Posted on 02/15/2017 5:19:25 AM PST by Gamecock
Ping
Since the author is drawing comparisons between our faith and the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, by the rules of the RF, I can’t fence today’s message as a devotional/caucus.
t.y.
good one.
Thanks for playing fair. So a word from a Catholic.
The Rabbinic writing shows that the debate about what was in and what was out along the margins continued for centureis after Our Lord’s comments. What His listeners would have understood by The Law was clear, and both “The Prophets” and “The Writings” (or “The Psalms” if you like, though I think the argument in the article is stretching things) had a core that was commonly accepted by many (though not the Sadduccees and the Samaritains), but became fuzzy around the edges. Everyone accepts Psalms—but does one also accept the Song of Songs, the book of Wisdom etc.? By Jeremiah do we mean what we understand by Jeremiah, or what we understand by Jeremiah and Lamentations, or what we understand by Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Baruch?
Sorry to post and run—but I have to work. And at least some of you guys know how fun it is to stir the pot.
“But in stating that Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books such as 1–2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and others are Scripture, the Council of Trent also went against church tradition.”
No. http://www.cuf.org/2004/04/the-complete-bible-why-catholics-have-seven-more-books/ Also, ever notice that Protestant anti-Catholics ALWAYS cast this as a Catholic issue and never mention that ALL ancient Churches include the Deuterocanonicals. ALL OF THEM. Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Coptic - ALL OF THEM. That, in itself, shows the tradition is inclusive of the Deuterocanonicals rather than the other way around. And, I suppose, that’s exactly why the Protestant anti-Catholics never mention the Orthodox, Oriental, Coptic Churches.
“The top Bible scholars in church history, including Jerome, did not believe the Apocryphal books were Scripture,”
Yet Jerome included them anyway. http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/jerome.html
http://taylormarshall.com/2011/09/did-st-jerome-reject-deuterocanoical.html
http://shamelesspopery.com/st-jerome-on-the-deuterocanon/
“and even many Roman Catholics who attended the Council of Trent did not want Rome to declare those books canonical.”
And yet it happened. The same thing has happened with almost every major declaration of doctrine. There’s always someone in the group who thinks it’s the wrong time, wrong place, wrong council, wrong definition, wrong wording of the definition, to declare. It happened at Nicaea, for instance. It happened at Vatican I, Vatican II. It’s common.
Did Some Church Fathers Reject
the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html
Two good books on the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals: https://www.amazon.com/Case-Deuterocanon-Evidence-Arguments/dp/0692389695/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=HNWXZVN0FC90ZX2RTHBQ
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Catholic-Bibles-are-Bigger/dp/1581880103
The Bible that Jesus Himself read from contained the 7 books in question. Jesus quoted from those books many times (I’m on a phone so I can’t format easily enough to post the list, if you care google it.) The canon as it was known in the 4th century contained those 7 books. These are facts. Take ‘em or leave ‘em.
FWIW, traditional Jewish history records the finalization of the ‘canon’ about 300 BC. {Note that the Jewish idea of ‘canon’ isn’t exactly the same as the Christian idea).
Authoritative Jewish teachings after c. 300 BC were recorded in the Mishna.
All of what has happened was necessary to get us to where we are today. We are at the end of the two days (2000 years) that Hosea 6 talks about. As Jesus said, the Kingdom of God has grown into a large tree and the birds of the air (agents of Satan) have nested in its branches. The tares have grown up among the wheat.
Be the wheat!! Be the victor !! Look up!! Your redemption draws near!!
The only logical origin of truly canonical works is that they emerge from a community and that community determines the canon. To have a church (or any religion) formed out of a book is as a logical as a country forming out of a pre-existing constitution. It's bass akwards. Things like a constitution or bible can only be formed out of the community not vice versa. The Church existed prior to books of the Bible even being written and this same Church determined which books should be in the canon of scripture. Just like the scriptures were formed out of the Jewish community, the scriptures were formed out of the church founded by Christ, the Roman Catholic Church.
This is an interesting issue and I guess we Catholics should take these issues like canon of Scripture more seriously. After all, the Bible is our book.
Three good distinctions.
When did the tradition first record this? The Sadduccess weren’t on board at the time of Our Lord, and the Rabbis continues to bicker about what books rendered the hands unclean for some time well after 300 BC—and after Our Lord. So they weren’t aware of the tradition yet.
***The canon as it was known in the 4th century contained those 7 books.***
It also contained THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS a book rejected by all.
Everyone should read the Apocrypha at least once to see why they are irrelevant and redundant. I have several times.
The Catholic inclusion of Apocryphal books makes sense. If God continued prophecy down to Jesus, there should be no gap in writings having canonical authority.
Traditional Jews by contrast could have disputes, recognizing that explicit prophecy had ended while the lesser ‘echo of prophecy’ still allowed for authoritative writings of traditional piety. Only acceptance over time could determine ultimate authority, relying on God to vouchsafe his message despite varying scholarly opinions.
“And, I suppose, that’s exactly why the Protestant anti-Catholics never mention the Orthodox, Oriental, Coptic Churches.”
Oh I mention them. For example, it is handy to note that only the Romans and Maronites recognize the authority of the pope, while the Orthodox and the Copts do not. If something needs to be universally accepted by all those churches to be proper tradition, then the authority assumed by the pope is not traditional. Or, the alternative is that what is accepted or not by those churches is simply inconclusive.
So which is it? Shall we recognize those churches as all having a say in tradition or not? Keep your apocrypha, or keep your pope, which will it be?
The Shepherd was widely read and respected for quite some time — but it was never included in or considered to be part of the Canon of the NT.
“The Bible that Jesus Himself read from contained the 7 books in question. Jesus quoted from those books many times”
Jesus quoted from books that were never part of the “Bible”. Just because something is quoted in the NT doesn’t make it Scripture.
The idea that the Deuterocanonical books were not accepted by the Church as part of the Canon is laughable and contrary to the facts. Not only were they listed by numerous councils before Trent, they were also included in the liturgy. This is an important point. Prior to the invention of the printing press the question of the Canon was not which books were suitable for publication and private study but which were suitable for public liturgical prayer. That these books were, indeed, included in the public liturgy of the Church shows that they were considered Sacred Scripture.
The books were part of the Hebrew canon at the time of Christ’s earthly life and were considered to be Scripture.
“Oh I mention them. For example, it is handy to note that only the Romans and Maronites recognize the authority of the pope, while the Orthodox and the Copts do not.”
Your comment shows you have no idea of what you’re talking about. First of all, I was talking about the canon - and on that score all the ANCIENT CHURCHES include the Deuterocanonicals to one extent or another. Only MODERN SECTS - like Protestants - exclude them all. Secondly, the Orthodox and Copts most certainly do recognize the authority of the pope in the Church of Rome. What they don’t recognize is his authority over the Catholic Church in general - even though they did so in the past. https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/dp/1888992298
“If something needs to be universally accepted by all those churches to be proper tradition, then the authority assumed by the pope is not traditional.”
Except it was: https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/dp/1888992298 The fact that some NOW say it isn’t doesn’t change the fact that it WAS.
“So which is it? Shall we recognize those churches as all having a say in tradition or not? Keep your apocrypha, or keep your pope, which will it be?”
If you could think logically, you would realize no matter what any modern Orthodox think about the pope, they all believe in the Deuterocanonicals. Thus, by the very standard you employ on the pope, the tradition of the Deutercanonicals is assured. Thus, Protestants, according to your own standard, are in the wrong.
Thanks for proving my point.
“After all, the Bible is our book. “
Yes. In the same way a foolish rooster might lay claim to the sun.
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.