Posted on 05/10/2013 7:36:49 PM PDT by boatbums
“Yes, I believe that what is considered the “Protestant” canon is the correct one”
So why argue for a canon that you believe is incorrect? Makes no sense to me.
Even if that canon were the correct one (and I can see a solid argument behind it), it doesn’t advance your thesis that the protestant church is correct in this.
“This viewpoint was hardly a novel or Reformation devised view, but was one that had ALWAYS been held by the Jewish people”
The first Jewish document which supports this argument is the Leningrad Codex dated to the 11th century. Earlier documents argue otherwise that the Ketuvim included these books.
“If the Jewish religious leaders had NEVER accepted the Apocryphal books as inspired by God on par with the others (the Laws of Moses, The Prophets and the Psalms) and which has been abundantly proven here, then why would we change that?”
Evidence abounds from the period in question that they did consider the ketuvim contained these books. The septuagint contained them. Arguing that the second century BC Septuagint should take a back seat to the 11th century Masoretic text is no different than arguing that the 4th century Vulgate should take a back seat to the 16th century Erasmus bible.
In history - the earliest document is considered to be the more reliable source.
Then your argument has no merit and can be dismissed. Let’s get to the real argument then - the merit of the protestant canon.
I'm just pissed that I was off on my total post prediction. You guys are way over what I said already...lol.
Boatbums and others have argued that the purpose of the Bible was for “the confirmation of doctrine”. They have missed the forest for the trees. Where I have said "Scripture", they have read Bible. The Bible is a collection of Scripture, a library if you will, written by a host of human authors, in a wide variety of styles and purposes, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Bible was assembled by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as an authorized lectionary in support of the Liturgy of the Word, from among the many documents available at the time, under the guidance of the very same Holy Spirit, using the Tradition and the Creeds as well as other standards (canons) as the litmus test.
If Protestants and Protestantism want to assemble their own library of writings for their own stated purposes who are we to challenge or argue with them. However, they do not have standing to continue to insist that the Church failed in its accomplishing a task it never signed up for.
Peace be with you.
Touche! A deserved rebuke. It was intended as comedic banter, I apologize if it was received otherwise or offended anyone.
Peace be with you.
“The Bible was assembled by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church”
If by “Magisterium,” you mean the Apostles, then this was settled sometime within the 1st century with the help of their close associates, like Timothy. There’s no reason to think that the Apostles, knowing that their works are scripture, would leave them scattered across the world with no attempt to preserve them. Men like Polycarp and Ignatius, near the end of the first century or early in the second, were already quoting heavily from the New Testament liberally. Others, later in the second century, already had a firm position on what scriptures were genuine, based on what had already passed down amongst Christians even previous to them. For example, Melito, Bishop of Sardis (170AD):
“But in the Extracts made by him the same writer [i.e. Melito] gives at the beginning of the Introduction a catalog of the acknowledged books of the Old Testament, which it is necessary to quote at this point. He writes as follows: “Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting! Since you have often, in your zeal for the Word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our entire Faith, and have also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient books, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing your zeal for the faith, and your desire to gain information in regard to the Word, and knowing that you, in your yearning after God, esteem these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went to the East and reached the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and I send them to you as written below. These are their names: Of Moses five, Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four of Kingdoms, 1 two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, Solomon’s Proverbs or Wisdom, 2 Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, 3 the Twelve [minor prophets] in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. 4 From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.” Such are the words of Melito.” (Preserved in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History)
Footnotes at link: http://www.bible-researcher.com/melito.html
His work is only on the Old Testament, but of course there is no mention of the Apocrypha.
Here is Origen on the New Testament:
“So too our Lord, whose advent was typified by the son of Nun, when he came sent his apostles as priests bearing well-wrought trumpets. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Luke and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds loudly on the twofold trumpet of his epistles; and so also James and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet-sound in his epistles and Apocalypse; 4 and Luke while describing the acts of the apostles. Lastly however came he who said, I think that God hath set forth us Apostles last of all, [1 Cor. 4:9] and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his epistles threw down even to the ground the walls of Jericho, that is to say all the instruments of idolatry and the doctrines of philosophers.” Homilies on Joshua, viii. 1.
Origen, at this time, renders the epistle to the Hebrews as Paul’s work (which, from its writing, is most likely the case). Jerome appeals to the practice of the earliest Christians when he defends against your church’s denial of the epistle to the Hebrews during the 4th century, though he notes there are differences on who the writer may be:
“This must be said to our people, that the epistle which is entitled “To the Hebrews” is accepted as the apostle Paul’s not only by the churches of the east but by all church writers in the Greek language of earlier times, although many judge it to be by Barnabas or by Clement. It is of no great moment who the author is, since it is the work of a churchman and receives recognition day by day in the public reading of the churches. If the custom of the Latins does not receive it among the canonical scriptures, neither, by the same liberty, do the churches of the Greeks accept John’s Apocalypse. Yet we accept them both, not following the custom of the present time but the precedent of early writers, who generally make free use of testimonies from both works. And this they do, not as they are wont on occasion to quote from apocryphal writings, as indeed they use examples from pagan literature, but treating them as canonical and churchly works.” Letter to Dardanus, prefect of Gaul (Ad Dardanum, no. 129 § 3). A.D. 414.
In all of this, we see a pretty firm resolution on what is the Christian canon long before the RCC set to work. In fact, if it was up to the Latin Church, or to the Greeks, we might not have had either Revelation or Hebrews in our scripture!
“I apologize if it was received otherwise or offended anyone.”
Isn’t most of what you say intended to offend anyway? Please, tell us again how humble you are, and how sorry you are that we’re all not in the “truth” you claim to be the champion of.
I have no desire to continue this pointless discussion. Your opinions on which Scripture the Catholic Church decides to call canon, including deuterocanonical or even the "third canon" mentioned by St. Jerome, are of no consequence. After nearly 1700 years there ois no chance the Church is going to change its canon.
In fairness, which documents Protestantism assembles under their own authority, into a bound volume is of no more concern to me than the contents of the Guru Granth Sahib or the Book of Mormon, except to the degree to which they coincide with the Catholic canon or affirm a universal truth.
Peace be with you
“I have no desire to continue this pointless discussion.”
Well of course you don’t. If I was a Papist and couldn’t back up any of my obnoxious comments, I’d not want to continue the discussion either.
“After nearly 1700 years”
1700 years from Jerome? Not even Pope Gregory, 200 years later, held those books to be inspired, though they were included. I think you mean 500 from Trent, which is when they were officially declared to be something that they weren’t before.
” contents of the Guru Granth Sahib or the Book of Mormon, “
Well, we all know that’s just an expression of your prejudice, not an actual analysis of any evidence.
Are you telling them there’s no pot of Gold at the end of their rainbow? ;)
That’s SO RUDE.
If you want examples of rude and peevish, scroll up.
Yes, you were mistaken, as your attempts to defend Rome is an argument against her, and your latest manner of offering further dissuades consideration.
Did you actually read what you wrote before you hit Post? Do you read what others actually write before you respond? The "argument" I put forward, once again, was to disprove your assertion concerning the current RCC canon and what the Vulgate did or did not contain in the fourth century. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is telling that there is an ever-so-slight adjustment in your view. At least now you are willing to look at the "what ifs". That's progress. Prayers work!
Did you actually read what you wrote before you hit Post? Do you read what others actually write before you respond? The "argument" I put forward, once again, was to disprove your assertion concerning the current RCC canon and what the Vulgate did or did not contain in the fourth century. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is telling that there is an ever-so-slight adjustment in your view. At least now you are willing to look at the "what ifs". That's progress. Prayers work!
The longer I participate on this thread, the more amused I get with the tactics y'all are using. You've done it with GPH and, now, with me. Show me where I said "bishops don't have authority". Must you invent controversy and counter-arguments just to provide yourself more targets to pretend to shoot? There is not much more to talk about that hasn't already been hashed and rehashed and rerun and regurgitated already here.
One final note, though, WRT these "Catholic" bishops you presume are the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church. ANYONE can use their writings to demonstrate various things without conferring infallability or ultimate "authority" to them. Sometimes it is simply to show that what the modern-day RCC exploits of them to prove THEIR authority is not so cut and dried as presumed.
“Did you actually read what you wrote before you hit Post? Do you read what others actually write before you respond? The “argument” I put forward, once again, was to disprove your assertion concerning the current RCC canon and what the Vulgate did or did not contain in the fourth century. Nothing more, nothing less.”
Yes, I did. If we accept your argument then the protestant canon is false. Are you willing to admit this is so?
Athanasius has authority because he was ordained by the Catholic Church. You cannot argue that he has authority and then dismiss the source of his authority.
“ANYONE can use their writings”
Again - I’m not sure how you deny historical continuity between the Church and St. Athanasius and then argue that St. Athanasius is authoritative. It seems to me that this is ‘pinpoint infalliability’, that Athanasius is infalliable on this one claim and none other.
The point I see JCBreckenridge making is that those of you who deny the Magisterium any standing and even the abilities to interpret Scripture that you claim for yourselves, cling desperately to their writings, authority and prestige when you think they disprove themselves.
Pax et bonem
One final thought...if the Catholic Church supposedly uses the Scripture for the "Liturgy of the Word" and that, to you, is the forest, then explain to me how those Scriptures are NOT used to teach doctrine (the trees)? Doesn't the Catechism profess to include Scripture passages as proof-texts for many of the tenets it teaches? And aren't many of the dogmas the Catholic Church teaches that disagree with the Reformation also try to use Scripture to prove their case? If, in truth, the magesterium is the be-all and end-all for defining doctrine - sometimes with, sometimes without Scriptural warrant - then why do they try to make a show of having Scripture to back them up at all?
We see this is the case with the Peter as rock dogma and that well-worn "faith without works is dead" verse from James. There are other examples as well all used to prove Catholicism is THE one, true church Jesus established and to assert "Protestants" are heretics. The point you seem to be pressing is that "we" have it all wrong because we rely on the authority of God-breathed Scripture rather than the Church magesterium. You say Catholics are the ones in the right because they recognize the "limits" of God's word and place "tradition" on equal standing with Scripture - even though tradition is not something that is set in stone somewhere but ever evolving as the rule of faith is continually unwrapped. So, who really has the faith "once delivered unto the saints"?
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.