Apocrypha

[Fiosh]

You definately show the knowledge, or lack thereof, that you have of this subject.

RC's have no problem with history. It's you guys that avoid history and run every time someone says the word "tradition", even though to follow church tradition is Biblical

Name one time I've run away from tradition. When it comes to Catholic tradition I ask if it can be based upon the Bible, because that's the exact stance the early church fathers had on tradition.

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. The early Christians did not "reject the 'Apocrypha', more correctly called the 'Deutero-canonical books'.

I didn't say everyone rejected it. What I did say is those under the influence of Palestinian Jews and middle eastern Jews would not have accepted it. Yet those under the influence of Greek Jews would have accepted it. Now, it just so happens that all of the apostles were middle eastern Jews.

There are, in fact, many references in the New Testament to the 7 Deutero-canonical books.

There are also references to pagan writings, but it doesn't make them inspired either. How would Jesus have used or even refered to the septuagint when the septuagint wasn't used in Judea?

THE SEPTUAGINT INCLUDES THE DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS (what you call the Apocrypha), the books that were said to be added by Rome in the 16th cent.

Your point? The first copy of the New Testament delets certain parts of Luke and accepts it as the only gospel....does that mean we should listen to it? Likewise, just because the Septuagint, a Hellensitic interpretation of the Old Testament, includes the Apocrypha doesn't validate the books being in there. Again, many in the early church simply did not accept these books.

THE Church (which at the time was yours and mine), had chosen the canon of the Bible in the late 4th and early 5th cent at the Councils of Hippo & Carthage.

It didn't include the apocrypha, that is what you're forgetting.

I also refuse to refer to them at the deuterocanical books because that term was not coined until 1566 by Sixtus of Siena. Apocrypha is the correct term. While finally accepted by the Pope in the the 5th century (after pressure was placed on Jerome to change his stance saying that they were not inspired and thus refused to translate them into Latin...due to pressure he eventually caved) they were declared okay to place among scriptures but were not declared inspired or cannon. It wasn't until 1546 (Council of Trent) that they were finally cannonized by the Roman Catholic church.

If you're going to debate history with me, you're going to need to do better.

My arguments neither verify that the Apocrypha is inspired or deny it (though I believe it is not inspired it is composed of important works). I am merely arguing from history and telling you that you are wrong in saying it was universally accepted by the public or by the early Christian authority. As proven, even as late at the 5th century Jerome didn't accept them (at first), so the controversy had gone on for quite some time and wasn't finally settled untli 1546.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

SJ,

I'm not wrong. You simply disagree.

Greater men & women than you and I line up on both sides of this debate...and you know it.

Now I really must leave.

Peace,

Fiosh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, actually greater men and women, both Catholics and Protestants, agree that the Apocrypha was accepted by some and rejected by others. THe difference comes in who was right in rejecting and accepting.

I've read from both Catholic and Protestant historians and I can tell you with certainty no one believes that the Apocrypha was accepted by everyone initially.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never said the deutero-canonical books were accepted by "everyone initially".

Here's what I said:

"THE Church (which at the time was yours and mine), had chosen the canon of the Bible in the late 4th and early 5th cent at the Councils of Hippo & Carthage.

It was Martin Luther who threw out the books in question. In fact, he also tried to toss out James, parts of Hebrews, and several others.

So, I ask you: whose canon will you accept? Martin Luther's or that of Jesus and the Apostles??????"

The Council of Trent did not do anything new, it merely confirmed the accepted canon. The same canon used by the Apostles, regardless of what the Jewish community chose to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you're wrong again. The apostles wouldn't have used it because they were Palestinian Jews. THe Apocrypha would have been relatively unknown to them because it wasn't used in Judea during that time. It was used by Hellenistic (Greek Speaking) Jews. Secondly, the Council of Hippo and Carthage only acknowledged that the Apocrypha could be used and was not forbidden, however it was not accepted as scripture by the Catholic church until the early 1500's. Look it up in any history book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, SJ. You are ASSUMING that the Apostles would not have been familiar with the deutero-canonical books, yet there are quotes from and obvious allusions to them in the New Testament. So that argument is weak at best.

You said, "they were declared okay to place among scriptures but were not declared inspired or cannon. "

I'm puzzled. What does it mean to say they were considered "Scripture" but not "inspired"????

In regard to the canon being "accepted" by the Rcc in the 1500's, you're half right.

The Council of Trent closed the debate over the canon of Scripture in the mid 1500's. It was here that the Church determined "infallibly" the canon. However, it was the same canon put forth by the coucils of Hippo and Carthage. Yes, Jerone was influenced by the Jewish community of his day; and yes, the canon was still not closed at that time.

But the canon formulated by Hippo and Carthage 1200 years earlier had been endorsed by Pope Damasus I, though not infallibly.

The decision was based on NOT what the Jewish community did, but on what the Apostles themselves did......and it can be shown that they used the Septuagint (which included the deutero-canonical books).

Trent did not add to the canon.

The process of formalizing the canon was not based on the traditions of man, as "yours" is; it is based on the decision of a Spirit-led council.....just as in Acts 15

28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."

That is how I have assurance that the canon formalized at Trent is the true and inspired canon of Scripure. It was done in the manner set forth in Scripture itself--- namely, the Church leaders, sitting in council, led by the Holy Spirit, decided it.

It's BIBLICAL.

That's good enough for me.

Peace,

Fiosh

[Pax]

Since we are all talking about history, than I will mention that Martin Luther included the deuterocanonical books in his first translation. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the "Guttenberg Bible", (a century before the Council of Trent). The deuterocanonical were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised then in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in the appendix of Prostestant Bibles. History proves that Catholics did not add these books, Prostestants took them out.

Keep up the good work Fiosh.

[halifaxchristian]

Since we are all talking about history, than I will mention that Martin Luther included the deuterocanonical books in his first translation.  They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the "Guttenberg Bible", (a century before the Council of Trent).  The deuterocanonical were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised then in 1825.  Until then, they had been included at least in the appendix of Prostestant Bibles.  History proves that Catholics did not add these books, Prostestants took them out. 

Keep up the good work Fiosh. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fiosh does good work alright...as a Roman Catholic. She makes all of her arguments using the presupposition that the RC heirarchy is God's chosen vessel for divine appointment. Considering how they have contradicted themselves time and again...her house is obviously being built on straw.

Do you not see the reason??? God is not the author of confusion. Why did popes differ on whether or not the apocrypha was divine Scripture??? One pope knew, but the other wasn't sure...??? If the pope is the "vicar of Christ" and holds His position here on earth...as many bulls and councils have stated and/or upheld...let me ask a question...does Christ contradict Christ???

To prove the RCC wrong, one need not even leave the RCC. Stay inside of her and you find enough rope to hang yourself.

[Pax]

Since we are all talking about history, than I will mention that Martin Luther included the deuterocanonical books in his first translation.

[Fiosh]

Since we are all talking about history, than I will mention that Martin Luther included the deuterocanonical books in his first translation.

[apothanein kerdos]

Just how many times do I need to correct you on this issue?

]Nope, SJ. You are ASSUMING that the Apostles would not have been familiar with the deutero-canonical books, yet there are quotes from and obvious allusions to them in the New Testament. So that argument is weak at best.

The best you can come up with the book of Enoch. Other Apocryphal books simply are not found or are quoted sparsly and not by all apostles. Jude wasn't even an apostle. I am arguing that the apostles would not have known about them, and subsequently we do not see any of the apostles or Jesus quoting from them. As for Jude quoting from Enoch, Paul quotes from a Greek poet and says that the saying is true...does this make the Greek poet infallible?

I'm puzzled. What does it mean to say they were considered "Scripture" but not "inspired"????

Look a few pages back to see how something can be read with scripture but not considered scripture. This is what was declared at Hippo, that these could be read with scripture as elevated scriptures but were not considered scripture until much later.

In regard to the canon being "accepted" by the Rcc in the 1500's, you're half right.

The Council of Trent closed the debate over the canon of Scripture in the mid 1500's. It was here that the Church determined "infallibly" the canon. However, it was the same canon put forth by the coucils of Hippo and Carthage. Yes, Jerone was influenced by the Jewish community of his day; and yes, the canon was still not closed at that time.

In typical Catholic apologetic fashion you have thrown all history into the wind and instead choose to ignore the blaring facts (of which don't even effect your case, you merely say it because you were taught it). The Bible as protestants have it today was mainly solidified and cannonized by the 4th century. The Apocrypha, however, was kept out of the cannon and only viewed as elevated scripture and worthy of reading in public as a form of teaching but not as infallible scripture. It wasn't until Trent that it was finally recognized as inspired scripture. The reason it took so long is that early on in the church it was too hotly contested and rejected by some of the smartest thinkers of the time. It was accepted as elevated text but rejected as actual scripture. The council of Hippo only solidifies this fact in that it did not cannonize it when it had the power and chance to.

But the canon formulated by Hippo and Carthage 1200 years earlier had been endorsed by Pope Damasus I, though not infallibly.

The major and glaring problem with this is that the council partially met to decide what would be cannon and what would not. THey accepted the 66 books that Protestants have today. However they did not include the apocrypha in the cannon! You continue to ignore this. WHy, when establishing cannon, did they not add it in there?

The decision was based on NOT what the Jewish community did, but on what the Apostles themselves did......and it can be shown that they used the Septuagint (which included the deutero-canonical books).

Then show it. It's an empty claim because there is no proof, logical or anything otherwise, that the apostles used the Septuagint. Paul would have been familiar with it, however we know none of the other apostles would have been. Peter, as well as the others, primarily stayed in Jerusalem or migrated east or south on thier missionary journeys...where the Septuagint would have been completely unknown and out of use.

Trent did not add to the canon.

Your priest might say that but historians say otherwise. All proof is on my side on this issue. I dare you to try and prove it wrong.

The process of formalizing the canon was not based on the traditions of man, as "yours" is; it is based on the decision of a Spirit-led council.....just as in Acts 15

28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."

That is how I have assurance that the canon formalized at Trent is the true and inspired canon of Scripure. It was done in the manner set forth in Scripture itself--- namely, the Church leaders, sitting in council, led by the Holy Spirit, decided it.

That's possibly the most pathetic argument for the Apocrypha I've ever seen. Why did it take almost 1,500 years for the "church" to cannonize these books? Guess the Holy Spirit was out having a party? On vacation? His memo got lost in the company mail?

Please, if you're going to have a chance at this you're going to have to start trying to prove things rather than declare them without any fact. *sigh* Catholics, never change, always avoiding the facts.

[apothanein kerdos]

It does not contradict itself. No doctrine or moral, stated under papal infallibility has ever been changed.

Are you serious? Pope Zosimus ring a bell? How about the fact he retracted 6 previous infallible doctrinal statements that he himself made? Or what about Pope Honorious who was condemned as a heretic because he made doctrinal (infallible) statements that were considered heresy? Or what about the Vatican Council of 1870 that overturned two infallible Papal decrees? I think you might be forgetting Pope Gelasius' famous 495 infallible decree that the teaching of the assumption of Mary into heaven was heretical and those that taught it were condemned. Anyone that was Roman Catholic was not allowed to believe in this without becomming a heretic to the church. Yet on Novermber 1, 1950 not only did Pope Pious XII reverse this, but made it a church doctrine. Or how about when we have Pope Pios XI and Pope Leo XIII declaring public worship is wrong and non-catholics in catholic countries should not be allowed to worship in their own way? Yet, in 1962 this is overturned by the Vatican council.

Need I go on?

[Fiosh]

Hey SJ,

Seems like you hold to the , "Say it like you are sure of it, and they'll believe you" philosophy.

Just because you state things with "authority" and disdain for what I say, doesn't make you right.

I stand by my statements. They are historically accurate and researched.

It's not "what my priest says". Actually, some of it is what former-Protestant historians and apologists say.

You are still mostly wrong, even if you puff up bigger than I do.

***********sigh****************

Nite, nite,

Fiosh

PS. I dont' believe I noticed one single reference in your post to any reputable historian.

[apothanein kerdos]

Hey SJ,

Seems like you hold to the , "Say it like you are sure of it, and they'll believe you" philosophy.

Just because you state things with "authority" and disdain for what I say, doesn't make you right.

I stand by my statements. They are historically accurate and researched.

It's not "what my priest says". Actually, some of it is what former-Protestant historians and apologists say.

You are still mostly wrong, even if you puff up bigger than I do.

***********sigh****************

Nite, nite,

Fiosh

PS.  I dont' believe I noticed one single reference in your post to any reputable historian.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, so that's what it boils down to? Look at Wikpedia or any history book. I've opened up to where if I' wrong, you could destroy it with sources. I said to pull out a non-Catholic history book and prove it wrong. As it is, I can go to Wikpedia or anything else if I want to. Likewise, if I remember correctly I quoted from two or three other historical books on this thread, just not in the last post.

Alas, the last post absolutely destroyed you, so instead of responding to it, you call it quits. It is the Roman Catholic strategy. If this were 600 years ago, however, the strategy would be to have me burnt and/or tortured...all by infallible decree of the Pope which Pope John Paul II came by later and said these Popes were wrong...meaning these "infallible" decrees really weren't all that infallible.

Secondly, I think the fact I'm obtaining my degree in the issue (soon masters) should be evidence enough. That and I've gone against ardent anti-catholics who have tried to distort Catholic history. Halifax can attest to this, that I've stood up for the RCC's history at points. However, because I utterly destroyed your case, you want to press at me and refer to your imaginary sources.

Third, as it is I know I have refered to Wikpedia, Bruce Shelley, Mary Ann Collins, Dr. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Dr. Duane L. Christensen, Neil R. Lightfoot, Dr. John Sailhame, James R. White, and many others through my course of study and independant reading. Those are the authors I remember. If you'd like I'll go through and cite their books as well plus the other authors I missed. I did not cite them because I did not quote them, likewise all presented almost the same case on how the church and cannon were formed. On top of that, you don't cite what is common knowledge or if you are presenting an idea or historical fact confirmed from past studies unless you are quoting the author directly. If I tell you Hitler was the leader of Germany in WWII, I don't need to cite anyone for that.

I rest my case.

[apothanein kerdos]

Btw, I'd like to mention that some of those sources are Roman catholic....so far as I know two (maybe three) teach/taught at the University of Notre Dame.