The apocryphal books

[JM]

I'd like to see where any true saint, anywhere at any time quoted any of these books to lead some one to Christ or to get comfort or got any benefit from them. Mercy :o :o :o

You don't see any benefit in Maccabees chapter 7 and the matyrdom of a mother and her 7 Hebrew sons? Common AV! The Apostle Paul in fact alludes to this in Heb 11:35.

I believe Paul alludes to 1 Kings 19-24 and Isa. 5:12.

In Hebrews 11:35???

I corrected the quote by adding chpt. 17. Many 'good' things can be found in the apocrypha and many 'good' things can be found in works which are not inspired. Paul even quotes from a play by Menander in 1 Cor. but that doesn't mean the play is inspiried. "If" Paul is alluding to 2 Macc. in Heb. that doesn't prove it's inspiried...I've shown other scriptures that should be considered as possible sources of the allusion.

Peace.

 

[thessalonian]

I'd like to see where any true saint, anywhere at any time quoted any of these books to lead some one to Christ or to get comfort or got any benefit from them. Mercy :o :o :o

You don't see any benefit in Maccabees chapter 7 and the matyrdom of a mother and her 7 Hebrew sons? Common AV! The Apostle Paul in fact alludes to this in Heb 11:35.

I believe Paul alludes to 1 Kings 19-24 and Isa. 5:12.

In Hebrews 11:35???

"If" Paul is alluding to 2 Macc. in Heb. that doesn't prove it's inspiried...I've shown other scriptures that should be considered as possible sources of the allusion.

Peace.

BINGO! That's what I have been trying to say all along. Quote or non-quote does not prove that something should or shouldn't be in the canon. It is not I that claims that it does! NOT ONCE! Your article uses it as it's favorite arguement. By the criteria that something is not quoted there should be books pulled out that we both agree are a part of the canon. By quote we should add some pagan books in. It is not a valid criteria either way and should not be used. That is exactly what I have been saying all along! I was simply rebutting his comment that no apocryphal books have been used by Christian for comfort or conversion. I consider myself quite Christian and have derived such benefit from many texts of the dueterocanonicals. My arguements in favor of them stem completely from the authority of the Church Christ established to go forth with the Gospel. This Church correctly set in stone the 27 books of the New Testament. You accept these books without hardly questining it (even though some of the deformers did). Yet somehow you think these councils got the Old Testament wrong.

 

[thessalonian]

The Geneva Bible states, “books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same.â€Â

I don't think he said the whole book had to be quoted to give comfort. He said he didn't know any Christian who had recieved conversion or comfort, having been quoted them. You agreed. Now you backpedal.

I've also seen Catholics quote Mary from Medjugorje, does that
mean the CC accepts Medjugorje apparitions?

You make a severe error in this debate of thinking that because I argue against you I am arguing the opposite point. Where have I claimed that the things said in Medjugorje are scripture and what does your point have to do with this discussion. Where has a Catholic or the Church said they are scripture? The CC does not currently accept or reject Medjugorje. You speak in ignorance of Catholic understandings and think you are making valid points. I've seen protestants quote John McCarthur. I most certainly wouldn't accuse you of making him out to be a prophet, giving new scripture.

 

[JM]

I don't think he said the whole book had to be quoted to give comfort. He said he didn't know any Christian who had recieved conversion or comfort, having been quoted them. You agreed. Now you backpedal.

lol, I didn't backpedal. I still don't know of anyone who was converted or found comfort in the apocrypha...unless you feel you have. But I know folks that found comfort in Ray Comfort's work and converted by the Gospel preached therein, is it now inspired or should we wait for the RCC to make the call?

You make a severe error in this debate of thinking that because I argue against you I am arguing the opposite point. Where have I claimed that the things said in Medjugorje are scripture and what does your point have to do with this discussion. Where has a Catholic or the Church said they are scripture? The CC does not currently accept or reject Medjugorje. You speak in ignorance of Catholic understandings and think you are making valid points. I've seen protestants quote John McCarthur. I most certainly wouldn't accuse you of making him out to be a prophet, giving new scripture.

Ahhhh, but that's the difference. Catholic's will quote from Mary at Medjugorje as if she's divine, no prot or non-catholic I've ever spoke with would ever claim MacArthur was divine.

BINGO! That's what I have been trying to say all along. Quote or non-quote does not prove that something should or shouldn't be in the canon. It is not I that claims that it does! NOT ONCE! Your article uses it as it's favorite arguement. By the criteria that something is not quoted there should be books pulled out that we both agree are a part of the canon. By quote we should add some pagan books in. It is not a valid criteria either way and should not be used. That is exactly what I have been saying all along! I was simply rebutting his comment that no apocryphal books have been used by Christian for comfort or conversion. I consider myself quite Christian and have derived such benefit from many texts of the dueterocanonicals. My arguements in favor of them stem completely from the authority of the Church Christ established to go forth with the Gospel. This Church correctly set in stone the 27 books of the New Testament. You accept these books without hardly questining it (even though some of the deformers did). Yet somehow you think these councils got the Old Testament wrong.

Context is what decides how a quotation is used and accepted. I'm not sure why you're so quick to yell BINGO, the apostles didn't quote the apocrypha while teaching because it isn't inspired. There's no confussion on this matter. Nothing has changed. Paul quoted a play write as an illustration for a teaching or to make a point, it seems the play write was used and the apocrypha wasn't. :wink:

Ecclesiastes is nowhere quoted in the New Testament so does that mean it is not scripture?

As for this remark, Ecclesiastes was already accepted. The apocrypha never was.


Peace.

 

[thessalonian]

I still don't know of anyone who was converted or found comfort in the apocrypha...unless you feel you have. But I know folks that found comfort in Ray Comfort's work and converted by the Gospel preached therein, is it now inspired or should we wait for the RCC to make the call?

Silly arguementation. I guess those plaques sit on the store shelves in NW Book because noone sees them as comforting. This whole line of reasoning is simple pointless. Do you know people comforted or converted by the Book of Numbers? How about Ruth? You speak as if the Catholic Church puts these books first and foremost in its conversion efforts. The ignornance of Catholicism and the Catholic life is astounding. :o

:o

Ahhhh, but that's the difference. Catholic's will quote from Mary at Medjugorje as if she's divine, no prot or non-catholic I've ever spoke with would ever claim MacArthur was divine.

More rhetoric. Noone I know or have ever known has claimed Mary is divine. Simple anti-catholic habadashary. Do you think that can be visited by angels or men who have died. You of course are aware of Samuels appearance to Saul or are you in the "it was a devil" protestant camp on that one. Maybe that wasn't Moses and Elijah with Jesus or relatives did not appear to people after the ressurection. I could just as easily say people quote MacCarthur's Bible footnoots as if he is divine. But I won't make such silly prejudicial statements, though they could be made.

 

[JM]

I guess I can't stay away too long...

Silly arguementation. I guess those plaques sit on the store shelves in NW Book because noone sees them as comforting. This whole line of reasoning is simple pointless. Do you know people comforted or converted by the Book of Numbers? How about Ruth? You speak as if the Catholic Church puts these books first and foremost in its conversion efforts. The ignornance of Catholicism and the Catholic life is astounding.

It is, that's why I used your own arguementation to show you how silly it is. : How did you miss it? Do I find comfort in Numbers or Ruth, yes I do. How could a believer not?

More rhetoric. Noone I know or have ever known has claimed Mary is divine. Simple anti-catholic habadashary. Do you think that can be visited by angels or men who have died. You of course are aware of Samuels appearance to Saul or are you in the "it was a devil" protestant camp on that one. Maybe that wasn't Moses and Elijah with Jesus or relatives did not appear to people after the ressurection. I could just as easily say people quote MacCarthur's Bible footnoots as if he is divine. But I won't make such silly prejudicial statements, though they could be made.

When things aren't going your way, use the good ol' logical fallacy of appealing to emotions. No, what you posted is rhetoric. By calling those who deny the RCC teaching we are 'anti' catholic, and make the claim that 'people quote MacCarthur's (who ever that is?) Bible footnotes as if he is divine' is merely not true and I ask you since you made the claim that you could, show me one person who quotes this MacCarthur fellow as divine? Please, just one? Then you claim my statements are prejudicial...hummm.

To sum it all up: I'm anti catholic and I make prejudicial remarks. Really?

Here's a few links from your brothers and sisters in the Royal Catholic Church that believes Mary brings forth 'messages' from God for mankind today.

http://www.ourladyweb.com/mary-messages.html
http://www.kurescek.info/
http://www.icon.co.za/~host/ngome/messages.htm
http://www.medjugorje.org/olmpage.htm
Just a few I googled up for ya.

Pope Pius IX: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved IMMUNE from all stain of original sin.

Well, the Royal Church made a mistake.

Romans 3:23 For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Mary would have to be divine to avoid the stain of Adam's sin, which a doctor of your church proclaim so rightly (augustine).

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/creed3.html

I'll wait for the quote from the person who thinks MacCarthur/MacArthur is divine.

j

 

[bbas 64]

I'd like to see where any true saint, anywhere at any time quoted any of these books to lead some one to Christ or to get comfort or got any benefit from them. Mercy :o :o :o

Good Day, AV

In one of Jeroms letters he said that Jesus and the Apostles never quoted these books, he even asks for a list of quotes to be provided to him of such examples. I will tell you Jerome never got that list.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[bbas 64]

Can you say assertion... Lacking historical substance..

Can you say handwaving lacking historical substance. Show me a Latin Vulgate without them? That was the version of the Bible used by the vast majority of the Christian world for 1200 years or more. Sure, people are always questioning truth. There is always dissent. So what.

Good Day, Thess

Show me a Latin Vugate that does not have the disclaimer of Jerome as he addresess the the book

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."
Jerome
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

Now you either agree with the Church of Jerome's day or you do not. If you do not then why not, what is your basis. You either agree with Cajetan, or you do not, if not why not what is your basis?


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[phatcatholic]

I'd like to see where any true saint, anywhere at any time quoted any of these books to lead some one to Christ or to get comfort or got any benefit from them. Mercy :o :o :o

does St. Athanasius count? [note: citations from an apocryphal/deuterocanonical book are in bold]

• "[T]he sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;' [Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;' [Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides Israel, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom;' [Baruch 3:12] and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters' [Jer 2:13]" [3] --Athanasius the Great: Defense of the Nicene Faith,2 (A.D. 351), in NPNF2, IV:158.
  [/*:m:30089]
• "And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,’ [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;’ [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22]" --Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:313
  [/*:m:30089]
• t is written that 'all things were made through the Word,' and 'without Him was not made one thing,’ [John 1:3] and again, 'One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things,’ [1 Cor 8:9] and in Him all things consist,’ [Col 1:17] it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, 'O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord,', they recount things I heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works; but the Son they name not. For thy say not, ‘Bless, O Word, and praise O Wisdom; to shew that all other things are both praising and are works’; but the Word is not a work nor of those that braise but is praised with the Father and worshipped and confessed as God.’ [Daniel 3:57-Three Youths] --Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:71 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:387.
  [/*:m:30089]
  [*]Daniel said to Astyages, 'I do not worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh;' [Daniel 14:5-Bel & the Dragon]" --Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 3:30 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2, IV:410.
  [/*:m:30089]
  [*]"But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, 'For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God?’ [1 Cor 1:21] or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a 'multitude of wise men' [Wisdom 6:24] are found in Scripture? for 'a wise man feareth and departeth from evil;’ [Prov 14:16] and 'through wisdom is a house builded;’ [Prov 24] and the Preacher says, 'A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine;' and he blames those who are headstrong thus, 'Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this.’ [Eccl 8:1,7:10] But if, as the Son of Sirach says, 'He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him,'[Sirach 1:8,9]" [7] --Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:79 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:391
  [/*:m:30089]
  [*]Since, however, after all his severe sufferings, after his retirement into Gaul, after his sojourn in a foreign and far distant country in the place of his own, after his narrow escape from death through their calumnies, but thanks to the clemency of the Emperor,- -distress which would have satisfied even the most cruel enemy,-- they are still insensible to shame, are again acting insolently against the Church and Athanasius; and from indignation at his deliverance venture on still more atrocious schemes against him, and are ready with an accusation, fearless of the words in holy Scripture, 'A false witness shall not be unpunished;’ [Proverbs 19:5] and, 'The mouth that belieth slayeth the soul;' (Wisdom 1:11) we therefore are unable longer to hold our peace, being amazed at their wickedness and at the insatiable love of contention displayed in their intrigues. --Athanasius the Great: Defence Against the Arians, 3 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:101
  [/*:m:30089]
  [*]Let us not fulfill these days like those that mourn but, by enjoying spiritual food, let us seek to silence our fleshly lusts(Ex. 15:1). For by these means we shall have strength to overcome our adversaries, like blessed Judith (Judith 13:8), when having first exercised herself in fastings and prayers, she overcame the enemies, and killed Olophernes. And blessed Esther, when destruction was about to come on all her race, and the nation of Israel was ready to perish, defeated the fury of the tyrant by no other means than by fasting and prayer to God, and changed the ruin of her people into safety (Esther 4:16) --Athanasius the Great: Letter 4, 2 (A.D. 333), in NPNF2, IV:516.
  [/*:m:30089]
  [*]The Spirit also, who is in him, commands, saying, 'Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord thy vows. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord (Sir. 18:17).') --Athanasius the Great: Letter 19, 5 (A.D. 333), in NPNF2, IV:546
  [/*:m:30089]
  [*]But this wearied them, for they were not anxious to understand, 'for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory(1 Cor. 2:8).' And what their end is, the prophet foretold, crying, 'Woe unto their soul, for they have devised an evil thought, saying, let us bind the just man, because he is not pleasing to us’(Wis. 2:12). The end of such abandonment as this can be nothing but error, as the Lord, when reproving them, saith, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures(Mt. 22:29).’ --Athanasius the Great: Letter 19:5 (A.D. 347), in NPNF2, IV:546
  [/*:m:30089]
  [*]According as the wisdom of God testifies beforehand when it says, "The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication." (Wis. 14:12) --Against the Heathen, 9 (A.D. 347), in NPNF2, IV:9.[/*:m:30089]

if need be, more saints can be provided, such as St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Hilary of Poiters, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. John Damascene, and even St. Jerome (gasp!).

pax christi,
phatcatholic

 

[thessalonian]

Good Day, Thess

Show me a Latin Vugate that does not have the disclaimer of Jerome as he addresess the the book

There are disclaimers by Jerome in the Latin Vulgate? I've never seen one. Perhaps you can show me.

[quote:cef70]As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."
Jerome
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

Now you either agree with the Church of Jerome's day or you do not. If you do not then why not, what is your basis. You either agree with Cajetan, or you do not, if not why not what is your basis?[/quote:cef70]


What appears more likely to me Bill is that Jerome was mistaken about the Churches position of the Deuterocanonicals. Augustine and the Popes of the time, particularly Damausus, agreed that the Dueteros were scripture. Three synods, Rome, Hippo, and Carthage all agreed that the Dueteros were scripture. There is far more evidence, considering that there were many bishops at the synods, that believed the Dueteros were scripture. Jerome is but one man and the testimony of Pope Damasus holds much more weight with me.

But you have another problem. It seems that even Jerome finally changed his mind on this matter as he calls both Baruch and Sirach scripture.


Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45

Seems you have a bit of a problem. Oh, and didn't someone up above say no prophets said anything in the Dueteros. Seems Jerome thought otherwise. Here is an article from which the above quotes were taken.

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.htm ... Jerome,%20[347-419/420%20A.D]

Blessings

 

[bbas 64]

Good Day, Thess

Show me a Latin Vugate that does not have the disclaimer of Jerome as he addresess the the book

There are disclaimers by Jerome in the Latin Vulgate? I've never seen one. Perhaps you can show me.

[quote:6b6c9][quote:6b6c9]As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."
Jerome
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon

Now you either agree with the Church of Jerome's day or you do not. If you do not then why not, what is your basis. You either agree with Cajetan, or you do not, if not why not what is your basis?[/quote:6b6c9]


What appears more likely to me Bill is that Jerome was mistaken about the Churches position of the Deuterocanonicals. Augustine and the Popes of the time, particularly Damausus, agreed that the Dueteros were scripture. Three synods, Rome, Hippo, and Carthage all agreed that the Dueteros were scripture. There is far more evidence, considering that there were many bishops at the synods, that believed the Dueteros were scripture. Jerome is but one man and the testimony of Pope Damasus holds much more weight with me.

But you have another problem. It seems that even Jerome finally changed his mind on this matter as he calls both Baruch and Sirach scripture.


Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45

Seems you have a bit of a problem. Oh, and didn't someone up above say no prophets said anything in the Dueteros. Seems Jerome thought otherwise. Here is an article from which the above quotes were taken.

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.htm ... Jerome,%20[347-419/420%20A.D]

Blessings[/quote:6b6c9]

Good Day, Thess

Jerome mistaken :roll: certainly does raise a couple of questions.

"IF" he was mistaken who corrected him, where is the source?
"IF" he was mistaken why did the church print his comments in the vulgate if he did not represt the "church"
"IF" he was mistaken and it was know that he was why did Cajten use Jerome in his commentaries.

Who corrected Cajten, where is the source.

Jerome as may did make a distiction between cannoical Scriptures and scripture, you seem to be unable to do so.

Jerome changed his mind where does he say that, did Cajten miss that writting of Jerome?

Luther's view was the same as Jerome's, as was Luther's contempary Cajten.
To attack Luther and not even mention Cajten is a double standard.

Not to even mention the view of the mid-evil church of the 10-12 century, as seen in the gloss, where these books were placed in the back with a seperation of 2 blank pages. and contained Jeromes preface and were used extensivly by the church in that time.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[phatcatholic]

I'd like to see where any true saint, anywhere at any time quoted any of these books to lead some one to Christ or to get comfort or got any benefit from them. Mercy :o :o :o

Good Day, AV

In one of Jeroms letters he said that Jesus and the Apostles never quoted these books, he even asks for a list of quotes to be provided to him of such examples. I will tell you Jerome never got that list.

Peace to u,

Bill

for some reason, i missed this earlier, so i wanted to go back and respond to it. i apologize if this messes up the flow of the discussion.

that said, have u ever read the book of Wisdom? it makes u feel like ur reading the NT. the parallels are so striking they are simply impossible to ignore. here is a suggested list of references, from the Navarre Commentary ("Wisdom Books," p. 305):

• --the "pre-existence" of the eternal Word alongside God (8:3; 9:4 and Jn 1:1-18)
  --the Word as creator (7:21; 8:6 and Jn 1:3,10)
  --the omniscence of the Word (8:4; 9:9; 10:11,17 and Jn 5:20)
  --God's love for the human being (1:6; 7:23; 11:24,26 and Jn 3:16-17)
  --God's love for those who love Wisdom/the Word (7:28 and Jn 14:23; 16:27)
  --knowledge of the existence of God through the things he has made (13:3-5 and Rom 1:18-20)
  --moral decadence and its consequences and punishments (14:22-31 and Rom 1:21-32)
  --God's mercy and patience, calling man to conversion (11:23,26; 12:2,10,19 and Rom 2:4)
  --the absolute power of God (12:22 and Rom 9:19-23)
  --Wisdom/Christ, the image of the invisible God (7:26 and Col 1:15)
  --the armour of God's armies and the virtues of a Christian (5:17-20 and Eph 6:14-17)
  --Wisdom/the Son, a reflection of the glory of God/the Father (7:25-26 and Heb 1:3)
  --the excellence of Wisdom (7:22-24 and Jas 3:17-18)

if you will take the time to look up these references, you will find the book of Wisdom and the words of both Jesus and the apostles as coinciding rather well. some of the references are almost exact, which is rare considering that the NT usually quotes the OT rather loosely.

here's one famous reference fom Paul to the book of Maccabees. i tried to provide the most pertinent verses, but the best thing is to just read the whole chapter:

• Heb 11:35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.
  
  2 Mac 7:7-9,20,29
  7 After the first brother had died in this way, they brought forward the second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and asked him, "Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?"
  8 He replied in the language of his fathers, and said to them, "No." Therefore he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done.
  9 And when he was at his last breath, he said, "You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws."
  20 The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord.
  29 [the mother speaking] "Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers."

the first part of the verse from hebrews is probably a reference to 1 Kings 17. but, these people who were tortured and refused to be released so that they might gain a better resurrection are found only in the book of Maccabees.

finally, here's a reference from Revelations to the book of Tobit:

• Rev 21:18-21
  18 The wall was built of jasper, while the city was pure gold, clear as glass.
  19 The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with every jewel; the first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald,
  20 the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst.
  21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls, each of the gates made of a single pearl, and the street of the city was pure gold, transparent as glass.
  
  Tob 13:16-17
  16 For Jerusalem will be built with sapphires and emeralds, her walls with precious stones, and her towers and battlements with pure gold.
  17 The streets of Jerusalem will be paved with beryl and ruby and stones of Ophir

anyway, that's the beginnings of the type of list you are looking for.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

 

[phatcatholic]

i might as well go ahead and respond to this too :D :

Jerome mistaken :roll: certainly does raise a couple of questions.

"IF" he was mistaken who corrected him, where is the source?

well, first of all, we can't really judge what Jerome said until u show us what you are talking about. is it online anywhere, these words that condemn the deuterocanonicals?

in the article (here) that thess mentioned we do have jerome saying:

• "As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon..." (Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

but what does that mean? surely its not an outright denial of these books, b/c he quotes them as if they were scripture many times (as the article goes on to show). so, in my opinion, this means that with the quote above he is merely declaring the state of discussion on these books in his day: the canonicity of them was still being debated. this would explain why he says not to quote them to prove doctrine. afterall, you only want to quote from those books in which we have universal certainty. among the fathers, he may be the most skeptical, but he refrains from making a condemnation of them (at least, from what i've read........i haven't read everything that Jerome has to say on the matter).

now, as for who corrected him, you have to keep in mind that, for a man living in the 400's, it is perfectly ok to say that the Church does not admit them among the canonical scriptures. afterall, it was definitely up for debate in his day. we cannot expect universal agreement on the canon in his lifetime. they didn't even have a bible back then! but, as the years went by, and these books were used more and more in the liturgy and printed in people's bibles (even if they were separate) the ordinary magisterium regarded them as Scripture in belief and practice and future councils considered them inspired. of course, Trent settled the issue once and for all.

"IF" he was mistaken why did the church print his comments in the vulgate if he did not represt the "church"

i dunno, i don't have a vulgate. if you could produce this for us too, that would be tremendously helpful.

"IF" he was mistaken and it was know that he was why did Cajten use Jerome in his commentaries.

Who corrected Cajten, where is the source.

how did Cajetan use jerome? i don't have any of cajetan's commentaries either. ultimately, it was trent that corrected anyone who had doubts about the canon.

Jerome as may did make a distiction between cannoical Scriptures and scripture, you seem to be unable to do so.

he did? where? what's the difference between "canonical scriptures" and "scripture"?

Jerome changed his mind where does he say that, did Cajten miss that writting of Jerome?

it would really help if u could give us these words from Cajetan. also, i don't see Jerome as necessarily "changing his mind." i think he had some skepticism, and he reflected a time in which the canon was very much up for debate, but that doesn't mean he ever outright condemned them, especially since he still quoted them as if they were scripture and put them in his Vulgate.

Luther's view was the same as Jerome's, as was Luther's contempary Cajten.
To attack Luther and not even mention Cajten is a double standard.

again, i have no clue what Cajetan said on this matter. u will have to enlighten me. also, comparing Luther to Jerome??? wow. they certainly did not treat these books the same.............that is, unless you can find Luther quoting the deuterocanonical books as much as Jerome does.

Not to even mention the view of the mid-evil church of the 10-12 century, as seen in the gloss, where these books were placed in the back with a seperation of 2 blank pages. and contained Jeromes preface and were used extensivly by the church in that time.

Peace to u,

Bill

the view of the medieval church? i'm not sure what you are referring to. are you saying that the majority of catholics thought (or councils declared) during that period that the deuterocanonical books didn't belong? i'll need some proof for that one.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

 

[bbas 64]

Good Day, Phatcatholic

All of the information you are requesting is in this thread. With the exception of the "gloss", we can save that until later, let's look at Jerome and Cajten first as Cajten looks to Jerome.

I agree with you on trent, it was then that the Roman Catholic church presented it's canon, with disreguard to the historical back round and views of the books it added to the Jewish canon.

I have read some of Wisdom yes, it is a very interesting peice of writiing and is useful. There are many writing that I find useful, but that by no means puts them level as inspired Scripture.

I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[phatcatholic]

Good Day, Phatcatholic

All of the information you are requesting is in this thread. With the exception of the "gloss", we can save that until later, let's look at Jerome and Cajten first as Cajten looks to Jerome.

you're right, i apologize for the oversight. before i go back and respond to this work, i want to make sure i understand exactly what your position is. are you basically saying: "the majority of christians denied the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books, so we should deny them to" ? if so, all it would be necessary for me to do is show that a great many fathers and councils deemed them canonical. trent didn't abrogate some vast tradition of denial of these books when it declared them to be part of the canon. such a claim is simply ahistorical, as evidenced by this article (i provide a link instead of posting the information b/c the number of testimonies in support of these books are simply too numerous to include here).

I agree with you on trent, it was then that the Roman Catholic church presented it's canon, with disreguard to the historical back round and views of the books it added to the Jewish canon.

well, i would think that the canon of the Hellenistic Jews and the vast testimony provided in the article i linked to above shows that trent hardly acted with disregard.

I have read some of Wisdom yes, it is a very interesting peice of writiing and is useful. There are many writing that I find useful, but that by no means puts them level as inspired Scripture.

but isn't your test of canonicity whether or not they are quoted in the NT, or quoted by Jesus and the apostles? if it is, then you must at least accept wisdom as well, for their are obvious references to it in the NT. also, i have yet to see in this thread (unless i missed it, which is possible) a response to the fact that the NT writers also quote from the Book of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses and even greek (pagan) poetry, AND not from Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles (which you include)..............which essentially undermines this whole test of canonicity in the first place.

I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)

who's words are these again? jerome's? cajetan's? athanasius? (sorry)

essentially, i suppose you have two positions you are asserting in this thread (from what i can tell):
1. the majority of christians denied these books, thus we should too
2. the NT doens't quote from them, so they weren't inspired.

the tradition of acceptance that i provided, and the implications that quoting a text has upon the canon shows both of your positions to be erroneous. of course, if i have misrepresented your position(s), let me know.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

 

[bbas 64]

Good Day, Phatcatholic

The whole issue for me is when statements such as :

"We can certainly go round in circles all day on this issue but it is simple fact that the refomeres decided they had the authority to take out what had been a part of the scriptures for 1600 years."


Are just throw out there with very little historical perspective is very sad. People "blame" Luther for throwing books out, when in fact there is others in his time that shared his view, but he takes the "blame" that is clearly a double standard.

I hold to the Canon of the Jews, those books that were held in the temple as inspired words given by God, to the Jews. I do not think I said a majority of christains said any thing, an appeal to the majority is useless in this issue IMHO.

The question is one of History, and I follow the Jewish canon as did many early christians who wrote on this subject, not all did and I will not assume anything in the absence of information.

Just because some thing is quoted in the NT does not in fact make it part of the OT canon, as you corectly pointed out the quotes from the Pagan writtings. You seem to hold that because some of these books are supossedly quoted in the NT, thus they are canon, what do you do with the pagan writting quoted?

I hope this answers your questions, as they are good questions thank you for them.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[thessalonian]

Sorry bbas, I've been away from this thread a bit. Trying to jump back in, I don't think phat (correct me if I am wrong) would say that because something is quoted or referrenced that makes it scripture. I made the point earlier in the thread I believe it was with AV, that quoting or not quoting is really an invalid criteria but one that Protestants use with us. The criteria quite frankly that we use is submission to the Church on the matter. Oddly enough whether you folks know it or not it is the one you use as well. I don't see any Protestants sitting down and going through their Bibles and saying this is canon and this isn't. They submit to the decisions made long before them. There are 27 books in the New Testament. Yours and ours. Now somehow the early councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage got these right and they ended up in Jerome's Bible. I doudt the Jews had any good, holy spirit driven, opinion on these. I think we can agree on that. Yet oddly enough you seem to think that the opinion of the Jews on the Old Testament was Holy Spirit driven. There was no agreed upon canon amongst the Jews until after the Apostles even walked this earth. Protestants tell me they set in at the Council of Jamnia in around 90 AD. Well I wonder if you think that the Holy Spirit was guiding that council? These are the same Jews Jerome would have gotten his information from regarding what Jews consider as canon. It influenced his thinking, understandably so.

Oddly enough you Protestants take Jerome as an infallible voice in this matter over the rest of the Fathers, yet you in the next breath criticize the vulgate, ignore his submission to Rome which he expressed on several other matters and many of his other very Catholic views such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, not to get off topic. Protestants "use" history, especially that of the father's of the Church. They don't try to understand it. It fits like a glove with the Catholic faith. If the gates of hell are not to prevail that is what we would expect.

Blessings

 

[bbas 64]

Sorry bbas, I've been away from this thread a bit. Trying to jump back in, I don't think phat (correct me if I am wrong) would say that because something is quoted or referrenced that makes it scripture. I made the point earlier in the thread I believe it was with AV, that quoting or not quoting is really an invalid criteria but one that Protestants use with us. The criteria quite frankly that we use is submission to the Church on the matter. Oddly enough whether you folks know it or not it is the one you use as well. I don't see any Protestants sitting down and going through their Bibles and saying this is canon and this isn't. They submit to the decisions made long before them.

Good Day, Thess

Welcome back, hope you are well. For me as I can not speak for "all" protestants it is a question of history pure and simple. It is not a matter of submitting, as it is for you.

There are 27 books in the New Testament. Yours and ours. Now somehow the early councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage got these right and they ended up in Jerome's Bible. I doudt the Jews had any good, holy spirit driven, opinion on these. I think we can agree on that. Yet oddly enough you seem to think that the opinion of the Jews on the Old Testament was Holy Spirit driven. There was no agreed upon canon amongst the Jews until after the Apostles even walked this earth. Protestants tell me they set in at the Council of Jamnia in around 90 AD. Well I wonder if you think that the Holy Spirit was guiding that council? These are the same Jews Jerome would have gotten his information from regarding what Jews consider as canon. It influenced his thinking, understandably so.

Again I can not sppeak for or too, these Protestants who have a view of Jamnia that is lacking in historical evidence. I would like to know your view, I think you will find mine in line with most scholar ship on this issue, weather they be of the Roman Catholic side or not.

If you woulkd like to discuss the NT and the Roman Catholic view and mine I would be more than happy.

Oddly enough you Protestants take Jerome as an infallible voice in this matter over the rest of the Fathers, yet you in the next breath criticize the vulgate, ignore his submission to Rome which he expressed on several other matters and many of his other very Catholic views such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, not to get off topic. Protestants "use" history, especially that of the father's of the Church. They don't try to understand it. It fits like a glove with the Catholic faith. If the gates of hell are not to prevail that is what we would expect.

Blessings

Where did I say Jerome was infallible? I mearly was using Jerome as an historical source, for what the church belived in his day for he gives us that information.

Fits like a glove.. Can you say OJ... J/K :-D

Just a side "gates" are not offensive they are defensive, they either lock things out or keep things in, so I am not sure what you mean here??

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[thessalonian]

Ah the "most scholars " handwaving fallacy of association. Both Catholic and Protestant scholars agree with you? Don't make me laugh bbas.

You focus on the gates. Shall not prevail is just as critical. Hell assults the Church with all sorts of doctrines and accusations. Men asserting their own individual doctrines as to be believed. Look here, here is Christ they say. Come out of that Church. The Church has stood against this assult by the grace of God for 2000 years. Your on the wrong side of the gate I fear. Sad.

 

[bbas 64]

Ah the "most scholars " handwaving fallacy of association. Both Catholic and Protestant scholars agree with you? Don't make me laugh bbas.

You focus on the gates. Shall not prevail is just as critical. Hell assults the Church with all sorts of doctrines and accusations. Men asserting their own individual doctrines as to be believed. Look here, here is Christ they say. Come out of that Church. The Church has stood against this assult by the grace of God for 2000 years. Your on the wrong side of the gate I fear. Sad.

Good Day, Thess

Kind of funny how you have not posted your views on Jaminca??

Historically that is nothing new even with in your denomination:


Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Liberated from the error of
pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness
of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very
beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in
babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of
the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently
and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many
worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious
relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of
the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another and also in their understanding of
the Holy Scriptures. Most alarming of all is the fact that I found
the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance
with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much
opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so
mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly
confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the
Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the
prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’
Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what
the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a
state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I
veered now this way, now thatâ€â€attracted now to one man,
now to another, under the influence of protracted association
with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I
bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a
long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still
busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to
my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did
what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in
the words†‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With
these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present
circumstances that explanation which, incredible and
frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is
understood; for never before has there arisen such discord
and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church
in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and
true God, only King of the universe. Each man, indeed,
abandons the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and arrogates
to himself authority in dealing with certain questions, making
his own private rules, and preferring to exercise leadership in
opposition to the Lord to being led by the Lord. Reflecting
upon this and aghast at the magnitude of the impiety, I
pursued my investigation further and became convinced that
the aforesaid cause was no less the true source also of secular
difficulties. I noticed that as long as the common obedience of
the others to some one leader was maintained, all was
discipline and harmony in the whole group; but that division
and discord and a rivalry of leaders besides proceeded from a
lack of leadership. Moreover, I once had observed how even a
swarm of bees, in accordance with a law of nature, lives under
military discipline and obeys its own king with orderly
precision. Many such instances have I witnessed and many
others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of
such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for
the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its
attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one
source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal
disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting.
By the same token, if we discover in our midst such a lack of
accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another
and with respect to the Lord’s commands, it would be an
indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according
to the Scriptural saying: ‘only that he who now holdeth, do
hold, until he be taken out of the way,’ or of denial of Him
according to the Psalmist: ‘The fool hath said in his heart:
There is no God.’ And as a kind of token or proof of this, there
follow the words: ‘They are corrupt and are become
abominable in their ways.’ Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9,
Preface on the Judgment of God (New York: Fathers of the
Church, Inc., 1950), pp. 37-39.


Unless of course you view Basil, out side of the historical denomination to which you submit.

You could always take the road the he was mistaken, but the of course I would ask that you provide historical proof for such an assertion. I am still waiting for that in reference to Jerome.

Peace to u,

Bill

Peace to u,

Bill