The Deuterocanonicals and Indulgences (Split from The Pope)


#1

[quote=RiverRock] Obviously you haven’t read your Bible with unclouded eyes. The Catholic Church is absolutely Biblical on everything.
[/quote]

Really? Even indulgences? Buying your way out of purgatory is Biblical? Where?

It should be—devinely inspired Catholics wrote it, and the Church cannonized it. It’s our book. You stole it-deleted it-perverted it and now try to use it out of context to battle us. I won’t even mention the scripture that warns again changing the word of God and of self-interpretation.

I wont even begin this arguement, but I will say, the apocrypha is NOT divinely inspired.

The Church of today most certainly resembles the early church, because it IS the early church. Read some unbiased history, please. There are also many excellent tracts right here on this website. And pray for Christ to guide you into all truth.

And we would find unbiased history on a Catholic website? Don’t fool yourself. If you actually DO read a little history (I’m a history major so do not tell me that I need to read it), today’s Catholic church is not at all the same as the original. It has changed vastly. As an EXAMPLE, I do not see healings performed everyday or 1000s of converts a day or… just read a little history and find out for yourself some of the things the Catholic church was not “absolutely Biblical” on.

Peace be upon all who read this


#2

[quote=justathought]Really? Even indulgences? Buying your way out of purgatory is Biblical? Where?

I wont even begin this arguement, but I will say, the apocrypha is NOT divinely inspired.

And we would find unbiased history on a Catholic website? Don’t fool yourself. If you actually DO read a little history (I’m a history major so do not tell me that I need to read it), today’s Catholic church is not at all the same as the original. It has changed vastly. As an EXAMPLE, I do not see healings performed everyday or 1000s of converts a day or… just read a little history and find out for yourself some of the things the Catholic church was not “absolutely Biblical” on.

Peace be upon all who read this
[/quote]

More anti-Catholic bunk! I bet you go to some Baptist seminary out there in Texas and that’s where you got you your “history”. How do you know about any healings within the Catholic Church today? Are you all-knowing? And thousands of converts? I am pretty sure you are wrong there as well, but you are the hotshot history major, so what do we poor Catholics know about our own faith?

And just how would you know what is a divinely inspired book that belongs in the Bible? Did you inspire them? Despite you assertion to the contrary, the Deuterocanonical books were in the OT that Jesus and the apostles used and in fact 90% of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Greek Septuagint.

As for your nasty little remark about Indulgences, I’ll offer a couple of links so maybe you can learn the truth and not go off on something without knowing what you’re talking about next time.Purgatory
and The Roots of Purgatory

FYI:
There is ample evidence that the Bible implicitly teaches a Purgatory.

Begin with Matthew 12:32, which says, “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” Does tis not imply that some sins can be forgiven in the age to come? Now think this through…There is no sin to forgive in heaven, right? Sin is not forgiven in hell because it’s too late and permanent. So…Impicit “purgatory”

1st Corinthians 3:15 which says, “If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” Again this cannot refer to heaven or hell for the same reasons as above. This is essentially the definition of Purgatory.

1st Peter 3:18-20 which says, “Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.”

and 1st Peter 4:6 which says, “For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: that they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh; but may live according to God, in the Spirit” Note that it was a prison for disobedient spirits and yet they were saved when Jesus preached to them.

2nd Maccabees 12:44-46 which says, "44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. "
The same reasons apply here as to the first passages I gave you…

Note also that St. Paul says that the early church believed this in 1st Corinthians 15:29 which says, "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them? " He does not condemn this practice though it seems to have fallen out of practice…

Pax vobiscum,


#3

justathought:

Really? Even indulgences? Buying your way out of purgatory is Biblical? Where?

As far as “buying your way” out of anything goes, here’s some info from this article in the CA library:

Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.
The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.
One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “*t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.”*I don’t fully understand indulgences myself, as I am still studying Catholicism. However, I think understanding what indulgences actually are, as opposed to what the centuries-old stereotypes say, will help all of us understand any biblical basis for them. Plus, it is important for all of us Protestants, myself included, to remember that Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura, so many doctrines will have extra-biblical (not to be confused with anti-biblical) support. For anyone who wants to know about indulgences, I recommend they read the article I mentioned, along with this one.

[quote]I wont even begin this arguement, but I will say, the apocrypha is NOT divinely inspired.

How do you know the “apocrypha” (or deuterocanonicals, as the Catholics call them) is not divinely inspired? Also, which books do you believe are inspired and why? I must admit that my whole life I just accepted the Bible (the 66 book Protestant version) as being divinely inspired without knowing how or why. As I’ve studied, it seems to me that it was the Catholic Church that decided the canon and that the Protestant reformers actually removed some books from the Old Testament. Obviously, you’ve reached a different conclusion in your research, so I’m curious as to how you reached it.

And we would find unbiased history on a Catholic website? Don’t fool yourself.

I guess all of us need to search in more than one location. Of course, going to Protestant websites isn’t going to be any better. For example, I just read part of “Trail of Blood,” the story of the underground Baptist Church (I followed a link from chick.com). According to this story, the Baptist Church is the original church, and it was being persecuted by the Catholics since the beginning. Apparently, all the heretical groups put down by the Catholic Church were actually Baptist. This was odd, as some of these groups believed some outrageous things (like that Christ was not divine and that matter was sinful). Anyway, including the above example, the story was riddled with historical inaccuracies and incorrect portrayals of Catholic doctrine. So, going only to Protestant historical sources isn’t going to give us unbiased information, either.

To get more to the heart of this issue, to what historical information on this site do you object? I’ve read the quotes of the early Christians from the first and second centuries (like Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, etc…), and they actually seem more like Catholics than Protestants in their views. Perhaps this site is taking their quotes out of context?

today’s Catholic church is not at all the same as the original. It has changed vastly.

Well, I don’t think you’ll find many Catholics who will dispute that. For one thing, we don’t meet in secret anymore, most of us don’t speak Greek, Latin or Aramaic, and we actually have the the New Testament written down now.

As an EXAMPLE, I do not see healings performed everyday or 1000s of converts a day

Well, to be fair, I don’t think most of us see those things in most Protestant churches either. Plus, when I read the book of Acts, I don’t see it saying that those things happened everyday back then either.

Peace be upon all who read this

And to you as well! :slight_smile:

God Bless!
[/quote]


#4

[quote=Church Militant]More anti-Catholic bunk! I bet you go to some Baptist seminary out there in Texas and that’s where you got you your “history”. How do you know about any healings within the Catholic Church today? Are you all-knowing? And thousands of converts? I am pretty sure you are wrong there as well, but you are the hotshot history major, so what do we poor Catholics know about our own faith?
[/quote]

Anti-Catholic? No, I actually have quite a bit of respect for Catholics which is evident if you read some of my other posts. Though I disagree with most of the practices, I respect that you do them so religiously. As for a Baptist seminary… though I am Baptist, no, I actually go to a Presbyterian and very liberal, liberal arts university in an area that maintains a very high Catholic influence. Most of my professors are either Catholic or athiest. That’s where I get my history, well, a lot of it. As a history major, however, I also tend to read different historical works, some with biases (bias in all directions, not just against the Catholic church), some without. Oh well, maybe we shouldn’t assume so much, huh?

And just how would you know what is a divinely inspired book that belongs in the Bible? Did you inspire them? Despite you assertion to the contrary, the Deuterocanonical books were in the OT that Jesus and the apostles used and in fact 90% of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Greek Septuagint.

As for the apocrypha being divinely inspired, I really don’t have the time or desire to get into that, but if I must… The early Church never accepted those books as canon until the Council of Trent. Because they were translated in the same bunch and written at the same time as the Septuagint does not mean they were equal. Their presence is found nowhere in copies of the Masoretic Text. The early Church actually differentiated the books by libri eccesiastici and the libri canonici. The Apocrypha was accepted with secondary status even at the Council of Carthage in 397 which Augustine himself attended. Isn’t it also ironic that Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate that is still the basis for the Roman Catholic Bible denied the Apocrypha as canon? Two of the books even deny inspiration in their opening chapters. Tobit 6:5-8 endorses the use of magic to ward off satan, along with many other falsehoods. How does Epiphanes die three different deaths in three different places? Josephus explicitly excluded the Apocrypha from his list of Canon. Many of the Apocryphal books have errors that are historical, geographical, and chronological. 2 Maccabees 14:43-46 justifies suicide. Apocryphal events are not included in any of the sermons of Acts that outline the history of the Jews. Anyone who studies these books to any great length can easily identify substandard writing; they do not flow like that of God inspired text. Another interesting tidbit: you know that really cool Bible code that is used to tell of world events and all that? It doesn’t work when the Apocrypha is included. There’s more, but I think that should sufice.

Now, I will agree with you that they were written and translated into the Septuagint; however, the Church fathers themselves (as well as the previous evidences) knew they were not divinely inspired.

As for your nasty little remark about Indulgences, I’ll offer a couple of links so maybe you can learn the truth and not go off on something without knowing what you’re talking about next time.Purgatory
and The Roots of Purgatory

Indulgences CAN be proven by the Bible, you are correct. Oh course after looking through those websites, I see that the Bible must be taken out of context and the uninspired Apocrypha must be included.

FYI:
There is ample evidence that the Bible implicitly teaches a Purgatory.

Begin with Matthew 12:32, which says, “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” Does tis not imply that some sins can be forgiven in the age to come? Now think this through…There is no sin to forgive in heaven, right? Sin is not forgiven in hell because it’s too late and permanent. So…Impicit “purgatory”

Though I do agree that there is some sort of intermedite state (purgatory), I disagree with most of the Catholic beliefs regarding it. And the verse you mentionted does nothing to prove it. That does not IMPLY that sins can be forgiven in the age to come. It just says they cannot. NO sin will be forgiven in the world to come. You are putting an idea (purgatory) in the Scripture to justify the belief.


#5

1st Corinthians 3:15 which says, “If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” Again this cannot refer to heaven or hell for the same reasons as above. This is essentially the definition of Purgatory.

You are right! This is not heaven or hell. It is Earth. This passage, as with all, I believe must be read in context. When Paul refers to the “gold, silver, and costly stones” he is refering to a solid foundation with sound Biblical teachings. As an example, a believer brought up in a Bible thumping church or a devout Catholic. Those with a solid foundation that use “wood, hay, or straw” are those without firm Biblical instruction. An example, a backsliding Christian or a not so devout Catholic. When tested in the fire (any trials or troubles), Christ judges the quality of the works or his relationship with Christ. The strong will stand firm, yet those without sound Biblical teachings and wisdom will have to put up with a much more difficult life here on Earth. Only because they knew Christ, will they be saved. Later in the chapter Paul speaks about Godly wisdom. That is why I believe he is referring to the wisdom of the believers in the materials used to build the house.

I will admit, this is just an interpretation of the meaning, and it is different from that of the Catholic church. I would appreciate it if you could actually give me the Catholic interpretation for that same passage of Scripture. (1 Cor. 3:10-15)

1st Peter 3:18-20 which says, “Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.”

Ahh, interesting passage you brought up. That actually is speaking of fallen angels. There is a whole backstory and reason I can say this with so much conviction, but I am tired and do not want to begin another long paragraph. Remind me again another time, and I am SURE you will find it facinating.


#6

and 1st Peter 4:6 which says, “For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: that they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh; but may live according to God, in the Spirit” Note that it was a prison for disobedient spirits and yet they were saved when Jesus preached to them.

Again, CONTEXT! In the beginning of 1 Peter 4, he is criticizing those living pagan lifestyles. They think it is stange you aren’t living in sin too. The “gospel was preached even to those who are now dead.” Romans 8:1-17 talks about people without Christ being spiritually dead. All will be judged, including the spiritually dead pagans.

2nd Maccabees 12:44-46 which says, "44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. "
The same reasons apply here as to the first passages I gave you…

We already went over this one. The whole case for purgatory pretty much stands or falls on this passage alone.

Note also that St. Paul says that the early church believed this in 1st Corinthians 15:29 which says, "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them? " He does not condemn this practice though it seems to have fallen out of practice…

Pax vobiscum,

No. Paul does not say the early Church believed this. He does NOT say “what will we do,” he states “what will THOSE do.” Not we, THOSE. In verse 30 he says: “and as for us.” Had he been referring to Christians in vs. 29, why would he have said “those” then in the following verse say “us”? Here Paul is referring to pagan practices. It was a required for those involved in the pagan rituals of a mystery religion in Eleusis to be baptized in the Saronic Gulf. It is likely that Paul was making an arguement against some of those in Corinth, a close city to Eleusis, that denied the Resurrection of our Lord.

Wow, this took too long to type. I will humble myself and just say, “Let’s just agree to disagree.” You believe what you do, and I will what I. There will probably never be agreement on either side no matter how much “evidence” we have. The other side always has “proof” that debunks the former. I think we all, as CHRISTIANS, not Catholics, or Protestants, or whatever should just obey the Great Commission. We should all just go out and preach the Word of God. Forget the word of Catholicism. Forget the word of the Baptists or the Methodists or Protestantism or whatever. Is not the Word of Christ what is really important? Shouldn’t we just go out and share the Good News? Isn’t the fact that your Creator loves you what’s important? Don’t worry about all these rules, JUST SHARE CHRIST!!!

Peace be upon all who read this


#7

Justathought,
You offer your interpretations of these passages as if they are gospel which is not true at all.

Is there an implicit forgiveness of sins in the world to come according to the passage (Matthew 12:32) that I cited? You are wrong about the deuterocanonical books. See the councils of Hippo and Carthage at the end of the 4th century, a good 1300 years prior to the council of Trent, which only re-affirmed what was already canon because of the reformer’s removal of them.

Here’s the encyclopedia excerpt on Hippo (393) and Carthage (397)."At the Synod of Hippo (393), and again at the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon (i.e. including the books classed by Protestants as “Apocrypha”). The latter synod, at the end of the enumeration, added, “But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon”. St. Augustine was one among the forty-four bishops who signed the proceedings.

And further still:
"B. THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES

The sub-Apostolic writings of Clement, Polycarp, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, of the pseudo-Clementine homilies, and the “Shepherd” of Hermas, contain implicit quotations from or allusions to all the deuterocanonicals except Baruch (which anciently was often united with Jeremias) and I Machabess and the additions to David. No unfavourable argument can be drawn from the loose, implicit character of these citations, since these Apostolic Fathers quote the protocanonical Scriptures in precisely the same manner.

Coming down to the next age, that of the apologists, we find Baruch cited by Athenagoras as a prophet. St. Justin Martyr is the first to note that the Church has a set of Old Testament Scriptures different from the Jews’, and also the earliest to intimate the principle proclaimed by later writers, namely, the self-sufficiency of the Church in establishing the Canon; its independence of the Synagogue in this respect. The full realization of this truth came slowly, at least in the Orient, where there are indications that in certain quarters the spell of Palestinian-Jewish tradition was not fully cast off for some time. St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther. It should be noticed, however, that the document to which this catalogue was prefixed is capable of being understood as having an anti-Jewish polemical purpose, in which case Melito’s restricted canon is explicable on another ground. St. Irenæus, always a witness of the first rank, on account of his broad acquaintance with ecclesiastical tradition, vouches that Baruch was deemed on the same footing as Jeremias, and that the narratives of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon were ascribed to Daniel. The Alexandrian tradition is represented by the weighty authority of Origen. Influenced, doubtless, by the Alexandrian-Jewish usage of acknowledging in practice the extra writings as sacred while theoretically holding to the narrower Canon of Palestine, his catalogue of the Old Testament Scriptures contains only the protocanonical books, though it follows the order of the Septuagint. Nevertheless Origen employs all the deuterocanonicals as Divine Scriptures, and in his letter of Julius Africanus defends the sacredness of Tobias, Judith, and the fragments of Daniel, at the same time implicitly asserting the autonomy of the Church in fixing the Canon (see references in Cornely). In his Hexaplar edition of the Old Testament all the deuteros find a place. The sixth-century Biblical manuscript known as the “Codex Claromontanus” contains a catalogue to which both Harnack and Zahn assign an Alexandrian origin, about contemporary with Origen. At any rate it dates from the period under examination and comprises all the deuterocanonical books, with IV Machabees besides. St. Hippolytus (d. 236) may fairly be considered as representing the primitive Roman tradition. He comments on the Susanna chapter, often quotes Wisdom as the work of Solomon, and employs as Sacred Scripture Baruch and the Machabees. "

The evidence is there.
A list of sources


#8

[quote=justathought]Anti-Catholic? No, I actually have quite a bit of respect for Catholics which is evident if you read some of my other posts. Though I disagree with most of the practices, I respect that you do them so religiously
[/quote]

.Yeah right…and that’s why we get all these patronizing slick remarks? You shouldn’t attempt to disagree with what you don’t know. I WAS Baptist and so I know the ignorant bunk you’ve been fed, so maybe it’s not all your fault, but don’t try to tell us what we believe, because based on the stuff you have said so far on this forum, you don’t know. You may think that you do, but that’s just not the case. So stop trying to disprove things and learn…(either way, it’s your choice).

As for the apocrypha being divinely inspired, I really don’t have the time or desire to get into that, but if I must… The early Church never accepted those books as canon until the Council of Trent. Because they were translated in the same bunch and written at the same time as the Septuagint does not mean they were equal. Their presence is found nowhere in copies of the Masoretic Text. The early Church actually differentiated the books by libri eccesiastici and the libri canonici. The Apocrypha was accepted with secondary status even at the Council of Carthage in 397 which Augustine himself attended. Isn’t it also ironic that Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate that is still the basis for the Roman Catholic Bible denied the Apocrypha as canon?

This is factually inaccurate, since you don’t really know what those terms mean, but the fact is that the canon is the canon and it has had 73-75 books in it since it was assembled. The quotes above deal with all this and prove that you are wrong again.

As for St. Jerome, did you read what he said? He had not the authority to make that decision and bowed to the wisdom of the church, as did Augustine. I suggest that you take a hint from them.

Two of the books even deny inspiration in their opening chapters. Tobit 6:5-8 endorses the use of magic to ward off satan, along with many other falsehoods. How does Epiphanes die three different deaths in three different places?

I’ve read 'em, have you? I’ve never seen anything in them that denies inspiration. Magic? How lame…that’s medicine in the case of Tobit’s eyes, and if an angel from God tells you to do something, are you gonna argue with him? So the fact that Jesus later used things like mud and spit to effect healings must make that magic too?

Josephus explicitly excluded the Apocrypha from his list of Canon.

You Baptists crack me up…you talk about the Jews rejecting Jesus and then try to use the writings of a Jewish historian as proof against the DCs. Lessee here…Josephus was a Jew and he was probably well familiar with the Jamnia sanhedrin and so naturally he would reject the canon of the Christians. Biased source…and irrelevent…

Many of the Apocryphal books have errors that are historical, geographical, and chronological.

And the OT canon doesn’t? This is no proof.

2 Maccabees 14:43-46 justifies suicide.

…and this is different from the many people who fell on their swords in the other OT books… like Saul just for instance…or the suicidal remarks of Elijah and Jonah?

Apocryphal events are not included in any of the sermons of Acts that outline the history of the Jews.

So if the NT doesn’t quote the OT book it’s not Canon? Bunk! That would mean that we throw out Esther huh. You’d be in good company with Martin Luther, since he said he wished to do that very thing.

Anyone who studies these books to any great length can easily identify substandard writing; they do not flow like that of God inspired text.

Again, I have read them and they read about like the books of Samuel and Kings and Chronicles. The wisdom books are like proverbs. I really don’t guess that you’ve bothered to read them, but sit there an offer someone elses critique of something that you haven’t had the integrity to read for yourself.

Another interesting tidbit: you know that really cool Bible code that is used to tell of world events and all that? It doesn’t work when the Apocrypha is included. There’s more, but I think that should sufice.

You really believe that stuff? Who cares! Numerology is a form of fortune telling and forbidden to believers! And you wanna tell me about 'magic"! Shame on ya!

Now, I will agree with you that they were written and translated into the Septuagint; however, the Church fathers themselves (as well as the previous evidences) knew they were not divinely inspired.

Already answered…not so…


#9

[quote=justathought]As for the apocrypha being divinely inspired, I really don’t have the time or desire to get into that, but if I must… The early Church never accepted those books as canon until the Council of Trent. Because they were translated in the same bunch and written at the same time as the Septuagint does not mean they were equal. Their presence is found nowhere in copies of the Masoretic Text. The early Church actually differentiated the books by libri eccesiastici and the libri canonici. The Apocrypha was accepted with secondary status even at the Council of Carthage in 397 which Augustine himself attended. Isn’t it also ironic that Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate that is still the basis for the Roman Catholic Bible denied the Apocrypha as canon?
[/quote]

This is all very nice. However, it is missing one minor thing. The simple truth.

The Catholic Church includes these books you dismiss as part of sacred scripture and teaches with its infallible authority that ALL of sacred scripture is inspired and free from error.

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

According to this link St. Jerome seriously doubted their inspiration however “the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large”

“St. Augustine seems to theoretically recognize degrees of inspiration; in practice he employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his “De Doctrinâ Christianâ” he enumerates the components of the complete Old Testament.” Also, the Synod of Hippo (393) and of Carthage (393, 397 and 419) “in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit” all of these present the same list of books.

“Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent.”

Two things to note from the previous quote that the lists of books from 382 and 405 were the same as those from Trent and were presented with NO DISTINCTION from the rest of the books.

As you can clearly see these books were accepted by the church as part of the canon several centuries before the Council of Trent.

As to your critical analysis of the content of these books by what authority do you claim to have the power to reject these books based on their content?

By what authority did Martin Luther remove these books from the Old Testament?

[quote=justathought]Another interesting tidbit: you know that really cool Bible code that is used to tell of world events and all that? It doesn’t work when the Apocrypha is included. There’s more, but I think that should sufice.
[/quote]

How about we reword this to “really evil bible code”? Unless, of course, palm reading, crystal balls, fortunate telling, astrology and horoscopes have now also become “really cool”. I will just add this to the list of arguments against removing these books from the Old Testament although it will have no effect other than to add a little humor to the issue. I hope that was your intended effect by including it in the first place.


#10

Wow. This is exactly what I mentioned in the last paragraph of my 3 post letter. Of course you were too angry with what I said about the apocrypha to even care that I called for agreement to disagree. Everyone has “evidence” to disprove the other. Agreement will never be reached. The difference is that you get your history from the “unbias” church as I get mine from history books (all kinds, not just those that will affirm what I already believe). Oh well.

[quote=Tigerhawk]How about we reword this to “really evil bible code”? Unless, of course, palm reading, crystal balls, fortunate telling, astrology and horoscopes have now also become “really cool”. I will just add this to the list of arguments against removing these books from the Old Testament although it will have no effect other than to add a little humor to the issue. I hope that was your intended effect by including it in the first place.
[/quote]

As for those statements: when something honestly and BIBLICALLY disproves what you believe, before calling it evil, you should examine what it is you believe. Then, based on TRUTH, not what you’ve been taught by the church, make a decision. It’s not about your god, the Roman Catholic church. It’s about THE GOD, Jesus Christ. Just because you say the name of Jesus while you worship your church, doesn’t mean He is receiving the praise.

I leave and as the Word commands, I take my peace with me


#11

[quote=justathought]Wow, this took too long to type. I will humble myself and just say, “Let’s just agree to disagree.” You believe what you do, and I will what I. There will probably never be agreement on either side no matter how much “evidence” we have. The other side always has “proof” that debunks the former. I think we all, as CHRISTIANS, not Catholics, or Protestants, or whatever should just obey the Great Commission. We should all just go out and preach the Word of God. Forget the word of Catholicism. Forget the word of the Baptists or the Methodists or Protestantism or whatever. Is not the Word of Christ what is really important? Shouldn’t we just go out and share the Good News? Isn’t the fact that your Creator loves you what’s important? Don’t worry about all these rules, JUST SHARE CHRIST!!!

Peace be upon all who read this
[/quote]

Ok, so how do you propose to “spread Christ” if we have conflicting views of who He is and what He meant when He and his followers said things? If we all interpret the word as the spirit moves us. If we take contradictory views and attempt to convert people with them, there is no way that anyone will ever even consider converting. This is why we must never “agree to disagree.” That is never an option. To surrender before finding what the truth is is a horrible thing to do. It leaves one in ignorance, and leaves one to make arguments about things about which one knows almost nothing. Please don’t try to “agree to disagree.” It is not something you should be calling us to do if you really believe that Christ is “The way, the truth, and the life,” because if we can agree to disagree, then there really isn’t a truth that we are striving for. We are just sharing opinions, which is something that we surely are not doing. We do not share “mere” opinions. We strive to find and spread truth.

PAX CHRISTI VOBISCUM


#12

Just A Thought,

If I may ask, where in the Old Testament are the passages that are cited in Matthew 2:23 and Jude 14-15?

And I submit to you Wisdom 2:12-20 (especially verse 18) as being very openly referred to in the New Testament. If your criterion is that there must be a direct quote in the New Testament, then I would challenge you to produce some direct quotes from Haggai, Obadiah, and Habakkuk.

And for a separate thread, what is this Bible code you speak of?

  • Liberian

#13

Hi, Church Militant,

quote: Church Militant

[font=Microsoft Sans Serif][size=3]Deuterocanonical books were in the OT that Jesus and the apostles used and in fact 90% of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Greek Septuagint.

[/size][/font]

my.execpc.com/~gto/Apocrypha/

Huh? Have I missed a chapter?

My knowledge of the biblical canon could fit into a
cocktail olive, but I do have a question on this
statement.

Are you saying that the Apocryhpa was accepted
as scripture, by the Jews, at the time of Christ?

Best,

Maureen


#14

Dear Tigerhawk,

quote: Tigerhawk

The Catholic Church includes these books you dismiss as part of sacred scripture and teaches with its infallible authority that ALL of sacred scripture is inspired and free from error.

I believe this to be an example of circular reasoning:
that is, you take what* is* to be proved, to prove a point.

The statement that the RCC “…teaches with its
infallible authority…” is an assertion. It may or
may not be true. [time will tell :D…we’re all gonna
know, one day, whether that assertion was fact.
At what’s called the “particular judgement”.]

Best, :tiphat:

reen12


#15

[quote=justathought]Wow. This is exactly what I mentioned in the last paragraph of my 3 post letter. Of course you were too angry with what I said about the apocrypha to even care that I called for agreement to disagree. Everyone has “evidence” to disprove the other. Agreement will never be reached. The difference is that you get your history from the “unbias” church as I get mine from history books (all kinds, not just those that will affirm what I already believe). Oh well.
[/quote]

Angry? I am not angry with you in the slightest. Judging other men’s hearts?

You stated that “The early Church never accepted those books as canon until the Council of Trent”.

I provided references to Church documentation that clearly shows this statement to be false. Not arguably false, but factually false. You cannot have it both ways and maintain credibility. You cannot claim to know what the Church accepted and then reject documentation from the same church that shows these books were part of the Canon 1100 years earlier than you claim.

You also claim that some how these books had a secondary status in the Church. However, the Church teaches that all of scripture is inspired and free from error. This again shows your claim to be factually false.

[quote=justathought]As for those statements: when something honestly and BIBLICALLY disproves what you believe, before calling it evil, you should examine what it is you believe.
[/quote]

I am very interested in learning the Biblical backing for this. How is this different than astrology, horoscopes and fortune telling? I am open to the possibility I am wrong on this. Every description of the Bible code I have seen in my opinion turns the Bible into an electronic Ouija board.

[quote=justathought]Then, based on TRUTH, not what you’ve been taught by the church, make a decision. It’s not about your god, the Roman Catholic church. It’s about THE GOD, Jesus Christ. Just because you say the name of Jesus while you worship your church, doesn’t mean He is receiving the praise.
[/quote]

The Bible tells me that the church is the Body of Christ (Romans 12:5). It also tells me that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6) and that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

Again it is very presumptious for you to judge what is in other men’s hearts. I agree with all my heart, all my soul and all my strength that it is all about God. I believe that rejecting his body, his church and his truth is a rejection of God himself.

[quote=justathought]I leave and as the Word commands, I take my peace with me
[/quote]

I wish for you not only your peace but the peace of Christ as well. God Bless.


#16

[quote=reen12]I believe this to be an example of circular reasoning:
that is, you take what* is* to be proved, to prove a point.

The statement that the RCC “…teaches with its
infallible authority…” is an assertion. It may or
may not be true. [time will tell :D…we’re all gonna
know, one day, whether that assertion was fact.
At what’s called the “particular judgement”.]

Best, :tiphat:

reen12
[/quote]

If I had been arguing about whether or not the Church had the authority to set the Canon you would be correct.

However, justathought, claimed that the books removed by Luther had a secondary status in the Church to the rest of the books of the Old Testament. So stating that the Church teaches with its infallible authority that all of scripture is inspired and free from error is a direct contradiction of this claim and does not require the Church to be correct in its claim of infallability. The Church just has to believe it. I think we can all agree that it does.

You are absolutely correct though someday we will all know. :thumbsup:


#17

[quote=reen12]Hi, Church Militant,

quote: Church Militant

my.execpc.com/~gto/Apocrypha/

Huh? Have I missed a chapter?

My knowledge of the biblical canon could fit into a
cocktail olive, but I do have a question on this
statement.

Are you saying that the Apocryhpa was accepted
as scripture, by the Jews, at the time of Christ?

Best,

Maureen
[/quote]

Yup! The Beginning Apologetics Series from San Juan Catholic Seminars These are some of the best you’ll find anywhere Reen my friend!
Pax tecum,


#18

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.