[ScottRC]

Tj3.... a few more things to consider:

The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church."

All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.

This same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you brought up Jerome before, you might be interested in the commentary from Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly:
"For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament . . . The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I dispatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405" (Early Christian Doctrines, 55-56).

"It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and morecomprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament].. . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was.. . The Greek translation known as the Septuagint.. . Most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . In the first two centuries.. . The Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas.. . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e. the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Council of Rome
"Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book.. . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

Council of Hippo
"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books.. . " (canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage
"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.. . " (canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A good article to read from a Catholic scholar: Dr. Sippo utterly refutes Webster on the Canon ... in it he answers your question about the Catholic Encyclopedia and will help clear up this error about the "additions" of books to the Bible.

Hope it helps... the truth will set you free!:D

[sndbay]

Again... please show me LIKE THE BEREANS DID... the teaching of the Old Testament that confirms this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tj3, you're invited to show me as well:

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that was Jesus was God and died for your sins.

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that Peter's claim that we could toss out the food laws.

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that physical circumsision is no longer required.

If you can't find proof of these from the OT, like the Bereans did, then by your own standard they must be FALSE.

The king of Salem and priest of the most high God, who lived in the days of Abraham was the King of all righteousness. Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Hebrews 7:14-16 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Hebrews 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Hebrews 7:19-22 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Hebrews 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, [maketh] the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

[N0help4u]

Again... please show me LIKE THE BEREANS DID... the teaching of the Old Testament that confirms this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tj3, you're invited to show me as well:

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that was Jesus was God and died for your sins.

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that Peter's claim that we could toss out the food laws.

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that physical circumsision is no longer required.

If you can't find proof of these from the OT, like the Bereans did, then by your own standard they must be FALSE.

Tjs and I have both given 'proof' from the OT and Jesus' words so by our own standard I guess they must not be false.
Scott: What DO you believe about the food laws?

[Tj3]

Let's just stick with one error at a time...

Have you ever even read the Council of Trent?

Yes, and not only that other Catholic books about it. How about you?

BTW, it is interesting to note that if we disagree with your denomination, it is defined by you as an error.

One more time:

HAVE BEEN USED (past tense)

AS THEY ARE CONTAINED IN THE VULGATE (from 404 AD)

PART OF CHRISTIAN TRADITION

All Trent did was make it official IN RESPONSE to the heresy of Luther and his removal of books from the Bible.

Your opinion. I have not doubt, in fact I would agree that the addition of the books was a reaction to the fact that the reformation was making knowledge of the Bible more readily available and it was becoming clear that without these books, many of the Roman Catholic doctrines could not be supported.

As for being contained in the Vulgate, that is not relevant because, first, Jerome opposed their inclusion, and second, these and many other books have been bound with the canon over the centuries as reference material. I have a couple of good study Bibles here with reference documents bound with the Bible itself - is everything in those covers canon, just because it is there?

And here, if it disagrees with your denomination, even if the New Catholic Encyclopedia and other Roman catholic sources say so, it is a heresy if it disagrees with your denomination. And you argument that you were not telling us that you were promoting the teachings of your denomination as mandatory?

[ScottRC]

The king of Salem and priest of the most high...

Mmmkay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott: What DO you believe about the food laws?

I follow the teachings of the Church.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, it is interesting to note that if we disagree with your denomination, it is defined by you as an error.

"We"?

It has nothing to do with my "denomination", but you are wrong and history proves it... if you choose to reject those books for theological reasons, fine. But to assert they were added is just ignorant.

and it was becoming clear that without these books, many of the Roman Catholic doctrines could not be supported.

Your opinion... and you're half right... Luther took the book out because they did support Catholic teachings.

As for being contained in the Vulgate, that is not relevant because, first, Jerome opposed their inclusion, and second, these and many other books have been bound with the canon over the centuries as reference material.

Certainly relevant... and ONE man's initial opposition means nothing... I provided you with hundreds of years of examples that the books were IN THE CANON... and I have no clue why any "Bible" would include heretical books as reference materials... make little sense to me my friend.

And here, if it disagrees with your denomination, even if the New Catholic Encyclopedia and other Roman catholic sources say so, it is a heresy if it disagrees with your denomination. And you argument that you were not telling us that you were promoting the teachings of your denomination as mandatory?

I give you an A for effort... good dodge... but as I explained, an intelligent person looks at ALL the sources to get the truth... it's kind of foolish to use one source and ignore all the others because they don't suit your agenda... even secular sources prove you wrong.

And once again with the red herring... (lie we'll call it) that I said it was heresy or that it is mandatory. All I'm doing is providing you with ample evidence to refute your error that the books were added to the canon. No more, no less... so either produce some of these independent and scholarly sources that show me a Catholic Bible without these books or retract your statement. Easy, right?

[N0help4u]

You follow the teachings of the church... I figured that much but what is the teaching of the church?

[ScottRC]

You follow the teachings of the church......I figured that much but what is the teaching of the church?

Umm... you really don't know? :confused:

Christians do not follow the laws of Kashrut.

Anything else? I am a Jew by birth, so I'd be happy to explain if you need more info.

[N0help4u]

Oh the way you were questioning it I thought you had some special Catholic answer that I was unaware of.

[sndbay]

Christians do not follow the laws of Kashrut.

Yet Christians do follow the Light... Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


Proverbs 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:

[JoeT777]

Joe,

If you are going to claim that I said something - quote it - don't take a snippet out of context and mis-represent me. That is not what i said at all. I said that there is no need because of the fact that we all agree on the 66 books of the Bible that were originally accepted as canon, and thus, based upon Proverbs 30:5-6 and others, the onus is on you if you wish to argue other sources to be God's word.

Did you know that the original King James version was based on work by Catholic scholars. "...[Support for the] King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there is no perfect set of manuscripts; and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus), that it is the only translation that avoids modern, liberal renderings, and that its translators were extremely saintly and scholarly men. Since the King James is also known as "the Authorized Version" (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been "authorized." To this one may point out that it was only authorized in the Anglican church, which now uses other translations. For a still-in print critique of King James-onlyism, see D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979)." Catholic Answers Catholic.com

I don't care which bible you use; how does that help in your defense of Sola Scriptura? Apparently the King James tells the same truth, just less perfictly and less thoroughly .

JoeT

[Tj3]

I follow the teachings of the Church.

What church? Do you mean your denomination?

[Tj3]

Did you know that the orginal King James version was based on work by Catholic scholars. "...[Support for the] King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there is no perfect set of manuscripts; and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus), that it is the only translation that avoids modern, liberal renderings, and that its translators were extremely saintly and scholarly men. Since the King James is also known as "the Authorized Version" (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been "authorized." To this one may point out that it was only authorized in the Anglican church, which now uses other translations. For a still-in print critique of King James-onlyism, see D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979)." Catholic Answers Catholic.com

I don't care which bible you use; how does that help in your defense of Sola Scriptura? Apparently the King James tells the same truth, just less perfictly and less thoroughly .

JoeT

What are you arguing about the KJV translation for?

[JoeT777]

Again... please show me LIKE THE BEREANS DID... the teaching of the Old Testament that confirms this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tj3, you're invited to show me as well:

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that was Jesus was God and died for your sins.

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that Peter's claim that we could toss out the food laws.

Please show me, like the Bereans did, that physical circumsision is no longer required.

If you can't find proof of these from the OT, like the Bereans did, then by your own standard they must be FALSE.

Scott:

Quick thought between meetings:

Related to the “Like the Bereans did”; Scriptural standards comes before Apostolic authority.

Christ stood before the Great Sanhedrin and didn’t use Scripture to point out that they had no authority over the Messiah. In fact, Christ, as it were, bowed to the authority of the Great Sanhedrin. Why didn’t Christ say, “The Scriptures don’t give you Authority over me?” Seems mighty strange to me and doesn’t hold well for the Scripture Only crowd.

JoeT

[N0help4u]

The Scripture Old or new is THE WORD, Jesus is THE WORD, how can he go against himself or contradict himself. Remember the Bible says rightly dividing THE WORD not adding words to THE WORD.

[Tj3]

The Scripture Old or new is THE WORD, Jesus is THE WORD, how can he go against himself or contradict himself. Remember the Bible says rightly dividing THE WORD not adding words to THE WORD.

Exactly. And in every place in scripture where Jesus was validating doctrine, He went to the scriptures to do so.

[Tj3]

It has nothing to do with my "denomination", but you are wrong and history proves it... if you choose to reject those books for theological reasons, fine. But to assert they were added is just ignorant.

Then I guess that you assert that all the historical evidence and the historians, even those from your denomination who you state this are "ignorant". That is in addition to your claim that we are all "stupid", and we "lie" because we disagree with your denomination.

Certainly relevant... and ONE man's initial opposition means nothing... I provided you with hundreds of years of examples that the books were IN THE CANON...

No, you provided evidence which shows that they were bound with or collected topgether with the canonical books. That is no different that assuming that reference material in my study Bible is canonical because it is in between the same covers with the Bible. That is an important difference that I have raised a number of times, and it appears that you have just ignored it.

an intelligent person looks at ALL the sources to get the truth...

Including those that disagree with them, and seeks to find truth. That is my approach. That is why I have a catechism, a Roman catholic history of the Church, a copy of the Council of Trent, as well as dozens of other books from your denomination sitting right by my desk.

it's kind of foolish to use one source and ignore all the others because they don't suit your agenda... even secular sources prove you wrong.

Exactly my point. It would be foolish just to follow what your denomination teaches and not check out the facts from independent sources.

[ScottRC]

The Scripture Old or new is THE WORD, Jesus is THE WORD, how can he go against himself or contradict himself. Remember the Bible says rightly dividing THE WORD not adding words to THE WORD.

Okey dokey.

Thanks for your reply.

[Tj3]

I see that a new thread on the topic of the canon has been started in the Religious Discussions area.

[JoeT777]

I see that a new thread on the topic of the canon has been started in the Religious Discussions area.

So when do we get a response to the question, "How is it that that the theory of Sola Scriptura can be scripturally and infallibly authenticated?"

JoeT

[Tj3]

So when do we get a response to the question, "How is it that that the theory of Sola Scriptura can be scripturally and infallibly authenticated?"

JoeT

How many times do you need it answered - it seems to me that there have been a number of responses already.

I have a couple of questions that may help us to move forward on this point:

1) Do you consider scripture itself to be the word of God and infallible?

2) What do you consider sola scriptura to be? Please provide your definition.