Trouble with anti-Catholic book/website

[Rightlydivide]

Do you accept or reject Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? A simple yes or no will do.
And we still have people 2000 years later who reject Jesus as the Messiah. The presence of dissent has no bearing on Truth.

Overall familiarity with what?

You said no one claimed Sola Scriptura for 1500 years which is not true. SO I asked your familiarity with the dissenting groups.

 

[cfrancis]

Of course you are not. I am just establishing the presuppositions to make the conversation flow.
Well for certain we have the first five books of the Bible. But lets assume Samuel’s authorship of Judges and the references unless we have reason not to.
What “authority” made them scripture? Backing up and taking it slow but I have a point. I believe the same thing that made something scripture in 1020 BC makes it scripture in 400 AD. I know you disagree, but why do you disagree?

Is there mention in the OT of the first five books of the Bible? I don’t know, therefore I ask.

We actually agree as to why Scripture is Scripture: it comes from God.
My point is, using 2 Pt again, once the first iota was quilled, it was Scripture. Yet Peter never tells us he is inspired, or that his letter is Scripture.
Continuing our 2 Pt example, even if no one mentioned it for the 350+ years leading up to the canonical pronouncements, it is still Scripture and worthy of being in the canon.
The sifting the of the prisitne from the “poo” is where the authority comes into play.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

You said no one claimed Sola Scriptura for 1500 years which is not true. SO I asked your familiarity with the dissenting groups.

The earliest recorded evidence of Sola Scriptura is the Arians, who you would agree were heretics (they denied that Christ was Divine), not to mention that they (or rather, Arius) came up with this doctrine prior to the entire Bible being canonized.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Is there mention in the OT of the first five books of the Bible? I don’t know, therefore I ask.

We actually agree as to why Scripture is Scripture: it comes from God.
My point is, using 2 Pt again, once the first iota was quilled, it was Scripture. Yet Peter never tells us he is inspired, or that his letter is Scripture.
Continuing our 2 Pt example, even if no one mentioned it for the 350+ years leading up to the canonical pronouncements, it is still Scripture and worthy of being in the canon.
The sifting the of the prisitne from the “poo” is where the authority comes into play.

Absolutely. We do not need Peter to tell us. The same thing that made it scripture is the same thing that made it scripture. I understand you believe that it is the authority of a council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps?

 

[cfrancis]

Absolutely. We do not need Peter to tell us. The same thing that made it scripture is the same thing that made it scripture. I understand you believe that it is the authority of a council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps?

We do not need Peter to tell us his letter is Scripture; but 350+ years later, we need him, or someone representing him, to tell us.
The authority of a council - of a church - protected by the Holy Spirit is needed to select, from a host of candidates, those writings that are Scripture.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The earliest recorded evidence of Sola Scriptura is the Arians, who you would agree were heretics (they denied that Christ was Divine), not to mention that they (or rather, Arius) came up with this doctrine prior to the entire Bible being canonized.

First, do you have any patristic evidence of a Sacred Tradition that is not found in scripture as being authoratative? Do you understand my question? I contend that any reference to tradition and scripture from a patristic writer (Ante-Nicene) cannot be PROVEN to not also be in sctipture.
Ok now to the Arians, every person I can quote IS considered a heretic by Catholics. Are Arians Christians? My understanding there are different varieties, so we would have to say which ones. Prior to the defintion of Nicea, people would have disagreed on the nature of Christ, would those who would eventually be declared heretical actually heretical prior to Nicea? How much acceptance of the divinity of Christ precluded them from being Christian prior to an official declaration?
Please let me know if I need to clarify.

 

[Rightlydivide]

We do not need Peter to tell us his letter is Scripture; but 350+ years later, we need him, or someone representing him, to tell us.
The authority of a council - of a church - protected by the Holy Spirit is needed to select, from a host of candidates, those writings that are Scripture.

But once again, what about 1025 BC? Why is it different? They did not use a council.

 

[cfrancis]

But once again, what about 1025 BC? Why is it different? They did not use a council.

Yet, I have yet to see a reference to any of the books in the OT itself. How do we know God inspired Moses to write the first five books of the Bible?

So, in 1025 BC, is there a belief that God inspired Moses to write the first five books of the Bible?

And when speaking of the OT, there is always the difference between the Alexandrian and Palestinian canons - both accepted as the Word of God.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yet, I have yet to see a reference to any of the books in the OT itself. How do we know God inspired Moses to write the first five books of the Bible?

So, in 1025 BC, is there a belief that God inspired Moses to write the first five books of the Bible?

And when speaking of the OT, there is always the difference between the Alexandrian and Palestinian canons - both accepted as the Word of God.

Yes. But lets go to the New Testament if that is easier for you; ie more familiar. You do agree that people in the NT quote the OT as authoratative and it was not based upon a councils decision. You do agree that intertestamental writers did the same?
So once again, why is their a different standard for the two and what do you base that on?

 

[cfrancis]

Yes. But lets go to the New Testament if that is easier for you; ie more familiar. You do agree that people in the NT quote the OT as authoratative and it was not based upon a councils decision. You do agree that intertestamental writers did the same?
So once again, why is their a different standard for the two and what do you base that on?

Yet the same NT writes cite many non-canonical books as well (Enoch cited in Jude, for example). And the same NT writers do not cite at least 5 OT books. So citation is not a guarantee or a stamp of canonicity, just non-citation is not an exclusion from canonicity.
So, why is not Enoch considered canonical?

Based on your argument, then, we’d need a third testament that cites authoritatively the NT in order to establish the canon of the NT?

 

[jmcrae]

But once again, what about 1025 BC? Why is it different? They did not use a council.

They also didn’t have a canon of Scripture, as such. Even at the time of Jesus, the Pharisees and the Sadducees disagreed on which books constituted Scripture. The Sadducees held only to the five books of Moses, while the Pharisees held to the 46-book Alexandrian canon. (The Palestinian canon of 39 books didn’t come into existence until several decades later, at least.)

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yet the same NT writes cite many non-canonical books as well (Enoch cited in Jude, for example). And the same NT writers do not cite at least 5 OT books. So citation is not a guarantee or a stamp of canonicity, just non-citation is not an exclusion from canonicity.
So, why is not Enoch considered canonical?

Based on your argument, then, we’d need a third testament that cites authoritatively the NT in order to establish the canon of the NT?

Talk about trying to change the subject! I am not talking about simply citing. I would have to be completely unfamiliar with the Bible to make such an assertion.
Are you suggesting there is not a difference in how scripture is quoted and referred to and noncanonical citations??
Are you suggesting there is no such thing as scripture until the local regional synods at Carthage and Hippo?
I have never read any Catholic contend such but there is always a first time.

 

[Rightlydivide]

They also didn’t have a canon of Scripture, as such. Even at the time of Jesus, the Pharisees and the Sadducees disagreed on which books constituted Scripture. The Sadducees held only to the five books of Moses, while the Pharisees held to the 46-book Alexandrian canon. (The Palestinian canon of 39 books didn’t come into existence until several decades later, at least.)

Are you also saying there was no scripture until Carthage and Hippo?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Alexandrian canon containing the Deuterocanonicals??
Oh my. I have swamp land for you. Do tell. What did the most well known Alexandrian Jew not quote them?

 

[cfrancis]

Talk about trying to change the subject! I am not talking about simply citing. I would have to be completely unfamiliar with the Bible to make such an assertion.
Are you suggesting there is not a difference in how scripture is quoted and referred to and noncanonical citations??
Are you suggesting there is no such thing as scripture until the local regional synods at Carthage and Hippo?
I have never read any Catholic contend such but there is always a first time.

Talk about trying to dodge the issue!
First, you’d need to define “quote authoritatively” which is an endeavor in subjectivity. That aside, let’s assume we can agree on a definition.
Jude’s use of Enoch is, no doubt, authoritative - stated as fact.
Then there is the issue of OT books not “quoted authoritatively” in the NT, which is a larger number than those simply not quoted/cited/referred to at all.
Sadly, I have run into non-Catholics who ignore these issues.

But let’s assume you are correct: “authoritative quotation” of an OT book in the NT is a stamp of canonicity.

Such does not settle the issue as to how to determine, from the myriad candidates, which books are Scripture and therefore canon. Without the authors there to vouch…

 

[cfrancis]

Alexandrian canon containing the Deuterocanonicals??
Oh my. I have swamp land for you. Do tell. What did the most well known Alexandrian Jew not quote them?

Why didn’t Christ quote from all the OT?
PS - I’m out until tomorrow.

God Bless you!

 

[jmcrae]

Are you also saying there was no scripture until Carthage and Hippo?

There was Scripture, but there was confusion over which books were to be read aloud in the Liturgy of the Word at Mass. St. Justin tells us only, “The memoirs of the Apostles are to be read out in the assembly” - he doesn’t go into any detail.

The Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage affirmed the 46-book canon of the Old Testament, and defined a list of 27 books to be included in the New Testament. Pope Innocent I promulgated this list throughout the whole Church by means of an infallible decree, which, by its nature, closed the canon of the Scriptures.

It was at this time that St. Jerome gathered the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament, translated them all into Latin, and bound them in order into a codex - the world’s first Bible.

 

[Church_Militant]

Mason
There is no historical proof for the Assumption of Mary. Because, it never happened.

People discuss if it was “fitting”. That is not the issue. That has never been the issue. It never happened.
I suspect you know that now.Prove that it never happened.

You make an assertion that has no proof whatever and expect others to accept it as truth when in fact there is far more substance to the Assumption than there is for your assertion.

Until you can irrefutably prove “it never happened” you need to not teach such things lest you incur a stricter judgement. (James 3:1)

 

[Rightlydivide]

Talk about trying to dodge the issue!
First, you’d need to define “quote authoritatively” which is an endeavor in subjectivity. That aside, let’s assume we can agree on a definition.
Jude’s use of Enoch is, no doubt, authoritative - stated as fact.
Then there is the issue of OT books not “quoted authoritatively” in the NT, which is a larger number than those simply not quoted/cited/referred to at all.
Sadly, I have run into non-Catholics who ignore these issues.

But let’s assume you are correct: “authoritative quotation” of an OT book in the NT is a stamp of canonicity.

Such does not settle the issue as to how to determine, from the myriad candidates, which books are Scripture and therefore canon. Without the authors there to vouch…

Once again. You do admit that there was scripture and it was called such prior to these councils? 2nd Timothy 3:16

 

[Rightlydivide]

Why didn’t Christ quote from all the OT?
PS - I’m out until tomorrow.

God Bless you!

Because quotation is not canonicity.