Posted on 10/28/2013 12:50:17 PM PDT by GonzoII
Sam Kinneson died years ago.
There is a deeper root here. It is called antisemitism.
“The rest of the claims, I think, are largely satisfied with what has already been provided, especially by one of their own Cardinals in Luther’s day.”
You probably mean Cardinal Cajetan - and on that score he was as wrong as Luther. It wasn’t the only thing he was wrong on either. The issue was decided long before he was born, however, so it simply didn’t matter what his view was in that regard.
You might want to read Sid Leimann’s book, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture.
“Anything else is simply revisionist history on the part of the RCC.”
Nope.
You might want to read Sid Z. Leiman’s book, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture.
“You probably mean Cardinal Cajetan - and on that score he was as wrong as Luther.”
And your evidence of that is Rome’s modern day claims, but the historical record doesn’t support it.
“You might want to read Sid Leimann’s book, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture.”
If he’s as offensive as what comes off the Vatican’s own website, I’m not sure that I’ll want to.
There are many. Some can be debated whether the parallel is coincidental, but these are my favorites:
Sirach 51 is quoted by Mt 11:28-30
Tobit 12:15 is confirmed by Rev 8:2
Sirach 27:6 is referenced by Judith 11:19
1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.
1 Peter 1:6-7 “as gold tested by fire” is taken from Wisdom 3:6
James 2:23 “it was reckoned to him as righteousness” quotes 1 Macc 2:53
Heb 11:35 refers to the historical events of 2 Macc 7
Heb 11:5 tells us the fate of Enoch, recorded in Sir 44:16, beyond what is known from Gen 5:24
Eph 6:14 uses identical imagery from Wisdom 5:18
Romans 1:20 would be baseless speculation if not for Wis 13:1
Mary’s utterance in Luke 1:52 is from Sir 10:14
Herod’s decree in 2:16 is prophecies in Wisdom 11:7
Wisdom 2:16 is the only place in the Old Testament wherein it is foretold that the Messiah will call God his Father.
John 10:22 depicts Jesus celebrating the Feast of the Dedication, set forth in 1 Macc 4:59
Further, Jesus self-identifies with the Temple, on this feast, comparing his own dedication to his father with the Temple’s dedication in 1 Macc 4:36
Bwahahahaha...nice. However I don’t see a kosher symbol on this cereal...
I’ll take the first one Sirach 51. Matthew 11:28-30 is not a quote at all. In three verses you have key words of “yoke” and “rest.” The context of Sirach is discipline. The context of Matthew is hope.
The rest I will address tomorrow.
You're welcome.
If Athanasius is saying that these are not part of scripture, but shall be taught to those seeking instruction in the ways of Godliness, what is he saying? Is he directly contradicting the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura? Moreover, his list is utterly confuses as to what constitutes scripture and what doesn’t; it shows the need for the Church to identify what is scripture and what isn’t, ebacuse Athanasius certainly cannot tell: he falsely asserts that Esther is not canon at all, and includes the Didache (teaching of the 12) and the Shepherd of Hermes as part of the New Testament. Why would you cite him as expert?
You also cite Rufinus, the heretic denounced by Jerome, and leap all the way forward 1,000 years to include Cardinal Cajetan, who met Luther half way, being convinced by Luther of Luther’s canon, but obviously breaking from the Catholic Church. Why?
As for Jerome, I can only repeat that so many times in one thread.
Of course, if you are looking for scandal, it is in the quotes from the New American Bible, which sadly had to be contradicted by encyclicals by Pope John Paul II and Pope Bendict XVI, affirming the historicity of the bible. The first edition had frequent denials of the historicity of several books, including a bizarre illustration of the supposed biblical view of the structre of the Earth in Genesis 1. The Second edition included John Paul II’s encylical, as if contradicting itself. FInally, the third edition removed the worst offenses, while retain John Paul II’s encyclical.
So there is nothing unique about the objections raised in the New American Bible in regards to Judith, that is not raised in reference to Genesis 1-11, and many other passages wherein the New American Bible followed the history of secularists over that of the Word of God.
Incidentally, Jesus identifying himself as the Temple in the context of the Dedication of the Temple is the biblical source for the date of Christmas:
On the feast of the Dedication, God once again dwelt among Man in the Temple. But the Temple altar was destroyed by earthquake when Jesus was crucified, because the Temple merely prefigured the Incarnation. The FEast of the Dedication, then, really celebrates God dwelling among Man as Christ. And when did this Feast occur? On the 25th of the month closest to December. It’s often significantly before Christmas; you’ll have a sense of when it falls because it is the last day of Hannukah.
(Chuch Fathers also cite the 9th month after March 25th, the date they believed that Christ died on the cross. This was based on the ancient belief that prophets died — or were conceived into HEaven — on the day of the year that they were conceived into the world. But you’ll notice that if you stay in the Hebrew calendar, you’ll find yourself 11 days off of 9 months.)
“Of course, if you are looking for scandal, it is in the quotes from the New American Bible, which sadly had to be contradicted by encyclicals by Pope John Paul II and Pope Bendict XVI, affirming the historicity of the bible. “
Well that explains why I got it from the Vatican’s website!
“If Athanasius is saying that these are not part of scripture, but shall be taught to those seeking instruction in the ways of Godliness, what is he saying? Is he directly contradicting the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura?”
I have no idea how you are coming to that conclusion. There’s a big difference between “not to be used for doctrine” and “may be used for edification.” If someone wants to read about Judith for what it is, a fictional story, by all means, do so. Maccabees is actual history too, even though it does not pretend to be holy scripture. But don’t demand we shelve our brains away and make them what they are not, and have never been, nor even claim to be.
“Moreover, his list is utterly confuses as to what constitutes scripture and what doesn’t; it shows the need for the Church to identify what is scripture and what isn’t, ebacuse Athanasius certainly cannot tell:”
He can’t be as confused as your grammar!
“he falsely asserts that Esther is not canon at all, and includes the Didache (teaching of the 12) and the Shepherd of Hermes as part of the New Testament. Why would you cite him as expert?”
You’re pulling stuff out your butt. Read slowly:
“But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former [standard new and old testament canon], my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read.” (Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.)
He doesn’t endorse the Shepard or the teaching of the Apostles as doctrine making books. He lists them as books to be read for edification. Why not? They included LOTS of books under that designation. The Didache condemns abortion specifically and is not all bad. Hermes has a bad rap, since its wording is imprecise in its instruction on the Trinity, if I recall correctly. Though I’ve read research on the matter that says it is simply misunderstood. (It was written in a day when attacks on the Trinity had not yet sharpened our blade.) Athanasius is no heretic on those matters, if you take the time to read his books on the matter. Irenaeus recommended the Shepard be read too, since it was a book written in his own day by a Christian.
And why do I cite him? It’s simple. He doesn’t agree with you, and the basis of your claims is that everybody has always agreed with you with a single, unchanging tradition since Pope Peter was given the keys to heaven. Right?
“Look in an Eastern Orthodox Bible and you’ll find them there.”
Interesting. Thanks for the information - I didn’t know, and haven’t ever opened an Eastern Orthodox Bible before.
Don’t spam me, bro. Kindly remove me from your multiple-user response lists in future and address me personally if you have something to say to me. Thanks.
By the way, if you want a really neat Eastern Orthodox Bible (sadly it has about two anti-Catholic statements in it - for lack of better way to put it), I strongly recommend this one: http://www.amazon.com/The-Orthodox-Study-Bible-Christianity/dp/0718003594 The New Testament text is the New King James Version while the Old Testament is a new translation of the Septuagint. Overall the notes are excellent.
“And your evidence of that is Rome’s modern day claims, but the historical record doesn’t support it.”
Nope. My evidence for that is the councils and synods that happened BEFORE Cajetan was even born. You really need to learn. Try reading a book.
“If he’s as offensive as what comes off the Vatican’s own website, I’m not sure that I’ll want to.”
Any excuse to not read a book, huh? Yeah, why let learning interfere with sciolism, right?
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.