Churchmouse, maybe you are adding a little more than is really there in 2 Macc. Nowhere does it say that Judas was trying to pray them out of hell. He was only praying that the sin be blotted out, which quite clearly shows these people believed in forgiveness of sins even after we die. Where is one forgiven in the afterlife? It’s not heaven or hell. Also, you should do a little better research on the canon. St. Jerome went to Palestine to study under the rabbis to learn Hebrew in order to translate the scriptures into latin. These rabbis where on the side of the Jews that did not accept the 7 books as scripture. But keep in mind that the other half of the Jews did. Now, because Jerome was greatly influenced by the these rabbis, he to refused the books at the beginning. But, when Jerome asked Pope Damasus, (who was using his authority as the vicar of Christ), the pope said, no, we have tradition going all the way back to the apostles saying that they these books are accepted. So. Jerome, a faithful Catholic, said okay, I don’t agree with you, but your the pope, therefore I will follow your leadership and put them in anyway. The key to understand is that Jews that became christian were of the side that accepted the books. And really, the whole debate that started this matter several centuries before Christ was that they didn’t have the manuscripts of these seven books in Hebrew (which was supposed to be the langauge God used to (name removed by moderator)ire the writers), when they translated it to Greek. But, in 1947, when they found the Dead Sea Scrolls, guess what they found. The original Hebrew manuscripts of the 7 books. End of Story.Well, not that simple. The most you can get out of the context is that “Judas” assumes that he can pray some idolators out of hell, considering that the sin in question is idolatry, regardless of how they viewed the amulets. The mere fact that they would wear “amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia” displays a trust in idols and thus, these men were slain because of it (vs.40).
And doesn’t that strike you as a bit superstitious, perhaps? Trusting in the power of an idolic amulet rather than trusting in God? No, 2 Maccabees was rejected by Jerome. I don’t think you would say that he rejected it because it was friendly to Rome.
Peace,
CM
Thomas,
The truth of the matter is that 2 Macc was rejected by Luther. The only way he could get around 2 Macc. contradicting his theology was by bringing up an old argument which had long (over 1000 years) been settled in order to throw the whole book out.No, 2 Maccabees was rejected by Jerome.
Peace,
CM
Hello my friend
You know Germys, I have been studying canon issues for a while now and I have never, to this day, ever read anything stating that several Jews accepted the 7 books. Please, provide me with your documentation.
You’re wrong on two counts. First of all, Jerome didn’t ask Damasus for permission to research and translate, it was the other way around. Damasus commissioned Jerome to do so. There were several versions being used by the church at the time and it was bringing confusion, thus Damasus asked Jerome. Secondly, this tradition you speak of is non-existent, there were others throughout the history of the church which didn’t believe these books to be inspired. Amongst them Pope Gregory the Great. Even at the time of the Reformation, two key players, Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan didn’t buy into these books. I know that it is common to believe that there is this Apostolic “tradition” regarding these books, but if this was the case, there would be unity throughout regarding these books which there was not. In essence, there were two traditions, one that accepted the books and another that didn’t.
Nope, you’re wrong again. Jerome compromised and included the books as an addendum of the Vulgate. He prefaced these books and stated that they shouldn’t be held in the same manner as inspired Scripture. He stated that these books are good for the edification of the church, but they weren’t to be used to substantiate the doctrines of the church. Also, as a side note, I believe that Damasus had died by the time he had finished.
I assume that you are saying that some of the Jewish rabbis Jerome studied under had converted. Again, please document your sources. I believe you simplify the reasons why these books weren’t accepted, but I assure you, it wasn’t simply because these books were written in Greek
There were some 800 scrolls and fragments of scrolls found in Qumran, there were only 3 Apocryphal books that I recall found there-- the epistle to Jeremiah (which is the sixth chapter of Baruch), Tobit, and Ecclesiasticus, so you would have to document which are the other 4 you claim. Fragments of Tobit were found in Aramaic and Hebrew. Of the Epistle of Jeremiah, Greek fragments were found. Of Ecclesiasticus, fragments were found of the original Hebrew. However, you are wrong in claiming that the only reason these books were unaccepted is due to language issues. There is much more to it than that of which I don’t have the time to document.
Tom, I can’t wait! That ought to be fun
And with you as well, my friend
There was no settling of the canon until Trent, Germys. Prior to this there were others like Jerome who didn’t accept this book.
Hey, it happens
Churchmouse said:Part 2…
Nope, you’re wrong again. Jerome compromised and included the books as an addendum of the Vulgate. He prefaced these books and stated that they shouldn’t be held in the same manner as inspired Scripture. He stated that these books are good for the edification of the church, but they weren’t to be used to substantiate the doctrines of the church. Also, as a side note, I believe that Damasus had died by the time he had finished.
I assume that you are saying that some of the Jewish rabbis Jerome studied under had converted. Again, please document your sources. I believe you simplify the reasons why these books weren’t accepted, but I assure you, it wasn’t simply because these books were written in Greek
There were some 800 scrolls and fragments of scrolls found in Qumran, there were only 3 Apocryphal books that I recall found there-- the epistle to Jeremiah (which is the sixth chapter of Baruch), Tobit, and Ecclesiasticus, so you would have to document which are the other 4 you claim. Fragments of Tobit were found in Aramaic and Hebrew. Of the Epistle of Jeremiah, Greek fragments were found. Of Ecclesiasticus, fragments were found of the original Hebrew. However, you are wrong in claiming that the only reason these books were unaccepted is due to language issues. There is much more to it than that of which I don’t have the time to document.
I would recommend Roger Beckwith’s The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church: And It’s Background in Early Judaism to give you insight into these canon issues.
Peace,
CM
Thomas, the phrase was used euphemistically, not that I actually thought we were “in battle”
And with you as well my friend
Please understand that Luther didn’t reject these books simply because it didn’t jibe with his theology. Again, Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan, two contemporaries of Luther didn’t agree with them either. There were varying views on what comprised the canon until Trent. Luther was simply following another tradition that was present in his day and age and prior as well.
Oh, Beckwith is an Anglican scholar who is very well respected by both Catholics and Protestants. Admittingly, the book is out of print and hard to find. Some book dealers take advantage of this and charge up to $500 for the book. I got mine through a friend who contacted the original British publishers and had them roll out 20 copies. So all I paid for mine is 45 bucks
As with much of scripture, there is a two-fold interpretation. One secular (where you take this literally: if you owe someone money, settle the debt quickly) and a second interpretation, which is a good one since it fits the context.
You can’t absolutely rule Luther’s other motives though, either. The only reason I say that is because it is very clear from his own writings that he was prone to disagree with even books of the New Testament if they didn’t jibe with his theology. It is a fact of history that he took out James and other books for a long period of time before they were finally put back in. As for the book, that sounds fair. I don’t mind studying the issue more, but I do believe that the Catholic Church is infallible in its teachings so it would only be to learn a little more.Germys just two things:
Please understand that Luther didn’t reject these books simply because it didn’t jibe with his theology. Again, Cardinals Ximenes and Cajetan, two contemporaries of Luther didn’t agree with them either. There were varying views on what comprised the canon until Trent. Luther was simply following another tradition that was present in his day and age and prior as well.
Oh, Beckwith is an Anglican scholar who is very well respected by both Catholics and Protestants. Admittingly, the book is out of print and hard to find. Some book dealers take advantage of this and charge up to $500 for the book. I got mine through a friend who contacted the original British publishers and had them roll out 20 copies. So all I paid for mine is 45 bucks
Peace,
CM
Well, that would be assuming he had “motives.” Luther was simply an Augustinian monked who wished to dialogue with the church. He didn’t wish to leave it.
Luther never declared James or any other NT book as uncanonical. True, he called it an “epistle of straw” but only in comparison to Paul’s epistles and his message of justification by faith. What he said was, “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and hold it a good book, because it sets up no doctrine of men and lays great stress upon God’s law” (Preface to the Epistle of St. James). Note that he states that the book was rejected by the ancients. Why? Probably because bishops in 428 and 466 rejected all the catholic epistles. Eusebius of Ceasarea, although considering it canonical, called it a “disputed text.” Even Jerome had some things to say, he comments that James “…wrote only one Epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles, and even this is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained in authority” (De vir. ill 2). Again, Luther never threw out James and, occasionally, even quoted the book, but I wouldn’t go so far as if to imply that he had malicious intent or an ulterior motive.
Learning never hurts
I’m sorry, but this point I know for a fact and it can be proven. Luther actually took out the books (James and others) for over a century until others put them back in. Even protestants have to admit this.Well, that would be assuming he had “motives.” Luther was simply an Augustinian monked who wished to dialogue with the church. He didn’t wish to leave it.
Luther never declared James or any other NT book as uncanonical. True, he called it an “epistle of straw” but only in comparison to Paul’s epistles and his message of justification by faith. What he said was, “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and hold it a good book, because it sets up no doctrine of men and lays great stress upon God’s law” (Preface to the Epistle of St. James). Note that he states that the book was rejected by the ancients. Why? Probably because bishops in 428 and 466 rejected all the catholic epistles. Eusebius of Ceasarea, although considering it canonical, called it a “disputed text.” Even Jerome had some things to say, he comments that James “…wrote only one Epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles, and even this is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained in authority” (De vir. ill 2). Again, Luther never threw out James and, occasionally, even quoted the book, but I wouldn’t go so far as if to imply that he had malicious intent or an ulterior motive.
Learning never hurts
Peace,
CM
The scriptures don’t speak for themselves.Hi Thomas,
I believe you were referring to me and not Ric
No, I stand by my words, the Trinity is a logical extension of Scripture and can be found explicitly in verses such as Genesis 1:26, Matthew 3:16-17, Mark 9:7, Luke 3:22, etc. Nothing comes close in terms of purgatory and Catholics often inject preconceptions into these verses rather than allow them to to speak for themselves.
Peace,
CM