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

[Mannyfit75]

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

Evidence with very little scholarly work. I might add none of them cite Early OFFICIAL Church Council declaring those books not Canonical. I have seen others use this argument your presented in Deutrocanonical Canonical-Apologetics in the Apologetic Thread. I have seen kaycee cite your sources, and he often used Webster research.

Which I think only pointed OPINIONS of some bishop who disagree that certain Deutrocanonical Books are not inspired.

I don’t think I have fallen into a trap, I think Protestantism which stem out of the Reformation has fallen into the “traditions of men” rather than built the Church from within rather than make their own church with their own set of doctrines.

Second, the Book of Mormon is not discuss here. Their book lack history.

All the Books of the OT are proven as historical and some may even be works of fiction much like the story of the “Samaritan” that Jesus spoke in his parables.

You my friend need to story how we got the Bible. Who had the authority to add 27 NT text into the Bible.

In the Beginning, the Jews had scrolls or parchments made of animal skin, in which the Tanakh was written in.

The truth, my friend whether you like it or not, the Catholic Church inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, collected preserved, and protected the Bible from all forms of Heresy.

The website you cite by the way contains errors concerning Catholic Church teachings so I don’t consider them worthy looking into.

 

[rtconstant]

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

Well, yes you’ve shown two people who were had doubts to the canonicity of some of the deuterocanonicals. I don’t think anyone here has said that their was universal acceptance that would be foolish. Some people question the reliability of the entire Bible but in the end it really doesn’t matter. What can be shown beyond all doubt is that the accepted canon (even by those who had problems with the d-c like Jerome) from the 300’s on had 73 books within it. You don’t get to just ignore that. It is well documented and you’ve been given the Councils that spoke to it. they all agreed and did so without reservation. Here they are again in case you didn’t see them before:

Rome, Hippo, Cathage, Carthage II, Florence and Trent

Also Pope Innocent I sent a list identical to the above lists to Exuperius in 419. Don’t know how much clearer you can get. Look up the Councils yourself they aren’t hidden. Did every last single Christian in the entire world agree? No, but when has every last single Christian in the entire world agreed about much of anything regarding the Bible? Some didn’t like the NT d-c either should we cut those out of the Bible to?

Tell you what. I’ll make it easy on you. Find one official Church Council before the 1500’s that declared the canon that didn’t accept the d-c and then we can actually debate this. Until then I’m sorry but history and the Bibles themselves disagree with you.

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…)

You were the one who wanted quotes and reference from within the NT. Allusions actually can be important especially when they refer to concepts not within any other text. However, again as has been stated before it means little. There books from the Jewish OT that are not quoted in the NT either does this invalidate them? The request was flawed not the evidence given.

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.

Once more St. Jerome is not the Church. He had an opinion but when he put together the Vulgate what books did he include? Did he put them in an appendix? No. He presented them in their proper order with the rest of the Canon. Why did he do this? Because St. Jerome was a humble man and understood that dispite his personal feelings the Church had spoken, so he obeyed. He set a good example.

 

[MrS]

I hold in my formerly pagan-out-of-the-Catholic-Church-for-25-years hands

a copy of the newly released

"Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger - The Untold Story Of The Lost Books Of The Protestant Bible"

Arguments about 73 or 66 usually are either ended in confusion in trying to present all the evidence, because no one (until now) has really accumulated all that evidence.

Certainly a work like this would not come from a protestant camp, lest they find themselves in error.

Gary Michuta, the author, presents over 300 pages which any serious student can check and double check. There are many footnotes, many references, many proofs that once again the Catholic position is the correct one… and it is a fairly easy read.

handsonapologetics.com/ is the website of the author, and you can link on to Grotto Press to order… a $20 reference book every “66” proponent should now consider.

Thanks Gary… but where were you 500 years ago when Luther was playing his game?

seriously, if one can afford to pick this up… it is not only a great and long overdue reference on the deutrocanonicals, but you would be supporting a darn good ministry too.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

All I know is that I trust the word of the Apostles who were chosen by Christ over the sixteenth century rebels chosen by German princes. Here’s what the great Apostles wrote to Timothy:
1 Timothy 3:15 (New King James Version)15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Any other authority is just so much hot air.

CDL