Replies

"the Table of Contents [is not] a justification for Roman Catholic "Tradition"...a good part of the NT was already accepted as Scripture by 70 AD........"

Thank you. You do not invalidate my point, but in fact strengthen it.

A "good deal" was accepted before 70 AD, and this list ("table of contents") was not based on the text of the NT. It was based on the practice of the local churches. The four Gospels, plus Hebrews, are not even signed. They are anonymous. We wouldn't know the Gospels were by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John except that their authorship was widely understood and passed down orally for decades (Handed down orally = Oral Tradition)
But beyond 100 AD, even if the 27 books had been accepted (based Oral Tradition), local discrepancies sometimes emerged.
For instance, the Muratorian Fragment (about 155 - 200 AD), the first written canon we know of, lists most of the New Testament books. It's missing a few (e.g. Matthew, James, 3 John), and it adds several works which are not inspired: the 'Epistles' to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians, the 'Apocalypse of Peter', and 'The Shepherd' (written by Hermas).
In the first four centuries AD many books, such as the seven letters of Ignatius, the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, and the Didache, were revered by many Christians as inspired; but it was later determined that, even if they were true, edifying and useful, they were not on a level with inspired Scripture.
If the whole NT were accepted practically instantly and unanimously, (on the basis of very reliable Oral Tradition), nobody would have had any reason to urgently ask popes and local synods for approved lists. Pope Damasus (382 AD), the third synod of Hippo Regius (393), the synod of Carthage (397), and Pope Innocent I (403 AD), all responded to these requests by approving canonical book lists.
They were not decreeing or innovating here: they were confirming which books were used liturgically, in response to local churches' inquiries.
It's important to get this clear: hey were not imposing but repeating what they already knew from the earliest Tradition.
You write: "The OT was already [I think you mean by 70 AD] in place."
Yes! Exactamundo! We certainly agree on this! And it included the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and I and II Maccabees.
After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai moved the Sanhedrin to Yavne (Jamnia) in Galilee. His rabbinical school reorganized and consolidated Pharisaic Judaism. Thus Rabbinical/Talmudic Judaism survived to be the source of practically all Jewish groups to this very day. They were reacting strongly against the Christian movement, and it was they who removed the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I and II Maccabees.
After that point you could say there were two OT canons: a Christian OT and an abridged Pharisee version that was approved by the School of Rabbi Ben Zakkai.
The great Bible translator Jerome was faced with this dilemma. At first his Hebrew tutor, a Jewish convert, had influenced him to exclude these seven Sacred Books based on his rabbinical training. Jerome would eventually have to choose between the list approved by Rabbinical councils, or the list approved by Christian councils.
After some hesitation to and fro, he went with the Christian OT canon.
Said Jerome in his letter to Rufinus: “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?"
So despite his own tendencies and opinions, he resolved this question the same way that the Popes and Synods did: not by selecting or judging or decreeing on his own, but by confirming that these are the books used by the churches.
Considering that the rabbinical Jews also rejected the entire New Testament, Jerome chose well in the end by accepting the books which were accepted by Christian churches from 70 AD to his own day (late 4th century).
This is the same list, confirmed yet again by Pope Damasus, in his Council of Rome Decree (382), affirming the 73 books of today's unabridged Biblical canon.

Interestingly, it's one these seven Rabbinically-rejected Sacred Books (2 Maccabees) which most clearly shows and approves the Jewish practice of praying for the dead. If at death all souls proceeded immediately to Heaven or to Hell, prayers for the dead would make no sense: those in Heaven don't need them, and those in Hell can't benefit from them. Thus the existence of a temporary "third place" where souls CAN benefit from our prayers, was already well established on the basis of the OT canon already in place circa 70 AD.

So much to correct....I'll just address a few key points.

For instance, the Muratorian Fragment (about 155 - 200 AD), the first written canon we know of, lists most of the New Testament books. It's missing a few (e.g. Matthew, James, 3 John), and it adds several works which are not inspired: the 'Epistles' to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians, the 'Apocalypse of Peter', and 'The Shepherd' (written by Hermas).

In the first four centuries AD many books, such as the seven letters of Ignatius, the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, and the Didache, were revered by many Christians as inspired; but it was later determined that, even if they were true, edifying and useful, they were not on a level with inspired Scripture.

Yet all of those books from which Rome derives a good deal of its "Sacred Tradition" were not received by the early church.

You prove my point with your lists.

Rome did not formalize its canon until Trent....some 1500 years later. They had the chance to incorporate all of the books Rome relies upon....but they did not.

You write: >>"The OT was already [I think you mean by 70 AD] in place."<<

No that is not what I meant. The OT was in place well prior to 70 AD.

Yes! Exactamundo! We certainly agree on this! And it included the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and I and II Maccabees.

No. We are not in agreement on this.

The great Bible translator Jerome was faced with this dilemma. At first his Hebrew tutor, a Jewish convert, had influenced him to exclude these seven Sacred Books based on his rabbinical training. Jerome would eventually have to choose between the list approved by Rabbinical councils, or the list approved by Christian councils.

I offer this from blue letter bible.org regarding the history of the Apocrypha.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm

From your post 172.....

I didn't say indulgences as such are unequivocally proved in the Bible; I don't even make that claim for the purificatory (purgatorial) state after death.

You contradict yourself on this issue.

And that is just one more reason why the Apocrypha is rejected by Christianity.

You still don't understand what you wrote in one of your earlier posts [edited for clarity].

I did not comment extensively on what happens to a believer when he entrusts himself to the Lord, so let me expand on that a bit. He becomes a child of God, whom he can trustingly address as "Abba, Father"

The Lord takes away all his sins

and gives him a new life in eternity which is bliss with Him forever. Thanks be to God for this total and glorious gift of heaven.

If the Lord has taken away ALL of their sins, as you write....there is nothing the individual can or has to do.

Do you understand that? I'm being serious here.

If the Lord has taken away ALL of your sins, there is no need for purgatory or indulgences or scapulars or medals.