What is the Reason to Believe that the Bible is Less Than 73 Books (all inerrant and inspired)?

[JonNC]

=concretecamper;11326688]
Jon,

Let me put it this way. If you accept that is it possible that Christ’s prayer to His Father was not heard, then His church does not have to be One.

Of course His prayer was heard - by His Father. By humans, not so much.

I trust Christ’s prayer to His Father was heard

Me too.

Therefore I must admitted the Church is One. So…who is up for the job? Lutherans? Anglicans? Orthodox? The Roman Catholic Church is the only One who makes the claim and carries the burden of preserving the truth. Praise be Jesus!!!

It is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but it is not unified. I believe that the Bishop of Rome is the central need for unity of the Church. The Reformation was about reform, not disunity, and this should always be the view of Lutherans. The goal is unity with the Bishop of Rome in the Church. None of that means we are not part of the Universal Church, however. Nor does it mean that the Church is only and exclusively found in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

And…don’t prayer for unity…SWIM

One would think I already have. In recent weeks I have been referred to by Catholics here as “Ninja Catholic”, and “undercover Catholic”.

Jon

 

[Abu]

‘1254. What is the Greek Orthodox Church?
There are some 16 different Orthodox Churches existing independently of one another. After the first really definite break with Rome when Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, left the Catholic Church in the ninth century, the Eastern Church followed in the path of all schismatical Churches, splitting up into further divisions. Eight of these separate sections of Orthodoxy have their own Patriarchs, namely, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Bulgaria, Rumania, Russia, and Serbia. The others lack definite rule. The term “Greek Orthodox Church” is popularly applied to any or all of these Churches; but strictly speaking it should be reserved for that section of Orthodoxy which acknowledges the Patriarch of Constantinople. This is really one of the smaller sections, for the Bulgarians, Rumanians, Russians and others of Slav nationality, are Greeks in no sense of the word. But it is clear that there is no one united Orthodox Church at all, any more than there is one united form of Protestantism. However, since the schismatic Orthodox Churches began with the rebellion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople against Rome in the ninth century, we can allude to all the Orthodox Churches as belonging to the Greek Schism.’
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Orthodox+Churches&db=2

Thus the Orthodox Churches, like so many thousands of Protestant sects, do not contain all the elements of the true faith – they explicitly have fallen into the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, and rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Unlike the Protestant sects, the Orthodox Churches do have the priesthood, the Sacrifice of the Mass and the seven Sacraments and are thus much closer to Christ’s Church than Protestant sects.

 

[concretecamper]

Of course His prayer was heard - by His Father. By humans, not so much.

Me too.

It is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but it is not unified.

Jon

From my mathematical day…One IS Unity. I guess this is where we fundamentally differ. For me…the Church was, is, and will always be one. Anything else would question Jesus’s promise to you and I.

 

[JonNC]

From my mathematical day…One IS Unity. I guess this is where we fundamentally differ. For me…the Church was, is, and will always be one. Anything else would question Jesus’s promise to you and I.

An apple cut into parts is still one apple.
I agree with the second part, for sure.

Jon

 

[Traverse]

The Roman Catholic Church is the only One who makes the claim and carries the burden of preserving the truth. Praise be Jesus!!!

Actually, I’m quite sure the orthodox also make that claim. And other non-denominational style churches which you would call protestant while they do not refer to themselves as such.

On the subject of the biblical canon, there was much disagreement and the catholic position (as has been reiterated here prior to my posting) is that it was settled through the catholic magisterium. However, I find it hard to trust this history because so little of the council in 382 is even known to history anymore. There is no formal record of what took place.

Furthermore, relying on the council of Trent as finally settling the canon makes no sense because it implies that the church faithful didn’t know what was truly scripture for 1500 years.

History certainly shows that the establishment of a specific canon wasn’t a big deal to the early church. After all, the catholic/orthodox split didn’t have anything to do with their different views of the canon but instead involved other disputes. If it wasn’t a point of concern then it’s hard to believe that we should be able to suggest that there was a belief in a universal canon at the time.

Even the catholic encyclopedia says this about Trent “the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.” Personally, if it were such a point of concern I would have expected a pronouncement soooner, but it only occurred when the protestants were making thing hairy.

I am, of course, not suggesting there wasn’t a set and specific number of books that are inspired. Obviously the number is finite. What I am saying is that no one really seemed too concerned with declaring the books definitively canonical. Not for 1500 years.

The common stance today on the questionable books is that they are historically inaccurate (and yet not written as symbolic poetry) or that they claim to not even be inspired as in the case of Sirach and 2 Maccabees in particular. And 1 Maccabees, where it mentions there wasn’t a prophet at the time.

And of course Josephus is always brought up for his speaking on the canon.

“For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, … only 22 books. which contain the records of ail the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;…It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers;…and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, or to make any change in them.” (Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1, Section 8).

Obviously the words of a Jew after the time of Christ doesn’t ultimately matter when Christianity was around at the time, but the implication with his text is that this was understood for quite some time and not a recent change. And since most people think the council of jamnia wasn’t a thing that actually existed we can certainly assume that Josephus’ message here extended into the past quite a ways.

Wow, kind of rambly. Sorry about the wall of text. There’s a lot of stuff out there about this topic. A lot.

 

[Novocastrian]

‘1254. What is the Greek Orthodox Church?
There are some 16 different Orthodox Churches existing independently of one another. After the first really definite break with Rome when Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, left the Catholic Church in the ninth century, the Eastern Church followed in the path of all schismatical Churches, splitting up into further divisions. Eight of these separate sections of Orthodoxy have their own Patriarchs, namely, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Bulgaria, Rumania, Russia, and Serbia. The others lack definite rule. The term “Greek Orthodox Church” is popularly applied to any or all of these Churches; but strictly speaking it should be reserved for that section of Orthodoxy which acknowledges the Patriarch of Constantinople. This is really one of the smaller sections, for the Bulgarians, Rumanians, Russians and others of Slav nationality, are Greeks in no sense of the word. But it is clear that there is no one united Orthodox Church at all, any more than there is one united form of Protestantism. However, since the schismatic Orthodox Churches began with the rebellion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople against Rome in the ninth century, we can allude to all the Orthodox Churches as belonging to the Greek Schism.’
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Orthodox+Churches&db=2

Thus the Orthodox Churches, like so many thousands of Protestant sects, do not contain all the elements of the true faith – they explicitly have fallen into the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, and rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Unlike the Protestant sects, the Orthodox Churches do have the priesthood, the Sacrifice of the Mass and the seven Sacraments and are thus much closer to Christ’s Church than Protestant sects.

Allow me to disavow any kind of personal interest in what I’m about to say; I am not a member of the Orthodox Eastern Church(es).

The source you quote betrays a woeful misunderstanding of the history and theology of the Eastern Church. The fact that the Eastern Church is divided, for better or for worse, along ethic and national lines is not a matter of its doctrine or communion. One may perhaps argue that it is the result of an overly enthusiastic reception of (proto)nationalism from the sixteenth century onwards, and that the Eastern Churches would have been in some ways better off had they continued to form what has been called the ‘Byzantine Commonwealth’ even after the fall of The City. Nevertheless, to suggest that the different national Orthodox Churches are not in communion with one another, or are somehow guilty of multiplying schisms, seems ludicrous.

The different Orthodox Churches are self-governing, but confess the same faith, of the first eight ecumenical councils (your first seven, plus the pro-Photian synod). To suggest that they are truly separated is like suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church in Italy is separate from that in the USA, merely on the basis that they have separate bishops’ conferences.

Furthermore, it could even be argued that they have been far more effective in preserving unity than the Roman Church has. Vast swathes of Europe were lost to Rome from the sixteenth century onwards; it is a defensible position that the Orthodox have suffered no such catastrophe despite far more hostile circumstances!

 

[Abu]

The “rambling” involves the error of disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as His Supreme Vicar:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

So the other Apostles were NOT given this supreme authority given to Christ’s Supreme Vicar.

The second error is in disregarding history.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The “rambling” continues, and will until the end of time, but nothing and no one can deny Christ’s foundation of His Church with St Peter as His Supreme Vicar and His mandate that “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. And behold I am with you until the consummation of the world.” (Mt 28:18-20). A teaching authority founded by God must be worthy of God – certain in truth, infallible. Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing, and the Keys of the kingdom of heaven.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The Bible does have 66 inspired books, as all 66 books are inspired! But I get your point, and I rather like Pope Gregory the Great’s explanation:

“With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony."

He then goes on to quote Maccabees. I agree, I think that the books are great but not canonical.

(CAF explodes)

THAT is a stretch. Talk about grasping at straws!
First, he wrote this when he was a deacon.
Second, he’s not necessarily saying what you seem to imply he’s saying. It could be read as “I’m not going to go into the question of whether this is inspired or not; for my Jewish readers, even if it’s not, it’s still instructional.”

I’m sure there’s more, but this should suffice.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Personally, if it were such a point of concern I would have expected a pronouncement soooner, but it only occurred when the protestants were making thing hairy.

That’s the point. Historically, the Church will only promulgate officially a teaching when it’s absolutely needed. They don’t pronounce on things that no one disagrees about. They didn’t, for instance, declare that Jesus was one divine being with two natures and wills until each of those statements was challenged.

I am, of course, not suggesting there wasn’t a set and specific number of books that are inspired. Obviously the number is finite. What I am saying is that no one really seemed too concerned with declaring the books definitively canonical. Not for 1500 years.

Precisely because no one in the Western Church seriously challenged the 73-book canon for 1200 years. Until a monk decided that he’d pick and choose those books that didn’t discredit his own, personal preconceived beliefs.

 

[Traverse]

But that is also my point. The orthodox and roman church have different canons, and yet no one seemed to care.

 

[Abu]

Novocastrian #65
The different Orthodox Churches are self-governing, but confess the same faith,

The key is that the Orthodox explicitly have fallen into the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, and rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, apart from having no common unity.

Furthermore, it could even be argued that they have been far more effective in preserving unity than the Roman Church has. Vast swathes of Europe were lost to Rome from the sixteenth century onwards; it is a defensible position that the Orthodox have suffered no such catastrophe despite far more hostile circumstances!

That really is bizarre to try to compare the errors and the historical traits of Luther whose significance was not merely that he was incontinent and foul-mouthed, but that he was the first to preach what he practised. Peter Weiner, who was a master at Stowe and a refugee from Germany, is not a Catholic and in his From Luther to Niemöller “traces German Nazism back to Luther and the Lutheran reformation.” *Is The Catholic Church Anti-Social?, *Arnold Lunn (& G C Coulton), Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1946, p 139].

Perhaps you never heard of the various other heretical sects – Arianism etc.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

But that is also my point. The orthodox and roman church have different canons, and yet no one seemed to care.

Probably because they did and do have all the inspired books. They didn’t throw out books just because they disproved their theology.

 

[Novocastrian]

The key is that the Orthodox explicitly have fallen into the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, and rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, apart from having no common unity.

The Orthodox line on divorce and remarriage predates the schism. What then is the point of your purportedly infallible Pontiff if he can’t cast out all those Constantinopolitan prelates and princes who apparently defied Rome on that matter?

The Immaculate Conception was defined in the 1850s. The fact that it needed to be defined and proclaimed as a dogma to be held de fide that late should ring serious alarm bells as to its status as an integral part of the Christian Faith handed down from the apostles.

They do have common unity as I just said. If you’re going to disagree with me then actually refute me, rather than just pretending that I didn’t say something.

That really is bizarre to try to compare the errors and the historical traits of Luther whose significance was not merely that he was incontinent and foul-mouthed, but that he was the first to preach what he practised. Peter Weiner, who was a master at Stowe and a refugee from Germany, is not a Catholic and in his From Luther to Niemöller “traces German Nazism back to Luther and the Lutheran reformation.” *Is The Catholic Church Anti-Social?, *Arnold Lunn (& G C Coulton), Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1946, p 139].

Perhaps you never heard of the various other heretical sects – Arianism etc.

Of course I have heard of other heretical sects. But the role of the Papacy in eliminating them, with the possible exception of Leo’s Tome to Flavian, hardly conforms to the model of the Supreme Vicar of Christ on Earth ruling the Church.

With regard to Luther, I’ll grant you that he said some evil, anti-Semitic things. So did Chrysostom and Ambrose! This is only a problem if you raise him to be an infallible authority, which nobody does. Straw man argument on your part there.

 

[Novocastrian]

Probably because they did and do have all the inspired books. They didn’t throw out books just because they disproved their theology.

Is the Prayer of Manasseh inspired?

 

[dronald]

First, he wrote this when he was a deacon.

How is this relevant? Someone who is about to become Pope should know which books are canonical and shouldn’t be quoting Macabees as, “not canonical.”

Second, he’s not necessarily saying what you seem to imply he’s saying. It could be read as “I’m not going to go into the question of whether this is inspired or not; for my Jewish readers, even if it’s not, it’s still instructional.”

I’m sure there’s more, but this should suffice.

Nope, he’s speaking directly about a Christian issue to a Christian Church.

“With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46)”

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Is the Prayer of Manasseh inspired?

Didn’t say it was.
Re-read what I wrote.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

How is this relevant? Someone who is about to become Pope should know which books are canonical and shouldn’t be quoting Macabees as, “not canonical.”

How long before?

Nope, he’s speaking directly about a Christian issue to a Christian Church.

“With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46)”

With apologies to Inigo Montoya, I do not think this means what you think it means.

Remember, this is a translation of a very old document, and things were not necessarily said in precisely the same manner as they are today.

Let me ammend my postulated paraphrase:
It could be read as “I’m not going to go into the question of whether this is inspired or not; for my Jewish readers, even if it’s not, it’s still instructional and can be used for edification of the Church.”

 

[Novocastrian]

Remember, this is a translation of a very old document, and things were not necessarily said in precisely the same manner as they are today.

Agreed. Are there any good Latinists here (Roman Catholic or otherwise) who could talk us through this particular construction?

 

[dronald]

How long before?

“Written between 578 and 595 when Gregory was at the court of Tiberius II at Constantinople, but finished only after he had already been in Rome for several years.” According to Amazon. Link

Do you have any evidence that it should be translated in this way?

Actually, the way you said it concerns me more… Why would he be unsure by saying, “even if it’s not.”?

 

[Novocastrian]

Didn’t say it was.
Re-read what I wrote.

Oh, I know, that wasn’t meant to be accusatory or a way of trapping you. I’m genuinely interested in your answer, simply because it is included in the Vulgate as an appendix but not among the canon. Hence I was wondering what your view of its exact status is. Is it inspired? Not inspired? Literally an apocryphon, in the sense that we don’t really know either way (except that it’s somehow edifying)?