The Old Testament Books, the deuterocanonical books not in the Jewish Bible, WHY NOT?

[Churchmouse]

MrS:

Your “history” of the canon of Scripture is horrible. Even in 135AD the Jews were still discussing what was in “their” canon. And if you choose to accept what their council decided on (they seriously opposed Christianity, you know) as opposed to the body of authority begun by Christ Himself, well… the burden of proof is all on you… and you only have to go back about 500 years. Before that your opposition/arguments were non-existant.

And you pretty much jumped the gun. No one denied that the Jews were still in discussion even into the 2nd century, but the books being discussed were “canonical” (Ecclesiastes, and maybe Song of Songs). I would also suggest that you look into the first 1500 years where, regardless of Councils, there were still issues regarding the canon.

Jame White debated the Canon of Scripture recently with a Catholic Apologist, Gary Michuta. (email Gary at gmichuta@avemarialaw.edu for purchase info) I suggest you purchase the debate and listen closely, then do some re-research. Do not detract from the Word of God.

I prefer more scholarly sources on this matter. Beckwith’s “The Old Testament Canon of the Early Church” is one I can recommend wholeheartedly.

Peace,
CM

 

[MrS]

Churchmouse:

Carthage in 347 A.D.? Who cares what they affirmed! There were canon issues leading all the way up to Trent regardless of these “affirmations.” Trent used their “infallible” powers to close the canon, but “infallibility” didn’t go too far in those days. Considering they were just words uttered that really had no authority, especially over those who disagreed that this was a valid concept.

Peace,
CM

Ah, now wer have the root of the discussion:

1] “Who cares…”
Trent reaffirmed, in response to the heresies of the Reformation, many many truths, including the authenticity of the Canon. You, as an outsider to the Apostolic Church, can’t recognize its authority, even though your shorter version of Scripture reaffirms the final authority of the Church.

2] You apparently have no correct concept of infallibility. It is the gift of the Holy Spirit, promised through Christ, that protects the Church from doctrinal errors. The Church is perfect. The Church is Christ Himself. Those in it are not. So come on home to Rome.

MrShttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[MrS]

Churchmouse:

And you pretty much jumped the gun. No one denied that the Jews were still in discussion even into the 2nd century, but the books being discussed were “canonical” (Ecclesiastes, and maybe Song of Songs). I would also suggest that you look into the first 1500 years where, regardless of Councils, there were still issues regarding the canon.

I prefer more scholarly sources on this matter. Beckwith’s “The Old Testament Canon of the Early Church” is one I can recommend wholeheartedly.

Peace,
CM

James White, in this debate, used Beckwith often… and at each turn was refuted soundly.

By the way, White is often regarded by his proponants as the best anti-Catholic around. His ministry is quite large, quite well funded, quite impressive, and - theologically unsound. Probably cuz he hates so much.

Scholarly??? Bechwith’s work is, in a word, lacking. Perhaps by the end of the year, Mr Michuta’s work on the deuterocanonicals will shed some much needed light. The assumptions made by our Protestant brethren often began with incorrect info… and often make the somewhat “boring” subject of the canon even more boring.

 

[Churchmouse]

MrS:

Which Jews… the ones who only recognized the Torah, or the ones who recognised the prophets???

The ones of whom Christ said:

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Mat 23:2-3).

The given, is that all the NTwriters were in the one and only Church established by Christ, and commissioned by Him to teach. That they chose to write was a necessary expansion of the spreading the Gospel.

And the only record of what constitutes the Gospel.

Next I expect to see the worn out arguments about the “oracles”, and OT errors, and “7 books are in just to support Catholic docrine” etc.

Not even sure of what you mean.

Do some serious study, please.

I have, do yourself a favor and quit assuming.

Peace,
CM

Mrs

 

[MrS]

Churchmouse:

The ones of whom Christ said:

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Mat 23:2-3).

Mrs

Where is Mose’s seat referred to in Scripture?

Jesus was admonishing them: If those are the only scrolls of the Scripture they followed, then they better follow them! They were not following their own OT books themselves.

He also admonished the Sadducees for the same reason, as they should at least live by the books that they recognized as from God.

Catholics should say to Protestants… if you only accept 66 books, then do what they say. All the doctrines of the Catholic Church can be found implicity or explicity in Scripture. More importantly, none of our Doctrines are refuted by Scripture. That is certainly not the case of much of Protestant theology

MrS

 

[Churchmouse]

MrS:

Ah, now wer have the root of the discussion:

1] “Who cares…”
Trent reaffirmed, in response to the heresies of the Reformation, many many truths, including the authenticity of the Canon. You, as an outsider to the Apostolic Church, can’t recognize its authority, even though your shorter version of Scripture reaffirms the final authority of the Church.

Who cares what Trent affirmed. How many prelates on that council were experts on the canon? And save that “outsider” nonsense for someone gullible enough to believe it.

2] You apparently have no correct concept of infallibility. It is the gift of the Holy Spirit, promised through Christ, that protects the Church from doctrinal errors. The Church is perfect. The Church is Christ Himself. Those in it are not. So come on home to Rome.

The gift of the Holy Spirit is given to those who believe. According to 1 John 2:20-27, He helps us to know what is sound and what isn’t. Everything else is simply your own presupposed conceptions of what the Church is.

Peace,
CM

 

[MrS]

Churchmouse:

And the only record of what constitutes the Gospel.

Not even sure of what you mean.

I have, do yourself a favor and quit assuming.

Peace,
CM

Mrs

Not the only record… just the only one accepted by those who separated from the Church. The reformation was more a revolt and a divorce. Very sad.

Not even sure of what you mean…
I have…

One contradicts the other.

MrS

 

[MrS]

Churchmouse:

The gift of the Holy Spirit is given to those who believe. According to 1 John 2:20-27, He helps us to know what is sound and what isn’t. Everything else is simply your own presupposed conceptions of what the Church is.

Peace,
CM

• even the devil believes.
• helping to know, yes. No promises we will all accept and it is up to God to open one’s eyes to the Truth He helps us to know, and the tool He uses is Himself, the Church. You can’t claim graces of the Holy Spirit while rejecting the Church. To do so is for YOU to presuppose what the Church is.

MrS

 

[Churchmouse]

MrS:

Where is Mose’s seat referred to in Scripture?

Gosh, you are all over the place. It’s in Exodus 18:13.

Jesus was admonishing them: If those are the only scrolls of the Scripture they followed, then they better follow them! They were not following their own OT books themselves.

Nice way to skirt the fact that they held to known Scriptures. IOW, the Hebrew text.

He also admonished the Sadducees for the same reason, as they should at least live by the books that they recognized as from God.

Which is why He pointed the Jews to the Pharisees as rightfully sitting on the chair. They were charlatans who were outside of Jewish orthodoxy.

Catholics should say to Protestants… if you only accept 66 books, then do what they say. All the doctrines of the Catholic Church can be found implicity or explicity in Scripture. More importantly, none of our Doctrines are refuted by Scripture. That is certainly not the case of much of Protestant theology

Like I said, you are all over the place. You have to claim “implicity” to gather whatever support you can for Roman distinctives. That which is explicit finds no problems with us.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

MrS:
Not the only record… just the only one accepted by those who separated from the Church. The reformation was more a revolt and a divorce. Very sad.

I reiterate, the “only” record. Everything else is left to be discerned.

Not even sure of what you mean…
I have…

More ambiguity.

One contradicts the other.

Ditto.

Peace,
CM]

 

[Churchmouse]

- even the devil believes.

I don’t think you want to go on record as saying that the Devil has the Holy Spirit. I’m sure you know what I mean.

• helping to know, yes. No promises we will all accept and it is up to God to open one’s eyes to the Truth He helps us to know, and the tool He uses is Himself, the Church. You can’t claim graces of the Holy Spirit while rejecting the Church. To do so is for YOU to presuppose what the Church is.

And, once again, I am being subjected to the Catholic interpretation of what is what.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

jimmy:

Unfortunately, Jerome was not the only one who counted when deciding the canon. Just like anything else the canon had to pass a vote. It was not Jeromes decision what would be canon. I could name many church fathers who are just as credible as Jerome or Gregory.

Your missing the point. It isn’t who agreed and who didn’t agree, but that there was disagreement.

Why do you accept the view of Jerome or Gregory on this subject but reject it on the other subjects?

How is this relevant to this discussion? There was variation on the part of many, some which you will disagree with.

By the way, I was curious what denomination you are.

Reformed Baptist.

Peace,
CM

 

[MrS]

Churchmouse:

And, once again, I am being subjected to the Catholic interpretation of what is what.

Peace,
CM

Not subjected…just introduced. You have free will to accept or reject. In John 6 lots of people found what Jesus said too difficult or strange, or life changing, and He let them walk away too. No Catholic, except Jesus, can convert anyone. Our position, if presented with some reasonable support, is all we can do. We need to go forth and teach… not go forth and subject.

MrS

 

[Churchmouse]

nucatholic:

You didn’t answer my question Churchmouse, where in the Bible does it state what the canon of scripture is to be and where does it say we should rely on it alone as the authority for Chrisitian truth? No more beating around the bush, lets get to the point. If you can’t answer my question don’t answer at all.

It doesn’t and it doesn’t have to. You seem to have some misconception that all which Protestants believe is found in Scripture. It isn’t. As an ex-Protestant yourself, you should have known that Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean everything is found in Scripture, but only that it is the ultimate authority. In the Old Covenant, God spoke through his prophets, these words were inscripturated, and the Jews followed these precepts. When Jesus came he held the Jews accountable for what the Scriptures say, never their traditions, constantly quoting from Scripture and telling them things like, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Mat 22:29). In the New Testament, God spoke through his Apostles, these words were inscripturated, and the Christians followed these precepts. As for where it states that it “alone” should be followed, it doesn’t and it doesn’t have to either, but again this isn’t what Sola Scriptura teaches anyway. Is there anything else that is tangible enough to be followed? Rome and the hearsay which incorporates many “Sacred Traditions”?

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

MrS:

Not subjected…just introduced. You have free will to accept or reject. In John 6 lots of people found what Jesus said too difficult or strange, or life changing, and He let them walk away too. No Catholic, except Jesus, can convert anyone. Our position, if presented with some reasonable support, is all we can do. We need to go forth and teach… not go forth and subject.

I believe I’ve given you ample reasons to see that not all is as cut and dry as some here make it seem. I don’t know if your implication is that I somehow “walked away from Jesus” by walking away from Rome. Quite the contrary, I walked to Him when he called, Rome has nothing to do with it other than my disagreements with their distinctives.

Peace,
CM

 

[MrS]

Churchmouse:

It’s in Exodus 18:13.

Which is why He pointed the Jews to the Pharisees as rightfully sitting on the chair. They were charlatans who were outside of Jewish orthodoxy.

Like I said, you are all over the place. You have to claim “implicity” to gather whatever support you can for Roman distinctives. That which is explicit finds no problems with us.

Peace,
CM

Exodus 18 is a good example of “implicity” in the old Covenant. Moses is described as sitting and judging the problems of the people. And he is instructed to develope a hierarchy to help both govern and discipline.

In the New Covenant there are examples of "explicit" teaching on the new covenant authority to govern and discipline.
Mt 28:18 All power is given to the Apostles, not everyone
Jn 20:21 Apostles will carry on for Christ
Lk 10:16 the church speaks with Christ’s voice
Mt 18:18 legislate
Mt 18:17 discipline

the writings of the Early Fathers, those who lived in or shortly after the time of Christ support the Catholic teaching authority,

and we know only the Catholic Church has infallibility:
Jn 16:13 The Holy Spirit will GUIDE the Church into all truth
Jn 14:26 The Holy Spirit will teach
1Tim 3:15 The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth
Acts 15:28 Apostles will speak with the voice of the Holy Spirit
Matt 28:20 No apostasy… Jesus will be with the Church always

and the Church will be perpetual:
Is 9:6-7 Dan 2:44 and Dan 7:14
Lk 1:32 Mt 7:24 Mt 13:24-30 Mt 16:18 Jn 14:16 Mt 28:19

And it is the same Church which established the Canon of the Bible at 73 books.

MrS

 

[MrS]

Churchmouse:

It doesn’t and it doesn’t have to. You seem to have some misconception that all which Protestants believe is found in Scripture. It isn’t. As an ex-Protestant yourself, you should have known that Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean everything is found in Scripture, but only that it is the ultimate authority. In the Old Covenant, God spoke through his prophets, these words were inscripturated, and the Jews followed these precepts. When Jesus came he held the Jews accountable for what the Scriptures say, never their traditions, constantly quoting from Scripture and telling them things like, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Mat 22:29). In the New Testament, God spoke through his Apostles, these words were inscripturated, and the Christians followed these precepts. As for where it states that it “alone” should be followed, it doesn’t and it doesn’t have to either, but again this isn’t what Sola Scriptura teaches anyway. Is there anything else that is tangible enough to be followed? Rome and the hearsay which incorporates many “Sacred Traditions”?

Peace,
CM

NOT. Ultimate would imply another authority, so what is that authority and did it come from Jesus? Just as first would imply a second.

Example, saying Jesus was First Born means He had the special privileges designated to that title. Had scripture called Him born first, it could have implied there were others who followed.

If Protestants taught Scriptura Sola, I could agree with your statement. Of Fide Sola. The difference is that Sola Scripture teaches Scripture Alone!!! No Tradition, no teaching authority. Yet most accept the Tradition of what constitutes the Canon. ???

Thanks for your honesty.

MrS

 

[jimmy]

Churchmouse:

Your missing the point. It isn’t who agreed and who didn’t agree, but that there was disagreement.

My point is that the canon was decided by the majority of the bishops that were present and the councils.

 

[Churchmouse]

MrS:

Exodus 18 is a good example of “implicity” in the old Covenant. Moses is described as sitting and judging the problems of the people. And he is instructed to develope a hierarchy to help both govern and discipline.

Not at all. Jesus, himself, makes a reference to the seat of Moses in the context of making rightful decisions for the people. Exodus 18:13 is an example of what Christ speaks of. Nothing implicit about it.

In the New Covenant there are examples of "explicit" teaching on the new covenant authority to govern and discipline.
Mt 28:18 All power is given to the Apostles, not everyone
Jn 20:21 Apostles will carry on for Christ
Lk 10:16 the church speaks with Christ’s voice
Mt 18:18 legislate
Mt 18:17 discipline

Read the verses again:

Mt. 28:18 All power is given to Christ, not to the Apostles.
Jn.20:21 These Apostles will carry on for Christ
Lk.10:16 This is addressed to the 70 (vs.1) who were preparing the way in the cities where Christ would come. The Church, technically, isn’t instituted until later when the Holy Spirit descends (Acts 2).

the writings of the Early Fathers, those who lived in or shortly after the time of Christ support the Catholic teaching authority,

Don’t be vague. Quote your sources.

and we know only the Catholic Church has infallibility:
Jn 16:13 The Holy Spirit will GUIDE the Church into all truth
Jn 14:26 The Holy Spirit will teach
1Tim 3:15 The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth
Acts 15:28 Apostles will speak with the voice of the Holy Spirit
Matt 28:20 No apostasy… Jesus will be with the Church always

NONE of the above verses even implies an errorless Church. Jesus was there with Peter and he still couldn’t get it right.

and the Church will be perpetual:
Is 9:6-7 Dan 2:44 and Dan 7:14
Lk 1:32 Mt 7:24 Mt 13:24-30 Mt 16:18 Jn 14:16 Mt 28:19

No one is denying that the church will be for all time.

And it is the same Church which established the Canon of the Bible at 73 books.

So “you” believe

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

MrS:

NOT. Ultimate would imply another authority, so what is that authority and did it come from Jesus? Just as first would imply a second.

Admittedly, I could have phrased it better. All things are tested by Scripture. This is what I meant by the ultimate authority.

Example, saying Jesus was First Born means He had the special privileges designated to that title. Had scripture called Him born first, it could have implied there were others who followed.

But Scripture doesn’t say that, does it. And even if it did, one would have to be dumber than a box of rocks to think something is determine by one passage.

If Protestants taught Scriptura Sola, I could agree with your statement. Of Fide Sola. The difference is that Sola Scripture teaches Scripture Alone!!! No Tradition, no teaching authority. Yet most accept the Tradition of what constitutes the Canon. ???

You obviously hold to a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. It doesn’t teach Scripture alone. There is nothing wrong with reading the Church Fathers or even following traditions, but these things are weighed within the balances of Scripture. The Church Fathers are not an infallible source, some contradicted the other, and some preached contrary to orthodoxy (Tertullian, Origen, etc.). Other heresies which arose (Gnosticism, Arianism, Docetism, etc.) were always defended through Scripture.

Thanks for your honesty.

And for yours. It was fun

Peace,
CM