SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Old_Scholar]

Church Militant

You are making the same mistake many others have made. It is true the writers of the apocryphal books knew the Old Testament and they often quoted from it to a certain extent. However Christ never quoted from the apocrypha books and what you have listed can all be found in the Old Testament.

I won’t take time to look them all up, as I have done it numerous times already but I will take the first few. The others are in the same category, either not a proper quotation or simply someone’s dream that it is from the apocrypha.

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

How can you use this: Wis 11:7. For instead of a fountain of an ever running river, thou gavest human blood to the unjust. Doesn’t even make sense.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

There are many such verses in the Old Testament. Laying up treasures was a principle of the Old Testament because every Jew knew he had to have treasures on earth as well as heaven. Here is but one: Isaiah 45:3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

This isn’t even close. The entire book of Genesis, Numbers and Leviticus talks about the “Golden Rule” and it even predates the Old Testament in previous writings. In addition, Jesus said: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

He is stressing what to “*do to" *others, not what “not to do" as in Tobit.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Another case of the author of Sirach knowing the Old Testament which had already been canonized and was in widespread use then.

The entire Old Testament is full of references to one’s “fruits” and how important it is. Just look at a couple of verses, Ne 13:31 Neh 13:31 “And for the wood offering, at times appointed, and for the firstfruits. Remember me, O my God, for good.” And Proverbs 3:9, “Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:"

These have been used for much too long. They are invalid and do not prove at all that Jesus or any apostle quoted from the apocrypha. Someone has tried very hard to make them do so but it won’t work.

 

[Old_Scholar]

But the argument that the deuterocanonicals were only infallibly included in the canon in 1546 at Trent applies just as much to the 4 Gospels, and to every other book of the New Testament. And that fact makes the claim about the deuterocanonicals only being added to the canon in 1546 (and thus falsely implying that the deuterocanonicals were added to an already infallibly declared canon) ludicrous.

The fact is that it was the Jews who canonized the Old Testament and that closed it. This was done well before any of the apocryphal books were even written and long before the Septuagint was translated. You must know that the Septuagint was the translation of the Hebrew into Greek and the Eastern part of the empire spoke Greek at that time. However, the Jewish population was mostly in the West and they still spoke Hebrew. Only a few (compared to the numbers in the West) Jews in Alexandria were speaking Greek and they were heavily influenced by the Jewish gentiles.

Also, it is claimed that the Septuagint contained the apocrypha books but it cannot be proven as the oldest copy we have dates back to 400 A.D., hundreds of years after it was translated; so we really don’t even know what all it contained.

By 100 A.D., all the 27 books of the New Testament were in circulation in all the churches and were universally accepted except for some churches that did not want to accept Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation. Eventually though they were all accepted.

The apocrypha books do not and did not meet the criteria used for canonization. That’s why there was so much discussion and disagreement about them for hundreds of years. For example, Jerome refused to include them in his Greek translation from the original Hebrew. It took Augustine some time to convince him to accept them and then he said they were not authoritative but for reading and historical purposes only; not to be used for teaching, faith or morals.

The church councils kept including some, eliminating others, then changing them again and putting them in and out. It was only at Trent that the “infallible” church agreed. Is that really infallibility?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Is this a joke? I hope so because I am laughing at it.

Why not show us where it is wrong instead?

 

[MariaG]

The fact is that it was the Jews who canonized the Old Testament and that closed it. This was done well before any of the apocryphal books were even written and long before the Septuagint was translated.

That is simply not true.

The Jews did not, in fact, canonize the OT until well after the death of Christ. If you choose to follow the leadership of those who rejected Christ rather than those who followed him:shrug:

For anyone interested in the truth you may wish to read the following from This Rock:
The Council That Wasn’t
The Myth of Jabneh and the Old Testament Canon
By Steve Ray

 

[heisenburg]

I am confused…

You seem to imply that everyone knew what was (NT) scripture by 100 AD, maybe 150 at the latest. Unfortunately this is far from the truth. You can find pieces of the NT Cannon, but you will not find it in its entirity until the middle 300’s. Some thought that Revelations should not be added, others thought things like the apocalypse according to Peter was valid. Point is, until those three councils, there was no official list.

I reiterate, and this is based in Historical fact. The NT list we have today was not agreed upon for nearly 350 years AFTER Christs death. Furthermore, you will find significant DISagreement in countless historical documents up to those three councils…

Finally… Saying that it the CC added them at Trent is dishonest.

1. Once the three councils took place at Hippo, Carthage and Rome, there was almost not disagreement between the differant groups.
2. It is hard pressed to find ANY cannon of scripture that is differant NT or Old between 382 and Martin Luther
3. Eastern Orthodox Churches ALL accept both the New and the Old. You will find some cases where the have 3rd and 4th Mac, but you again will find it hard pressed to find a cannon that is different NT and OT wise.
4. No Christian accepted the Jewish cannon set at the Council of Jamnia until Martin Luther
5. Saying the canon was closed officially PRIOR to Jesus’s birth makes no sense.
6. The reason why it was declared OFFICIALLY at Trent was not because the church added them, but because a small, but very vocal few people at the time were declaring a NEW cannon. Its like saying your father is only your father AFTER he declares it in a legal, and official way.
   The Cannon used by the CC is the SAME cannon used by the church SINCE 380’s. No books were added to that list, or taken away at Trent. Saying that the church added them is a straw man argument using technicalities as it’s evidence.

OS,
I know you have a zeal for the lord, but it is not the Catholic Church that changed the cannon, it was the protest reformation. No amount of history twisting will change that.

In Christ

 

[Pwrlftr]

I am confused…

You seem to imply that everyone knew what was (NT) scripture by 100 AD, maybe 150 at the latest. Unfortunately this is far from the truth. You can find pieces of the NT Cannon, but you will not find it in its entirity until the middle 300’s. Some thought that Revelations should not be added, others thought things like the apocalypse according to Peter was valid. Point is, until those three councils, there was no official list.

I reiterate, and this is based in Historical fact. The NT list we have today was not agreed upon for nearly 350 years AFTER Christs death. Furthermore, you will find significant DISagreement in countless historical documents up to those three councils…

Finally… Saying that it the CC added them at Trent is dishonest.

1. Once the three councils took place at Hippo, Carthage and Rome, there was almost not disagreement between the differant groups.
2. It is hard pressed to find ANY cannon of scripture that is differant NT or Old between 382 and Martin Luther
3. Eastern Orthodox Churches ALL accept both the New and the Old. You will find some cases where the have 3rd and 4th Mac, but you again will find it hard pressed to find a cannon that is different NT and OT wise.
   4) No Christian accepted the Jewish cannon set at the Council of Jamnia until Martin Luther
4. Saying the canon was closed officially PRIOR to Jesus’s birth makes no sense.
5. The reason why it was declared OFFICIALLY at Trent was not because the church added them, but because a small, but very vocal few people at the time were declaring a NEW cannon. Its like saying your father is only your father AFTER he declares it in a legal, and official way.
   The Cannon used by the CC is the SAME cannon used by the church SINCE 380’s. No books were added to that list, or taken away at Trent. Saying that the church added them is a straw man argument using technicalities as it’s evidence.

OS,
I know you have a zeal for the lord, but it is not the Catholic Church that changed the cannon, it was the protest reformation. No amount of history twisting will change that.

In Christ

Your point 4 is not true since Jerome rejected the deutero’s.

But even earlier, we have Melito accepting only the protocanonical books minus Esther (no deutero’s) and on the other end of the chronological scale we have Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan at the time period of the reformation not accepting the deuteros.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I am confused…

You seem to imply that everyone knew what was (NT) scripture by 100 AD, maybe 150 at the latest. Unfortunately this is far from the truth. You can find pieces of the NT Cannon, but you will not find it in its entirity until the middle 300’s. Some thought that Revelations should not be added, others thought things like the apocalypse according to Peter was valid. Point is, until those three councils, there was no official list.

I reiterate, and this is based in Historical fact. The NT list we have today was not agreed upon for nearly 350 years AFTER Christs death. Furthermore, you will find significant DISagreement in countless historical documents up to those three councils…

Finally… Saying that it the CC added them at Trent is dishonest.

1. Once the three councils took place at Hippo, Carthage and Rome, there was almost not disagreement between the differant groups.
2. It is hard pressed to find ANY cannon of scripture that is differant NT or Old between 382 and Martin Luther
3. Eastern Orthodox Churches ALL accept both the New and the Old. You will find some cases where the have 3rd and 4th Mac, but you again will find it hard pressed to find a cannon that is different NT and OT wise.
4. No Christian accepted the Jewish cannon set at the Council of Jamnia until Martin Luther
5. Saying the canon was closed officially PRIOR to Jesus’s birth makes no sense.
6. The reason why it was declared OFFICIALLY at Trent was not because the church added them, but because a small, but very vocal few people at the time were declaring a NEW cannon. Its like saying your father is only your father AFTER he declares it in a legal, and official way.
   The Cannon used by the CC is the SAME cannon used by the church SINCE 380’s. No books were added to that list, or taken away at Trent. Saying that the church added them is a straw man argument using technicalities as it’s evidence.
   OS,
   I know you have a zeal for the lord, but it is not the Catholic Church that changed the cannon, it was the protest reformation. No amount of history twisting will change that.

In Christ

The council fathers at Trent passed over in silence on 1 Esdras and did not include it in the canon while the earlier councils of Hippo and Carthage did include it in their canon so it’s not true that the canon of Trent is exactly the same as the canon of Hippo and Carthage.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Farther than that…how about the Old Testament. The apostles already knew of Enoch, Moses, and Elijah and so there is a clear precedent for assumptions, so why wouldn’t the Lord do it for His own mother who, next to him, is the most unique person in all of human history. How would she be less worthy of it than the 3 OT cases?I sure don’t think so. I did a little digging around and the fact is that the Alexandrian was already in wide use a good 2 + centuries before Jesus. The fact that the Jews at Jamnia intentionally espoused the Hebrew version because the Christians were using the Septuagint to spread the Gospel of Christ.

In fact, Gleason Archer & G.C. Chirichigno (Protestants) tell us in their book Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), that out of 373 OT quotes in the NT, over 90% (340) are from the Septuagint, while only 33 (less than 10%) are from the Hebrew text.

In view of that I don’t think you can validly claim that the Reformers recognized the correct canon. See above…Like I said, since God set the precedent of assuming His choice people back in the OT, I have to say that, 1. there’s no doubt that the apostles all knew that and 2. that there is no reason to deny the reports that Our Lord did indeed assume His mother into Heaven.

If you believe that Mary is in heave, you are making an assumption that you can’t support.

Careful study of Scripture will show you that Elisah and Enoch did not go to heaen to be with God.

John 3:13 " And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

If you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, you can’t believe Elijha and Enoch went to heaven. Either the Bible is true or it is not.

 

[MariaG]

If you believe that Mary is in heave, you are making an assumption that you can’t support.

Careful study of Scripture will show you that Elisah and Enoch did not go to heaen to be with God.

John 3:13 " And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

If you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, you can’t believe Elijha and Enoch went to heaven. Either the Bible is true or it is not.

My saving grace sermon went along the lines of either you believe the bible is God’s word cover to cover including the cover or you don’t. And can confidently say that I still believe this as a Catholic Christian

That said, No man hath **ASCENDED, **but Mary, Elijha and Enoch did not ascend but were assumed. Big difference between ascending to heaven by your own power like Christ and being taken there by the power of God.

 

[heisenburg]

Pwlft

To you in Christ.

For starters, if what i said came out confusing I appologize. What was intended was that PRIOR to Jamnia, there was no set Cannon for the Jewish Community. I understand that Jamnia did NOT include the Duet. but at this point, they had no authority to proclaim scripture anyway.

With respect to your second comment. It is still a technicality type question. Is the cannon of scripture that you find in Catholic Bibles PRIOR to Trent any different. The answer is no. Regardless of what it’s official status may be, using Trent as evidence is far from evidence. One could easily also say the Catholic Church Added the NT then as well. But you don’t hear that claim.

What you will find is a difference in the way it is numbered, or the way books and chapters are divided. But the CONTENT is still the same. That is why there may appear to be subtle differences between the three councils and Trent. Numbering, Chapters, and Book Placement/Naming. But the Content is the same

In any case. Hopefully I made my points a little more clear.

In Christ

 

[SyCarl]

Even after the early councils there was still questions as to the canonicity of the disputed books. Even Pope Gregory the Great said.

Gregory the Great - “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed” (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)

At the time of the Reformation, Cardinal Cajetan suggests that there were two types of canonical books.

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. **Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. **Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, **these books **(and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (In ult. Cap. Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also Cosin’s A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott’s A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)

 

[Old_Scholar]

My saving grace sermon went along the lines of either you believe the bible is God’s word cover to cover including the cover or you don’t. And can confidently say that I still believe this as a Catholic Christian

That said, No man hath **ASCENDED, **but Mary, Elijha and Enoch did not ascend but were assumed. Big difference between ascending to heaven by your own power like Christ and being taken there by the power of God.

I think that’s just a play on words. They both mean the same thing. Either they went to heaven or they didn’t.

Please give your explanation of what the difference is.

 

[heisenburg]

Agreed, there were some people that still were not convinced. There are still some “Christians” that aren’t convinced Jesus was Divine.

However, what Luther did that these people did not is go so far as to change what was considered Scripture.

What is interesting is that they did have doubts, but submitted to the Church as a whole for Guidance. They were not calling for new councils, nor were they demanding the church recant those books.

As a note, 424 AD is really soon after the first councils. Information traveled much differently than today. It does not surprise me that this soon after there were still a few hold outs.

In Christ

 

[SyCarl]

424 is the page reference for what Pope Gregory. He was Pope well over a hundred years after the councils.

 

[MariaG]

I think that’s just a play on words. They both mean the same thing. Either they went to heaven or they didn’t.

Please give your explanation of what the difference is.

It is not just a play on words, it is HOW one got to heaven. Only Christ ascended. Ascension was done through His own power.

From CA Library Immaculate Conception and Assumption

The Assumption

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

What do you believe happened to Enoch? What did it mean when Scripture says God “took” him?

 

[heisenburg]

I can be corrected and will retract that particular point. However the overall point still stands.

In Christ

 

[Old_Scholar]

MariaG

I will give you the information about Elijah and Enoch being “taken” provided you will promise me you will read the Scriptures I give you.

First I am sure you know there are three heavens. Paul spoke of the third heaven and referring to the very dwelling place of God.

The first heaven is the earth’s atmosphere.

Deut. 11:17 Then the LORD’s anger will burn against you, and he will shut the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce…

Deut. 28:12 The LORD will open the heavens, the storehouse of his bounty, to send rain on your land in season and to bless all the work of your hands.

Judges 5:4 – "O LORD, when you went out from Seir, when you marched from the land of Edom, the earth shook, the heavens poured, the clouds poured down water.

Acts 14:17 – "Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons;…

The second heaven is outer space.

Psalm 19:4,6 – In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun… It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other;…

Jeremiah 8:2 – *They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of the heavens which they have loved and served… *

Isaiah 13:10 – The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light

The third heaven is God’s dwelling place.

1 Kings 8:30 (phrase repeated numerous times in following verses) – then hear from heaven, your dwelling place…

Psalm 2:4 – *The One enthroned in heaven laughs; The LORD scoffs at them. *

Matthew 5:16 – In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

The highest heaven, the third heaven is indicated by the reference to the Throne of God being the highest heaven.

1 Kings 8:27 – "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you.

Deut. 10:14 – *To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it. *

Realize that at the time of ancient Israel, they did not understand the universe as we do today. They wrote in terms they were familiar with. They spoke of three heavens.

I had help in obtaining this description of the three heavens from here:

carm.org/questions/threeheavens.htm

(cont’d)

 

[VociMike]

OldScholar, or anybody else: I’m not going to get involved in the ten-thousandth discussion on the deuterocanonicals. Rather, I’m going to ask you where and when the current Protestant canon was ever authoritatively declared as the Christian canon. Show me before 1500 where the list of books in your bible was authoritatively declared by the Church (I won’t even say “the Catholic Church”) as the correct canon.

 

[Church_Militant]

If you believe that Mary is in heave, you are making an assumption that you can’t support.

Careful study of Scripture will show you that Elisah and Enoch did not go to heaen to be with God.

John 3:13 " And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

If you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, you can’t believe Elijha and Enoch went to heaven. Either the Bible is true or it is not.The Bible is always true, but your interpretations of man are not. I agree with the Bible …I do not agree with your errant interpretation.

Please by all means show me the scriptures that you feel tell us that Enoch and Elijah did not go to heaven. Most people believe that until Christ came and opened the way that all righteous Jews went to the “bosom of Abraham”, which meant that they were as good as going to heaven. either way, it DOES mean that they were taken to their reward, so the point is both irrelevant to the assumption of the Blessed Virgin, since at the point where she was assumed she could indeed go directly to heaven.

Mary easily fits the same criteria that saw the OT men assumed.

BTW, the two words assumed and ascended are most definitely NOT the same thing. Moses, Enoch, Elijah, and the Blessed Virgin Mary were assumed into heaven by God.

The Lord Jesus Christ ascended (under His own power!) into Heaven where He is seated at the right hand of the Father. No one else had the power to do that.

 

[Church_Militant]

OldScholar, or anybody else: I’m not going to get involved in the ten-thousandth discussion on the deuterocanonicals. Rather, I’m going to ask you where and when the current Protestant canon was ever authoritatively declared as the Christian canon. Show me before 1500 where the list of books in your bible was authoritatively declared by the Church (I won’t even say “the Catholic Church”) as the correct canon.

:clapping: :clapping: :yup: