Posted on 08/19/2002 5:30:51 PM PDT by JMJ333
From the article:
The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.
This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).
Hebrews 11:35 is an indisputable reference to 2 Maccabees 7, but many are not so clear as there may be only a single phrase that echoes one in a deuterocanonical book (and this may not be obvious in the translation, but only the original languages).So, he concedes that this is a list that has been put together, but someone with training in translations and scripture and history should go through each phrase and determine whether it is a specific reference, or not.This is the same with New Testament references to the protocanonical books of the Old Testament. How many New Testament references there are to the Old Testament depends in large measure on what you are going to count as a reference.
As a result, many scholarly works simply give an enormous catalogue of all proposed references and leave it to the individual interpreter to decide whether a given reference is actual or not.
Still, I will maintain that no one has refuted that these books were in the bible of the time of the apostles and Jesus Christ and if they were, why would they not today be considered Scripture?
As I said earlier the Deuterocanonicals are beautiful literature and some History although I understand there are some historical errors..but eithor way they are not directly quoted.
Some of those cross references actual said the opposite of the gospel verses..the author was just trying to find some common ground with the book of Matthew.. One could read Shakespeare and find some commonality
If I had a day to kill I suspect the rest of the cross references are as useless
God bless.
This is not the case. He is a Catholic by his own admission.
Steve Brandt, the author of the article, includes an anotated bibliography on his website with the following autobiographical note:
Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating
I read this book years ago because I wanted to understand Catholicism better. Should I regard it as Christian or as a Cult? That was my question. When I was halfway through the book I began to feel good about Catholicism. In fact, it was much less weird than I had thought. By the time I finished, I was scared. I was afraid that Catholicism was the one true Church - a position I eventually decided to accept.
PhD training has taught me to check sources. Why did you conclude he was NOT a Catholic???
Evidently, Gophack ( a non PhD ?) made an error. Now, instead of straining at knats maybe you (PhD ?) can refute the article? Or is that just it? You can’t refute it so you look for the knats?
No problem.
I apologize for any confusion. I guess I should spending more time reading!!!!!!! :-)
You waste hour after hour, day after day, unproductively posting idiocy at this site and you have the nerve to make a comment like that?
Matthew 6:10 1 Maccabees 3:60.....(no such verse..chapter ends at 59)
You’re a chattering simpleton. You don’t need to be a “PhD” to realize this may be a reference to a different Bible translation.
From the Douay Rheims:
1 Maccabees 3:60. Nevertheless, as it shall be the will of God in heaven, so be it done.
43:And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously, concerning the resurrection, 44:For if he had hoped that they were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead, 45:and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.
Okay--clear reference for praying for the dead. Luther still used it as an appendix even if he did remove it as part of scripture. And on who's authority did he remove the scripture? Why did he think the apostles wrong? Why do you feel that the first 1500 years of christianity erred in this matter?
Forgive me, in advance for jumping in here so abruptly.
I’ll tell you whose authority -- his own. These inspired writings which had been cherished and venerated for 1000 or 1200 years were held in contempt by the heresiarch. Why? Because they did not suit his new doctrines and opinions. He had arrived at the heresy of private judgment – of picking and choosing religious doctrines and whenever ANY book, such as Machabees, taught a doctrine that was repugnant to his individual taste – as, for example, that “it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed form sins” – well, so much the worse for the book; “THROW IT OVERBOARD” was his sentence, and overboard it went.
Begging your pardon for jumping into what is essentially a Christian thread. The Hebrew scriptural canon was sealed much earlier, at the time of the Knessiah Gedolah (Great Synod) at the end of the Babylonian exile and the beginning of the Second Temple. But because some "modern biblical scholars" wished to assign a later date to some of the scriptures, they arbitrarily moved the sealing up to Yavneh. But according to Jewish rabbinic authority, the scriptures were sealed long before that. The Book of Esther was the latest book of scripture included in the Hebrew canon.
When was the great synod, and what do you say to this part of the article:
During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.
Why did they meet if it had already been sealed?
Sock, you said,
***Now, instead of straining at knats maybe you (PhD ?) can refute the article? Or is that just it? You can’t refute it so you look for the knats?***
What are knats?. In Baton Rouge we have Gnats; however it's the mosquitos around here that need restraining at present. Know what I mean?
I also noted in your post the question mark after the PhD, sounds like you are skeptical.
I'm still trying to determine whether the article needs refutation. However, I do appreciate your interruption of what had been a cordial discussion.
LOL Go I am NO scholar at all. I just love the word of God and like to read in context..Most of the "cross references "do not fit in context.....This is terrible scholarship
Still, I will maintain that no one has refuted that these books were in the bible of the time of the apostles and Jesus Christ and if they were, why would they not today be considered Scripture?
Were they part of the Jewish canon at the time of Jesus or simply historical and wisdom writtings ?
The Hebrew Canon: Among Jews, the oldest canon appears to have been the one defining the Torah (the first five books of modern Bibles), which was not only the central document of Jewish faith but also the fundamental law of the Jewish nation. These five books reached final form and were set apart not earlier than the mid-sixth and not later than the fourth century b.c. It is the one canon upon which all Jewish groups, and also Samaritans and Christians, have usually agreed.
Alongside the Torah, most Jews of the first century a.d. appear also to have accepted a second canon of somewhat less authority, called the ‘Prophets.’ This included historical books (Joshua through 2 Kings, but not Ruth), as well as the more strictly prophetic books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Prophets (Hosea through Malachi in the Protestant order). The remaining titles of the Hebrew Bible—the total list corresponding to the canon of the Protestant ot—are known as the ‘Writings’ (Ruth, Esther through Song of Solomon). The canon of Prophets may be almost as old as that of Torah, but neither it nor the Writings was accepted by Samaritans or, perhaps, by Sadducees. The canon of Writings probably reached final form only after the first Jewish war against Rome (a.d. 66-70), under the leadership of the rabbinic courts at Jabneh (Jamnia). In the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were hidden away during that war, a wide variety of writings are found, with no obvious canonical distinctions among them.
The Hebrew canon was developed among Jews who spoke Hebrew or Aramaic. Many Jews of late antiquity, however, spoke only Greek. As early as the third century b.c., Greek versions of the Hebrew books were being made for their use. Some of these Greek books have rather different forms from those they took in the Hebrew canon (e.g., Jeremiah and Daniel); others were ultimately excluded from the Hebrew canon (e.g., Ecclesiasticus). There were also original works written in Greek, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, which came to be canonical only in the Greek language realm. The result was a larger, but somewhat ill-defined, canon of writings revered among Greek-speaking Jews.
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.