Scripture

[dairygirl4u2c]

How did they have the old testament before Jesus was born without the Catholic Church? They knew to follow some of the books that's not disputed. Who were the people that said which books? Were they infallible like the CC?

[cmotherofpirl]

Scriptures mentioned in the NT refer to the Scriptures considered sacred by the Jews.

[Aloysius]

before the age of the New Covenant, the religion of YHWH was not in need of a canon. the scriptures were a living tradition through the life of the people of Israel, and whilst Israel was still in tact it was the living out of this tradition, not the reading of the books, and observance of the law of moses that sustained the religion.

as for authority: there were those who held the seat of Moses. In Christ's time, it was the Pharisees who held the seat of Moses and had authority. they never needed to set a canon, there was no need. it was a living tradition. but they had the authority. Christ said to listen to what they said but not follow what they did.

the scriptures were always divinely inspired. but there was no need in the religion of ancient israel to portion off what was inspired and what was not. the prophets were telling them what God was saying, the religious authorities were regulating the practice and observence of the law of moses as laid down in the Pentatuch, the religion was living and being passed down. it was not until the breakdown of ancient israel, the jewish and Christian diasporas, that made it necessary to lay down: "these are the books you can trust as divinely inspired, but these other ones are fraudulent"

[White Knight]

Plus the Tora only had the first five books of the Old Testment, and like Aloyius said, they lived it as a life-style Tradition, they upheld the Laws of Moses, and when they didn't God Punished them..

[dairygirl4u2c]

So how sure could they be the books they were using were infalilbe? particularly when they were following those other than the Torah.

Was it an unsettled issue whether the leaders you speak of were infallible? Sure, Jesus said do as they say and not as they do, but do you think he meant that strictly with any of their teachings, or as a general rule?

Also, I have a few ideas but thought I'd lets others respond. How would you respond to someone who says, the CC wasn't needed before Jesus to determine scripture, so why is it needed now?

[scardella]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1154729' date='Jan 2 2007, 03:59 PM']
So how sure could they be the books they were using were infalilbe? particularly when they were following those other than the Torah.

Was it an unsettled issue whether the leaders you speak of were infallible? Sure, Jesus said do as they say and not as they do, but do you think he meant that strictly with any of their teachings, or as a general rule?

Also, I have a few ideas but thought I'd lets others respond. How would you respond to someone who says, the CC wasn't needed before Jesus to determine scripture, so why is it needed now?
[/quote]

There was considerable debate even in Jesus' time over what was inspired or not. That's why they talk about the Sadducees not believing in the resurrection of the body, etc. They basically only believed that the Pentateuch (Torah) was inspired, whereas others, eg the Pharisees, regarded much more as inspired. However, there was no clearly defined canon in the sense we speak of. The Jews only defined their understanding of the Old Testament's canon until after they separated themselves completely from the Christians. However, the Christians at the time, made up mostly of non-Jews and diaspora Jews tended to still use the Septuagint as basically defining their canon of the OT, which contains the books Catholics regard as Scriptural that Protestants do not. AFAIK, it was not until Luther that any Christian used the OT as defined by the Jews.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so if there was considerable disagreement, how can we say they knew which books to follow? or were the sadducees who disagreed a small minority?

i don't even know why we say teh bible is infalible other than tradition. there are some passages in teh bible, but to me they seem pretty weak.

could the people in the seat of moses have bound the bible in an infallble sense? are we saying they were infallible?
it seems more like they were peole who should be ollowed gernelaly but weren't necessarily infalible.

Edited June 2, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[MIKolbe]

It would be SOO cool if God would send like a spirit..or even a Holy Spirit, in the name of Jesus, to lead us, His Church, into all truth.. that way, we could answer questions like this and others.....

[Katholikos]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1286585' date='Jun 2 2007, 12:45 PM']so if there was considerable disagreement, how can we say they knew which books to follow? or were the sadducees who disagreed a small minority?[/quote]

The Jews don't "follow the books" to know what to believe and what to do, as Protestants do.

About a thousand years elapsed between the first word of what we now call the Old Testament and the last. The first writing was around the time of David (c. 1000 B.C.) and the last was shortly before before Jesus was born. The Jews did not read their sacred scriptures to know what to believe and practice. Their leaders -- the rabbis -- taught them doctrine and the culture taught them how to be a Jew. As has been said, Judaism is based on oral tradition.

The Torah (the Law) was written and accepted first. Later were gradually added the prophets and the "writings."

There were two collections of Scriptures in existence at the time Christ was born -- one in Hebrew and one that had been translated from Hebrew into Greek for the Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, called the Septuagint.

There was no canon or "rule" defining the Jewish scriptures at the time of Christ. Around the turn of the first Christian century, the Palestinian rabbis felt it necessary to set their canon. This was brought about because of the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. and the loss of Jewish adherents to the Catholic Church. The Palestinian rabbis decided to "circle the wagons." The Church had adopted the Scriptures she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles -- the Greek Septuagint. The Palestinian rabbis declared that no writing could be included in their canon unless it existed in Hebrew. That eliminated the books that had originally been written in Hebrew but the Hb text had been lost and they were preserved only in the Greek (Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], 1 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel) and two books which had originated in Greek (Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees).

[quote]i don't even know why we say teh bible is infalible other than tradition. there are some passages in teh bible, but to me they seem pretty weak.[/quote]

The Church did not find it necessary at first to set the canon of Scriptures. "The emergence of heretical sects with their own sacred books made it imperative for the church to determine the limits of the canon. Likewise, when Christians were persecuted for their faith, it became a matter of utmost importance to know which books could be renounced and which could not be handed over to the imperial police without incurring the guilt of sacrilege." [i](Preface to the RSV)[/i]

Catholics believe that the entire Bible, as originally defined by the Catholic bishops, is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God because the Church founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world teaches us that it is so, and the Church speaks for Christ (Luke 10:16).

The Bible cannot vouch for itself. That's circular reasoning. And it's not a continuous book, but a collection of 73 separate writings.

Likos

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='MIkolbe' post='1286633' date='Jun 2 2007, 03:28 PM']It would be SOO cool if God would send like a spirit..or even a Holy Spirit, in the name of Jesus, to lead us, His Church, into all truth.. that way, we could answer questions like this and others.....
[/quote]
Smarty boots...

[MIKolbe]

i gotta go with what God gave me.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1286712' date='Jun 2 2007, 06:09 PM']There was no canon or "rule" defining the Jewish scriptures at the time of Christ. Around the turn of the first Christian century, the Palestinian rabbis felt it necessary to set their canon. This was brought about because of the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. and the loss of Jewish adherents to the Catholic Church. The Palestinian rabbis decided to "circle the wagons." The Church had adopted the Scriptures she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles -- the Greek Septuagint. The Palestinian rabbis declared that no writing could be included in their canon unless it existed in Hebrew. That eliminated the books that had originally been written in Hebrew but the Hb text had been lost and they were preserved only in the Greek (Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], 1 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel) and two books which had originated in Greek (Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees).
The Church did not find it necessary at first to set the canon of Scriptures. "The emergence of heretical sects with their own sacred books made it imperative for the church to determine the limits of the canon. Likewise, when Christians were persecuted for their faith, it became a matter of utmost importance to know which books could be renounced and which could not be handed over to the imperial police without incurring the guilt of sacrilege." [i](Preface to the RSV)[/i][/quote]

I'm not disagreeing wiht you, but wouldn't the Torah be considered "rule", as it is the Hebrew word for "Law"? There were scribes that were called lawyers set to interpret it.

The development of the Old Testament Scriptures is a long, complicated venture. But, the importance of the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Old Testament) was universally understood by all Jews. The Pharisees and even the apocalyptic/cult-like groups of Jews held the Torah in higher regard then the other writings.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1286768' date='Jun 2 2007, 06:53 PM']I'm not disagreeing wiht you, but wouldn't the Torah be considered "rule", as it is the Hebrew word for "Law"? There were scribes that were called lawyers set to interpret it.

The development of the Old Testament Scriptures is a long, complicated venture. But, the importance of the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Old Testament) was universally understood by all Jews. The Pharisees and even the apocalyptic/cult-like groups of Jews held the Torah in higher regard then the other writings.[/quote]

Absolutely, the Torah was and still is paramount for Jews. But it was not the entire canon. The Prophets, also, were pretty much settled. It was the "writings" that were not. But the "Hebrew Scriptures" were not complete until the canon containing all of the recognized books was set by the Palestinian rabbis. (The Greek-speaking rabbis did not participate.) These books, the rabbis said, and no others.

The NT went through similar stages of development. The "deuterocanon" of the New Testament includes Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. These are the writings that were controversial and didn't gain universal acceptance until well into the fourth century. Other writings were considered scripture by some local churches: the Didache, 1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas, for example. When the Univeral (Catholic) Church made the final decision, the "disputed" books came in, but the others didn't make the cut. The voice of the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church. The Codex Sinaiticus, a fourth century manuscript found in 1844, includes Hermas and Barnabas. Settling the canon of the NT was a long winnowing process. These books, the Church said, and no others.

Again, the Church canonized the Scriptures of the Septuagint that she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles, which included the so-called "deuterocanonical" writings. These were late gaining universal acceptance, perhaps because these were written in Greek and thus were rejected by the rabbis. But rabbis have no authority over which writings Christians accept. They also rejected Christ Himself and all the writings that pertained to Him.

All 73 books of the Bible were canonized at the same time, without any differentiation among them. Tobit is as inspired (God-breathed) as Isaiah, 2 Peter is as inspired as Matthew.

Likos