since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[thetazlord]

[CONTINUED…2]

QUOTE:
Your arguments & choices are fallacious, because that canon has been closed for nearly 2millennia, & you’re using the same bad argument that non-christians would use.

This is non-sense thetazlord. I want to know WHY “that canon has been closed for nearly 2millennia”.

In addition to me explaining “why,” as a Catholic you “should” know this answer aside from “the Catholic church ‘gave’ us our Bible,” which is a misleading statement.

Incidentally. My “arguments” for what is and isn’t in the Canon of Scripture rests on the authority of the Church (non-Christians DON’T appeal to the authority of the Catholic Church).

That’s not what I said.

And I asked you earlier to define “the Word of God” and you gave me a link with verses that began talking about ORAL transmission of the “Word of God” and ignored what I said about Jesus being the “Word of God”.

So your “E” is another circular argument thetazlord. I am not buying it.

Then you’re having a comprehension problem, which I can’t help you with.

What you really mean by “the Word of God” thetazlord, is YOUR INTERPRETATION of Sacred Scripture.

Sorry, you are referring to yourself & how you determine the canon of Inspired Scripture, not me.

 

[thetazlord]

Wait…this could be the same thing that I can say about you TL.

That’s right. But I’m not the one claiming to be the authority of what Christian doctrine is. Rather I’m deferring to the Word of God as that Authority, & not to “add to,” nor “take away from,” nor contradict it, which is what Scripture teaches. It NEVER says this about extra-biblical “tradition” that isn’t eventually written down. This is why when Jesus corrects the Pharisees, He doesn’t appeal to extra-biblical “tradition,” but the Word of God (“As it is WRITTEN” & “Have you not READ?”) IOW, Scripture never states, “hey, the Church has the authority to ‘claim’ that Jesus & the apostles taught something not found in Scripture, & therefore the Church can view a ‘tradition’ taught by an ECF - with no Scriptural support - as being just as authoritative as Inspired Scripture.” If so, please show me that verse that states that.

Okay…I’m good with that…the case is closed then.

I guess I’m unsure why you don’t understand when Paul refers to ALL Scripture (ie: the OT Scriptures) as being Inspired, and Paul calling ALL of Paul’s epistles as Scripture, & Paul quoting Luke’s Gospel & calling it Scripture, qualifies as verses that “prove” that. And as far as the the NT books that don’t have Peter, Paul, or other NT writers affirming them as Inspired Scripture (like Hebrews), I’ve already explained that the exact same godly criteria that the OT Hebrew Scriptures, Paul’s epistles, & the Gospel of Luke meets, those other NT Scriptures meet as well, which the 7 Apocrypha books don’t.

 

[thetazlord]

Do we also need to throw out Genesis as the description of heavebs (a bowl-like covering) has been proven to be not true?

Genesis doesn’t describe the heavens as being a “bowl-like covering.” The “heavens” refers to the “first heavens” - the sky & the atmosphere, and the “second heavens” - outer-space where the sun, moon, & stars exist. Plus, Jesus Himself affirmed the Inspiration of Genesis. And He was able to back this up by rising from the dead. I think what you’re referring to is the “waters” that were above the earth. Science has not been able to “disprove” this.

 

[Tomoko]

Apostolic authorship of those who could confirm eyewitness accounts of the risen Christ ended when John died at the end of the first century … Plus, since the Catholic church agrees that the canon closed at the end of the first century & didn’t include the mid-second texts, like the Protoevangelium of James, why is this even an issue for Catholics?

 

[Tomoko]

[CONTINUED…PART 2]
Thanks again for the post. If you go back several verses, this pertains to preventing disruption in the church. If a woman questions something, rather than disrupt the pastor’s sermon, to wait silently & ask their husband later. Of course, you can bring it up to your priest - just not yelling it out during the service & disrupting it.

Paul doesn’t say this. He tells women to ask the question at home (to avoid disrupting worship, as you say). Why? BECAUSE it is shameful for a woman to speak in church [aischron gar estin gynaiki lalein en ekklesia].

I don’t want to derail this thread into a discussion over the place of women in the Church; my point is that Bible-believing Christians have prayerfully discerned that this and related verses mean that a woman shouldn’t speak or have authority in the Church, and yet other Bible-believing Christians have prayerfully discerned that this isn’t what this verse means.

Again, we ask - who is right? Does the Bible prohibit abortion or not, as it nowhere mentions the word explicitly?

Should we follow Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, or is it ok because people interpret David and Jonathon’s love as a bit more than friendship?

Does the Bible allow stem-cell research? Babies made from 3 strands of DNA?

As soon as you have to start drawing inferences from the text, or interpreting it, you are adding to Scripture. When the apostles interpreted the Law for their community, they did so in council; not as individuals. The Bible knows nothing of individual interpretation of Scripture, and neither did the Church until recently. Why? Because individuals are fallible. ‘Do not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing’. (Heb 10:25) The Church is, and always has been, a God-given safeguard from radical interpretation. How does Paul tell genuine apostles apart from the false? Because they don’t teach what the rest of the Church teaches.

You say - whoever is following the Word of God as revealed in Scripture is correct. But who is the judge of that? It’s quite clear that it’s possible to wrongly interpret Scripture, even if you believe you are under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Who is wrong then? The HS or the believer?

That’s the question this thread has been circling, which has never been answered. I would never dare to say that I am godly enough to judge whether the HS is at work in another individual - that has always been the job of the Church (1 Jn 4:1), but SS seems to elevate one to that position by default.

Grace to you.

And with your spirit. Thank you for taking the time to respond to all these questions. Even though we may disagree on some things, it is good to meet a Christian who has passion for his (I’m presuming he - tazlord). There are so many lukewarm ones…

I don’t think we’re so very far apart; no Catholic (I hope) would ever protest that Scripture is not God-breathed or central to our lives (what is the Sacred Liturgy if not the Church praying Scripture?) but we believe that the task of interpreting it is too big for one human mind; we have the Tradition of thousands of thinkers going back thousands of years and we are still learning. There have been far too many painful abuses of Scripture by people of all traditions who think they know better than everyone else what it says.

Pax et bonum
Mokocchi

 

[Michael_Francis]

Actually, it’s completely relevant. Because if Scripture commands that we shouldn’t “add to” nor “take away from” God & His Word (which it does from the Torah to the last page of Revelation), then any extra-scriptural “tradition” shouldn’t be considered as “Inspired” as Scripture.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Although the Deuterocanonicals are a peripheral issue to discussions like this, that debate should not be blended into this one or else this discussion will founder and fail.

Therefore, if anyone wishes to address the issue of the Deuterocanon it really must be undertaken in its own thread.

Please return to the topic of whether the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura and specifically where and how.

Consider this friendly Mod direction.

 

[Cathoholic]

In respect for Michael’s post about the “Deterocanonicals” thetazlord (here), I am willing for this thread (and for discussion purposes only) to narrow the “Canon” that I ask about, down to the New Testament only (because you and I agree on that—or at least I think we do) and for “authority” purposes only as well.

I am not looking to parse out which books are Canonical (here on this thread). I am looking for the AUTHORITY to proclaim them as such. Scripture? Or men (men with God-given, God-protected authority)?

Scripture? Or men (men with God-given, God-protected authority)? That is the principle I am asking about. And citing 2nd Timothy won’t help unless you show me how you authoritatively know (from men or Scripture?) that 2nd Timothy is itself Scripture.

So feel free to ignore any reference of what I say about Canon, to be narrowly interpreted as authority of proclamation of the Canon.

**Is it people who were given God-given, God-protected authority or is the list of the (New Testament) Canon listed in Scripture? **

This is an easy question thetazlord and you prevaricating on this, is not going to fool anyone. Just answer it.

But once you affirm even the proclamation of what Scripture is and isn’t, is dependent upon men who were given this “authority”, means this level of “authority” cannot possibly come from Scripture ALONE.

---

Also BTW . . . .

Cathoholic said:

QUOTE:
Incidentally. My “arguments” for what is and isn’t in the Canon of Scripture rests on the authority of the Church (non-Christians DON’T appeal to the authority of the Catholic Church).

Thetazlord said:

QUOTE:
That’s not what I said.

Read thetazlord’s post (here or below with bold and ul mine) and draw your own conclusions.

QUOTE:
Your arguments & choices are fallacious, because that canon has been closed for nearly 2millennia, & you’re using the same bad argument that non-christians would use.

If you want to look at Taz’s original post (again here) it is about three quarters of the way down the post.

And it was all in the context of this (which was never directly answered either—Taz said, “E: the Authority of the Word of God.” Which he has left undefined or circular reasoned depending on the posts) . . .

And this alleged argument that “non-christians use” was in the context of my question (which can be seen here):

So I would be interested in WHAT authority you would submit to; to assert that this theoretical brand new archeological find is or isn’t Sacred Scripture? (and how you can be sure)

A. I submit to my own authority—me. I’ll read it and if it proverbially burns in my bosom and is consistent with my interpretation of Scripture I will add it to the Canon.

B. If my Protestant pastor asserts it as “Scripture” I will submit to him (or her) as he (she) oversees my very soul.

C. I will refuse to accept it (and here is my verse why). Even if it WAS from St. Paul and even if the whole letter is in harmony with Scripture nobody now has authority to ADD to the Bible.

D. I would look to the authority of the Catholic Church and affirm CCC 73 even though this teaching is not based upon a Scripture passage.

Again. thetazlord answered this as: “E: the Authority of the Word of God.” Which he has left undefined or circular reasoned depending on the posts), while accusing me of using “the same bad argument that non-christians would use”.

The question was: since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need. . .

And the answer is the Bible IS the Word of God (but there is MORE “Word” than the Bible) and the Bible attests implicitly and explicitly that there is MORE of what we need.

 

[Cathoholic]

thetazlord stated:

Once again, you are confusing the godly criteria that establish what is, and what is not, Inspired Scripture,

I’m not confusing anything. I am asking you where these Godly “criteria” are in Scripture. Because if they are not there TAZ, you are relying on men to decide which books/letters etc. ARE THERE.

And I am saying you MUST rely on men (and if you admit this, you will answer the OP). Then the question becomes which men were given authority by Jesus to say what Scripture was and wasn’t and we can do that on a different thread.

. . . . sola scriptura that doesn’t have anything to do with establishing the canon of Scripture.

Thetazlord. You are forgetting that you don’t even KNOW what “Scripture” is authoritatively unless you go outside of your invented sola Scriptura paradigm.

thetazlord . . . .

Again, Matthew’s authorship of his Gospel has nothing to do with sola scriptura that deals with traditions that affect Christian doctrine.

Yet you YOURSELF said (bold and ul mine):

And if you bothered to ever read what I’ve written - numerous times - authorship by an prophet of God or disciple of Christ (or a contemporary of them, like Mark or Luke) is also a criteria for Inspired Scripture.

Taz . . .

The Scriptural tradition that is solidly supported & taught in the Word of God.

Again you can’t even give me a complete definition of what “the Word of God” is thetazlord.

Taz . . .

Again, what if you found a scroll that said “Jesus is a Muslim” and if you want, you can add “this was written by Paul of Tarsus.” Would you then believe that Jesus was a Muslim, since this was written by Paul of Tarsus?

This is just plain bogus. I asked about the authoritative principle several times. You still have not answered. This principle is by extension applicable to Scripture we have right now.

Taz . . .

I think I’ve demonstrated - numerous times - that that is NOT the reason I believe in the 27 book canon as being Inspired. For you to make that comment demonstrates you are either not reading what I’m writing, forgetting what I wrote, or making desperate attempts to falsify what I actually said out of context.

This is also utter non-sense.

I asked WHY you assert this and you said: “The Word of God”. Since you seem to define “the Word of God” as Scripture ALONE, I asked for the verse that the Canon is present in. And you have still not answered.

Circular reasoning isn’t going to be satisfactory thetazlord.

Me: Why is it Scripture in the first place?

Unacceptable Circular Reasoning Position: It is Scripture because it is the Word of God.

Me: How do you know it is the Word of God?

Unacceptable Circular Reasoning Position: Because it is in Scripture.

Taz . . . .

It’s not strawman, because if this third epistle of Paul to the Corinthians was God-breathed & meant to be included in Scripture, God has the power to make sure it wouldn’t have been “lost.”

Well if it were “found” it wouldn’t be “lost” anymore would it Taz.

So you are basically saying, is this Scripture HAD to have been authoritatively defined earlier (which I agree with).

If so, WHY and just HOW EARLY?? I rely on the authority of the Church for this answer.

You won’t have a Scriptural answer for this question (which again illustrates WHY we need more than the Bible ALONE).

Taz . . .

Again, I have for over 200 posts. I can’t help if you are having difficulty understanding the verses I provided for you that do indeed support sola scriptura.

You have not provided ONE verse (or collection of verses) that supports sola Scriptura thetazlord.

Taz . . . .

The problem is that based on your responses, I don’t think you have a good grasp of what it actually is, despite numerous attempts to explain it in the simplest manner.

OK. My lack of grasp is “the problem”. Then just show me the definition of sola Scriptura in . . . (you know what I’m going to say) . . . Scripture.

I asked you quoting your own response:

This is non-sense thetazlord. I want to know WHY “that canon has been closed for nearly 2millennia”.

You said:

In addition to me explaining “why,” as a Catholic you “should” know this answer aside from “the Catholic church ‘gave’ us our Bible,” which is a misleading statement.

But I am not asking for Catholic doctrine on this point Taz. I am asking WHERE YOU derive it from.

If you derive it from NON-Scriptural sources, you too will have implied that the Bible is not ALL we need.

Show me a verse (or set of verses) that reveals the Canon.

Show me a verse that says WHO wrote Matthew (after all, you mentioned Apostolic witness as “Godly criteria”).

And show me a verse where it says Divine revelation is CLOSED (because that is what your pre-first letter of Paul to the Corinthians is based on and I want evidence—Scriptural evidence—after all, YOU are the one asserting sola Scriptura, not me).

These are all issues that directly have to do with authority, NONE of which can be answered from Scripture ALONE!

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men, that makes void the commandments of God.

 

[PRmerger]

I am asking you where these Godly “criteria” are in Scripture. Because if they are not there TAZ, you are relying on men to decide which books/letters etc. ARE THERE.

Indeed.

When one relies on MEN, rather than the Word of God, this is NOT “the Bible is all we need” type of thinking.

What it is, is: “I defer to Sacred Tradition” type of thinking.

Thetazlord. You are forgetting that you don’t even KNOW what “Scripture” is authoritatively unless you go outside of your invented sola Scriptura paradigm.

This is important.

Taz: you are already accepting what Scripture is, and assuming it’s theopneustos, and then comparing other texts to what you know is the Word of God (thanks to the discernment of MEN) to determine if these texts are inspired.

That is NOT Sola Scriptura.

Circular reasoning isn’t going to be satisfactory thetazlord.

Me: Why is it Scripture in the first place?

Unacceptable Circular Reasoning Position: It is Scripture because it is the Word of God.

Me: How do you know it is the Word of God?

Unacceptable Circular Reasoning Position: Because it is in Scripture.

QED

 

[PRmerger]

Nor is there any secular evidence for it being true - ever. I see you are still using strawman arguments, & not getting what makes something Inspired or not.

Secular evidence, please, for someone being cured by St. Peter’s shadow or St. Paul’s handkerchief.

Secular evidence, please, for St. Peter walking on water.

And secular evidence, please, for Jesus rising from the dead.

And I doubt that you have ever investigated the alleged healings by St. Peter’s shadow with corroboration from secular sources–you simply accepted it because you read it in the Word of God. That’s fine. That’s part of Sola Scriptura.

But what’s NOT part of SS is knowing that the Book of Acts is inspired.

You get that from Sacred Tradition.

 

[Tomoko]

Secular evidence, please, for someone being cured by St. Peter’s shadow or St. Paul’s handkerchief.

Secular evidence, please, for St. Peter walking on water.

And secular evidence, please, for Jesus rising from the dead.

And I doubt that you have ever investigated the alleged healings by St. Peter’s shadow with corroboration from secular sources–you simply accepted it because you read it in the Word of God. That’s fine. That’s part of Sola Scriptura.

But what’s NOT part of SS is knowing that the Book of Acts is inspired.

You get that from Sacred Tradition.

The answer will be that you don’t need secular evidence because it’s in Scripture. And then the circle goes around again.

Ultimately, by this reasoning, you end up with the Bible having no greater claim to be Inspired than any other religious text which makes the same claim about itself.

 

[PRmerger]

The Greek word used in 2 Corinthians 5:8 is “eudokeō” which can be translated “prefer”:

blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2106&t=NASB

So, it’s not based on a particular translation, but rather based on the Hebrew, not the translated English. And in context, Paul is telling his readers that when he had been “caught up” to the “third heaven,” he is affirming that when his spirit left his body (or his body went with him, since “he didn’t know”) that he was IMMEDIATELY “at home” in Heaven with the Lord. So, although for OT Israel when the righteous died & went to the temporary place of the dead (Sheol/Hades), for the Church there is no temporary place of the dead. They IMMEDIATELY go to Heaven in the presence of the Lord, just as Paul did. If there was some kind of “intermediary” spiritually “holding place” before Heaven when the righteous died, Scripture would have mentioned such a place, just as it did with the righteous Israelites. But it doesn’t.

So let’s say you’re a pastor of a church and I am one of your congregants.

Am I bound to interpret these Scriptures in the same way you have professed here?

Or am I permitted my own private interpretations and can dissent from your view as my pastor?

Is this not the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation/Sola Scriptura movement–no magisterium is needed to tell me how to read the Bible and interpret it?

 

[Justin61790]

So let’s say you’re a pastor of a church and I am one of your congregants.

Am I bound to interpret these Scriptures in the same way you have professed here?

Or am I permitted my own private interpretations and can dissent from your view as my pastor?

Is this not the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation/Sola Scriptura movement–no magisterium is needed to tell me how to read the Bible and interpret it?

If you were protestant you could simply leave that church and join another congregation that aligns better with your own interpretation. The problems with this sort of “Christianity” should be obvious to everyone, but too many think this is ok or at all what God wants. It’s no wonder it never set right with me. The whole thing seems incredibly shallow and “fake” if we can pick our own interpretation like we are at a buffet.

 

[PRmerger]

If you were protestant you could simply leave that church and join another congregation that aligns better with your own interpretation. The problems with this sort of “Christianity” should be obvious to everyone, but too many think this is ok or at all what God wants. It’s no wonder it never set right with me. The whole thing seems incredibly shallow and “fake” if we can pick our own interpretation like we are at a buffet.

Yes. It sounds like the exact WRONG way to follow Christ.

Shouldn’t we find the Church Christ established, and then conform our views to Christ’s?

Rather than go shopping for a church that conforms to our own viewpoint? * “I’m going to find a pastor who preaches everything that I believe!*” Isn’t this the epitome of creating a god after one’s own image? Of worshipping at the altar of the Almighty Self rather than the Almighty?

 

[Cathoholic]

I have posted this before but it is worth re-stating here as it is appropriate to the discussion.

It is not a verse citation so much as an appeal to common sense.

If God intended us to follow sola Scriptura, you’d expect the Old Testament Church to follow sola Scriptura too.

The Old Testament Church did NOT affirm sola Scriptura though. Nor could they affirm that. Why?

Because the ancient Hebrew language was a “consonantal language” (it was all consonants). You NEEDED oral tradition to pass it on accurately from person to person then. Why?

Well think of an English analogy (of course the analogy is not inspired but I’m using the correlation merely to illustrate a point).

I’ll give you one word: “mn”. This is an English word with no vowels. But what word is it?

Is it “man”? Is it “men”? Is it “amen”? Is it “many”? Is it “money”? Is it “omen”?

You don’t know do you?

You don’t know unless you have an oral interpretation to tell you what word it is.

If this were impossible with one uninspired word, how much more would you NEED oral tradition to be protected in the inspired Old Testament ancient Hebrew Scriptures?

Wouldn’t God protect His teachings to us? Yes.

How do you KNOW oral Tradition is protected? The same way you KNOW written Tradition is protected—by the assurance of God. He will not leave us orphans.​

 

[Cathoholic]

Justin61790 was just discussing the fact that some who don’t agree with the ecclesial communion they are in, often carry out Cafeteria Christianity (picking and choosing what they will and won’t affirm—all based upon their “interpretation” of Scripture of course).

Some people even add to this motif, the McChurch routine.

They just resort to church-hopping looking for some community that basically (for the most part) believes what they believe . . . concerning their “interpretation” of Scripture (or even ignore beliefs and look mainly for “good music”!).

Justin. You defined Cafeteria Christianity quite well (here) this way (nice post by the way) . . . .

The problems with this sort of “Christianity” should be obvious to everyone, but too many think this is ok or at all what God wants. It’s no wonder it never set right with me. The whole thing seems incredibly shallow and “fake” if we can pick our own interpretation like we are at a buffet.

I think St. Augustine would concur with Justin on this . . .

ST. AUGUSTINE "If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” St. Augustine. Sermons [inter A.D. 391-430]

Bible-ONLY Christians often have a pithy saying: “The main things, are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things.”

And there is actually a grain of truth to this (when asserted in its proper authoritative context—i.e. the Bishops).

But ask a Bible only Christian who asserts the Biblical nature of infant Baptism to request that the local Baptist minister Baptize his/her baby and see what happens.

Think of all the Bible-ONLY Christians who have differing beliefs on the following eight subjects (I am not even mentioning here the differing “definitions” I hear of what “sola Scriptura REALLY is” or many other Bible only doctrinal differences) . . .

• Infant Baptism or not?
• Regenerative aspect of Baptism or not?
• Stained-Glass windows with pictures or not?
• Speaking in Tongues or not?
• Once-Saved, Always Save (Eternal Security) or not?
• Male-only Pastors vrs Female pastors too
• Gay so-called “Marriage” or not?
• Killing your own babies (abortion) or not?

And on and on.

**That is only 8 different beliefs exemplified above. **

Taking into account differing permutations and combinations of merely these eight beliefs, you could come up with how many differing belief systems ALL CLAIMING to rely on “the Bible ALONE”?

8 x 7 . . .x 1 = 40, 320 differing belief systems (or 8!) just based upon those mere eight belief differences.

Over 40,000 differing belief-system possibilities all claiming to follow the Bible ALONE based merely on only EIGHT measly doctrinal differences!

Some will object and say: “Well you Catholics have plenty of disagreement too!”

And they would be right. But the difference is, we not only have Written Tradition (Sacred Scripture), but we have Oral Tradition AND we have the Magisterium to correct us when we stray. We have an authoritative God-appointed, God-protected authority that MAY correct us.

VATICAN II (Dei Verbum section 10b) . . . . It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

The Bible ONLY Christian is forced to ignore Oral Tradition and pretend other oral Traditions that they DO implicitly **affirm **(but explicitly deny—like the authoritative oral Tradition of the Canon which is NECESSARY) doesn’t exist. Then they must be their own “magisteriums”.

This is WHY sola Scriptura will always lead to doctrinal disarray. This is why when you look in the phone book’s Yellow Pages and do a little calling you will see multitudes of doctrinally differing “Bible” churches, but doctrinally only ONE Catholic Church.

Someone might object and say: “Well priests and bishops sometimes don’t teach all of Catholicism too.” Bishop Nestorius is an obvious example (from the 400’s A.D.). But there are God-given authoritative God-protected mechanisms in place from the very time of the Gospels, to deal with this if the Church deems it necessary.

**Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that makes void the Word of God. **

Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men that makes void the Commandments of God.

 

[PRmerger]

Bible-ONLY Christians often have a pithy saying: “The main things, are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things.”

What is interesting is to ask these Bible-ONLY Christians what these “main things” are, and where the Bible delineates that these are the “main things”.

You will find that there is NO AGREEMENT among these Bible-ONLY Christians about what these “main things” are.

Why? Because, er… the Bible doesn’t limn what these “main things” are.

You may hear, “Well A, B and C are “main things” and here are the Bible verses for A, B and C”…except all they are providing is verses to support A, B and C being doctrines…NOT being “main things”.

And there is actually a grain of truth to this (when asserted in its proper authoritative context—i.e. the Bishops).

Indeed. That is the “hierarchy of truths”, as the Catholic Church states.

And we get this “list” from the Church, not from the Bible.

 

[stewstew03]

I’ve had to wait to receive permission from a moderator to post a non-catholic Web site that’s not “anti-catholic,” nor attempts to proselytize Catholics, since that would be a violation of forum rules, which I’m desiring to obey. If you go to this link, there are Bible study notes in the upper right hand corner of the screen, which you can view for free, which lists the verses from the 7 Apocrypa books & contrasts them to previous & later Inspired Scripture which shows the errors & contradicts in them:

vernisage.us/SteveChristie/22/index.html

Actually, I have. Jesus affirmed a THREE-fold division of the OT Scriptures (“the Law…the Prophets…and the Psalms”)(Luke 24:44-45). The Catholic OT, subdivides their OT canon into a FOUR-fold division (“the Law, the Wisdom books, the Prophets, & the Historical books”). The “group of Jews” who closed the OT canon didn’t “reject” the 7 Apocrypha books, because they weren’t written yet. This is what Jesus, & later Protestants, recognized, which is why Jesus phrased the canon that way, instead of simply “the Law & the Prophets” like He does elsewhere in Scripture.

In the first century, even during Jesus ministry, the Jews didn’t all agree on the Apocrypha, let alone the Prophets (like the Sadducees). That’s why we have to appeal to the words of Jesus, Who let’s us know that not only the writings of the Law, and not only the writings of the Prophets are Inspired Scripture, but also the “Writings” of “Psalms”, which was the first group of writings in the “Writings” - which is the THIRD division of the the OT canon that Jesus references (which includes Proverbs, Job, the Megillioth, etc) that are separate from “the Prophets.”

(Apologies for the late reply – I had a response ready to post on Friday and then my internet crashed and I lost it. And had zero time to post until now).

I’ll just address one point. You assume (based on your extra-biblical tradition) that when Jesus speaks of the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms" that he is specifically referring to all the books that we understand as the three-fold division. There is nothing in scripture that says “here are the books that belong in each of the three divisions.” Therefore, there’s no evidence to suggest that when Jesus says “the Psalms” that he means “the Writings” which includes those books in the OT except the deuterocanon. We know that there were Jews who accepted the deuterocanon as inspired (and still do). I asked you this question before and I don’t think you’ve addressed it (if you have I apologize for overlooking it) – why do you reject Sirach?
.

 

[benhur]

I think St. Augustine would concur with Justin on this . . .

ST. AUGUSTINE "If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” St. Augustine. Sermons [inter A.D. 391-430]

Poor application. Faustus plainly said he did not believe in the gospels as written or orally told, especially Matthew. He did not believe in the Incarnation etc .

It is a far cry to believe it all though with differing interpretations, and just plain not believing what is written or said as Faustus, to which your quote is directed to

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.ix.xix.html Book 17:3 Writings Against the Manichaens and Donatists

 

[PRmerger]

Poor application. Faustus plainly said he did not believe in the gospels as written or orally told, especially Matthew. He did not believe in the Incarnation etc .

It is a far cry to believe it all though with differing interpretations, and just plain not believing what is written or said as Faustus, to which your quote is directed to

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.ix.xix.html Book 17:3 Writings Against the Manichaens and Donatists

The above is a nonsequitur, ben.

Point that needs to be addressed: if I only submit when I agree, then the one to whom I am submitting really is me.