The article was short. And it made the point well. Baruch was there. Just not as a separate book in the beginning. And Baruch was the scribe for Jeremiah, and probably wrote Jeremiah http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02319c.htm
Not all early church fathers, including those from the West, embraced all of the Deuteros. In fact, it wouldn’t be until the fourth century before you find one that embraces all of them.
It’s circular because you believe the Catholic Church defined the canon, and you can only know this because the canon defines the Church as the pillar of truth. That is why it’s circular, not because I “don’t like the answer,” because you haven’t given an objective answer, but a subjective one you aren’t understanding.
Again, I didn’t believe Jesus’ church “failed.” I don’t believe the Catholic Church “is” that Church.
Strawman. I never said I am “following” them. I follow Jesus, and while Jesus rebuked them for the extra-biblical traditions, He never rebuked them for their OT canon. Rather, He acknowledged them.
Where does the NT - explicitly - refer to the Deuteros as “Scripture” (ie: referring to it as “Scripture,” “the Law & the Prophets,” “it is written,” “have you not read?” etc.) and where it’s not referring to an earlier quote from the Hebrew Bible? And simply quoting or alluding doesn’t count, since the NT also quotes & alludes to non-Deutero Apocryphal literature too.
The Sadducees only acknowledged “the Law,” & was correcting them using “the Law.” But elsewhere when Jesus was addressing the Pharisees and the Sadducees, He acknowledged the book of the Prophet Jonah (Matthew 16:1-4, cf. Jonah 1:17), which the Pharisees accepted & the Sadducees rejected. By doing this, Jesus affirmed the canon of the Pharisees, while rejecting the Sadducees’ canon.
Not sure if you are quoting from the right passage, since 2 Thessalonian 2:5 states: "Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? "
Agreed. But if the Catholic Church was the Church Jesus built, they would espouse to the same OT canon affirmed - the canon of the Pharisees. But they don’t, which means they aren’t.
Baruch was indeed a scribe for Jeremiah, but he was not the author of the Deuterocanonical book of Baruch. While the article attempts to discredit “Non-Catholics” for dating it to after A.D. 70, no serious Protestant scholar would take that extremely late date seriously. The book of Baruch was written sometime between the close of the Hebrew Bible (after 400 B.C.) but before the NT era (in the B.C. era). Even the New American Bible (a Catholic translation) admits that its recording that the Feast of Booths could not have been celebrated during the time when Jeremiah & Baruch were alive, which indicates the book of Baruch was written centuries later, long after they died. BTW, did you read in the article you wrote that the epistle of Jeremiah was “not part of the book proper,” meaning it was not part of Baruch. This is also why ECF’s & even Doctors of the Church had Baruch & the epistle as separate writings from Jeremiah & Lamentations which were originally one book, not Baruch & the epistle too.
Continuing to spew untruths is not becoming of a Christian. You have been told before and i will say it again. The church does not define itself as the pilar of truth BECAUSE it says so in scriptures. That would be your paradigm to define something because it says so in scripture. The church was/is the pilar way before this portion you reference was put to writ. The more you profess otherwise the more you show your ignorance.
Please explain how you can be certain of this without: 1) using the “writ”, or 2) saying because the authority of the Catholic Church “says” it is. This is what I’m asking, which you have not answered. Simply repeating, “because the church is that pillar” is not an objective answer. Regardless, it can’t be since it embraces books that Jesus and His disciples and St. Paul didn’t.
RaisedCatholic:
Again, we’re dealing with authority to declare what is canonical and what is not. You don’t seem to be understanding that point.
RaisedCatholic:
Protestants, have choice, like any one on the planet does, but have no authority in this matter to determine what is or what is not scripture.
RaisedCatholic:
Sure you did. All you’ve done is defend their position. Ergo you follow THEM
RaisedCatholic:
You have no idea what tradition means, in the way it is used.
Scripture itself, doesn’t give, nor has it ever given, a list of scriptural books.steve-b:
Where does the NT - explicitly - refer to the Deuteros as “Scripture” (ie: referring to it as “Scripture,” “the Law & the Prophets,” “it is written,” “have you not read?” etc.) and where it’s not referring to an earlier quote from the Hebrew Bible? And simply quoting or alluding doesn’t count, since the NT also quotes & alludes to non-Deutero Apocryphal literature too.
The same exact way you are certain of the resurrection. And please don’t say your certainty is based on the fact it says so in Scripture. That would be a very poor faith. In fact it wouldn’t be faith at all.adf417:
Please explain how you can be certain of this without: 1) using the “writ”, or 2) saying because the authority of the Catholic Church “says” it is. This is what I’m asking, which you have not answered. Simply repeating, “because the church is that pillar” is not an objective answer. Regardless, it can’t be since it embraces books that Jesus and His disciples and St. Paul didn’t.
I do agree with you on this one. Just dont know why Catholics are the only ones held to this standard on this thread.
Irenaeus didn’t give a list of books.
Where exactly did Irenaeus say that the book of Wisdom is in the NT ?
It doesn’t mean anything of the kind
Re: Lk 10:7,
Raised Catholic:
it’s clear Protestants don’t understand the difference between “traditions” of man, vs “traditions” taught by the apostles and the Church.
That just summarizes what I said.
Interestingly, Jesus doesn’t use “have you not read” or “you have the prophets” language here. He is instead referencing a past discussion He had with the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 12:38-42). His comment is less “you have Jonah” and more, “I already explained Myself to many of you! Stop pestering Me!”