Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
Ping!
Awesome!
“we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.”
Well, it kind of makes a bit of sense. You’ve only got 8 people to feed, on a boat full of animals with no refrigeration. If you kill a whole cow, most of it’s going to go bad before you can eat it. If you just amputate one leg and cauterize it, well, problem solved.
Good responses. However, the interpretative methods Christians used at the time of Origen predate Christian scriptures. They actually borrowed this from Jewish scriptural scholarship.
Philo of Alexandria and others were already fusing Greek methods of critical thought with the Jewish Religious scriptures well before the time of Jesus.
This is why a practice of detailed exegesis was already relevant in the discussions Jesus made in the gospels.
“Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.”
That’s an easy poke in the eye to Protestants, but it really isn’t the main reason the books were excluded. They were separated from Scripture by Protestants for much the same reasons that they were always kept separate from the NT and OT by the Catholics themselves, mainly because they were written after God had caused the spirit of prophecy to depart from Israel, therefore their inspired nature is rightfully suspect.
The Westminster Confession on the subject:
“I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. “
The Bible speaks of itself:
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
2 Timothy 3:16
—
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530346,00.html#ixzz2PRgRJjN6
As it survives today, Codex Sinaiticus comprises just over 400 large leaves of prepared animal skin, each of which measures 15 inches by 13.5 inches (380 millimeters by 345 millimeters). It is the oldest book that contains a complete New Testament and is only missing parts of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha.
The 4th-century book, written in Greek, has been digitally reunited in a project involving groups from Britain, Germany, Russia and Egypt, which each possessed parts of the 1,600-year-old manuscript.
They worked together to publish new research into the history of the Codex and transcribed 650,000 words over a four-year period.
The Codex was both a key Christian text and “a landmark in the history of the book, as it is arguably the oldest large-bound book to have survived,” McKendrick said.....
That term is most often associated with LDS and Seventh Day Adventists they both differ in its meaning. What context are you referring to it?
So when did the spirit of prophecy depart Israel? Wasn't John the Baptist a prophet?
Peace be with you
“that they were always kept separate from the NT and OT by the Catholics themselves, mainly because they were written after God had caused the spirit of prophecy to depart from Israel, therefore their inspired nature is rightfully suspect.”
Which is why the definitive Latin version of scripture excluded them. Oh wait. No, it didn’t.
The Vulgate included them. As of 400 AD.
Sinaiticus has an older brother. Codex Vaticanus. :)
No, they weren't. St. Jerome included them in the OT, they are in the ordinary OT order in the Vulgate and in the Douay-Rheims (the contemporary of the KJV).
More importantly, they were in the Septuagint, which was the Hebrew scripture in common use at the time of Christ. When Jesus Himself quotes Scripture, he quotes from the Septuagint.
The KJV cut the "Apocrypha" out because they translated the OT directly from the Hebrew, and by the time the KJV picked up the Hebrew scriptures, the Jews had rejected these books for reasons of their own (mostly having to do with the mention of eternal life and the Messiah). Luther didn't like them either because of the prayers for the dead.
Codex Vaticanus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus
The manuscript is believed to have been housed in Caesarea in the 6th century, together with the Codex Sinaiticus, as they have the same unique divisions of chapters in the Acts. It came to Italy – probably from Constantinople – after the Council of Florence (1438–1445).[84]
The manuscript has been housed in the Vatican Library (founded by Pope Nicholas V in 1448) for as long as it has been known, appearing in the library’s earliest catalog of 1475 (with shelf number 1209), and in the 1481 catalog. In a catalog from 1481 it was described as a “Biblia in tribus columnis ex memb.”
***No, they weren’t. St. Jerome included them in the OT,****
Jerome wanted to exclude them but was told by the Pope to keep them in.
It is interesting that some other books were written into early Greek manuscripts that we do not consider “scripture” such as THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.
Some parts were also excluded such as the last verses of Mark although one bible did leave a blank area so it could be added later. It wasn’t.
“St. Jerome included them in the OT”
Wikipedia sez:
“On the other hand, Jerome (in Protogus Galeatus) declared that all books outside the Hebrew canon were apocryphal.[3] In practice, Jerome treated some books outside the Hebrew canon as if they were canonical, and the Western Church did not accept Jerome’s definition of apocrypha, instead retaining the word’s prior meaning (see: Deuterocanon). As a result, various church authorities labeled different books as apocrypha, treating them with varying levels of regard.”
“More importantly, they were in the Septuagint, which was the Hebrew scripture in common use at the time of Christ.”
Wikipedia sez:
“Some apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures compiled around 280 B.C., with little distinction made between them and the rest of the Old Testament. Origen, Clement and others cited some apocryphal books as “scripture,” “divine scripture,” “inspired,” and the like. On the other hand, teachers connected with Palestine and familiar with the Hebrew canon excluded from the canon all of the Old Testament not found there. This view is reflected in the canon of Melito of Sardis, and in the prefaces and letters of Jerome.[3] A third view was that the books were not as valuable as the canonical scriptures of the Hebrew collection, but were of value for moral uses, as introductory texts for new converts from paganism, and to be read in congregations. They were referred to as “ecclesiastical” works by Rufinus.[3]”
Despite the recent attempts by Catholics to paint the Apocrypha as universally accepted before Luther came along and cut them out because of some not so noble motives, it’s simply not true. The books were always a matter of some controversy in the church, from the early days up until the Reformation. It’s just convenient for you to now whitewash those facts in order to have another charge to level at Protestants.
Okay, exactly where does the Bible tell you 2 Timothy is scripture?
Yes, I was mistaken, sorry about that. See my other response above, however. Included or not, they were still disputed as to whether they carried the full wait of the universally accepted Hebrew scriptures, from the early days of the church. The notion that something was different about these books didn’t start with Luther, and therefore attributing some peculiarly Protestant motive for their exclusion isn’t accurate.
“Okay, exactly where does the Bible tell you 2 Timothy is scripture?”
It is written by the apostle Paul. Apostles were those directly ordained by Jesus to be authoritative teachers of official doctrine.
Of course, we only know that because we see it happening in the gospels, and in Acts. So then, we can dispute their authority, and etc. It is indeed circular reasoning. The Bible claims to be God’s Word; it proves itself; the various books were cited as authoritatively God’s word in other books; its prophecies all came true, except for the ones we still wait upon (Jesus’ second coming), it all agrees with itself; and the Holy Spirit causes us to recognize God’s very voice in it.
Certainly we can see the early church so accepted it. Perhaps this trumps the “Scripture verifies itself” argument in your mind. But even Scripture details failures and want of right doctrine and living in the early church times. So, while the church’s acceptance of the Bible is certainly reassuring, for me I can’t make the church’s acceptance the criteria for believing it. The Bible stands on its own authority.
“That term is most often associated with LDS and Seventh Day Adventists they both differ in its meaning.”
I’m neither of those sects, nor do I put much stock in their peculiar beliefs. I’m basing my assessment on the beliefs of those who probably know best, the Jews themselves. For example:
“God communicated to people through prophecy for nearly the entire biblical period, from Adam until Malachi. According to a prevalent Jewish tradition, prophecy ceased with Malachi, not to be renewed until the messianic age.”
http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/end-prophecy-malachis-position-spiritual-developmen
Now, of course I believe John the Baptist was a prophet, but he was a prophet serving a particular purpose: to announce the coming of Christ and prepare Israel to receive Him. So, he is actually the first prophet of the Messianic age, not a prophet of the Old Covenant, even though the Jews failed to fully recognize him.
There was no universal canon in the early church.
The only scriptures at that point in time that were widely used that they would have been familiar with is the Septuagint. And all these books were included in the Septuagint.
“therefore attributing some peculiarly Protestant motive for their exclusion isn’t accurate.”
Then why doesn’t Eastern Orthodoxy exclude them? The motivation for their removal was a protestant novelty.
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.