Posted on 03/24/2014 10:59:55 AM PDT by JSDude1
Still waiting for that, the whole list especially and then some. For even if some of the list is arguable, yet Catholic sources far more weightier than you teach that Trent was the first infallible canon, and disagreement continued right into Trent, thus there was no infallible Bible for Luther to dissent from (which is why Trent defined one), nor was he a maverick in so doing, nor did he set the Prot. canon.
Nor besides other extra Scriptural aspects not seen in the NT church, does even 2 Mac. 12 teach Roman purgatory.
Then that could mean you are lying about that being a lie, as the list does not say Isidore rejected the 7 books in question, but invokes him more as a historical witness, simply saying that he ,
"said the Old Testament was settled by Ezra the priest into twenty-two books “that the books in the Law might correspond in number with the letters.” (Liber de Officiis)
Which is exactly what he did, testifying to the Prot canon, which your made an issue with your charge of an "edited" KJV, having ancient support, as the CE affirms, and boatbums was not arguing that this canon was what the church or all these authors all held to. If she or the list was arguing that then it would be a lie.
But your own statement as regards Luther "Sorting them out of the canonical books" is misleading, as it infers he was some maverick in rejecting these books as Scripture proper from an infallible, indisputable, universally settled canon. That simply is a myth, based upon even just Catholic sources.
Nor did himself Luther set the KJV canon, as he was not the first to exclude the apocrypha as SCripture proper, while the KJV did not follow him in excluding James, Hebrews and Revelation as doubtful. And like early church "fathers," and later authorities, his views were still in a state of development, and comments like "epistle of straw" do not necessarily constitute his final opinion or a settled definition. Again, see here on all this.
Both sides can quote sources as historically testifying to something without meaning the sources agreed with them. In such a case however, it should be worded such as sources which record or testify to something, such as Catholic scholarship which provides testimony against a
Meanwhile, RCs, incldg here, freely quote Luther as if he was arguing something he was not, or which sometimes never can be sourced. Examples .
Ok -- who argued against that? I didn't...in fact, I included agreement that Isidore himself favored the wider canon, himself including what Jerome termed Apocrypha -- though I have no idea what Isidore may have thought of Jerome's prologues and introductions to those books fairly enough referred to in Isidore's own era, as capital "A" OT Apocrypha -- for as I gave link to you for -- the term deuterocanon had not yet been invented (in Isidore's era).
The quote in question was as to Isidore saying "Ezra said" differently, which has been established well enough that Isidore did write concerning that issue.
Which still leaves that first of 20 from boatbums "list" which you called "all lies", and that you would prove them to be so -- not a lie, but otherwise proven out well enough to be true.
How to say this again --- hoping it can finally sink in...?
Isidore writing of what Ezra considered Hebrew canon, is significantly different than Isidore himself agreeing with OT 'canon' as [apparently] spoken of by Ezra.
But no one said -- boatbums "list" included, that Isidore AGREED with what he attributes to Ezra having written, in regards to Hebrew canon, for Isidore favored the wider (Apocrypha included) OT canon.
Not that this additional consideration matters much at this point;
As I also mentioned to you many replies ago now --- Ezra's list could not have included any of the Maccabean works -- for those were not written for well over a hundred years AFTER Ezra himself was dead and gone.
How on earth would Ezra have ever been able to include those in his own consideration?
It is no crime for Isidore to have delved into how Hebrew OT canon differed from that which he himself considered accepted as OT canon. For that is what Isidore wrote about -- not that he himself agreed with the Hebrew canon.
Neither did the quote which you jumped on, calling it a lie, say that Isidore agreed. It said -- Isidore said...Ezra said.
How many times must this be explained?
Come 'on man. Help me out here. If you see what I mean, then give me some acknowledgment of THAT.
Otherwise, I'm left wondering just what it is you are trying to argue.
So what that Isidore "is very clear in his support for all 45" as you put it. No one argued that he wasn't.
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.