Posted on 07/20/2013 5:38:15 PM PDT by narses
“Judith, for example, says that Nebuchadnezzer is King of the Assyrians, which is wrong, amongst many other historical and geographical errors.”
The Babylonian Empire subsumed the Assyrian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar, so it’s not a stretch to say that he was King of the Assyrians. He was king over all that he surveyed, including Assyria.
The problem is where did the Catholic Church come from, and from where did it get its authority to decide what books were to be in the Bible - BEFORE the Bible was compiled?
After all, the authority couldn't have come from the Bible, because it hadn't been compiled yet.
From the article: "...one must first remember that almighty God never handed anyone a complete Bible and said, "Here it is." Rather, over the centuries of salvation history, the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of Sacred Scripture to write down God's revelation to us. As time went on, the Church compiled these books to form a Canon — an authoritative set of Sacred Scripture — and declared it "God's Word.""
So it's fine once you have a Church that then draws its authority from Scriptures, but what about the beginning - where did the authority come to make the first Bible? Actually, it goes even deeper than that, because the actual act of creating the first Bible was the act of THROWING OUT scriptures that didn't fit the agendas of those who were editing what they wanted the Bible to be, so that they could base the Catholic Church on it.
Quite convenient. Especially since we know from history that none of those involved in this process had a political agenda, were power seekers, were treacherous, or were trying to hide true teachings of Jesus or God that might have gotten in their way. And how do we know this from history? Because the Church teaches that though there were human failings, Grace guided the creation of the Bible. And how does the Church justify that teaching? Why, because it's in the Bible!
Like I said, convenient. VERY convenient.
“Just curious as to how you get that either of those quotes means that Judith is not considered Scripture by the authors.”
I said they didn’t believe that the contents of Judith were even true. I didn’t say they didn’t consider it scripture, though their calling it “fiction” certainly nullifies its position as scripture.
I should point out that the canon of Scripture was actually fixed by the disciplinary session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 692 (called by Western scholars variously the Trullan Synod or Quinisext Council — though both Orthodox and Latin hierarchs, at least before the Latin Schism referred to its canons as those of the Sixth Ecumenical Council). One of its canons explicitly gave the canons of the Synod of Carthage of 419 universal force throughout the Church.
There is the fact, very uncomfortable for protestant defenders of the short canon, that it is not only the Latins, whom they like to vilify as “adding” books to the Bible, but the Orthodox and Monophysites (Copts, Armenians Ethiopians, Syrian Jacobites) and the Nestorians (Assyrian Church of the East), that is all Christian confessions still extant and dating from before the 16th century, include in their canon of Scripture all or most of the books the protestants reject under the name “the Apocrypha”.
You can quibble about 4th Maccabees and 2nd Esdras, maybe they don’t belong, but all of us in the East think that all of you in the West (Latin and protestant alike) are missing the 151st Psalm and the Prayer of Manasseh, and most of us think you should all have 3rd Maccabees in your Bibles — the Copts and Ethiopians stand with you Westerners on that one and against the Armenians and the Jacobites.
I would observe that this unanimity exists despite the fact that the Assyrians have been out of communion with the rest of us since 431, the Copts, Ethiopians and Jacobites since 451, the Armenians since 506.
“The Babylonian Empire subsumed the Assyrian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar, so it’s not a stretch to say that he was King of the Assyrians.”
Judith asserts that Nebuchadnezzar reigned in Nineveh, which is the Assyrian capital, as opposed to Babylon, though he ruled over many various tribes and cities. And that is just one of the many historical and geographical problems of Judith, hence why the RCC does not regard Judith as actually historical.
I thought the thread was about which books are Scriptural. Sorry, if I read into your post that because these men believe Judith to be fiction, it means that they also considered it not to be Scripture.
As per your response, it seems that is your opinion. What about it being fiction nullifies it being Scripture?
**Paul was a Jew**
“Not after he had his encounter with Jesus.”
Paul remained a devout, observant Jew even after his conversion to Christianity.
After these days we got ready and started on our way up to Jerusalem. Acts 21:15
Paul was getting ready to go back to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover.
When he got there, the apostles in Jerusalem were concerned that other Jews would accuse him of not being devout because of his ministry to Gentiles. So the apostles in Jerusalem told him to do this:
“Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. “But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them. Acts 21:23-26
“I should point out that the canon of Scripture was actually fixed by the disciplinary session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 692 (called by Western scholars variously the Trullan Synod or Quinisext Council”
The Trullan synod, which was rejected by Pope Constantine, actually affirmed a great deal of books as canonical, affirming, actually, several different and contradictory lists, even some with books that the RCC today does not regard as part of the canon, such as III Maccabees. Hence the reason why even up to the eve of the Reformation, the RCC still reverted to the default position of Jerome.
It’s also worth noting that the vast majority of these books de-canonize themselves anyway due to their errors and even self-admissions of having them. You can cling to these books if you like, but aside from the empty authority of some church tradition, there is no internal or truly historical reason to accept them.
And it would seem you are not accepting St. Paul as a Christian — is that what you are saying?
“What about it being fiction nullifies it being Scripture?”
Well, if it is filled with “historical and geographical errors,” there’s no good reason to think that it is binding on doctrine or the Christian conscience. It can be brought forward for the “edification of the faithful,” in the same way Narnia is, but certainly not for the “confirmation of doctrine.” For its former use, I have no problem. The problem is the RCC wants to put forward the apocrypha for the latter use.
“...though their calling it “fiction” certainly nullifies its position as scripture.”
Song of Solomon is a lyric poem. It has also been described as allegory. Does that disqualify it as scripture, too?
The Song of Solomon is inspired scripture, and therefore it can be used for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction for righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect and thoroughly furnished unto good works. When I said “fiction,” keep in mind I also affirmed with the modern RCC that it is “replete with historical and geographical errors.” We cannot consider something like that to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit wanted to write a poem, He would not masquerade it as history.
I accept him as both. Why deny his Jewishness though unless it is to promote your churchs agenda?
It’s absurd to reject Paul’s Jewishness, when he himself affirmed it.
Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Salvation is just being difficult so he can ignore your central point, which is that the Jewish Nation who were the keepers of the law and prophets, weren’t the RCC.
“And it would seem you are not accepting St. Paul as a Christian — is that what you are saying?”
Jews were told to keep the Law until “heaven and earth passed away.”
“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:18-19
(When this happened is a whole other discussion that I’ll leave for another time.)
So until the Temple was destroyed, Jews were commanded to remain observant of the Law. The last vestiges of the Mosaic Covenant were swept away with the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 AD.
And if you read the early Church Fathers you will see the history......they attended the synagogue on the Sabbath. Then they would meet in home churches and celebrate the Eucharist. So go a little deeper into Church History.
Justin Martyr describes the early Mass that they celebrated as being very similar to the one we celebrate today.
“The Song of Solomon is inspired scripture, and therefore it can be used for doctrine...”
What doctrinal statements exist in the Song of Solomon that elevate it to the level of canon?
I don’t believe the apocrypha is inspired either. But I’ve found it to be useful in refuting some of the errors I see in evangelicalism today. I Maccabees is especially useful for helping us understand the fulfillment of the prophecies in Daniel 7 and 8 regarding the “little horn.”
But that’s for another discussion. There is enough value in at least some of the apocryphal books to keep them around.
Where does Scripture say it is for the confirmation of doctrine? Or that Scripture alone confirms doctrine?
2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
The Bible is God’s revelation to us about Himself and our relationship to Him.
The errors in history or geography do not obscure that revelation.
“I don’t believe the apocrypha is inspired either. But I’ve found it to be useful in refuting some of the errors I see in evangelicalism today. I Maccabees is especially useful for helping us understand the fulfillment of the prophecies in Daniel 7 and 8 regarding the “little horn.””
I also disagree with many of the errors of evangelicalism today, especially in regards to how they interpret the prophecies of Daniel. Maccabees is a history book, just like Josephus’ War of the Jews, which I have no real problem with, except if it is brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. I’m sure that the author of Maccabees wouldn’t have had a problem with that conclusion as well.
The Song of Solomon declares that it is written by, well, Solomon. Nor does it contain historical errors, or errors of doctrine of any kind, but rather affirms doctrine and reveals divine truths. It has also been affirmed universally as inspired scripture since it was written by both the Jews and the whole of Christianity. It is therefore superior in every way to the Apocrypha.
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.