[boatbums]

It does get frustrating when we have to repeat these points so many times here, right? It makes me wonder about a few things:

• Do they imagine the Jewish people - unto whom Paul said were given the "Oracles of God" - would not have recognized and received the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonicals had they truly been given by God? These supposedly were in the Septuagint before the birth of Christianity, so that was not a reason to reject them.

• Why didn't Paul, Peter, John, James, etc. - or Jesus for that matter - ever speak of these books as the word of God like they did most of the others?

• Do they defend these books as Divine because they really believe they are or is it because the Council Of Trent dogmatically declared them as so and they MUST stick by the Council or admit they were in error?

• Protestants are accused of rejecting Catholic doctrine solely because it IS Catholic doctrine, but why does it appear that Trent only dogmatically defined those books to reject the Reformers' points about them not being from God? When examined closely, they really don't help support Catholic doctrines that were not already found in the undisputed books and which the Reformers also held to. Trent used these books to try to usurp the authority of the word of God OVER the church and make it subservient to the church. They were and are wrong!

I doubt this will be the last time this propaganda is parroted on these threads, so your excellent research will be kept on hand.

[dangus]

First, thanks for calling the deuterocanonicals. One great source of confusion among many Protestants comes from several Church Fathers denouncing “apocrypha,” by which they meant an entirely different set of books: writings which were either supposedly hidden from all but initiated Christians, or which contained hidden meanings. Hence, apocrypha means, “hidden writings.” Apply the term to the deuterocanonicals makes no sense.

>> Do they imagine the Jewish people - unto whom Paul said were given the “Oracles of God” - would not have recognized and received the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonicals had they truly been given by God? <<

They did. They were included in the canon of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the canon of the Septuagint. But whereas the Jews of Jesus’ time regarded the Second Temple as divinely instituted, and the Maccabean dynasty as divinely ordained, later Jews disputed these notions in light of the destruction of the Temple and the corruption of the Hasmoneans. (An odd argument, since the First Temple was destroyed and the Solomonic dynasty corrupted.) Thus, the books which (1) pointed to the Resurrection, (2) pointed to an imminent Messiah, and (3) legitimized the 2nd Temple and the Maccabean dynasty were denigrated.

It’s not so cut-and-dry as to say that the Jews REMOVED the deuterocanonicals from the canon; at the time of Jesus, there was great disagreement among Jews as to which books were in the canon. IIRC, the Samaritans accepted only the Torah but rejected the Prophets; the Saduccees accepted the Torah and the Prophets (Nevi’im), but rejected the Scrools; and the Pharisees accepted the Torah and the Prophets and the Scrolls (Ketuvim), but weren’t unanimous about the content of the Scrolls. By the way, the names of these three groups of books may be misleading: the book of Psalms is among the Prophets, for instance, whereas the Book of Daniel is among the Scrolls.

>> Why didn’t Paul, Peter, John, James, etc. - or Jesus for that matter - ever speak of these books as the word of God like they did most of the others? <<

They cite only 22 of 39 Protestant-canon books, but 5 out of 7 deuterocanonicals. In general, they rarely cite the Books of the Scrolls, among which the deuterocanonicals had been counted.

>> Do they defend these books as Divine because they really believe they are or is it because the Council Of Trent dogmatically declared them as so and they MUST stick by the Council or admit they were in error? <<

Ask the 15 centuries of Christians who regarded them as sacred scripture BEFORE the Council of Trent, or the non-Roman, non-Protestant churches who regard them as sacred scripture.

>> Why does it appear that Trent only dogmatically defined those books to reject the Reformers’ points about them not being from God? <<

Trent was the first infallible, ecumenical council to define the contents of the bible at all. Ecumenical councils rule infallibly only when a doctrine has been challenged; saying a council invented a doctrine is like saying that Heller vs. DC invented the 2nd amendment. There were, however, other synods (councils) which defined the contents of the bible. They were not all identical*, but they all included the deuterocanonicals.

(*1. Prior to Trent, some councils included III Ezra, a.k.a. Greek Ezra. The Council defined the canon as those books essential to define Revealed Doctrine. But Greek Ezra included virtually no unique doctrine. 2. Some ancient sources include the Letter of Jeremiah, but this is not contrary to the Trent canon; the Letter of Jeremiah is part of the Book of Baruch. 3. IV Ezra has been published in many Christian bibles, and often included in lists of books of the bible prior to the Council of Trent; none of these lists represented the work product of a synod, nor claimed to establish a canon.)

>> When examined closely, they really don’t help support Catholic doctrines that were not already found in the undisputed books and which the Reformers also held to. <<

Yes, Luther attacked the Deuterocanonicals (among which he listed 7 New Testament books, including Revelation, Hebrew, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and James) as being non-biblical since they had been used to teach him of Catholic doctrine he rejected. In the Council of Trent’s response to Luther, however, the Council provided excellent support for these doctrines. Some, however, rely on syllogism or references which are ambiguous when divorced from a context which includes the deuterocanonicals.

[Cronos]

To your points, bb:

• The Jewish canon was closed in 70 to 80 AD (i.e. after Christ) at the council of Jamnia. Now these were rejected either because it gave too much weight to the Christian arguments about the divinity of Christ OR because they didn't have any Hebrew originals of the same (which is also plausible as hebrew had long been replaced by Aramaic and Koine Greek -- centuries in fact)
  
  HOWEVER note that In 1947, this whole argument collapsed like a deck of cards when a young Bedouin boy searching for a goat in a cave near Khirbat Qumran on the Left Bank of the Dead Sea stumbled upon Hebrew Originals For Deuterocanonical Books
  
  --> The Jews of Jesus's time did not have a closed canon. This is demonstrated in Scripture by the Sadducees, who accepted only the Torah as Scripture, unlike the Pharisees. Multiple canons were floating around.
  • One was the Palestinian canon, which corresponds to what Jews and Protestants use today.
  • One was the Alexandrian canon, which contained books we recognize as canonical, as well as additional ones various Orthodox church consider canonical. The Alexandrian canon was used by Greek-speaking Jews and was primarily in Greek.
  •There were others as well.
  
  
• "Why didn't Paul, Peter, John, James, etc. - or Jesus for that matter - ever speak of these books as the word of God like they did most of the others? " -- actually they did
  
  • Jesus quoted from these books --

    Matthew 7:12, and Luke 6:31, He referenced Tobit 4:16 Matthew 9:13, He quoted Hosea 6:6 Matthew 13:43, He quoted Wisdom 3:7 Matthew 22:32, He quoted Exodus 3:6 Matthew 22:37, He quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 Matthew 22:39, He quoted Leviticus 19:18 Matthew 22:44, He quoted Psalms 110:1 Mark 7:6-8, He quoted Isaiah 29:13 John 14:23, He referenced Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)2:15-16, (Septuagint) or Sirach 2:18

  • Then Paul -- the most allusions are found in Paul’s letter to the Romans with a total of 76 instances. The Wisdom of Solomon is particularly prominent, especially within the first few chapters – perhaps reflecting their shared belief that wisdom (and the divine) can be learnt through an observation of creation.
    
    
  • We declare them as worthy of canon because they were decided in Canon by people far closer to the time of the Apostles in teh 4th century. Why do you say they shouldnt' be included? On what basis? On the basis of some 17th or 18th century dudes?
    
    
  • These book sare in the KJV and Luther's bible, not as a reaction to Trent and Trent wasn't a counter-reaction

[daniel1212]

I doubt this will be the last time this propaganda is parroted on these threads, so your excellent research will be kept on hand.

Its not like such has not been posted numerous times here, and i expect some goal-post moving in response, for the real issue is the basis for assurance that something is from God. For Catholics, who are taught than one cannot discover the contents of Scripture the contents of revelation except by being told by people who have received it from God, and that one "cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities," (Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium) then the basis for their assurance of what is from God is to rest upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

Which presumes that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

Thus the canon is whatever Rome says it is, while scholarly debate can continue until she infallibility settles the issue for them. If not for us or even the EOs, whose canon is slightly larger (who could cry, "Rome removed books."