Posted on 07/11/2010 11:07:54 AM PDT by Gamecock
You wrote:
“Read the passage.”
Already have - many times. You’re about to prove my point for me.
“They secreted idols under their tunics and God killed them in judgment because of it.”
They wore amulets - pagan amulets.
“If it were merely superstition they would not have had to deceive.”
Sure they would. Such superstition is a violation of the first commandment.
Protestant commentators regularly get it right:
William Barclay, for instance, wrote:
“Prayers for the dead are a much-disputed problem which we do not intend to discuss here. But one thing we can say–to the Jews prayers for the dead were by no means unknown. In the days of the Maccabean wars there was a battle between the troops of Judas Maccabaeus and the army of Gorgias, the governor of Idumaea, which ended in a victory for Judas Maccabaeus. After the battle the Jews were gathering the bodies of those who had fallen in battle. On each one of them they found “things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law.” What is meant is that the dead Jewish soldiers were wearing heathen amulets in a superstitious attempt to protect their lives.”
Some guy backed by tradition of the fathers and a formal, organized religion must have then referred to Christians as protestant then ... right?
Old Order Amish do use the Apocrypha.
New Order do not.
That's not what is written.
40 And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth the Jews:
41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.
42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain.
God killed them because of the sin of idolatry.
If the canon were already settled beyond dispute why do all the encyclopedias state that it was not authoritatively settled until Trent, and further, if it were already settled at Hippo and Carthage, why would Trent's Canon on the subject have been necessary? Why did the Council of Trullo authoritatively sanction the canons of Athanasius, Amphilocius and Basil the Great who separate the majority of the Apocryphal books from the canon? Why then did Roman Catholic scholars of the 16th century who followed Jerome on the subject and explicitly stated in their editions of the Bible, published by the authority and consent of Popes, that the Apocrypha are not to be received as canonical, but may be read in the churches for purposes of edification?
Also, as far as I can tell, the "Greek Esdras" (Septuagint Esdras I) which contains loose versions of parts of 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, and a long section that is not in the Hebrew Bible was accepted without suspicion in the early church. It included in the Canons of Hippo and Carthage. However, it was excluded from the Canon at Trent.
Cordially,
Please provide citations.
It is not our place to presume the salvation or damnation of any soul; that belongs to God alone. Even in the face of outward notorious sin we can have the hope of final repentance before death. It is thus a pious act to pray for the souls of all who have died even if they be known sinners.
Diamond:
I think perhaps, because he was giving a theological opinion on the Book of Job, as I remember, and making a view that again reflects his personal opinion as to 1 Macabees. Gregory was a Monk and perhaps he personally questioned whether 1 Macabees was canonical, which is the best explanation as he never convened a Council to review the question of the Canon. Regardless, the II Council at Nicea in 787 AD reaffirmed the Councils of Carthage in 419 and Trent only reaffirmed, again a Council the earlier Council decisions. So, Pope Gregory’s personal view of 1 Macabees never was binding on the Church. And, to be accurate, the Catholic Church does distinguish between the Protocanonical books and Deuterocanonical, but note distinguish does mean that we separate them. So, perhaps Pope Gregory was making a case to overly distinguish the fact that 1 Macabees did not enjoy the same status as the Book of Job, at least in his Opinion speaking as a Theologian, not speaking as Pope at a Council that intended to challenge the earlier Councils of the 4th and 5th century [Rome 382, Hippo 393, Carthage 397, Carthage again in 419, etc]
In additio, I don’t dispute that there were other Deuterocanonicals that were sometimes viewed as part of the Canon. THe Septuigiant has 2 other books tha were part of the Deuterocanonicals [3 and 4 Macabees] and If I am not mistaken, some of the Eastern Orthodox Churches accept those at part of the OT canon. In other words, the Catholic Canon while now limited to 46 OT books, the 39 that Protestants have in their OT canon plus the 7 Deuterocanonicals [Wis, Sir, Tob, Baruch, 1 and 2 Macabees, Judith], is somewhat smaller than the Russian, Greek, Serbian, Ukrainaian and Armenian Eastern Orthodox Churches.
So what we actually have in Christendom is 3 Old Testament Canons. The Catholic OT canon, the Eastern Orthodox OT Canon and the Protestant OT canon, and while the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox OT canons do not agree exactly, they are pretty close relying on the LXX whereas the Protestant OT canon is the outlier among the 3 OT canons.
Now, I would like to add some commentary on the Canon and the Church Father based on the writings of Pope Benedict. In his book entitled “Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones For a Fundamental Theology”, the Pope in Chapter 2, entitled Scripture and Tradition, lays out the case for Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as expressed in the Creeds of the Church, the Liturgy and writings of the Church Fathers, and how they are all important in building a foundation for orthodox doctrine.
Now, with respect to the Church Fathers, which I have cited extensively in some of my other posts in this thread, Pope Benedict (pp. 148-151) makes some interesting points. First, The Canon of Holy Scripture can be traced back to them, or at least to the undivided Church of the first centuries, of which they were the representatives. It is through their [The Church Fathers] efforts that precisely those “books” that today we call “New Testament” were chosen from a multitude of other available literary texts and that the “Greek version of the OT” [i.e. the Septuiagint] was joined to them, that it was interpreted in terms of them, and together became known as “Holy Scripture”
The Pope continues [and this is I think an important point] and notes that a book was recognized as “canonical” if it was read in the Liturgy of the Church [public worship]. By Church, the Pope notes that it means that the numerous Eastern Churches had their own lists and customs, but in the end, all came to accept the same set of books [with some minor distinctions with respect to 3 and 4 Macabees]. The Pope notes of the Gnostic texts, which aspired to become scripture but states that it was the anti-Gnostic Church Fathers whose writings against the Gnostics drew the line in the Church. In summary, the canon, as canon, would be inconceivable without the intellectual movement to which patristic theology bears witness.
Second, in addition to the Bible, the Church Fathers were instrumental in formulating the important symbola of all Christendom [ie. the Creeds and Confessions of Faith] and Finally, in the ancient undivided Church, the reading of Sacred Scripture and the confession of faith [Creeds] were primarily Liturgical acts of the whole assembly gathered around the Risen Lord. Thus, the Pope notes, it was the ancient Church, and thus the Fathers, that created the fundamental forms of Christian Liturgy
So, for the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church, I think Pope Benedict is pointing out that a book suitable for public worship is just as important a principle for canonicity as is whether the Book was important for determining Doctrine. Hence, perhaps Pope Gregory’s comment regarding 1 Macabees could also be seen in that context, it was appropriate for Reading in the Liturgy as it remined how faithful Judas Macabees was in trying to drive out the pagans from Jerusalem and the Temple and that applies to us today.
blue-duncan:
I am uncomfortable with the notion that God Kills, God allowed them to be killed, I can accept. The entire 2 Maccabees is the story of these Soldiers fighting with Judas Macabees to retake Jerusalme from and as we see just a few passages earlier, there was great battle in the city of Karnion where 25,000 died.
So, yes the Jewish soliders wore amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which Jews were forbidden to wear, so yes, this was a superstition and showed a lack of trust in God, and thus a sin, on that point we can agree.
Nevertheless, these men did die for God and restoring the Temple, which is where Jews worshiped God. So, the point of the story is that false idols, whatever they are, can lead you away from God and not only cause physical death, but more importantly spiritual death. Interpreting these passages in light of Christ, the Catholic Church sees that we can hope that somehow by God’s Grace and how in ways known only to God, that the Church prays for the dead, that God’s Mercy can still save the dead.
In other words, we don’t know the last dying breath these men uttered and from Catholic doctrine, there are temporal consequences to all sin, so while these Men may have repented before they died, and they did die fighting for God while at the same time whereing amulets, the effects of their sins through the prayers of the Church may be wiped away by God’s Grace which is why the Catholic Church to this day prays for the Dead. Remember, we are bound by time, God is not.
from
Moralia on Job
of
St Gregory the Great
BOOK XIX
_____________________
The Middle Ages:
"In the middle ages, the Glossa ordinari, was the standard authoritative biblical commentary for the whole Western Church. It carried immense authority and was used in all the schools for the training of theologians. The Prologue written in AD 1498, states:
"Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful. The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth." 124"The Prologue then catalogues the precise books which make up the Old Testament canon, 125 and those of the non-canonical Apocrypha, 126 all in accordance with the teaching of Jerome...[snip]
The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation
The 16th Century:
"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.'"Cardinal Caietan (Jacob Thomas de Vio), Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Tesdtament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. See also B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), p. 475.
The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation
Cordially,
the bible used by the early church was the greek translation that included these books. You are essentially saying they were wrong.
In 90 AD, after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, some Rabbis decided to codify their books, and dropped all the books of more recent origin (less than 300 years, not due to doctrinal differences).
Yet, he wrote the commentary as bishop of Rome, and his commentary was used into the later Middle Ages as the standard commentary on Job for the entire Western Church, so I don't think it can be regarded as merely his personal opinion. While he did teach that the book was useful for edification, along the lines of Jerome, the fact remains that his denial of 'strict' canonical status to 1 Maccabees long after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage is in direct contradiction to what the earlier Roman Church decreed under Innocent I, who confirmed the books sanctioned as canonical by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. It is inconceivable to me that Gregory the Great would have ever purposefully expressed a view that he knew was contrary to that which had been authoritatively established by the Church.
With regard to Nicea II, that Council also reaffirmed the canons of the Trullan Council called the Quinisext Council, and in doing so affirmed the canons of Athanasius, Amphilocius and Basil the Great on the canon, all of whom rejected the majority of the Deuterocanonical books as being canonical. See Canon 1:
"... and those both of the six holy Ecumenical Councils and of the ones assembled regionally for the purpose of setting forth such edicts, and of those of our holy Fathers...’which is a direct reference to the Quinisext/Trullan Council. Nicea II considered the decrees of the Council of Trullo to have promulgated decrees of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
The Pope continues [and this is I think an important point] and notes that a book was recognized as “canonical” if it was read in the Liturgy of the Church [public worship]. By Church, the Pope notes that it means that the numerous Eastern Churches had their own lists and customs, but in the end, all came to accept the same set of books [with some minor distinctions with respect to 3 and 4 Macabees]. The Pope notes of the Gnostic texts, which aspired to become scripture but states that it was the anti-Gnostic Church Fathers whose writings against the Gnostics drew the line in the Church. In summary, the canon, as canon, would be inconceivable without the intellectual movement to which patristic theology bears witness.
Don't forget 'Greek Esdras (Septuagint Esdras I) which was accepted for the first five centuries of the Church, and then excluded at Trent. It seems to me, though, that either the Councils were contradicting themselves, or, and you allude to it, there were two senses of the term 'canonical', and that the deuterocanonical books were not to be regarded as canonical in the strict sense, but were to be regarded as useful for edification and reading in the Churches.
Cordially,
You wrote:
“Some guy backed by tradition of the fathers and a formal, organized religion must have then referred to Christians as protestant then ... right?”
No. Heretics, protesting against the Catholic faith, were labeled as Protestants.
You wrote:
“That’s not what is written.”
Yes, it is - it merely depends on translation.
40
But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain.
In any case, they were not worshiping the amulets. They were superstituiously wearing them for protection.
The OT was revelation to the jews.. not the greeks All the canonical books therefore are written by Jewish prophets in Hebrew.
The Jews never accepted any of them as canonical ...also the most important point is all the canonical books are Christocentric.. the apocrypha are not..
There was NO closed canon until Trent.. prior to that different countries had declared different books as canonical at various local councils ..there was no agreement on all the books until Trent
That was one of the things that Luther protested.. The catholic church allowed people to pay funds to the church to buy their way out of purgatory or that of a loved one.. that and selling “relics” was the means of funds to build the Vatican
Thats when he was born again . He was the God ordained replacement for Judas
Reason 4; The jews reject the apocrypha and they were the ones to whom the OT was written and deliverd
Reason 5: God never removed the authority of the jews over the OT or gave the NT church authority to add to it or subtract from it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.