G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
I was a Protestant pastor for 27 years and am now a college professor. Give me a break.
CDL
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
CDL
C
c659smith
Guest
This is the Cathoic Church, this is what is taught, if someone did or said something else than they were not in Communion with the Catholic ChurchJust do a simply google search on these things and you will see what I’m saying. After that try reading some books on the topic - that aren’t all Catholic At least spend some time googling this before you accuse me of knowing nothing. If you seriously don’t know about the indulgences then you are the one that needs to review his history. Lets do this togather. To start our research why don’t we begin with Pope Alexander VI. Simply Google him and look and the first few Catholic and non-Catholic sites on him to get a fair representation.
If you don’t do this then stop complaining about my knowledge of history
by James Akin
Myth 1: A person can buy his way out of hell with indulgences.
This is a common misunderstanding, one that anti-Catholic commentators take advantage of, relying on the ignorance of both Catholics and non-Catholics. But the charge is without foundation. Since indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that fact. The only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive. After death, one’s eternal fate is set (Heb. 9:27).
Myth 2: A person can buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.
The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, “[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power.”
Myth 3: A person can “buy forgiveness” with indulgences.
The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven” (Indulgentarium Doctrina norm 1). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.
Myth 4: Indulgences were invented to money for the Church.
Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.
Myth 5: An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.
The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less in a specific person’s case.
Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.
The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.
Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.
One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal around indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms-indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “*t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.”
Tell me Did the Jews have animal SACRAFICES?
If the Temple is rebuilt will they attempt to renew the Animal Sacrafices?
What indulgences were granted for such sacrafices?*
C
c659smith
Guest
Benu2007
I think this may clear things up for you
The Council That Wasn’t
The Myth of Jabneh and the Old Testament Canon
By Steve Ray
Many myths are believed not because they are true but simply because people want to believe them. But wishful thinking is a poor substitute for truth. It is always preferable to dig deep and discover the facts and not believe things only because you want them to be true.
For instance, it is popular in some Protestant circles to claim that the Jews had a closed canon of Scripture in the first century A.D. and that the early Christians accepted this final Jewish collection of inspired writings as final and binding upon the Church. Generally, the Council of Jabneh (usually referred to in Catholic literature as Jamnia) is assumed as the “proof” for this assertion. At the “Council of Jabneh,” you see, the Jewish rabbis supposedly got together—something like an ecumenical council in the Catholic Church—to lay down specific criteria for inspired Scripture and to finally define and close the Old Testament canon.
Is this true? First, we will look at how various authors defend the Protestant exclusion of seven books based on a flawed understanding of the so-called “Council of Jabneh.” Second, did the members of this “council” actually discuss the limit of the Old Testament canon, and third, if so, did they have the authority to close the canon? Fourth, did they actually compile a final list of accepted writings, and, fifth—and importantly—if such a decision had been made, would the Christians be bound by that decision? We will conclude with the teaching of the Catholic Church and why we can trust it.
Let’s clarify a few terms. The canon of Scripture refers to the final collection of inspired books included in the Bible. The Catholic Bible contains seven books that do not appear in the Protestant Old Testament. These seven writings are called the deuterocanonicals or the Second Law. Protestants usually call these writings the Apocrypha (meaning hidden), books they consider outside the canon. These seven writings include 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch, along with additional passages in Daniel and Esther. Before the time of Christ, these writings were included in the Jewish Greek Septuagint (LXX)—the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture—but they were not included in the Hebrew Masoretic text.
The Jewish Canon
The vast majority of Jews in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. lived outside of Israel. They were called the diaspora, those dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. Many had become Hellenized—that is, they had taken on the Greco-Roman culture, including the Greek language. The Septuagint, containing the deuterocanonical books, was the main Bible used by these Jews of the diaspora.
Most non-Christian Jews of the first century A.D. considered the Church to be a heretical and misinformed Jewish cult, probably similar to the way Christians look at the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses of today. In the first century, several decades after the life of Christ, the majority of early Christians were Gentiles, and they used the Greek Septuagint as their Old Testament, following the example of the Greek-speaking Jews, including Jesus and the apostles (note 1, sidebar, page 25).
When Christians began to use this Greek translation to convert Jews to the faith, the Jews began to detest it (note 2, sidebar, page 25). Does it surprise anyone that they would condemn the canon and translation the Christians used, even if it was originally translated, approved of, and put into circulation by the Jews themselves three hundred and fifty years earlier (c. 250 B.C.)? The early Church, following the Greek Septuagint and the apostles’ extensive use of it (Paul took most of his Old Testament quotations from it), accepted the deuterocanonical books. When the canon was finally closed by the councils of the Catholic Church, these books were included.
I think this may clear things up for you
The Council That Wasn’t
The Myth of Jabneh and the Old Testament Canon
By Steve Ray
Many myths are believed not because they are true but simply because people want to believe them. But wishful thinking is a poor substitute for truth. It is always preferable to dig deep and discover the facts and not believe things only because you want them to be true.
For instance, it is popular in some Protestant circles to claim that the Jews had a closed canon of Scripture in the first century A.D. and that the early Christians accepted this final Jewish collection of inspired writings as final and binding upon the Church. Generally, the Council of Jabneh (usually referred to in Catholic literature as Jamnia) is assumed as the “proof” for this assertion. At the “Council of Jabneh,” you see, the Jewish rabbis supposedly got together—something like an ecumenical council in the Catholic Church—to lay down specific criteria for inspired Scripture and to finally define and close the Old Testament canon.
Is this true? First, we will look at how various authors defend the Protestant exclusion of seven books based on a flawed understanding of the so-called “Council of Jabneh.” Second, did the members of this “council” actually discuss the limit of the Old Testament canon, and third, if so, did they have the authority to close the canon? Fourth, did they actually compile a final list of accepted writings, and, fifth—and importantly—if such a decision had been made, would the Christians be bound by that decision? We will conclude with the teaching of the Catholic Church and why we can trust it.
Let’s clarify a few terms. The canon of Scripture refers to the final collection of inspired books included in the Bible. The Catholic Bible contains seven books that do not appear in the Protestant Old Testament. These seven writings are called the deuterocanonicals or the Second Law. Protestants usually call these writings the Apocrypha (meaning hidden), books they consider outside the canon. These seven writings include 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, and Baruch, along with additional passages in Daniel and Esther. Before the time of Christ, these writings were included in the Jewish Greek Septuagint (LXX)—the Greek translation of Jewish Scripture—but they were not included in the Hebrew Masoretic text.
The Jewish Canon
The vast majority of Jews in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. lived outside of Israel. They were called the diaspora, those dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. Many had become Hellenized—that is, they had taken on the Greco-Roman culture, including the Greek language. The Septuagint, containing the deuterocanonical books, was the main Bible used by these Jews of the diaspora.
Most non-Christian Jews of the first century A.D. considered the Church to be a heretical and misinformed Jewish cult, probably similar to the way Christians look at the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses of today. In the first century, several decades after the life of Christ, the majority of early Christians were Gentiles, and they used the Greek Septuagint as their Old Testament, following the example of the Greek-speaking Jews, including Jesus and the apostles (note 1, sidebar, page 25).
When Christians began to use this Greek translation to convert Jews to the faith, the Jews began to detest it (note 2, sidebar, page 25). Does it surprise anyone that they would condemn the canon and translation the Christians used, even if it was originally translated, approved of, and put into circulation by the Jews themselves three hundred and fifty years earlier (c. 250 B.C.)? The early Church, following the Greek Septuagint and the apostles’ extensive use of it (Paul took most of his Old Testament quotations from it), accepted the deuterocanonical books. When the canon was finally closed by the councils of the Catholic Church, these books were included.
C
c659smith
Guest
Benu2007
I think this may clear things up for you
The so-called “Council of Jabneh” was a group of Jewish scholars who were granted permission by Rome around the year 90 to meet in Palestine near the Mediterranean Sea in Jabneh (or Jamnia). Here they established a non-authoritative, “reconstituted” Sanhedrin (note 3, sidebar, page 25). Among the things they discussed was the status of several questionable writings in the Jewish Bible. They also rejected the Christian writings and made a new translation of the Greek Septuagint.
Since many Protestant authors have appealed to the “Council of Jabneh” in their case against the deuterocanonical books contained in the Catholic Bible, it will serve us well to look at a few examples.
In his popular book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-authored by Ralph MacKenzie [Baker Books, 1995]), Norman Geisler, dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary, denies the Catholic canon of the Old Testament, claiming that the Jewish rabbis at Jabneh excluded the deuterocanonical books received by Catholics and that the canon was fixed (meaning finalized) at Jabneh.
Geisler writes, “The Jewish scholars at Jabneh (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they have always rejected the Apocrypha” (169). And though Geisler seems to deny the authority of the rabbis at Jabneh in one place in his A General Introduction to the Bible (with W. E. Nix [Moody Press, 1996]), he later relays in a chart, “Council of Jabneh (A.D. 90), Old Testament Canon fixed” (286).
Geisler is not alone in his assertion that the Apocrypha was rejected and the final Old Testament canon was fixed at Jabneh. It seems to be a common legend that is used as “proof” to bolster up an ahistorical and incorrect assumption. Before we take a look at the myth, we will demonstrate how it is often appealed to. A couple more quick examples of this false reliance on the “Council of Jabneh” will suffice:
“At the end of the first Christian century, the Jewish rabbis, at the Council of Gamnia [Jamnia], closed the canon of the Hebrew book (those considered authoritative)” (Jimmy Swaggart, Catholicism & Christianity [Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 1986], 129).
“After Jerusalem’s destruction, Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. Around 100, a council of rabbis there established the final canon of the OT” (Ed. Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments [InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1997], 185).
Though many are now recognizing that Jabneh did not exclude the deuterocanonical books or authoritatively close the Old Testament canon, there are still plenty of sources that claim and assume that it did.
Did Jabneh have authority?
According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the “council” in Jabneh in 90 was not even an “official” council with binding authority to make such a decision:
“After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it” (ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861], emphasis added).
Isn’t it interesting that the Jews did not have a “closed canon” of Scripture during the time of Christ, before 100, or even after Jabneh? Even during the time of Christ there were competing opinions on what books actually belonged in the Jewish Bible. There were various collections in existence. Sadducees and Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch, the first five books, whereas the Pharisees accepted a fuller canon including Psalms and the prophets. The Masoretic text did not contain the deuterocanonicals, whereas the widely used Greek Septuagint did.
This uncertainty continued well into the second century. The discussion over the books of the canon of the Old Testament continued among the Jews long after Jabneh, which demonstrates that the canon was still under discussion in the third century—well beyond the apostolic period. The challenges to canonicity at Jabneh involved only Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon, but the debate over the canon continued past Jabneh, even into the second and third centuries. Even the Hebrew canon accepted by Protestants today was disputed by the Jews for two hundred years after Christ.
I think this may clear things up for you
The so-called “Council of Jabneh” was a group of Jewish scholars who were granted permission by Rome around the year 90 to meet in Palestine near the Mediterranean Sea in Jabneh (or Jamnia). Here they established a non-authoritative, “reconstituted” Sanhedrin (note 3, sidebar, page 25). Among the things they discussed was the status of several questionable writings in the Jewish Bible. They also rejected the Christian writings and made a new translation of the Greek Septuagint.
Since many Protestant authors have appealed to the “Council of Jabneh” in their case against the deuterocanonical books contained in the Catholic Bible, it will serve us well to look at a few examples.
In his popular book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-authored by Ralph MacKenzie [Baker Books, 1995]), Norman Geisler, dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary, denies the Catholic canon of the Old Testament, claiming that the Jewish rabbis at Jabneh excluded the deuterocanonical books received by Catholics and that the canon was fixed (meaning finalized) at Jabneh.
Geisler writes, “The Jewish scholars at Jabneh (c. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they have always rejected the Apocrypha” (169). And though Geisler seems to deny the authority of the rabbis at Jabneh in one place in his A General Introduction to the Bible (with W. E. Nix [Moody Press, 1996]), he later relays in a chart, “Council of Jabneh (A.D. 90), Old Testament Canon fixed” (286).
Geisler is not alone in his assertion that the Apocrypha was rejected and the final Old Testament canon was fixed at Jabneh. It seems to be a common legend that is used as “proof” to bolster up an ahistorical and incorrect assumption. Before we take a look at the myth, we will demonstrate how it is often appealed to. A couple more quick examples of this false reliance on the “Council of Jabneh” will suffice:
“At the end of the first Christian century, the Jewish rabbis, at the Council of Gamnia [Jamnia], closed the canon of the Hebrew book (those considered authoritative)” (Jimmy Swaggart, Catholicism & Christianity [Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 1986], 129).
“After Jerusalem’s destruction, Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. Around 100, a council of rabbis there established the final canon of the OT” (Ed. Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments [InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1997], 185).
Though many are now recognizing that Jabneh did not exclude the deuterocanonical books or authoritatively close the Old Testament canon, there are still plenty of sources that claim and assume that it did.
Did Jabneh have authority?
According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the “council” in Jabneh in 90 was not even an “official” council with binding authority to make such a decision:
“After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it” (ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861], emphasis added).
Isn’t it interesting that the Jews did not have a “closed canon” of Scripture during the time of Christ, before 100, or even after Jabneh? Even during the time of Christ there were competing opinions on what books actually belonged in the Jewish Bible. There were various collections in existence. Sadducees and Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch, the first five books, whereas the Pharisees accepted a fuller canon including Psalms and the prophets. The Masoretic text did not contain the deuterocanonicals, whereas the widely used Greek Septuagint did.
This uncertainty continued well into the second century. The discussion over the books of the canon of the Old Testament continued among the Jews long after Jabneh, which demonstrates that the canon was still under discussion in the third century—well beyond the apostolic period. The challenges to canonicity at Jabneh involved only Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon, but the debate over the canon continued past Jabneh, even into the second and third centuries. Even the Hebrew canon accepted by Protestants today was disputed by the Jews for two hundred years after Christ.
C
c659smith
Guest
Benu 2007
This may clear things up for you
Some cautionary points should be noted here:
Even if the rabbis at Jabneh did have the authority to make such a canonical determination and had closed the canon, who says they had the authority from God to make such a binding determination? Why should Christians accept their determination? God had publicly turned aside from the Jews as his “prophetic voice” twenty years earlier when Jerusalem was destroyed and razed by fire. God judged them and rejected their old wineskins. The old wine and wineskin (Judaism) was now replaced by new wine (the gospel) and new wineskins (the Church). Why accept the unauthoritative rabbis’ determination rather than the Church’s?
There is a further reason we should not rely on the first-century Jews for their determination of the canon, even if they had made such a determination: The rabbis of Jabneh eventually provided a new translation in Greek to replace their previous translation of the Septuagint. Why? Because the Gentile Christians were using the Septuagint for apologetic and evangelistic purposes—in other words, they were converting the Jews using their own Greek Scriptures!
For example, they were using it to prove the virginal birth of Jesus. In the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah 7:14 is rendered, “A young woman shall conceive and bear a son,” whereas the Greek Septuagint, quoted by Matthew (1:23), renders it, “A virgin shall be with child and bear a son” (emphasis added). The rabbis who supposedly “determined” the final Protestant canon also authorized a new Greek translation specifically to hinder the gospel. Aquila, the Jewish translator of the new version, denied the Virgin Birth and changed the Greek word from virgin to young woman.
One of the key issues in the first-century Jewish mind regarding the canon was not necessarily inspiration but resisting the Christian evangelization of the Jews and Gentiles. It was an issue of Jew versus the new Christian teaching and the Christians’ use of the Jewish Greek Scripture. It would seem rather strange for a Protestant to choose the truncated canon chosen by the Jewish leaders and by so doing fall on the side of the anti-Christian, disenfranchised Jew in this matter (see note 4, sidebar, page 25).
This may clear things up for you
Some cautionary points should be noted here:
- Although Christian authors seem to think in terms of a formal council at Jabneh, there was no such thing. There was a school for studying the Law at Jabneh, and the rabbis there exercised legal functions in the Jewish community.
- Not only was there no formal council, there is no evidence that any list of books was drawn up at Jabneh.
- A specific discussion of acceptance at Jabneh is attested only for the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Even so, arguments regarding these books persisted in Judaism centuries after the Jabneh period. There were also subsequent debates about Esther.
- We know of no books that were excluded at Jabneh. In fact, Sirach, which was read and copied by Jews after the Jabneh period, did not eventually become part of the standard Hebrew Bible (cf. Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland Edmund Murphy, The Jerome Biblical Commentary [Prentice-Hall, 1996, c. 1968], vol. 2, 522).
Even if the rabbis at Jabneh did have the authority to make such a canonical determination and had closed the canon, who says they had the authority from God to make such a binding determination? Why should Christians accept their determination? God had publicly turned aside from the Jews as his “prophetic voice” twenty years earlier when Jerusalem was destroyed and razed by fire. God judged them and rejected their old wineskins. The old wine and wineskin (Judaism) was now replaced by new wine (the gospel) and new wineskins (the Church). Why accept the unauthoritative rabbis’ determination rather than the Church’s?
There is a further reason we should not rely on the first-century Jews for their determination of the canon, even if they had made such a determination: The rabbis of Jabneh eventually provided a new translation in Greek to replace their previous translation of the Septuagint. Why? Because the Gentile Christians were using the Septuagint for apologetic and evangelistic purposes—in other words, they were converting the Jews using their own Greek Scriptures!
For example, they were using it to prove the virginal birth of Jesus. In the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah 7:14 is rendered, “A young woman shall conceive and bear a son,” whereas the Greek Septuagint, quoted by Matthew (1:23), renders it, “A virgin shall be with child and bear a son” (emphasis added). The rabbis who supposedly “determined” the final Protestant canon also authorized a new Greek translation specifically to hinder the gospel. Aquila, the Jewish translator of the new version, denied the Virgin Birth and changed the Greek word from virgin to young woman.
One of the key issues in the first-century Jewish mind regarding the canon was not necessarily inspiration but resisting the Christian evangelization of the Jews and Gentiles. It was an issue of Jew versus the new Christian teaching and the Christians’ use of the Jewish Greek Scripture. It would seem rather strange for a Protestant to choose the truncated canon chosen by the Jewish leaders and by so doing fall on the side of the anti-Christian, disenfranchised Jew in this matter (see note 4, sidebar, page 25).
C
c659smith
Guest
Benu 2007
This may clear things up for you.
So when you say the Catholics changed it that is not true.
We do not know much about the deliberations at Jabneh, but we do know that they mentioned the Gospels of the New Testament. They mentioned them specifically in order to reject them. F. F. Bruce writes, “Some disputants also asked whether the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sira (Ecclesiasticus), and the gilyonim (Aramaic Gospel writings) and other books of the minim (heretics, including Jewish Christians), should be admitted, but here the answer was uncompromisingly negative” (The Books and the Parchments [Fleming H. Revell, 1984], 88).
Many Protestants accept the Jewish opposition to the Catholic canon of Scripture because it supports them in their anti-Catholicism. Catholics, on the other hand, have accepted the determination and canon of the new covenant people of God, those who are the new priesthood (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9), the new wineskin. As we noticed earlier, Geisler comments, “Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law, the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits for their own canon” (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, 169).
Am I supposed to accept the alleged determination of the rabbis as authoritative and binding upon my soul, when the mantle of authority has been passed on to the Church by an act of the Holy Spirit? Does Geisler give his readers this historical information and timeline, reminding them that God had turned aside from the Jewish people and destroyed their temple before their unauthoritative “council” rejected the Gospels and the “whole Christian canon,” including the New Testament?
The Jewish people had no closed canon prior to 300, and they “built a wall around it” to keep the Christians out. Why rely upon them? I accept the canon of the apostles and the early Church, which was determined by the bishops of the Church. And, like them, I do not accept the canon of anti-Christian Jewish leaders.
(Several Fathers, such as Jerome, accepted the Jewish Masoretic canon, but it was never an individual Father that made binding decisions for the Church; only the councils could do so.)
The canon of the Old Testament was not closed at Jabneh, nor were the deuterocanonicals excluded from the Old Testament there. Who has the authority from God to determine and close the canon of Scripture? Simply put, the Church. The Jewish hierarchy during the time of Christ claimed authority to bind and loose, which was a clearly understood technical term, but Jesus specifically appointed a new hierarchy over the “new Israel”—the Church—and transferred to this new magisterium the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). The Church was thus appointed to speak for God, and the final canon of Scripture would thus fall under its authority.
Protestant author Paul Achtemeier tells us, “Eastern and Roman Catholic tradition generally considered the Old Testament ‘apocryphal’ books to be canonical. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that these books were clearly denied canonical status (in Protestant circles). The Roman church, however, continues to affirm their place in the canon of Scripture” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1st ed. [Harper & Row, c1985], 69).
At the Council of Trent the Church put the matter to rest by listing definitively the accepted books, which included the deuterocanonicals, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms this list (CCC 120). This is the Catholic Bible we have today.
Isn’t it interesting that Martin Luther acknowledged the Catholic Church as the custodian of sacred Scripture (note 5, sidebar, page 25) when he wrote, “We concede—as we must—that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”
This may clear things up for you.
So when you say the Catholics changed it that is not true.
We do not know much about the deliberations at Jabneh, but we do know that they mentioned the Gospels of the New Testament. They mentioned them specifically in order to reject them. F. F. Bruce writes, “Some disputants also asked whether the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sira (Ecclesiasticus), and the gilyonim (Aramaic Gospel writings) and other books of the minim (heretics, including Jewish Christians), should be admitted, but here the answer was uncompromisingly negative” (The Books and the Parchments [Fleming H. Revell, 1984], 88).
Many Protestants accept the Jewish opposition to the Catholic canon of Scripture because it supports them in their anti-Catholicism. Catholics, on the other hand, have accepted the determination and canon of the new covenant people of God, those who are the new priesthood (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9), the new wineskin. As we noticed earlier, Geisler comments, “Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law, the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits for their own canon” (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, 169).
Am I supposed to accept the alleged determination of the rabbis as authoritative and binding upon my soul, when the mantle of authority has been passed on to the Church by an act of the Holy Spirit? Does Geisler give his readers this historical information and timeline, reminding them that God had turned aside from the Jewish people and destroyed their temple before their unauthoritative “council” rejected the Gospels and the “whole Christian canon,” including the New Testament?
The Jewish people had no closed canon prior to 300, and they “built a wall around it” to keep the Christians out. Why rely upon them? I accept the canon of the apostles and the early Church, which was determined by the bishops of the Church. And, like them, I do not accept the canon of anti-Christian Jewish leaders.
(Several Fathers, such as Jerome, accepted the Jewish Masoretic canon, but it was never an individual Father that made binding decisions for the Church; only the councils could do so.)
The canon of the Old Testament was not closed at Jabneh, nor were the deuterocanonicals excluded from the Old Testament there. Who has the authority from God to determine and close the canon of Scripture? Simply put, the Church. The Jewish hierarchy during the time of Christ claimed authority to bind and loose, which was a clearly understood technical term, but Jesus specifically appointed a new hierarchy over the “new Israel”—the Church—and transferred to this new magisterium the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). The Church was thus appointed to speak for God, and the final canon of Scripture would thus fall under its authority.
Protestant author Paul Achtemeier tells us, “Eastern and Roman Catholic tradition generally considered the Old Testament ‘apocryphal’ books to be canonical. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that these books were clearly denied canonical status (in Protestant circles). The Roman church, however, continues to affirm their place in the canon of Scripture” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1st ed. [Harper & Row, c1985], 69).
At the Council of Trent the Church put the matter to rest by listing definitively the accepted books, which included the deuterocanonicals, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms this list (CCC 120). This is the Catholic Bible we have today.
Isn’t it interesting that Martin Luther acknowledged the Catholic Church as the custodian of sacred Scripture (note 5, sidebar, page 25) when he wrote, “We concede—as we must—that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
c659smith,
You are to be admired for your patience. I don’t mind if someone has a question or several questions. I don’t even mind if someone wishes to offer a challenge or several challenges as long as they can back them up. What I don’t appreciate or even understand is why someone comes in here without doing any research of Primary documents and makes all sorts of claims that Catholics do this or that or did this or that. When they are blown out of the water they don’t even seem to realize it but come back wth the same unsubstantiated claims.
Benu has sadly been led astray by people who hate the ttuth and couch it in some kind of noble sounding argument. I pray for Benu and millions like him who either do not take the time to do any serious study or don’t know how to do so.
You have been very patient. I pray that your efforts have some impact.
CDL
You are to be admired for your patience. I don’t mind if someone has a question or several questions. I don’t even mind if someone wishes to offer a challenge or several challenges as long as they can back them up. What I don’t appreciate or even understand is why someone comes in here without doing any research of Primary documents and makes all sorts of claims that Catholics do this or that or did this or that. When they are blown out of the water they don’t even seem to realize it but come back wth the same unsubstantiated claims.
Benu has sadly been led astray by people who hate the ttuth and couch it in some kind of noble sounding argument. I pray for Benu and millions like him who either do not take the time to do any serious study or don’t know how to do so.
You have been very patient. I pray that your efforts have some impact.
CDL
C
c659smith
Guest
It is Christ that gives me patence and understanding. Yourself as a minister for 27 years and now a professor I know that Christ is in your heart, mind, and soul.c659smith,
You are to be admired for your patience. I don’t mind if someone has a question or several questions. I don’t even mind if someone wishes to offer a challenge or several challenges as long as they can back them up. What I don’t appreciate or even understand is why someone comes in here without doing any research of Primary documents and makes all sorts of claims that Catholics do this or that or did this or that. When they are blown out of the water they don’t even seem to realize it but come back wth the same unsubstantiated claims.
Benu has sadly been led astray by people who hate the ttuth and couch it in some kind of noble sounding argument. I pray for Benu and millions like him who either do not take the time to do any serious study or don’t know how to do so.
You have been very patient. I pray that your efforts have some impact.
CDL
I am a cradle Catholic, I found my way back about 5 years ago. The Holy Spirit gave me the slap I needed along with our Blessed Mother’s listening. It is because of Them I am closer to Jesus than I could ever imagine.Since then I am a sponge for info. on my faith and history. I just cannot get enough.
I have found peace and have given control to Jesus. I no longer have pride in the way. I said it before and will say it again.
Oh what a relief it is !! Life is Great!!
Better than Alka Seltzer.
God Bless
B
Benu2007
Guest
OK cool, I think we should stop talking about the marrage thing. So long as we both agree that no one should have to take a vow of celabacy other than when it is their own will.They lay hands upon them to me dictates that these men were going to fulfill their spiritual needs that were not being met when the Apostles left on the missionary duties spreading the word.
Serving tables is the Altars that were used.
However rather than argue that point there were numerous others on celibacy in scripture.
You agree the Catholic Church does not break anyones arms to take that vow do you not?
So the question is mute as it would be like a soldier complaining in a volunteer Army he has to fight a war.
Or a Protestant Minister claiming he does not have enough time for his wife and family.
Do you know there are other Holy Orders in the Church that do not require a vow of celibacy such as a Deacon?
I will also say again that if married already and a convert such as a Minister you can become a priest with a family . Also if married and you want to become a priest you can go to the eastern rite which is in full communion with Rome.
There are many things the secular press pushed only telling half truths or a protestant denomination that feels intimidated by the Church, for having a good degree in theology the ministers know all that.
This is where I assume you got these prejudices
I’d also like to point out that the God’s gift to us was not the Catholic church. That was not the New Covenant. That implies that only when you belong to Catholic church are you saved. This is not true. God’s gift to us is His Son Jesus Christ. When we put our trust in Him we become part of His holy Church. We are then saved.
I’d still like it if you can start backing up what you say with the Old Testament and I will do the same.
Now concerning your piece in Acts. The “serving tables” was to do with the fact that the Greek widows were being descriminated against when it came to being given food. Acts 6:1
“1 But as the believers[a] rapidly multiplied, there were rumblings of discontent. The Greek-speaking believers complained about the Hebrew-speaking believers, saying that their widows were being discriminated against in the daily distribution of food.”
This has nothing to do with alters. It was simply the apostles sending out Godly men to sort out the problem. They laid hands on them so that the Holy Spirit would be on them. They did this with a lot of people. Nowhere does it say this was done to ordain preists. Nowhere does it talk about the role of priests in the Church.
B
Benu2007
Guest
That doesn’t alter the fact that you seem to know nothing about past popes to believe that weren’t corrupt. So tell me what have you learnt about Pope Alexander VI. Did you know he had mistresses who bore him children. He used the papacy as a means to give his family power and land. He did nothing at all to help the Church. Oh yeah, and don’t forget that during this time it was ilegal to have the bible in English. How is that doing God’s will. This guy was focussed on pleasure, power, arts and money. Not God. He is even known as a secular pope.I was a Protestant pastor for 27 years and am now a college professor. Give me a break.
CDL
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
Are you saying as you seem to be that ones will is superior to God’s grace?OK cool, I think we should stop talking about the marrage thing. So long as we both agree that no one should have to take a vow of celabacy other than when it is their own will.
CDL
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
You state one thing that is true and then add a string of nonsense. Take one sentence at a time and I’ll try to straighten you out. You need freedom from the oppressive religion you are now following. Lord have mercy!That doesn’t alter the fact that you seem to know nothing about past popes to believe that weren’t corrupt. So tell me what have you learnt about Pope Alexander VI. Did you know he had mistresses who bore him children. He used the papacy as a means to give his family power and land. He did nothing at all to help the Church. Oh yeah, and don’t forget that during this time it was ilegal to have the bible in English. How is that doing God’s will. This guy was focussed on pleasure, power, arts and money. Not God. He is even known as a secular pope.
CDL
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Says who? is it your interpretation or somebody told you this?Yeah so Mary was blessed becuse she was a servant of the Lord, rather than because she was His Earthly mother. She isn’t someone we should pray to or say “hail Mary” to.
C
c659smith
Guest
He may have been scandulous and rich but He did much to promote the Church and was a good administrator. First you have to remember the time he was Pontiff. Kings and Queens throughout Europe were cutting off eachothers heads for power.That doesn’t alter the fact that you seem to know nothing about past popes to believe that weren’t corrupt. So tell me what have you learnt about Pope Alexander VI. Did you know he had mistresses who bore him children. He used the papacy as a means to give his family power and land. He did nothing at all to help the Church. Oh yeah, and don’t forget that during this time it was ilegal to have the bible in English. How is that doing God’s will. This guy was focussed on pleasure, power, arts and money. Not God. He is even known as a secular pope.
has been suggested that, having taken into account the unusual level of decomposition, Alexander VI was accidentally poisoned to death by his son with Cantarella (which was prepared to eliminate Cardinal Adriano), although some commentaries (including the Encyclopædia Britannica) doubt these stories and attribute Alexander’s death to malaria, at that time prevalent in Rome, or to another such pestilence. The ambassador of Ferrara wrote to Duke Ercole that it was no wonder the pope and the duke were sick because nearly everyone in Rome was ill as a consequence of bad air (“per la mala condictione de aere”).
Burchard described how the Pope’s mouth foamed like a kettle over a fire and how the body began to swell so much that it became as wide as it was long. The Venetian ambassador reported that Alexander VI’s body was “the ugliest, most monstrous and horrible dead body that was ever seen, without any form or likeness of humanity”.[6] Finally the body began to release sulphurous gasses from every orifice. Burchard records that he had to jump on the body to jam it into the undersized coffin and covered it with an old carpet, the only surviving furnishing in the room.
The one pleasing aspect of his life is his patronage of the arts, and in his days a new architectural era was initiated in Rome with the coming of Bramante. Raphael, Michelangelo and Pinturicchio all worked for him, and a curious contrast, characteristic of the age, is afforded by the fact that a family so steeped in vice and crime could take pleasure in the most exquisite works of art.[7]
Christopher Columbus discovered the America’s at that time which was sponsored by the Church and Spain.
Alexander VI, allegedly a marrano according to papal rival Giuliano della Rovere [8], distinguished himself by his relatively benign treatment of Jews. After the 1492 expulsion of Jews from Spain, some 9,000 famished Iberian Jews arrived at the borders of the Papal States. Alexander welcomed them into Rome, declaring that they were “permitted to lead their life, free from interference from Christians, to continue in their own rites, to gain wealth, and to enjoy many other privileges.” He similarly allowed the immigration of Jews expelled from Portugal in 1497 and from Provence in 1498. [9]
It has been noted that the crimes of Alexander VI are similar in nature to those of other Renaissance princes, with the one exception being his position in the Church. As De Maistre said in his work Du Pape, "The latter are forgiven nothing, because everything is expected from them, wherefore the vices lightly passed over in a Louis XIV become most offensive and scandalous in an Alexander VI.
Such was Alexander VI’s unpopularity that the priests of St. Peter’s Basilica refused to accept the body for burial until forced to do so by papal staff. Only four prelates attended the Requiem Mass. Alexander’s successor on the Throne of St. Peter, Francesco Todeschini-Piccolomini, who assumed the name of Pope Pius III (1503), forbade the saying of a Mass for the repose of Alexander VI’s soul, saying, “It is blasphemous to pray for the damned”. After a short stay, the body was removed from the crypts of St. Peter’s and installed in a less well-known church, the Spanish national church of Santa Maria in Monserrato degli Spagnoli.
But you see no mattter what evils he did as Man did not change the Church. Sacred Scripture,Sacred Traditions, Sacred Teachings still remained the same and the Church survived.
He died a horrible death as the life he led. He is one of the few that are not buried in Saint Peter’s Basillica.
Jesus will judge him and more severly than others for he had knowledge of the fullness of faith.
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
Benu,
You wrote “we shouldn’t say ‘hail Mary’ to Mary?” Could you please explain to us why you would write such a thing? Until we can figure out why you say such things I don’t know how we are to respond to you.
CDL
You wrote “we shouldn’t say ‘hail Mary’ to Mary?” Could you please explain to us why you would write such a thing? Until we can figure out why you say such things I don’t know how we are to respond to you.
CDL
C
c659smith
Guest
BENU2007
Benu,
You wrote “we shouldn’t say ‘hail Mary’ to Mary?” Could you please explain to us why you would write such a thing? Until we can figure out why you say such things I don’t know how we are to respond to you
Now Benu, I thought you read scripture
There are two parts to the Hail Mary and the part you are protesting is recitation of Scripture
Angel Gabriel speaking to Mary
Hail Mary full of Grace the Lord is with thee.
Now remember the Holy Spirit was only given to one person on earth to that date and that was Mary–Grace comes from the Holy Spirit
Blessed are thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
Remember Elizabeth pregnant with John the Baptist said this to Mary when John leaped in her womb.
Holy Mary, Mother of God------Thats a fact
So I know not what you protest.
there are benighted souls in my communion (Mother Teresa, say) whose summary of Marian devotion is: Love Jesus as Mary loves Jesus, love Mary as Jesus loves Mary. Such people seem to think that Mary is not a goddess but that she has a significant place in the drama of redemption. They regard her as remarkable in that her choice to love and obey the as-yet-unseen and unincarnate Messiah was the very key to the Incarnation.
people suspect that as the risen Christ remains human forever, so he remains his mother’s son forever. If she loves him, she just might love those who are in him as her own and pray they will love her son with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Likewise, if Jesus loves her in a unique way and we are to be like him . . . well, you can work that one out.
Also lets not forget that as you wished The Old and New Testament
Eve the woman of the old and Mary the Woman of the new
Eve with sin--------Mary without
Adam --old-----Jesus New
Adam with sin----Jesus without Sin
Benu,
You wrote “we shouldn’t say ‘hail Mary’ to Mary?” Could you please explain to us why you would write such a thing? Until we can figure out why you say such things I don’t know how we are to respond to you
Now Benu, I thought you read scripture
There are two parts to the Hail Mary and the part you are protesting is recitation of Scripture
Angel Gabriel speaking to Mary
Hail Mary full of Grace the Lord is with thee.
Now remember the Holy Spirit was only given to one person on earth to that date and that was Mary–Grace comes from the Holy Spirit
Blessed are thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
Remember Elizabeth pregnant with John the Baptist said this to Mary when John leaped in her womb.
Holy Mary, Mother of God------Thats a fact
So I know not what you protest.
there are benighted souls in my communion (Mother Teresa, say) whose summary of Marian devotion is: Love Jesus as Mary loves Jesus, love Mary as Jesus loves Mary. Such people seem to think that Mary is not a goddess but that she has a significant place in the drama of redemption. They regard her as remarkable in that her choice to love and obey the as-yet-unseen and unincarnate Messiah was the very key to the Incarnation.
people suspect that as the risen Christ remains human forever, so he remains his mother’s son forever. If she loves him, she just might love those who are in him as her own and pray they will love her son with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Likewise, if Jesus loves her in a unique way and we are to be like him . . . well, you can work that one out.
Also lets not forget that as you wished The Old and New Testament
Eve the woman of the old and Mary the Woman of the new
Eve with sin--------Mary without
Adam --old-----Jesus New
Adam with sin----Jesus without Sin
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
Maybe he doesn’t believe that Scripture is authoritative? I guess that couldn’t be. He’s eisigeted several passages. I wonder what he means?
CDL
CDL
C
c659smith
Guest
Benu2007,
Good Morning and hope all is well.
Just so we are on a level playing field what denomination of Christian are you or have you been raised?
I am somewhat perplexed by alot of your questions and answers within the past two weeks and overall as I do not see any foundation with a Christian education or belief system by you.
I say this as a point of charity and not to be sarcastic or demeaning.
If you are not Christian and have a honest desire to learn more that is good.
It is ok to be argumentative here but sooner or later have to state whether you believe or do not believe.
Peace be with you
Good Morning and hope all is well.
Just so we are on a level playing field what denomination of Christian are you or have you been raised?
I am somewhat perplexed by alot of your questions and answers within the past two weeks and overall as I do not see any foundation with a Christian education or belief system by you.
I say this as a point of charity and not to be sarcastic or demeaning.
If you are not Christian and have a honest desire to learn more that is good.
It is ok to be argumentative here but sooner or later have to state whether you believe or do not believe.
Peace be with you
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
Good points. I’ve run across all sorts of people who speak in generalities about what they do or do not believe. Upon further investigation they turn out to be either cynics or searchers and are usually not Christian at all or not yet. I hope Benu makes the point clear.Benu2007,
Good Morning and hope all is well.
Just so we are on a level playing field what denomination of Christian are you or have you been raised?
I am somewhat perplexed by alot of your questions and answers within the past two weeks and overall as I do not see any foundation with a Christian education or belief system by you.
I say this as a point of charity and not to be sarcastic or demeaning.
If you are not Christian and have a honest desire to learn more that is good.
It is ok to be argumentative here but sooner or later have to state whether you believe or do not believe.
Peace be with you
CDL
C
c659smith
Guest
I went to your site and your Parish sounds like it really understands and practices it’s faith.Good points. I’ve run across all sorts of people who speak in generalities about what they do or do not believe. Upon further investigation they turn out to be either cynics or searchers and are usually not Christian at all or not yet. I hope Benu makes the point clear.
CDL
It is wonderful to hear how the eastern and western Catholic Church can work together towards a common goal. That is a great platform for the
day the Greek, Russian, and Roman Catholic Churches will become one again as the Eastern and Western has and then World watch out
.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.