The Protestant Canon

[beng]

and beng, this quoted verse stuff is all messed up. you can't argue without a doubt, and i'm not sure that i can either on this one. I would suggest we call it a draw on this stance. if you want to keep going I will, but I don't think it will be very productive for anyone, and it will take a while.

Just got up this morning.

Probably do some research today.

But concerning the above, well, Circle_Master whatever you believe is up to you. If you seems to be sure that you can't be convince then by all means I would not waste the time.

And, obviously, I'm not doubting a single bit that Christ and Paul quoted from Sirach."So what if it's not a direct quote? Most if not ALL of the quotes from OT scripture are not direct and exact. They (Jews) don't even have OT canon like they have now anyway." <--- would be my position.

[beng]

Ok some more response to Protestant's objections

3. Though some of the early leaders of the church accepted them, many did not—Athanasius, Origen, and Jerome, to name a few.

This objection is very weak. Why? Because this could be said to ALL of the books in the canon. Heck, this could also be said about ALL the books that didn't make it to the Canon, example: Didache, SHeperd of Hermes etc

"Making canon ain't easy" <--- my quote .

4. The evidence that Augustine accepted the Apocrypha is at best ambiguous. For one thing, he omits Baruch and includes 1 Esdras, thus accepting one and rejecting another in contrast to the Council of Trent. For another, he seemed to change his mind later about the validity of the Apocrypha.

I really don't know why Erwin W. Lutzer (the author of the article) single out St Augustine. Because this 4th objection is actually the same as 3rd objection. Thus my answer would be the same.

Maybe, Lutzer singled out St Augustine because he's one of those MANY Protestant who want to put Augustine into their camp. Calling St Augustine the proto-protestant. which is obviously not even close to the truth.

Even Lutzer put this in the end:

"Augustine, as mentioned, argued in favor of the Apocrypha, though he later seemed to give them a kind of secondary canonicity. His testimony, though important, is not entirely clear."

So I don't understand what he's getting at.

7. The content of the Apocrypha is sub-biblical. Some of the stories are clearly fanciful. Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith have the earmarks of legend; the authors of these books even give hints along the way that the stories are not to be taken seriously.

What is more, these books have historical errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B.C. and also when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B.C., which would make him at least 209 years old; yet according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years. The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.

These inaccuracies are inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration which teaches that when God inspires a book it is free from all errors.

Let me go to 7 cause I got material for this one.

It's from James (Jimmy) Akin. (click) A convert whose story you can find on the first "Surprised By Truth" by Patrick Madrid. His story is touching. He also involves in many apologetics. Well I did say that some of our best apologist come from Protestantism. It's like repeating the story of St Paul who was a convert from Judaism and became our prominent "apostle".

Q: How can the book of Judith be true if it says in its very first verse that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians when he was really the king of the Babylonians?

A: Consider the situation: The book of Judith is about a devout woman named Judith--a name which means "Lady Jew." She battles a general sent by Nebuchadnezzar--the greatest single individual who was an enemy of Israel. He is pictured as the leader of the Assyrians--the other great enemy of the people of Israel.

Let's transpose this into a 20th century American context. Judith--"Lady Jew"--is the personification of all that is good in her nation, rather like Miss America is supposed to be (in reality, of course, the current Miss America contest is a joke, but the concept of Miss America as the personification of the nation predates that; in fact, there was a superheroine in Golden Age comic books who was named Miss America). Nebuchadnezzar, during the period he was persecuting the Jews, was the personification of evil and the greatest individual opposer of the nation, would correspond in the 20th century to someone like Adolph Hitler. The Assyrians, the other great enemy of the nation, would correspond in a 20th century American context to the Soviet Union (which, besides the Nazis, was regarded in the Cold War as the other great modern enemy of America).

Now suppose you picked up a book about a conflict between Miss America and a general sent to conquer America by Adolph Hitler, Premier of the Soviet Union. You would know instantly that what you were reading was not intended to be a historical account, but a parable (or at the very least a symbolically cloaked retelling of a historical event).

In the same way, any Jew in the ancient world reading Judith would know instantly that he was reading a parabolic rather than a historical work. Every Jew back then knew perfectly well that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Babylonians, not the Assyrians, just as every American today knows that Adolph Hitler was the German Fuehrer, not the Premier of the Soviet Union.

This is, in fact, why Nebuchadnezzar is pictured as king of the Assyrians in Judith 1:1--so that the reader will be immediately cued into the fact that he is reading a parable. The book shouts "Parable!" from its very first verse.

If people today don't recognize this, it is because they either haven't thought it out, are unfamiliar with ancient history and modes of writing, or don't give the ancient Jews enough credit for knowing their own history and thinking we, today, know it better than they did. The ancient Jews, at least the ones reading and writing literature, were not a bunch of ignorant bumpkins. They were very, very sophisticated, with a rich and highly developed literature, and it is a comment on the lack of sophistication of some moderns that this objection is thrown up.

Another answer would be from Mark Shea. Which you could find here (click). In fact his answers also answer many of Lutzer's other objections.

Interesting to note that Mark Shea's myth 5 answer Lutzer's objection number 4.

Myth 3

The deuterocanonical books contain historical, geographical, and moral errors, so they can't be inspired Scripture.

This myth might be raised when it becomes clear that the allegation that the deuterocanonical books were "added" by the Catholic Church is fallacious. This myth is built on another attempt to distinguish between the deuterocanonical books and "true Scripture." Let's examine it.

First, from a certain perspective, there are "errors" in the deuterocanonical books. The book of Judith, for example, gets several points of history and geography wrong. Similarly Judith, that glorious daughter of Israel, lies her head off (well, actually, it's wicked King Holofernes' head that comes off). And the Angel Raphael appears under a false name to Tobit. How can Catholics explain that such "divinely inspired" books would endorse lying and get their facts wrong? The same way we deal with other incidents in Scripture where similar incidents of lying or "errors" happen.

Let's take the problem of alleged "factual errors" first. The Church teaches that to have an authentic understanding of Scripture we must have in mind what the author was actually trying to assert, the way he was trying to assert it, and what is incidental to that assertion.

For example, when Jesus begins the parable of the Prodigal Son saying, "There was once a man with two sons," He is not shown to be a bad historian when it is proven that the man with two sons He describes didn't actually exist. So too, when the prophet Nathan tells King David the story of the "rich man" who stole a "poor man's" ewe lamb and slaughtered it, Nathan is not a liar if he cannot produce the carcass or identify the two men in his story. In strict fact, there was no ewe lamb, no theft, and no rich and poor men. These details were used in a metaphor to rebuke King David for his adultery with Bathsheba. We know what Nathan was trying to say and the way he was trying to say it. Likewise, when the Gospels say the women came to the tomb at sunrise, there is no scientific error here. This is not the assertion of the Ptolemiac theory that the sun revolves around the earth. These and other examples which could be given are not "errors" because they're not truth claims about astronomy or historical events.

Similarly, both Judith and Tobit have a number of historical and geographical errors, not because they're presenting bad history and erroneous geography, but because they're first-rate pious stories that don't pretend to be remotely interested with teaching history or geography, any more than the Resurrection narratives in the Gospels are interested in astronomy. Indeed, the author of Tobit goes out of his way to make clear that his hero is fictional. He makes Tobit the uncle of Ahiqar, a figure in ancient Semitic folklore like "Jack the Giant Killer" or "Aladdin." Just as one wouldn't wave a medieval history textbook around and complain about a tale that begins "once upon a time when King Arthur ruled the land," so Catholics are not reading Tobit and Judith to get a history lesson.

Very well then, but what of the moral and theological "errors"? Judith lies. Raphael gives a false name. So they do. In the case of Judith lying to King Holofernes in order to save her people, we must recall that she was acting in light of Jewish understanding as it had developed until that time. This meant that she saw her deception as acceptable, even laudable, because she was eliminating a deadly foe of her people. By deceiving Holofernes as to her intentions and by asking the Lord to bless this tactic, she was not doing something alien to Jewish Scripture or Old Testament morality. Another biblical example of this type of lying is when the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh about the birth of Moses. They lied and were justified in lying because Pharaoh did not have a right to the truth - if they told the truth, he would have killed Moses. If the book of Judith is to be excluded from the canon on this basis, so must Exodus.

With respect to Raphael, it's much more dubious that the author intended, or that his audience understood him to mean, "Angels lie. So should you." On the contrary, Tobit is a classic example of an "entertaining angels unaware" story (cf. Heb. 13:2). We know who Raphael is all along. When Tobit cried out to God for help, God immediately answered him by sending Raphael. But, as is often the case, God's deliverance was not noticed at first. Raphael introduced himself as "Azariah," which means "Yahweh helps," and then rattles off a string of supposed mutual relations, all with names meaning things like "Yahweh is merciful," "Yahweh gives," and "Yahweh hears." By this device, the author is saying (with a nudge and a wink), "Psst, audience. Get it?" And we, of course, do get it, particularly if we're reading the story in the original Hebrew. Indeed, by using the name "Yahweh helps," Raphael isn't so much "lying" about his real name as he is revealing the deepest truth about who God is and why God sent him to Tobit. It's that truth and not any fluff about history or geography or the fun using an alias that the author of Tobit aims to tell.

Next, I'll lump Lutzer's objection #6 and #8 into one and answer them with, again, Mark Shea's answer.

6. The first official council of the Roman Catholic church to ratify these books was at the Council of Trent in 1546, only twenty-nine years after Luther posted his ninety-five theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg. The acceptance of these books at this time was convenient since the books were being quoted against Luther. For example, 2 Maccabees speaks of prayers for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46) and another book teaches salvation by works (Tob. 12:19).

Even so, the Roman church accepted only eleven of the fifteen books; we naturally would expect that these books, since they were together for so many centuries, would be either accepted or rejected together.

8. Finally, and most important, we must remember that the Apocrypha was never part of the Old Testament Hebrew canon. When Christ was on earth, he frequently quoted from the Old Testament but never from the Apocryphal books because they were never a part of the Hebrew canon.

Again from Mark Shea from the same "7 myth"

Myth 1

The deuterocanonical books are not found in the Hebrew Bible. They were added by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent after Luther rejected it.

The background to this theory goes like this: Jesus and the Apostles, being Jews, used the same Bible Jews use today. However, after they passed from the scene, muddled hierarchs started adding books to the Bible either out of ignorance or because such books helped back up various wacky Catholic traditions that were added to the gospel. In the 16th century, when the Reformation came along, the first Protestants, finally able to read their Bibles without ecclesial propaganda from Rome, noticed that the Jewish and Catholic Old Testaments differed, recognized this medieval addition for what it was and scraped it off the Word of God like so many barnacles off a diamond. Rome, ever ornery, reacted by officially adding the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent (1564-1565) and started telling Catholics "they had always been there."

This is a fine theory. The problem is that its basis in history is gossamer thin. As we'll see in a moment, accepting this myth leads to some remarkable dilemmas a little further on.

The problems with this theory are first, it relies on the incorrect notion that the modern Jewish Bible is identical to the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles. This is false. In fact, the Old Testament was still very much in flux in the time of Christ and there was no fixed canon of Scripture in the apostolic period. Some people will tell you that there must have been since, they say, Jesus held people accountable to obey the Scriptures. But this is also untrue. For in fact, Jesus held people accountable to obey their conscience and therefore, to obey Scripture insofar as they were able to grasp what constituted "Scripture."

Consider the Sadducees. They only regarded the first five books of the Old Testament as inspired and canonical. The rest of the Old Testament was regarded by them in much the same way the deuterocanon is regarded by Protestant Christians today: nice, but not the inspired Word of God. This was precisely why the Sadducees argued with Jesus against the reality of the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33: they couldn't see it in the five books of Moses and they did not regard the later books of Scripture which spoke of it explicitly (such as Isaiah and 2 Maccabees) to be inspired and canonical. Does Jesus say to them "You do greatly err, not knowing Isaiah and 2 Maccabees"? Does He bind them to acknowledge these books as canonical? No. He doesn't try to drag the Sadducees kicking and screaming into an expanded Old Testament. He simply holds the Sadducees accountable to take seriously the portion of Scripture they do acknowledge: that is, He argues for the resurrection based on the five books of the Law. But of course, this doesn't mean Jesus commits Himself to the Sadducees' whittled-down canon.

When addressing the Pharisees, another Jewish faction of the time, Jesus does the same thing. These Jews seem to have held to a canon resembling the modern Jewish canon, one far larger than that of the Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections of Scripture. That's why Christ and the Apostles didn't hesitate to argue with them from the books they acknowledged as Scripture. But as with the Sadducees, this doesn't imply that Christ or the Apostles limited the canon of Scripture only to what the Pharisees acknowledged.

When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture - the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek - which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture. In fact, we find that the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint (and its particular translation of various Old Testament passages) as Scripture. It's a strange irony that one of the favorite passages used in anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8. In this passage Christ condemns "teaching as doctrines human traditions." This verse has formed the basis for countless complaints against the Catholic Church for supposedly "adding" to Scripture man-made traditions, such as the "merely human works" of the deuterocanononical books. But few realize that in Mark 7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

But there's the rub: The Septuagint version of Scripture, from which Christ quoted, includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were supposedly "added" by Rome in the 16th century. And this is by no means the only citation of the Septuagint in the New Testament. In fact, fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint. So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible, anyway? Because the Jews who formulated the modern Jewish canon were a) not interested in apostolic teaching and, b) driven by a very different set of concerns from those motivating the apostolic community.

In fact, it wasn't until the very end of the apostolic age that the Jews, seeking a new focal point for their religious practice in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, zeroed in with white hot intensity on Scripture and fixed their canon at the rabbinical gathering, known as the "Council of Javneh" (sometimes called "Jamnia"), about A.D. 90. Prior to this point in time there had never been any formal effort among the Jews to "define the canon" of Scripture. In fact, Scripture nowhere indicates that the Jews even had a conscious idea that the canon should be closed at some point.

The canon arrived at by the rabbis at Javneh was essentially the mid-sized canon of the Palestinian Pharisees, not the shorter one used by the Sadducees, who had been practically annihilated during the Jewish war with Rome. Nor was this new canon consistent with the Greek Septuagint version, which the rabbis regarded rather xenophobically as "too Gentile-tainted." Remember, these Palestinian rabbis were not in much of a mood for multiculturalism after the catastrophe they had suffered at the hands of Rome. Their people had been slaughtered by foreign invaders, the Temple defiled and destroyed, and the Jewish religion in Palestine was in shambles. So for these rabbis, the Greek Septuagint went by the board and the mid-sized Pharisaic canon was adopted. Eventually this version was adopted by the vast majority of Jews - though not all. Even today Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version, not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Javneh. In other words, the Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Catholic Old Testament, including the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

But remember that by the time the Jewish council of Javneh rolled around, the Catholic Church had been in existence and using the Septuagint Scriptures in its teaching, preaching, and worship for nearly 60 years, just as the Apostles themselves had done. So the Church hardly felt the obligation to conform to the wishes of the rabbis in excluding the deuterocanonical books any more than they felt obliged to follow the rabbis in rejecting the New Testament writings. The fact is that after the birth of the Church on the day of Pentecost, the rabbis no longer had authority from God to settle such issues. That authority, including the authority to define the canon of Scripture, had been given to Christ's Church.

Thus, Church and synagogue went their separate ways, not in the Middle Ages or the 16th century, but in the 1st century. The Septuagint, complete with the deuterocanononical books, was first embraced, not by the Council of Trent, but by Jesus of Nazareth and his Apostles.

Next objection

5. Even the Roman Catholic church made a distinction between the Apocrypha and the other books of the Bible prior to the Reformation. For example, Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg, in 1518 published A Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. His commentary, however, did not include the Apocrypha.

From newadvent.org

The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. They are not felicitous, and it would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, "first") is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the "Apocrypha". These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.

It should be noted that protocanonical and deuterocanonical are modern terms, not having been used before the sixteenth century. As they are of cumbersome length, the latter (being frequently used in this article) will be often found in the abbreviated form deutero.

As for Cajetan, well, it's not like there are no objection regarding various books in the canon. Cajetan is one of those nice people who object some and agreed to some. For Catholic this doesn't matter since all authority reside within the church. They can say anything they want, but if the Church with it's infallible charisma decide otherwise then it's the church teaching that we would accept. If this happen with Protestantism, the disagreeing party could always make a new church. Not so with Catholicism.

Again from newadvent.org on the Epistle of James. Shows how Cajetan (and Erasmus) even kinda agree with Luther on James.

II. TRADITION AS TO CANONICITY

In the first centuries of the Church the authenticity of the Epistle was doubted by some, and amongst others by Theodore of Mopsuestia; it is therefore deuterocanonical. It is wanting in the Muratorian Canon, and because of the silence of several of the Western Churches regarding it, Eusebius classes it amongst the Antilegomena or contested writings (Hist. eccl., III, xxv; II, xxiii); St. Jerome gives the like information (De vir. ill., ii), but adds that with time its authenticity became universally admitted. In the sixteenth century its inspired nature was contested by Erasmus and Cajetan; Luther strongly repudiated the Epistle as "a letter of straw", and "unworthy of the apostolic Spirit", and this solely for dogmatic reasons, and owing to his preconceived notions, for the epistle refutes his heretical doctrine that Faith alone is necessary for salvation. The Council of Trent dogmatically defined the Epistle of St. James to be canonical. As the solution of this question of the history of the canonicity of the Epistle depends chiefly on the testimony of the ancient Fathers, it remains to be seen whether it is quoted by them as Scripture. (a) In the Latin Church it was known by St. Clement of Rome (before A.D. 100), the Pastor Hermas (about A.D. 150), St. Irenæus (125?-202?, 208), Tertullian (d. about 240), St. Hilary (d. 366), St. Philaster (d. 385), St. Ambrose (d. 397), Pope Damasus (in the canon of about A.D. 382), St. Jerome (346-420), Rufinus (d. 410), St. Augustine (430), and its canonicity is unquestioned by them. (b) In the Greek Church, Clement of Alexandria (d. 217), Origen (d. 254), St. Athanasius (d. 373), St. Dionysius the Areopagite (about A.D. 500), etc., considered it undoubtedly as a sacred writing. © In the Syrian Church, the Peshito, although omitting the minor Catholic Epistles, gives that of St. James; St. Ephraem uses it frequently in his writings. Moreover, the most notorius heretics of Syria recognised it as genuine. Thus we find that Nestorius ranked it in the Canon of Sacred Books, and James of Edessa adduces the testimony of James, v, 14. The Epistle is found in the Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Armenian versions. Although, therefore, the canonicity of the Epistle of St. James was questioned by a few during the first centuries, there are to be found from the very earliest ages, in different parts of the Church, numerous testimonies in favour of its canonicity. From the end of the third century its acceptance as inspired, and as the work of St. James, has been universal, as clearly appears from the various lists of the Sacred Books drawn up since the fourth century.

Edited January 1, 2004 by beng

[beng]

Thanks to my comrade at http://forums.catholic-convert.com who directed me to links and helped me.

[MrsFrozen]

Thank you, Circle. I will bookmark the page and look at it.

Happy New Year!

[Circle_Master]

a) you didn't have to paste all of that. the webpage is quite able on its own.

b) This was great

People don't talk much about the deuterocanon these days. The folks who do are mostly Christians, and they usually fall into two general groupings: Catholics - who usually don't know their Bibles very well and, therefore, don't know much about the deuterocanonical books, and Protestants - who may know their Bibles a bit better, though their Bibles don't have the deuterocanonical books in them anyway, so they don't know anything about them either. With the stage thus set for informed ecumenical dialogue, it's no wonder most people think the deuterocanon is some sort of particle weapon recently perfected by the Pentagon.

and c) I found this interesting, which I did not know

Sirah preface "You therefore are now invited to read it in a spirit of attentive good will, with indulgence for any apparent failure on our part, despite earnest efforts, in the interpretation of particular passages."

2 Maccabees opening

"I will bring my own story to an end here too. If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do."

read in contrast to Luke:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

[beng]

a) you didn't have to paste all of that.  the webpage is quite able on its own.

b)  This was great

and c) I found this interesting, which I did not know

Sirah preface "You therefore are now invited to read it in a spirit of attentive good will, with indulgence for any apparent failure on our part, despite earnest efforts, in the interpretation of particular passages."

2 Maccabees opening

"I will bring my own story to an end here too. If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do."

read in contrast to Luke:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

Well, yeah.

We Catholics never hide the truth about Sirach and 2 Maccabees.

And there are explanations in the website to those openings which suggest uninspired writings.

It's nice that you find such bold statement in Luke. but then again you won't find similiar bold sattement in MANY of the other books.

Heck even on the same page Mark Shea continue to explain how other canonical books say tomething that may indicate that they are uninspired (complete with text)

Edited January 1, 2004 by beng

[Circle_Master]

I was just emphasizing that none of the 27 in my canon question their own authority. Even Ecclesiastes which says "The words of the Preacher (Qoholeth), the son of David, king in Jerusalem" as a statement, not questioning.

I don't really find his arguments good on that either. He says "is it reasonable to think that these typically oriental expressions of humility really constitute anything besides a sort of gesture of politeness and the customary downplaying of one's own talents, something common among ancient writers in Middle Eastern cultures?" or in shorter words "he's humble, should we suggest more?" and I would say yes. Because he says basically to check for errors. If he was being led by the Holy Spirit, this doubt would not be in his mind. Mark Shea's example of Paul is a bad one as well because Paul doesn't deny anything he writes, admitting to being sinful doesn't jeopardize his words. Even his argument that Paul didn't know he was baptized.. not good as many of the Apostles had people with him to perform baptisms. So if he didn't know someone he baptized, that is understandable. I am sure John the Baptist didn't remember everyone as well.

His argument against "The early Church Fathers, such as St. Athanasius and St. Jerome (who translated the official Bible of the Catholic Church), rejected the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, and the Catholic Church added these books to the canon at the Council of Trent." is weak as well. He basically says "well, not everyone was right! but the Pope figured it out, and that little synod, so why argue". I would question that and ask "well, how do you know the synod was right, which isn't even an ecumenical council, and what about Augustines later rejection of Baruch who was at the council?" Of course a Catholic would say, tradition affirms it. But this tradition, is built off it.

[beng]

Circle_Master

I was just emphasizing that none of the 27 in my canon question their own authority.  Even Ecclesiastes which says "The words of the Preacher (Qoholeth), the son of David, king in Jerusalem" as a statement, not questioning.

Well, in the article you should read how Paul wasn't sure of his God inspired writings.

I really haven't look enough to other books, but one of these days me or maybe someone should find one or two verses questioning the authority of the books. Nevertheless, these books never say that they have authority either (maybe not all of them).

I don't really find his arguments good on that either.  He says "is it reasonable to think that these typically oriental expressions of humility really constitute anything besides a sort of gesture of politeness and the customary downplaying of one's own talents, something common among ancient writers in Middle Eastern cultures?" or in shorter words "he's humble, should we suggest more?" and I would say yes.  Because he says  basically to check for errors. If he was being led by the Holy Spirit, this doubt would not be in his mind.

Really? So what about the 237462379497 denominations of Protestantism who claim that they are lead by the Holy Spirit?

It's not that the Holy Spirit is wrong, but it's jus that human is weak and vulnerable.

Mark Shea's example of Paul is a bad one as well because Paul doesn't deny anything he writes, admitting to being sinful doesn't jeopardize his words. Even his argument that Paul didn't know he was baptized.. not good as many of the Apostles had people with him to perform baptisms.  So if he didn't know someone he baptized, that is understandable.  I am sure John the Baptist didn't remember everyone as well.

"Bad one" would be according to you, because you don't agree to it. I'd say it makes perfect sense.

And also how Paul differentiate between. "God, Not I" and "I, not God" is a really good argument.

But if you don't want to accept it, what can I say?

His argument against "The early Church Fathers, such as St. Athanasius and St. Jerome (who translated the official Bible of the Catholic Church), rejected the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, and the Catholic Church added these books to the canon at the Council of Trent." is weak as well.

Actually after the Canon was closed, St Jerome accepted the Church authority. He's a Catholic.

He basically says "well, not everyone was right!  but the Pope figured it out, and that little synod, so why argue".

Well, to a Protestant this would sound funny.

But to a Catholic the answer, "Well the Pope figured it out" is very much acceptable because the Pope, if he chooses to exercise it, has infallibility charisma.

Infact, the other protocanonical (Note that this term had never existed had Protestant never subtract the books) would'n't have been protocanonical if the Pope with his Bishops didn't "figured it out"

I would question that and ask "well, how do you know the synod was right, which isn't even an ecumenical council, and what about Augustines later rejection of Baruch who was at the council?"  Of course a Catholic would say, tradition affirms it.  But this tradition, is built off it.

Infallibility is not reserved for ecomunical councils only.

St Augustine's rejection? What else is new? Polycarp, Justin Martyr etc rejected this and that books.

If they follow Protestantism then Polycarp would've created "Chruch of Gospel according to Polycarp" and Justin Martyr would've created a church call "The Not So Latter Day Saint of Justin Martyr Church"

We Catholic acknowledge God given authority. Thus settling such dispute is easy. Breaking unity of the church is grave sin.

Edited January 1, 2004 by beng

[Circle_Master]

Well, in the article you should read how Paul wasn't sure of his God inspired writings.

he attempts something like that, but it really doesn't hold much water

Really? So what about the 237462379497 denominations of Protestantism who claim that they are lead by the Holy Spirit.

What I meant was when it says in 2 Peter 1:21 "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." The verb for "carried along" there is really the idea of a boat being pushed by a sail. This is for Scripture as well, and no protests claim to have infallibility, or the ability to write Scripture.

We Catholic acknowledge God given authority. Thus settling such dispute is easy. Breaking unity of the church is grave sin.

I call it "going with the flow". You can see the results of it today as the stance over the ages has changed even on unam sanctum to mercy to everyone. This is a cultural reaction, not a tradition/biblical one. [by the way, i'm not ignoring the rest, but this last quote sums up your middle chunk - i try to keep things short]

Edited January 1, 2004 by Circle_Master

[beng]

Circle_Master

he attempts something like that, but it really doesn't hold much water

Try to explain Paul's "Not I, but God" and "Not God, But I"

What I meant was when it says in 2 Peter 1:21 "For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."  The verb for "carried along" there is really the idea of a boat being pushed by a sail.  This is for Scripture as well, and no protests claim to have infallibility, or the ability to write Scripture.

Holy Spirit is infallible. If each of 39473264 denominations claim that their interpretation is the right one and they are inspired by Holy Spirit that it is right, then Who is actually right?

I call it "going with the flow".  You can see the results of it today as the stance over the ages has changed even on unam sanctum to mercy to everyone.  This is a cultural reaction, not a tradition/biblical one.  [by the way, i'm not ignoring the rest, but this last quote sums up your middle chunk - i try to keep things short]

Unam Sanctum is old.

Even fathers acknowledge that God could save people according to His own will.

Doctrines never changes. But developped, it does. Like what Newman proposed. Heck, If doctrine never developped we would never have, Trinity, Nicean creed etc.

[Circle_Master]

Holy Spirit is infallible. If each of 39473264 denominations claim that their interpretation is the right one and they are inspired by Holy Spirit that it is right, then Who is actually right?

a) There are some things which a denomination holds as a non-negotiable, it is another to be in a statement of faith.

b) Inspired by the Holy Spirit? I do not doubt that there is much error in our interpretations. Just as there was in the Jewish interpretations as well. However, there are some parts which are non-negotiables which all, (except for the heretical), agree to. Such as salvation by Grace alone.

Unam Sanctum is old.

Even fathers acknowledge that God could save people according to His own will.

Ah, so the Pope was wrong when he gave Unam Sanctum? Just checking what you said.

A developed doctrine can be a changed doctrine. If I said "You need a bathtub." and I said it because the person was poor and couldn't afford one, and then later someone says it means "You need a real bathtub, like an ivory one" that is a development, but also a change. In bringing this back to the Unam Sanctum, you are saying it was changed?

[Katholikos]

QUOTE

The Septuagint was the Bible of the earliest church. The parting of the church from the synagogue was a bitter one. The Septuagint [used in the synagogue] had been regarded as the inspired Word of God. . .[but, because the Christians used it] the synagogue rejected it.

The Church spread the Septuagint, together with its own writings contained in the New Testament, throughout the the world in its missionary activities. The Greek Bible was translated into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Georgian, Arabic, and other languages. . . Until the Protestant Reformation, the canon of the church was the larger canon of the Septuagint; only then did the the Hebrew text of the Old Testament replace the Septuagint.

UNQUOTE

From The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition, Edited by Everett Ferguson, Garland Publishing, 1998, pages 1048, 1049. This is a Protestant text.

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos

[beng]

a) There are some things which a denomination holds as a non-negotiable, it is another to be in a statement of faith.

Really? Why do they condemned each other. What are these negotiable things?

b) Inspired by the Holy Spirit? I do not doubt that there is much error in our interpretations.  Just as there was in the Jewish interpretations as well.  However, there are some parts which are non-negotiables which all, (except for the heretical), agree to.  Such as salvation by Grace alone.

Really? I though Luther said, salvation by FAITH alone. And Calvin practiced a more extreme version of the Sola Fide.

Ah, so the Pope was wrong when he gave Unam Sanctum?  Just checking what you said.

Heh? Wait, I'm confused. Maybe we're talking about a differnt things. I'll check.

A developed doctrine can be a changed doctrine.  If I said "You need a bathtub." and I said it because the person was poor and couldn't afford one, and then later someone says it means "You need a real bathtub, like an ivory one" that is a development, but also a change.  In bringing this back to the Unam Sanctum, you are saying it was changed?

Are you saying that Trinity and Nicean creed are doctrinal changes? What do you think?

Edited January 1, 2004 by beng

[Circle_Master]

I said "You can see the results of it today as the stance over the ages has changed even on unam sanctum to mercy to everyone. This is a cultural reaction, not a tradition/biblical one. [by the way, i'm not ignoring the rest, but this last quote sums up your middle chunk - i try to keep things short]"

and you said

"unam sanctum is old"

"Even fathers acknowledge that God could save people according to His own will."

what are you implying?

salvation by grace alone, salvation by faith alone. i've had grace on my mind a lot, forgive me. they play a large role together anyway

[Katholikos]

QUOTE

When the first-century Christian community moved from its origins in Palestine among Aramaic-speaking people out into the Hellenistic world where Greek was the universal tongue, the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament was widely used among non-Palestinian Jews and quickly became the common Christian version of the scriptures. It included some fourteen additional writings, along with a lengthened version of the Book of Esther, which had not been found in the Hebrew version of the collection of writings. Because the Septuagint had become the canonical form of the Old Testament for the Christian community, these fourteen writings were also regarded as canonical... The Christians, therefore, had a broader base for the scriptures in a normative sense than the Palestinian Jewish community that had produced the central core of the scriptures.

The supporters of the Reformation came to the conclusion that the Apocrypha (those fourteen books from the Septuagint not contained in the Hebrew scriptures)

were of inferior quality . . . and in the course of time eliminated them from their canon.

END QUOTE

Source: Understanding the New Testament, Howard Clark Kee, Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1983, page 384.

Kee is a Methodist minister and biblical scholar.

This was my text for a class I took from Arizona State University in the 'History of the New Testament.'

"The Septuagint was Mark's Bible" (ibid, p. 124).

"Luke's Bible was the Septuagint" (ibid, p. 175).

"Paul drew on his understanding of scripture, exploiting the possibilities of the Greek Septuagint text of the Bible which he used in his evangelism among the Gentiles, and which seems to have been the version with which he was most familiar" (ibid, p. 229).

That's enough examples. The sacred writers of the New Testament used the Septuagint for a reference 86% of the time when they quoted the OT. They also used the Hebrew scriptures, 14% of the time. This indicates that they regarded both as 'scripture,' but preferred the Greek Septuagint. The entire NT is written in (Koine) Greek.

QUOTE

Of 350 quotations of the OT in the NT it is estimated that about 300 are the same as the LXX [septuagint]...From the time of Paul onwards, there can be little doubt that the LXX with the deuterocanonical books was the OT of the Apostolic Church.

It was probably adopted because Greek was the common language of the Mediterranean lands. This acceptance of the sacred books as found in the LXX perseveres in all the ecclesiastical writers of the first three centuries except Melito of Sardis (+ about 193), who cites the Hb canon; the fact of a difference is mentioned by Origen (+ 254), who affirms the right of Christians to employ the deuterocanonical books, even though they are not accepted by the Jews. The same canon is found in all the official canons: the Cheltenham canon, about 350, Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397), and Innocent I (405). . .

END QUOTE

Source: Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, S.J., MacMillan Publishing Co, Inc., New York, 1965, p. 119.

The Greek Septuagint was 'Scripture' to:

Jesus

The Apostles

All the Sacred Writers of the NT

The first Christians

and was used by the Apostles to evangelize the entire Greek-speaking world.

Martin Luther and his ilk decided it "was not Scripture" and all Protestants have followed him since the 16th century. It is not generally known by Protestants that Luther also rejected Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, declaring that they were "not scripture." His followers restored the NT but left the OT in its desecrated state.

Pace bene,

JMJ Likos