"Show it to me from scripture"

[Syele]

How can we be so sure about the NT and OT Canon? You are claming that we have a fallible pronouncement of an infallible canon. Infact, even the reformers themselves weren’t so sure that even thier stripped down canon wasn’t infallible either. If we run around thinking that we have an fallible pronouncement of canon, then that logically means that the Canon is not closed and that there needs to be books either removed or added.

I never said I believed the canon is falliable. I said the Humans involved in the council were falliable. Just because they are falliable dosn’t follow that EVERYTHING they say is incorrect.
None of us are perfect… that dosn’t mean that none of us have ever been correct.

 

[Atreyu]

For a protestant like me wouldn’t the entire Christian Faith have basis in the Bible? The same arguments should apply. The Bible contains the docrtines that we believe.

I’m a bit confused here, isn’t this circular? I think I’m missing something.

It’s not that I don’t believe it’s correct. I do believe the list is correct. It’s that I don’t see it the same as you do. You see and infalliable council who declared a list of books to be an inerrant canon. I see a group of Books that the Holy Spirit led MANY belivers to understand were inspired, and a council of godly people listed what was already obvious and named it canon.

Ok, but the problem with this is that the canon was anything but obvious. I’ve already mentioned the letter of Clement to the Corinthians and the deuterocanonicals. Catholics accept the deuteros but not Clement, and (most) Protestants reject Clement and the deuteros. Who are we to trust? To a non-Christian, what will he see as the Bible?

I’d say he didn’t first use private revelation in the 17th Century. Jesus often talked to people individually. God talked privately with many people in the Old Testament too. There were 400 years with no canonical list of books, yet many of the New Testament books were already circulating - they were not hidden away until the council could get around to conferring with God about it on Behalf of all the people.

They were circulating yes, but so was the letter of Clement that I keep on talking about, as were many others. The Corinthians read this letter in their services for hundreds of years. How are we to know that it is not inspired?

It was a complaint. Most of the time when a Catholic mentions their ability to point to Tradition and Magisterium it is an accusation that I am not looking to the Holy Spirit but making things up on my own power. If that was not your intention I apologize.

I see what you mean. The problem is that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church claims that they look to the Holy Spirit as well. So who do I trust, the Magisterium - who looks to the Holy Spirit - or the Protestant, who also looks to the Holy Spirit? God cannot contradict Himself, so one of these “vehicles” (as I like to call it) is wrong. I certainly don’t think you’re making something up yourself. I think you use a tradition in discovering which books are inspired, but maybe you will disagree?

(BTW, You will find I’m a debate newbie. I’m not even aware of terms like ‘red herring’. That said I do try not to make arguments that make no sense or are unhelpful.)

I’m not sure my use of the term “red herring” was that great. That being said, you do a pretty good job with your arguments. Keep it up!

 

[Turtullian]

I never said I believed the canon is falliable. I said the Humans involved in the council were falliable. Just because they are falliable dosn’t follow that EVERYTHING they say is incorrect.
None of us are perfect… that dosn’t mean that none of us have ever been correct.

You are making the arguement that if the councils which promulgated the Canon is fallible, then it goes back to my point that we have a fallible pronoubcement of an infallible canon. How do you know that that the Canon itself is infallible. You believe the council is fallible and has fallibly promulgated an infallible canon. If that is true, then there is no assurance that the canon we have have is an accurate and infallible canon.

More to the point, if a council was infallible on this point, why can’t it be infallible on other points. The traditiosn of the Church teach even from scripture that the coming together of the Church and the pronouncements of Peter are Infallible and inerrent.

 

[PaulusRobertus]

“Show it to me from scripture”

This seems to be the fundamentalist slogan, that all Christian beliefs are explicitly stated in the Bible. Have you ever heard an argument as to why they think this is true?

Not to mention, who do Protestants think actually decided which books were or were not canonical? Believe it or not I’ve asked this question so many times, but never do I get a sensible answer.

Bible is true because the Holy Church teach this.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Bible is true because the Holy Church teach this.

 

[JoeyWarren]

He is something I have saved off:

The favorite line I get from Protestants is the Jew did not recognize the deutercanonicals as Inspired.

Yes this is true. That is the one Truth that Satan wants you to know concerning the Council of Jamina of around 90 AD. But he also wants to keep some truth hidden as well.

Some history is needed:

Temple of Jerusalem destroyed around 70 AD.
Jews were being heavily persecuted.
Jews blamed it on the Christians.
They convened a council at Jamina around 90 AD.
They needed to combat Paul’s teachings since he was one of them(Pharisees). They did want his writings to recognized as inspired later.

The Primary reason the books were left out because originals in Hebrew could not be found. But in 1947, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls renders this reason invalid because scrolls of these books were also found. The classifications of the Scrolls are Biblical(Hebrew Canon) and non-bibical(others).

Back to the issue that Jews don’t recognize them as inspired?

Truth #2 Well if you must insist on the Judgement of Jews on what the measure of the OT canon is then you must also insist on their Judgement of what the NT canon contains. And that is ZERO books.

Truth #3 This is when the Christain Jews(Yeshume Jews) were expelled from the synagogues and the distinction was declared between Jews and Christians.

Truth #4 They added to their daily blessings which all Jews are required to read everyday this curse of Christians:

Officially called the “Shemoneh Esreh” or “Amidah” or “Birkat ha-minim”

"For the Apostates let there be no hope and the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days, Let the Nazarenes(Christians)and the minim(Heretics) be destroyed in a moment. Let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not inscribled together with the Righteous. Blessed art thou oh Lord, who humblest the Proud."

These Jews condemn Christians, but you want to rely on their judgement of Canon, when they can not even rightly discern whom the Messiah is. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Syele]

I’m a bit confused here, isn’t this circular? I think I’m missing something.

It was more of an observation about your observation than an argument. LOL ok so it was circular.

Ok, but the problem with this is that the canon was anything but obvious. I’ve already mentioned the letter of Clement to the Corinthians and the deuterocanonicals. Catholics accept the deuteros but not Clement, and (most) Protestants reject Clement and the deuteros. Who are we to trust? To a non-Christian, what will he see as the Bible?

I still dont’s accept the deuterocanonicals one of the big reasons is the very fact they are so disputed by various sources. Tradition does have a strong role in this, But you have to realize I don’t see tradition the same as the Catholic church does.

They were circulating yes, but so was the letter of Clement that I keep on talking about, as were many others. The Corinthians read this letter in their services for hundreds of years. How are we to know that it is not inspired?

So you feel that the pheonix is a real bird, and is an appropriate symbol of the ressurection? When God inspires things He is not ever wrong. There are a great manywritings that are very useful and profitablt to read but can’t be consided inerrant.

I see what you mean. The problem is that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church claims that they look to the Holy Spirit as well. So who do I trust, the Magisterium - who looks to the Holy Spirit - or the Protestant, who also looks to the Holy Spirit? God cannot contradict Himself, so one of these “vehicles” (as I like to call it) is wrong. I certainly don’t think you’re making something up yourself. I think you use a tradition in discovering which books are inspired, but maybe you will disagree?

I look to both the Holy Spirit and tradition but I look to the Holy Spirit first. Tradition is a good indicator of things but is not infalliable itself. Tradition can change over time. You are correct, there are many conflicting groups who all feel they look to the Holy Spirit. And you are correct that the Holy Spirit is not ever wrong. So yes, many people think they are right and are not. The Bible warns us of this too. (Matthew 7:21-23) We have to be extremely careful in trusting the word of falliable humans.

I’m not sure my use of the term “red herring” was that great. That being said, you do a pretty good job with your arguments. Keep it up!

Thanks.

 

[Atreyu]

I still dont’s accept the deuterocanonicals one of the big reasons is the very fact they are so disputed by various sources. Tradition does have a strong role in this, But you have to realize I don’t see tradition the same as the Catholic church does.

Yeah I understand that you see tradition differently! But as for the dispute of the deuterocanonicals, was there much of a dispute after the 5th century and before the 16th?

So you feel that the pheonix is a real bird

No.

and is an appropriate symbol of the ressurection?

Absolutely.

When God inspires things He is not ever wrong.

Indeed. But I think that this story could be explained as easily as is the story of Jonah and the whale - unless you believe that Jonah was literally in the belly of a whale for three days? I’ll admit that it is possible, but I think it is more likely that the story is an allegory that is a type for the theological truth that is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. So too the pheonix could be allegory for the same thing:

CHAPTER 25 – THE PHOENIX AN EMBLEM OF OUR RESURRECTION

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.
source (letter of Clement to the Corinthians). Note this chapter seems to employ the use of typological language, which some would say is an indicator of inspiration. I’d be very interested in a typological analysis of this passage, but that would be the topic of another thread I feel.

There are a great manywritings that are very useful and profitablt to read but can’t be consided inerrant.

True. Distinguishing between the inspired and the uninspired though, is anything but obvious.

I look to both the Holy Spirit and tradition but I look to the Holy Spirit first. Tradition is a good indicator of things but is not infalliable itself. Tradition can change over time. You are correct, there are many conflicting groups who all feel they look to the Holy Spirit. And you are correct that the Holy Spirit is not ever wrong. So yes, many people think they are right and are not. The Bible warns us of this too. (Matthew 7:21-23) We have to be extremely careful in trusting the word of falliable humans.

But you trust yourself instead? I don’t understand why you or I would be any different from these other fallible humans. When we discern a canon of inspired writings, we are fallible. When we read the Bible, we are fallible. When we interpret what we have read, we are fallbile. But what about the apostles, were they fallible? If so, then why would this falliblity end with them? Also, when you look to the Holy Spirit, how do you know it is the Holy Spirit speaking to you? I firmy believe that ALL of our prayers are answered, but I don’t know how to say with confidence that I’m listening to the Holy Spirit instead of my own fallible intellect that is stained by Original Sin.

Thanks.

No worries! Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Turtullian]

I

So you feel that the pheonix is a real bird, and is an appropriate symbol of the ressurection? When God inspires things He is not ever wrong. There are a great manywritings that are very useful and profitablt to read but can’t be consided inerrant.

 

[Atreyu]

No, Tradition can not change over time. The donation of Faith given to us by way of the apostles through the Church can never change. If it does change than that means that he Church is defectable. I would be careful about saying that traditions change. For if traditions/doctrines change then that means the church is defectable and that the gates of hell can triumph over it.

Your own arguement disproves protestantism.

No it doesn’t. The main reason sola scriptura exists is because of the premise that traditions can change over time. The argument of the Reformers therefore, was that only Scripture does not change over time, therefore only Scripture can be taken to be authoritative (maybe not the best word, but you know what I mean). Catholics disagree with the premise (that traditions can change over time), which is why we reach a different conclusion. But Luther was convinced that the Church had changed her doctrine with respect to justification (ie by faith alone). After he made this error, the rest of his reasoning was sound: either the Church is correct in all her doctrine, or everything is up for grabs.

Sorry for straying off-topic.

 

[Turtullian]

No it doesn’t. The main reason sola scriptura exists is because of the premise that traditions can change over time. The argument of the Reformers therefore, was that only Scripture does not change over time, therefore only Scripture can be taken to be authoritative (maybe not the best word, but you know what I mean).

I argue that yes it does. If Sola Scriptura is true, then the traditions that come out of those interpretations (Both moral and theological) need to be infallible. For example, I point that prior to 1930, Protestants agreed with Catholics through Sola Scriptura that the usage of contraceptives was a morally and intrinsic act of evil. However, they changed thier interpretations of scripture to allow such things as contrceptives and even in some cases abortion. Another example would be the ordination of women. Prior to the 1970’s, most of the protestant denominations agreed with the Catholics, that women are to be prohibited from being ministers in thier churches. With the rise in ordination of women among the various Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches, we have again a change in doctrine and in interpretation.

Protestants who accuse catholics of inventing doctrine should first look at themselves. Thier own interpretations of scripture change with each passing generation and decade. Now, We are warned in scripture about those who build thier foundations upon sand and doctrines that blow in the wind, shall be a sign that they are not teaching a solid faith.

How do they accuse the Church and her Magisterium which has taught consitantly since the beginning the matters and morals of the faith and call it “traditions of men” when in the protestant sects there is not only division among them but the idea that thier interpretation changes depending on the decade and what is fashionable?

Catholics disagree with the premise (that traditions can change over time), which is why we reach a different conclusion. But Luther was convinced that the Church had changed her doctrine with respect to justification (ie by faith alone). After he made this error, the rest of his reasoning was sound: either the Church is correct in all her doctrine, or everything is up for grabs.

Sorry for straying off-topic.

True.

At any rate:

If Luther had been so serious about how his ideals of his supposed “reform” of the Church. Why didn’t he attend the Council of Trent when it was convened in 1545? Afterall, if he still viewed himself Catholic as Lutherans today try to argue, he should have intended. Indeed, the council went so far as to guarentee safe passage for all of the Reformers in Europe to debate and make thier arguements known before the Church in an ecumenical council? Yet where was he? He was in Germany attacking the very Council that wished in ernest to reconcile him to the Church writing his famed phamplet entitled:**Against the Roman Papacy an Institution of the Devil. **

 

[Mystophilus]

“Show it to me from scripture”

This seems to be the fundamentalist slogan, that all Christian beliefs are explicitly stated in the Bible. Have you ever heard an argument as to why they think this is true?

Not to mention, who do Protestants think actually decided which books were or were not canonical? Believe it or not I’ve asked this question so many times, but never do I get a sensible answer.

The answer is relatively simple. Martin Luther reacted against abuses which were being perpetrated in the name of the Roman Catholic Church. This reaction led him into conflict with the Church. The conflict became irreconcilable, and so Luther and his followers left to form a new church.

As they had rejected the authority of a church which laid claim to an unbroken line of succession from the first Apostles, Luther’s church needed a higher source of authority by which they could judge the Roman Catholic Church as being in error, i.e., an authority which trumped the Pope. That source was the Bible, described as the Word of God, and, therefore, a higher source of authority than any mortal being could ever hope to achieve.

As for the canon, most Protestants are quite happy to accept Athanasius’ decision regarding the NT canon and Jerome’s decision regarding the OT canon, because they regard both of those men as being Christians, not Roman Catholics, because they lived too early to be Catholic-not-Protestant. Protestant scepticism towards Catholic theology tends to increase in degree as one moves closer to the date of the Reformation. Thus, Augustine is popular amongst Protestants, but Aquinas is not.

Nota bene: this is an explanation, not a justification, of the actions and attitudes in question. I will leave the justification up to the Almighty.

 

[exoflare]

It is historically accurate. We know this from tons of evidence form other sources. We know the places and people existed due to outside verification. What is left is to examine the claims in it.

Ignoring all the other problems with this argument, let’s just continue with it for the sake of discussion… Are you saying that if a book is “historically accurate” then it logically follows that that book must be divinely inspired? If not, then this argument is clearly insufficient to begin with.

It Claims it is God’s Word. It claims is is not corrupt.

First of all you’re treating the Bible as one big monolithic piece of literature, which is a huge mistake. It’s not like one guy sat down, wrote the whole thing and said “I’m going to call this book ‘the Bible!’” Also, no book in the Bible ever refers to itself as being part of a larger collection of books in the first place, so your claims that any part in “the Bible” refers to itself as such don’t hold water. Revelation is the only book that claims in itself to even be divinely inspired, as far as I know. The other books do not. In any case, I don’t know why you list the mere claim to be divinely inspired as evidence of itself. An argument, left on its own, does not prove itself.

It comes down to prayer and Faith in God. Inerrancy is not currently demonstrable.We have many facts but not enough to erase every shadow of doubt that any new reader of it may come up with. We all must decide to believe in it or not. I believe the historical evidence plus the spiritual transformation that beliving has done in my life (and a huge number of others lives) is sufficient for me to conclude that the Bible is inerrant and infalliable. This is the short answer.

You are basically saying “it’s my own personal feeling”. Anyone can say this about their own religion. Muslims do it all the time, and they think it is enough proof that their religion is true. As Christians, we must rise above these whimsical human tendencies and base our faith on hard evidence and solid fact.

I spent a year (A long itme ago) just focusing on this question because it is one of the biggest questions you can ask. IF the Bible cannot be trusted then we are basing our faith on lies.

Again, you are stating a conditional, but how is the conditional supposed to be proof of itself?? A Muslim, for example, could say “IF the Quran cannot be trusted then we are basing our faith on lies.” By your reasoning, such a statement by itself actually proves the Quran to be true! Sorry but this just won’t wash. You will have to be consistent here.

 

[Mystophilus]

Please forgive the interjection, but there have been a few things mentioned regarding the canon, and I believe that a fairly major consideration has been omitted thus far.

… as for the dispute of the deuterocanonicals, was there much of a dispute after the 5th century and before the 16th?

There was a dispute, put down in writing in the C4th, which lasted until the Reformation and continues now. A major part of the early Protestants’ objection to the deuterocanon was that it was ‘deutero’, secondary, and had been designated as such by Jerome in the Vulgate. In his ‘Prologue to the Books of Solomon’, he listed Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobit and the Maccabees all as ‘for the strengthening of the people, not for the confirming of dogma’. He issued a similar warning against Baruch. It was on this basis that the early Protestants removed the texts from their canon: they wanted a canon exclusively for the purpose of forming and confirming dogma. Thus, the Council of Trent acted in 1546 to proclaim the authority of these texts against the Protestant revision.

I don’t understand why you or I would be any different from these other fallible humans. When we discern a canon of inspired writings, we are fallible. When we read the Bible, we are fallible. When we interpret what we have read, we are fallbile. But what about the apostles, were they fallible? If so, then why would this falliblity end with them? Also, when you look to the Holy Spirit, how do you know it is the Holy Spirit speaking to you? I firmy believe that ALL of our prayers are answered, but I don’t know how to say with confidence that I’m listening to the Holy Spirit instead of my own fallible intellect that is stained by Original Sin.

We are fallible, and our interpretations are likewise. This does not prevent us from seeking the Truth, but should merely serve as a warning to us not to imagine that we do already know it.

 

[Mystophilus]

It was more of an observation about your observation than an argument.

That is probably what makes your comments so much more useful than many. Too much time is wasted upon argument in these fora, and not enough is spent on working together to discover the truth.

 

[Atreyu]

There was a dispute, put down in writing in the C4th, which lasted until the Reformation and continues now. A major part of the early Protestants’ objection to the deuterocanon was that it was ‘deutero’, secondary, and had been designated as such by Jerome in the Vulgate.

Please can you give a source for this. It is my understanding that your following paragraph is true, but your preceding sentence is not. In other words, Jerome never designated the deuterocanonicals as “secondary”. I know what the word “deuterocanonical” means, but it is important to note that this was a term invented in the 16th century.

In his ‘Prologue to the Books of Solomon’, he listed Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobit and the Maccabees all as ‘for the strengthening of the people, not for the confirming of dogma’. He issued a similar warning against Baruch.

From Wikipedia:
Jerome in his prologues describes a canon which excludes them, possibly excepting Baruch. However, Jerome, out of obedience to the Church, did include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures, without distinction from the other protocanonical books. This is testimony to the fact that the books were commonly accepted and were accepted to be included in any edition of the Scriptures.

Furthermore, it can be documented that in his later years Jerome did accept deuterocanonical parts of the Bible as he widely quoted them without differentiating from other well-accepted protocanonical Scripture. In his reply to Rufinus, for instance, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not.

He wrote, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycopath. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled – the judgment of the Church, rather than his own judgement or the judgement of later Jews.
I’m well aware of the limitations of Wikipedia, but the reference of Jerome’s should be easy enough to look up. I can have a look for a link, if you wish me to. The emphases are mine, and the author of the Wikipedia article at least agrees with me when I say that later in life, Jerome made no differentiation between the deuterocanonicals and the protocanonicals.

It was on this basis that the early Protestants removed the texts from their canon: they wanted a canon exclusively for the purpose of forming and confirming dogma. Thus, the Council of Trent acted in 1546 to proclaim the authority of these texts against the Protestant revision.

I would say that ostensibly the Reformers removed the deuteros from their canon for this reason, but in reality it was because of the doctrine contained within the deuteros. In particular, the doctrine contained in 2 Maccabees.

We are fallible, and our interpretations are likewise. This does not prevent us from seeking the Truth, but should merely serve as a warning to us not to imagine that we do already know it.

Good point.

 

[Atreyu]

Please can you give a source for this. It is my understanding that your following paragraph is true, but your preceding sentence is not. In other words, Jerome never designated the deuterocanonicals as “secondary”. I know what the word “deuterocanonical” means, but it is important to note that this was a term invented in the 16th century.

I wasn’t all that clear here. What I meant was, Jerome never designated the deuterocanonicals to be deuterocanonical in nature. He termed them apocrypha in his prefaces, but he did not say that they were part of some second canon. Perhaps that wasn’t what you were trying to say in the first place though…?

 

[Mystophilus]

Please can you give a source for this.

I was actually reading it from my Beloved’s copy of the Vulgate (ed. Roger Gryson. Stuttgart: Deutsche BibelGesellschaft, 1994). When one studies seventh-century saints, one collects some interesting texts. I have, however, managed to locate some online translations of his prologues to the books of Solomon and to Jeremiah. The comment about the books of Solomon is at the end of the second paragraph; that about Baruch is near the end of the prologue.

While Jerome certainly did include these texts in his edition of the Bible, his reference to the church’s treatment of the books of Solomon, “inter canonicas scripturas non recipit… legat ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam”, clearly represents a difference in their status. Similarly, when he says of Baruch, “qui apud Hebraeos nec legitur nec habetur, praetermisimus”, he is actually placing that text outside of the task which he had been given, which was that of collecting together the Holy Scriptures. While he did go on to include Baruch, in obedience to his patron, the church of Rome, his prologues also remained.

Further, I would suggest that the representation in the Wikipedia article of the passage from Against Rufinus is less than accurate, and not only in its spelling of “sycopath” [sic] or in the fact that it lists the location of the passage as “11:33” rather than 2:33. Roman numerals are, after all, very hard to read.

“he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not”, says the Wikipedia article. In Against Rufinus, in section 33, we find Jerome’s ‘stout’ defence:

“I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews… The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?.. 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… I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian”.

(My emphases.) Thus, Jerome ‘stoutly’ displaces blame for his actions. It is the Jews who prefer the Hebrew; Jerome is merely mentioning their preference. This guards him against accusations of opposition to the churches. It is then the churches who may, if they so choose, prefer the textual version of a ‘heretic and judaizer’ over the version from the Septuagint. This guards him against accusations of presenting a bad version of the text. Jerome is covering himself on both sides by displacing all responsibility onto others; he was not a silly man. Note also Jerome’s own representation of the preferability of the Hebrew in section 34.

The immediate cause of all of this discussion was Jerome’s Prologue to Daniel: “iuxta Septuaginta interpretes … non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione, et hoc cur acciderit nescio”. Jerome is at a loss to explain the behaviour of the churches, and is quite happy to express his bemusement to the world.

He is not obediently acknowledging the authority of the Church, singular and universal, but rather shaking his head in disbelief at the incomprehensibility of the churches, plural and idiosyncratic.

I would say that ostensibly the Reformers removed the deuteros from their canon for this reason, but in reality it was because of the doctrine contained within the deuteros. In particular, the doctrine contained in 2 Maccabees.

I dare say that they had some reason to look for a denunciation of these texts, and that Jerome’s agreement with the established canon of the Tanakh provided them with the -]excuse/-] reason which they sought.

 

[Syele]

Indeed. But I think that this story could be explained as easily as is the story of Jonah and the whale - unless you believe that Jonah was literally in the belly of a whale for three days?.. I’d be very interested in a typological analysis of this passage, but that would be the topic of another thread I feel.

Yes probably a topic for another thread. I am familiar with the allegory of Jonah and the Whale but I also believe it to be true literally. I see no reason to limit God’s ability to preform this miracle. The pheonix though can only be taken as an allegory and not both and it’s not really presented as though it is a fanciful tale.

True. Distinguishing between the inspired and the uninspired though, is anything but obvious.

But you trust yourself instead? I don’t understand why you or I would be any different from these other fallible humans. When we discern a canon of inspired writings, we are fallible. When we read the Bible, we are fallible. When we interpret what we have read, we are fallbile. But what about the apostles, were they fallible? If so, then why would this falliblity end with them? Also, when you look to the Holy Spirit, how do you know it is the Holy Spirit speaking to you? I firmy believe that ALL of our prayers are answered, but I don’t know how to say with confidence that I’m listening to the Holy Spirit instead of my own fallible intellect that is stained by Original Sin.

It’s not a matter of trusting in myself but in trusting itn the Holy Spirit. I have no way to prove to others what the Holy Spirit says or dosn’t say to me. However in my experience when God speaks, I am positive without a shadow of Doubt it is Him. It is rarley so subtle as to make it hard to tell the difference between Him and myself. One good way to tell is that your life changes with no effort on your part as the result of God’s truth. But again this is a topic for another thread… How to hear God’s voice and know it’s God.

 

[Syele]

Yet the Bible talks about dragons, unicorns (kjv), and behemoths and other mystical creatures of folklore. To an athiest, this alone would prove that even the Bible is a bunch a junk.

Many people believe behemoths and dragons are both types of Dinosaurs. Also as for unicorns being in one english translation of the Bible… It would have to make me question that translation if none of the others agree. If we are going to go by what athiests think… we have to forget about most of Genesis anyhow.

We must consider the allegory and metaphors used as Pope Clement 1 is using the mythical pheonix of araban folklore and using it as a metaphor to explain the resurrection, uch like those appealed to the shamrock to explain the trinity.

I still do not see how it was presented in a way that can make it definately allegory.

No, Tradition can not change over time. The donation of Faith given to us by way of the apostles through the Church can never change. If it does change than that means that he Church is defectable. I would be careful about saying that traditions change. For if traditions/doctrines change then that means the church is defectable and that the gates of hell can triumph over it.

Traditions can and do change over time. It is, in fact, one of the main reasons protestants and Catholics disagree.

Your own arguement disproves protestantism.

It doesn’t as other poeters have already pointed out…

Yet the Church in Acts infallibly declared that the eating of formerally forbidden meats was allowed to even the jewish convertst here. Yet the Church infallibly declared that it would be open to the gentiles as well! The Church has to be the pillar and foundation of truth, otherwise if it is left up to the individual then every plowboy under the sun has his or her own interpretation of such things. Infact, this is the case amongst those who support paedobaptism or the credobaptists or those who believe in the actual presence of body and blood of the Lord in the blessed sacrament vs those who believe in am ambiguous real presence.

You seem to have properly summed up the Catholic position. But I disagree.

Both the reformed and non-reformed believe they are the Church, the Baptists and Non-baptists believe this as well. Each with it’s varying confessions, charters, and articles that argue why they preach orthodoxy while everyone does not.

Just because someone thinks something is true, dosn’t make it so. that goes for everyone.