What's Your Authority?

[Novocastrian]

Please don’t ignore why they were removed. The were removed because they weren’t part of the original Hebrew canon. When it comes to the definition of biblical canon, I’m going to stick with that of God’s Chosen over the Romans anyday.

The reason those books remain in the CC’s Bible is because a good number of the “original” doctrines of the early Roman church can only be supported by appealing to these books (i.e. purgatory, which is solely apocryphal).

Oversimplification.

1. Books we thought were Greek have turned up in Hebrew at Qumran.
2. The Bible of the early Church was the Greek one anyway.
3. The very concept of a canon is Greek. It’s a Greek word, κανων.

 

[yateanieys]

Worthless supportive evidence.

1. Books we thought were Greek have turned up in Hebrew at Qumran.

Again, not part of the Hebrew [Old Testament]

1. The Bible of the early Church was the Greek one anyway.

Because it was favored by St. Augustine @Carthage.

1. The very concept of a canon is Greek. It’s a Greek word, κανων.

Non sequitur.

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

Please don’t ignore why they were removed.

The same can be said to you… Please, don’t ignore why they were removed.

The were removed because they weren’t part of the original Hebrew canon.

Fact of the matter is there was no defined, settled canon among the Jews prior to Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Pharisees used Hebrew Canon
Sadducees used on the Pentateuch.
Many Jews of the day used the Septuagint - which was cited most frequently in the NT (approx. 340 times) as compared to the Hebrew Canon (only about 30 times).

When it comes to the definition of biblical canon, I’m going to stick with that of God’s Chosen over the Romans anyday.

The Jews rejected Christ. They had no defined Canon prior to Christ. I’ll stick with Jesus and His Church on this one!

Please reflect on Mark 12: 1-12. The Jewish leaders rejected Christ, the very stone which would become the cornerstone. God would destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others, His Church (cf. v9). The Jews lost their authority on Pentecost. For Jesus gave the HS to His disciples and sent them as the Father sent Him (cf. Jn 20:21 -22).

The reason those books remain in the CC’s Bible is because a good number of the “original” doctrines of the early Roman church can only be supported by appealing to these books (i.e. purgatory, which is solely apocryphal).

The books were removed because they did not accommodate the Protestant reformers’ tradition of men. And, Jesus told us not to follow the traditions of men. Note that protestants also wanted to removed books from the NT, such as James. And, we are not permitted to take away from or change the written Word of God. Again, I’ll stick with Jesus & His Church on this one.

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

Amen

The Word of God is also what God inspired be handed on orally and written. But, 100% agreed, the Word of God existed before all creation. The Word of God, truth himself, dwelt among us in the flesh.

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

Because it was favored by St. Augustine @Carthage.

Because… the NT writers, inspired by the HS, referenced the Greek Canon heavily. Substantially more than the canon of the Pharisees. So it would seem the inspired authors of the NT favored the greek canon. I’ll go with the Holy Spirit inspired NT authors on this one too.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What, not who?, is my authority?

If it must be a what… It be conscience and fear of God.

Why what?

 

[adf417]

Well by your Word Web definition the CC is made up of religious congregations which collectively have their organization and distinctive faith. Your parish is a congregation as are the Catholic parishes somewhere else. They fall under the CC umbrella organization and have the distinctive Catholic faith. Your other definition is from a Catholic dictionary. Just because a Catholic dictionary and Catholics claim denominations are “especially among Protestants”, I’m not sure is a strong enough argument to make to well, Protestants. Nice try but if you’re serious, I’m afraid your point fell, well a bit short. What the CC claims is enough for faithful Catholics though.

Most apparently

I believe you guys have accomplished the ultimate conundrum for us Catholics by insisting Abu prove his point with non-Catholic sources. :clapping:



I decided not to post what I originally had written here as it was slightly uncharitable…but I do respectful ask that you ponder the implications of what you are insinuating and further elaborate on how it is the two of you would agree on the same authority “in this thread” but have differing beliefs in your denominations.

Peace!!!

 

[yateanieys]

Because… the NT writers, inspired by the HS, referenced the Greek heavily. Substantially more than the canon of the Pharisees. So it would seem the inspired authors of the NT favored the greek. I’ll go with the Holy Spirit inspired NT authors on this one too.

The point is, there was Scripture long before the canon was defined at Trent. Just because the Pharisees abused the text to satisfy their own selfish curiosities does not denounce it. This set of Scriptures was used during Christ’s ministry in Palestine and they did not include the Apocrypha. Furthermore, in the NT, there are over 600 quotations and references to the Old Testament made by Jesus and the NT authors and not a single one refers to the Apocrypha.

Also, St. Athanasius declared the Apocrypha as heretical and “mixed in” with divinely-inspired Scripture 1,200 years before the Magisterium decreed them as canonical. There’s a reason the RCC called Athanasius the “Doctor of the Church.”

Athanasius:

From Letter XXXIX.—(For 367.) Of the particular books and their number, which are accepted by the Church. From the thirty-ninth Letter of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Paschal festival; wherein he defines canonically what are the divine books which are accepted by the Church.

". . .

1. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
2. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.
3. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’
4. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple."

St. Athanasius stated here that the Apocryphal books had edifying qualities, but not reliable enough for use in dogmatic decree. They were for reading only, therefore they were classified as deutero-canonical; they were not part of the canonical books. This is how the RCC originally understood the canon. Origen and Jerome were Fr’s of the Early Church and also agreed that the Apocrypha was informative not authoritative, and they both lived in Palestine a while and knew the Jewish ‘canon’ well. Yet, the council of Trent went against the Church and 1200 years of solid understanding and decreed the read-only writings as canonical books in the 16th century.

I never thought I’d refer to a Catholic to positively support a point, but there it is

2Mac 15:38-40 - “So these things being done with relation to Nicanor, and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other: so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers. But here it shall be ended.”

Divinely inspired? Most definitely not! In fact, the author himself denies any divine inspiration. Therefore, it is not canonical.

 

[yateanieys]

further elaborate on how it is the two of you would agree on the same authority “in this thread” but have differing beliefs in your denominations.

Sy Noe and me? We’re not saying Catholics are going to Hell, it’s just that both of us understand the “authority” of the Catholic Church for what it truly is. Forgive me for not elaborating, but you obviously wouldn’t understand or else you would have after reading my very first post to this thread (or Sy Noe’s, for that matter)

 

[rinnie]

Please don’t ignore why they were removed. The were removed because they weren’t part of the original Hebrew canon. When it comes to the definition of biblical canon, I’m going to stick with that of God’s Chosen over the Romans anyday.

The reason those books remain in the CC’s Bible is because a good number of the “original” doctrines of the early Roman church can only be supported by appealing to these books (i.e. purgatory, which is solely apocryphal).

Answer me this, if you are correct and the Church is wrong, back to the Authority, then we all have authority over the Church then?

And if so why do any of us even need the Church then?

 

[yateanieys]

Answer me this, if you are correct and the Church is wrong, back to the Authority, then we all have authority over the Church then?

And if so why do any of us even need the Church then?

No, only the Christ has authority over the Church as the Word of God dictates that he alone is the head, and by “Church,” I mean the body of believers, not the CC.

 

[rinnie]

Most definitely, the Word of God gave us the Bible. The Church (as in the body of believers) was inspired to write it. You might want to amend your definition, brother.

What Church was inspired to write it? And by whom was it inspired to write it by? In your opinion of course.

 

[rinnie]

No, only the Christ has authority over the Church as the Word of God dictates that he alone is the head, and by “Church,” I mean the body of believers, not the CC.

I am a little confused help me here, you are saying the RCC is not the Church and not the body of believers?

 

[yateanieys]

What Church was inspired to write it? And by whom was it inspired to write it by? In your opinion of course.

Well IMHO, various people within the Church (the body of believers, their Lord and Savior of which he alone is the head) wrote the Bible as inspired by the dictation of the Word of God.

 

[rinnie]

2TI.2:2 does not say “infallible people” are needed to carry it out, but only “faithful people” who (v.15) “study to show themselves approved unto God…rightly dividing the word of truth”.

So you are saying that faithful people have the power of the Holy Spirit given to them by the laying of hands traced directly from the Apostles also?

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

The point is, there was Scripture long before the canon was defined at Trent.

Truly, the OT Holy Scripture has been around even before the Church. And, the same, inspired canon of 73 books was decreed way before Trent by Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397), by Pope St. Innocent I (405), Carthage (419), Florence (1441), Trent (1546 as response to Protestants removing books), and Vatican I (1869). So, you see the Church Jesus established, guided by the HS preserves the deposit of faith in the written Word of God.

Just because the Pharisees abused the text to satisfy their own selfish curiosities does not denounce it. This set of Scriptures was used during Christ’s ministry in Palestine and they did not include the Apocrypha.

Again, the primary canons in common use during the life & ministry of Jesus… Hebrew Canon, Pentateuch, and the Septuagint (Hebrew translations found with Dead Sea Scrolls). So to say the Hebrew Canon is the only one used during this time is false. Additionally, there was no defined canon by the Jews at this time, as evidenced by the varying canons in circulation.

Furthermore, in the NT, there are over 600 quotations and references to the Old Testament made by Jesus and the NT authors and not a single one refers to the Apocrypha.

Does the referencing of a writing mean inspiration? If yes, then should the pagan writings referenced by St. Paul in his letters be included? Should the book of Enoch be included since Jude refers to it? Also, what of the protocanonical books which are not referred to in the NT? Should we exclude those books according to the standard of inspiration you are promoting here?

Jimmy Akin provides a lengthy reference list of deuterocanonical books referred to in the NT found at the following link.
jimmyakin.com/deuterocanonical-references-in-the-new-testament

Also, St. Athanasius declared the Apocrypha as heretical and “mixed in” with divinely-inspired Scripture 1,200 years before the Magisterium decreed them as canonical. There’s a reason the RCC called Athanasius the “Doctor of the Church.”

It is great that you are reading the writings of the early church. :thumbsup:You will find that many of the ECF agreed and disagreed on the canons of the OT and the NT. Until the aforementioned councils.
We could go back and forth quoting early church writers who disagreed on the inspired lists.
Here is another link which provides a brief list of these writings which support the Catholic OT canon.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

It is very encouraging that Jesus left an authority, guided by the HS, to settle such a matter (Authority, not the OT canon, is the point of the thread after all). Many Early Church Fathers could not agree on the canon, so the matter was taken to the Church (cf. Mt 18:15-18).

2Mac 15:38-40 - "So these things being done with relation to Nicanor, and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other: so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers. But here it shall be ended."

Divinely inspired? Most definitely not! In fact, the author himself denies any divine inspiration. Therefore, it is not canonical.

You are reading your tradition into the scripture here. Nowhere does the text say anything about inspiration or lack thereof.

Nowhere in any of the 73 books of the Bible well you find a particular book calling itself inspired or uninspired. Nowhere will one see an exhaustive list, within scripture, of which book belongs and which does not belong. Jesus did, however, leave an authoritative Church (cf. Lk 10:16).

As St. Augustine (another Doctor of the Church) states it, “I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6).

 

[rinnie]

Well IMHO, various people within the Church (the body of believers, their Lord and Savior of which he alone is the head) wrote the Bible as inspired by the dictation of the Word of God.

IMHO good save, I like that!

Okay but my question is what Church did this body of believers belong to that wrote the Bible?

 

[yateanieys]

you are saying the RCC is not the Church and not the body of believers?

The RCC is definitely included in the Church, but so are all the other non-Catholics that accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

So you are saying that faithful people have the power of the Holy Spirit given to them by the laying of hands traced directly from the Apostles also?

I am saying the Holy Spirit empowers and convicts the hearts of every man, not just those the apostles laid hands on.

 

[yateanieys]

Okay but my question is what Church did this body of believers belong to that wrote the Bible?

I can’t help but think you’re still referring to the Church definitively as the CC. One has to abandon that definition to understand the Protestant viewpoint. The Church is not a building or denomination that one belongs to; it is simply the body of believers that span the ages.

 

[rinnie]

Let me ask you this.

The CC made the decision on which books of the bible were Inspired. True or False.

Now if they have no Authority how did they do this?