Questions About the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal Books

  • Thread starter Thread starter CuriousDave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SWR11 said:
No doubt Luther included the Deutorcanonical books, but he did not consider them inspired. Blessings
Click to expand...
Here, I must note that Christ founded an authoritative Church, not an authoritative Luther. Which do you follow?
 
po18guy said:
Here, I must note that Christ founded an authoritative Church, not an authoritative Luther. Which do you follow?
Click to expand...
Scripture, for it alone is infallible. All authority is derived from Scripture. Luther did not determine the extent of canon, only accepted what was already accepted. Luther also recognized that authority came from God based on His revelation. Blessings
 
SWR11 said:
Why is there a gap in the inter-testamental period? Blessings
Click to expand...
Have a look at this Bible time line. To me, it makes no sense that God would be silent, scripturally speaking, during the period of major warfare and religious/political turmoil in Israel and Judah - the time which was preparatory for the birth of Christ. A time in which the Law was restored to Israel so that Christ could be born under the law.
 
SWR11 said:
Scripture, for it alone is infallible. All authority is derived from Scripture. Luther did not determine the extent of canon, only accepted what was already accepted. Luther also recognized that authority came from God based on His revelation. Blessings
Click to expand...
God Himself in Christ is not infallible? WOW!

I think you are conflating infallibility with inerrancy, are you not?

Where does the bible claim that it is inerrant?
 
SWR11 said:
Scripture, for it alone is infallible. All authority is derived from Scripture. Luther did not determine the extent of canon, only accepted what was already accepted. Luther also recognized that authority came from God based on His revelation. Blessings
Click to expand...
Where does scripture tell you how many books, and which books are to be in the bible?

Easy: It does not.
 
SWR11 said:
Most of the father’s interpreted that passage to mean upon his confession of faith, and not any special authority or privilege accorded to Peter alone. And it is the confession that builds the Chruch, which is included in the message that went out with the Apostles and other’s who spread the word. Blessings
Click to expand...
Most of the fathers? Or just, most of the reformers? Sources, please!

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter himself, and not merely on Peter’s faith. It is much easier to understand Peter’s role of leadership by reading Acts. He is clearly the leader of the Church. One such example, there are others, is Acts 15:7 where Peter addressing the other Apostles clearly states his leadership role: "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth…"

In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome “holds the presidency” among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree” with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is “the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”

Most significant are the passages in which the popes, by their statements or their actions, reveal their understanding of their own authority in the Church, such as when Pope Clement I commanded the church of Corinth to reinstate its leadership (this was in 80 AD!), or when Pope Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor as a group, after which the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind *but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication. *

All of the Apostles were to be sifted by Satan, but it was only to Peter that Christ’s prayer was offered up.

It was only to Peter that Christ gave the command to “feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep.”

It was only on Peter that Christ said He would build His Church.
 
Scripture, for it alone is infallible.
Click to expand...
To me, this sounds uncomfortably close to idolatry. What it factually says is “me, and my opinion of God’s word is infallible”
 
Erich said:
Most of the fathers? Or just, most of the reformers? Sources, please!

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter himself, and not merely on Peter’s faith. It is much easier to understand Peter’s role of leadership by reading Acts. He is clearly the leader of the Church. One such example, there are others, is Acts 15:7 where Peter addressing the other Apostles clearly states his leadership role: "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth…"

In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome “holds the presidency” among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree” with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is “the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”

Most significant are the passages in which the popes, by their statements or their actions, reveal their understanding of their own authority in the Church, such as when Pope Clement I commanded the church of Corinth to reinstate its leadership (this was in 80 AD!), or when Pope Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor as a group, after which the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind *but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication. *

All of the Apostles were to be sifted by Satan, but it was only to Peter that Christ’s prayer was offered up.

It was only to Peter that Christ gave the command to “feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep.”

It was only on Peter that Christ said He would build His Church.
Click to expand...
For our brother (if he is baptized, he is a brother) to assert that Peter was not the earthly foundation of the Church (with Christ as the cornerstone) calls his knowledge of scripture into question. One must choose to ignore vast amounts of New Testament scripture to deny Peter as the rock. One must willingly indulge their anti-Catholic and anti-Orthodox bigotry to believe thusly. It seems to me that one must reduce faith from a quest for God’s revealed truth, to a mere worldly competition between teams of men. If that is the case, such thinking and action is spiritually dangerous. This very aptly demonstrates the error of private interpretation of scripture outside of Church authority.
 
po18guy said:
God Himself in Christ is not infallible? WOW!

I think you are conflating infallibility with inerrancy, are you not?

Where does the bible claim that it is inerrant?
Click to expand...
Scripture could only be infallible if it had an infallible source. Infallibility also includes inerrancy. PS 119:160, Ps 138:2 (more implied), Mt 24:35 (eternal nature of God’s word), John 17:17, those are the few I can think of right now. If Scriptures were not inerrant we would not have any reason to believe them. This is my last post po18. Blessings
 
Erich said:
Most of the fathers? Or just, most of the reformers? Sources, please!

It was only to Peter that Christ gave the command to “feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep.”

It was only on Peter that Christ said He would build His Church.
Click to expand...
This link will take you to an informative article. I will be leaving this discussions after this post. Blessings

%between%
 
SWR11 said:
Scripture could only be infallible if it had an infallible source. Infallibility also includes inerrancy. PS 119:160, Ps 138:2 (more implied), Mt 24:35 (eternal nature of God’s word), John 17:17, those are the few I can think of right now. If Scriptures were not inerrant we would not have any reason to believe them. This is my last post po18. Blessings
Click to expand...
Wait! You can only learn here. Unless you don’t want to.

Show me protestant unity - based on the bible. Interpretation matters. Authority matters. How do you know the devil is not interpreting for you?
 
SWR11 said:
No doubt Luther included the Deutorcanonical books, but he did not consider them inspired. Blessings
Click to expand...
So…where is Luther’s authority to consider what is inspired and what is not?

And if you follow a 66 book Bible…where did that authority come from to use a 66 book bible when Christendom, prior to 1520 or so…had always used a 73 book canon?

So if you are following a 66 book bible…would you have an incomplete bible?
 
SWR11 said:
Most of the father’s interpreted that passage to mean upon his confession of faith, and not any special authority or privilege accorded to Peter alone. And it is the confession that builds the Chruch, which is included in the message that went out with the Apostles and other’s who spread the word. Blessings
Click to expand...
Fortunately for Catholics…truth is not determined by a majority.

There are also father’s who wrote the opposite of what you say.

But your mistake is you separate the faith of Peter…Peter and his faith are inseparable…so it is both Peter and his faith…which built the Church…from day one of Pentecost…and you can see his actions in the opening chapters of Acts.

And unfortunately for protestants generally, when your truth is determined by the majority…it has resulted in splits…and never ending splits.
 
pablope said:
So if you are following a 66 book bible…would you have an incomplete bible?
Click to expand...
The uncomfortable answer is: yes. But, until the ego is subjected to God, an incomplete bible combined with opinion-driven interpretation knows all.
 
SWR11 said:
This link will take you to an informative article. I will be leaving this discussions after this post. Blessings

%between%
Click to expand...
Right back at you: Since you came here in the first place, you are a seeker. Chances are that you are not in the same church that you began in. If you want to know what Catholics believe, and why, please have a look through Catholicism for Dummies. I do not expect you to agree, but at least you will know why we believe what we believe.
 
  • The Jews made the Septuagint before Christ. It is a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.
  • Their was no official Jewish canon or accepted list of books by Jews until the 2nd century AD. For example, the Sadducees only accepted the first 5 books of the bible, the Torah. The Pharisees accepted more books.
  • Many Jews used the Septuagint. Many Jews who had adopted Greek as their native language used the Greek Septuagint. Just as people who move to another country adopt the language of the country they have moved to.
  • The Sadducees were mostly wiped out after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The Pharisees decided on the Jewish canon in 2nd century AD. We see the writings of the Pharisees discussing which books should be in their canon in the 2nd century.
  • They did not consider the Septuagint authoritative because it was written in Greek. Although they did not include those other books in the canon they still kept them as a useful reference. The book of Maccabees for instance is the only record of where the Jewish feast of Hannukah comes from.
  • The Catholic Church used the Septuagint which is why it has those books. The reason it uses it is because that is what the Jewish Apostles and early Christians used. Of the 360 quotes in the NT of the OT, 300 are from the Septuagint.
  • Quotes in the NT do not guarantee canonization of a book. Paul quoted a Greek writer who wasn’t even a Christian. Also, the book of Enoch is quoted in the NT. So is the Assumption of Moses. Yet neither of these books is considered scripture.
  • Lack of quotes in the NT does not mean something is not scripture either. There are books in the Protestant OT that are not quoted in the NT. These books are Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum and Zephaniah.
  • Holy Spirit goose bumps do not guarantee canonicity of a book either. When was the last time Ecclesiastes gave you goose bumps?
  • The Catholic Church determined the canon based on the Tradition that was passed on to them. If a book was considered divinely inspired it could be read in the Mass. If something was contrary to Tradition like various gnostic books they were rejected.
  • Every ancient Christian bible in existence today uses the Septuagint. There are no Jewish copies of the Septuagint remaining today. It is the Christians who preserved the Septuagint.
If you accept the Protestant canon then you are using the tradition of the Pharisees who rejected Jesus. The CC uses the Christian Tradition of the Apostles who wrote the NT.

I hope I remembered everything right. If you want more technical information I recommend this CD - ignatiusproductions.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=IP&Product_Code=6595&Category_Code=CD

I also highly recommend this book - “By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition” by Mark P. Shea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top