Trouble with anti-Catholic book/website

[Rightlydivide]

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)

PROVE IT NEVER HAPPENED!?!?!
Oh my. The desperate attempts of desperate men. Prove a negative. You read it here first from a Catholic apologist!

 

[jmcrae]

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

“Scripture” simply means “writings.” St. Paul was not referring to a canon of Scripture in the sense that we would understand today. Rather, he was making reference to the holy books that St. Timothy was already aware of. Since St. Paul doesn’t give a specific list of books, we really don’t know which books he was referring to (although it seems safe enough to assume that he was referring to at least some of the Old Testament, if not all of it).

 

[Rightlydivide]

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.

So what made scripture scripture in 200 BC?

 

[jmcrae]

So what made scripture scripture in 200 BC?

The authority of Moses, as expressed through the particular High Priest who sat upon his throne.

 

[Church_Militant]

Not so. The church did not consider the DC’s fully Scripture until Trent. Here is what the The New Catholic Encyclopedia says:

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).”

As you can see it was not until Trent rendered an infallible decision that these books considered fully Scripture. It is true that many individuals may have thought they were but what matters is what the church offically proclaims as it did at Trent.

As for Luther he was wrong. He was just like all men capable of error.

Really? Well then you better tell all these early church fathers.

The Old Testament Canon

During the Reformation, primarily for doctrinal reasons, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith, and parts of two others, Daniel and Esther. They did so even though these books had been regarded as canonical since the beginning of Church history.

As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.

Below we give patristic quotations from each of the deuterocanonical books. Notice how the Fathers quoted these books along with the protocanonicals. The deuterocanonicals are those books of the Old Testament that were included in the Bible even though there had been some discussion about whether they should be.

Also included are the earliest official lists of the canon. For the sake of brevity these are not given in full. When the lists of the canon cited here are given in full, they include all the books and only the books found in the modern Catholic Bible.

When examining the question of what books were originally included in the Old Testament canon, it is important to note that some of the books of the Bible have been known by more than one name. Sirach is also known as Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Chronicles as 1 and 2 Paralipomenon, Ezra and Nehemiah as 1 and 2 Esdras, and 1 and 2 Samuel with 1 and 2 Kings as 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings—that is, 1 and 2 Samuel are named 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are named 3 and 4 Kings. The history and use of these designations is explained more fully in Scripture reference works.

The Didache

“You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]” (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

“Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]” (Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Rome

“By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, “What have you done?” or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]” (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp of Smyrna

“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17].
. . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!” (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

 

[Rightlydivide]

“Scripture” simply means “writings.” St. Paul was not referring to a canon of Scripture in the sense that we would understand today. Rather, he was making reference to the holy books that St. Timothy was already aware of. Since St. Paul doesn’t give a specific list of books, we really don’t know which books he was referring to (although it seems safe enough to assume that he was referring to at least some of the Old Testament, if not all of it).

WHAT?
Name one example of graphe not referring to scripture and simply a “writings” It is used 51 times; go through each time. All “writings” are inspired??

So by what standard was Timothy aware of the books that were already scripture?

 

[Rightlydivide]

The authority of Moses, as expressed through the particular High Priest who sat upon his throne.

Interesting. So give some examples of this and where it occurs. You are getting there!

 

[jmcrae]

WHAT?
Name one example of graphe not referring to scripture and simply a “writings” It is used 51 times; go through each time. All “writings” are inspired??

So by what standard was Timothy aware of the books that were already scripture?

First, he didn’t have a definitive list, since as you pointed out earlier, the Jews had no set canon of Scripture - anything from the Torah alone to the full 46-book canon of Alexandria is therefore possible.

But he would have known which books are generally thought of as sacred, by the authority of Moses, as expressed through the particular High Priest who sat upon his (Moses’) throne, and his idea of what constitutes sacred writings would be based on that particular person’s usage.

 

[Rightlydivide]

First, he didn’t have a definitive list, since as you pointed out earlier, the Jews had no set canon of Scripture - anything from the Torah alone to the full 46-book canon of Alexandria is therefore possible.

But he would have known which books are generally thought of as sacred, by the authority of Moses, as expressed through the particular High Priest who sat upon his (Moses’) throne, and his idea of what constitutes sacred writings would be based on that particular person’s usage.

You have not provided support for this yet. You said the “HIgh Priest” could determine scripture. Please cite your source of this belief.
We are getting there. The throne part is interesting…is this your interpretation of Matthew 23? I am interested in this view. It has elements of the truth. No offence.

 

[jmcrae]

Interesting. So give some examples of this and where it occurs. You are getting there!

I didn’t realize you believed in Authority.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I didn’t realize you believed in Authority.

A dispensationalist LOVES the OT discussion.
Now please, cite your supports for your assertion that the High Priest determines scripture.

 

[jmcrae]

You have not provided support for this yet. You said the “HIgh Priest” could determine scripture.

Not in the sense that he actually defined a canon of Scripture, but in the sense that, whatever books he put into the Scriptorium was what they read out in the Synagogues, and what the people understood as being sacred Scripture.

Please cite your source of this belief.

Jesus and His Times, put out by the Reader’s Digest. (Sorry, it’s not very scholarly, I know. But it works for me. )

 

[Rightlydivide]

Not in the sense that he actually defined a canon of Scripture, but in the sense that, whatever books he put into the Scriptorium was what they read out in the Synagogues, and what the people understood as being sacred Scripture.

Jesus and His Times, put out by the Reader’s Digest. (Sorry, it’s not very scholarly, I know. But it works for me. )

I see. Well that is absolutely correct in THAT sense. Do you think that is what 2nd Timothy is referring to? I do not think you do.
I understand this is difficult because scholars teach one thing about scripture but yet the Bible itself makes authoratative assertions that there is indeed SCRIPTURE-graphe.

 

[jmcrae]

I see. Well that is absolutely correct in THAT sense. Do you think that is what 2nd Timothy is referring to? I do not think you do.

It’s referring to whatever his mother and grandmother exposed him to when he was a child, and again, we don’t have a list, so we don’t know definitively which books these might have been.

I know what you are getting at - did they have something in writing, yes they did. Did they consider it authoritative? Yes, to some extent - but they in no way ever held to “Scripture alone” without the priesthood, without the rabbis, without the Synagogue, and without the Temple - all of these things worked together in harmony. And it still remains true that they didn’t have a set canon of Scripture in the sense that we today would understand it - some of them, after all, were reading from the Book of Enoch, and it doesn’t seem as though anybody had an issue with that, even though the Book of Enoch doesn’t appear in any of the official lists of the time.

 

[justasking4]

Really? Well then you better tell all these early church fathers.

How about this on the DC’s:
“(Seripando was) Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici”; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 270-271

 

[Rightlydivide]

It’s referring to whatever his mother and grandmother exposed him to when he was a child, and again, we don’t have a list, so we don’t know definitively which books these might have been.

.

Jmcrae you just said that whatever books Timothy’s mother exposed him to were inspired. That whatever books Timothy’s mother and grandmother can make him wise unto salvation. You have just made Timothy’s mother and grandmother deciders of scripture?
Care to defend or clarify?

 

[Rightlydivide]

There was scripture at the time of this writing. It was authoratative and dear person, Timothy’s mother and grandmother did not decide. You see scripture teaches something different than the majority of people on this board. Or many boards for that matter. They KNEW what the scripture was or was Paul wrong for not telling them?

 

[jmcrae]

Jmcrae you just said that whatever books Timothy’s mother exposed him to were inspired. That whatever books Timothy’s mother and grandmother can make him wise unto salvation. You have just made Timothy’s mother and grandmother deciders of scripture?

Are you saying that Moms and Grandmas can’t discern the Holy Spirit? There was no officially defined canon of Scripture, back then - they were free to give him whatever they wanted.

Again, when St. Paul says “Scripture” he is not referring to St. Jerome’s Bible, nor to Martin Luther’s, nor to King Edward VI’s. He is simply referring to various sacred writings. They didn’t have a Bible, back then.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Are you saying that Moms and Grandmas can’t discern the Holy Spirit? There was no officially defined canon of Scripture, back then - they were free to give him whatever they wanted.

Again, when St. Paul says “Scripture” he is not referring to St. Jerome’s Bible, nor to Martin Luther’s, nor to King Edward VI’s. He is simply referring to various sacred writings. They didn’t have a Bible, back then.

1. So whatever they gave him was inspired?
2. Whatever they gave him is “given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”

 

[guanophore]

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?

No. The question makes no sense. The entire NT was created 100% out of authoritative Sacred Tradition.

What that tradition does is tell us how to understand the writing that was produced by it. They cannot be separated, or “not found” in one another.

I contend that any reference to tradition and scripture from a patristic writer (Ante-Nicene) cannot be PROVEN to not also be in sctipture.

Why would it need to be, since both came from the same Source?

every person I can quote IS considered a heretic by Catholics.

What does that tell you?