Posted on 02/15/2017 5:19:25 AM PST by Gamecock
BlueDragon, apparently I have to explain something to you on step at a time because you do not (apparently) understand reality.
This was Iscool’s comment below. Please read it carefully. I know anti-Catholics often struggle with basic reading comprehension problems. Take your time.
“It is understood by may that Origen or likely Esebius was the actual author of your supposed Apocrypha long after the New Testament was written and inserted words and phrases that copied the New Testament...”
Origen lived from about A.D. 184 - 254.
Eusebius lived from about A.D. 260 - 340.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were ALL written BEFORE Origen or Eusebius were born. Thus, the fact that some of the Deuterocanonicals were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls means that Origen and Eusebius could not have written them.
That is IRREFUTABLY true. A man cannot go back in time and write a book that existed before he was born. We can argue over whether or not Shakespeare wrote all the plays ascribed to him. What no one can logically do is argue that the plays were written by someone else centuries later when they were already known to have existed before that someone else was born. Do you understand that?
Now, even though everything I wrote above - and previously stated in shorter form - is irrefutably true because time travel does not exist, you still wrote: “The very existence? Not hardly, as I pointed out, and did take some effort to explain just why.”
Again, people not yet born cannot write books which existed BEFORE THEY WERE BORN. That’s how the real world works.
Now, specifically about Origen. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Origen wrote any of the Deuterocanonicals. None. 1) Some were known to exist in the Dead Sea Scrolls which predate Origen’s birth, 2) He discusses them in such a way that he clearly knows other people are aware of their existence far and wide and that can’t be because of him. http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#Origen, [185-253/254 A.D] And the fact that Origen discusses Susanna, The Song of the Three Children, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, IN THE THIRD CENTURY automatically means Eusebius could not have written them ALMOST A CENTURY LATER BECAUSE THEY ALREADY EXISTED.
The very fact that I have to explain to someone that books can’t be written by people who are not yet born shows just how bizarre a comment like yours is.
I can only assume that you will now insist we were talking about something else. So, I will simply point out two things again:
1) This was Iscool’s original comment: “It is understood by may that Origen or likely Esebius was the actual author of your supposed Apocrypha long after the New Testament was written and inserted words and phrases that copied the New Testament...”
2) And this was what I wrote: “A claim was made that is directly refuted by the very existence of certain texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It’s just that simple.”
What I wrote was irrefutably true. If texts of the Deuterocanonicals exist in the Dead Sea Scrolls then they could not have been originally written by someone else a century or two afterward because they already existed.
Thanks af_vet_1981.
It is strange that anti-Catholics rail against the Deuterocanonicals but when they argue over them they always turn out to not know what they’re talking about and - even worse - they’re not able to make an intelligent, logical argument.
There are even anti-Catholics here arguing that people not yet alive at the time wrote the Deuterocanonicals without apparently realizing time travel only exists in science fiction books. Absolutely bizarre.
Spare me the insult promo. You know that's not true. Or at least should know.
That's some beef I had nothing to do with, nor would raise any challenges whatsoever to anything which I DID say. I think I see here another of your games. Distract distract distract is the name of this one.
Pathetic. I had not entered into discussing or else supporting anything that you are trying to gin up fairy tail that I did.
The points I did write about where separate issues, and you should know that ---unless it is yourself who has reading comprehension "issues", this time quite possibly (since I'm feeling generous) yourself having read into what I had said, something which I had not.
If that is not the case, this would be doubly insulting. Lies piled on lies. I guess all you have left is attempt to anger your opponents. What a loser you are, vladi. Whats the matter? Are you seeking to get the thread locked down, or better yet "deleted" since you guys have suffered such a serious stomping of RCC apologetic regarding canonical issues in light of the typical sort of 'Catholic' massaging of the historical details in order to oh, so carefully shift things around to be in your favor?
You wrote: “That’s some beef I had nothing to do with, nor would raise any challenges whatsoever to anything which I DID say.”
I had posted - and you quoted and then responded to: “A claim was made that is directly refuted by the very existence of certain texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It’s just that simple.”
And your response was: “The very existence? Not hardly, as I pointed out, and did take some effort to explain just why. Obviously enough you cannot refute my own grounds of refutation of this claim you are making.”
Remember, “The very existence? Not hardly...” Clearly, if the Deuterocanonicals are in the Dead Sea Scrolls, then Origen didn’t write them nor did Eusebius. It’s just that simple. And just as I noted previously, “Nothing you posted in any way overturned what I said. A claim was made that is directly refuted by the very existence of certain texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It’s just that simple.”
What I posted was true. Iscool was wrong and you were wrong to say, “The very existence? Not hardly...”
Don't forget Trent's scholar Cardinal Seripando.
"The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.
“[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.
But nice try at shifting the argument to ground you think you can claim a victory upon (since you lost so badly on grounds which I myself did engage yourself, but more chiefly others upon).
Go back to #56. My own comment there, although quoting the "claim" that was made by another, I immediately departed from (having spied that one as being ridiculous on it's face, although having copy/pasted it, moved forthrightly directly away from it, making no comment aimed towards it).
Instead, in effort to redirect the conversation (my attempt to direct us all away from that --a key point which you missed :comprehending:) I had there turned to raising other issues, going beyond just briefest mention of the grounds for my own demurral towards how you had previously sought to have mention of Dead Sea scrolls apply. When you later said "points which were raised" not stipulating which of those you were referring to, I mistakenly assumed you had taken the trouble to read what I had posted to you, and had comprehended the "redirect" aspect, along with all the rest. Otherwise, nothing I had to say there would have made sense.
Perhaps it can now? --Grocery lists do not suddenly turn canonical for reason one of those may have been secretly stashed away with cherished items actually canonical.--- What else could I have been taking about when I made example such as that BUT the religious writings found at Qumran (in this case, fragments of religious writings) ---belonging to nobody's list of canonical writings, yet found also adjacent to, sort-of among uncontested OT canon fragments (including both a complete and near-complete book of Isaiah) along with fragments of (3 different books, was it?) OT Apocrypha.
The "other religious writings" do not suddenly fall into consideration for being somebody's canon of Scripture simply for being present among fragments which are, so why should fragments of so-called deuterocanon be thought of along lines of "the persons who stashed this here MUST have considered this to be part of their collection of Holy Writ because it is with other items which are" when it is also abundantly clear, as I have taken pains to re-establish on this thread that so-called deuterocanon was considered by many within the Church as "ecclesiastical writings" explicitly spoken of to not be canonical. The deuterocanon did not get that name for nothing -- being second, secondly, not first rate, that kind of thinking could well have been the Essenes own view of those writings here in dispute, we do not know they were not. Mere presence alone is not sufficient to establish the "claim" you'd pressed, and which claim I thought you were referring to.
I was never attempting to support any idea along lines that Origin or Eusebius was author of the books of OT Apocrypha, which on this thread have had many claims made concerning OT Apocrypha.
I do see though, how I had misunderstood at one point, from your own perspective just how you had sought the phrase "the very existence of" to apply, and what specific "claim that was made", you were referring to. My mistake was thinking instead you were attempting to address something you had said yourself, as towards the existence of a few fragments of the books comprising the OT Apocrypha being held up by yourself as supposed evidence such writings were/must have been considered "canonical" scripture by those who had hidden them. I mean, that was (generally speaking) your argument at one point wasn't it? And was your own underlying premise Iscool had provided response to.
It was to that premise, and comments I had made towards that premise and argument of yours I was left with, in trying to decipher your short cryptic replies from that point on-- which by the way, contained no real effort on your part (that I could discern in context) to comprehend what it was I was saying (yourself being too caught up in focus upon conversation you were having with Iscool, where you thought you had all the "wins" of the thread neatly in your grasp?) as evidenced by lack on your part of providing any acknowledgement of what my own initial comment to you was all about, towards which you could have then either conceded some point, or else made some attempt towards refutation of the points which I had tried to draw (redirect) your attention towards.
Your own lack of specificity and clarity in this regard (while you apparently have been ignoring (studiously?)) what else I did say, has been a major factor in this misunderstanding. You want everything to revolve around yourself? Then be more clear as you go along, rather than making vague comments, expecting others to always be able to understand what you intend to mean.
It's funny though, Elsie can do something of the same, and I usually understand him perfectly well, though many others over the years have seemed frequently unable to. Perhaps he is easier to understand (in wide ranging commentary, where one must continually go to other thread pages to read comments being replied to, etc.,) because he doesn't try to play games.
The way YOU recount/replay conversations can be very difficult to decipher just who is saying what to who, and what it all means, in part due to your posting style itself alone, and yet more also in the way you have of quoting a sentence fragment of what someone has said, figuratively pointing to that fragment as if it is truly representative of what somebody did actually intend to say. Often your treatment of others statements is truncated to the extreme it would seem you were trying to shove just one sentence fragment back at them -- and you do-- specially when it serves to help everyone be distracted from things you'd apparently rather prefer people not get a close look at. As such, it comes across to me as 'forum technique' and cynical manipulation Other than failure on my part to explicitly stipulate I was not supporting that 'Origin and Eusebius' comment when highlighting it, nor intending my own comments to revolve somewhere in vicinity of that (I was expecting you'd be able to grasp that on your own, mr. reading comprehension) it is no real fault of my own beyond what I have just mentioned. Nor is some alleged lack of reading comprehension on my part chief cause, but as much or even more what's at fault is your own periodic, yet frequent lack of clarity, and seeming lack of comprehension which seems to crop up only when it would be convenient to you to ignore something --so you could focus instead upon a perceived weakness --in order to exploit the same to the fullest -- and here we are. Are you happy now? You thought you found what you were hoping to find? In regards to myself, you missed it as surely as you missed my attempt to redirect away from nonsense.
You failed to catch sight of that effort on my own part to redirect away from the patently ridiculous claim, seeming now to insist that I be saddled with it. Guess what? I am not...had never even tried the blasted contraption on for size.
=Another factor leading to this most recent misunderstanding, is that you've long been so poisonous, I can hardly stand the sight of anything you care to write. There's always some faulty statement, some flawed premise a person stumbling upon a 'religion forum' thread will commit to, that if you are present, you will zero-in upon, causing everything to be polluted by discussions of that, coupled with the usual generous insults towards the intelligence of any who dare oppose your own positions.
It appears to me that you do so on purpose, milking it for all it's worth quite deliberately, thus was an underlying motivation FOR my initial attempt to redirect the conversation away from that sort of thing, and try to bring it back towards contemplation of overlooked, neglected factors that served to rebut your own initial, apparent premises.
Get it, now?
You posted a lot of blathering that changed exactly nothing of what I said nor does it show I was wrong in any way. The end result is the same: Neither Origen nor Eusebius wrote the Deuterocanonicals no matter what Iscool or anyone else might claim.
And yet after someone is dead they can come back to earth and get a LOT of stuff written down!
While Rome's Mary can engage in SPACE TRAVEL any time she wishes.
Waych that tar ... it’s sticky and stinky.
Only you can affect that change, and that change is needed.
I'm not "anyone else" in this scenario, either. You were mistaken about that from the beginning. But then again I do bear some fault that you were, as explained.
I wasn't clear enough. And this was only a small sidebar sort of affair. You decided that you'd like to be stuck on it.
I saw the snag in the fog, looking like it was steaming upstream, got near to it, then steered more towards center of river, and went rollin' on right on by...
Ever figured out how you keep pulling off those ricochet around the room shots? Those are pretty neat. Sorry about your Chair-y, though (not really, still laughing!).
I hope to return to that some-in, but more-out wrinkle at later date, to look into the ramifications of that added complexity either oft misunderstood, or as I suspect, have at times and place within apologetic exchanges, the possibility for confusion of the issue been deliberately exploited by those on whichever side of the argument would lack integrity.
Your posting this was timely, please forgive the tardiness of my own reply.
Previously, I've run across same, or similarly sourced material as you have earlier today provided to this thread, while yet still earlier today I was thinking on the very aspect found mentioned in the introductory portion, and again there near the bottom of the quoted portion that should not be casually overlooked by any who would be interested in the truth of the matter;
Years ago I'd done some amount of investigation as for the way the voting went at Council of Trent regarding what's come to be known as Deuterocanon, and after some tedious searching, come across accounting (numbers) of the vote, for and against, and though not recall precise numbers (or where to again find the account, though your source could perhaps be a good place to begin) do recall that among the minority (those who were opposed to fuller inclusion of these OT apocryphal writings into 'canon' more proper) were as characterized --the smarter guys the ones more into theology, thus by default, more likely to have been properly informed as to issues pertaining to canon.
If memory serves though, there was one influential on the "for" fuller inclusion side of things who was highly ranked in the reputation for scholarship department also (along with a few lesser luminaries) with some of those voting possibly having switched from "against" to "for" during discussions preliminary to eventual vote taking, which voting as it were, was something of a long and drawn out affair, not being like they all gathered and put their colored beans or what-have-you in one jar or another to be tallied.
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.