Posted on 11/13/2005 12:46:30 PM PST by NYer
On Friday, we learned that Catholics are "born again" through Baptism (still some dissenting views out there, but we proved it regardless of what others choose to believe).
Yesterday, we 'discovered' that the key to recognizing where the Bible came from is to sneak a peek at the Table of Contents. Whose Bible Is It, Anyway? . BTW, that discussion thread is still active.
Today being a 'day of rest', you have an opportunity to gain some insight into the Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament. These appear in the Cathoic Bibles but not those of the Protestants. So what's up with that?
Hope you enjoyed this series of threads and have gained a better understanding of your catholic faith, as a result. That's doubly true for those who reside in those diocese where catechesis has been turned down to a simmer.
I surely do like Mark Shea. This was really nicely done, and he's a great guy to boot.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
Above URL is to the DIDACHE, it is one of the oldest Christian writing.
It was not included in the Bible because it says "If a prophet asks for money, he is a false prophet".
bookmark for later reading
Good article. But it is as old as the world. I recall I read it some two years ago on CatholicExchange. But nevertheless it is a very good post. It shatters the myth that Catholics somehow "improved" the Bible.
It was not included in the Bible because it says "If a prophet asks for money, he is a false prophet".
Actually it says more than that. The Third Part of the Didache speaks first of teachers or doctors (didaskaloi) in general. These are to be received if they teach the above doctrine (Parts 1 and 2); and if they add the justice and knowledge of the Lord they are to be received as the Lord. Every Apostle is to be received as the Lord, and he may stay one day or two, but if he stay three, he is a false prophet. On leaving he shall take nothing with him but bread. If he ask for money, he is a false prophet. Similarly with the order of prophets: to judge them when they speak in the spirit is the unpardonable sin; but they must be known by their morals. If they seek gain, they are to be rejected.
DIDACHE .
That is not the reason for not including these books in the Canon. In his "Epistola Festalis" (A.D. 367) the illustrious Bishop of Alexandria ranks all of Origen's New Testament Antilegomena, which are identical with the deuteros, boldly inside the Canon, without noticing any of the scruples about them. Thenceforward they were formally and firmly fixed in the Alexandrian Canon. And it is significant of the general trend of ecclesiastical authority that not only were works which formerly enjoyed high standing at broad-minded Alexandria--the Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of Paul--involved by Athanasius with the apocrypha, but even some that Origen had regarded as inspired--Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache--were shut out under the same title.
Check out this site:
http://www.ntcanon.org/authorities.shtml
It lists various early writings, including early canon lists, with quotations that they used.
It is interesting to see early writers like Ignatius of Antioch quoting from a number of texts like Matthew.
CERC now CatholicEducation.org is an excellent resource.
Thanks for the post and the link!! Way cool!!!. You are a tremendous source of wisdom in the forum. Bless you.
An oldie but goodie :-) Some articles never go out of fashion.
BTW, I maintain a "catholic ping list". Please freepmail me if you would like to be added to it. Lots of informative, news stories of interest to catholics, along with these occasional forrays into apologetics.
Thanks for the ping!
"It is interesting to see early writers like Ignatius of Antioch quoting from a number of texts like Matthew."
Not just to Matthew, but also Mark, John, Paul and Timothy, all me he either knew or knew within a degree of familiarity, in his Epistle to the Philippians alone. It is a shame that more Protestants don't know the Fathers. If they did, they'd have to begin to wonder if maybe they've been misinterpreting things all along and that Holy Tradition is both real and reliable.
Monday evenings at 8pm on EWTN (available via cable or satellite dish network), Marcus Grodi (a convert) hosts a live, call in program. Each week, he invites a convert on to the show to tell his or her story and answer any questions emailed or phoned in. 9 times out of 10, it is the writings of the early church fathers that eventually convict these individuals that the Catholic Church is the original church. Some of these stories are absolutely extraordinary.
If you have never watched The Journey Home, regardless of your beliefs, I strongly encourage you to tune in, watch and listen to these remarkable stories of great faith, all of which began with an individual's search into the early history of the church.
This is the article that shoved me into the Tiber. I should finish my swim this Easter. :)
Mark Shea is a gem.
" 9 times out of 10, it is the writings of the early church fathers that eventually convict these individuals that the Catholic Church is the original church. Some of these stories are absolutely extraordinary."
With our Protestant converts, except for the Episcopalians, its virtually 100% the reading of the Fathers which leads them to Orthodoxy.
There is something about finding out the myths you were taught about the early church ain't necessarily so.
I realized that at 18 or 20, reading saints' lives, but it took me a long time to get my act together anyway. Still, I made it.
"It is a shame that more Protestants don't know the Fathers."
I'll admit that it is a blind spot on the part of most Protestant/Evangelicals that they don't know the Fathers. (Though we are faily knowlegable about OUR fathers.)
And though Tradition is an incredible resource (the blood, sweat and toil of milenia of sincere Christian life and thought), I doubt we could ever accept it as being on par with the Holy Scriptures - bring that the Scriptures are the very breath of God adn Christians, sincere and saintly as they may be, are still fallible humans.
Tradition, of course, tells us what is Scripture and what is not.
"Tradition, of course, tells us what is Scripture and what is not."
Do you ever get the feeling that these discussions resemble a dog chasing it's tail?
:)
Tradition necessarily comes before Scripture, except in a religion that claims to come from Scripture. Moses is said to have written the first five books and Mohammed to have dictated the Koran. No one ever said that Jesus wrote any of the New Testament.
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.