Fiosh Posted August 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2005 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not avoiding you, SJ. I really had to get to bed (I got 5 hours of sleep). Now I must get to work. I will respond, with references ASAP. Have a blessed day, Fiosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted August 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2005 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Haven't had time to check yet, I'm at work (on a short break), but for starters: As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted August 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2005 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Haven't had time to check yet, I'm at work (on a short break), but for starters: As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you for proving my case "it always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books"" In essence, what Kelly, who is a "protestant" historian (most of his writings work off Catholic resources and he never explores the issues for himself), is saying is what I have been saying. Though included with the scriptures, it had different degrees of acceptance. Some rejected them outright, others viewed them as elevated but not scriptural or infallible, and other viewed them as scriptural. Your quote is proving what I have contended from the beginning...that the Apocrypha was not included in the canon of scripture until Trent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted August 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted August 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2005 btw, SJ, where'd ya get the canon for your New Testament? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted August 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2005 Since we are all talking about history, than I will mention that Martin Luther included the deuterocanonical books in his first translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted August 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2005 What does that have to do with anything? I don't hate the Catholic Church. I am very well versed on what the Roman Catholic church teaches...1/3 of my city is devout Roman Catholic. I have also studied it. I appreciate the Catholic Church and I thank it for a lot of the stances it takes. However we need to be intellectually honest and realize the true history, that the Apocrypha wasn't added in the canon until the Council of Trent. This doesn't destroy the Catholic position at all, it's simply historically accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted August 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2005 What does that have to do with anything? I don't hate the Catholic Church. I am very well versed on what the Roman Catholic church teaches...1/3 of my city is devout Roman Catholic. I have also studied it. I appreciate the Catholic Church and I thank it for a lot of the stances it takes. However we need to be intellectually honest and realize the true history, that the Apocrypha wasn't added in the canon until the Council of Trent. This doesn't destroy the Catholic position at all, it's simply historically accurate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, SJ. That wasn't aimed at you. I was only correcting a quote I tagged at the end of a post. Halifax had commented in an earlier post that the RCC is "hated". Even so, you are still wrong....and historically inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted August 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2005 What does that have to do with anything? I don't hate the Catholic Church. I am very well versed on what the Roman Catholic church teaches...1/3 of my city is devout Roman Catholic. I have also studied it. I appreciate the Catholic Church and I thank it for a lot of the stances it takes. However we need to be intellectually honest and realize the true history, that the Apocrypha wasn't added in the canon until the Council of Trent. This doesn't destroy the Catholic position at all, it's simply historically accurate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, SJ. That wasn't aimed at you. I was only correcting a quote I tagged at the end of a post. Halifax had commented in an earlier post that the RCC is "hated". Even so, you are still wrong....and historically inaccurate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you want to assert so. http://watch.pair.com/apocrypha.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon http://www.str.org/free/studies/apocryph.htm http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/nbi/395.html http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/trent.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent Now, stop saying "you're wrong" when there is absolutely no historical validity to what you're saying. The fact is that it was not considered canon or declared canon until the 1500's. Also, what about the infallibility points I brought up? That, unlike the Apocrypha debate, does dejustify your cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted August 25, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2005 What does that have to do with anything? I don't hate the Catholic Church. I am very well versed on what the Roman Catholic church teaches...1/3 of my city is devout Roman Catholic. I have also studied it. I appreciate the Catholic Church and I thank it for a lot of the stances it takes. However we need to be intellectually honest and realize the true history, that the Apocrypha wasn't added in the canon until the Council of Trent. This doesn't destroy the Catholic position at all, it's simply historically accurate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, SJ. That wasn't aimed at you. I was only correcting a quote I tagged at the end of a post. Halifax had commented in an earlier post that the RCC is "hated". Even so, you are still wrong....and historically inaccurate. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you want to assert so. http://watch.pair.com/apocrypha.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon http://www.str.org/free/studies/apocryph.htm http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/nbi/395.html http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/trent.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent Now, stop saying "you're wrong" when there is absolutely no historical validity to what you're saying. The fact is that it was not considered canon or declared canon until the 1500's. Also, what about the infallibility points I brought up? That, unlike the Apocrypha debate, does dejustify your cause. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How can I stop saying, "You're wrong" when it's so much fun? You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong. From (your own source)Wikipedia: "The Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, probably in the 1st and 2nd centuries BCE, provided a standard text for the non-Hebrew-speaking world, and was used by the Apostles and early Christians" "Luther also eliminated the "doubtful" books from his Old Testament, terming them "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read". He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of Esther from the Canon to the Apocrypha, since without the deuterocanonical sections, it never mentions God. As a result Catholics and Protestants continue to use different canons, which differ in respect to the Old Testament. There is some evidence that the first decision to omit these books entirely from the Bible was made by Protestant laity rather than clergy " As for your other sources, I would not choose a Fundamentalist Baptist website as my unbiased reference of choice. I'd rather look at what the guys who learned from the Apostles have to say: Clement of Rome "By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts