Why is the Apocrypha so hard to find?

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

1. You need to provide references properly referenced for your statements
2. You don’t understand the authority the pope has, and that of Councils

Regarding the 4th Century Councils of Hippo & Carthage including 1 Esdras, while Trent did not, I did give a reference to the debate between Michuta & White. If you chose not to link to the time slot where they agreed on it, I can’t do anything about that. Regarding the councils & the Pope, the Pope cannot “overrule” a definitive ruling of an ecumenical council, which was determined by both ecumenical & general councils like Constance, Basel, & Pisa. But the 5th Lateran Council convened by the Pope which reversed the rulings at Pisa that a council was above a pope. But my point about Pope Gregory the Great not accepting the deuteros can be found on EWTN, NewAdvent.org, and even Catholic.com, or any other reputable Catholic source.

Please show
where the 2nd Ecumenical council addressed the canon of scripture by name of books

The second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea of 787 affirmed the previous canons of the 4th Century Councils, which included the additions of Ezra-Nehemiah (ie: 1 Esdras), as well as omitting Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah, which the latter were also not in Amiatinus (AD 700), which were not added until the 9th Century.

 

[steve-b]

There’s no mystery here. Did you open the links I gave?

RaisedCatholic:

Yes, I did. All it is a link to lexicons with meanings of the words you italicized & bolded in blue. So, again, no, I don’t know who Paul is talking about. Will you tell me now, who you have in mind?

As I said, it’s simple

αἱρετικός

Transliteration: hairetikos

Definition:

disposed to form sects, sectarian, heretical, factious, schismatic, factious, a follower of false doctrine

You say you were raised Catholic. Are you still a practicing Catholic?

So

Based on the definition of the word referenced,

It’s talking about all those who fit the description.

RaisedCatholic:

The only reason I cited James White was - again - in the debate Gary Michuta (who is Catholic) AGREED with him that 1 Esdras was in the 4th Century Church Councils of Hippo & Carthage, but not in the much later Ecumenical Church Councils of Florence & Hippo. So, how do you account for 1 Esdras being in these early councils, but not in these later ones?

Already answered you back HERE at the end of the post

RaisedCatholic:

You cite mentioned 1 Esdras was Ezra & 2 Esdras was Nehemiah. But like I said, although this is how these books came to be identified by Trent, this is not how they were identified in the 4th Century North African Councils of Hippo & Carthage. Again, 2 Esdras was Ezra-Nehemiah, while 1 Esdras was the additions to Ezra-Nehemiah (ie: additional material neither found in Ezra or Nehemiah, but additional writings not included at Trent). So, you didn’t answer what I specifically asked in the link you posted.

Baruch was there. https://www.catholic.com/qa/baruch-is-there-just-sometimes-as-part-of-jeremiah

RaisedCatholic:

What the link shows is that Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah were listed as separate writings from Jeremiah & Lamentations, not that they were included as being part of Jeremiah. For one, both Baruch & the epistle were written far too late after Jeremiah-Lamentations was written (several centuries). Again, Baruch & the epistle were not added to the Vulgate until the 9th Century, since it was not found in the earliest known Vulgate (Codex Amiatinus) in AD 700.

as I said previously, books over time, have gone through name changes, see end of post Here

 

[steve-b]

[cont]

1. You need to provide references properly referenced for your statements
2. You don’t understand the authority the pope has, and that of Councils

RaisedCatholic:

But my point about Pope Gregory the Great not accepting the deuteros can be found on EWTN, NewAdvent.org, and even Catholic.com, or any other reputable Catholic source.

And my questions back to you were,

Did pope Gregory change the canon?

What books did Pope Gregory remove?

You didn’t answer that.

Please show
where the 2nd Ecumenical council addressed the canon of scripture by name of books

RaisedCatholic:

The second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea of 787 affirmed the previous canons of the 4th Century Councils, which included the additions of Ezra-Nehemiah (ie: 1 Esdras), as well as omitting Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah, which the latter were also not in Amiatinus (AD 700), which were not added until the 9th Century.

Please show your source, properly referenced.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

You say you were raised Catholic. Are you still a practicing Catholic?

So

Based on the definition of the word referenced,

It’s talking about all those who fit the description

I’m well-aware of the meaning of the word, even in Greek. When you said it’s “obvious” who this refers to, my question was specifically “who” you were talking about? I thought you had someone particular in mind, as opposed to anyone in general who adheres to “heretical” theology. Did you have someone in mind, or were you just generalizing?

I am “catholic” in the universal sense, similar to those at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea who based their theology “according to the Scriptures” from the Nicene Creed.

as I said previously, books over time, have gone through name changes, see end of post Here

Yes, and as I agreed with you, but as I also mentioned what the North African Councils of Hippo & Carthage in the 4th Century Church Councils considered “1 Esdras” were not the same thing as what it came to be known by the Council of Trent. Again, in the 4th Century Councils “1 Esdras” were the ADDITIONS to Ezra-Nehemiah not found in either of these inspired books, while in the 16th Century 1 Esdras was simply the book of Ezra & 2 Esdras was the book of Nehemiah. IOW, it wasn’t a matter of nomenclature (ie: the same book being referred to by different names, depending on the particular Christian tradition. For example, 1 Esdras being referred to as 3 Esdras or Greek Ezras or Ezra A). Again, in the 4th Century, 1 Esdras was a book that included “additional” chapters not found in either Ezra or Nehemiah. Unfortunately, the link you sent doesn’t reflect this.

And my questions back to you were,

Did pope Gregory change the canon?

What books did Pope Gregory remove?

You didn’t answer that.

I didn’t answer it, because I never said he “changed” it, only that he did not believe the deuteros were canonically inspired Scripture, to demonstrate not even early Popes did not agree on the canon of Scripture.

Please show your source, properly referenced.

“We shall not act rashly , if we accept a testimony of books, which, although not canonical, have been published for the edification of the Church.” - Pope Gregory the First, Moral Treatises 19.21 commenting on the Deuterocanon.

Again, no one is saying that Pope Gregory (a canonized saint & Doctor of the Church) “changed” the canon, since that is not the issue being addressed. Rather, this statement demonstrates even early popes did not agree with each other on the Biblical canon.

 

[ralfyman]

The Church recommends the most recent translations based on updated scholarship. These include NRSV-CE, NABRE, etc.

 

[steve-b]

You say you were raised Catholic. Are you still a practicing Catholic?

RaisedCatholic:

I am “catholic” in the universal sense, similar to those at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea who based their theology “according to the Scriptures” from the Nicene Creed.

IOW in spite of the mischaracterization, you’re not practicing Catholicism ?

And my questions back to you were,

Did pope Gregory change the canon?

What books did Pope Gregory remove?

You didn’t answer that.

RaisedCatholic:

“We shall not act rashly , if we accept a testimony of books, which, although not canonical, have been published for the edification of the Church.” - Pope Gregory the First, Moral Treatises 19.21 commenting on the Deuterocanon.

Again, no one is saying that Pope Gregory (a canonized saint & Doctor of the Church) “changed” the canon, since that is not the issue being addressed. Rather, this statement demonstrates even early popes did not agree with each other on the Biblical canon.

Disagreements along the way acknowledged,

Yet

Pope Gregory , his opinion in this case, didn’t change the fact, he was using the Vulgate, that pope Damasus “Decreed” , and that canon in 382 was ratified by 2 local councils Hippo and Carthage, and looking forward in time, 2 ecumenical councils, Florence and Trent…

 

[RaisedCatholic]

IOW in spite of the mischaracterization, you’re not practicing Catholicism ?

In terms of observing & submitting to the papacy & the Magisterium, then no. As far as what Ignatius meant by the “catholic” (universal) church, then yes.

Pope Gregory , his opinion in this case, didn’t change the fact, he was using the Vulgate, that pope Damasus “Decreed” , and that canon in 382 was ratified by 2 local councils Hippo and Carthage, and looking forward in time, 2 ecumenical councils, Florence and Trent…

Yes, he used the Vulgate which omitted the book of Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah, as well as the “additions” to Ezra-Nehemiah (ie: 1 Esdras) which the later Ecumenical Councils of Florence & Trent also omitted these “additions.” Again, the fact that Pope Gregory used the Vulgate doesn’t change the fact that - as Pope - he is a perfect example that even popes in antiquity were not “universal” in accepting the same canon, in either the fourth or sixteenth centuries…which was my original point.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

IOW in spite of the mischaracterization, you’re not practicing Catholicism ?

In terms of observing & submitting to the papacy & the Magisterium, then no. As far as what Ignatius meant by the “catholic” (universal) church, then yes.

You obviously don’t know what Bp Irenaeus wrote
From "Against Heresies" Bk 3 Ch 3 paragraphs 2-3…

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
2. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…

Looking forward to today, Pope Francis, is 266th successor to Peter in Rome.

THAT is the meaning of Catholic in accordance with Irenaeus

Pope Gregory , his opinion in this case, didn’t change the fact, he was using the Vulgate, that pope Damasus “Decreed” , and that canon in 382 was ratified by 2 local councils Hippo and Carthage, and looking forward in time, 2 ecumenical councils, Florence and Trent…

RaisedCatholic:

Yes, he used the Vulgate which omitted the book of Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah,

[snip]

even popes in antiquity were not “universal” in accepting the same canon, in either the fourth or sixteenth centuries…which was my original point.

Already answered. Baruch Is There, Just Sometimes As Part of Jeremiah | Catholic Answers

 

[RaisedCatholic]

it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches…the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul

Notice, Irenaeus is acknowledging the “succession” of ALL the churches. And where do you think they traced their origins back to? To the apostles, such as Peter & Paul, which can be discerned from the first century NT epistles. He also begins by writing:

"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times.

As you can see, it was not just the church at Rome that had an “apostolic succession” of bishops tracing back to the apostles.

“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority”

No doubt by the time of Irenaeus (late second century), Rome had become a predominant & important See in Christendom. Plus, Irenaeus goes on to rebuke those churches that teach heresy, unlike the church of Rome in his day, which was “preeminent” among the churches in that area of the Roman Empire. However, Irenaeus doesn’t say anything about the See of Rome being “preeminent” of ALL the churches throughout the Roman Empire.

Plus, if you read your quote from Irenaeus, he doesn’t say anything about Peter being the first bishop of Rome. Rather, he states Peter AND PAUL building up the church and appointing LINUS to the bishopric, and explicitly records Clement as being the THIRD bishop. Irenaeus claiming Paul also helped Peter build the church of Rome is problematic, since Paul states the church was already established by the time he wrote his epistle to them in the mid-50s. So, this obvious error causes some doubt into the authenticity of his letter, which is derived from a much later Latin copy of an earlier Greek copy we don’t possess, and therefore can’t be confident of what it originally said.

Also, Irenaeus makes several errors. For one, he states Jesus was SIXTY when He died, while inspired Scripture states He was THIRTY when He began His three year public ministry. And Irenaeus included the Shepherd of Hermas in his NT list. This is why relying on the testimony of ECFs - especially those far removed from the apostolic age, like Irenaeus (late second century), is problematic.

[cont]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

Already answered. https://www.catholic.com/qa/baruch-is-there-just-sometimes-as-part-of-jeremiah

Yet, when you read the writings of ECFs, even well-into the 4th Century, Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah are listed as SEPARATE BOOKS from Jeremiah, while Lamentations is written in the list as being part of Jeremiah. Baruch also makes several contradictions with inspired Scripture. For example, Baruch records the time period of the Babylonian captivity as “seventy GENERATIONS” instead of “seventy YEARS.” And a Biblical generation is obviously far longer than 1 year.

Also, when you examine the Council of Rome in 382:

1. EVERY one of the Deuterocanonal books is listed separately, except for Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah.
2. Lamentations is listed separately from Jeremiah - even though it was originally a single book.
3. The Minor Prophets are listed separately from each other.
4. In the book of Jeremiah, Baruch is listed as a scribe, not a prophet.
5. Jerome convened at the Council of Rome, and omitted Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah in his Vulgate that didn’t get added until 400 years later.
6. Codex Amiatinus (AD 700) did not have Baruch in its canon, even though it included the rest of the Deuterocanon.

So, I’m afraid Baruch was not in the fourth century councils.

 

[steve-b]

RaisedCatholic:

Notice, Irenaeus is acknowledging the “succession” of ALL the churches.

[snip for space]

Already posted and highlighted HERE

RaisedCatholic:

As you can see, it was not just the church at Rome that had an “apostolic succession” of bishops tracing back to the apostles.

AND

As you can see, it has been part of apostolic teaching, that ONE Church, among the Catholic Church everywhere, has pre-emminent authority among all . That Church is the Church of Rome.

AND

Bp Irenaeus & Bp Polycarp were from the same city…Smyrna, present day Turkey. They knew each other.

AND

Bp Polycarp, Like Bp Ignatius of Antioch, were contemporaries with each other, AND direct disciples of St John the apostle.

“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority”

RaisedCatholic:

No doubt by the time of Irenaeus (late second century), Rome had become a predominant & important See in Christendom. Plus, Irenaeus goes on to rebuke those churches that teach heresy, unlike the church of Rome in his day, which was “preeminent” among the churches …

you’re ignoring, context why the Church of Rome has pre-eminent authority

RaisedCatholic:

Plus, if you read your quote from Irenaeus, he doesn’t say anything about Peter being the first bishop of Rome. Rather, he states Peter AND PAUL building up the church and appointing LINUS to the bishopric, and explicitly records Clement as being the THIRD bishop. Irenaeus claiming Paul also helped Peter build the church of Rome is problematic, since Paul states the church was already established by the time he wrote his epistle to them in the mid-50s. So, this obvious error causes some doubt into the authenticity of his letter, which is derived from a much later Latin copy of an earlier Greek copy we don’t possess, and therefore can’t be confident of what it originally said.

Jesus made Peter the rock, that He builds His Church on. Jesus made Peter the leader of the apostles ergo leader of the Church.

We see in Ignatius writing, where the bishops of Rome (he names them, up to his day) get their succession from. It goes to why the Church of Rome has pre-emminent authority

RaisedCatholic:

Also, Irenaeus makes several errors. For one, he states Jesus was SIXTY when He died, while inspired Scripture states He was THIRTY when He began His three year public ministry.

[cont]

Irenaeus is writing against, the Gnostic heresy, in his work "Against Heresies"
Are you by chance , using James White’s apologetic against Irenaeus?

If so

This has been answered by Mark J. Bonocore How Old is Jesus According to Irenaeus? -- Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality

BTW,

Here’s what Irenaeus wrote in context Bk II, ch 22

 

[steve-b]

[cont]

Already answered. https://www.catholic.com/qa/baruch-is-there-just-sometimes-as-part-of-jeremiah

RaisedCatholic:

Yet, when you read the writings of ECFs, even well-into the 4th Century, Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah are listed as SEPARATE BOOKS from Jeremiah, while Lamentations is written in the list as being part of Jeremiah. Baruch also makes several contradictions with inspired Scripture. For example, Baruch records the time period of the Babylonian captivity as “seventy GENERATIONS” instead of “seventy YEARS.” And a Biblical generation is obviously far longer than 1 year.

Also, when you examine the Council of Rome in 382:

[snip for space]

So, I’m afraid Baruch was not in the fourth century councils.

Adding to what’s already been posted in my above link (Baruch being part of Jeremiah)

From : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02319c.htm
It is [certain]that this sixth chapter of Baruch is truly distinct from the rest of the work. Not only its special title, “The Epistle of Jeremiah”, but also its style and contents clearly prove that it is a writing wholly independent of the Prophecy of Baruch. Again, while some Greek [manuscripts] that have Baruch have not the “Epistle”, others, among the best, have it separate from the Book of Baruch and immediately before the Lamentations of Jeremiah. The fact that the sixth chapter of Baruch bears the title, “The Epistle of Jeremiah”, has been, and is still in the eyes of many, a decisive reason for holding the time-honoured view that the great [prophet] is its author. It is also urged that the vivid and accurate description of the splendid, but [infamous], worship of the [Babylonian] gods in Baruch, vi, makes for the traditional authorship, since Jer. 13:5, 6, probably speaks of the twofold journey of [Jeremiah]to the Euphrates. Finally it is affirmed that a certain number of Hebraisms can be traced back to a Hebrew original point in the same direction. Over against this traditional view, most contemporary critics argue that the Greek style of Baruch, vi, proves that it was originally written not in Hebrew, but in Greek, and that consequently [Jeremiah]is not the author of the Epistle ascribed to him. For this and for other reasons suggested by the study of the contents of Baruch, vi, they think that [St. Jerome] was decidedly correct when he called this writing pseudepigraphos , that is, inscribed with a [false] name. However this may be, an important study of the Canon of [Holy Writ] proves that, despite the assertions of [Protestants] to the contrary, Baruch 6 has always been recognized by the [Church] as an inspired work.…

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Notice, Irenaeus is acknowledging the “succession” of ALL the churches.

[snip for space]

Yes, but it doesn’t address the part that ALL churches in the second century traced them being “succeeded” by the apostles, not just the believers in the Roman church.

ONE Church, among the Catholic Church everywhere, has pre-emminent authority among all . That Church is the Church of Rome.

Again, Irenaeus didn’t say anything that every church under Christendom in the entire Roman Empire looked to the Roman church as “preeminent.” Again, all you have to do is read Eusebius (which was written two centuries after Irenaeus) that Rome was merely an important See - along with Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria - but not “preeminent” over them also. It appears Irenaeus is addressing the particular churches in the area, not every single church under Christendom. Plus, the earliest copy of Irenaeus is a later 4th century Latin copy from an earlier Greek copy we no longer have possession of.

Bp Irenaeus & Bp Polycarp were from the same city…Smyrna, present day Turkey. They knew each other.

No doubt. But just because people “knew” each other, does not necessarily equate with them believing the exact same thing, including the canon of Scripture.

Bp Polycarp, Like Bp Ignatius of Antioch, were contemporaries with each other, AND direct disciples of St John the apostle

And we follow that to its logical conclusion, then Ignatius was a colleague of Peter, and Polycarp was a colleague of John. And Peter & John would have espoused to the “smaller” OT canon that excluded the Deuterocanon, since Peter & John were colleagues of the apostle Paul who was a Pharisee, and Pharisees rejected the Deuterocanon (source: Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers).

you’re ignoring, context why the Church of Rome has pre-eminent authority

See above.

Jesus made Peter the rock, that He builds His Church on. Jesus made Peter the leader of the apostles ergo leader of the Church.

This topic is about the Apocrypha not Petrine authority. So, I would recommend you either starting a new thread, or commenting on an existing one, since it is irrelevant to this thread.

We see in Ignatius writing, where the bishops of Rome (he names them, up to his day) get their succession from

And we see from Eusebius the same thing with the Sees of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch. And the fact this is from the 4th century, this demonstrates the church at this much later date did not consider the church of Rome to have any “preeminence” over these other Sees.

[cont]

 

[po18guy]

If you spent 1/10 as much time before Christ in the Eucharist as you devote to questioning His Church, I believe that you would be, not only in unity, but at peace - the peace which surpasses all understanding.

Just sayin’

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

Also, Irenaeus makes several errors. For one, he states Jesus was SIXTY when He died, while inspired Scripture states He was THIRTY when He began His three year public ministry.>

[cont]

No, this is from the writings of Irenaeus himself. BTW, since Irenaeus included Wisdom in his New Testament canon (along with the Shepherd of Hermas), wouldn’t this indicate that as early as the second century, Wisdom was not considered an Old Testament book?

steve-b:

Already answered. https://www.catholic.com/qa/baruch-is-there-just-sometimes-as-part-of-jeremiah

Again, I read that. And, again, it actually says “Jeremiah, ONE book. And then lists Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle as SEPARATE books from Jeremiah.” Again, this is how they were listed in the lists of ECFs. Yet, when you read the list in the Council of Rome, it lists Jeremiah SEPARATELY from Lamentations, but not Baruch SEPARATELY. The link you mentioned does not address this.

RaisedCatholic:

Yet, when you read the writings of ECFs, even well-into the 4th Century, Baruch & the epistle of Jeremiah are listed as SEPARATE BOOKS from Jeremiah, while Lamentations is written in the list as being part of Jeremiah. Baruch also makes several contradictions with inspired Scripture. For example, Baruch records the time period of the Babylonian captivity as “seventy GENERATIONS” instead of “seventy YEARS.” And a Biblical generation is obviously far longer than 1 year.

Also, when you examine the Council of Rome in 382:

[snip for space]

So, I’m afraid Baruch was not in the fourth century councils.

Then since the epistle is a “separate work” from Baruch, then “why” is it omitted from the Council of Rome, considering Lamentations was listed SEPARATELY from Jeremiah. Sorry, but this link neither addresses this, nor the error that Baruch makes that contradicts the book of Jeremiah which states the Babylonian captivity was seventy YEARS, not seven GENERATIONS.

proves that, despite the assertions of [Protestants] to the contrary, Baruch 6 has always been recognized by the [Church] as an inspired work. …

Protestants have never denied the Catholic church “recognized” the epistle of Baruch “as an inspired work.” But that is not the point being addressed.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

If you spent 1/10 as much time before Christ in the Eucharist as you devote to questioning His Church, I believe that you would be, not only in unity, but at peace - the peace which surpasses all understanding.

Just sayin’

Who said I am “questioning Christ’s Church”? And this topic is about the Apocrypha, not the belief that the communion bread is the literal transubstantiated body of Christ. That belongs on a different thread. But I would welcome your comments regarding the specific issues regarding Baruch, the epistle of Jeremiah, and the other Deuterocanonical books, specifically to the different lists in the fourth century church councils, and how they differed from Trent.

 

[steve-b]

Notice, Irenaeus is acknowledging the “succession” of ALL the churches.

RaisedCatholic:

Yes, but it doesn’t address the part that ALL churches in the second century traced them being “succeeded” by the apostles, not just the believers in the Roman church.

Keep in mind, Irenaeus is from the East, NOT the West.

Irenaeus writes: (emphasis and comments, mine)

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, ( as in the heretics he’s writing against) by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest (not first among equals but the greatest among ALL) and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church (The Church of Rome) which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (how did you miss this?) (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

RaisedCatholic:

Again, Irenaeus didn’t say anything that every church under Christendom in the entire Roman Empire looked to the Roman church as “preeminent.” [snip] …

The previous quote from paragraph 2, contradicts you. Irenaeus leaves no one out. He says this is talking of the “whole world”. .

Then

Irenaeus then makes his point of the Church of Rome is the Church that has “preeminent authority”, in paragraph 3. .

The rest of your post has already been previously answered

 

[steve-b]

[cont]

Also, Irenaeus makes several errors. For one, he states Jesus was SIXTY when He died, while inspired Scripture states He was THIRTY when He began His three year public ministry.>

I didn’t say that, you are the one who said that

Look,

I gave you the answer to the heretic White’s misrepresentation of what Irenaeus said. Instead you want to keep this going? Argue for the sake of arguing?

I don’t have time for this. Have a nice day

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Keep in mind, Irenaeus is from the East, NOT the West.

Irenaeus was from Lyon, which is in modern-day France - meaning he was from the WEST not the East.

Also, Irenaeus makes several errors. For one, he states Jesus was SIXTY when He died, while inspired Scripture states He was THIRTY when He began His three year public ministry.>

I think you are missing my point regarding Irenaeus’ error, which was since Irenaeus was wrong about the age Jesus was crucified, we have to be careful about believing other things he wrote, since: 1) we don’t possess his original Greek writing, but a much later Latin copy; and 2) his writing is not inspired Scripture. So, when he wrote “the whole world” based on this later Latin copy, is that a later Latin interpolation? We can’t say, since we don’t have the original. And the term “the whole world” in antiquity doesn’t carry with it the same connotation it does today. “The whole world” could simply refer to the those churches in the West, which the church of Rome had more authority over. Remember, it wasn’t until the days of Ignatius of Antioch (early second century) that the SINGLE NT elder-bishop office in a local church got “split” into two separate offices - the pastor-elder leader of a local church, and a bishop who was an “overseer” of a group of churches in an area. Considering Irenaeus wrote in the late second century, he was merely reflecting this later deviation from the NT church polity model.

But it doesn’t change the fact Irenaeus included Wisdom in his NEW Testament canon, not the Old. This demonstrates as early as the second century, the book of Wisdom was not considered an OLD Testament book, even in the West.

 

[steve-b]

Keep in mind, Irenaeus is from the East, NOT the West.

RaisedCatholic:

Irenaeus was from Lyon, which is in modern-day France - meaning he was from the WEST not the East.

Irenaeus was from Smyrna. The same city Polycarp was from. That is in present day Turkey.

Irenaeus traveled to Gaul, present day France, and in particular the city of Lyon.

Don’t take my word for it, look it up yourself

Also, Irenaeus makes several errors. For one, he states Jesus was SIXTY when He died, while inspired Scripture states He was THIRTY when He began His three year public ministry.>

RaisedCatholic:

I think you are missing my point regarding Irenaeus’ error, which was since Irenaeus was wrong about the age Jesus was crucified, we have to be careful about believing other things he wrote, since: 1) we don’t possess his original Greek writing, but a much later Latin copy; and 2) his writing is not inspired Scripture.

You followed the heretic James White for your answer. Bonocore showed in a detained explanation that White was wrong, ergo you were wrong to use White for your source.

As for the canon of scripture in the days of Irenaeus, there was no settled canon in a.d. 180. The canon was in development.

AND

Irenaeus didn’t included Wisdom in the NT

Where do get this stuff?