Apocrypha and Scripture

[Veritas]

I wanted to address the Apocrypha (deuterocanonical) books of the Roman Catholic Bible because it came up in the Sola Scripture thread.

Here is quick overview so we first undersand what we are talking about:

The Catholics have 46 Old Testament books rather than the 39 found in our Bibles. The extra 7 books are refered to as 'deuterocanonical' or the Apocrypha and were written between 400 BC - 27 AD. They are: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees. The Roman Catholic Church has also added more material to other books which does not appear under separate titles. That material is as follows: The Rest of Esther added to Esther; The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon added to Daniel

The usual division of the Old Testament by the Jews was a total of 24 books: The Books of Moses, The Early prophets: (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) The Late Prophets: (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets), and the Hagiagrapha: (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon. Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles). These 24 books contain all the material in our numbering of 39.

Josephus (a 1st century Jewish Historian) also spoke concerning the canon, but his book division combined Ruth-Judges and Lamentation-Jeremiah for a total of 22 books rather than 24:

And here is a quick recap of what I said in the other thread and francisdesales response and my reply.

Veritas wrote:
Deuterocanonical means 'belonging to the second canon'; and that term was first used in 1566 by a Catholic theologian Sixtus of Siena. Those books were omitted from early canons and their acceptance among early Christians was not at all universal like the 39 books of the Old Testemant contained in the Hebrew Bible. The canonicity of the deuteroncanical books was NOT definitively confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church until the Council of Trent in 1545-1563.

You can check those names and places yourself but unless all the history books I'm reading are wrong...that's just how it is.

francisdesales wrote:
These books were just as accepted and part of Scripture as the NEW TESTAMENT DEUTEROCANONICALS - James, 2 John, 3 John, Hebrews, and Revelation. They (OT AND NT Deutero's) were accepted by 3 Councils of the late 300's AD. The Canon, OT and NT, was defined by Trent, but was accepted over 1000 years before. When something is officially defined, it doesn't mean that that was the first time something was accepted by the Church. It means that "discussion is over".

I have adequately shown that the Church Fathers accepted ALL of the books we call Scriptures by the end of the second century.

You may want to re-summarize.

My understanding is although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.

francisdesales wrote:
My question to you, then is "Why do you accept the NT, but not the OT Deutero's, when they were defined the same time? Why aren't you being consistent and toss out the NT Deutero's as well?"

The answer is obvious - Luther didn't like the theology contained within them. He ALSO tried to eliminate Hebrews, James, and Revelation. Fortunately for Protestantism, brighter minds prevailed on the NT Deutero's. Too bad they couldn't contain the damage he had already done to Christendom by removing accepted books from the Bible.

It wasn't only Luther....

- As I stated earlier, Melito and Origen rejected the Apocrypha

- Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus

"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books [equal to the 39 we have], which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8) -brackets added by me.

- Cyril (born about A.D. 315) – "Read the divine Scriptures – namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint).

- Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)

- When Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.

- Later, Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled.

- Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

- The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

- The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

__________________________________________
Here are some other reasons I believe the Deuterocanoical books
(Apocrypha) are NOT inspired:

1.) Jesus never quoted from the Apocrypha.

2.) There are reputed to be 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocryphal

3.) Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

4.) These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

5.) The apocrypha wasn’t included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century

6.) Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

7.) The apocrypha itself denies all notion of inspiration. Referring to the events in the Maccabees the author makes these statements:

"...all such things as have been comprised in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene, we have at-tempted to abridge in one book. For considering the difficulty that they find that desire to undertake the narrations of histories, because of the multitude of the matter, we have taken care for those indeed that are willing to read,...And as to ourselves indeed, in undertaking this work of abridging, we have taken in hand no easy task, yea. rather a business full of watching and sweat. .. Leaving to the authors the exact handling of every particular, and as for ourselves. according to the plan proposed, studying to brief... For to collect all that is known, to put the discourse in order, and curiously to discuss every particular point, is the duty of the author of a history. But to pursue brevity of speech and to avoid nice declarations of things, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgement." (2 Maccabees 2: 24-32).

"...I will also here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers..." 12 Maccabees 15: 39-40).

This forms a bizarre contrast with passages in the New Testament:

"Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak. but the spirit of your Father which speaketh in you" Matthew 10:19-20.

"Now we have received. not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God: that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which mans wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth" 1 Corinthians 2:12-13.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Side Note:

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.

This can only be found in a non-canonical Book. The Book of Enoch.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

From the Preface to The Book of Jasher

The Book of Jasher literally means, "the upright or correct record" is arrayed in style of simple, unadorned majesty and precision, which so particularly distinguishes the genius of the Hebrew language; and this, together with other numerous internal evidences, will go far to convince the Hebrew scholar that the book is, with the exception of few doubtful parts, a venerable monument of antiquity. Notwithstanding some additions have been made to it in comparatively modern times, but it still retains proof to references to in Joshua 10:12-13, and II Samuel 1:17. There are not more than 7 or 8 words in the whole book that by construction can be derived from the Chaldee.

The translator does not recommend it as a work of inspiration, but as a monument of history, covered with the ivy of the remotest ages; as a work possessing, in its language, all the characteristic simplicity of patriarchal times; and as such, he conceives it peculiarly calculated to illustrate and confirm the sacred truths handed down to us in the Scriptures. But in making these observations, he is far from offering it as a perfect record. Like all other ancient writings, it has in some respects suffered from the consuming hand of time; and there is reason to believe that some additions have been made to it. It contains a history of the lives and memorable transactions of all the illustrious characters recorded in sacred history, from Adam down to the time of the Elders, who immediately succeeded Joshua.

In regard to the authenticity of The Book of Jasher are contained two passages in the Scriptures which mention the book by name. The first is Joshua 10:12-13.

"... and he [Joshua] said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is it not written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened to the voice of man: for the Lord fought for Israel."

Now lets compare it with the following passage in Jasher 88.63-64:

"...and Joshua said in the sight of all the people, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon, until the nation shall have revenged itself upon its enemies... And the sun stood still in the midst of the heavens, and it stood still six and thirty moments, and the moon also stood still and hastened not to go down a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened to the voice of man, for the Lord fought for Israel."

A comparison of the text preceding also shows a high degree of correlation, indicating that much more than a couple of verses was probably quoted by the Bible writer.

A second mention of the Book of Jasher clears up the reference in II Samuel 1.17 in 2 Samuel, ch. 1., by showing that David, in the commencement of his beautiful elegy on the death of Saul and Jonathan, revived an injunction given by Jacob in his dying charge to his son Judah, contained in Jasher in these words:

"--""But teach, I pray thee, thy children the use of the bow, and all instruments of war".

This goes far to prove the authenticity of the book, as it beautifully clears up what was always considered obscure. In contrast, this incident is not a direct quotation of a historical event from Jasher, as is the case in Joshua.
As part of his lamentation over the death of Saul and Jonathan, David referred to a comment by Jacob that is quoted in the Book of Jasher. He said:

"Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: Behold it is written in the book of Jasher."

David is referring to the dying words of Jacob to Judah in Jasher 56:9.

"...only teach thy sons the use of the bow and all weapons of war, in order that they may fight the battles of their brother who will rule over his enemies."

This passage in the Bible has no reference to anything in the Bible itself, but it is made clear from the passage in Jasher.

While the above two references pass the test, it will be up to the reader to satisfy himself as to the general agreement of the entirety of the book with the Bible narrative. This is such an extensive comparison, and such an obvious one, that I will not attempt to make any verse by verse comparison. Certainly any reader who is familiar with the Bible will recognize its similarity to the text of Jasher.

There probably is no way that we can know that the Biblical writers quoted from this book, rather than the other way around? Is it possible that this book was reverse engineered? Perhaps that Book of Jasher from the Amoraim period was compiled from rabbinic sources such that it is a kind of digest of rabbinic traditions. Indeed, there is a great deal of commonality with accounts from other midrashic sources. If this were found to be so it would in no way diminish its value.

 

[francisdesales]

I wanted to address the Apocrypha (deuterocanonical) books of the Roman Catholic Bible because it came up in the Sola Scripture thread.

Here is quick overview so we first undersand what we are talking about:

The Catholics have 46 Old Testament books rather than the 39 found in our Bibles. The extra 7 books are refered to as 'deuterocanonical' or the Apocrypha and were written between 400 BC - 27 AD. They are: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees. The Roman Catholic Church has also added more material to other books which does not appear under separate titles.

I have done a pretty big study on all of this, so I will correct your misunderstanding when necessary according to what I have found and use evidence to show it.

The "Roman Catholic Church" didn't add anything to the Septuagint. The additions to Daniel, and so forth were written before Christ became incarnate, so how did the Catholic Church manage that?

- As I stated earlier, Melito and Origen rejected the Apocrypha

First of all, let me clear the air here. Then, it will make more sense as I show you that the men of the Church saw the Deuterocanonicals as Scriptures, yet, in some cases, considered them as non-canonical. Now, the word "canonical" does not mean the same thing that it does today. The word refers to a book or letter that can be proclaimed at Mass. It refered to a liturgically accepted book. However, a book could be considered canonical and yet be considered Scriptures. THAT is why they are called "Deuterocanonicals". This equally applies to the NT Deuterocanonicals.

To show this, I will quote from the authors you mention to point this out.

I will direct my focus on Origen, who was one of the greatest commentatorsof the Bible in the first millenium. Let's see what he has to say.

On Origen, he gives us list that includes Baruch and both Maccabees. He calls them canonical. However that does not mean he is limiting those books to the annals of Scriptures. Let me quote you some of his other writings...

"In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, 'Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.' Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community." Origen, To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:387

Here, Origen, the great Scripture commentator of his time, approves of the Septuagint, noting that they are used by the Church and differ from the Jewish version. Africanus writes to Origen that a particular passage was a fraud. How does Origen respond?

You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus, I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours. For in Daniel itself I found the word "bound" followed in our versions by very many verses which are not in the Hebrew at all, beginning (according to one of the copies which circulate in the Churches) thus: "Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael prayed and sang unto God," down to "O, all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth for ever and ever. And it came to pass, when the king heard them singing, and saw them that they were alive." Or, as in another copy, from "And they walked in the midst of the fire, praising God and blessing the Lord," down to "O, all ye that worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth to all generations." [The Song of the Three Children, found in Daniel 3 of the Catholic Bible] But in the Hebrew copies the words, "And these three men, Sedrach, Misach, and Abednego fell down bound into the midst of the fire," are immediately followed by the verse, "Nabouchodonosor the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors." For so Aquila, following the Hebrew reading, gives it, who has obtained the credit among the Jews of having interpreted the Scriptures with no ordinary care, and whose version is most commonly used by those who do not know Hebrew, as the one which has been most successful. Of the copies in my possession whose readings I gave, one follows the Seventy, and the other Theodotion; and just as the History of Susanna which you call a forgery is found in both, together with the passages at the end of Daniel, so they give also these passages, amounting, to make a rough guess, to more than two hundred verses. Origen,To Africanus, 5 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF,IV:386

Note Origen defending the various Greek (and now Catholic) versions of Daniel (Dan 3, 13-14). Africanus says they are forgeries. Origen corrects him, calling them SCRIPTURE. This is pretty good evidence that Origen considered the Greek Daniel as Scriptures, even though he doesn't mention it as part of his "canon". Thus, we have our differentiation that seems to confuse most people who look at this on the surface.

Note, Origen even gives us reasoning why the JEWS removed the Greek version - they didn't think it reflected very well on the elders (the story of Susanna is about two Jewish elders who ravish a woman, then lie about it. Right before she is set to be executed, Daniel saves her and the Jewish elders are condemned. That explains why the Jews didn't like that story - and Origen explains that)

And I make it my endeavour not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true reading as they have them. Origen, To Africanus, 5(ante A.D. 254),in ANF,IV:387.

Origen notes that he doesn't use the passages with JEWS because THEY don't accept them. But when speaking with CHRISTIANS, he defends the status of the Deuterocanonicals.

"But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12 (A.D. 248),in ANF, IV:615

Here, Origen terms Sirach as Sacred Scripture.

[A]s is written in the book of Tobit: 'It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God,' [Tobit 12:7]--in a way consistent with truth and God's glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude." Origen, Against Celsus, 5:19(A.D. 248),in ANF,IV:551.

"As it is written" always refers to Scripture, both by the Fathers and by the Bible itself. Thus, Tobit is Scriptures.

Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves." However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says, "Because I remembered God with all my heart; and the Most High gave me grace and beauty in the eyes of Nemessarus, and I was his purveyor; and I went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at Ragi, a city of Media, ten talents of silver" (Tobias, 1:12-14). Origen, To Africanus, 13 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF, IV:391.

Though the Jews don't use it, Origen notes that the Christians use both Tobit and Judith, quoting from Tobit as if it were Scriptures.

But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.' [2 Maccabees 7:28]" Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2 (A.D. 230),in ANF, IV:270

Not on Origen's authority, but on the AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE of Maccabees, God created all things out of nothing. (interestingly, this is the only place this is mentioned in the Bible - yet Protestants universally accept it...)


And that which is written about wisdom, you may apply also to faith, and to the virtues specifically, so as to make a precept of this kind, "If any one be perfect in wisdom among the sons of men, and the power that comes from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing " or "If any one be perfect in self-control, so far as is possible for the sons of men, and the control that is from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing; (Wisdom 9:6) Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 4 (ante A.D. 254), in ANF, IX:427.

Again, Origen uses that formula "that which is written", quoting it as Scripture.

And as a general principle observe the expression "behind"; because it is a good thing when any one goes behind the Lord God and is behind the Christ; but it is the opposite when any one casts the words of God behind him, or when he transgresses the commandment which says "Do not walk behind thy lusts." (Sirach 18:30) And Elijah also in the third Book of Kings, says to the people "How long halt ye on both your knees? If God is the Lord, go behind Him, but if Baal is the Lord, go behind him." (1 Kings 18:21) Origen, Commentary on Matthew 23 Origen, 22, in ANF, IX:463 AD 254

Origen notes that what Sirach says is a commandment from God - that makes it Scripture. If it was not Scriptures, it could not be a commandment from God. Then, he quotes Elijah from Kings without ANY distinction in authority, as if Sirach had any less authority. Again, Origen considers Sirach as Scriptures.

In summary, Origen considers Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach as Scripture. That is all seven of them. We have his OWN writings.

Rather than prolong this, I will end it here. I can do the same thing with the other Fathers, as I have done this study before.

- Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus

He also rejected the New Testament.

- Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)

As Origen, Hilary includes Daniel, Baruch, both Maccabees, and Wisdom as Scripture in his writings. He also listed Tobit and Judith in his own personal list.

- When Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.

The Vulgate includes the Deuterocanonicals. Jerome may have disagreed, but being of the Church, he placed aside his own personal opinion, realizing that the CHURCH was infallibly protected, not him personally.

Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

I don't have any research on him. However, please understand that one or two men does not overturn the entire mind of the Church on such matters. I have already quoted (and have more) that the Septuagint was the Bible of the Christian Churches.

- The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

- The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

Naturally. Try to place yourself into the Jews shoes for a moment. A rival sect was using the Septuagint. The Palestinian Temple had been destroyed, along with the Sadducees. The Pharisees were the survivors of Palestinian Judaism. These men desired to save their religion. Thus, to maintain their culture and way of life towards God, they attempted to undercut the newly formed Christian sect, which was breaking away by the end of the first century. What did they do at Jamnia? They decided that only Hebrew written books would be considered Scriptures. The NT books were called "accursed".

Over and over, I can tell you that Christians do not subscribe to the Council of Jamnia. If we did, we would necessarily have to throw away our NT, as well. Is that the point you are trying to make?

__________________________________________
Here are some other reasons I believe the Deuterocanoical books
(Apocrypha) are NOT inspired:

1.) Jesus never quoted from the Apocrypha.

2.) There are reputed to be 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocryphal

3.) Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

4.) These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

5.) The apocrypha wasn’t included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century

6.) Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

7.) The apocrypha itself denies all notion of inspiration. Referring to the events in the Maccabees the author makes these statements:

1. He never quotes from a dozen or so of the "accepted" Scriptures of the Hebrew canon.

2. There are dozens of allusions found in the OT Deut's in the NT. Read Wisdom 2 and compare it with the Synoptic Crucifixion. Read Wisdom 9 and compare it to the Prologue of John's Gospel. I have a link to a website if you want another hundred.

3. That is false. Baruch and 1 Maccabees were originally written in Hebrew. Tobit and Judith were written originally in Aramaic - some scholars say perhaps Hebrew.

4. Answered nearly a dozen times. We don't care what the Jews sanctioned as Scripture - they condemn the NT...

5. My quotes above makes that statement false.

6. The vast majority of the New Testament authors do not make the claim to be inspired works. They were determined to be inspired by the Church AFTER the fact.

7. God writes through human authors. Editor's versions are considered inspired - just as much of the Torah is accepted as being edited and still accepted as-is to be inspired. In the NT, we have additions to the Gospels of Mark and John, which were NOT written by the original authors but are considered inspired.

I hope I have laid to rest the idea that the Deuterocanonicals should never have been removed from the Sacred Scriptures. There is plentiful evidence that it was accepted as Scriptures by the Christian Church WAY before Trent. The excuses given above just don't work when we apply logic to them. Those seeking the truth can make their own decision based on the actual writings.

Regards

 

[Veritas]

francisdesales wrote:
Now, the word "canonical" does not mean the same thing that it does today. The word refers to a book or letter that can be proclaimed at Mass. It refered to a liturgically accepted book. However, a book could be considered canonical and yet be considered Scriptures. THAT is why they are called "Deuterocanonicals". This equally applies to the NT Deuterocanonicals.

Lets go beyond what the Roman Catholic church says and look at the origin of the word "Canon". It comes from the Greek word KANON. It means "a rule, a standard (of faith and practice), or a boundary". When Christians refered to the "canon of Scripture" they refered to the books of the Bible commonly accepted as authoritative and from God.

francisdesales presented writings by Origen and wrote:
In summary, Origen considers Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach as Scripture. That is all seven of them. We have his OWN writings.

On Origen, on all the writings you've presented, and as I stated before: My understanding is although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Please, keep in mind the origin of the word "canon"

And you should really check out Ecclesiastes Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius

Origen clearly and simply says, “It should be observed that the canonical books are the same which the Hebrews delivered unto us, and are twenty-two in number, according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet.†Then he sets down, in order, the names of the books, in Greek and Hebrew. The aphocrypha are NOT included.

francisdesales wrote:
As Origen, Hilary includes Daniel, Baruch, both Maccabees, and Wisdom as Scripture in his writings. He also listed Tobit and Judith in his own personal list.

Again, my understanding is although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon.

Hilary clearly and simply says, "And this is the cause that the law of the Old Testament is arranged in twenty-two books, that they may correspond with the number of Hebrew letters. According to the traditions of the acients, they are so arranged that there are..." and then he lists them. Interstingly he also says: "Some are pleased to add Tobit and Judith, to make the number twenty-four, according to the letters of the Greek alphabet." (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15) If this is peoples logic for adding books it is indeed a poor one.

Melito, the Bishop of Sardis in 170 A.D. whom I mentioned before excludes every apocryphal book from the canon. Check it out, its in Eccl. Hist. B. iv. 26

Perhaps writings from Athanasius 350 A.D. can clear up the distinction between the canonical and apocryphal books for you and why you see them in Origen's writings. And please keep in mind what the word "canon" means originally:

"since some persons have attempted to set in order the books that are called apocryphal, and to mix them with the divinely inspired Scriptures, of which we have been fully certified, as those who saw them from the beginning, and who, being ministers of the word, handed them down from our fathers, it seemed fitting to me, being exhorted thereto by the orthodox brethren, and having learned the truth, to set out in order the canoical Scriptures, which have been handed down, and are believed to be from God; that everyone who has been decieved, may convict those who have led astray." Then he gives the list of the books we have in the Bible. He then adds. " It is true that, besides these, there are other books which are not put into the canon, but yet are appointed by the fathers to be read by those who first come to be instructed in the way of piety." He then gives the names of most of the common apocryphal books. (Epist. Festal.)

Athanasius also plainly says that the apocryphal books: Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and Tobit are UNcanonical. (Tom. II. p. 39, Paris Edition, 1629)

And since you dont have much on Epiphanius, I suggest you check out De Ponder et Mens. II. 16. After listing the canon of the OT (the 39 books we have) he mentions two apocryphal books and says this of them: "these indeed are useful books and profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

I did not mention this before but The Council of Laodicea, in 367 A.D. also rejected them all. (Labbe and Cossart, Concil. I. 1509)

And, Amphilochius, the celebrated Bishop of Iconium, in 390 A.D. rejected them all. (Iamb. ad Sel.)

[quote:293fc]Veritas wrote:
- When Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.

francisdesales wrote:
The Vulgate includes the Deuterocanonicals. Jerome may have disagreed, but being of the Church, he placed aside his own personal opinion, realizing that the CHURCH was infallibly protected, not him personally.[/quote:293fc]

:-? So I hope this doesn't mean that even if I give to you what those church fathers believed about the apocrypha, you wouldn't accept it anyways because of what the Roman Catholic Church says now.

[quote:293fc]1.) Jesus never quoted from the Apocrypha.

1. He never quotes from a dozen or so of the "accepted" Scriptures of the Hebrew canon.[/quote:293fc]

Considering the way the Hebrews grouped their books together, Jesus covered all groups.

[quote:293fc]2.) There are reputed to be 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocryphal

2. There are dozens of allusions found in the OT Deut's in the NT. Read Wisdom 2 and compare it with the Synoptic Crucifixion. Read Wisdom 9 and compare it to the Prologue of John's Gospel. I have a link to a website if you want another hundred. [/quote:293fc]

:-? I'm sure the Mormons believe the same about their book. Yeah, give me the website, I'd like to look at it.

[quote:293fc]3.) Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

3. That is false. Baruch and 1 Maccabees were originally written in Hebrew. Tobit and Judith were written originally in Aramaic - some scholars say perhaps Hebrew. [/quote:293fc]

I'll look into this closely, and hopefully get back to you.

[quote:293fc]4.) These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. Answered nearly a dozen times. We don't care what the Jews sanctioned as Scripture - they condemn the NT... [/quote:293fc]

I would think we care what the Jews acknowledged as sacred Scripture. I was working from the viewpoint that before Jesus they did indeed have the Truth.

[quote:293fc]5.) The apocrypha wasn’t included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century

5. My quotes above makes that statement false.[/quote:293fc]

I think you need to reevaluate this now.

[quote:293fc]6.) Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

6. The vast majority of the New Testament authors do not make the claim to be inspired works. They were determined to be inspired by the Church AFTER the fact.[/quote:293fc]

By the Roman Catholic Church? I would argue that was determined before the Roman Catholic Church became an organization. Those books were simply already accepted by most Christians. I can elaborate if you like.

[quote:293fc]7.) The apocrypha itself denies all notion of inspiration. Referring to the events in the Maccabees the author makes these...

7. God writes through human authors. Editor's versions are considered inspired - just as much of the Torah is accepted as being edited and still accepted as-is to be inspired. In the NT, we have additions to the Gospels of Mark and John, which were NOT written by the original authors but are considered inspired. [/quote:293fc]

How do you know the Torah's been edited like that? Additions to the Gospels?

francisdesales wrote:
I hope I have laid to rest the idea that the Deuterocanonicals should never have been removed from the Sacred Scriptures. There is plentiful evidence that it was accepted as Scriptures by the Christian Church WAY before Trent. The excuses given above just don't work when we apply logic to them. Those seeking the truth can make their own decision based on the actual writings.

Well, I don't think its laid to rest considering the actual writings.

I still find an enormous difference between the luminosity of the words in the canon compared to the apocrypha as evidenced by the contrast I made above between maccabees and the New Testament.

 

[Solo]

The TRUTH prevails over LIES EVERY TIME!! :smt023

 

[francisdesales]

Lets go beyond what the Roman Catholic church says and look at the origin of the word "Canon". It comes from the Greek word KANON. It means "a rule, a standard (of faith and practice), or a boundary". When Christians refered to the "canon of Scripture" they refered to the books of the Bible commonly accepted as authoritative and from God.

You didn't read my explanation of canon. Canon to the early Christians could not have possibly meant "Scripture contents", because these VERY SAME FATHERS CALL THEM SCRIPTURES IN THEIR WRITINGS. It must mean something other than what you claim. After reading the Fathers, it becomes clear that canon refers to those books that are read at Mass. Again and again, Origen called the writings of the Septaugint that were not found in the Jewish collection "Scriptures". He HIMSELF notes that the Christians EVERYWHERE accept them as Scriptures. He tells us HIMSELF that when speaking with Jews, he does not discuss those books because THEY do not accept them. However, HE accepts them, as does all of Christianity.

I would suggest you read the clips from Origen more closely. It will then appear obvious to those who do not have a predisposed bias that Origen and others thought that the Septaugint writings not included in the Hebrew collection were Scriptures.

FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, HE CALLS 2 MACCABEES SCRIPTURE. WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU WANT?

Read what HE wrote, not what some Protestant apologist wrote 2000 years after the fact.

Regards

 

[Vic C.]

If we can't discuss this with cool heads and without unnessessary comments... by anyone, I will be forced to either lock it or better yet, move it to the Debate forum where the two of you can debate uninteruppted.

With that said, I do have something to add:

[quote79a8]Veritas wrote:

- Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus

He also rejected the New Testament. [/quote79a8]
Josephus died in 100A.D. There WAS no NT at that time. :-?

 

[francisdesales]

Josephus died in 100A.D. There WAS no NT at that time. :-?

The books that would be called the NT were rejected by the Jews at Jamnia. Josephus was aware of the Synoptic Gospel writings and knew that the Christians considered them from God - although not officially canonized yet.

During his time, there was a common belief among Jews that the canon was officially closed with the Prophets. He limited the period of divine inspiration to the time from Moses to the time of Artaxerxes I. Anything written after that was of lesser value, according to the Jewish thought of the time.

This belief, as well as intense "dislike" towards the new "Way" sect led them to expundge any idea that the Gospels were inspired by God.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

The books that would be called the NT were rejected by the Jews at Jamnia.

And so in remedy should we allow all additional books who claim to be part of the word of God to be included? Perhaps the Magdalene Gospel should be added or the Nag Hammadai Documents, or maybe the Diatessaron...where does it end? If we reject the truth of the current canon as seen in the 66 books of the Bible then any number of additional books could be added to the degredation or contradiction of the authentic word of God. Or should we begin to question Revelation and 2 Peter also since it was rather late in its acceptance relative to the other books?

 

[RobertMazar]

As a Catholic I do not believe that the Apocrypha Books are not inspired. However I still own and read the Catholic Version(New American Bible Copyright 1971) of the Holy Bible. I also own and read the King James Version of the Holy Bible. 8-)

 

[francisdesales]

And so in remedy should we allow all additional books who claim to be part of the word of God to be included? Perhaps the Magdalene Gospel should be added or the Nag Hammadai Documents, or maybe the Diatessaron...where does it end?

Josh,

The community had heard God's revelation with their own ears. Christ's teachings were given orally. This established the paradigm for the first Chrisitans, HOW God revealed Himself to the Apostles. These apostles later wrote letters to these same communities. Upon their deaths, the community still had men and women who had heard the revelation and knew it. There were leaders tasked with upholding this understanding - what we call Apostolic Tradition.

With this in mind, this body of teaching in the daily lives of Catholics, they were able to distinguish true and false writings. They were able to distinguish useful letters, but not classify them as inspired. And so, the Church formed a canon, a table of contents for a collection of writings that would be considered as God's Word as judged by the Community, the Church.

And thus, the community vouches for the veracity of the Sacred Scriptures. The Gospel of Thomas is not allowed in because the body of teachings given by the Apostles does NOT match the Gospel of Thomas. Thus, it is rejected by the community.

Public revelation is finished. (by the way, this is one example of Apostolic Tradition, since this is nowhere in the Bible, yet everyone believes it....) All that remains to be done is delve into the Scripture and mine the hidden treasures that God has left within them and apply them to our lives today, 2000 years later.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

The community had heard God's revelation with their own ears. Christ's teachings were given orally. This established the paradigm for the first Chrisitans, HOW God revealed Himself to the Apostles. These apostles later wrote letters to these same communities. Upon their deaths, the community still had men and women who had heard the revelation and knew it. There were leaders tasked with upholding this understanding - what we call Apostolic Tradition.

Even as much as I like reading such early Church Fathers as Papias, Ignatius, and and Irenaeus I still don't hold them as infallible in their writtings. They recieved early traditions but there is no gurantee as to their validity of source. For example tradition is what we use largely to determine the authors of the books in the NT, but tradition is very divided sometimes on who wrote what. For Hebrews a long list trailing from Paul to Barnabas to Clement has been suggested. They can only tell us what they have heard from earlier people, but even that is not guranteed. Now obviously the books that self-identify their author such as "Paul, a bondservant of Christ" are self explanatory, but for those that don't that is a small example of how tradition can sometimes conflict and is not for sure.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Even as much as I like reading such early Church Fathers as Papias, Ignatius, and and Irenaeus I still don't hold them as infallible in their writtings.

Neither do we. The individual Fathers are not infallible. But when speaking as a group, they ARE the Church's voice, led by the Spirit. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. These Fathers, when speaking as a "body", give us an accurate understanding of the correct interpretation of Scriptures.

They recieved early traditions but there is no gurantee as to their validity of source. For example tradition is what we use largely to determine the authors of the books in the NT, but tradition is very divided sometimes on who wrote what. For Hebrews a long list trailing from Paul to Barnabas to Clement has been suggested. They can only tell us what they have heard from earlier people, but even that is not guranteed.

We Catholics understand two "Traditions". The first is Apostolic Tradition, and its source is God. It is an unchangeable teaching passed from the Apostles to even today. An example is the idea that there will be no more public revelation. Not in the Bible. But we all believe it because it is considered Apostolic Tradition. The second "tradition" are disciplines of the Church, instituted by the Church of a particular day and place. It may or may not still have a usefulness in the body of believers - but its intent was to bring people closer to Christ. It is changeable. An example is the tradition in the West that priests are to be unmarried and celibate.

The authors of the various books of the Bible falls into the second class of tradition. They are opinions that have not been defined by the universal Church. People are free to present their opinions, as long as they fall within the norm of acceptance (Caesar Augustus didn't write any of our Scriptures, for example). Most of the books of the New Testament do not have an author named as part of the inspired work. The Gospels do not. And some of Paul's works do not. I don't think it is necessary for us to KNOW the actual human author, although it was important when the Church first brought together the letters to form the canon.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Neither do we. The individual Fathers are not infallible. But when speaking as a group, they ARE the Church's voice, led by the Spirit.

That's about as bad as saying that Paul, Peter, and James in their writings were not individually infallible in their writings but when then they were put together in the Bible they make up for each others deficiencies. That's a trial and error approach for understanding the Chruch Fathers, saying that a doctrine repeated by more than one Father, thus having more support by them, must be correct while other doctrines that may be fallible may differ from Father to Father and do not form a uniform body of opinion on doctrine. I cannot honor that as an absolute guide, and I do not believe all the traditions I have read. Though no doubt Iraneaus, for example, is an excellent apologist and correctly relayed the word of God to the pagans in his Against Heresies. But certain traditions cannot all be counted on.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. These Fathers, when speaking as a "body", give us an accurate understanding of the correct interpretation of Scriptures.

Nonetheless, they are no different than any other God-fearing authority figure or theologian and are to be weighted with Athenagoras and Thomas Aquinas (for example), for they equally present good and true doctrines but are not themselves infallible.

We Catholics understand two "Traditions". The first is Apostolic Tradition, and its source is God.

You can't know that. And even if a teaching from the Apostles, which is not recorded in the Bible, was passed down it does not prevent one from mishearing or misquoting the Apostles. Even in the Bible itself we see Paul write in 2 Corinthians to correct a misinterpretation of Paul's first letter that he wanted them to completely stay away from all unbelivers, to the point of hindering the Gospel. Also straight up rumors were spoken of Paul, by people misrepresenting what he taught (thus why Paul often had to defend what he had originally taught them). Thus we see the Apostles can be misunderstood and even in so little a time span as between two epistles in the Bible, now given 40+ years of oral tradition something could definately get out of whack.

It is an unchangeable teaching passed from the Apostles to even today.

Nowhere are we told that.

An example is the idea that there will be no more public revelation.

The gify of phrophecy is still alive but does that mean we should accept Ellen G. White?

But we all believe it because it is considered Apostolic Tradition.

I say evalute such things with caution and a grain of salt, with the Bible being the heavier weight on the otherside of the scale. Not all tradition is wrong, but equally not all tradition is right.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

I'm just asking for some reasonability. You can't expect me to believe something that isn't a necessary conclusion, just as if I gave insincere reasons to believe in God to an atheist then I would get nowhere.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

That's about as bad as saying that Paul, Peter, and James in their writings were not individually infallible in their writings but when then they were put together in the Bible they make up for each others deficiencies.

Josh,

I disagree. The Apostles were clearly given a special status in the eyes of the Church, well above any individual bishop that would follow. It was to them that Christ gave His body of teachings. The writings of James and so forth stand because of the recognition of the Church as being Apostolic writings.

But certain traditions cannot all be counted on.

Again, if they claim to be traceable to the Apostles, according to the Church, they are just as valid as the Scriptures, since both comes from God. But if a tradition is determined to follow later on, then it might merely be useful and then discarded at some point - or not.

Nonetheless, they are no different than any other God-fearing authority figure or theologian and are to be weighted with Athenagoras and Thomas Aquinas (for example), for they equally present good and true doctrines but are not themselves infallible.

Sure, the individual Fathers are not infallible. It is only the office of the Bishops in union with the Pope who can tell US the correct definition of an article of our faith, since they are given the power to bind and loosen, guided by the Spirit. In these definitions, however, they most certainly do call out to the "mind" of the Church, searching for the Spirit's revelation through the "sense of the faithful". Definitions are not spoken from on high without the faithful, because it is OUR faith, the CHURCH'S faith in Christ. We believe the Spirit comes to US as a Body, but to the Bishops and Pope when making definitions authoritatively in a special manner.

And even if a teaching from the Apostles, which is not recorded in the Bible, was passed down it does not prevent one from mishearing or misquoting the Apostles.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. Gal 1:8-11

We believe that the Gospel preached, whether orally or in written form, is from God, even though men present it (it doesn't come to our minds without man teaching it). It is a matter of belief that Paul was not lying when he said the above. We also believe what Paul wrote to Timothy, that the Church was the pillar and foundation of the truth. We also believe that the Holy Spirit would be given to this Church to lead it to all truth. Thus, if one believes the Apostolic message, one necessarily has to believe that God is protecting it. It is not a message of men, but of God. We trust that God will protect what He desires to protect. Misinformation will then not filter into the teachings protected by God.

The gify of phrophecy is still alive but does that mean we should accept Ellen G. White?

My point is that there will be no more public revelation. God has given us the core of our teachings already. Private revelations given to people who claim to have been touched by God are not required to be believed. Even Fatima or Lourdes. They may be worthy of our belief, but we are not required to believe them, because God has completed public revelation with His Son's coming in the Flesh.

I say evalute such things with caution and a grain of salt, with the Bible being the heavier weight on the otherside of the scale. Not all tradition is wrong, but equally not all tradition is right.

Said that way, I can agree with your statement in large part. As I have said before, we judge whether something is an Apostolic Tradition if it does not contradict Scriptures, and was taught by the Church very early. In most cases, Apostolic Tradition refers to HOW we interpret the Scriptures, esp. the difficult passages. Christianity is centered on a person, Jesus Christ. He gave us a Revelation about God. He gave that teaching to His picked followers and commanded them to spread the Word. There is no indication that EVERYTHING they taught are found within the bible - however, we KNOW that whatever oral teachings may exist CANNOT contradict the Bible.

At the end of the day, then, the bible is a major measuring stick for our source of teachings. What we disagree with Protestants over this matter is the use of "Solo". Alone. This eliminates the Church's understanding of those very same Scriptures, opening the door to private interpretation. Honestly, I don't see private interpretation outside of the Church's understanding at the gist of the Bible or Christ's personal teachings to the Apostles. Thus, I have to disagree with the whole concept.

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the lack of rhetoric, stereotyping and emotionalism found in other posts.

Brother in Christ

 

[francisdesales]

I'm just asking for some reasonability. You can't expect me to believe something that isn't a necessary conclusion, just as if I gave insincere reasons to believe in God to an atheist then I would get nowhere.

What do you mean by "necessary conclusions"? Obviously, our beliefs rest on the idea that the Bible is INDEED the Word of God. Otherwise, everything in it is not a necessary conclusion. I know there are "necessary conclusions" on some beliefs, but on others, they depend on a "proper" reading of Scriptures.

Trinity. Is that a necessary belief from the Bible alone? I don't think it is. That is why there were numerous heresies, interpretations of Scripture that the Church determined were incorrect. Thus, the Church vouches for what IS a necessary conclusion. This is based on God's protection. If God is not protecting the Church, we are left to our own devices, opinions, and so forth on what God has revealed.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

It is only the office of the Bishops in union with the Pope who can tell US the correct definition of an article of our faith,

This is probably the one place where we would differ. I believe that only the Spirit can hold that office. Now the Spirit can speak through any man, even your local Pastor as to the proper interpretation of Scripture if God has revealed something to him. Of course now whether it comes from the Pope or your local Pastor we should always still be like the Bereans and double check the Scriptures with the proposed interpretation and not just "take their word for it" (because they are not infallible - they are men) and often if you are close in your walk with God the Spirit will confirm the word to you personally if it is true. But I object to the idea that the Pope and bishops have a monopoly on exposing proper "faith articles". They most certainly may have some authority since they are Church government but they are men, and just like ordinary Pastors they are subject to being wrong. The Catholic Church has also through many, many councils revised doctrines over and over again (perhaps for the better, but it goes to show that it is not a perfected process), and such is the situation with all Churches. You can never reach the "level playing field" with absolute revelation of the Bible, its a constantly advancing understanding as the Holy Spirit himself (not the Pope) reveals the Word of God to the believer who reads with a ready heart (good soil for the word to grow in).

Now there is the secondary matter and difference of opinion between us of whether the Pope is really ordained by God, but this seems more suited in a thread that focused more on Protestant and Catholic differences, and how Church government works.

Said that way, I can agree with your statement in large part. As I have said before, we judge whether something is an Apostolic Tradition if it does not contradict Scriptures, and was taught by the Church very early. In most cases, Apostolic Tradition refers to HOW we interpret the Scriptures, esp. the difficult passages. Christianity is centered on a person, Jesus Christ. He gave us a Revelation about God. He gave that teaching to His picked followers and commanded them to spread the Word. There is no indication that EVERYTHING they taught are found within the bible - however, we KNOW that whatever oral teachings may exist CANNOT contradict the Bible.

Thank you. And yes I think I can agree with most of what you said here as well. And of course knowing additional teachings that came from the Apostles themselves would be very valuable, but I must by nature be cautious and sceptical so that I am not "carried about by every wind of doctrine." I must truely know it came from the Apostles faithfully conveyed and also that it is not pseudographia (writings using another person's name and reputation).

Actually I have a suggestion. Since it seems Catholicism is the hot-button topic among the natives of late, why don't we put this into a practical test and truely evaluate what we have been generalizing on. If my memory serves me right (correct me if I'm wrong), you say that transsubstantiation is such a doctrine passed down orally but not in the Scripture, thus (obviously) why you would defend such a tradition as you do now. Why don't you make a thread on it, so that you can inject some reasonableness into the topic by spearheading it and molding/presenting it in the manner you wish, and do so with support with actual quotes of such an early doctrine that mentions it being part of the Apostolic tradition. Then we can discuss and evalute the truthfulness and/or meaning of such texts/quotes. I honestly would enjoy such a straight-shot approach in comparison to all this "Catholic hubub" nonsense that's been going on recently.

At the end of the day, then, the bible is a major measuring stick for our source of teachings. What we disagree with Protestants over this matter is the use of "Solo". Alone. This eliminates the Church's understanding of those very same Scriptures, opening the door to private interpretation.

Once again I lay emphasis on the personal teaching of the Holy Spirit. Continual studying will yield spiritual understanding, and that comes of the Spirit alone. You may learn multitudinous revelations from other men who have studied, but it always comes down to the Spirit personally confirming/convicting you of such revelations; and plus where do you think the revelations which such men (assuming they really did give a true revelation) presented to you came from if not the Spirit? This is why I take exception to merely passing along ancient tradition for the sake of its antiquity. No. There is no sense in it. Ancient tradition is not infallible, thus must always be measured against the Word and the revelation of the Holy Spirit. And I mean what I say about the Holy Spirit having the final word, it's not the Pope's job/gift to convey to you absolute, proper doctrine.

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the lack of rhetoric, stereotyping and emotionalism found in other posts.

No problem. That's how I work. And I honestly hope you take me up on my proposition above for making a straight-forward thread so that all this hubub can quit beating around the "generalization bush," so that we can actually get to the heart of some specific issues.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

What do you mean by "necessary conclusions"? Obviously, our beliefs rest on the idea that the Bible is INDEED the Word of God. Otherwise, everything in it is not a necessary conclusion. I know there are "necessary conclusions" on some beliefs, but on others, they depend on a "proper" reading of Scriptures.

Don't read to much into that. I was merely talking in terms of logic. You present me with evidence and if evidence weighs in favor of it being correct then I can reach a reasonable conclusion. Of course for serious matters prayer and meditation would be in order to hear from the Holy Spirit, but mainly that's what I was refering to. This merely goes in conjunction with what I was saying about me being cautious for the sake of not being "carried about by every wind of doctrine".

God Bless,

~Josh