Serious Question For Roman Catholics re: Canon

  • Thread starter Thread starter Justy90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some scholars have theorized that so much debating and finagling took place with regards to the sacred cannon, because it was a book invented and edited by men. Some have gone so far as to say that if it doesn’t look like a supernatural endevour (such as cannonization did not) than it most likely wasn’t.

Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of rationalists surrounding us, let us also lay aside every fantasy and the imagination which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race towards enlightenment.

See how I changed Hebrews 12:1? Just imagine how easy it would have been to do that before copyright laws! Just imagine how easy it would have been to cut or paste an entire book.
 
Voice_of_Reason said:
Some scholars have theorized that so much debating and finagling took place with regards to the sacred cannon, because it was a book invented and edited by men. Some have gone so far as to say that if it doesn’t look like a supernatural endevour (such as cannonization did not) than it most likely wasn’t.

Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of rationalists surrounding us, let us also lay aside every fantasy and the imagination which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race towards enlightenment.

See how I changed Hebrews 12:1? Just imagine how easy it would have been to do that before copyright laws! Just imagine how easy it would have been to cut or paste an entire book.
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that, when books are discovered that have been lost for, say, 2000 years and those books match the current books very closely, then this wouldn’t be the case.

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that our brother Jews didn’t have your cutting and pasting skills.
 
NotWorthy said:
Except for the fact that, when books are discovered that have been lost for, say, 2000 years and those books match the current books very closely, then this wouldn’t be the case.

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that our brother Jews didn’t have your cutting and pasting skills.
Click to expand...
How so?
 
Voice_of_Reason said:
How so?
Click to expand...
If a book discovered in the last 50 years that dates back 2000 years matches the same book that has been copied over and over again during the same span, then it looks like our Jewish and Catholic copyists took their jobs most seriously.
 
NotWorthy said:
If a book discovered in the last 50 years that dates back 2000 years matches the same book that has been copied over and over again during the same span, then it looks like our Jewish and Catholic copyists took their jobs most seriously.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see where you’re coming from. I wouldn’t say that the books exactly match though. There has been enough dissertation on the discrepencies between them. But the type of copyist mistakes I’m talking about are the ones which preceded both our Gospels and the Scrolls. As you know, both contain sections that are compiled from other fragmentary sources with sections, most puerile and fantastic, inserted to give the gospel flavour and homogeneity.
 
Voice_of_Reason said:
Oh, I see where you’re coming from. I wouldn’t say that the books exactly match though. There has been enough dissertation on the discrepencies between them. But the type of copyist mistakes I’m talking about are the ones which preceded both our Gospels and the Scrolls. As you know, both contain sections that are compiled from other fragmentary sources with sections, most puerile and fantastic, inserted to give the gospel flavour and homogeneity.
Click to expand...
You lost me on that one, brother. If they preceded our Gospels, how are they inserted to give the gospel flavour…?

I think you are belittling the integrity of the ancient copyists. If things were added, they’d be quickly figured out by copies that didn’t have the insertions. “Now see here, Brother Ichymus! Why does your Gospel of John say that Jesus sprouted wings and flew to heaven while mine says He ascended?”
 
NotWorthy said:
You lost me on that one, brother. If they preceded our Gospels, how are they inserted to give the gospel flavour…?

I think you are belittling the integrity of the ancient copyists. If things were added, they’d be quickly figured out by copies that didn’t have the insertions. “Now see here, Brother Ichymus! Why does your Gospel of John say that Jesus sprouted wings and flew to heaven while mine says He ascended?”
Click to expand...
Well, all the gospel accounts are taken from a fragmentary source for which there is no existing copy, called q. Each gospel contains some, but not all of the events and words of Jesus contained in q. Therefore, we only have a second-hand account of that from which the gospels were created (because, as is reasonably asserted, it would be utterly foolish to think the gospels were created independently of one another, but nevertheless retain similar properties in stylistics and genre).

Other things, such as the last 12 verses of the gospel of Mark, are not contained within the earliest and best copies of the bible. Nearly all scholars are certain that these verses were added by a copiest who found the original ending of Mark to be abrubt (and indeed it is: Mary Magdalene and the two other women run away, “for they were afraid”).

When the bible falls apart at even one verse, the whole of it’s essence falls into question.
 
Voice_of_Reason said:
Well, all the gospel accounts are taken from a fragmentary source for which there is no existing copy, called q].(maybe, maybe not)- the Q=quelle so called source has been whittled away the last decade or so-see a book called"the case against Q"
Click to expand...
Each gospel contains some, but not all of the events and words of Jesus contained in q. (i personally think it would be shifty of all versions totally agreed with each other-think of the gospels of four different paintings on the same suject.You have different styles, different colors different ways contructing the same theme,due to the time, place and cultural background of each painter)Therefore, we only have a second-hand account(second hand and third and fourth hand accounts are common in ancient documents.How many originals of Homer exist? or Socrates,plato,Xenophon,Polybius,Herodetus?How many accounts of say Alexander the Great were contemporary with Alexander?-NONE!) of that from which the gospels were created (because, as is reasonably asserted, it would be utterly foolish to think the gospels were created independently of one another, but nevertheless retain similar properties in stylistics and genre( again yes and no.Maybe a common source-Mark is the theory.the writers could have used the Gospel of Mark as a primary source and then added in other facts they became aware of or came across different witnesses.Gospels were written from the 60’s to around 100 AD)John’s Gospel is totally unique and unlike any of the Gospels it is not one of the Synoptics…
Other things, such as the last 12 verses of the gospel of Mark, are not contained within the earliest and best copies of the bible. Nearly all scholars are certain that these verses were added by a copiest who found the original ending of Mark to be abrubt (and indeed it is: Mary Magdalene and the two other women run away, “for they were afraid”). (additions in copies of ancient documents are not unusual.usually used to clarify)
When the bible falls apart at even one verse, the whole of it’s essence falls into question.(It really depends on which verse:rolleyes:
 
When Luther used the Jewish canon to determen what he considered scripture, and what he considered added writings, the RCC did not have a canon set in stone. It was not like Luther (ever) removed the Apocrapha. He did translate it, and he did include it in his translation, exactly as Jerome did. Secondly, the OT is a Jewish book, why should a Christian add anything that Jewish tradition never considered Scripture. That would be like some Muslum adding another book(s) to the NT.

Also, Luther did not translate the OT from the Septuagent, he translated it from the Hebrew with the help of the best Hebrew scholars that were available in Europe at the time, the Jewish Rabbis.

BTW: If you did not know, the reason all of the books of the Apocrapha were excluded from scripture by the Jewish Rabbis was, there were never any copies found that were written in Hebrew. The Rabbis reasoning was, any truly inspired (OT) scripture would be originally written in Hebrew.
 
Elder said:
When Luther used the Jewish canon to determen what he considered scripture, and what he considered added writings, the RCC did not have a canon set in stone. It was not like Luther (ever) removed the Apocrapha. He did translate it, and he did include it in his translation, exactly as Jerome did. Secondly, the OT is a Jewish book, why should a Christian add anything that Jewish tradition never considered Scripture. That would be like some Muslum adding another book(s) to the NT.
Click to expand...
You’re missing one BIG point! The entire OT is meant to point us to Christ. The Jews that rejected the Deuterocanonicals are the very same Jews that missed the boat. They looked at the very same Scriptures that you and I see and they don’t see Christ in them. So, you’re going to trust these guys with the Canon?

And you’re going to have to prove yourself with this statement.
why should a Christian add anything that Jewish tradition never considered Scripture.
How can you say the Jews never considered it Scripture when the Jews included it in the Jewish Septuagint? That makes no sense.
Elder said:
Also, Luther did not translate the OT from the Septuagent, he translated it from the Hebrew with the help of the best Hebrew scholars that were available in Europe at the time, the Jewish Rabbis.

BTW: If you did not know, the reason all of the books of the Apocrapha were excluded from scripture by the Jewish Rabbis was, there were never any copies found that were written in Hebrew. The Rabbis reasoning was, any truly inspired (OT) scripture would be originally written in Hebrew.
Click to expand...
But that’s an incorrect “fact”. The Dead Sea Scrolls, uncovered in the 1940’s (or so) have proven that the Rabbi’s and Luther were wrong in their assumption.
 
Voice_of_Reason said:
Well, all the gospel accounts are taken from a fragmentary source for which there is no existing copy, called q. Each gospel contains some, but not all of the events and words of Jesus contained in q. Therefore, we only have a second-hand account of that from which the gospels were created (because, as is reasonably asserted, it would be utterly foolish to think the gospels were created independently of one another, but nevertheless retain similar properties in stylistics and genre).

Other things, such as the last 12 verses of the gospel of Mark, are not contained within the earliest and best copies of the bible. Nearly all scholars are certain that these verses were added by a copiest who found the original ending of Mark to be abrubt (and indeed it is: Mary Magdalene and the two other women run away, “for they were afraid”).

When the bible falls apart at even one verse, the whole of it’s essence falls into question.
Click to expand...
Q is one theory. As one poster eluded, it has come under a lot of well justified criticism especially from those who hold to Matthew’s priority. There is also work on the common oral tradition that could account for literary similiarities. Have you ever examined the synoptic gospels and the differences? There are several theories for the differences.

As far as your last statement, I absolutely reject that premise. If you were a fundamentalist and heard the tired refrain, “its either all true or none of its true” and actually believed that tripe, do not expect a thinking person to accept your presupposition. Respectfully speaking of course 😉
 
Nine_Two said:
The obvious answer being that Rome was not the totallity of the Church until it decided to head off on its own. 🙂
Click to expand...
Considering that we were one at the time, I’d say that this was a stab at you as well.
 
You are absolutely correct that the purpose of the OT was to point to the Christ that was to come.

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 have the Apacrapha in both English and German so it will not be difficult for me to check the context of any quote. Just because Lutherans do not consider the Apacraphal books scripture, does not mean we do not read or study them. It is the same as the ECF’s. We do not consider the ECF writings as scripture, but that does not mean we do not study them, or use them. Actually, you will find numerous quotes from the ECF’s in the Augsburg Confession, the Apology and the Book of Concord. (the Lutheran confessions)
 
Elder said:
You are absolutely correct that the purpose of the OT was to point to the Christ that was to come.

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 have the Apacrapha in both English and German so it will not be difficult for me to check the context of any quote. Just because Lutherans do not consider the Apacraphal books scripture, does not mean we do not read or study them. It is the same as the ECF’s. We do not consider the ECF writings as scripture, but that does not mean we do not study them, or use them. Actually, you will find numerous quotes from the ECF’s in the Augsburg Confession, the Apology and the Book of Concord. (the Lutheran confessions)
Click to expand...
I have one question before I answer this: does a book of the Old Testament have to be quoted in the New Testament for it to be canonical? Is that a requirement?
 
Justy90 said:
If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, then why did Rome question the inspiration of James and Hebrews and then later accept it? Conversely Rome accepted some books as Scripture and then later rejected them. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that we can trust it as God’s one true Church, then why was it so wrong about something seemingly simple? Shouldn’t the Holy See have known all along?
Click to expand...
Where is the source for your information?
 
Justy90 just posts and runs.put some silly statement up -then just walks away:confused:
 
juliamajor said:
Justy90 just posts and runs.put some silly statement up -then just walks away:confused:
Click to expand...
Some people just have busy schedules! 😃 I understand why the OP could leave, but Elder, by his/her post, seemed to imply that he/she would be around for a while . . .
 
Elder said:
You are absolutely correct that the purpose of the OT was to point to the Christ that was to come.

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 have the Apacrapha in both English and German so it will not be difficult for me to check the context of any quote. Just because Lutherans do not consider the Apacraphal books scripture, does not mean we do not read or study them. It is the same as the ECF’s. We do not consider the ECF writings as scripture, but that does not mean we do not study them, or use them. Actually, you will find numerous quotes from the ECF’s in the Augsburg Confession, the Apology and the Book of Concord. (the Lutheran confessions)
Click to expand...
Take a look at this site

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
and this
scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

I also find the book of wisdom chapter 2 to be quite interesting. It seems to be a prophecy for the Messiah.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top