Yes it does matter what the Jews said as it was their Old Testament. And St. Jerome considered the books in question as Apocrypha, not Scripture. But he did say that. Yes the authority of the Church, in the Cahtolic Church, rules over everything. As set down in the Council of Trent also. Which means they can declare the Aprocrypha as Scripture. Nobody said the books were not in the Vulgate. But they were not considered Scripture. Jerome didn't consider them Scripture. Im not sure what post your talking about. Quantrill
Didja think maybe it's because one is talking about God and one is talking about man? Do you think Jesus was asking why the Father abandoned him on the cross, or do you recognize that He was reciting Psalm 22?
Jerome did. He said that he assented to the judgement of the Church. Now--perhaps you are a mind reader of persons living a loooong time ago, but I doubt you channel Jerome. Second, you have ENTIRELY ignored Hippo and Carthage...repeatedly. Why is that, I wonder... Seriously. Look into the facts before you post such rubbish.
"...Pope Damasus's choice of Jerome in 382 CE, to make an authoritative translation of the Bible into Latin. As he worked on the Old Testament, Jerome became convinced that the Hebrew text alone was definitive and he therefore felt obliged to reject those books found only in Greek; these books he called 'apocrypha'. " (Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce Metzger, Michael Coogan, P.3 Assenting to the judgement of the Church does not change what one believes and does not make something right which is not. And Jerome stated that the apocrypha were not Scripture. Before the churches in Hippo and Carthage existed, the Old Testament was already defined by the Jews in Israel. Quantrill
Could Paul not have been quoting Isaiah, especially since its in the Hebrew Bible, and he would have known that as sacred scripture?
This is interesting (I dropped it to two verses to save space.) 1. Why would Sad'ducees quote any verse that wasn't from the Torah? That point alone indicates that this makes no sense as a reference. 2. Although both verses mention seven husbands, they do so for very different reasons and with very different points. One is discussing the afterlife, the other is discussing abuse. Other references to OT scripture keep the context and subject consistent. This is the kind of reference that you see when the "King James only" crowd likes to claim that the NIV calls Jesus Satan. Two similar statements don't indicate a reference. If they do, you can just as easily say that Herman and the Hermits were referencing Tobit 3 when they wrote Henery the Eighth.
Another ... Heb. 11:35 ===> 2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9 http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm "But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35). There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never findanywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachiis someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testamentin the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible. The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, "It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh. . . . ut the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ' After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. 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'" (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).
The Sadducees didn't believe in an afterlife either. They were mocking and trying to goad Jesus. Because Sadducees mocking the Son of God were really concerned about being consistent considering they are asking about n afterlife they don't even believe in!
Go to pages 103 -104 and read the "Final Stage: the closing of the canon" He (the author) calls them "apocrypha" but notes they ARE INCLUDED in the closed canon of holy scriptures Hmmm...interesting, then, that the Protestants use the Jamnian list.
Quantrill, I see all you are doing is ignoring facts and keep posting the same rhetoric that has been debunked pages ago. That said there is no more to say to you. If you are unable to read the posts and to actually use historic fact, then there is no hope in talking with you. Your about the same as someone who would say WWII actually started by Poland
Give me the quote where it states that. I don't see it. It does state the presense of Aprocryphal books and different views. As I said, Jerome never accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture. It wouldn't be until Trent that the Apocrypha was given Canonical recognition by the Roman Church. The Protestants accept the Old Testament of the Jews of Israel. Our Old Testament is the same as theirs. Quantrill
I'll give you that one. But now I have 2 questions, should the lost letter to the corinthians have been in the canon? Also, do the RC recognize the book of enoch?
When was St. Jerome around, when did he translate the vulgate, what was the vulgate for, and when was the council of trent
It's "recognized" and is referred to in footnotes of some Bibles, but the canon is closed by the authority of the Church, so although it is good for learning and teaching, it is not part of the canon of the Bible. This is why a hierarchical authoritative structure is just logically necessary. Enoch and the Gospel of Thomas are not on the same level, but without the authority and guidance of a body that can trace its authority to the words of Jesus and the men that walked with him, all "scriptures" are equal.
Oh? Don't you have the book? It's on page 103--2nd column. The heading is right there in bold print. Who is feeding you this info if you're not reading it yourself? Don't parrot bad history. It makes you look foolish.
Apparently not since God saw fit to have the authoritative Church codify the canon without it. I don't idolize the Bible. I worship God who is in charge of all things--including the events that led to the codification of such an important text. --But it is still simply text--there is no magic in it.
So since the church is led by God, do you believe God wanted the protestants martyred? About the Bible, I don't idolize it either but, many people have been saved by reading scripture, so I do believe that the Holy Spirit moves through the sacred text. I believe its Gods words coming through the pages, when its read and prayed on. So tell me, what does a catholic do to be saved?
What about people that cannot read? Are they condemned to hell then? Until the introduction of the printing press, mass education was not even possible. Kings often couldn't read but needed scribes to read to them. Christianity is not a document based religion. Jesus sends his disciples to preach everything he has taught them. Jesus never wrote anything down. The problem with sola scriptura is that there are thousands of different interpretations of what is said. How can this be if there is only one truth?
I never said you had to read the bible to be saved. It can be read to you. And yes Jesus never wrote anything, but where will you find His teachings? Sola Scriptura was put in place because catholics would hold tradition, and church teachings on the same levels, and both tradition and teaching are fallible however the inerrancy of the Bible doctrines, are to be held as the final authority.
the church dont govern theology. they just tell people they do which is what makes adherants abhorrent to evolution maintaining canon as the last word is for people who dont like to read more than one opinion which is stupid ie.... all are equally capable to think for themselves why? is it because idiots cannnon't comprehend that what they have been led to believe is being contradicted ie..... the book of thomas sustains equality and the idiology that each are capable... http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html read it before ranting the book is written as to representing that jesus is who said the words......... (1) And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death." (2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All." (3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty." (4) Jesus said, "The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live. For many who are first will become last, and they will become one and the same." (5) Jesus said, "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you . For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest."
