Why Do Catholics Say....

  • Thread starter Thread starter sandmountainsli
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
inJESUS said:
so Jesus was wrong and Luther right?
Click to expand...
You know that Jesus didn’t set the Canon of scriptures.
The councils were held centuries after his going into heaven.
The OT Canon was already set BC.
WP
 
sandmountainsli said:
You know that Jesus didn’t set the Canon of scriptures.
The councils were held centuries after his going into heaven.
The OT Canon was already set BC.
WP
Click to expand...
Perhaps you haven’t yet read what our Jewish brother, Valke2, wrote above: "Canonization of the Tanakh occurred between 200 BCE and 200CE. The Torah itself was in its present form from a much earlier time – Jewish tradition saying about 1300 BCE. When you speak about the canonization occurring around 90 CE, you’re generally talking about the Ketuvim (psalms, Daniel, Esther, Chronicles, etc.). Prophets and Torah had already been set down in canon.

Including certain books, like the Song of Songs, (a book that kept plenty a student awake at nights, I’m sure), was being debated in the Talmud. So we can conclude that it was a rather late addition to the Canon."

The Jewish Canon was not set “BC” but much later. And the Councils of the Church had every right to set the Canon of the whole Bible for Christians because Jesus gave the Church the authority to make such decisions. After all, Jesus didn’t found a book, he founded a Church with very prescribed foundation on Peter and the Apostles and promised that “the gates of hell [would not} prevail against it,” that He would be “with [it] until the end of time,” and that “the Holy Spirit [would] lead [it] into all truth.” Sounds like pretty firm promises to me! 😉
 
You know as far as Song of Songs goes I am unsure why it is considered scripture:confused: I myself have never gotten a religious vibe from it.
WP
 
sandmountainsli said:
You know as far as Song of Songs goes I am unsure why it is considered scripture:confused: I myself have never gotten a religious vibe from it.
WP
Click to expand...
In Judasim, the Song of Songs has been described as the holy of holies. Because, according to the rabbis, all meaning in the book is hidden.
 
sandmountainsli said:
You know as far as Song of Songs goes I am unsure why it is considered scripture:confused: I myself have never gotten a religious vibe from it.
WP
Click to expand...
I think that it is a surprise to some people to realize that God uses sexual imagery to describe his union with his people.

The Song of Solomon has two levels of meanings. On one hand, it is a love song, on the other it symbolises the union of God for his people.

Ezekiel 16 is a good example of this also. In this chapter God describes Jerusalme as an abandoned female child, whom he saves. When she is old enough, he makes her his wife. It is an interesting chapter to read.
 
Valke2 said:
In Judasim, the Song of Songs has been described as the holy of holies. Because, according to the rabbis, all meaning in the book is hidden.
Click to expand...
I wish I knew more Jewish people, it’s absolutely fascinating to learn Judaism.

On another note, to get a more “religious vibe” from the Song of Songs it might be helpful to read Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Deus Caritas Est. It’s a relatively short read but loaded with goodies. It might even be interesting for our good Jewish friend Valke2 to read. I would be interested to see what you think.
 
The Old Testament BELONGS to the Jewish faith

Not so. The Jews abandoned that which we now call the Old Testament in the first century.
Click to expand...
and they have never included any books other that the ones currently used by the Protestants. Ask any Jew which you know if the Apocrypha is part of the Hebrew scriptures and they will say “No”.
When the German, Luther did his trimming it was only to remove books which were not historically part of the Hebrew Canon.
Click to expand...

Not true, Luther removed any books which appeared to support those aspects of Catholicism with which he did not agree.

He was also very suspicious of other texts, such as James, which of course supports both Confessing of sins to one another Js 5:16. James also teaches what is very much Catholic Theology

The Catholic Bible’s OT also contains some extra verses or chapters in the books of Daniel and Esther that the Protestants *

Contrary to popular belief, Luther was not a new Mohammed. He was a Catholic Friar who lost his way. His early protestant followers were so impressed by his teachings that they refused to feed him. Were it not for the mercy of the Catholic Church which fed, clothed and sustained him, he would never have lived long enough to have condemned her who sustained him.

An oversimplified explanation of the debate as follows. Early Church Fathers were Hebrews who saw the fulfillment of their sacred writings in the Person of Jesus. Early Jewish Christians retained and promoted the Hebrew Scriptures AS THESE WERE ALL THAT EXISTED. THE Church was not to commission the Bible for another 200-years [though they did have Paul and Mark]. Early Church Fathers urged people to read the Hebrew Scriptures alongside the gospels and letters that would later become the Christian New Testament.

When the first Christians spoke of the Hebrew “Sacred Scriptures” they did not have a fixed canon in mind. Within Jewdaism there were at least two official Hebrew collections, one in the Hebrew language called the Masoretic Text and a Greek translation of that text called “The Septuagint.” This Greek translation contained the seven additional books at issue here which were not in the Masoretic text.

Because Greek was a widely understood common language of the time and several of the Apostles spoke Greek, the early Christians under the guidance of the Fathers, used the Septuagint as it spread across the ancient world. Eventually the Septuagint with the extra books officially became part of the Christian Old Testament when the Canon was fixed by a Church Council in the 3rd Century. When the Hebrew scholars got around to deciding on their canon sometime in the late second century, they rejected the seven extra books. Luther did the same.

Other differences between Catholic and Protestant Bibles includes different approaches to Biblical scholarship which might result in different translations and explanations. Also, ancient texts are preserved by the RCC in their original latin [which as a language, never changes] and these are used when translating the Bible to make sure it conforms to the oldest records so that nothing is lost in translation. The Prods do not have this ancient means of cross checking. As a result, different theologies have emerged which lead to different explanations of the meaning of different passages. Hence why Protestants are excused for criticising much of what the RCC does. Their interprations of what we do have been diminished in the mists of time.

It is interesting that RCC and Authodox Scholars agree on most of the texts, even though they have no vested interest in supporting the other. Of course, the East have access to the same Vulgate as the West, which comes as no surprise. These are not so readily available to the Prods. Hence the bizare interpretations that have arisen such as the JW’s whose Bible says the Virgin Mary had 10-children by Joseph. No where is this in the ancient texts.*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top