Serious Question For Roman Catholics re: Canon

[NotWorthy]

The purpose was to show, at the time of Luther and before that, there were some very Highly reguarded RC that agreed with Luther on teh Apocrypha, No?

And I agree. There were some highly regarded people with doubts. No honest Catholic should disagree with this statement. But… they acquiesced, like good loyal Catholics! Luther, however…

Remember, there was no agreement at that time when you condemn Luther

This is a misleading statement. You could say there was not 100% agreement, but the consensus would have been in the high 90’s. Think about it. All I’ve seen, as far as dissenting opinion, after St. Jerome in the 400’s is our good Cardinal Catjen, fully 1100 years later (give or take a few years)!!! That’s about as close to “full agreement” as you’ll ever get among fallible men, my brother. There may have been, nay there probably were, a few more dissenting opinions, but the typical “cut-n-pasting” theologian brings up the writings of Cardinal Catjen to show widespread dissention.

Take the Canon that Luther and his brothers decided on. You can not claim that there was no agreement on their Canon either, resulting in even more opposing views than from among the Catholic faithful.

 

[NotWorthy]

So: Can you give me a specifically quote where anything that is in any of the Apacraphal books that is quoted in the NT? Specifically where that quote pointed to the Messiah that was to come? (Jesus Christ specifically), and was quoted in the NT as scripture. (You know, Jesus says “…it is written…”

I want both the chapter and verse where the Apacrapha is quoted in the NT; and the book, chapter and verse in the Apacrapha to compair it to, OK?

I posted this on another thread, but I thought it belongs equally on this site.

If you do an online search, you should find an article by Mark Shea called “5 Myths about 7 books”. Here’s what Mark says about this argument that you are trying to use.

… numerous non-canonical books are quoted in the New Testament. These include the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), the Ascension of Isaiah (alluded to in Hebrews 11:37), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). If quotation equals canonicity, then why aren’t these writings in the canon of the Old Testament?

 Second, if quotation equals canonicity, then there are numerous books of the protocanonical Old Testament which would have to be excluded. **This would include the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum.** Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament.

 

[zach_dunn]

My percentage was way off! Elder only lost 28.2% of his OT. But, if they have to be quoted specifically in his special form I guess he would lose more . . .

 

[Elder]

Two questions for you:

First: Luther translated the books that were still open to dispute.and put them at the end of the OT, Just as Jerome did, with a preface, just as Jerome did. Now: how is that making up his own canon?

Second: At the time there was no “established” or set ruling on these books, so how could have Luther even acknowledged (or not) something that did not exist until after his death?

 

[NotWorthy]

Two questions for you:

First: Luther translated the books that were still open to dispute.and put them at the end of the OT, Just as Jerome did, with a preface, just as Jerome did. Now: how is that making up his own canon?

Second: At the time there was no “established” or set ruling on these books, so how could have Luther even acknowledged (or not) something that did not exist until after his death?

First: The Catholic Church considered the books as Scriptural, no mater St. Jerome’s opinion.

Second: The Church had established the Canon as Church Doctrine, albeit not Dogma. Dogma’s mainly come about to resolve something that people refuse to accept. Since there was not any significant amount of dissent in the Church over the Canon for over a 1000 years, the Church never felt compared to make the Canon a dogmatic ruling.

 

[DOShea]

The same question, however, goes to you: do you not think that a Perfect God necessitates a perfect Word, rather than one either rife with errors or fraught with obscurity? I happen to believe this, but that’s probably why I’m unable to believe as steadfastly as many.

Yes I do believe that, though I would phrase it in slightly different terms. The way you’ve phrased it seems to place a dictate on God that everything He does MUST be perfection, and I don’t think He *must/] do that every single time, especially if it does not suit His divine plan. Take a very crass but illustrative example; God miraculously heals a leper, but the fellow still has an ingrown nail or doesn’t then have perfect eyesight. Does that make God’s miracle imperfect, in that it left some imperfection to be discovered in the object of His work?

I would phrase it that God has a Divine Plan for us, and as such, He knows what we need. If it is His intent to reveal information to us, He is perfectly capable of using anything, even something imperfect, to deliver the message. If His message to us is that obedience to Him is required, then it doesn’t matter if the host of Israel fought with 10,000 men or 50,000 men against some other unimportant actual number of enemy. The part we need to know is that His will was forecast and His goals would be realized, no matter how many of His creations were involved in the event.

Coming centuries after the fact and trying to pin the validity of His message on the strict requirement that an inspired but man-written work cannot have the least error, IMHO, is to miss the point.*

 

[peary]

The bolded section isn’t correct. From Jerome up to the time of the Reformation the deutero’s had their challengers.

Certainly they had their challengers but nothing to the extent from Luther onwards. Luther also attempted to re-arrange the canon and throw out several books from the NT.

 

[avflf]

Coming centuries after the fact and trying to pin the validity of His message on the strict requirement that an inspired but man-written work cannot have the least error, IMHO, is to miss the point.

Missing the point IMHO is preaching the inerrant nature of the book and the direct divine influence on the men who wrote it and then brush aside the glaring errors in the text as inconsequential. A Book that claims extraordinary origins must present extraordinary proof of its claim. IMO the Bible does not pass the test.

 

[Elder]

Again Zach, How was what Jerome did any different than what Luther did? Luther did bend to tradition, and did translate all the Apocrypha, and did include those books in his translation of the Bible, exactly as Jerome did.

Also, exactly as Jerome did, Luther translated the OT from the Hebrew, not the septuagent, and exactly as Jerome did, Luther put a preface in the beginning of the Apocryphal books stating what he thought was scripture, and what he thought was “good reading”.

So, Jerome is OK, but just because Luther is Luther, even though he did the exact same thing, is not ok? That is not very good reasoning. I suppose you would be very surprised that a lot of faithful RC clergy, bishops and even a Cardinal or two actually thought Luther had a valid point, and also thought his translation was good enough to use themselves.

Your problem is you keep saying Luther removed accepted scripture from scripture. You are wrong, he did not, and would not. Das ist genug!

 

[DOShea]

Missing the point IMHO is preaching the inerrant nature of the book and the direct divine influence on the men who wrote it and then brush aside the glaring errors in the text as inconsequential. A Book that claims extraordinary origins must present extraordinary proof of its claim. IMO the Bible does not pass the test.

You are asserting that by “inerrant” it means there can never be ANY kind of error in anything, absolutely nothing that would conflict with anything else, thus you are assigning to the Bible a degree of perfection it does not (as is not claimed to) have. What you are describing is a “perfect book,” not the Bible.

Let’s use an example of a driver’s manual use to teach the rules to those just getting a driver’s license. Suppose I make the claim that “it inerrantly relays the rules of driving,” but I misspell the name of the State Governor on the inside cover, and in the part advising against drunk driving I cite the wrong statistics for historical convictions and arrests. The book is still inerrant, yet it contains errors. The errors are not in a place or dealing with the subject that I claim inerrancy for.

If you want to claim the Bible is in error in revealing God’s word to us, let’s hear your specific claim. What is it you think God wanted revealed that came out incorrectly in the Sacred Scriptures? You used the term “glaring errors,” so where is it that those glaring errors mess up the message?

Anyone can find what appears to be error or may be error if they look hard enough. When a biblical figure “goes up to…,” is the book in error if the person didn’t go straight north, or does it mean straight north by magnetic north, generally north, or not north at all, but only higher in elevation? Depending on your perspective, those could be or seem to be in error, but what does that have to do with God’s revelation to us about our relationship to Him and His plan for our salvation? Is any of that contingent on inerrant geographical directions? Likewise with numbers of armies, amounts of money, years an earthly king held power, etc.

 

[zach_dunn]

Again Zach, How was what Jerome did any different than what Luther did? Luther did bend to tradition, and did translate all the Apocrypha, and did include those books in his translation of the Bible, exactly as Jerome did.

Also, exactly as Jerome did, Luther translated the OT from the Hebrew, not the septuagent, and exactly as Jerome did, Luther put a preface in the beginning of the Apocryphal books stating what he thought was scripture, and what he thought was “good reading”.

St. Jerome and Luther did not even come close to doing the exact same thing. First of all, St. Jerome did not question the canonicity of any New Testament book, unlike Luther. Second, Luther thought all of the deuterocanon was “good reading,” while St. Jerome accepted the complete Esther and complete Daniel plus Judith as canonical. And third, St. Jerome understood that the Church had the last say on such matters, not individuals such as himself and Luther. He did not break away from the Church and start a heresy, he submitted to Christ’s Church as all Christians should do. That’s why Christ left a Church, to guide us on earth and to promulgate Christ’s teachings infallibly to the world.

So, Jerome is OK, but just because Luther is Luther, even though he did the exact same thing, is not ok? That is not very good reasoning.

I’ve shown you that they did not do the same thing, therefore my reasoning is sound. Even if St. Jerome and Luther did do the same thing (they did not), my reasoning would not be affected because my reason for believing the true canon is all 73 books of the Bible is not based on what man thinks (i.e. Jerome and Luther) but what God has told us through His Church.

I suppose you would be very surprised that a lot of faithful RC clergy, bishops and even a Cardinal or two actually thought Luther had a valid point, and also thought his translation was good enough to use themselves.

You have given us Cajetan and St. Jerome, that’s hardly “a lot.”

Luther and his infamous “Faith Alone Clause,” how many testimonies do you have of Catholic clergy saying that Luther’s translation was orthodox?

Your problem is you keep saying Luther removed accepted scripture from scripture. You are wrong, he did not, and would not.

What constitutes accepted Scripture to you? 100%? This is incorrect because then there would never be any accepted beliefs anywhere. The extreme majority of the Church accepted the 73 book canon. As you’ve most likely heard already, Luther found it mighty convenient to get rid of books that did not fit his own theology, too bad he couldn’t pull it off with the NT (not really). Also, the deuterocanon is not simply “accepted Scripture,” it is Scripture and now you are dealing with an incomplete canon, you are missing some of God’s word. I am right, he did, and would.

Das ist genug!

In your dreams.

 

[avflf]

You are asserting that by “inerrant” it means there can never be ANY kind of error in anything, absolutely nothing that would conflict with anything else, thus you are assigning to the Bible a degree of perfection it does not (as is not claimed to) have. What you are describing is a “perfect book,” not the Bible.

I’m happy with your explanation that the book is not perfect and it was just an account of the events that supposedly occurred in antiquity, written by men who weren’t actually witnesses to the events described and were also not very sure of the deity they worshiped.

Let’s use an example of a driver’s manual use to teach the rules to those just getting a driver’s license. Suppose I make the claim that “it inerrantly relays the rules of driving,” but I misspell the name of the State Governor on the inside cover, and in the part advising against drunk driving I cite the wrong statistics for historical convictions and arrests. The book is still inerrant, yet it contains errors. The errors are not in a place or dealing with the subject that I claim inerrancy for.

I’m with you there but the people that wrote the driving manual would not be foolish enough to claim that the manual was “God’s Word”.

If you want to claim the Bible is in error in revealing God’s word to us, let’s hear your specific claim. What is it you think God wanted revealed that came out incorrectly in the Sacred Scriptures? You used the term “glaring errors,” so where is it that those glaring errors mess up the message?

The Biblical revelation is no different from other Holy Books. The revelation part is actually the believer’s interpretation of the text. Thus in the first centuries of Christianity there were many sects each interpreting the texts according to their preconceived beliefs. When one sect of Christianity got the backing of the Roman civic power it imposed its own interpretation on everyone within the Roman world through persecution of so-called “heretics” - a word that only means “you don’t follow my rules therefore you are damned” and the destruction of the holy texts of such “heretics”

Anyone can find what appears to be error or may be error if they look hard enough. When a biblical figure “goes up to…,” is the book in error if the person didn’t go straight north, or does it mean straight north by magnetic north, generally north, or not north at all, but only higher in elevation? Depending on your perspective, those could be or seem to be in error, but what does that have to do with God’s revelation to us about our relationship to Him and His plan for our salvation? Is any of that contingent on inerrant geographical directions? Likewise with numbers of armies, amounts of money, years an earthly king held power, etc.

As you have mentioned that the Bible is not perfect I have no problem with its inaccuracies and contradictions. After all the authors were just humans.

 

[DOShea]

I’m happy with your explanation that the book is not perfect and it was just an account of the events that supposedly occurred in antiquity, written by men who weren’t actually witnesses to the events described and were also not very sure of the deity they worshiped.

I will make a deal with you. I won’t twist and pervert what you write if you don’t do that to what I write - deal?

What you wrote as “agreeing to” above is something I don’t believe and didn’t write. What I did say was that when the term “inerrant word of God” is used to describe the Bible, it does not mean it cannot contain a number that is inexact or be off by a couple years on a date, errors such as that. What I do NOT agree with is the way you’ve taken that and pushed it into statements I’ve highlighted in color above.

Nowhere did I say authors weren’t witnesses or were not sure of who they worshiped. That claim is outrageously wrong. You think the Apostles were vacationing in Syria while Christ was ministering in Palestine? I’d like to see some proof of this assertion.

I’m with you there but the people that wrote the driving manual would not be foolish enough to claim that the manual was “God’s Word”.

They would claim it to be what it is; the inerrant rules of driving, not a perfect book. If you can’t see the distinction between those two different concepts, I don’t think you will be able to understand what Christianity claims about the origin and purpose of the Bible. I asked you for an example of where you think God’s message to us was distorted or in error by the hand of men. I take note that you glossed over that without providing an answer with substance.

The Biblical revelation is no different from other Holy Books.

Sorry, you are simply mistaken about it. It is different from every other “holy book,” and the story within it bears that out. If you disagree, please provide the other holy books that contain all the following similar characteristics:

• Creation
• Covenant relationship between God and man
• Rules given to men by God
• Prophets
• A plan of redemption/salvation for man given by God
• Predictions of a coming Messiah, about 58 in all, some centuries before the fact, all of which were fulfilled by the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ

and the single most important distinction:

• A God who took human form, lived among us, died, and rose from the dead, appeared to over 500 witnesses, ascended into heaven in front of eyewitnesses.

If you know another “holy book” that describes all that, I’d be interested to know about it.

The revelation part is actually the believer’s interpretation of the text. Thus in the first centuries of Christianity there were many sects each interpreting the texts according to their preconceived beliefs. When one sect of Christianity got the backing of the Roman civic power it imposed its own interpretation on everyone within the Roman world through persecution of so-called “heretics” - a word that only means “you don’t follow my rules therefore you are damned” and the destruction of the holy texts of such “heretics”

I can’t even answer that given the limits of post length, it is so full of assertion and error. Please provide your sources for this idea. Before you do, I urge you to go read the writings of Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius; compare their description of the faith to any post-Constantine era you want, and show me the difference in beliefs.

As you have mentioned that the Bible is not perfect I have no problem with its inaccuracies and contradictions. After all the authors were just humans.

Exactly, they were humans, and because of that they could possibly err. The distinction I’ve made throughout is that the inspiration those authors received did not extend to not getting a number or date or other fact, non-essential to God’s message to us, wrong. Add to that the fact that these documents were copied and copied again, interpreted, translated, and the possibility of transcription/translation error grows. None of those, however, are beyond the power of the Holy Spirit to protect from error. Thus I don’t care if something like a host of Israel had 3,462 actual men present rather than 3,500 as written. It doesn’t alter God’s message to us.

 

[avflf]

Quote:
Originally Posted by avflf

I’m happy with your explanation that the book is not perfect and it was just an account of the events that supposedly occurred in antiquity, written by men who weren’t actually witnesses to the events described and were also not very sure of the deity they worshiped.

I will make a deal with you. I won’t twist and pervert what you write if you don’t do that to what I write - deal?

What you wrote as “agreeing to” above is something I don’t believe and didn’t write. What I did say was that when the term “inerrant word of God” is used to describe the Bible, it does not mean it cannot contain a number that is inexact or be off by a couple years on a date, errors such as that. What I do NOT agree with is the way you’ve taken that and pushed it into statements I’ve highlighted in color above.

I suppose then that you believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch and was an eye witness to the events described from Gen1:1 to Ex 2:11 or do you no longer accept Moses’ authorship or witness status to the events? If not, who wrote these passages and how did he/she know all the details presented, such as the exact words spoken by the characters described in these passages? You don’t believe direct revelation of events, just the overall message, isn’t it?
You, no doubt, believe that there was a city called Nazareth in early 1st Century Galilee, though there is no evidence that such a city existed then. You also accept that the Book of Daniel was written about 600 BCE when Biblical scholars give its date of composition to the Maccabean period and the so called “prophecies” in the book were written after-the-fact. As to the prophecies of the Messiah there is a good suspicion that the NT authors fitted them in their account of Jesus to give an aura of divinity to the stories. I invite you to visit the following URL and join the discussion there as to present all the arguments here would be time consuming and I don’t have that amount of time or patience to present all the intricate details of a proper Bible study.
groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/

 

[zach_dunn]

St. Jerome and Luther did not even come close to doing the exact same thing. First of all, St. Jerome did not question the canonicity of any New Testament book, unlike Luther. Second, Luther thought all of the deuterocanon was “good reading,” while St. Jerome accepted the complete Esther and complete Daniel plus Judith as canonical. And third, St. Jerome understood that the Church had the last say on such matters, not individuals such as himself and Luther. He did not break away from the Church and start a heresy, he submitted to Christ’s Church as all Christians should do. That’s why Christ left a Church, to guide us on earth and to promulgate Christ’s teachings infallibly to the world.

I’ve shown you that they did not do the same thing, therefore my reasoning is sound. Even if St. Jerome and Luther did do the same thing (they did not), my reasoning would not be affected because my reason for believing the true canon is all 73 books of the Bible is not based on what man thinks (i.e. Jerome and Luther) but what God has told us through His Church.

You have given us Cajetan and St. Jerome, that’s hardly “a lot.”

Luther and his infamous “Faith Alone Clause,” how many testimonies do you have of Catholic clergy saying that Luther’s translation was orthodox?

What constitutes accepted Scripture to you? 100%? This is incorrect because then there would never be any accepted beliefs anywhere. The extreme majority of the Church accepted the 73 book canon. As you’ve most likely heard already, Luther found it mighty convenient to get rid of books that did not fit his own theology, too bad he couldn’t pull it off with the NT (not really). Also, the deuterocanon is not simply “accepted Scripture,” it is Scripture and now you are dealing with an incomplete canon, you are missing some of God’s word. I am right, he did, and would.

In your dreams.

Bump for Elder.