?
Let us not lose that love that first brought us, and follow where the love of Christ leads us.
Consensus?
F
funkyhorn
Guest
Did you read my earlier post? Jesus DID quote from the deuterocanonicals…AND the Septuagint. The evidence is right there in the New Testament that you do accept.
This is a VERY shaky assumption. I would argue that there in fact WAS a “canon controversy” in His day since there were at least 4 different canons floating around and the issue was even debated by the Jews well after the council of Jamnia.
Overwhelming? Unbiased? Can you provide references for these claims? Maybe you’ve found evidence that I haven’t looked at yet, but as far as I can tell from the early Church Fathers, the Apostles, and Christ Himself, they all used, taught from, and/or even explicitly named the deuterocanonicals as divinely inspired and canonical. I will admit that there were a few of the early Church Fathers who said otherwise, but I would say that the overwhelming majority favored the Catholic Canon…and I would consider the early Church Fathers to be more unbiased than any soure you will find today since there were no “denominations” to sway opinions, only heretics
.
M
michaelp
Guest
Frankly, if I used the criteria that is used there to say that Christ did quote from the Deuterocanonicals, I could say that Christ quoted from Moby Dick. Besides, the main point is that he never quoted from the Deuterocanonicals referring to this as Scripture with the normal wording, “It is written” or “The Scriptures say . . .” as He (and the rest of the Apostles) does when referring to the Old Testament.
The only one of “significance” that is evidenced in the first century is that between the Pharisees and Saducees. Christ settles it in favor of the Pharisees canon (Matt 22:23-34).
Would you agree that whatever Christ believed to be Scripture should be what we believe to be the Old Testament?
If I am not mistaken, that is what we have been discussing. Do you mean references to books that have been written concerning this subject?
Some Church fathers believed in some books of the Deuterocanonical books and some did not. When they did accept some, there was usually not agreement on which ones. The dispute went on until it was officially decided upon by Trent.
Christ and the Apostles never quote the Deuterocanonicals or even one representative book of the Greek canon as Scripture. It is debated whether they even referred to them at all. We can discuss individual instances if you would like. Do you know of any instances where even one of the Deuterocanonicals is quoted explicitly as Scripture? If so, I would like to discuss it.
Athanasius, Cyril, John of Damascus, Melito, Victorinus, Julius Africanus, Jerome, Gregory Nazianzen, just to know a few of the earliest.
Unbiased . . . how about their bias against the Jews?
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Your argument is severely undermined by the fact that there was no established canon at the time of Christ. Since you are aware of the “council” of Jamnia (a.d. 90, a half-century after Christ’s death), you know that was the first attempt at establishing a canon and that was not even a body with the authority to establish a canon. Just a quick look at the situation during Christ’s lifetime reveals the lack of a canon. The Sadducees accepting only the Torah. The Pharisees accepted only the Torah and the Nevi’im; this is also a form of “canon” referred to by Jesus when he tells us that all of the law and the prophets can be summed up by love God and love your neighbor. In addition to the Law and the Prophets there were the writings, but the writings were still at an uncertain stage. They did not yet carry the same authority as the other two divisions of Scripture. Aside from their lesser level of authority the list was also not settled. A look at the Qumran community shows the Books of Jubilees and Enoch, for example, read in the same way as other Scriptures. Those two books were also used in many early Christian communities during the formative years of the canon.
It’s already been noted that 80% of NT quotations are from the Septuagint translation. Paul, in fact, quotes ecxlusively from that version of Scripture. You claim that since he didn’t quote from the deuterocanonical books he thus did not regard them as authoritative. But it makes far less sense to make the claim that Paul did not regard any books as Scripture other than those quoted by him (for I don’t suppose he quoted every single book of even the Masoretic canon) than it does to suppose that he quoted from a canon he considered authoritative. Claiming that a single quote from a division of Scripture indicates acceptance is meaningless because the matter at hand is which books belong to those divisions, not whether some nebulous groups were considered scriptural.
- Status