F
fisherman_carl
Guest
Ooops!Darn you carl!!!I was waiting until he asked me to give him some examples, then I was gonna bust a few of them on him!!!
âAfter Midnight, Weâre Gonna Let It All Hang Outâ
- Status
âAfter Midnight, Weâre Gonna Let It All Hang Outâ
D
DOShea
Guest
Based on what?
Where else in literature (or anything else) does such a requirement to purge take place? We know that Issac Newtonâs theories on gravitational attraction were not precise - you know anyone that discounts gravity as a result? My biology textbook from college has Haekelâs embryos in there, a photo of his classic forgery. Should I disbelieve in mitochondria, DNA, and cell walls as a result of it?
What makes the Bible âfall apartâ is when people try to give it a quality it doesnât have and never claimed to have. It isnât a history book, so not every detail can be viewed in light of the Bible is true if it happened exactly as described, or is false if it didnât. One of the classic examples of this is the future archaeologist who digs up a writing from the 20th century and finds a phrase in among the other factual things that says, âIt was raining cats and dogs.â Aha! Discounting the presence of felines and canines in the atmosphere then proves all other facts in the writing wrong - right? An accounting of what the author meant when he wrote it has to happen somewhere. That base exegetical principle is held not only by the Catholic Church, but by every legitimate institute of biblical study.
Numbers in the bible, particularly the OT, are notoriously symbolic. So when we read someone did something 7 times, we have to try and determine whether the author meant one more than 6, or meant something more along the lines of âa completeâ or âprefectâ number of times, which could really mean 4 actual times; or 23.
When people trip over their own exegesis, often the result of isolating versus without regard to how it fits the rest of the collection of books, it can appear to have a different meaning than what the author meant when he wrote it. The classic example of this is Jesus saying âI am the doorâŚâ If you donât connect that with the rest of the Bible, with the prophecies of a coming Messiah in the OT and His testimony about His mission here in the NT, you end up concluding Jesus was made of wood and had hinges on one side, a latching mechanism on the other. But you canât conclude that if your exegesis must mesh with everything else, else you have to show how light ("I am the lightâŚ) and living bread ("I am the living breadâŚ) are also made of wood.
Bear in mind also the Bible is many different books in one binding. Some problem or difficulty with one book doesnât diminish the value of all the others.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I wasnât aware this was a requirement. I also wasnât aware that any of the Deuterocanonicals were prophetical, which would be why we see, âFor it is writtenâŚâ. I thought they were historical as well as wisdom literature.
Can you enlighten me?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
The OP may be referring to Eusebius. I am not sure however.
âŚ
âŚ
N
NotWorthy
Guest
One more thought on this question of yours.
You seem to be setting a double standard with this question.
So, let me ask you,
A) Does the fact that something is quoted in the NT determine whether it is OT Scripture? or
B) Do our brother Hebrews (who happened to have rejected the Christ that the OT Scriptures point to) determine what is in the OT Scripture?
Youâve used both of these reasonings and they seem to be diametrically opposed.
T
thomas_jd
Guest
The bible now ordinarily used by english speaking people âCatholicsâ is a translation of the vulgate, made at Douay Rheims. St Jerome translated the Old Testament from hebrew to latin; the new testament based on greek, into latin. Catholic authority???
Romes duty is to question.
p.s. I ommitted St Jerome was the POPES secretary.
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
Anyone interested may find the three-part video on âOrigin of the Bibleâ helpful.
alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html
alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html
E
Elder
Guest
Hej igan folks, I get the thread by email, so I have read quite a bit, so may I clear a couple things up.
1: Yes, the Good Lord willing I will be with this thread a bit longer, at least that is my intention.
2: it is âheâ, there are no female âeldersâ in the ELS and yes, I am an Elder (and old too). However, I am on the West coast and I have a very ill wife of over 40 years that I am trying to take care of, so pleaseâŚ
I did look at the links you provided and I guess you misunderstood me. I agree that the OT pointed to Christ, and there are many references to that fact in the NT. And I also agree there are a lot of places in the Apocraoha that speak of the coming Messiah, and I realize that also. All of the quotes supplied can be referenced back to OT books, not Apocraphal booksâŚsoâŚHowever your links did not provide what I was looking forâŚ
Can you show me where, in all of those quotes, if I missed where (very speifically) the Apocrapha is quoted in the New Testement in the form âit is writtenâŚâ Chapter and verse in the NT and matching Chapter and verse in the Apocrapha. It does have to be verbatum, just really close, OK?
Here is my understanding. Scripture was inspired by God, that which is scripture cannot be questioned, and everything taught by man is to tested aginst what is written in Scripture.
All other things, what the Apocrapha, the ECFâs, Luther, Calvin, my pastor, your own Bishop, teach must be compaired to what accepted scripture teaches, and where they agree, ok, where no, they are to be questioned and rejected as doctrine.
The best example I can think of is Calvinâs doctrine of OSAS. Scripture does not even come close to teaching OSAS, so in my eye, everything taught by Calvin is suspect. Do I make sense? I read all of the ECFâs and the Apocrapha the same way.
If you look at what the ECFâs accepted as scripture you will find great variety, but there is one common thread in what they do acceptâŚIf it was quoted in the writings of the Apostles (Gospels and Epistles) in the form âit is writtenâŚâ where that quote came from, the whole book was considered scripture.
1: Yes, the Good Lord willing I will be with this thread a bit longer, at least that is my intention.
2: it is âheâ, there are no female âeldersâ in the ELS and yes, I am an Elder (and old too). However, I am on the West coast and I have a very ill wife of over 40 years that I am trying to take care of, so pleaseâŚ
I did look at the links you provided and I guess you misunderstood me. I agree that the OT pointed to Christ, and there are many references to that fact in the NT. And I also agree there are a lot of places in the Apocraoha that speak of the coming Messiah, and I realize that also. All of the quotes supplied can be referenced back to OT books, not Apocraphal booksâŚsoâŚHowever your links did not provide what I was looking forâŚ
Can you show me where, in all of those quotes, if I missed where (very speifically) the Apocrapha is quoted in the New Testement in the form âit is writtenâŚâ Chapter and verse in the NT and matching Chapter and verse in the Apocrapha. It does have to be verbatum, just really close, OK?
Here is my understanding. Scripture was inspired by God, that which is scripture cannot be questioned, and everything taught by man is to tested aginst what is written in Scripture.
All other things, what the Apocrapha, the ECFâs, Luther, Calvin, my pastor, your own Bishop, teach must be compaired to what accepted scripture teaches, and where they agree, ok, where no, they are to be questioned and rejected as doctrine.
The best example I can think of is Calvinâs doctrine of OSAS. Scripture does not even come close to teaching OSAS, so in my eye, everything taught by Calvin is suspect. Do I make sense? I read all of the ECFâs and the Apocrapha the same way.
If you look at what the ECFâs accepted as scripture you will find great variety, but there is one common thread in what they do acceptâŚIf it was quoted in the writings of the Apostles (Gospels and Epistles) in the form âit is writtenâŚâ where that quote came from, the whole book was considered scripture.
V
Voice_of_Reason_1
Guest
You donât think a perfect God necessitates a perfect Word?As far as your last statement, I absolutely reject that premise. If you were a fundamentalist and heard the tired refrain, âits either all true or none of its trueâ and actually believed that tripe, do not expect a thinking person to accept your presupposition. Respectfully speaking of course
I see where youâre coming from. Iâm not talking about how scripture can be interpreted in different ways (although notoriety, as youâve termed it - perhaps not to mean unfavourably known - is a good term for it). 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 thatâs probably why Iâm unable to believe as steadfastly as many.
P
peary
Guest
Historically, that is not true. The Church always upheld the Canon as is. It was only in the time of Luther that challenges to the canon were posed. Thatâs why at the Council of Trent, the Church emphatically stated that the books that comprised the Bible were all inspired.
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
I hate to rain on your parade, but if the only books of the Old Testament that are canonical are the ones quoted in the New Testament in the form âit is writtenâŚâ your Old Testament canon just shrunk by at least 40%. The fact is that the majority of the Old Testmant is not quoted in that form, including the (so-called) âapocrypha.â If your assertion is correct, YOU should be able to give US a quotation of that form from every book in your Old TestamentâŚgood luck. Once the canon was figured out by the Church in the late fourth century, the canon remained that way until the Protestant âReformation,â some people may have questioned the canonicity of some of the books (rately happened, if ever) but everyone knew that the Church had the sole authority to determine the canon, no fallible man like Luther. But this just devolves into another debate about the Church which will eventually devolve into another discussion about Sola ScripturaâŚ
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Iâm not sure if this is entirely true. I believe our Greek Orthodox brothers have an extra book or two in the Old Testament. I thought there was an extra Maccabees and/or and Ezra or two.
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
I hate to rain on your parade, but if the only books of the Old Testament that are canonical are the ones quoted in the New Testament in the form âit is writtenâŚâ your Old Testament canon just shrunk by at least 40%. The fact is that the majority of the Old Testmant is not quoted in that form, including the (so-called) âapocrypha.â If your assertion is correct, YOU should be able to give US a quotation of that form from every book in your Old TestamentâŚgood luck. Once the canon was figured out by the Church in the late fourth century, the canon remained that way until the Protestant âReformation,â some people may have questioned the canonicity of some of the books (rately happened, if ever) but everyone knew that the Church had the sole authority to determine the canon, no fallible man like Luther. But this just devolves into another debate about the Church which will eventually devolve into another discussion about Sola ScripturaâŚ
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
The bolded section isnât correct. From Jerome up to the time of the Reformation the deuteroâs had their challengers. You can go to the following websites for more information:
www.handsonapologetics.com
www.newadvent.org (searh old testament canon)
Iâve read quite a bit on the subject of the OT canon and it appears that many folks (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) overstate the facts surrounding the detueroâs. Before Trent their appears to be some freedom as to whether one accepted the detueroâs as canonical and this is the general trend we see.
Jeromeâs prologues to the deteroâs which were included as prefaces to each deutero in the Vulgate quite clearly expressed his view that the detueroâs were not to be held on par with the canonical scriptures. These prologues apparently caused more than a few to doubt the canonocity of the deuteroâs. We even see the Tridentine fathers having some degree of debate regarding whether or not the deuteroâs were to be included in the canon.
What we donât see (at least as far as I know) is anyone correcting those who doubted the inspiration of the deuteroâs by referencing one of the North African councilsâŚor even the council of Florence. The reason I bring this up is to illustrate that while the Church certainly listed the canonical books early on, it didnât do so in such a way as to be binding on the church universal until Trent. Since the issue wasnât ânailed downâ it shouldnât be surprising that there was some rejection given the stance of Jerome and some other fathers on the issue.
E
Elder
Guest
Cardinal Catjen, Lutherâs adversary, and probably the foremost RC scholar of the day wrote this:
âHere we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.â
(In ult. Cap. Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48.)
âHere we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.â
(In ult. Cap. Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48.)
N
NotWorthy
Guest
It seems that our good Cardinal Catjen was wrong, in his understanding. We all KNOW that there were the Synod of Rome as well as the Councils of Carthage and Hippo which defined the Canon of the Old Testament and these included the 7 deuterocanonicals as Scripture. St. Jerome did raise objections and Cardinal Catjen also disagreed⌠and there were a few other objecters as well. That does not rule out the fact that the Catholic Church overwhelmingly agreed that the Deuteroâs were considered Scripture.
E
Elder
Guest
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? Remember, there was no agreement at that time when you condemn Luther
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
Addendum: While St. Jerome had critical views on the deuterocanon, he included them in the Vulgate, but why? Because he understood that he did not have the authority to make such a call, he knew the Church alone had that authority, something all Protestants should wake up and recognize.
Also, Iâd like to point out that St. Jeromeâs critical views of the deuterocanon are not as clear-cut as Protestants would like them to be:
But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.
, Book IIApology Against Rufinus, 33.
St. Jerome might not have accepted all of the deuterocanonical books, but he did accept some, and he knew that the Church had authority over him.
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
You donât understand this: it does not matter whether or not some individual Church members accepted them or not.
Christ gave the Apostles the power to âbind and looseâ together, not individually (that was reserved for Peter alone).
E
Elder
Guest
Iâm sorry, I misspelled the Englis of the cardinals name. if you wish to look it up it is also spelled Cajetan or De Vio, Cajetan will be how to find a Wiki on him.
- Status