Posted on 02/05/2006 12:36:59 PM PST by Gamecock
This is what is known as 'straining at a gnat'.
The number of Books that were regarded as being 'Apocrypha' were 12.
The Roman Catholic Bible has 7 of them (not counting the addition to Daniel).
Since the point was that the Roman Catholic Bible is not the same as the Protestant one, having more books in its Canon then we do, the fact remains unchanged no matter what number you decided to finally put in your Bible.
Deuterocanonical Apocrypha Index The Apocrypha refer to texts which are left out of officially sanctioned versions ('canon') of the Bible. The term means 'things hidden away,' which implies secret or esoteric literature. However, none of these texts were ever considered secret.
In some Protestant Bibles, they are placed between the New and Old Testament. In the Roman Catholic Bibles the books are interspersed with the rest of the text. In this case they are also called 'Deuterocanonical', which means 'secondary canon.' The books on this page are all Deuterocanonical.
Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonical books when he was translating the Bible into Latin circa 450 CE, (see the Vulgate). This was because no Hebrew version of these texts could be found, even though they were present in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint). However, they eventually were accepted by the Church, and most of them remained part of the Bible. Protestants rejected these books during the Reformation as lacking divine authority. They either excised them completely or placed them in a third section of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent, on the other hand, declared in 1546 that the Deuterocanonical books were indeed divine.
Of these books, Tobias, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Maccabees, remain in the Catholic Bible. First Esdras, Second Esdras, Epistle of Jeremiah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Prayer of Azariah, and Laodiceans are not today considered part of the Catholic apocrypha.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/
So while there are only seven (not 14) they are seven too many, none of which were in the Hebrew Canon.
That is why even many early Roman Catholics,(before Trent) such as Jerome, did not consider them equal to scripture.
Now, you can go back to sleep.
I agree with you that as long as Apostles were present that the local churches were connected through them (3Jn.10).
And those that the Apostles appointed.
However, once the gift of Apostleship ended, and that second generation died off, that oversight also ended.
It was the completed Canon that now became the basis of unity.
I think we're going to disagree on this one, ftD. I've said my piece, though, and I respect you too much as a friend to enter any contest over it.
Amen.
Likewise.
Most of the Protestants that I talk with here believe they are. Simply by being Calvinist, they know they are of the elect. And others? They speak the sinner's prayer 16 years ago, remembering it to the day as their day of eternal salvation. Thus, all of these Protestants consider themselves "saved". I do not know many Catholics who think that way...
That is why Rome ran to the Aramic (having no gender) to state that the word in the 'original' was not Petros, but Cephas.
Cephas means "rock" in Aramaic, correct? WHO IS CALLED CEPHAS in Scripture??? Jeez...
"Jesus appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve" Did Jesus appear to Himself in this passage? WHO ON EARTH WAS CEPHAS???
"and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we [should go] unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision" Gal 2:9. Do you contend that James, Jesus, and John are whom Paul is speaking of?
Cephas is Peter is Simon. How can you be so confused? What does this have to do with some Roman conspiracy?
The church did not give us the words of God, the Holy Spirit did.
Keep going, you're on the right track...HOW did He give them to us?
What part of 'without works' do you not understand?
Listen. Don't be such a wise-guy. You aren't thinking very well. Slow down before you continue making ridiculous statements... Just because it says "we are saved by faith without works", that doesn't mean "we are saved by faith ALONE". The English language does NOT require "ALONE" in this case. Paul could very well mean "we are saved by faith without works of the law, but by faith AND LOVE". The ONLY thing Paul disqualifies is "works of the law", not love, not repentance, not ANYTHING BUT WORKS OF THE LAW. Sadly, that is how you read the Scriptures. You add your own words as you go. Read 1 Cor 13:3 and tell me all about faith alone... Paul NEVER says we are saved by faith alone. I hope that is clear now.
It teaches anti-Catholic doctrine, it teaches Christian freedom in Christ, through faith alone.
LOL! See above. Listen, if you want to engage in an intelligent conversation, I would be happy to do so. But you are going to have to drop the attitude and the condescension towards Catholics. I can read Scripture. I have read it. And I find Protestantism wanting on several major fronts. If you wish to discuss this, fine. But you better do better than above, because they aren't going to cut it. I got a lot of other things to do than refute these sloppy arguments.
Regards
NO EVIDENCE? Where do you get this from? The following is from www.Septuagint.net, a Protestant site:
"Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism."
Origen's Hexapla wasn't the first time the Septuagint was written! The Church Fathers quote from the "supposed non-existent" Septuagint. The Bible ALSO quotes from the Septuagint, for example, Is 7:14 - virgin, in Matthew.
So the Roman Catholic Bible contains at least 8 additional books.
First, you should say "Protestants have at least 8 books fewer because we cut them out". And second, where do you get 14 books? And finally, they are not "apocrypha" books. Apocrypha means "hidden". They are properly called the Deuterocanonicals.
These are 'apocrypha' Books, which even Jerome rejected as being equal with scripture (Deutro-canonical)
"Even"? You mean "ONLY". And next, Jerome DID accept them once the Church decided they belonged. Would you like quotes?
From that Received Text is the one that resulted in the people getting the Bible back into their native language (Luther, Tyndale), so they could understand the words of God and not be held in bondage by the empty rituals of Romanism.
Please. Tyndale AND Luther BOTH changed words in the Bible and added to it. The Word of God was corrupted by these men so as to suit their little beliefs and theological innovations. The Scriptures were being printed into the Vulgate (Latin) LONG time before Luther every came around. And the LATIN WAS the language of the people for hundreds of years. Before the Reformation, the Church began to translate the Scriptures into other languages. It is the Church's job to protect the Scripture, not let any old heretic change words and meanings of God's Word. The so-called "Received Text" has many errors in translation.
The Romanists did not exist during the first three hundred years of the Church.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. There has been a Bishop in Rome since the FIRST CENTURY!
The persecution by the Romanists came after they aligned themselves with the State in the 4th century.
You need to stop reading comic books and read actual historical works. I got to go. This is a waste of time. Perhaps you might want to read something other than Jack Chick?
Good bye
There is no historical evidence for any BC Septuagint.
The Septuagint that is used now is from Origen, written in AD not BC.
That Protestants believe that there was a BC Septuagint doesn't make it any more true then if Roman Catholics do.
There is no BC textual evidence of the Septuagint, other then some fragments from the Pentateuch.
This is admitted by Bruce Metzger, who states Almost the only manuscript copies of the Septuagint which we have down to us today were written by Christian scribes....(Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, (New York: Oxford University: 1957, pp.175-178, cited in The Old Testament Canon And The Apocrypha, William Webster, Christian Resources INC, 2002, p.35)
Also,
Paul Kahle, a notable O.T. scholar (1875-1964), did extensive research and work relative to the Septuagint. He concluded that there was never one original old Greek version adn that consquently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so-called) cannot be traced back to one archtype...."Summarizing Kahle's position, Dr. John H.P. Reumann states: Professor Paul Kahle....argued that there was never any LXX, at least until Christian times and that our Letter of Aristeas is progaganda for a revision of the Greek Bible which was made in Alexandra....The LXX is a Christian compilation and the Letter of Aristeas is a fiction designed to further to use as a revision in Alexandria about 130 B.C. (The Septuagint, A Critical Analysis, Floyd Jones, 2000, 6th Edit. KingsWord Press, pg.20)
As for Isa.7:14, we know that the word 'virgin' is meant because the Greek [partheonos] in Matthew 1:23 states it.
That defines the meaning of Isa.7:14, not a Greek Septuagint.
So the Roman Catholic Bible contains at least 8 additional books. First, you should say "Protestants have at least 8 books fewer because we cut them out". And second, where do you get 14 books? And finally, they are not "apocrypha" books. Apocrypha means "hidden". They are properly called the Deuterocanonicals.
First, let me correct my own error, it is seven books not 8.
Second, as for wheather or not we have too few, or you have too many is not the point that we were discussing.
You stated that your Bible is the same as ours (Protestant) and it is not, not at least by 7 books, an addition to Daniel and a different textual line in the NT.
As for what the term 'Apocrypha, it was a term that Jerome himself used,
St. Jerome evidently applied the term to all quasi-scriptural books which in his estimation lay outside the canon of the Bible, and the Protestant Reformers, following Jerome's catalogue of Old Testament Scriptures -- one which was at once erroneous and singular among the Fathers of the Church -- applied the title Apocrypha to the excess of the Catholic canon of the Old Testament over that of the Jews. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm
Now, had you simply admitted the term and stated that you as a Catholic preferred the term Deutro-Canonical, that would have been an honest and acceptable reply.
These are 'apocrypha' Books, which even Jerome rejected as being equal with scripture (Deutro-canonical) "Even"? You mean "ONLY". And next, Jerome DID accept them once the Church decided they belonged. Would you like quotes?
Jerome never accepted the Books that Trent finally decreed as Canonical in the 16th century.
The influence of Jerome...While there were some who followed Augustine and the Council of Hippo and Carthage in accepting the Apocryphal books, the vast majority of theologians, bishops, and cardinal throughout the Middle Ages followed Jerome. This is seen in three major historical examples: the express statements of the Glossa ordinaria-the official Biblical commentary used during the Middle Ages, the teaching of major theologicans who cited Jerome as a the authority for determining the authoritative canon of the Old Testament, and the bible translations and commentaries produced just prior to the Reformation (The Old Testament Canon and the Apocyrpha, William Webster, Christian Rosources Inc, 2002, p.58)
Jerome never accepted the 'Deutro-Canonical books as equal to the Hebrew Canon.
From that Received Text is the one that resulted in the people getting the Bible back into their native language (Luther, Tyndale), so they could understand the words of God and not be held in bondage by the empty rituals of Romanism. Please. Tyndale AND Luther BOTH changed words in the Bible and added to it. The Word of God was corrupted by these men so as to suit their little beliefs and theological innovations. The Scriptures were being printed into the Vulgate (Latin) LONG time before Luther every came around. And the LATIN WAS the language of the people for hundreds of years. Before the Reformation, the Church began to translate the Scriptures into other languages. It is the Church's job to protect the Scripture, not let any old heretic change words and meanings of God's Word. The so-called "Received Text" has many errors in translation.
The Bible of Luther and Tyndale brought light into the Dark Ages.
It was Rome's position that the average person should not have the Bible in their own language and read it for himself.
Because Rome was not able enforce this tyranny, she was forced to printing bibles in the peoples own language to compete with the flood of Bibles in German, French, Dutch, Czech, and English.
As for the Latin, it seems that Rome has rejected that also, the new versions She is supporting are far more corrupt then the Douey Rheims
The Romanists did not exist during the first three hundred years of the Church. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. There has been a Bishop in Rome since the FIRST CENTURY!
There was?
I do not see Paul addressing anyone in the Book of Romans in his farewell, as the 'Bishop of Rome'!
Actually it wasn't till the mid 3rd century that the primacy of Bishop Rome was asserted.
The persecution by the Romanists came after they aligned themselves with the State in the 4th century. You need to stop reading comic books and read actual historical works. I got to go. This is a waste of time. Perhaps you might want to read something other than Jack Chick?
And perhaps you might get around to reading the truth instead of Romanist propaganda. Good bye
So long.
Well, for good reason, for Catholics mix faith with works, which means they are not saved.
So what good is appealing to Matthew 18 for church discipline if the people in it are not saved?
See 1Cor.6.
That is why Rome ran to the Aramic (having no gender) to state that the word in the 'original' was not Petros, but Cephas. Cephas means "rock" in Aramaic, correct? WHO IS CALLED CEPHAS in Scripture??? Jeez...
Not in Matthew 16 he isn't!
"Jesus appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve" Did Jesus appear to Himself in this passage? WHO ON EARTH WAS CEPHAS???
He is not called that in Matthew 16, he is called Petros.
Peter had three, not two.
God the Holy Spirit chose to call him Petros in Matthew 16, not Cephas.
Just to confound the future Romanists no doubt.
"and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that we [should go] unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision" Gal 2:9. Do you contend that James, Jesus, and John are whom Paul is speaking of?
Is that Matthew 16?
that thou art Petros.
It was said in Greek, not Aramaic, just as Cephas is Aramaic not Greek and it is given in those other passages as such.
Cephas is Peter is Simon. How can you be so confused? What does this have to do with some Roman conspiracy?
Who said anything about a Roman conspiracy.
Just Roman confusion.
Petros is Greek and Cephas is Aramaic.
Petros is the word used in Matthew not Cephas, despite the fact that it is used elsewhere in Aramic.
The church did not give us the words of God, the Holy Spirit did. Keep going, you're on the right track...HOW did He give them to us?
Through Apostles and prophets, both of which are no longer among us.
What part of 'without works' do you not understand? Listen. Don't be such a wise-guy. You aren't thinking very well. Slow down before you continue making ridiculous statements... Just because it says "we are saved by faith without works", that doesn't mean "we are saved by faith ALONE". The English language does NOT require "ALONE" in this case. Paul could very well mean "we are saved by faith without works of the law, but by faith AND LOVE". The ONLY thing Paul disqualifies is "works of the law", not love, not repentance, not ANYTHING BUT WORKS OF THE LAW. Sadly, that is how you read the Scriptures. You add your own words as you go. Read 1 Cor 13:3 and tell me all about faith alone... Paul NEVER says we are saved by faith alone. I hope that is clear now.
LOL!
That is the most confluted defense I ever heard.
It is by faith that one has love (walks in the Spirit)(2Cor.5), so the two (faith and love) always go together.
The Roman Catholic system of 'works'(Sacraments) have nothing to do with 1Cor.13 or Gal.5 (fruits of the spirit).
It teaches anti-Catholic doctrine, it teaches Christian freedom in Christ, through faith alone. LOL! See above. Listen, if you want to engage in an intelligent conversation, I would be happy to do so. But you are going to have to drop the attitude and the condescension towards Catholics. I can read Scripture. I have read it. And I find Protestantism wanting on several major fronts. If you wish to discuss this, fine. But you better do better than above, because they aren't going to cut it. I got a lot of other things to do than refute these sloppy arguments.
The Book of Galatians is the Magna Carta of Christian freedom against the legalism of Rome and others who would add works to faith.
So, once again, those verses that I gave you that stressed faith without works are very clear, no man can do anything to be saved accept the free gift of salvation which comes by faith. (Rom.5:1,6:23)
I don't have the time nor inclination to prove that the earth is not flat again. Perhaps you should read other sources, some unbiased ones, perhaps, which would definitely prove that there was a Septuagint written hundreds of years before Christ, that there was a Bishop of Rome way before Constantine, and that Jerome accepted the Deuterocanonicals based on the Church's divinely given authority. No matter what evidence I bring out, it seems you will disregard it anyway - seeing you continue to argue such obvious errors...
Actually all you have done is assert what you believe.
There is no textual evidence for a BC Septuagint.
Nor did Jerome ever view the Apocrypha books as equal to scripture.
Until Trent, many other Catholic scholars felt the same way.
Those are simple facts.
There is no textual evidence for a BC Septuagint.
Ditto. There is plenty of evidence that the separate books of the Septuagint were written well before the birth of Christ. As to when they were compiled into one "codex", who can say? Most articles that I have read date this compilation to 80-100 BC. The Old Testament suffers from this same "problem", as the Hagiographa of the Hebrew canon was not set until well into the Christian era. Thus, your proposition means very little. The fact of the matter is that the individual books (such as a Greek Isaiah) were available and were quoted from or alluded to by the New Testament, more often than the Hebrew version. Considering the New Testament was written entirely in Greek, do you find it surprising that men would use Greek OT sources?
Nor did Jerome ever view the Apocrypha books as equal to scripture
Jerome doesn't call the 7 books that we call "Deuterocanonical" as "Apocrypha", so that is another false premise. Of course Jerome doesn't equate the Apocrypha to Scripture. He calls them "Ecclesiastical" books as opposed to the Protocanonical books of the Old Testament, books to be read in Church to the people, just like any other Scriptural book. When the people at Mass hear the readings, they realize they are the Word of God, whether you call them Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical, or Ecclesiastical books. The typical person heard them as part of God's Scripture. That was good enough for the Catholic Bishops of Hippo, Carthage and Rome in the late 300's to call the Deuterocanonicals SCRIPTURE, since the faithful already considered them inspired and from God.
Until Trent, many other Catholic scholars felt the same way.
Many? Another assertion...
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.