Posted on 03/11/2004 11:48:05 PM PST by Salvation
If it was the Scriptures that Jesus and the apostles used it would seem good enough for me.
It is interesting to me, the fact that the Jews themselves did not ultimately (emphasis mine) see fit to include those extra books in their Tanakh, yet the RCC did.
The question to respond to the question in resonse to the question is: "Why should the Jews determine Christian Scripture?" They made this decision after the time of Christ and possibly in reaction to their use by Christians.
If the Jews decide today to remove the book of Isaih shall we remove it?
"...that is the best I could do."
And so ends 2 Maccabees. Well, there is one more verse after that, but my point is that the author hardly seems divinely inspired to me.... I find it surprising that such description found its way into inspired text.
Ever read the verse where Paul specifically says he is NOT speaking for God? ("I, not the Lord say"). Yet that IS still Scripture.
The real question should be: If they were in there in the beginning and even in the original KJV/Authorized Version fifteen hundred years later... why take them out? Because the Jews had stopped using them more than a thousand years before? Or because some implied doctrinal texts don't match what you believe?
What do you think of changing Scripture to match what you believe... instead of the other way around?
"Coming home" in this case.
From Ott via Aquinasfan:"The main speculative explanation for the spiration of the Holy Spirit is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the will or from the mutual love of the Father and the Son. Ott cites many Scriptural verses for this explanation."
Thanks, Aquinasfan. The explanation from Ott clarifies my own crude thinking on the matter. To wit: the love which exists between the Father and the Son is of such infinite nature it gives rise(spirates) the Third Person, the Holy Spirit.
Harley, this is why I think the Holy Spirit is, in essence, love. But not "just love," but rather the perfect and infinite love which exists between the Father and the Son.
**Now, an attendee at you're average "Baptist" church will likely hear appreciably more preaching about Scripture, but not "more Scripture". Too often it's cherry-picked verses in three or four places to support a point.**
Maybe you should ask Salvation what she found so "honest" about your "Baptist bashing". (turnabout.)
I do find it interesting that you assume someone thinks a person is a Baptist if honesty is unexpected. Does Mack know you feel this way?
Right back at you.
Doctrinal unity is different from impeccability. Christ's Church is a Church of sinners.
Doctrinal unity, absolutely. There is a range of authority regarding Church teaching, however, ranging from "De Fide" dogma which must be believed by all Catholics through the more difficult to discern authoritatively "ordinary Magisterium" through theological consensus, speculation and opinion.
You are correct in theory but what is the actual practice?
Newsweek polls and surveys show that only 15% of Catholics believe they should always obey Church teaching, nearly as many Catholics think abortion is permissible as non-Catholics, and 75% of Catholics disagree with Church teaching forbidding divorce and contraception. Another study revealed that only 25% of Catholics now believe in the Real Presence and only 50% of the priests.
Doctrinal unity in the RCC. Actual or theoretical?
Romans 3:1-2
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."
The real question should be: If they were in there in the beginning and even in the original KJV/Authorized Version fifteen hundred years later... why take them out?
Because they weren't there in the beginning. You can't take out what wasn't there in the beginning.
Why was Jerome forced, kicking and screaming, forced to include them in the Latin Vulgate?
Where were they, and how were they labelled in the original KJV?
What meaning does the following have to you?
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).
It’s one thing for the church to be made up of sinners. It’s quite another for the church to KNOW leaders in the church are not following church doctrines and ignore the problem.
Setting doctrine and then ignoring it for the sake of unity is no doctrine at all.
Church leaders are rarely punished (and in some cases encouraged) for espousing their own theology contrary to the Vatican's position. The Vatican's position is typically to turn a blind eye to the matter.
But the New Testament doesn't quote the Apocrypha at all, to the best of my knowledge, so apparently it WASN'T good enough for them.
The question to respond to the question in resonse to the question is: "Why should the Jews determine Christian Scripture?" They made this decision after the time of Christ and possibly in reaction to their use by Christians.
First of all, because the first Christians were ALL JEWS. We got our Old Testament straight from them! And even though the Jews didn't officially close their canon until about the end of the first century AD, they never considered the Apocrypha inspired. The 39 books of the Jewish Tanakh were considered inspired, and the Apocrypha were considered important reading for history etc.
If the Jews decide today to remove the book of Isaih shall we remove it?
Of course not, and it is a moot question. They never would. We never would. There are many reasons why this is true, for example, there is too much New Testament derived from Isaiah - Jesus Himself quoted from Isaiah numerous times, and it is one of the most prophetic books in the entire OT.
Ever read the verse where Paul specifically says he is NOT speaking for God? ("I, not the Lord say"). Yet that IS still Scripture.
That's not the same thing. Because Paul clearly DOES speak for God elsewhere within the same epistle. The verse to which you refer is in 1 Corinthians 7, and the first chapter of that verse finds Paul saying things "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" and describing what God sent him to do. Chapter 2 begins with him "declaring the testimony of God."
Look at it this way - why do you think Paul felt it necessary to clarify at all, making sure they understood where that particular statement was coming from, unless he expected his audience to treat his words as teachings from the Lord?
The real question should be: If they were in there in the beginning and even in the original KJV/Authorized Version fifteen hundred years later... why take them out? Because the Jews had stopped using them more than a thousand years before? Or because some implied doctrinal texts don't match what you believe?
As previously stated, they weren't "in there" in the beginning. Therefore the Jews never "stopped using them" - the fact is, they never considered them as inspired from day one. It's not that they changed their minds. And I have no idea to what implied doctrinal texts you refer.
The Septuagint is the version that is consistently referred to by Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament. The table about one-fourth way down the page lists 30 of the more significant references.
The Church Fathers quote from the deuterocanonical books from the earliest times.
The key point is that an extra-Biblical authority is necessary to establish the canon of Scripture. Catholics cite the authority of Christ's Church in writing, preserving and determining the canon of Scripture. What authority can Luther cite for his canon?
It is interesting to me, the fact that the Jews themselves did not ultimately see fit to include those extra books in their Tanakh, yet the RCC did.
During Jesus time, the Jews did not officially have a list of inspired books or canon. The word "canon" comes from Greek "kanon" meaning a measuring rod. The Hebrew speaking Jews in Palestine are generally known to use 24 books which they divided in three divisions: the Law (5 books of Moses or Pentateuch); the Prophets (4 former and 4 latter prophets) and the Writings (11 books). The Sadducees most likely did not accept Daniel as Dan 12:2 supports resurrection which they denied (Mark 12:18). Others like Samaritans accept only (their version of) Pentateuch as Scripture to this day. Jewish historian, Josephus, wrote (c. 90 CE) that Jews recognized 22 books, divided in three divisions: 5 books of Moses, 13 books of the Prophets and the remaining 4 books. Note the difference in the number of books in second and third divisions and since he did not name them one by one, one can only speculate whether they are condensed form of 24 Hebrew books or not. The Essenes at Qumran community, who lived at the same time with our Lord might not accept Esther. On the other hand Greek speaking Jews used a longer Scripture which is known as Septuagint...It is commonly believed that after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE, the Jews under the leadership of Yohanan ben Zakkai decided at Jamnia (or Javneh) to adopt the Hebrew Scripture as their canon. Whether the Jamnia council really happened is still under debate and, even if it did, the Jewish Canon was not settled in the first century. The encyclopedia of Judaism, page 117 says that the limit of the third part (Writings) was not finalized until mid of second century. In addition, the Hebrew canon was also not accepted by Ethiopian Jews who accept the Septuagint (minus Ecclesiasticus) to this day (Encyclopaedia of Religion, Vol. 2, page 174). In any case, Christians have no reason to accept the Jewish canon declared after our Lord's ascension.
Also, an example of a specific verse that has always bothered me - If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do. And so ends 2 Maccabees. Well, there is one more verse after that, but my point is that the author hardly seems divinely inspired to me. Of course these were all men writing the scriptures, but God certainly would not have done anything poorly or mediocre and I find it surprising that such description found its way into inspired text.
It could be either God writing through weak men, as you stated, or it could simply be an attitude of humility.
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.