Are the Roman Catholic Church Biblical?

[WisdomTree]

And the opinions of the Jews don't count, particularly since theirs' was still in debate at the same time and they were no longer of merit, being, of course, not of the true religion. Their opinion would be null and void.

I whole-heartedly agree. Using the Jews as the basis for establishing the biblical canon is foolish.

 

[WisdomTree]

We are to defend the truth...not the lies.

Then why are you spouting lies and defending them?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I whole-heartedly agree. Using the Jews as the basis for establishing the biblical canon is foolish.

I too agree.



Judaism can decide what will be in the Tanach; that's not a problem. Judaism cannot decide what is to be in the Christian bible. That would be a huge problem. If Judaism did decide the Christian Bible's content then there'd be no new testament.

 

[WisdomTree]

I too agree.



Judaism can decide what will be in the Tanach; that's not a problem. Judaims cannot decide what is to be in the Christian bible. That would be a huge problem. If Judaism did decide the Christian Bible's content then there'd be no new testament.

At one point there was also almost no Esther, Ecclesiastes, amont others...

 

[Second Phoenix]

SU: But lets be clear. Catholic Church in that time (and now) is not equivalent to what became the Roman Church (RC today).

I have. I read them in Greek, remember? They offer nothing that supports your bizarre and nonsensical arguments.

Read the thread. Read the links.

I have, you have offered nothing but assertions.

Besides, RC itself says it relies on extra-biblical sources for its dogma. By definition, it is not biblical. (Albion just pointed this out too.)

Wrong, relying on apostolic teaching is not anti-biblical. There is nothing in the bible that says all apostolic teaching is found in the bible. YOUR views are unbiblical.

78

This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture

This admittance is not a big deal to RCers. If an RCer wants to be biblical only, he/she will need to go elsewhere.

To be biblical only is to be unChristian. I don't know what you are attempting to reference, so I cannot cooment.

 

[Jan001]

Polycarp, Polycrates, Firmilian, Cyprian, etc knew Rome did not abide what was handed down by apostles.

I've seen no proof of this.

 

[Jan001]

Well, if that is your standard, who would not have said something truthful and correct at some point or other in his life? That's to argue for a church leader deciding to dogmatize something or other said by someone at some time, even though the speaker is known to be unreliable.

Not even the theoretical justification for using "Tradition" is supposed to operate like that.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

 

[Jan001]

.......

When Christ said search the scriptures, they speak of Me, and Luke speaks to the 3 fold identity, and Maccabees defines itself as not inspired and tells us why, and Josephus gives us the same reason for the inspired scriptures, then Melito give us the nearly same 22 books, we should be fairly clear on what is the inspired OT. (Hint: P got this one right.)

The Catholic Church basically canonized the Septuagint Scriptures which was the first Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

"The Septuagint [LXX] was the first translation of the Hebrew Bible and was made in the third century B.C. by Jewish scribes, who were direct descendents of those trained in Ezra's Great Synagogue of Jerusalem. They were complete experts in the text, being very well versed in Hebrew and Greek.
This translation became very popular among Jews in the first two centuries before Christ because many Jews in those days did not understand Hebrew. Their ancestors had left Israel centuries before, and generation after generation gradually lost the ability to read the Scriptures in Hebrew.


Many of the Jews in Jesus' day used the Septuagint as their Bible. Quite naturally, the early Christians also used the Septuagint in their meetings and for personal reading; and many of the New Testament apostles quoted it when they wrote the Gospels and Epistles in Greek. What is most fascinating is that the order of the books in the Septuagint is the same order in our Bibles today, and not like the Hebrew scrolls....

Jesus and the Apostles studied, memorized, used, quoted, and read most often from the Bible of their day, the Septuagint. Since Matthew wrote primarily to convince the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed their promised Messiah, it follows as a matter of course that his Gospel is saturated with the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet, when Jesus quotes the Old Testament in Matthew, He uses the Hebrew text only 10% of the time, but the Greek LXX translation 90% of the time!"​

More on this at:
What Bible Did Jesus Use? - Genealogy and Jewish Heritage

 

[Rev Randy]

Where he was right, shouldn't we acknowledge that he was right? Or do you often throw the baby out with the bath water?

It's a habit some have.

 

[WisdomTree]

It's a habit some have.

Which is quite the shame considering we should just be throwing the baby out...

 

[Rev Randy]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Shhhh. It's a secret.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I too agree.



Judaism can decide what will be in the Tanach; that's not a problem. Judaism cannot decide what is to be in the Christian bible. That would be a huge problem. If Judaism did decide the Christian Bible's content then there'd be no new testament.

Yes.

My only caveat would be that we should be in dialogue with Jewish authorities about the Tanakh and the Old Testament canons, and be cognizant of their process of canon formation both before the advent of Christ and after. Not letting them decide, but at least being aware of how others handle the holy books.

 

[Standing Up]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Tell us those oral traditions extant in Paul's time to which he referred.

 

[Standing Up]

...and since there was no canon until the very late 4th century, how else do we suggest we base on our faith, doctrine, and all information about salvation and morals upon? No one agreed which books and there was no Church-sanctioned canon.

And the opinions of the Jews don't count, particularly since theirs' was still in debate at the same time and they were no longer of merit, being, of course, not of the true religion. Their opinion would be null and void.

Since your comment sprouted some agreement, it might be well to remember what Paul said.

Rom. 3:2

Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.


So, when Christ said, search the scriptures, unless everyone thinks Paul didn't grasp this, there must have been a known OT canon.

It corresponds to the OT of P. We know why and so did Maccabees and Josephus and Paul and Christ.

 

[Standing Up]

I have. I read them in Greek, remember? They offer nothing that supports your bizarre and nonsensical arguments.



I have, you have offered nothing but assertions.



Wrong, relying on apostolic teaching is not anti-biblical. There is nothing in the bible that says all apostolic teaching is found in the bible. YOUR views are unbiblical.



To be biblical only is to be unChristian. I don't know what you are attempting to reference, so I cannot cooment.

Let's be clear. You're trying to say two things. One the RC of today is the same as the RC from near 2000 years ago. Two the RC uses Tradition which is the same as Scripture.

Obviously, everyone, including RC will disagree with you on both points. For example, until recently, there were no Marian Dogmas. I already posted the CCC showing that it says there is a distinction between the two (Scripture and Tradition).

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Polycarp, Polycrates, Firmilian, Cyprian, etc knew Rome did not abide what was handed down by apostles.
​

I've seen no proof of this.

Firmilian 256ad-
6. But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names.
ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Firmilian is talking about the disagreeemnt between Rome and Polycarp and Polycrates.

16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Romeand they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The point is Rome didn't follow what was handed down by apostles.

To the OP, no.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Shhhh. It's a secret.

We need more Calgon!

 

[PaladinValer]

Since your comment sprouted some agreement, it might be well to remember what Paul said.

Rom. 3:2

Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.


So, when Christ said, search the scriptures, unless everyone thinks Paul didn't grasp this, there must have been a known OT canon.

Except we know for a fact that there WAS NO KNOWN OT CANON. Nothing was fixed by either Judaism or Christianity until far later. The first official canonical lists happened in the very late 4th century for Christians.

It corresponds to the OT of P. We know why and so did Maccabees and Josephus and Paul and Christ.

Sorry; that's false. The first official canons of Christians included the Deuterocanonical books.

 

[BBAS 64]

Tell us those oral traditions extant in Paul's time to which he referred.

Good Day, Standing Up

Tried to get that from this poster along with primary source, and got nothing of any use...

Good luck!

In Him,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

The Catholic Church basically canonized the Septuagint Scriptures which was the first translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

"The Septuagint [LXX] was the first translation of the Hebrew Bible and was made in the third century B.C. by Jewish scribes, who were direct descendents of those trained in Ezra's Great Synagogue of Jerusalem. They were complete experts in the text, being very well versed in Hebrew and Greek.
This translation became very popular among Jews in the first two centuries before Christ because many Jews in those days did not understand Hebrew. Their ancestors had left Israel centuries before, and generation after generation gradually lost the ability to read the Scriptures in Hebrew.


Many of the Jews in Jesus' day used the Septuagint as their Bible. Quite naturally, the early Christians also used the Septuagint in their meetings and for personal reading; and many of the New Testament apostles quoted it when they wrote the Gospels and Epistles in Greek. What is most fascinating is that the order of the books in the Septuagint is the same order in our Bibles today, and not like the Hebrew scrolls....

Jesus and the Apostles studied, memorized, used, quoted, and read most often from the Bible of their day, the Septuagint. Since Matthew wrote primarily to convince the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed their promised Messiah, it follows as a matter of course that his Gospel is saturated with the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet, when Jesus quotes the Old Testament in Matthew, He uses the Hebrew text only 10% of the time, but the Greek LXX translation 90% of the time!"
​

More on this at:
What Bible Did Jesus Use? - Genealogy and Jewish Heritage

Good day, Jan

Historically inaccurate and attested to by the Roman Catholic Church as being an incorrect opinion held by them:

"

THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION​

"

There are differences between the Jewish canon of Scripture30 “Law”, Nebi'im, “Prophets”, and Ketubim, other “Writings”. The number 24 was often reduced to 22, the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. In the Christian canon, to these 24-22 books correspond 39 books, called “protocanonical”. The numerical difference is explained by the fact that the Jews regarded as one book several writings that are distinct in the Christian canon, the writings of the Twelve Prophets, for example.] and the Christian canon of the Old Testament.31 To explain these differences, it was generally thought that at the beginning of the Christian era, there existed two canons within Judaism: a Hebrew or Palestinian canon, and an extended Alexandrian canon in Greek — called the Septuagint — which was adopted by Christians.​

Recent research and discoveries, however, have cast doubt on this opinion. It now seems more probable that at the time of Christianity's birth, closed collections of the Law and the Prophets existed in a textual form substantially identical with the Old Testament. The collection of “Writings”, on the other hand, was not as well defined either in Palestine or in the Jewish diaspora, with regard to the number of books and their textual form. Towards the end of the first century A.D., it seems that 2422 books were generally accepted by Jews as sacred,32 but it is only much later that the list became exclusive.33 When the limits of the Hebrew canon were fixed, the deuterocanonical books were not included.
Many of the books belonging to the third group of religious texts, not yet fixed, were regularly read in Jewish communities during the first century A.D. They were translated into Greek and circulated among Hellenistic Jews, both in Palestine and in the diaspora.​

30) Jews count 24 books in their Bible, called TaNaK, a word formed from the initials of Tôr 1) The Catholic Church accepts 46 books in its Old Testament canon, 39 protocanonical books and 7 deuterocanonical, so called because the former were accepted with little or no debate, while the latter (Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom 1,2 Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel) were accepted only after centuries of hesitation (on the part of certain Eastern Church Fathers as well as Jerome); the Churches of the Reformation call these “Apocrypha”.
(32) In Contra Apion(1:8), written between 93 and 95, Josephus comes very close to the idea of a canon of Scripture, but his vague reference to books to which titles had not yet been attached (later called the “Writings&#8221, shows that Judaism had not yet accepted a definitive collection of books.
(33) The so-called Council of Jamnia was more in the nature of a school or an academy that sat in Jamnia between the years 75 and 117. There is no evidence of a decision drawing up a list of books. It seems that the canon of the Jewish Scriptures was not definitively fixed before the end of the second century. Scholarly discussion on the status of certain books continued into the third century.​

The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.

Futher more there is no historical sourcse that shows the Greek translation contained any thing other than those 22/24 books accepted by the Jews... If you have a historical source I would like to see it.

Josephus

Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses. . . . The prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books [Joshua, Judges-Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations, Ezekiel, the twelve minor prophets considered as one, Job, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah [considered as one], Chronicles, Esther]. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life [Psalm, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs]. [As for the apocryphal books] From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets. We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable. And it is the instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God. [Against Apion 1:37-42

The fact is that even in Rome tyhey admit they have no idea what formed teh Greek OT.

2. In the Early Church
17. Since the first Christians were for the most part Palestinian Jews, either “Hebrew” or “Hellenistic” (cf. Ac 6:1), their views on Scripture would have reflected those of their environment, but we are poorly informed on the subject. Nevertheless, the writings of the New Testament suggest that a sacred literature wider than the Hebrew canon circulated in Christian communities. Generally, the authors of the New Testament manifest a knowledge of the deuterocanonical books and other non-canonical ones since the number of books cited in the New Testament exceeds not only the Hebrew canon, but also the so-called Alexandrian canon.34 When Christianity spread into the Greek world, it continued to use sacred books received from Hellenistic Judaism.35 Although Hellenistic Christians received their Scriptures from the Jews in the form of the Septuagint, we do not know the precise form, because the Septuagint has come down to us only in Christian writings. What the Church seems to have received was a body of Sacred Scripture which, within Judaism, was in the process of becoming canonical. When Judaism came to close its own canon, the Christian Church was sufficiently independent from Judaism not to be immediately affected. It was only at a later period that a closed Hebrew canon began to exert influence on how Christians viewed it.

The issue Of Canon was only solved at Trent wher the Roman Catholic Church cleared up the doubts and uncertainties that existed with in the Roman Church prior to that time.



​

In Him,

Bill