The same Jewish faith gave us the Septuagint, tgG. The majority of the NT quotes are from the Septuagint. That makes your assertion a very poor proof. If you wish to use the canon chosen by the Jews who rejected Christ, that is your perogative. You have proved nothing.
Indeed yes. This is the collection that was used by the Apostles. Of course the Jews would choose a canon that would not support Christians! If it were up to the Sadducees, there would only be the Torah.
This is still no "proof’ that the Church is “against scripture”.
If this were true, then the research would not support the opposite.
Yes. This is what was passed to us through the paradosis.
You should find a better source than the anti-Catholic Lorraine Beottner, tgG. And, if you want to use Josephus as a reliable source, you might want to actually consider reading some. This will be dangerous for you, as you may be exposed to too much history that supports the Catholic faith!
Josephus used the Septuagint as his Bible. He comments:
“ For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.[Against Apion 1:8]
You are in deep doggy doo doo if you confine yourself to the OT Josephus describes as “only 22 books”!
I think you have stretched yourself grasping at straws (lorraine boettner is a very THIN one) to using Josephus because you can’t cite any NT scripture that “proves” the Septuagint was not used by Jesus and His Apostles.
As we have mentioned, there are as many opinions as there are belly buttons! The outstanding scholarship of these great Fathers of the Church is respected, but even more so, that they all submitted their research to the Church. All of them had doubts because when they wrote, there were no copies of the Deuterocanon written in Hebrew, so there was no way of knowing they were part of the original canon. The discovery of the dead sea scrolls proved that their submission to the Church was right. These were found to be authentically written in Hebrew.
Be careful about using the doctors of the Church, tgG. They are full of Catholic ideas!
I don’t know about liberal, but I do know that God knew the Dead Sea Scrolls would be found a couple millennia later, and prove that all the doubts could be put to rest.
No, I am well familiar with the detraction and calumny that is part of the basic Reformed diet.
As I stated, I am not the one requiring this qualification, you are. The Apostles wanted to replace Judas, and were guided by the Holy Spirit to choose one of those who had been with Jesus since the beginning. We have already agreed that there are other Apostles in addition to the 12 (of which Paul is one), so I don’t understand why you keep inserting this ‘qualification’ into the discussion.
No tgG, Peter was given his commission to feed and care for the flock after Jesus resurrected, and before He ascended. At that time He became responsible to care for the sheep. There were no geographical boundaries given to him. We do not have a date when Peter arrived in Jerusalem. Peter was not charged with the care of “the whole world”, but only the flock of God. Peter did not “rule” nor ask anyone to be in subjection to him. These are just hostile words and phrases you seem to enjoy using to bring detraction against the Catholic Church.
Jesus taught them to be subject to one another, to be humble, not “lording it over one another” as the Gentiles did. You seem to be confusing offices with functions. Are you suggesting that Jesus is not the chief shepherd of His flock? Or that, as chief shepherd, he could no longer be the Messiah?
No, the successors of the Apostles were considered Bishops. The qualifications are very clear in Scripture. I think you know that they were not required to be an eyewitness of Christ.
A blunder has certainly been made, but it is not in the Scripture, which is very clear about the qualifications of bishops.
Yes, the Palestinian Jews settled on a canon that did not support Christians. The Greek Christians, as Josephus notes, were not well equipped to discuss the Hebrew texts, so they were at a distinct disadvantage without the Septuagint.
Yes but not the same canon described by Josephus as authorative, was it? In defense of the Reformers, they did not know about the Dead Sea Scrolls either! There was no way they could know these books were written originally in Hebrew.
I hope that some day you study sufficiently to be embarrassed by this statement.
You are right. Many scholars had done centuries of research at that point, and it became quite clear that the Septuagint was the preferred text. This was especially true after the diaspora.
And again, you have failed to show from any Scripture that the Septuagint, the 39 book canon, and the 27 book NT canon are “unscriptural” or “fly in the face of scripture”.
I think this is what it boils down to at the base, tgG. You have an authority problem with the CC. I am not sure why, and maybe you don’t even know why it is so important for you to reject the faith into which you were baptized. I understand that anti-Catholicism is part of the steady diet in Reformed traditions, so I don’t blame you. You are what you eat!
I think you are contradicting yourself, tgG. You admit that persons in one office can function in another gift of leadership, unless of course it is a Bishop, because that sounds too Catholic?
Here you give an example of Peter, who occupied an office referred to as “bishopric” referring to himself as a fellow elder. Does not scripture itself show you that trying to separate offices and functions makes no sense?
None of these are mutually exclusive. Paul did not say that Elders could not posess any or all of the five-fold ministry gifts. I think you are trying to make a separation that does not exist.
“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess. 2;15
We understand that you cannot accept as authorative the Apostolic instruction that the Word of God delivered to the Church by the Apostles is equal, whether it came orally or in writing. The way of life and world view taught by the Apostles is valued on the same level as the writings by those who received it.
“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
In order to support the errant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, the Reformers had to suppose or insert into the framework that no sacred traditions existed (of any value) that were not specifically contained in the Scripture. In this way, the entire concept of paradosis could be jettisoned and replaced by “Scripture only” authority.
Well, I apologize if I didn’t read all of your stuff. Most of the time I am reading a little here, and a little there, from at least four or five different people on this site. But I have spent time on your stuff more than others in the past. I will hop, skip, and jump. again, I apologize for that.
I did not make Josephus a rock star guanophore. I merely pulled a quote where he supported my premise to the historical facts. We know there are 39 O.T. books before the Apocryphal books were added. That is a verified fact. If you like I can list them for you!..
Secondly, who is the one doing the spin here? You are.
I wasn’t trying to prove the Septuagint was NOT used by Jesus and the Apostles. I know that it was. Spin spin spin…
My point was very clearly laid out. Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from the books added to the Septuagint called the Apocrypha. You try to divert from these facts by talking about Boettner and Josephus. Yet Boettner was correct! There is a good reason why Jesus never quoted from those books, but does that even interest you? No… because by exploring this idea, it will
mess up your organized theology which insist on having those books.
I am not arguing their existence. The dead sea scroll had many writings contained. I am only exposing a very narrow but historical fact that in Jesus day there were two sets of O.T. cannon. One was written in Greek (1) The Hellenistic Jewish bible or canon of Alexandra, Egypt, 2 BC, and (2) The Palestinian Jewish cannon which had 39 books contained written in Hebrew. Jesus called those books the “Word of God.” He never acknowledged or called the Apocrypha books the word of God. Ever. (The N.T. does acknowledge and quote from the Septuagint, but again, never from the Apocrypha books contained within the Septuagint.)
You cannot spin these narrow but important facts guanophore.
It is proof that the process of collecting books in the CC is fallible just like the rest of us. It is up to God to determine whether or not the books chosen are fallible or infallible. In this case, by Jesus ignoring the Apocrypha, it’s clear what God’s infallible choices was.
I think you misunderstood me, tgG. I am saying that what St. Paul and the other Apostles gave to the Church was passed down from one person to the next. The CC does not “pass through” the paradosis. On the contrary, the that which is handed down passes through the CC. During this passage, it is protected infallibly by the Holy Spirit, so that it does not become corrupted.
What this says about the CC is that it has received and enjoyed the promise of Christ that he would not allow the Church to fall into error.
Actually, my point is that he does NOT support your "historical facts’, which you seemed to have lifted from noted anti-Catholic defamer Lorraine Boettner. Josephus lists 22 books, not 39. There is no need for you to list them, I am familiar with how the Jews worked to deny the Christian message by limiting the Canon to these books. The Reformers adopted the anti-Catholic canon, as did their predecessors, the Jews who crucified Christ. You are trying to support another strawman, tgG, asserting that Trent declared something new on the Canon, which did not happen. Trent declared the same canon that was used by the Apostles in the form of the Septuagint.
To an extent, this is true, since they did not consider these books “apocrypha” but part of the inspired canon. Both Jesus and the writer of Hebrews reference the Macabeean books, Jesus by participating in the festival of lights, and Hebrews 11
There are no other books where these events are mentioned, other than the Deuterocanon. Are you suggesting that Jesus participated in a festival at the temple that was not inspired by God? Why do you suppose he chose to go to the Temple and declare "“I am the light of the world”? How might this seem to the Jews in the context of the festival of lights?
Actually, Boettner is notorious for publishing falsehoods about Catholicism, and Josephus said the opposite of what you are claiming.
When people accuse others of their own faults, it is known as projecting. Catholics are not “people of the book”. Our “organized theology” is not extracted from texts 1500 years after the fact. Our faith was whole and entire before any word of the NT was ever written. The Church is the fullness of Christ, and that fullness was present no matter where he drew His quotes. But you are right, I am not concerned about this, because it is clear to me that there are dozens of references to the Deuterocanonical books.
You are making an incorrect assumption that Jesus and the Apostles did not use the Gk. version. This assumption becomes more erroneous after the Christians left Palestine, and even more aggregious after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Most of the references to the Scriptures made in the NT are from the Septuagint. Here is a list of some of those specifically from the Deuterocanonical books:
I am sure I could learn, if I took a few pointers from the work of Lorraine Boettner.
This is a very old argument, tgG, and many scholars more dedicated than we are have been here and done this.
I agree that it is up to God, and the evidence is clear that Jesus and the Apostles referred to these books, without making any distinction that they were not on par with the rest of the Scripture.
This goes back to the meaning of being “in Christ”. It is a difference in the way that Catholics and Reformed Christians understand our relationship with God. Catholics believe that baptism seals a believer and makes that person a member of Christ and His One Body, the Church. But, a person who has thus been saved can reject their gift, and spurn the grace of God, falling away from grace. That person cannot be “unadopted”, but leaves he Father’s house, so that he cannot inherit what was promised at his adoption.
the canon we have today, was solidified at the council of Rome in 382 by pope Damasus I. http://www.rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html1 Ensuing councils local and ecumenical, didn’t change that canon of 73 books. 1000 + years after the council of Rome, at the Council of Florence, ( an ecumenical council, ) before Luther was even a thought, confirmed AGAIN, the 73 books of the canon as did Trent
I know you won’t open the links. I provide them for those who will open them.
The Jews who didn’t accept Jesus and were therefore NOT in His Church accepted the short list minus those 7 books.
Then there were
The Jews, who did accept Jesus, and were in His Church, that He established, The Catholic Church, accepted the Septuagint, written in Greek. That translation was finished ~150 b.c… And The NT as we know was written in Greek.
tg, You appeal to the wrong Jews
The Hebrews you reference, ultimately got it wrong. And they are still waiting for the Messiah. The Hebrews I’m referencing, got it right.
Others have given you the correct understanding. I won’t repeat.
again, others have given you evidence properly referenced, correcting you
The Jewish canon before Christ was based on the fact that they had no extant copies of the Deuterocanonical books in Hebrew or Aramaic. God knew that these would be found later, so He guided the Church to include them. Confirmation came when the Scrolls were found. After Christ, the Jews excluded the Septuagint because most Christians, even Jewish Christians, could not sustain a good theological argument based upon the Hebrew texts, having been reared in the Greek. This was intended, and in fact functioned adequately, to hinder Jewish Christians from converting more Jews. Although Paul was well versed in both Greek and Hebrew, most of the Hellensitic Jews were not. When the NT states that Moses is read in synagogues, this is primarily the Septuagint. So, your “narrow historical fact” is based on an error (that the Deuterocanonicals were not written originally in Hebrew) and the anti-Christian efforts of the Jews that rejected Jesus. I would think that this would bother YOU!