SHORTENED: The Catholic Church compiled the holy Bible in the 4th century.

[joe370]

Brian, you said the following as if the early church was not the CC:

The Gospels are based on the tradition of the early church? Can you clarify what you mean?

Can you clarify what you mean? The leaders that convoked and settled the matter as to what would be included in your bible and what would not be included, belonged to the present day CC which was the only church that existed for the first 1000 years of Christianity, with the exception of heretical movements.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Well then provide some evidence that LDS believe, honor, or pray to anyone but God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost

You got it.

Bringing up exhaltation is a red herring

• catholic Theosis
• timing is kinda , like , after the end of the world

There’s a big difference between theosis and apotheosis.

Apotheosis is not taught in the Bible. In fact, the desire for apotheosis–to be a god–is what lead to original sin:

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 3:1-5[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Cat_Herder]

You just pointed out that the Eastern Catholic churches have 3rd Maccabees in their biblical canon. Roman Catholics do not have 3rd Maccabees in their canon. This is a difference between the canons. Thus, for the OP to be true, it would seem that the Holy Spirit would have to be saying one thing in Rome and another thing in Constantinople.

Eastern Catholic. C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C. Not Orthodox. The same authority (i.e. the Pope—in Rome) has approved both “canons” (which here just means what books are used in the liturgy.) Istanbul/Constantinople has nothing to do with it.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Eastern Catholic. C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C. Not Orthodox. The same authority (i.e. the Pope—in Rome) has approved both “canons” (which here just means what books are used in the liturgy.) Istanbul/Constantinople has nothing to do with it.

Actually, there are Byzantine Rite Catholics–so this has everything to do with it–but let’s try a different tack here.

The churches that eventually became what we now refer to as Orthodox Churches have different Bibles (in content) than do Roman Catholics. To illustrate, take a look at the table of contents from an Orthodox Study Bible. In the Orthodox Study Bible you will find books of the Bible that are not included in the Roman Catholic canon–but are part of Orthodox Canon. (You can probably view the table of contents on amazon.com.) These differences among the biblical canons go back to the promulgation of the Septuagint and substantially pre-date the Great Schism. Therefore, to claim that the West, who again has a different canon, received special divine revelation regarding THEIR own particular canon from the Holy Spirit (which I think is the basic premise of the OP) to the expense of the Eastern churches and THEIR canons–who I’m sure will claim equal parts guidance from the Holy Spirit–is somewhat problematic. Alternatively, I suppose you could argue that the Holy Spirit simply lead each church to develop their own unique canon. So my question for the OPer would be: “Which Bible?”

You also might want to take a look at the Decrees of the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Actually, there are Byzantine Rite Catholics–so this has everything to do with it–but let’s try a different tack here.

Bottom line is that the Catholic Church is fine with the books you are alleging are exclusive to the Orthodox. You aren’t getting out of this one by redirecting to the Orthodox and ignoring the ECCs. Sorry.

Please either explain why the ECCs are not Catholic or else put away the grand conspiracy theory.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Did the CC, in the 4th century, convoke and determine that the following books (which were questioned by some, in certain parts for 2 centuries, as to their apostolic authenticity) - were to be part of the canon, which became binding for all Christians:

Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and James

Yes or no???

No, they simply made a formal pronouncement on what had become the general consensus.

I would like to go back to something since the discussion got away from me. You said in post #20,

“Some church leaders like Clement of Rome believed and quoted the book of Hebrews in a letter which he wrote in approximately A.D. 95, while some in other parts of the known world question its authenticity.”

Here is one of those quotes from Clement:

“By Him the Lord has willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge, ‘who, being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.’” (Clement)

Don’t you find it odd that a fist century bishop of Rome would quote Hebrews as Scripture, but it took the western church 300 years to acknowledge it as such?

You also said,

The book of Hebrews was considered questionable until the CC bishops decided otherwise.

So let me ask you, who in the east questioned it? Didn’t Origen say that although its authorship is uncertain, it is not inferior to any of the books acknowledged to be apostolic?

 

[Cat_Herder]

No, they simply made a formal pronouncement on what had become the general consensus.

Please explain why this pronouncement (which included the deuterocanon) is not authoritative.

Don’t you find it odd that a fist century bishop of Rome would quote Hebrews as Scripture, but it took the western church 300 years to acknowledge it as such?

Not at all.

 

[joe370]

Hey Brian…

=Brian Culliton;7177810]No, they simply made a formal pronouncement on what had become the general consensus.

If I can show you that history reveals that some of the books of the bible were accepted by one council and then rejected by another as being apocryphal, and that which was left out by the former as apocryphal, was then taken in by the latter as canonical, then will you still say:

No, they simply made a formal pronouncement on what had become the general consensus?

I would like to go back to something since the discussion got away from me. You said in post #20,

Here is one of those quotes from Clement:

“By Him the Lord has willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge, ‘who, being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.’” (Clement)

Don’t you find it odd that a fist century bishop of Rome would quote Hebrews as Scripture, but it took the western church 300 years to acknowledge it as such?

I didn’t say everyone questioned the authenticity of Hebrews. Clearly you believe that it was rejected by many people of authority, in certain parts of the known world for the first couple centuries - right? Why the need for successive councils to debate the matter if the matter was already settled. They should of just convened, made a formal pronouncement on what had become the general consensus, and closed the matter once and for all, but that’s not what happened at all.

Sidelight:

Brian, Ignatius, another first century bishop who believed what the CC believes vis-a-vis the Eucharist. Was he wrong???

You also said,

So let me ask you, who in the east questioned it? Didn’t Origen say that although its authorship is uncertain, it is not inferior to any of the books acknowledged to be apostolic?

Yup. But others question its authenticity. He did doubt the authority of the letter to the Hebrews, of the letter of James, of Jude, of the Second of Peter, and the Second and Third of John; while, at the same time, he was disposed to recognize as canonical certain apocryphal scriptures, such as those of Hermas and Barnabas. In addition to the apocryphal books named, Origen also accepted as authoritative the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Egyptians, Acts of Paul, and Preaching of Peter. Clearly the matter was not settled.

Historical fact: Most Christians, as I once did, believe that all of the books of the Bible, and only the books of the Bible, have been accepted as canonical by all Christians in every century which is not true at all. In every age of the church there have been Christians who either rejected some of these books, or who accepted as canonical, books not contained in the Bible. Not one of the five men who contributed most to the formation of the canon, (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Jerome, and Augustine) - accepted all of these books. Am I wrong??? Prove it and I will retract that statement.

The third century Muratori canon, omitted Hebrews, James, First and Second Peter, and Third John. The Apostolic canon omitted Revelation, and included First and Second Clement and the Apostolic Constitutions. Why didn’t this canon look our present day canon??? I ask with humility.

Here is another example: Eusebius, gave a list of the acknowledged and disputed books of the NT. The disputed books (books which some accepted and others rejected) - were Hebrews, James, Second and Third John, Jude, Revelation, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Acts of Paul, and Revelation of Peter. Brian, if they were disputed, and they were, who settled the matter once and for all?

Athanasius rejected Esther, and Epiphanius accepted the Epistle of Jeremiah. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Gregory, Bishop of Constantinople, both rejected Revelation. Chrysostom, omitted ten books from his canon: First and Second Chronicles, Esther, Job, and Lamentations, five books in the Old Testament; and Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation, five books in the New Testament. That doesn’t sound like a consensus. These were different CC leaders who disputed books that made it into the canon. How can you say:

No, they simply made a formal pronouncement on what had become the general consensus.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Bottom line is that the Catholic Church is fine with the books you are alleging are exclusive to the Orthodox. You aren’t getting out of this one by redirecting to the Orthodox and ignoring the ECCs. Sorry.

Please either explain why the ECCs are not Catholic or else put away the grand conspiracy theory.

Unfortunately, I don’t think we are communicating, because I never said that the ECCs were not Catholic.

So, I will try to make the question still simpler: Does the Catholic Church teach that
3 Maccabees is to be considered part of Sacred Scripture or not–is it in or out? Seems like an important question and relevant to the OP. I would say that according to the decrees of the Fourth Session of Trent the answer is “no”–it’s not to be included in Sacred Scripture; but if you have evidence to the contrary I’d love to see it.

 

[Zooey]

You just pointed out that the Eastern Catholic churches have 3rd Maccabees in their biblical canon. Roman Catholics do not have 3rd Maccabees in their canon. This is a difference between the canons. Thus, for the OP to be true, it would seem that the Holy Spirit would have to be saying one thing in Rome and another thing in Constantinople.

No, what appears is the simple fact that the Eastern Orthodox have traditionaly had a looser, less defined explanation of " inspiration" & “canonical”.
Now that I think of it,it would appear that the EOs have a less exact explanation of a lot of things.

Curiously, Luther did just that (gave credit and thanked the Catholic Church for preserving scripture through the centuries)!

Jon

Yes, indeed. And so did the founders of Methodism.
This nonsense about “trails of blood” & fundamentalist Protestants roaming about the streets of the ancient world? Inventions, entirely.

Hey Zooey

, I agree with you. That was not my post.

This is what happens when an old lady stays up past her bedtime & tries to answer three questions in one post.
Or maybe it was hauling the vittles to the aging tyrannosaurus in the garden shed….

 

[Cat_Herder]

Does the Catholic Church teach that
3 Maccabees is to be considered part of Sacred Scripture or not–is it in or out?

As Zooey just said, the canon is not a system of “yes” or “no.” Read the Fourth Decree of Trent:

They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

Yes, 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras etc. are not on the list. But the Anathema does not condemn the books about which you are complaining. Thus, they fall into a secondary status which may be used liturgically. Hence the ECCs can and do use those books liturgically. As Zooey notes, the Orthodox definition of “canon” is different and does not have this distinction.

 

[simspt]

The fact that the canon developed over time, and the way in which it developed, does not diminish the church in any way, **but it does refute the idea that the church came together in the late fourth century and infallibly decided which books should be included. **
I think what Catholics who make this claim want is for Protestants to thank the Roman Catholic hierarchy for giving them their Bibles. And what I find most fascinating about that is they also claim the Holy Spirit guided the church in creating the canon, yet, incredibly, they are not asking us to thank God for our Bibles. That fact speaks far louder than any of their assertions.

Yes, but faith in whom? And does it even matter? If the writings in the canon are bringing people to Christ, does it really matter if they were all genuine authentic apostolic writings? I think the vetting Eusebius described in his Ecclesiastical History was very thorough and can be reasonably trusted. I certainly don’t remember him or anyone else claiming their decisions to be infallible.

The Gospels are based on the tradition of the early church? Can you clarify what you mean?

How can something that developed and changed be the same? True there’s a succession, but what does that mean? If I ask a Catholic to substantiate apostolic validity of their “Sacred Traditions,” do you think they could do it? Is there any reasonable tractability back to the apostles for all those doctrines they are required to believe?

As an RCIA student, can you tell me what exactly is the base and pillar of the Roman Catholic Church?

That is an excellent question! That is exactly the question I have been asking those who have been asserting that the church infallibly decided which books belong in the canon. If it was truly infallible, then it wasn’t the church that decided it.

**I claimed that what the apostles taught concerning the Gospel of Christ was infallible teaching based on the authority given to them by Christ for that purpose. ** I didn’t say anything about differentiating between books. However, 22 of the 27 books can be traced to the 1st century church, which makes the probability of them being authentic apostolic works nearly certain.

How do you think the Catholic Church’s judgements on what to include or exclude, what to recognize as orthodox or heretical influenced your belief that the Apostles teachings about Christ were infallible?

Does it matter if the books that were viewed by the CC as authoritative corresponded to the deeds and sayings of Jesus? Im sure plenty of Gnostic writings helped bring people “to Jesus” just as many Mormon writings do today. Obviously it matters if one of these is more faithful to the testimony of the Apostles and Christ. As far as apostolic authorship of the canonical writings, to me it doesnt matter if they were written by eye witnesses or written by followers of eyewitnesses a few generations afterwards. Either way we are left putting our faith in those first generations of Christians testimony that was handed down through the Church.

Many things change and develop while remaining essentially the same.

To my understanding there were Christians before any NT writings existed. The early church through apostolic (first few generations of Christians)preaching eventually put into writing the oral testimony of the Apostles/first disciples some time between 50-125. The gosples to my understanding were based on the early traditions of the Church.
catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_HistTruthFitzmyer.htm

I think the OP is implying that many Protestants take for granted the judgements made by the CC on matters regarding the canon.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

If I can show you that history reveals that some of the books of the bible were accepted by one council and then rejected by another as being apocryphal, and that which was left out by the former as apocryphal, was then taken in by the latter as canonical, then will you still say:

Actually I would love it if you would get specific. I am particularly interested in which of those “fourth century” councils was guided by the Holy Spirit to make the “infallible” decision and why the others failed.

I was referring to the third council of Carthage that restated the proclamation of Hippo in these words:

“We have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. (Third Council of Carthage)

That was a reference to Hippo in 393. So was it the bishops at Hippo that claimed to infallibly decide the canon? If so I challenge you to produce evidence of that. Or perhaps you think it was some other fourth century council?

But others question its authenticity. He did doubt the authority of the letter to the Hebrews, of the letter of James, of Jude, of the Second of Peter, and the Second and Third of John; while, at the same time, he was disposed to recognize as canonical certain apocryphal scriptures, such as those of Hermas and Barnabas. In addition to the apocryphal books named, Origen also accepted as authoritative the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Egyptians, Acts of Paul, and Preaching of Peter. Clearly the matter was not settled.

You are obviously having difficulty understanding my position, which is why we need to get specific. I should have been more specific and told you I was referring to Carthage. My response was with regard to the fourth century when I said, “general consensus.”

If you thought that I believed the matter was settled prior to the fourth century, why didn’t you challenge me on that when I talked about Eusebius’ vetting of the disputed books?

Historical fact: Most Christians, as I once did, believe that all of the books of the Bible, and only the books of the Bible, have been accepted as canonical by all Christians in every century which is not true at all.

Of course it’s not true. Most Christians believe that? What is your source for that information?

In every age of the church there have been Christians who either rejected some of these books, or who accepted as canonical, books not contained in the Bible. Not one of the five men who contributed most to the formation of the canon, (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Jerome, and Augustine) - accepted all of these books. Am I wrong??? Prove it and I will retract that statement.

Your question was, “Did the CC, in the 4th century, convoke and determine…” Now you are saying that two late fourth century contributors, Jerome and Augustine, rejected canonical books or accepted non-canonical books. Does that mean Hippo and Carthage did the same?

The third century Muratori canon, omitted Hebrews, James, First and Second Peter, and Third John. The Apostolic canon omitted Revelation, and included First and Second Clement and the Apostolic Constitutions. Why didn’t this canon look our present day canon??? I ask with humility.

Here is another example: Eusebius, gave a list of the acknowledged and disputed books of the NT. The disputed books (books which some accepted and others rejected) - were Hebrews, James, Second and Third John, Jude, Revelation, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Acts of Paul, and Revelation of Peter. Brian, if they were disputed, and they were, who settled the matter once and for all?

Athanasius rejected Esther, and Epiphanius accepted the Epistle of Jeremiah. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Gregory, Bishop of Constantinople, both rejected Revelation. Chrysostom, omitted ten books from his canon: First and Second Chronicles, Esther, Job, and Lamentations, five books in the Old Testament; and Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation, five books in the New Testament. That doesn’t sound like a consensus. These were different CC leaders who disputed books that made it into the canon.

I am quite familiar with the history and maybe some of what you said here will come out in greater detail as we proceed. But you seem to have built a straw man based on your assumptions of me. I know the canon of Scripture developed over time; I’ve written about it. The historical evidence is a complete refutation of your church’s claims of “oral tradition” and “infallibility.”

Now, let me state my answer again with clarity:

“No, they the late fourth century councils] simply made a formal pronouncement closed the canon] on what **had become **developed into] the **general consensus **almost universally accepted].”

Now wave goodbye to your straw man and let’s talk specifics.

Which council in the fourth century do you claim infallibly decided which books belong in the canon and which do not? Please provide evidence to back up your answer.

 

[simspt]

Actually I would love it if you would get specific. I am particularly interested in which of those “fourth century” councils was guided by the Holy Spirit to make the “infallible” decision and why the others failed.

I was referring to the third council of Carthage that restated the proclamation of Hippo in these words:

“We have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. (Third Council of Carthage)

That was a reference to Hippo in 393. So was it the bishops at Hippo that claimed to infallibly decide the canon? If so I challenge you to produce evidence of that. Or perhaps you think it was some other fourth century council?

You are obviously having difficulty understanding my position, which is why we need to get specific. I should have been more specific and told you I was referring to Carthage. My response was with regard to the fourth century when I said, “general consensus.”

If you thought that I believed the matter was settled prior to the fourth century, why didn’t you challenge me on that when I talked about Eusebius’ vetting of the disputed books?

Of course it’s not true. Most Christians believe that? What is your source for that information?

Your question was, “Did the CC, in the 4th century, convoke and determine…” Now you are saying that two late fourth century contributors, Jerome and Augustine, rejected canonical books or accepted non-canonical books. Does that mean Hippo and Carthage did the same?

I am quite familiar with the history and maybe some of what you said here will come out in greater detail as we proceed. But you seem to have built a straw man based on your assumptions of me. I know the canon of Scripture developed over time; I’ve written about it. The historical evidence is a complete refutation of your church’s claims of “oral tradition” and “infallibility.”

Now, let me state my answer again with clarity:

“No, they the late fourth century councils] simply made a formal pronouncement closed the canon] on what **had become **developed into] the **general consensus **almost universally accepted].”Now wave goodbye to your straw man and let’s talk specifics.

Which council in the fourth century do you claim infallibly decided which books belong in the canon and which do not? Please provide evidence to back up your answer.

Brian,
I am familiar with some who claim that the NT canon was already in existence by the end of the second century. This isnt as influential as it once was except with maybe Evangelicals. Most studies that i am aware of question the second century as being the most crucial period and refer more to the fourth century as being the more accurate when discussing the group of writings as “canon”. Im still trying to understand your claim that the CC did not give us the canon. You said they made a formal pronouncement.

 

[simspt]

The canon that we have today was formed long before those councils were called. The books that had been disputed were vetted thoroughly in Eusebius’ time and that was accomplished through a vetting process. The only thing the fourth century councils did was close the canon, nothing else.

The bottom line is your church, the Roman Catholic Church, did not give us the Bible. And if you are interested in truth, as you say you are, you might want to stop promoting that notion.

Can you be more specific when you claim the canon that we have today was formed before the 4th century.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Can you be more specific when you claim the canon that we have today was formed before the 4th century.

I didn’t say before the fourth century I said before the councils of the fourth century. The councils being referred to happened at the end of the fourth century.

Here is a link to my article that may help to answer some of your questions.

The Development of the Canon of Scripture

 

[simspt]

I didn’t say before the fourth century I said before the councils of the fourth century. The councils being referred to happened at the end of the fourth century.

Here is a link to my article that may help to answer some of your questions.

The Development of the Canon of Scripture

Thanks for the reference. I have recently started studying the history of the canon and find it very interesting. Im sure I will have some questions after reading it.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

As Zooey just said, the canon is not a system of “yes” or “no.” Read the Fourth Decree of Trent: .

Actually, canonicity is exactly a system of in or out–a canon is “an authoritative list of books that form Holy Scripture.” When you “compile the Bible” (see OP) you have to decide what to put in it–what’s going to be “on the list.” Liturgical use, while related and influential in forming the list, is a different matter–the works of the Church Fathers are read in Liturgy too, for that matter. Conversely, there a lot of the Bible that is never used liturgically–you’re not going to be hearing readings from Judith or the Song of Songs at Mass. It doesn’t mean that these books are not part of the biblical canon.

Yes, 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras etc. are not on the list. But the Anathema does not condemn the books about which you are complaining. Thus, they fall into a secondary status which may be used liturgically. Hence the ECCs can and do use those books liturgically. As Zooey notes, the Orthodox definition of “canon” is different and does not have this distinction.

Yes, I agree that the Orthodox theology of canon is different than that of the Catholic Church. When I pointed this out in post #36, your response was: “You have got to be kidding.” Since we seem to be having trouble with the word “canon,” I’ll just stick to “Bible” from now on.

So, I’m not “complaining” about anything–all I’m basically pointing out in response to the OP is that the Orthodox Bible contains more book(s) than the Roman Catholic Bible. Options seem to be: 1) the Holy Spirit was leading each church to develop its own Bible, or 2) someone has has to have the correct Bible and everyone else’s Bible is wrong (too long or too short) or 3) the Holy Spirit wasn’t involved in the compilation of the Bible.

 

[Sufjon]

Actually,
So, I’m not “complaining” about anything–all I’m basically pointing out in response to the OP is that the Orthodox Bible contains more book(s) than the Roman Catholic Bible. Options seem to be: 1) the Holy Spirit was leading each church to develop its own Bible, or 2) someone has has to have the correct Bible and everyone else’s Bible is wrong (too long or too short) or 3) the Holy Spirit wasn’t involved in the compilation of the Bible.

Hi Dave Noonan: That’s an interesting conclusion. If you don’t mind sharing, what would be your opinion on which of the three possibilities is the case?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hi Dave Noonan: That’s an interesting conclusion. If you don’t mind sharing, what would be your opinion on which of the three possibilities is the case?

Your friend
Sufjon

My personal opinion would be #1, and I’d also have to include the diverse ways of thinking about what the Bible is as part of my conclusion. Each Church has their own Sacred Scripture, most of which is shared, and I’m fine with that.