Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: wmfights; Mr Rogers; Salvation; fortheDeclaration; boatbums; Iscool; Mrs. Don-o; BlueDragon; ...

i have read the whole thread and rather than posting 10 different replies, will post this one. for id purposes only, i will use the term “sca” for so called apocrypha to identify the “disputed” OT books.

1. mr thomas, the author of the aricle stated no Christian considered the SCA Scripture before Rome did in the 16th century. i pointed out what an absurd statement this was and have to wonder whether mr thomas is merely ignorant of history ( in which case he shouldn’t be writing about matters he doesn’t understand ) or more likely he is trying to deceive his readers. after all, if he told the truth, somebody might wonder WHY no one had a 66 book Bible BEFORE the 16th century.

2. forthedeclaration states the Bible was preserved by non-Catholic Christians. REALLY????? Do the “Christians” have any names?

3 mrs don-o congatulations on the truth you are bringing forth. as is often the case, some can’t handle it.

4. salvation, i did smile at the Epistle today from Ephesians. there is “one” canon included in the “one” Faith.

5. BB, where to start? these books were NOT seperated from the other OT books in the Septuagint. LOL, i think you are confusing what some Protestants did with them in the 16th century, such as the authors of the KJV. Jerome, was a great Catholic leader, but he by himself couldn’t decide doctrine. He submitted to the Church and included the SCA in the Vulgate.
When the devil wants to attack the Scriptures, he always accuses them of teaching error, nothing new under the sun.
LOL, you don’t think they sound like Scripture! is that the standard? obviously the great majority of Christians for 2,000 years disagree with you.
Back to St Jerome, i always laugh when those who reject the Catholic Faith, reject baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, the Papacy, apostolic succession, etc, all doctrines held by St Jerome, use him to attack that very same Faith when it comes to the canon of Scripture. Unbelievable!

the bottom line is, How can we know what is the true canon?

we can KNOW the canon of the Catholic Church is correct for two reasons:

1. Authority - Jesus gave His AUTHORITY to the Church in Matthew 28 to TEACH. we are not left to wonder or have to decide the correct canon for ourself, we merely must follow the Faith that has been AUTHORIZED to be taught and has been for 2,000 years.

2. The Holy Spirit - this dovetails with the authority given the Church, in that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to the Church to give it the power to teach and the wisdom to TEACH TRUTH and understand spiritual ideas. The Holy Spirit works thru the Church, and yes, Church Councils, to bring forth true doctrine. so when St Paul opened up the Scriptures, he saw the SCA in his Bible. was this a suprise to the Holy Spirit? Did He inspire St Paul to warn Christians these SCA were not Scripture?
did the 1st century Jews, who utterly rejected Jesus, did they possess the Holy Spirit? the answer is no they did not, why would ANYONE look to the 1st century lost Jews to decide their canon??? The Church had the Holy Spirit leading it to ALL TRUTH.
would the Holy Spirit ALLOW the wrong books to be in the Bible for 1,500 years? again, this can not be stated enough, the first 66 book Bible did not appear on the world stage until the 16th century.
if the Church could be wrong about the canon of the OT, they could also be wrong about the 27 book NT. we know they were led by the Holy Spirit in both instances, but for those on the other side, who follow the Catholic TRADITION of 27 books in the NT, why do you follow this TRADITION?

finally, to all the non-Catholics who reject the SCA, DOES ANY HUMAN, LIVING AT ANY POINT SINCE THE APOSTLES ALL DIES, HAVE THE INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE THIS IS THE CORRECT CANON OF SCRIPTURE? If yes, please name him or her and where their AUTHORITY COMES FROM?


46 posted on 07/29/2012 8:00:15 AM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: one Lord one faith one baptism

Again - the Council of Trent left open the question if the Apocrypha (which turned into the DC when they screwed up their list) is authoritative for doctrine and instruction rather than good for inspiration. (”canon fidei” vs “canon morum”)

Under CATHOLIC theology, as taught from the time the Vulgate was translated, using the Apocrypha for doctrine is debatable.

Protestants use the definition of scripture provided by Paul:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

By that definition, many Catholic theologians from 350 AD on have questioned if the Apocrypha is scripture, and the Council of Trent deliberately chose (according to a Catholic historian who specialized in it) to leave the question unanswered.

Perhaps a Catholic will tell me what doctrines of the Catholic Church rest solely on the writings known as the Apocrypha (or DC)? I honestly do not know of ANY. So - what is the point?


47 posted on 07/29/2012 8:40:54 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

From Jedin again:

“[Seripando was] Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici”; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.

http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2007-12&catid=7


48 posted on 07/29/2012 8:45:31 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberalism: "Ex faslo quodlibet" - from falseness, anything follows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
1. Authority - Jesus gave His AUTHORITY to the Church in Matthew 28 to TEACH. we are not left to wonder or have to decide the correct canon for ourself, we merely must follow the Faith that has been AUTHORIZED to be taught and has been for 2,000 years.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Well then, the Catholic Canon ends with the book of John...Or it should if the religion was honest...

2. The Holy Spirit - this dovetails with the authority given the Church, in that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to the Church to give it the power to teach and the wisdom to TEACH TRUTH and understand spiritual ideas. The Holy Spirit works thru the Church, and yes, Church Councils, to bring forth true doctrine. so when St Paul opened up the Scriptures, he saw the SCA in his Bible. was this a suprise to the Holy Spirit? Did He inspire St Paul to warn Christians these SCA were not Scripture?

Oh what rubbish...And Paul did warn folks about your religion in numerous places thru out the NT...

2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Paul warned us about you...

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

These writings were complete almost 5 hundred years before Jesus showed up...How do you think you legitimately stick Maccabees in between then and the time Jesus showed up???

Luk 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
Luk 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

The prophets who lived and died between Genesis and Zachariah...That's the OT canon and Maccabees nor the rest of your added books are allowed...Jesus would not allow it...

And we're supposed to believe that your religion is the true church??? And why??? Because your religion says so...Does the bible say so??? Certainly not...

In fact, the bible condemns your religion at every turn...

Catholics look to their religion to tell them what God says...They turn to their religion to find what old Catholics from years gone by have believed and taught...

Catholics turn to their religion to learn what messages the supposed ghost of Mary has brought to the religion...

But we on the other hand turn to God in the scriptures for our teaching...And those of us who actually believe everything God says in the scriptures would never consider becoming a Catholic...Because of what God says...

did the 1st century Jews, who utterly rejected Jesus, did they possess the Holy Spirit? the answer is no they did not, why would ANYONE look to the 1st century lost Jews to decide their canon??? The Church had the Holy Spirit leading it to ALL TRUTH.

You gotta be kiddin' us...You don't think God knew what he was doing???

This is what allows you to be a Catholic...You apparently don't believe God...

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

You ought to do a study on the Levites...

would the Holy Spirit ALLOW the wrong books to be in the Bible for 1,500 years?

In the Catholic bible, absolutely...He allows it in the Koran, he allows the JW bible to be full of lies...God allows religions to exist that reject his word...Your religion is living proof of this...

51 posted on 07/29/2012 11:27:48 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
BB, where to start? these books were NOT seperated from the other OT books in the Septuagint. LOL, i think you are confusing what some Protestants did with them in the 16th century, such as the authors of the KJV. Jerome, was a great Catholic leader, but he by himself couldn’t decide doctrine. He submitted to the Church and included the SCA in the Vulgate. When the devil wants to attack the Scriptures, he always accuses them of teaching error, nothing new under the sun. LOL, you don’t think they sound like Scripture! is that the standard? obviously the great majority of Christians for 2,000 years disagree with you. Back to St Jerome, i always laugh when those who reject the Catholic Faith, reject baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, the Papacy, apostolic succession, etc, all doctrines held by St Jerome, use him to attack that very same Faith when it comes to the canon of Scripture. Unbelievable!

True to form, you offer nothing of substance to back up your claims but merely resort to ridicule, mockery, blatant Catholic bigotry and their claims to exclusivity of the Christian faith. Perhaps it is lost on such as you that Jerome was given the job of translating the Bible into Latin. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate, we learn:

    Jerome did not embark on the work with the intention of creating a new version of the whole Bible, but the changing nature of his program can be tracked in his voluminous correspondence. He had been commissioned by Damasus I in 382 to revise the Old Latin text of the four Gospels from the best Greek texts, and by the time of Damasus' death in 384 he had thoroughly completed this task, together with a more cursory revision from the Greek Septuagint of the Old Latin text of the Psalms in the Roman Psalter which is now lost. How much of the rest of the New Testament he then revised is difficult to judge today, but little of his work survived in the Vulgate text.

    In 385, Jerome was forced out of Rome, and eventually settled in Bethlehem, where he was able to use a surviving manuscript of the Hexapla, likely from the nearby Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima, a columnar comparison of the variant versions of the Old Testament undertaken 150 years before by Origen. Jerome first embarked on a revision of the Psalms, translated from the revised Septuagint Greek column of the Hexapla, which later came to be called the Gallican version. He also appears to have undertaken further new translations into Latin from the Hexaplar Septuagint column for other books. But from 390 to 405, Jerome translated anew from the Hebrew all 39 books in the Hebrew Bible, including a further version of the Psalms. This new translation of the Psalms was labelled by him as "iuxta Hebraeos" (i.e. "close to the Hebrews", "immediately following the Hebrews"), and was commonly found in the Vulgate, until it was widely replaced by his Gallican psalms beginning in the 9th century.

    The Vulgate is usually credited as being the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the Hebrew Tanakh, rather than the Greek Septuagint. Jerome's extensive use of exegetical material written in Greek, on the other hand, as well as his use of the Aquiline and Theodotiontic columns of the Hexapla, along with the somewhat paraphrastic style in which he translated makes it difficult to determine exactly how direct the conversion of Hebrew to Latin was.[4][5][6]

    As Jerome completed his translations of each book of the bible, he recorded his observations and comments in an extensive correspondence with other scholars; and these letters were subsequently collected and appended as prologues to the Vulgate text for those books where they survived. In these letters, Jerome described those books or portions of books in the Septuagint that were not found in the Hebrew as being non-canonical: he called them apocrypha.[7] Jerome's views did not, however, prevail; and all complete manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate include some or all these books. Of the Old Testament texts not found in the Hebrew, Jerome translated Tobit and Judith anew from the Aramaic; and from the Greek, the additions to Esther from the Septuagint, and the additions to Daniel from Theodotion. Other books; Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees[8] are variously found in Vulgate manuscripts with texts derived from the Old Latin; sometimes together with Latin versions of other texts found neither in the Hebrew Bible, nor in the Septuagint, 4 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasses and Laodiceans. Their style is still markedly distinguishable from Jerome's. In the Vulgate text, Jerome's translations from the Greek of the additions to Esther and Daniel are combined with his separate translations of these books from the Hebrew.

One tiny piece of what you said I actually agree with. You said, "When the devil wants to attack the Scriptures, he always accuses them of teaching error, nothing new under the sun.". He certainly did do that with Eve before there even WAS Scripture, but it is God's word that he attacks and, in essence, he calls into question the goodness and truthfulness of what Almighty God says. That Jerome as well as many numerous early church theologians REJECTED these books as BEING the word of God should be enough of a clue that, contrary to your unlearned assertion, the "great majority of Christians" do NOT agree with you nor the current magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church. These disputed books do NOT belong among the universally accepted Divinely-inspired Holy Scriptures. They contain errors, legends, myths as well as historical and geographical errors.

Now, perhaps you don't find these facts of much consequence and, seeing that you hold your Church's pronouncements ABOVE Holy Scripture, it is not at all surprising that your standard for the authority of God's word is less than it should be. But, you are not addressing entry-level RCIA students here. You cannot berate or bully your way into the conversation and expect that what you state is to be received thereby MUST be because YOU say it is. You see, Satan not only brings doubts upon the truth from God but he also distorts what IS truth and perverts whatever God has made that is good. Christ most certainly DID establish the church to be the upholder and supporter of the truth to the entire world and He gave the body of believers an unbiased and infallible resource as the authority for which ALL truth claims should be measured. That is what the Word of God's purpose truly is and, without it, all believers would be at the mercy of fallible human men who have more than demonstrated through the centuries that they are NOT up to the task. I think the very fact that the Roman Catholic Church has perverted what IS Scripture should be an adequate reason why they do NOT have the authority given to them by their loyal followers. If the very essential truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ who justifies us by grace through faith has not been preserved, then it should be obvious that other dogmas (like the canon) are also suspect.

I have a higher opinion of God's word, I guess, and that is why I reject the self-declared infallibility of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The indwelling Holy Spirit is who leads us into ALL truth and the church is supposed to be made up of genuine believers who also are sealed with that same Spirit. We KNOW the truth because He has illuminated it within our hearts. The Apocryphal books do NOT belong on the same level as the divinely-inspired works and this IS what has been held since the first century by Christians. You, of course, are free to believe whatever you want. It hardly makes it true, though.

52 posted on 07/29/2012 3:38:09 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson