Posted on 11/07/2018 6:12:29 PM PST by marshmallow
1. …that have SHOWN...
or...
2. ...that SHOW...
Good question.
Or maybe as far back as their favorite pope.
There’s also disagreement about the pre-Vatican II stuff.
Just a slight correction. The Jews REAFFIRMED the Old Testament books in 90AD at the Council of Jamnia. (Not the 130AD or even 300AD that you purported.) The Jamnia council didn't "canonize" the Old Testament. Canonize means to officially recognize it. The Old Testament was officially recognized at the time of Christ since He often told them to "search the scriptures". The Jews knew what were the correct scriptures. At the Council of Jamnia they only reaffirmed scripture. Luther, contrary to what you are purporting, went back to these original writings since they were affirmed to be correct by the Jewish fathers. What happened 400 years later or even 1500 years later is immaterial. The apocrypha was never included.
The fact that you state Many of your bogus objections to Catholic teaching are found in those 7 books, only confirms mrobisr's point. 1) The source of Catholic teachings is based on books not considered scripture, and 2) your statement that "most" belies the fact that not all of these doctrinal beliefs are even formed based upon the apocrypha.
As far as Jesus and the populace at that time speaking Greek or Aramaic, the Jews of the time required all Jews to have an understanding of Hebrew. If you will recall, the Jews were to write little messages in Hebrew and tack it to their doors and tie it around their hands. These weren't ignorant savages. They were taught in the synagogues. A good article you may wish to read is Did Jesus Speak Hebrew?
You make the claim that We have no "changes to dogma". Only affirmations to rebut heresy.
Of course, one of the dogma of the Catholic Church is that there is no salvation outside of the Church. While I understand Catholics have tried to back petal on this statement over the years, it is clear that teaching has changed on this view. Pope Leo XII clearly meant the Catholic Church but it does create problems when trying to say no dogma has been changed.
But to make this brief as possible, you make the claim that the Gospels were taught orally via TRADITION, long before they were reduced to writing. Yet John tells us,
Luke also tells us,
Rome didn't "keep the Bible" from anybody.
Which is simply misleading, for while a small percentage of the Bible was read in the medieval church (and even now by the typical RC hears very little of the Bible by Mass-going), by hindering access to the Bible in the common tongue (and in some place banning it), and requiring selective special permission to access it, then Rome effectively did keep the Bible from the people, outside the little they heard.
And which was by design, for as Trent stated,
Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.asp)
Thus as the preface to the Douay–Rheims Bible states
Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all...to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages...
In our own country...[was] no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude, yet they were extant in English even before the troubles that Wycliffe and his followers raised in our Church.. . - Preface to the Douai-Rheims New Testament Translation of 1582; (http://www.bombaxo.com/douai-nt.html)
In contrast, the Puritans placed such a priority on Bible literacy that they passed a law (The Old Deluder Act of 1647 ) requiring townships of fifty households to school children to write and read. And while the printing press had been invented, Bibles were not abundant and they schooled proficient students to read Latin.
There were no printing presses until the 1500's and the handwritten Bibles were rare and prized. Further, most of the population was illiterate and only knew scripture from hearing it.
Not that rare, for first,
“Literacy in ancient Israel and Judah was probably 15 or 20 percent of the population, at most,” he [Christopher Rollston, an expert on ancient Semitic languages and literature at George Washington University,] says .
Secondly, documents were many, esp. in the government and the military, and if Bibles were very rare before the printing press of the 16h century then the following would be implausible:
It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read by Jews (John 5:47; Acts 8:28; 17:2,11; 3Tim. 3:15). Roman Catholics admit that this reading was not restricted in the first centuries, in spite of its abuse by Gnostics and other heretics. On the contrary, the reading of Scripture was urged (Justin Martyr, xliv, ANF, i, 177-178; Jerome, Adv. libros Rufini, i, 9, NPNF, 2d ser., iii, 487); and Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, kept copies of Scripture to furnish to those who desired them. Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests (De Lazaro concio, iii, MPG, xlviii, 992; Hom. ii in Matt., MPG, lvii, 30, NPNF, 2d ser., x, 13). He insisted upon access being given to the entire Bible, or at least to the New Testament (Hom. ix in Col., MPG, lxii, 361, NPNF, xiii, 301). The women also, who were always at home, were diligently to read the Bible (Hom. xxxv on Gen. xii, MPG, liii, 323). Jerome recommended the reading and studying of Scripture on the part of the women (Epist., cxxviii, 3, MPL, xxii, 1098, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 259; Epist., lxxix, 9, MPG, xxii, 730-731, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 167). The translations of the Bible, Augustine considered a blessed means of propagating the Word of God among the nations (De doctr. christ., ii, 5, NPNF, 1st ser., ii, 536); Gregory I recommended the reading of the Bible without placing any limitations on it (Hom. iii in Ezek., MPL, lxxvi, 968). — New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia
“There was far more extensive and continuous use of Scriptures in the public service of the early Church than there is among us.” (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, The Catholic Publication Society, 1887, page 509)
Through most of the fourth century, the controversy with the Arians had turned upon Scripture, and appeals to past authority were few. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Volume Special Edition under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus Catholic Truth Committee, The Encyclopedia Press Inc., New York, 1913, Volume 6, page 2)
During the course of the first millennium of her existence, the Church did not promulgate any law concerning the reading of Scripture in the vernacular. The faithful were rather encouraged to read the Sacred Books according to their spiritual needs (cf. St. Irenæus, "Adv. haer.", III, iv). - Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm):
As for the Latin, that was an integral part of maintaining the authenticity of the content and the meaning, as was proved following the so-called Reformation, when variation and heresy spread due to the liberties taken in the translations.
Hardly the case, for as regards maintaining authenticity and content, there simply was no official version of the Latin Vulgate, the official Bible, and due to the variant translations of the Vulgate and the errors among them, a standardized official version was attempted, resulting in the it resulted in the first edition of the Latin Vulgate authorised by a pope, that of the scandalous work of Pope Sixtus V, the Sistine Vulgate which resulted the death (likely murder) of its fanatical papal translator, besides only blaming copyists for its many errors, and seeking to buy up all copies, in order to destroy them. If you can find one you can be very rich. And the the variations among Protestants, as with variations among Catholics today, were mainly due to interpretation.As a result of persecutions by RC Bloody Mary, the first edition of the Geneva Bible was published in 1560, which became the most popular translation in English. But because annotations or notes in the Geneva Bible were overall Calvinist and Puritan in character, which resulted in the King James Bible of 1611.
But which in turn is not much different than the 1750 Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible, and it would mainly be the notes (which canon law requires Catholic Bibles to have) that correlate to variant interpretations.
Meanwhile, if maintaining the authenticity of the content and the meaning of Scripture is the reason for Catholic translations, with required notes, then Catholic can hardly recommend their official American Bible .
"above your head"....stand by for an education... The OT in use at the time of Christ was the Septuagint (Greek) because the Jews had been so dispersed over such a period that they assimilated the Greek language. Further, the Jews didn't canonize the OT until 130 at the earliest, and more likely 430. So your notion that the 7 books that Luther excised are invalid because they weren't written in Hebrew, doesn't hold much water.
stand by for an education... The fallacies here are presuming that the 1st century Septuagint contained the Apocrypha/Deutercanonical (Deuteros) books, which scholarship places in doubt , as well as that there was no body of established wholly inspired and authoritative writings called Scripture until after the 1st century. For it is clearly manifest that here was, in the light of the abundant references to "Scripture," "it is written, and like terms/phrases denoting authority, which the Deuteros do not have.
And the theory of a council of Jamnia establishing the canon is very dubious .
Hard to tell where you got the notion that there was some "Protestant Bible" around before the Catholic Bible which had its canon established at the Council of Carthage in 397.
It is not hard to tell at al if you perhaps read more than Catholic Answers type sophistry, for we have the same 27 books NT, but as regards the OT, that of Protestantism is more ancient than that of Rome's, reflecting a more ancient canon thought to be held by Palestinian Jews from before the third century, as affirmed in Catholicism: “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)
(yes, I know somebody lied to you and told you that didn't happen until the Council of Trent, but all they did was reaffirm the canon from 397). And, yes those books you pretend were "added" are in the original canon from 397.
Meaning I know somebody lied to you if they told you that your church dogmatically settled before the Council of Trent, and that all they did was reaffirm a prior indisputable canon. For In reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther. Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon.
Perhaps you have a copy of one of them there "Protestant Bibles" from 400 AD that don't contain those 7 books you claim Catholics added?
Perhaps you have a copy of one of them there "Catholic Bibles" from 400 AD only contain the 73 books you claim constituted a settled canon?
Meanwhile, among others , the ancient 1st century Jewish historian Josephus only numbered 22 books of Scripture, which is seen to reflect the Jewish canon at the time of Jesus, and corresponding to the 39 book Protestant canon, which divides books the Jews referred to as single works. Another, Cyril of Jerusalem (313 – 386 AD) rejected the apocrypha (except for Baruch) exhorts his readers to “read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters,” the latter referring to the Septuagint but not as including the apocrypha. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html
Those 'Messianic Jews' you refer to were indeed Catholic and were very clear about the Sacraments you either misunderstand or reject. Try reading John 6:50-71 and tell me what is reveals regarding the Eucharist.
Try reading that in the immediate and larger context and genre, and how the NT church of Scripture manifestly understood it, which was not as Catholicism. .
I've read the 1st and 2nd Century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, Martyr, Irenaeus, etc. and they reinforce the foundation of the Catholic Church.
Which is a foundational error. The uninspired writings of men, with diverse opinions, cannot be determintive of what the NT church believed, and the pen of these so-called "church fathers" actually document the progressive accretion of traditions of men, in contrast to what is manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
Why don't you tell us about those "errors" Mr. Magoo?
I for one have, by the grace of God See above.
We have no "changes to dogma". Only affirmations to rebut heresy.
Actually, it is her dogma that contains heresy and which needs to be changed. Meanwhile, Catholic sects themselves assert V2 changed aspects of dogma.
It seems you have an odd definition of "dogma". Unmarried clergy was a practice established in the Western Church in the 300s and in the Eastern Church in the 600s. It is a practice and a discipline, but it is NOT "dogma".
Yes, there is no dog nor "ma" in that law, yet it is an unscriptural law that must be obeyed by RCs (save for a few converts with living wives), in which Rome essentially presumes to know better than God, who nowhere in Scripture mandated clerical celibacy (with rare exceptions), and instead reveals married pastors and deacons to be the norm, (1 Tim. 1:11) including among the apostles, (1 Co. 9:5) and with celibacy being a gift not all have, (1 Co. 7:7) - and which Rome presumes all her priests have (save for a few converts but who cannot marry after being widowed).
You also misunderstand infallibility. It has to do with declarations "from the chair of Peter, regarding faith and morals.
This unscriptural presumption also extension to ecumenical councils in union with the papa in defining a matter of F+M for all the church.
Or do you suppose Christ was wasting his breath or lying when he told Peter, "Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."?
Or do you suppose Christ was wasting His Spirit when He inspired the writing of the rest of Scripture, and of Acts and the epistles who manifests what this mean? Which is different from Rome.
As for your issue regarding Mary as "Mother of God", it was proclaimed at the Council of Ephesus in 431, in response to the heresy of Nestorianism. Which simply does not mean it Scripturally warrants assent, and is part of Caths thinking far far far "above that which is written. " Contra. 1Co 4:6.
Perhaps you don't believe that Christ is fully Human and fully Divine?
A false either/or dilemma. Follow the Spirit who makes the distinction btwn the inferred ontology of MoG and instrumentation:
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:5)
The rest overall saw refutation in my last post here.
Even any official kind of reaffirmation is disputed. WP documents, The theory that Jamnia finalised the canon, first proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871,[2] was popular for much of the 20th century. However, it was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward, and the theory has been largely discredited.[3] (Council of Jamnia - Wikipedia )
Sid Z. Leiman made an independent challenge for his University of Pennsylvania thesis published later as a book in 1976, in which he wrote that none of the sources used to support the theory actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions were about canonicity at all, stating that they were actually dealing with other concerns entirely. Other scholars have since joined in and today the theory is largely discredited.[28] Some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier by the Hasmonean dynasty.[5] (Development of the Hebrew Bible canon - Wikipedia )
As pointed out in your reference, other sources, such as Josephus, affirm what existed in those OT scriptures. So, if the Council of Jamnia did or did not exist it doesn't matter. Their suppose conclusion only verifies what Josephus and other supporting text tells us was the early writings of the church. Thus using the Council of Jamnia as reference (right or wrong) only confirms what exists in other sources.
But hey, if a person can whittle at the credibility of this source and then attack another source, eventually they can destroy the entire credibility structure. Even if it means challenging something 1,800 years later. Hey, why not. Everyone is dead. It also wouldn't be the first time history is rewritten.
As you are very much aware, the apocrypha was never quoted in the standard text nor were there any Jewish sources that confirmed it to be part of the text. It was added 400 years later which is suspect.
But Calvin makes a very simple yet sound argument about the authenticity of scripture:
- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Chapter VII Scripture Must Be Confirmed by the Withess of the Spirit Thus May Its Authority Be Established as Certain; and It Is a Wicked Falsehood that Its Credibility Depends on the Judgment of the Church.
(John never lacked for small titles.)
It is the documented sources that most matter, three of which were Protestant (two "evangelical"), and two of which were Jews, with a priest rounding out the chorus of named sources.
As pointed out in your reference, other sources, such as Josephus, affirm what existed in those OT scriptures. So, if the Council of Jamnia did or did not exist it doesn't matter.
True, and besides even sources such as Josephus, the fact is that a body of wholly inspired and authoritative writings had been established by the 1st century. Which destroys the RC presumption that one cannot even discover the contents of sacred Scripture apart from faith in her.
But hey, if a person can whittle at the credibility of this source and then attack another source, eventually they can destroy the entire credibility structure. Even if it means challenging something 1,800 years later.
Actually, modern research can serve to debunk RC claims, while the theory of an actual council of Jamia was from 1871, based on Jewish tradition (which can have its own problems), and rather than affirming a settle canon, it is based on disputes about certain books.
But as with today in what is called Christianity, there was no universally settled canon, but in the light of the many references to Scripture by the Lord and His own, then it is evident that there was a settled body of which means the hearers knew there was a body of wholly inspired and authoritative writings had been established by the 1st century.
Including, "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." (Luke 24:44) And which is understood as referring to a tripartite Palestinian canon held by those who sat in the seat of Moses. And which is supported by the fact that they never contended with the NT church over the canonical status of the OT texts they invoked
. But you know all this, so it time to move on for me and my stiff fingers. .
But NO ONE can beat Rome's 'Mary'!!
The way it's written:
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.