" Two of the reasons I don't accept them as god breathed"

[Shaolen]

Thank you guys for your help. Here’s what I responded to him with.

" I will certainly add that to my “books to get list”. Now i’m affraid there are some major errors in what you’ve said above.

regarding Hebrews and Revelation: Eusebius considered to be the first church historian wrote in AD325 that hebrews and revelation (among other NT writings) were disputed.

regarding unanimity of deuterocanon: looking at early church history makes this claim quite untenable. Pope St. Damasus I’s decree in 382AD, the Council of Hippo in 393AD, Carthage ni 397AD, Pope Innocent I, Letters 7 408AD, 4th council of Carthage 419AD all point to unanimity of acceptance of the deuterocanon.

regarding the NT “acknowledges the canon of the Jews”: The Jews didn’t have a set canon until the late 1st century, at which point they had no authority to set a canon that is binding on christians.

regarding three fold sections of the OT: the clear cut threefold divisions of the OT into the law, the prophets, and the writings comes in later rabbinical judaism. there’s no concrete evidence prior to Christ to indicate a closed fixed canon that was universally accepted by the Jews. for example 200BC the author of the hebrew book of Sirach does not seem to be aware of any closure of the canon, he provides no list of books, no enumeration of books, and presents itself as giving the wisdom of God, which would indeed be odd if the canon was closed in his day so as to exclude the book of Sirach. when the book was translated into greek roughly 50 years later it was given a prologue which mentioned the Law, the prophets, but doesn’t name the third section saying something along the lines of all the following books, and it certainly doesn’t define a cap on what belongs to that section. Later still when Maccabees was written it mentions only the law and the prophets. The closest the NT gets to this is in Luke 24:44 where it mentions the law, the prophets, and the psalms. Many scholars see this as only referring to the book of Psalms but even if it were referring to other writings as well, it certainly doesn’t define what belongs to them. Even if you could establish a threefold division it wouldn’t therefore rule out the possibility that the deuterocanonicals could be included in those divisions.

regarding reference or quotes: As I mentioned before, mere reference or quotes don’t say much about the canonical status of a particular writing. St. Paul directly quoted from pagan writings but those aren’t considered part of the canon. You started out by saying the NT doesn’t directly quote the deuterocanon and I would agree. However it certainly references the deuterocanon and the way it does I think points to them being accepted by the NT authors as sacred scripture. I will go over the references and their implication later."

I’ll be busy today but later or tomorrow I’ll be able to provide the references the NT makes to the deuterocanonical and why they’re important

 

[reggieM]

Martin Luther did not accept the book of James as Scriptural or God-breathed. That illustrates the problem with this subjectivity and lack of authority.
The Book of Enoch is quoted in the New Testament but is not considered canonical. So it is by the authority of the Church that such things are determined and not by references within the NT.

 

[jcrichton]

Just an outsider view, I can’t see how the Jewish ‘canon’ is relevant in that the ‘use’ of scripture is entirely different.

Whether writings help understand/interpret/illuminate Torah or not is hardly relevant to Christianity.

Hi!

I concur with you; the positions of some “scholars” is not necessarily based on reason but on the “I win” principle… they will argue for and against an issue and credit or discredit all sources, as though the one who first covers all the possible tangents/arguments has an automatic “win.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

So he has responded with this:

“Actually, the NT references or quotes from all the sections of the OT: Torah, Prophets, and Writings. So, the fact is that the NT acknowledges the canon of the Jews, the 39 books of the OT (since the Jews did not acknowledge the deuterocanonical books). Also, by set acceptance I mean that the church never canonized the deuterocanonical books as Scripture as they did the 39 OT and 27 NT books. There has never been unanimity on the apocryphal books as on the other 66 books. With regards to Hebrews and Revelation, these books were never listed as spurious by any church father. The apocryphal books, on the other hand, were often debated in this way in the first 5 centuries of the church. Like many of the early church fathers, I think that the apocryphal books are important, but I do not rank them on the same level as the 66 books of the OT and the NT. If you want the full discussion of my view, you are welcome to purchase the “Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics”.”

Hi!

…ask for a list of all the “66” different quotes!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hebrews:

**And what more should I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received their dead by resurrection. **
We find this info in the OT canon of the Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics.

**Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, in order to obtain a better resurrection. 36 Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned to death, they were sawn in two,[l] they were killed by the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, persecuted, tormented— 38 of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.
**

The only examples of this are found in the Book of Maccabees, a book found in the canon used by Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Hi, James!

…yeah, it seems that the scholar only accepts that which his own authority decrees as sound/correct… everything else must be “sanitized.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

So, why does he accept the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church on the 27 books, but rejects it on the 46 books? Is that not hypocrisy? Inconsistency? Stereotypical cherry-picking?

Ask him why he is not Lutheran, since he embraces the two founding doctrines that Luther put forth: Bible as sole rule, and the 66 book Pharisaic canon. Shouldn’t he then be Lutheran? By what authority does he declare Grandfather Luther in error on doctrines he personally disagrees with?

Does he not realize that the majority of quotes in the the NT come from the Greek Septuagint, which contains the Deuterocanonical books? Print this for him: catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/5-myths-about-7-books.html

Why does he accept the “canon” of those who demanded the death of Christ? He sides with the Pharisees against the Church which Christ founded. Have him review Matthew 23 and ponder what siding with the Pharisees means.

Is he willing to risk hell to avoid becoming Catholic?

OK, maybe not fair on that last one…

Hi!

He must be operating from that ole premise… ‘If it sounds Catholic it must be rejected at all cost!’

He hears “Septuagint” and he goes: …‘Septu… what?.. no, no, no… that sounds too close to 73–forget that source!’ :juggle::juggle::juggle:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Ask him to show you the New Testament quotes from Song of Solomon, Judges and Esther. Then ask him which Jews he’s referring to when he says the Jews didn’t acknowledge the deuterocanonical books (the Jews had no set canon until well after Christianity was established). Third, ask him to source his claim that Revelation and Hebrews were never considered spurious by any Church Father. You can nudge him with this link, if you’d like: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena

It’s pretty clear that this professor isn’t much of a biblical scholar, if he’s got such an erroneous view of the history of the Bible.

Hi!

…don’t be so hard on him… his study could be focused on the 16th century’s findings (’…what Luther and Calvin say goes!’)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[po18guy]

Phd often matters not.

PhD. Hmmmm… Persistent heretical Determination?

Hi!

He must be operating from that ole premise… ‘If it sounds Catholic it must be rejected at all cost!’

Maran atha!

Angel

Surprising that they do not reject the Catholic teaching of salvation by grace through faith. I guess that’s next…

 

[jcrichton]

PhD. Hmmmm… Persistent heretical Determination?

Surprising that they do not reject the Catholic teaching of salvation by grace through faith. I guess that’s next…

Hi!

…yeah, I think that it goes to “Authority;” the major factor always seems to be in becoming self-authoritative… take what seems convenient and reasonable to one’s mind and reject what compels one to yield to the Church’s Authority… interestingly enough, we find the very first example of this in Simon the magician… he experienced what the Church was doing and saw the change in people… and he thought to himself… ‘hey, this would be an excellent addition to my bag of tricks…’ He wanted to exploit the Holy Spirit for personal gains.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Shaolen]

So he now responds with this:

"The threefold division of the Jewish canon was known 200 years before Jesus (see the prologue of the Wisdom of ben Sirach) and as you noted Luke hints at it in 24:44 (cf. Luke 24:27; Matt 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23–if Law and Prophets are two known divisions of canon in Jesus’ day, why do we say there was no Jewish “canon” in the first century?). With regards to “spurious” books, there was a difference made between “spurious” (i.e., unacceptable) and “disputed” (i.e., debated). “Disputed” books may have had issues but were accepted. “Spurious” books were considered unacceptable. Hebrews and Revelation were “disputed” but never considered “spurious”. I can see that you and I disagree on the “inspiration” of the deuterocanon. I’ll just leave with one thought: Why does the Catholic Church refer to them as “deuterocanon”? Could it be that as a “second canon” they are not considered as authoritative as the other books in the canon? Even the Catholic Encyclopedia states “in the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals…Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity . . . " Now, I know that the Roman Catholic Church accepts the Apocrypha as Scripture, so I’m not trying to argue with you. I simply do not agree that these deuteroncanonical (or Apocryphal) books should be seen in the same light as Genesis or Romans. I appreciate your viewpoint, and I’m not trying to be disrespectful here. Thanks for the conversation nonetheless!”

I get the feeling he’s kinda wanting out of the discussion. And I haven’t even gotten to the positive case for the deuterocanon yet.

 

[Borealis]

Thank you guys for your help. Here’s what I responded to him with.

Excellent response. We have taught you well, young apprentice.

 

[Borealis]

Hi!

…don’t be so hard on him… his study could be focused on the 16th century’s findings (’…what Luther and Calvin say goes!’)

Maran atha!

Angel

Not an acceptable excuse; if someone is going to make claims of this nature, they’d better have a lot of historical evidence to back them up. And this professor doesn’t. We, on the other hand, do.

There’s a reason Protestants avoid all discussion of Church history between 33 AD and 1517 (except for ‘Crusades’ and ‘Inquisition’).

 

[Borealis]

So he now responds with this:

"The threefold division of the Jewish canon was known 200 years before Jesus (see the prologue of the Wisdom of ben Sirach) and as you noted Luke hints at it in 24:44 (cf. Luke 24:27; Matt 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23–if Law and Prophets are two known divisions of canon in Jesus’ day, why do we say there was no Jewish “canon” in the first century?).

Because nowhere does the Gospel of Luke (or any other source) state what is actually included in the ‘Law’ and the ‘Prophets’ designations. In fact, if he wants to use Luke 24:44 as his source for what is and is not canon, then he’s going to have to get rid of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. Ask if he’s willing to do that.

With regards to “spurious” books, there was a difference made between “spurious” (i.e., unacceptable) and “disputed” (i.e., debated). “Disputed” books may have had issues but were accepted. “Spurious” books were considered unacceptable. Hebrews and Revelation were “disputed” but never considered “spurious”. I can see that you and I disagree on the “inspiration” of the deuterocanon. I’ll just leave with one thought: Why does the Catholic Church refer to them as “deuterocanon”? Could it be that as a “second canon” they are not considered as authoritative as the other books in the canon? Even the Catholic Encyclopedia states “in the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals…Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity . . . " Now, I know that the Roman Catholic Church accepts the Apocrypha as Scripture, so I’m not trying to argue with you. I simply do not agree that these deuteroncanonical (or Apocryphal) books should be seen in the same light as Genesis or Romans. I appreciate your viewpoint, and I’m not trying to be disrespectful here. Thanks for the conversation nonetheless!”

The deuterocanonicals are referred to as such simply because their inclusion was disputed…up until 382, at which time the matter was settled. Once the Church has made a pronouncement, that’s it. If he disagrees, ask him whether or not he accepts the Trinity, which was disputed up until 325.

I get the feeling he’s kinda wanting out of the discussion. And I haven’t even gotten to the positive case for the deuterocanon yet.

You’re doing fine so far. Keep up the good work!

 

[po18guy]

So he now responds with this: "The threefold division of the Jewish canon was known 200 years before Jesus (see the prologue of the Wisdom of ben Sirach) a

So he accepts an “apocryphal” book (i.e. Deuterocanon) as providing iron-clad evidence? His “argument” is unraveling.

 

[Shaolen]

Excellent response. We have taught you well, young apprentice.

Haha!

 

[Shaolen]

The deuterocanonicals are referred to as such simply because their inclusion was disputed…up until 382, at which time the matter was settled.

What about his statement that the catholic encyclopedia claims that throughout the middle ages there was widespread disagreement?

 

[Borealis]

What about his statement that the catholic encyclopedia claims that throughout the middle ages there was widespread disagreement?

There was, but that has nothing to do with what the Church had decreed in the fourth century. Every Bible from the early fifth century to the Reformation includes the deuterocanonical books. Even Wycliffe’s Bible included them. That term, by the way, didn’t exist until after the Reformation; before then, the Church didn’t differentiate between those seven and the rest of the Old Testament. I’d recommend a look at this site for more details:

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

The Middle Ages dissenters were focusing on Jerome’s own disagreement with the Church on the canonicity of the Seven. However, what must be crystal clear is that regardless of his personal feelings on the matter, St. Jerome assented to Rome’s decision and included the Seven in his translation of the Vulgate. He recognized that the Church, not he, had the authority to make that determination.

 

[po18guy]

However, what must be crystal clear is that regardless of his personal feelings on the matter, St. Jerome assented to Rome’s decision and included the Seven in his translation of the Vulgate. He recognized that the Church, not he, had the authority to make that determination.

And, for this reason, Jerome is a Saint, and Martin Luther is not - even in the communion that bears his name. In the OP’s case, the professor’s argument seems to be perched on the assertion that the existence of a single dissenter somehow lends de facto credibility to whatever claim is made. If so, then all of the early heretics had valid claims. Arius, therefore, should be taken seriously in his claim that Jesus was human and not divine. A poor foundation to build upon.

Such thinking is the sad legacy and utter shame of the rebellion - that portions of revealed truth must now be marginalized, if not rejected outright, for the sake of justifying separation. And, those who proclaim scripture as the sole rule settle for - even demand - less scripture on which to base their beliefs. Surreal.

 

[jcrichton]

Not an acceptable excuse; if someone is going to make claims of this nature, they’d better have a lot of historical evidence to back them up. And this professor doesn’t. We, on the other hand, do.

There’s a reason Protestants avoid all discussion of Church history between 33 AD and 1517 (except for ‘Crusades’ and ‘Inquisition’).

Hi!

I concur… it seems very amusing to me how they (which includes the Jehovah Witnesses) seem to be able to cite things which they perceive as damaging to the Church or, in the least, supportive of their argument while ignoring everything else… it’s as if they suffer from the Swiss cheese syndrome (the holes makes it betterr).

…their expertise is focused on what they themselves determine as “authoritative” or correct–objective reality has no significance in their exegesis.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

So he accepts an “apocryphal” book (i.e. Deuterocanon) as providing iron-clad evidence? His “argument” is unraveling.

Hi!

…yeah, the goal is to win the argument at all cost… even if one must argue for and against an issue and/or use rejected sources as evidential proof! :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

Maran atha!

Angel