Why do non-Catholics try to use our Scriptures against us?

[cleargospel99]

cleargospel99;2110390:

Here is a link that I found with many of the deuterocanonical allusions: freerepublic.com/focus/religion/767812/posts

Most allude to the teachings of the books instead of direct quotes however the volume does tend to show a general familiarity with the so called deuterocanonicals.

It should pointed out that Esther and Ecclesiastes also lack any explicit mention however would you suggest they should be excluded? This is the problem with the negative argument. Also if one but flips the argument then we notice the Enoch is quoted by Jude and yet it is not present in the Canon. Does this mean that the Canon as we’ve known it is in fact incomplete?

It should be noted that St. Justin Martyr makes note that the Christians possessed a different OT than the Jews. St. Iranaeus apparently also noted that Baruch was considered on par with Jeremiah and ascribed the authorship of Susanna to Daniel. Finally Origen acknowledges all of the deuterocanonicals as divine in his letter to Julius Africanus.

The Hebrew Canon was compiled a century after the birth of Christ and there simply were no longer any reliable Hebrew texts of the so called deuterocanonicals. They likely would have been added if available since the Septuagint was considered authoritative with them intact.

As for St. Jerome: I honestly don’t know if he ever officially recanted his personal views. I do know this though; his reluctance to include them actually lends weight to their inclusion. The fact that Jerome despite his personal misgivings still submitted to ecclesiastical tradition and included them in his work demonstrates the prestige that these writings held in the Church at large. It should also be noted that Jerome’s extensive time in Palestine and his reverence for the Hebrew tongue and the Hebrew manuscripts likely colored his opinions. This is understandable.

Mannyfit,
It is apparent that you are very thoughtful and sincere, so I don’t want to waste alot of space arguing about this with someone who is most likely a brother, but please allow me to state my POV on this.

Allusions aren’t the same as quotes. You can do the same thing with the Book of Mormon, but we would both agree that that book is a complete fraud.

I am relieved to see that you backed away from the “Jerome recanted” argument. As you have noted, there was a widespread diversity of opinion regarding the canon right up to Trent. In fact the famous Cardinal Cajetan sent to examine Luther, himself regarded the deutero-canon as secondary to true scripture.

That is not to say that the writings are worthless. I would recommend CS Lewis book, Mere Christianity to any English speaking Christian, but that would not make it scripture.

Many scholars regard the d-c as embellishments and fictional writings, problematic in their history. They may be good stories and contain an element of the truth, but to mix them with actual God=breathed scripture would be to confuse the truth.

I believe the Gospel accounts are actual true testimony of Christ. I believe the OT to be the actual history of God’s revelation to the Hebrews. These are not ficticious legends conveyed to communicate a idea of men, but the actual truthful revelation of God Himself.

And for this reason I think the correct status was articulated by Jerome and Cardinal Cajetan.
v/r
cg99

 

[colliric]

Read 282 and you will see that he did not answer it fully.

Now Mannyfit backed up the truck and unloaded a bunch of stuff the might be quotes from the d-c, but I am working through it and so far, nothing would qualify as a direct quote. Now the Apocryphal writings mimic actual scripture, so one can readily see that the authors might crib some of the messages already addressed in the OT. However if you were to apply this standard, then you could make the same argument for the Book of Mormon being quoted by the Aposltes. Which we would agree cannot be true.

Yes there are some similar ideas but nothing so far as I can tell that would qualify as a direct quote.

When the Apostles or Jesus refered to scripture, they usually said “As it is written:”

However, my research is not over and may take some time. For the moment, I have yet to see definitive proof that Christ or the Apostles regarded the Apocrypha itself as scripture.

I will let you know when I do.

Funny enough those 2 sites actually left out the most compelling evidence of the lot… Tobit 12:13 and 12:15, and how the Book of Apocalpyse directly quotes them when it uses the phrases “The seven angels who enter into the presence of the lord” and “I presented your prayers to the lord”.

 

[rtconstant]

rtconstant;2111480:

Mannyfit,
It is apparent that you are very thoughtful and sincere, so I don’t want to waste alot of space arguing about this with someone who is most likely a brother, but please allow me to state my POV on this.

Allusions aren’t the same as quotes. You can do the same thing with the Book of Mormon, but we would both agree that that book is a complete fraud.

I am relieved to see that you backed away from the “Jerome recanted” argument. As you have noted, there was a widespread diversity of opinion regarding the canon right up to Trent. In fact the famous Cardinal Cajetan sent to examine Luther, himself regarded the deutero-canon as secondary to true scripture.

That is not to say that the writings are worthless. I would recommend CS Lewis book, Mere Christianity to any English speaking Christian, but that would not make it scripture.

Many scholars regard the d-c as embellishments and fictional writings, problematic in their history. They may be good stories and contain an element of the truth, but to mix them with actual God=breathed scripture would be to confuse the truth.

I believe the Gospel accounts are actual true testimony of Christ. I believe the OT to be the actual history of God’s revelation to the Hebrews. These are not ficticious legends conveyed to communicate a idea of men, but the actual truthful revelation of God Himself.

And for this reason I think the correct status was articulated by Jerome and Cardinal Cajetan.
v/r
cg99

Actually it was me that you quoted there. I would like to point out something that perhaps got overlooked in my original post. Direct quoting or allusions aside really mean nothing. As there are books that you accept as canon that are not quoted in the NT and books that are quoted that do not appear in the canon at all.

What is clear though is that Church from the end of the first century as a whole viewed the so called deuterocanonicals as canon. There were those who disagreed but they were in the extreme minority.

Also, you alluded to Trent you might not be aware that every council up to Trent agreed on the contents of the Canon. Trent added no new insite. Trent’s declaration was made because some Protestants were removing books (sometimes because of personal theology). The Church had never seen such wide spread opposition to the Scriptures and so closed the issue for clarity’s sake.

 

[cleargospel99]

None of these scriptures proves predestination. Frankly, i believe God only could harden Pharaoh’s heart if the Ph LET him… God undoubtedly did things 2 harden his heart, but he cooperated w/ the hardening…
And that is what the spiritual life is all about: cooperating or not cooperating with God.
Besides, Pharoah could have cried out to God in repentance @ the last min. as he was drowning… and God would have forgiven him… Man was given free will and God does not take it away from him…

I think you illustrate quite clearly why you feel that “non-Catholics” use your scriptures against you.

When presented with the plain text of the scripture, nothing less than an Apostolic teaching.

It doesn’t comport with your private views of autonomous man. You just reject it out of hand.

The point was not to prove or disprove “predestination”. But rather to see how you would react to the actual text of God’s Word.

Frankly, Romans 9:10-24 and Eph 1:4-8 is more compelling than your opinion.

Notice I didn’t provide any commentary, but just let God (the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul) speak for Himself.

You reacted just like the Pharisees did to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Matthew 15: 7-9

7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’[a]"

 

[cleargospel99]

cleargospel99;2112643:

Actually it was me that you quoted there. I would like to point out something that perhaps got overlooked in my original post. Direct quoting or allusions aside really mean nothing. As there are books that you accept as canon that are not quoted in the NT and books that are quoted that do not appear in the canon at all.

What is clear though is that Church from the end of the first century as a whole viewed the so called deuterocanonicals as canon. There were those who disagreed but they were in the extreme minority.

Also, you alluded to Trent you might not be aware that every council up to Trent agreed on the contents of the Canon. Trent added no new insite. Trent’s declaration was made because some Protestants were removing books (sometimes because of personal theology). The Church had never seen such wide spread opposition to the Scriptures and so closed the issue for clarity’s sake.

The overall practice of the Western Church with respect to the canon from the time of Jerome (early fifth century) until the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome. The Apocryphal books were accorded a deuterocanonical status, but were not regarded as canonical in the strict sense. That is, they were** not accepted as authoritative for the establishing of doctrine** but were used for the purpose of edification. Thus, the Church retained the distinctions established by Jerome, Rufinus and Athanasius of ecclesiastical and canonical books.

Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term ‘canonical’ as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.

This is a fair summary of the overall view of the Western Church from the Middle Ages to the sixteenth century.

Excerpted from the following link:
christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

 

[Spirithound]

Allusions aren’t the same as quotes. You can do the same thing with the Book of Mormon, but we would both agree that that book is a complete fraud.

In the case of the book of Mormon, we have a very clear chronological order. The NT couldn’t quote Mormon because Mormon was written over a 1000 years later.

That is not to say that the writings are worthless. I would recommend CS Lewis book, Mere Christianity to any English speaking Christian, but that would not make it scripture.

That’s because your (and my) opinion has no effect on reality.

Many scholars regard the d-c as embellishments and fictional writings, problematic in their history. They may be good stories and contain an element of the truth, but to mix them with actual God=breathed scripture would be to confuse the truth.

I believe the Gospel accounts are actual true testimony of Christ. I believe the OT to be the actual history of God’s revelation to the Hebrews. These are not ficticious legends conveyed to communicate a idea of men, but the actual truthful revelation of God Himself.

Have you actually read some of the protocanonical books? How about Proverbs? Song of Songs? Are these books actual history? I think not, however they are still Scripture. Similarly, Tobit and Judith may have problems in their history, but what if they’re not meant to be history? Proverbs is full of sayings for us to follow, Tobit and Judith are long parables.

 

[Spirithound]

The overall practice of the Western Church with respect to the canon from the time of Jerome (early fifth century) until the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome. The Apocryphal books were accorded a deuterocanonical status, but were not regarded as canonical in the strict sense. That is, they were** not accepted as authoritative for the establishing of doctrine** but were used for the purpose of edification. Thus, the Church retained the distinctions established by Jerome, Rufinus and Athanasius of ecclesiastical and canonical books.

Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term ‘canonical’ as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:

For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.

This is a fair summary of the overall view of the Western Church from the Middle Ages to the sixteenth century.

Excerpted from the following link:
christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

In your first paragraph, you said that the overall practice of the Western Church with respect to the canon from the time of Jerome (early fifth century) until the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome, however in the quote of Cardinal Cajetan, he indicates that councils and doctors have said that the deuterocanonical books are Scripture. St. Jerome was a priest. He does not have the power to overrule councils of bishops, cardinals and popes. Neither, for that matter, does Cardinal Cajetan.
Please stop ignoring the fact that even though St. Jerome may not have believed the deuterocanon to be Scripture, he followed the teaching of the Church in that matter.

 

[cleargospel99]

In your first paragraph, you said that the overall practice of the Western Church with respect to the canon from the time of Jerome (early fifth century) until the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome, however in the quote of Cardinal Cajetan, he indicates that councils and doctors have said that the deuterocanonical books are Scripture. St. Jerome was a priest. He does not have the power to overrule councils of bishops, cardinals and popes. Neither, for that matter, does Cardinal Cajetan.
Please stop ignoring the fact that even though St. Jerome may not have believed the deuterocanon to be Scripture, he followed the teaching of the Church in that matter.

You are ignoring the fact that there was a wide diversity of opinion on the definitive teaching of the church in that matter for over 1500 years. Trent didn’t change history, it only captured a snapshot of the prevailing attitude of the Vatican at that moment in time.

“The Polyglot Bible of Cardinal Ximenes was sanctioned by Pope Leo X. It separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament and received papal sanction. Roman Catholic apologists make much of papal approval like that given by Innocent I for the Council of Carthage in his letter to Exuperius. The sanction of Leo X is as authoritative as that of Innocent, yet they are fundamentally contradictory, demonstrating again that Rome’s claim that she determined the canon for the Church universal in the late fourth and early fifth centuries is not supported by the historical facts.”

Nevertheless this is still just a side issue to the matter at hand. Which is understanding why you feel “non-Catholics” use your scriptures against you.

I read through Judith and Tobit, who am I to say those stories are not worthy. However, I look at the history of the church and find there is much concern over the status of these books. It is important to note the following.

"B.F. Westcott, makes these comments regarding the decree of Trent:

‘This fatal decree, in which the Council…gave a new aspect to the whole question of, the Canon, was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity. How completely the decision was opposed to the spirit and letter of the original judgments of the Greek and Latin Churches, how far in the doctrinal equalization of the disputed and acknowledged books of the Old Testament it was at variance with the traditional opinion of the West, how absolutely unprecedented was the conversion of an eccelesiatical usage into an article of belief, will be seen from the evidence which has already been adduced.’"

excerpted from link provided in previous post

 

[rtconstant]

The overall practice of the Western Church with respect to the canon from the time of Jerome (early fifth century) until the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome. The Apocryphal books were accorded a deuterocanonical status, but were not regarded as canonical in the strict sense. That is, they were** not accepted as authoritative for the establishing of doctrine** but were used for the purpose of edification. Thus, the Church retained the distinctions established by Jerome, Rufinus and Athanasius of ecclesiastical and canonical books.

Actually the practice of the Western Church was to follow the judgment of the Council of Rome (382) led by Pope Damasus I who in agreement with St. Augustine settled the issue. St. Jerome himself bowed to this decision and was obedient to it. This decision was upheld by the following councils without deviation, objection or qualification: Hippo (393), Carthage III (397), Carthage IV (419), Florence (1431 - 1445), and finally Trent (1546 - 1565) where it was declared to alleviate the confusion started by certain Protestants who were making changes to the Sacred Scriptures.

Always and at all times the 73 books of the Bible were upheld by The Church. Certainly some disagreed but they were few as is plainly visible. History is not at all vague about the status of the Sacred Scriptures.

Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term ‘canonical’ as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.

Cajetan also doubted the authorship of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John and Jude. He also believed that 1 John 5:7 and the last Chapter of Mark were not authentic. He was also considered liberal and quiet controversial in his day. This leads towards my overall point. Cajetan did not hold to traditional and accepted beliefs on many things. His views on Scripture particularly caused alarm in many. In other words Cajetan was controversial which is part of what made him great. It is also what makes him a bad example of standard views at the time. This was one man who was anything but standard.

This is a fair summary of the overall view of the Western Church from the Middle Ages to the sixteenth century.

No the fair view was that Christians viewed the Bible according views of the Councils that acknowledged its inspiration to begin with. St. Jerome’s objections but ultimate obedience and Cajetan’s controversies only highlight the fact that their views were not standard.

 

[cleargospel99]

Cajetan also doubted the authorship of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John and Jude. He also believed that 1 John 5:7 and the last Chapter of Mark were not authentic. He was also considered liberal and quiet controversial in his day. This leads towards my overall point. Cajetan did not hold to traditional and accepted beliefs on many things. His views on Scripture particularly caused alarm in many. In other words Cajetan was controversial which is part of what made him great.

Wow! That you could so casually impune the integrity of a loyal and devoted defender of the Roman Catholic faith. You are standing on the wrong end of the branch, as you try to saw off a limb.

Cajetan was a very gifted, talented and loyal defender of Rome, a man, apparently of unsurpassed intellect and integrity:
“Dominican cardinal, philosopher, theologian, and exegete; born 20 February, 1469 at Gaeta, Italy; died 9 August, 1534 at Rome…In 1501 he was made procurator general of his order and appointed to the chairs of philosophy and exegesis at the Sapienza. On the death of the master general, John Clérée, 1507, Cajetan was named vicar-general of the order, and the next year he was elected to the generalship. With foresight and ability, he devoted his energies to the promotion of religious discipline, emphasizing the study of sacred science as the chief means of attaining the end of the order…. About the fourth year of his generalship, **Cajetan rendered important service to the Holy See by appearing before the Pseudo-Council of Pisa (1511), where he denounced the disobedience of the participating cardinals and bishops and overwhelmed them with his arguments. This was the occasion of his defence of the power and monarchical supremacy of the pope…**On 1 July, 1517, Cajetan was created cardinal by Pope Leo X…He was later made Bishop of Gaeta…In theology Cajetan is justly ranked as one of the foremost defenders and exponents of the Thomistic school…To Clement VII he was the “lamp of the Church”, and everywhere in his career, as the theological light of Italy, he was heard with respect and pleasure by cardinals, universities, the clergy, nobility, and people.”

He was certainly more qualified in his opinions than anyone who participates here.
Furthermore, the very list of issues you describe are still in dispute to this day. Not even Rome’s best historians can definitively answer the questions of authorship regarding the last chapter of Mark, the Johannine comma, James, Jude, 2 Peter…etc.
Doubting authorship is not an automatic disqualifier. Many other factors are also considered.

What this does point out is that the **definite extent of the canon was not resolved for the Christian church prior to Trent and a wide diversity of views held sway in different locales at different **times.

This is manifested today in the fact that the Roman, Greek, Russian, Coptic, Assyrian and Protestant churches hold to different canons.

The various early councils you mention were not consistent with each other. Furthermore, you completely neglected to deal with the Polyglot Bible (which held the d-c to be distinct from Holy scripture for matters of defining the faith) of Cardinal Ximenes which received Papal sanction from non other than Leo X.

 

[rtconstant]

Wow! That you could so casually impune the integrity of a loyal and devoted defender of the Roman Catholic faith. You are standing on the wrong end of the branch, as you try to saw off a limb.

Cajetan was a very gifted, talented and loyal defender of Rome, a man, apparently of unsurpassed intellect and integrity:
“Dominican cardinal, philosopher, theologian, and exegete; born 20 February, 1469 at Gaeta, Italy; died 9 August, 1534 at Rome…In 1501 he was made procurator general of his order and appointed to the chairs of philosophy and exegesis at the Sapienza. On the death of the master general, John Clérée, 1507, Cajetan was named vicar-general of the order, and the next year he was elected to the generalship. With foresight and ability, he devoted his energies to the promotion of religious discipline, emphasizing the study of sacred science as the chief means of attaining the end of the order…. About the fourth year of his generalship, **Cajetan rendered important service to the Holy See by appearing before the Pseudo-Council of Pisa (1511), where he denounced the disobedience of the participating cardinals and bishops and overwhelmed them with his arguments. This was the occasion of his defence of the power and monarchical supremacy of the pope…**On 1 July, 1517, Cajetan was created cardinal by Pope Leo X…He was later made Bishop of Gaeta…In theology Cajetan is justly ranked as one of the foremost defenders and exponents of the Thomistic school…To Clement VII he was the “lamp of the Church”, and everywhere in his career, as the theological light of Italy, he was heard with respect and pleasure by cardinals, universities, the clergy, nobility, and people.”

He was certainly more qualified in his opinions than anyone who participates here.
Furthermore, the very list of issues you describe are still in dispute to this day. Not even Rome’s best historians can definitively answer the questions of authorship regarding the last chapter of Mark, the Johannine comma, James, Jude, 2 Peter…etc.
Doubting authorship is not an automatic disqualifier. Many other factors are also considered.

What this does point out is that the **definite extent of the canon was not resolved for the Christian church prior to Trent and a wide diversity of views held sway in different locales at different **times.

This is manifested today in the fact that the Roman, Greek, Russian, Coptic, Assyrian and Protestant churches hold to different canons.

The various early councils you mention were not consistent with each other. Furthermore, you completely neglected to deal with the Polyglot Bible (which held the d-c to be distinct from Holy scripture for matters of defining the faith) of Cardinal Ximenes which received Papal sanction from non other than Leo X.

Whoa! I think you’re jumping the gun there a little. Cajetan was certainly a great man. You’ll notice I stated as much. You are also correct that some of the issues that I pointed out are still contested and yet just like my supposed disrespect of the the good Cardinal these things are beside the point. Cajetan spoke to issues that were controversial. As such he is not an example of the accepted view of the Bible.

The issue is not whether or not Cajetan was wise or even correct in his assesments. The issue is what the Church as a whole and as an institution believed about the Bible. All official statements from the 300’s on have agreed unilaterally on the composition of the OT and have done so without qualification.

It is interesting though that your argument is essentially that the OT deuterocanonicals should be excluded becase their status has at times been argued. Yet the NT also had contested deuterocanonical texts which were approved by the very same councils that approved the OT deutero’s and you seem to have no issue with those. Or perhaps you do and I’m assuming if so please correct me as I don’t wish to attribute something to you that is not true. For edification the deuterocanonical NT books include: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James and Revelations.

Why is it that the Church’s definitive statement regarding the NT canon is apparently above reproach and yet its view of the OT is questioned? Seems a double standard when there was as much debate surrounding the NT as the OT books?

In the end though one thing remains Rome declared the Canon at the first Council of Rome and the list has not changed since that date. No other official list exists for the Western Church. The Church has never wavered in its position and the vast majority of its members have submitted to its authority in this matter. Everything else is speculation and opinion.

 

[cleargospel99]

The issue is not whether or not Cajetan was wise or even correct in his assesments. The issue is what the Church as a whole and as an institution believed about the Bible. All official statements from the 300’s on have agreed unilaterally on the composition of the OT and have done so without qualification…

No other official list exists for the Western Church. The Church has never wavered in its position and the vast majority of its members have submitted to its authority in this matter. Everything else is speculation and opinion.

I’m sorry my brother, but your claims regarding the canon are just fiction.

Any serious student of history, can see the evidence for himself and review our respective posts. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia states the canon was not defined until Trent.

As for no other official list: My church has an official list that is shared by most other Christians (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Disciples of Christ etc…) in the West except for the Church of Rome.

But this isn’t a thread about the canon, it’s about why RCs feel others use the scripture against them.

 

[Spirithound]

But this isn’t a thread about the canon, it’s about why RCs feel others use the scripture against them.

I suppose it’s time to pay (brief) lipservice to the OP…I don’t feel that others use our scriptures against us, because I am quite hesitant to claim ownership of God’s Word.

 

[cleargospel99]

I suppose it’s time to pay (brief) lipservice to the OP…I don’t feel that others use our scriptures against us, because I am quite hesitant to claim ownership of God’s Word.

Well said my brother, a you are good example of God’s grace and Christian maturity.

Irrespective of our views of history, we are responsible in the here and now, and Jesus prayer for us is that we all be one.

May diligent and faithful regard for His word, lead us to where we belong.
v/r
cg99

 

[rtconstant]

I’m sorry my brother, but your claims regarding the canon are just fiction.

Any serious student of history, can see the evidence for himself and review our respective posts. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia states the canon was not defined until Trent.

As for no other official list: My church has an official list that is shared by most other Christians (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Disciples of Christ etc…) in the West except for the Church of Rome.

But this isn’t a thread about the canon, it’s about why RCs feel others use the scripture against them.

Well now we seem to be vering from serious discussion and into fantasy. No serious student of history would contend that the Bible of the Church for 1500 years was defined by Rabbis 100 years after the founding of the Church. It just isn’t going to happen. Especially when every approved Bible printed during this period did not follow the Protestant build. The other Apostolic Churches in the East also accept these books as canon (by whom Trent isn’t even recognized).

Yet from out of nowhere without any actual Bibles, or any councils or any history beyond a handful of objectors the most impressive of whom still submitted to Church’s decision.

Also one more correction the Protestant movement is a minority in Christianity. So the Church not following the Protestant view of scripture doesn’t put us as the odd man out.

One more thing if you keep reading the Catholic Encyclopedia you will see why the Church at Trent made its declaration of the Canon. Which sheds much light on this matter.

In the end there really isn’t any evidence that the Church for 1500 years assumed the Jewish Hebrew Canon was the assumed and affirmed OT for the Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

rtconstant;2111480:

Mannyfit,
It is apparent that you are very thoughtful and sincere, so I don’t want to waste alot of space arguing about this with someone who is most likely a brother, but please allow me to state my POV on this.

Allusions aren’t the same as quotes. You can do the same thing with the Book of Mormon, but we would both agree that that book is a complete fraud.

I am relieved to see that you backed away from the “Jerome recanted” argument. As you have noted, there was a widespread diversity of opinion regarding the canon right up to Trent. In fact the famous Cardinal Cajetan sent to examine Luther, himself regarded the deutero-canon as secondary to true scripture.

That is not to say that the writings are worthless. I would recommend CS Lewis book, Mere Christianity to any English speaking Christian, but that would not make it scripture.

Many scholars regard the d-c as embellishments and fictional writings, problematic in their history. They may be good stories and contain an element of the truth, but to mix them with actual God=breathed scripture would be to confuse the truth.

I believe the Gospel accounts are actual true testimony of Christ. I believe the OT to be the actual history of God’s revelation to the Hebrews. These are not ficticious legends conveyed to communicate a idea of men, but the actual truthful revelation of God Himself.

And for this reason I think the correct status was articulated by Jerome and Cardinal Cajetan.
v/r
cg99

Jerome recanted his remarks and remain obedient to the Church acceptance of those Books. Cardinal Cajetan only base his opinions but he himself is not the authority of the Church.

The Magisterium of the Church issued those books inspired, and affirm them. You and others Protestants who do not affirm the Council of Carthage, Hippo, Council of Florence, which list 73 OT books and 27 NT these list were listed in Council of Trent.

The Dead Sea Scroll also show the similiar of its content with the Septuagint.

The Book of Mormon itself lack any historical support. You can’t even compare that to those books which the Church affirm since the beginning, which is historically supported.

Had it not been for the Catholic Church, you would have 50 Gospels instead of 4.

For it was the Church who added 27 NT to the Canon of Scripture.

 

[Mannyfit75]

cleargospel:

show me citation from the Sept/Deutro in the NT.

Here they are.

St. Matthew:
6:14 sites Ecclus. 28:2, 3 & 5
7:12 sites Tobit 4:16
18:15 sites Ecclus. 19:13
25:36 sites Ecclus. 7:39
27:39-42 sites Wisdom 2:18 St. Luke:
6:24 sites Ecclus. 31:8
12:16 sites Ecclus. 11:19
14:12 sites Tobit 4:7
17:3 sites Ecclus. 19:13
18:1 sites Ecclus. 18:22
St. John
6:36 sites Ecclus. 24:29
10:22 sites 1 Mach. 4:56 & 59
Acts of the Apostles:
10:34 sites Ecclus. 35:15 St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans:
1:20-32 sites Wisdom 13 - 14
2:4 sites Wisdom 9:24
2:11 sites Wisdom 6:8; Ecclus 35:15
9:21 sites Wisdom 15:7
11:34 sites Wisdom 9:13
12:19 sites Ecclus. 28:1; 2:3
13:1 sites Wisdom 6:4
1 Corinthians:
2:16 sites Widsom 9:13 & Isaiah 40:13)
10:26 sites Ecclus. 17:31 (& Psalms 23)
15:32 sites Wisdom 2:6 (& Isaiah 22:13)
Ephesians:
6:13-17 sites Wisdom 5:8-20 Hebrews:
1:3 sites Wisdom 7:26
11:35 sites 2 Mach. 6:18, 7:42
James:
1:19 sites Sirach 5:13

 

[Mannyfit75]

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html -Deutrocanonical Books referred in the NT. I said referred not cited.

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html - Septuagint referred in the NT… notes from John Salza.

 

[Mannyfit75]

cleargospel:

I believe the Gospel accounts are actual true testimony of Christ. I believe the OT to be the actual history of God’s revelation to the Hebrews. These are not ficticious legends conveyed to communicate a idea of men, but the actual truthful revelation of God Himself.

They are Truth Testimony. There is no argument in that. Second you would not believe in the Gospels if the Church had not accepted the 4 Gospels and the Epistles as part of the Canon of Scripture.

For I tell you Early Christians did not have the Bible in their hands. Most of them could not read, and the Gospel was preached by mouth, orally. The Scripture use then was only the Tanakh written in parchment or manuscripts.

Second, the OT back included the Deutrocanonical Books. The Jews themselves used them since during the time of Jesus Christ, Greek was the main language of much like English is today.

The Jews did not officially close their canon in some Council of Jamnia in 90 AD, though I don’t consider that Council to had occur. In that Council Jews excommunicated the Christians, and rejected any writings not written in Hebrew so they throw out the Septuagint.

Christian leaders at the time did not find the Jewish scholars binding since they rejected Jesus. So they remain and kept the 73 OT and 27 NT.

I challenge you to find me a Bible translation that does not list 7 Books in the OT prior to the Council of Trent. Believe me you will not find one.

 

[cleargospel99]

Mannyfit and Rtconstant,

I’ve provided ample and well documented evidence of the history of the canon, to back up my point that the diversity of the views regarding the extent of the canon of actual scripture was not resolved by Rome prior to Trent. So I’m not going to revisit that.
Here is the link: www.christianthruth.com

I will reiterate that allusions are not quotes and definitely not citations. According to the LDS, the BoM was written between c600-100BC, whether you believe it or not. But one can just as easily argue from their presupposition that NT Jesus alludes to events that happened in their book.

If you accept the argument from allusions as part of your apologetic, then you open the door to any crank who claims to have an ancient papyri, with some writing on it that manifests similar sentiments as the NT (ie: love your neighbor, be kind to stangers, etc…)

Our proclamation of the Gospel is founded on sturdier stuff than that. So I urge you not to fall into that trap. And that is the point about the d-c books.

Are they nice books with good stories? Sure. But are they God-breathed? Throughout the history of the church, they were regarded and still are by many as suspect. Jerome himself coined the term apocrypha, and the Glossa Ordinaria, the official church commentary for over a millinia confirms this.

Don’t trust me, think for yourself IAW 1 Thess 5:21

May God bless you all,
v/r
cg99