Sola Scriptura?biblical?

[Pixie_Dust]

How so? How does it follow that “the discovery of Hebrew texts of those books, found together with other OT books accepted by all of Christendom, puts that theory to rest”?
Secondly, there are no direct quotes in the NT for the DC’s.

Very rarely does the NT quotation match the OT, not just in the case of the deuterocanon. In my KJV-only Baptist days, this was explained to me that we use the English translation of the Hebrew OT, while Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Greek OT/Septuagint. Also, exact quotations were not as important in the ancient world as they are to us today. They couldn’t just pull their family Bible off the shelf and look up the reference, they went by memory more often than not.

This is true about the NT. However the matter is now settled in that they are accepted as Scripture.

The Deuterocanon has been accepted as Scripture for longer than any NT book. Sounds like your logic is, “The 27 book NT is in my condensed Bible so I accept it; while the OT I have is different than what Jesus read but I don’t accept that He read more than 66 books.”

True. Luther was mistaken.

Read The Facts About Luther and you’ll rethink canonizing him. He was mistaken about the OT books he removed as well.

2 different issues. Elevating the DC’s to full Scripture by Trent is suspect in light of the Reformation. For example the praying to the dead is found only in Macabees.

You keep saying that after you’ve been told that isn’t what happened at Trent.

Secondly, the DC’s have errors in them. For example:
Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”
Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”

The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1

From the Introduction to Judith:

Any attempt to read the book directly against the backdrop of Jewish history in relation to the empires of the ancient world is bound to fail. The story was written as a pious reflection on the meaning of the yearly Passover observance. It draws its inspiration from the Exodus narrative (especially Exodus 14:31) and from the texts of Isaiah and the Psalms portraying the special intervention of God for the preservation of Jerusalem. **The theme of God’s hand as the agent of this providential activity, reflected of old in the hand of Moses and now in the hand of Judith, is again exemplified at a later time in Jewish synagogue art. **God’s hand reaching down from heaven appears as part of the scene at Dura-Europos (before A.D. 256) in paintings of the Exodus, of the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22), and of Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones (Eze 37).

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. “And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”

Is it impossible for 7 generations to be born in a 70 year time period?

Keep in mind we do not have a complete copy of the Sept at the time of Christ. We don’t know with certainty if they contained the DC’s.

We know that they weren’t formally removed from the Jewish canon until 60 years after Jesus ascended into Heaven, and they were removed by the same men who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Not exactly the most reliable source, if you ask me.

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

2 different issues. Elevating the DC’s to full Scripture by Trent is suspect in light of the Reformation. For example the praying to the dead is found only in Macabees. Secondly, the DC’s have errors in them. For example:

Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”

Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”

The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. “And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”

Keep in mind we do not have a complete copy of the Sept at the time of Christ. We don’t know with certainty if they contained the DC’s.

Do you get all of your “information” regarding the Catholic Church from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry? Your information was obviously cut and pasted directly from their website: www.carm.org. Research and study my … .

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

It even has a “cut and paste” section “…to provide quick cut and paste answers to common objections against Christianity as well as provide documentation for cult teachings. Each answer has been boiled down to a maximum of 255 characters, including spaces, to allow it to be pasted on all chat systems…”

 

[justasking4]

Do you get all of your “information” regarding the Catholic Church from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry? Your information was obviously cut and pasted directly from their website: www.carm.org. Research and study my … .

i get my stuff from all kinds of places…

 

[justasking4]

It even has a “cut and paste” section “…to provide quick cut and paste answers to common objections against Christianity as well as provide documentation for cult teachings. Each answer has been boiled down to a maximum of 255 characters, including spaces, to allow it to be pasted on all chat systems…”

Neat—View attachment 4154

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

i get my stuff from all kinds of places…

How very sola scriptura of you.

 

[justasking4]

How very sola scriptura of you.

thank you----View attachment 4155

 

[guanophore]

What does deutro canonical mean? Why were these 7? books in this category over the centuries?

This is a very good question, and I think well worth your study. It is not really related to the topic of this thread, though. Since the SS reject them as scripture, then it is not really relevant, is it?

Here is a good page

st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__0-index.html

With a list of quotations in the NT from them.

 

[guanophore]

I can understand publisher doing this to help the readers to to have a greater understanding of the texts. However they are not adding new Scripture.

The point is there are non-scriptural additions to the Bible when it is published. IF SS is what it claims, these would not be necessary or recommended. Scripture alone means alone!

 

[justasking4]

The point is there are non-scriptural additions to the Bible when it is published. IF SS is what it claims, these would not be necessary or recommended. Scripture alone means alone!

i can see you don’t quite comprehend SS. In the scriptures it does say that Christ has provided teachers for the church whose responsilbility is to teach believers. This means they explain what the scriptures mean.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

i can see you don’t quite comprehend SS. In the scriptures it does say that Christ has provided teachers for the church whose responsilbility is to teach believers. This means they explain what the scriptures mean.

So you admit that the Scriptures need an outside authority to be understood fully? You don’t subscribe to “Scripture interprets Scripture”? (Which is another non-Biblical Tradition that some Protestants adhere to, btw.)

Fascinating thing is, the Apostles weren’t just teaching from the Scriptures. They were preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which had yet to be penned. Those noble Bereans believed Paul’s oral teaching that Christ was the Messiah. They accepted his teaching as Truth even though they didn’t ever read about it in a Gospel. Christ performing miracles, forgiving sins, dying for our sins and rising again on the third day were Oral Traditions that the earliest Christians believed and went to their deaths over, without ever seeing a page of writing on the subject. (Even if they had seen it in writing, odds are pretty good that they couldn’t read it. Lots of scribes couldn’t actually read, they just copied the shapes they saw.)

 

[justasking4]

Pixie Dust;4213575]
Originally Posted by justasking4
i can see you don’t quite comprehend SS. In the scriptures it does say that Christ has provided teachers for the church whose responsilbility is to teach believers. This means they explain what the scriptures mean.

Pixie Dust
So you admit that the Scriptures need an outside authority to be understood fully?

God gave men minds to understand the Scriptures. It is with the mind we understand.

You don’t subscribe to “Scripture interprets Scripture”? (Which is another non-Biblical Tradition that some Protestants adhere to, btw.)

Scripture interpreting Scripture means that there are times when verses and passages from other areas of Scripture can be used to add to our understanding of a text. The 2 sermon on mount accounts in Matthew and Luke is a case in point.

Fascinating thing is, the Apostles weren’t just teaching from the Scriptures. They were preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which had yet to be penned.

Not necessarily. There is no reason not to think that some were writing down what Jesus taught. Secondly, its not impobable that His teachings werer not memorized by His disciples.

Those noble Bereans believed Paul’s oral teaching that Christ was the Messiah. They accepted his teaching as Truth even though they didn’t ever read about it in a Gospel.

They, on their own checked out what Paul was preaching with the Scriptures themselves.

Christ performing miracles, forgiving sins, dying for our sins and rising again on the third day were Oral Traditions that the earliest Christians believed and went to their deaths over, without ever seeing a page of writing on the subject.

No problem here. However, all we have from them today is the written Word of God.

(Even if they had seen it in writing, odds are pretty good that they couldn’t read it. Lots of scribes couldn’t actually read, they just copied the shapes they saw.)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What am i to make of this comment in the New American Bible on the DC’s–?
"the Apocrypha are “Religious books used by both Jews and Christians which were not included in the collection of inspired writings.” Instead, they “. . . were introduced rather late into the collection of the Bible. Catholics call them ‘deuterocanonical’ (second canon) books” (nab, 413).
.

Hi, justasking4. If your asking of my opinon and not church teaching here. I dont use much of the NAB. Some of the introductions are done from a liberal ecumenical standpoint, so that the publisher probably could sell more of them. I dont have this comment in the NAB I possess, so I really cannot make a just opinion. From what you posted, all I gather is that Jews and non catholics at one time did not include these books in their bibles until later, probably after the Hebrew counterparts to these books were found in the dead sea scrolls at Qumran, which was the reason non catholics and Jews rejected them because they had no Hebrew counterparts to the Greek translation from the Septuagint.

Technically there are three terms Catholics use 1. Protocanonical These books were accepted almost uncontested by the Catholic church fathers and Saints 2. Deuterocanonical are called this because they raised much debate and serious questioning and were scrutinized very much by the Catholic church 3. Apochryphal hidden books to be read by certain Christians, or only to be read by certain Jewish leaders and not to be revealed by just anyone, because these books were to exalted to be made public. ST. Athanasius distinguished the canonical books from the Apochryphal. The key to this discussion is that although Deutero, does mean “second” or second author, it is **never implied **as a second set of books that canonized later after the protocanonical books, only that the Deutero. books were much scrutinized by the Catholic church.

Ps. to clear up the term Apochrypha; Protestants use this term to refer to the Catholic Deutorcanonical books. And Protestants use the term Pseudepigrapha to refer to the Catholic Apochrypha books.

Sorry I cant help you anymore here for lack of your complete quote, and unknown author.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Secondly, there are no direct quotes in the NT for the DC’s.

There are at least 300 quotations in the new testament referencing the DC’s.

The Septuagint in addition to some Hebrew manuscripts was the only bible in circulation during Jesus time fully intact. Jesus and the apostles were raised with the Septuagint and taught from it.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

justasking4;4211892:

Secondly, there are no direct quotes in the NT for the DC’s.

There are at least 300 quotations in the new testament referencing the DC’s.

The Septuagint in addition to some Hebrew manuscripts was the only bible in circulation during Jesus time fully intact. Jesus and the apostles were raised with the Septuagint and taught from it.

So the claim of some RCs that the Bible did not exist before the Chruch put it together is false? So much contridiction, what is one to believe?

 

[Cinette]

Gabriel of 12;4215149:

So the claim of some RCs that the Bible did not exist before the Chruch put it together is false? So much contridiction, what is one to believe?

I do not understand your reasoning??

What existed was Oral Tradition - that is, at the time Jesus ascended into heaven he had instucted the Apostles to spread the gospels. Nothing except parts of the OT had been written down and so they taught by word of mouth (Orally). Later, even when the books had been compiled and declared accepted as Truth the printing press still had not been invented (1440). However, the Oral Tradition had been handed down over generations. You might assume that perhaps since it was passed down that it might have been “contaminated” or “distorted” as would be the case with any “urban legend”. With the scriptures this could not happen as Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church - the teachings were therefore preserved. This is borne out by the fact that you will find the same teaching in the Church today as 2000 years ago - the liturgy is an example of this also.:yup:

All heresies have been fought by the Church and the magisterium.

Look at Protestantism. I know Protestants do not like to hear this but go back in their history (500 years). Protestantism began with Luther and when you look at what emanated from Luther you will see any number of different churches, all claiming to believe in the bible and yet each with a different interpretation.

Here is an example. It is well known that Protestants (most) do not honour our Blessed Mother - they say she was just a vessel. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli had a great love for her and recognised her as the Mother of God. They all believed in a culture of life - today we see many Christians (even some Catholics I am afraid) who pursue a culture of death - artificial birth control, abortion, embryonic stem cell - these beliefs lead to infanticide, euthanasia - in other words murder - if an unborn child is not perfect they kill it. In China the remains of abortion are used as “health food”. There are many other examples of how the Protestant faith has been watered down and altered over the ages.

The Catholic faith has stood firm to the tenants of the Faith and continues to do so.

I have to say this. Please do not think that by saying this I have any superior feelings. Do not be offended. The truth of the Church is fact and cannot be denied. Our Pope is the earthly Father of all Christians. We belong together .

Truth has to be preserved and fought for. Our beliefs cannot be a matter of convenience. Sometimes we have to accept suffering. The bible tells us that to be good Christians we must take up cross and carry it. It isn’t easy being Christian but it is worth it!

 

[Pixie_Dust]

So the claim of some RCs that the Bible did not exist before the Chruch put it together is false? So much contridiction, what is one to believe?

The OT existed, but the NT was still 360-some years from being canonized. When Catholics say the Bible didn’t exist before the Church we mean the entire Bible, OT and NT. We know that the Church came before the entire Bible because we read in Acts about a scoundrel of a Pharisee named Saul who persecuted the Church. Later in Acts we read about Saul getting knocked off his high horse and under the name Paul wrote a large portion of the NT - letters to existing Churches! The Church was clearly in existence before the NT was written, it was actively preaching Christ for many years before the first letter or Gospel was written.

There were many letters and Gospels circulating during that time that some regarded as Scripture, such as the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, the Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul, Acts of John, Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Andrew, the Acts of Thomas, the Apocalypse of Paul, and the Gospel of Thomas. As I’ve mentioned many times, Revelation, James, Hebrews and 2 Peter very nearly did not make the canon there was so much dispute over their authenticity.

 

[guanophore]

How so? How does it follow that “the discovery of Hebrew texts of those books, found together with other OT books accepted by all of Christendom, puts that theory to rest”?

Because one of the reasons the Jews of Jesus’ time rejected them is because they did not have Hebrew manuscripts. What has this got to do with the topic? I think you are blowing smokescreens because you know in your heart that SS is not biblical.

Secondly, there are no direct quotes in the NT for the DC’s.

This statement reveals a gross ignorance which can easily be corrected with some honest study. It also has nothing to do with the topic.

This is true about the NT. However the matter is now settled in that they are accepted as Scripture.

This won’t do, ja4. The matter is settled for Catholics because of Sacred Tradition. You will have to come up with your own way of proving that these books are inspired, and no others.

2 different issues. Elevating the DC’s to full Scripture by Trent is suspect in light of the Reformation. For example the praying to the dead is found only in Macabees.

What happened at Trent is a proclamation of what has been held since the birth of the Church, that the Septuagint is the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles. As with all proclamations of doctrine, they do not become necessary until some heresy crops up requiring that a statement be made. This is the case with the two natures of Christ, the Trinity, and many other truths handed down to us from the Aposltes. It did not start becoming “true” when the proclamation was made, any more than the Trinity became “true” at the Council of Nicea.

Secondly, the DC’s have errors in them. For example:
Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”
Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”

The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1

There are similar errors throughout the Bible. The Bible is inspired and inerrant with regard to God’s revelation about HImself. It is not designed to be a history book about this world, but God’s. For example, we know that the sun does not revolve around the earth, also.

Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. “And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”

You might want to try applying this reasoning to the generations leading up to Christ.

Keep in mind we do not have a complete copy of the Sept at the time of Christ. We don’t know with certainty if they contained the DC’s.

Yes, we know with certainty that it contained the DC, most especially because Jesus and the Apostles quote from it.

i can see you don’t quite comprehend SS. In the scriptures it does say that Christ has provided teachers for the church whose responsilbility is to teach believers. This means they explain what the scriptures mean.

Finally, something on topic! Yes, and those teachers are the ones who go out with the authority invested in them by the Apostles. There are many today who explain what they think the scriptures mean, and get way off track, because they separate the scriptures from the Sacred Tradition that produced them. What you are admitting, and rightfully so, is that it is any teacher’s or readers’ understanding of what Scripture means that is actually the ultimate authority under the doctrine of SS.

However, none of this has anything to do with the topic. What is your goal here?

 

[guanophore]

i get my stuff from all kinds of places…

It is against the rules to cut and paste without citing your source, just as much as it is to take the thread off topic.

 

[Cinette]

*FOR JUSTASKING4

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4 View Post
2 different issues. Elevating the DC’s to full Scripture by Trent is suspect in light of the Reformation. For example the praying to the dead is found only in Macabees.*

*Praying to the dead? Who on earth prays to the dead? *