Why haven't the Catholics ADMITTED that THEY have removed the VERY BEST Scriptures from the BIBLE???
HMMMmmm???
Posted on 12/20/2014 11:25:30 AM PST by millegan
"And so we encounter another oddity of Hanukkah: Jews know the fuller history of the holiday because Christians preserved the books that the Jews themselves lost. In a further twist, Jews in the Middle Ages encountered the story of the martyred mother and her seven sons anew in Christian literature and once again placed it in the time of the Maccabees."
(Excerpt) Read more at churchpop.com ...
We figure that the JEWS ought to know their own scriptures a wee bit better than the claim that Rome does.
Interesting assumption on Rome's part.
Pope Gregory would be pleased that a Catholic would use a MORMON for a source!
Did I say MORMON??
I meant EX-Catholic...
Why haven't the Catholics ADMITTED that THEY have removed the VERY BEST Scriptures from the BIBLE???
Which sect of Jews? The Jews who became Christian were largely the Greek-Hellenistic Jews, first and foremost was Saint Paul himself. Those who had access to the Greek-LXX version of the OT were the Jews more likely to believe in Christ and enter the Church. The Jews in Palestine, the ones holding to the Hebrew only tradition that the Rabbinical tradition grew out of in the late 1st and 2nd century were the Jewish groups who were more opposed to Christianity.
The Jews compiled the Septaguint a long time before the Masoretic compilation, BC, in fact whereas the Masoretic was a couple of centuries AD and avoided old accepted books that they thought might justify some Christian ideas. Mainline Protestants do seem to be taken with what is newer and more fashionable.
Elsie:
Well they have removed a bunch and added even more.? I think ole Joseph Smith comes out of the Protestant tradition, can’t tie him to the Catholic Tradition. Henry the 8th, Luther and Calvin were all baptized Catholics who elevated their own opinions to dogmatic certainty but while they went with a shorter Canon of the OT, they at least did not add.
I am not going to put the Protestants with the Mormons, although they do come from American Protestantism and are a uniquely American creation.
Thanks. Once again refuting assertions with sound scholarship.
>>They omit them ok, perhaps they were lost are not translated by those who did the translations of the Codices.<<
The point is Irenaeus and other early theologians quote the “missing” verses in the 2nd century. Thus the argument today older is better is not completely accurate. Thus the majority text used by the EOs based on the Byzantine.
Also, from your earlier post I wonder why you dismissed Daniel1212 and his presentation of Biblical scholarship on the matter of the LXX.
I also commented Jerome used the available Hebrew of the time for his OT translation of the Vulgate. His reasoning was enlightening.
A partial history provided. Jerome was not initially an advocate of 73 books. How many times must one post his position of the OT canon was for the 22 TaNaKh books as the Jews held them from before the First Avent?
However the abject lesson from Jeromes eventual capitulation to the bishop of Rome shows where we have absolute power error can abound and compound. More here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerome.html
redleghunter:
I have no interest dealing with the guy you cited. He is an typical ex Catholic with an axe to grind. I have been through these issues with him already before. I stand where I stand, he is where he is.
The point is that there were divergent texts even among the Jews. One tradition it is now clearly one from which the LXX was translated and there were some divergent source tradition even in the Gospels. Early Fathers cited the longer ending of Mark 16. Saint Jerome was aware of it as it made its way to the Vulgate. I am aware that many important early manuscripts do not include it. Saint Jerome included it in the Vulgate translation which was confirmed in the Council of Florence in 1442 and more dogmatically confirmed at Trent in 1546 affirmed the canonicity of the longer ending.
So again, all it shows is that even for a canonical Gospel, depending on what part of the Roman empire you lived in, you had a Gospel of Mark that ended at Mark 16:8 or one that went to Verse 19. Different textual traditions even among the early Church with respect to The Gospel of Mark.
LOL...What a commodian! Let me repeat, the Septuagint was a TRANSLATION into Greek of Hebrew scriptures in addition to other writings of the time (which were ALREADY written in Greek) specifically for the Alexandrian library. Whatever books are in that collection does not automatically confer they are "canonical" or Divinely-inspired. From http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm:
1. There is not sufficient evidence that they were reckoned as canonical by the Jews anywhere.
2. The LXX design was literary, to build the library of Ptolemy and the Alexandrians.
3. All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not Jewish origin. With a 500 years difference between translation and existing manuscripts. Enough time for Apocryphal books to slip in.
4. LXX manuscripts do not all have the same apocryphal books and names.
5. During the 2nd Century AD the Alexandrian Jews adopted Aquila’s Greek version of the OT without apocryphal books.
6. The manuscripts at the Dead Sea make it clear no canonical book of the OT was written later than the Persian period.
7. Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-40 AD), quoted the Old Testament prolifically, and even recognized the threefold classification, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.
8. Josephus (30-100 AD.), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha; numbering the books of the Old Testament as 22 neither does he quote the apocryphal books as Scripture.
9. Jesus and the New Testament writes never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost the entire book of the Old Testament.
10. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (90 AD) did not recognize the Apocrypha.
11. No canon or council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries.
12. Many of the great fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha---for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
13. Jerome (AD 340-420) The great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon.
14. Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church.
redleghunter:
Again, from your perspective, you see it as capitulation, I think Saint Jerome say it is humility and obedience to legitimate authority.
And yes, I am aware that Saint Jerome, when asked by Pope Damasus to translate the Old Latin version of the Bible into a newer Latin version, Jerome at first decided to go with only the Hebrew canon that now had been defined. Yet, he often cited the 7 Deuterocaonicals in theological disputes [you can easily confirm this for yourself without me doing it] and he did in fact humbly submit to the authority of the Church of Rome and translate the 7 deuterocanonicals into the Latin Vulgate.
From the Catholic perspective, Saint Jerome is humble obedient son of the Church, to you, he respesents someone who capitulates to the those Popes in Rome.
Well stated. Thanks.
Not for nothing but, notice how the MSM is all about wishing their viewers “Happy Hanukah” with never a mention of “Merry Christmas”. The MSM resorts to the old cliché of “Happy Holidays”. This does not hold true for FNN. But I’ll say it here, MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!
boatbums:
Again, there was no monolithic Jewish Canon. the order the way books are presented in modern Bibles follows the Alexandrian canon from which the LXX comes from. The LXX version was the OT of the early Church and the 7 Deuterocanonicals were frequently cited without distinction in the theological writings going back to the time of Saint Clement of Rome, the Didache, Saint Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John, the Letter of Barnabas, Saint Irenaeus and St. Hippolytus of Rome represent citations from around 80AD [Didache] to 200 AD [Saint Hippolytus of Rome] who cited it. The Muratorian Fragment lists the Book of Wisdom as canonical, along with some 22 of the NT canon, and Saint Justin Martyr in his debates with the Palestians Jew Trypho, stresses the LXX version.
And as stated earlier, DSS contain most of the Deuterocanonicals.
As for your list, you seem to rely on Jewish writings, most of which come from after the time of Christ. In addition, the Jewish sources you are appealing to reflect Jews how rejected Christ as the 2nd Person of the Trinity, thus rejected him as Truly God’s Divine Son, thus rejecting Christ Divinity as God.
So what you are implicitly holding to is that God gave these Men the Grace to determine the appropriate Jewish Canon yet these same men did not respond to that Grace to believe in Christ.
I as a Catholic, while respecting the Jewish Tradition, can’t accept a Jewish canon of the OT that is already divergent from what the Church has as its OT canon, which is basically the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox OT canon, not Protestant [a basic canon, but not yet defined]. However, as you note, by the 4th century, Church Councils [regional] but affirmed by the Pope in Rome did in fact begin to issue formal pronouncements on the canon, and ALL OT canonical list in said Councils and Papal statements have the 46 book OT found in the Catholic Canon today.
So given the choice, do I 1) believe that God gave the Grace to those 4th century Councils and Pope’s to define the canon or do I believe in 2) that God gave the Grace to those late 1st century and 2nd century Jews???
Well I think you know the answer to that.
Does that count the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition? I seem to remember they did their best to rid the world of Jews back then.
Catholics don't think Jerome was infallible. I don't think you do either.
However the abject lesson from Jeromes eventual capitulation to the bishop of Rome shows where we have absolute power error can abound and compound.
Papal primacy was instituted by Christ. Christ is the head of the eternal, redeemed Davidic kingdom (Rev. 3:7), is the power behind the keys of the vice-regency (Isaiah 22:22) of this Kingdom of God, and gave the keys of the vice-regency of the Kingdom of God to Peter (Matthew 16:19).
Clement of AlexandriaBy what authority did Luther reject what Christ instituted?"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).
"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]" (ibid., 17:27).
Ephraim the Syrian
"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
Ambrose of Milan
"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Jerome
"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).
Pope Innocent I
"In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged" (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).
Augustine
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Council of Ephesus
"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).
Pope Leo I
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery" (ibid., 10:2–3).
"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).
RetiredArmy:
Inquisition did not physically harm Jews, it just deported them, sort of like what many Tea party COnservatives want to do with illegal immigrants here today. Forcibly deport them back to Mexico. The Spanish Inquisition was secular courts that theologians participated in to determine if someone was an orthodox Catholic or not. Jews, and Muslims were not brought to it. Now, the Muslims were the ones that the Catholic Spaniards were fighting in the war of reconquest, which finally ended in 1492 or there abouts. The Muslims were driven out, the Jews were given 3 months to leave, some converted to Christianity, no Jew was tried in the Inquisition.
Whig History from England. As for the Crusades, they were lawful wars to deal with Muslim aggression, and they were not called to go after Jews. Some of the Crusaders, particularly in Germany, did attack innocent Jews, and they were called out for it. that is the problem with all Wars, sometimes, soldiers do bad things. Most of the Crusaders fought honorably against the Mohamadens.
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.