Yes, indeed, although apparently not because it is popular in Protestant circles, where it is either unknown or has been discredited, but apparently because of its alleged Jewish lineage.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think that the Catholics are indicating that the alleged council of Jamnia is unpopular in Catholic circles
Certainly around that time in the late 300s when the Catholic Church compiled the 73 books of the Bible it was brought up that many Jews were rejecting the deuterocanonicals. How could they accept that passage referred to in Hebrews (2 Maccabees 7:7-9) where people were willing to undergo torture because of their belief in resurrection? But the Catholic Church decided that there was no obligation whatsoever to follow Jews who had rejected Christ.
I rather think that the Christian church had separated from the Jews long before the fourth century. In fact, Stephen's famous oration prior to his martyrdom, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, makes that abundantly clear.
Certainly around that time in the late 300s when the Catholic Church compiled the 73 books of the Bible it was brought up that many Jews were rejecting the deuterocanonicals. .
Islam teaches that the Tawrat (Torah) and Injil (Gospel) are the same messages of the Quran and Christians and Jews are called "people of the Book" in Arabic "the book" is al-Kitab which literally means "the book" so there is ambiguity in the word. Admittingly the word "Bible" ultimately is from Greek "biblion" which can be used for an ordinary word of a book but modern uses of the word "Bible" is more abstract and specific to a Holy Book.
In Islam however, if there are any conflicts they will quickly point to the books being corrupted.
Those books are Old Testament books so they would not have been written by Catholics. In OT times Jews recognized different books as Holy Scripture. One of the main arguments put forth to remove those books from the Bible was that none of the books were ever written in Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that fallacy wrong.Deuterocanonicals were not written by Catholics (nor by anyone else that had met Christ or was alive after Christ ascended to heaven) and were never included in the Hebrew Bible according to first century Jewish historian - Josephus.
broadly yes, but I wouldn't use the language that they tossed out, edited and changed scripture. Muslims see the Quran as the final authority and anything else that conflicts with it would be claimed as false likely from corruption. It's about perspective, none of us were around 1000 years ago, or 2000 years ago so we can't be accused or credited with things that happen during those times. What we have been told we receive as truth and so everything that conflicts with it then is not truth. So why would a Muslim believe anything else except what they have been told? I use a DBS method with Muslims that I find to be the best approach over a confrontational method.Islam rejects Paul and all his writings, rejects the idea that Isaac was the promised one instead of Ishmael - rejects the Gospel, and claims the Hebrew Bible has been corrupted. So while we can be thankful that they don't toss out everything - they do toss out , edit and change a lot. Including the Atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
broadly yes, but I wouldn't use the language that they tossed out, edited and changed scripture. Muslims see the Quran as the final authority and anything else that conflicts with it would be claimed as false likely from corruption. It's about perspective, none of us were around 1000 years ago, or 2000 years ago so we can't be accused or credited with things that happen during those times. What we have been told we receive as truth and so everything that conflicts with it then is not truth. So why would a Muslim believe anything else except what they have been told? I use a DBS method with Muslims that I find to be the best approach over a confrontational method.
Jews were following Paul around in the book of Acts trying to persecute him in city after city while he was trying to evangelize.
Jews began persecuting Christian in Jerusalem very early on and Paul (as Saul) was leading the charge.
Jesus often left the crowds asking questions. In the end, we cannot change people's hearts, that's the HS's job, so let's let the HS do his work. I think it's better to leave someone asking questions than it is waving their fist in the air.Very fine. Confrontation rarely achieves a positive outcome in any case.
Jesus often left the crowds asking questions. In the end, we cannot change people's hearts, that's the HS's job, so let's let the HS do his work. I think it's better to leave someone asking questions than it is waving their fist in the air.
broadly yes, but I wouldn't use the language that they tossed out, edited and changed scripture. Muslims see the Quran as the final authority and anything else that conflicts with it would be claimed as false likely from corruption. It's about perspective, none of us were around 1000 years ago, or 2000 years ago so we can't be accused or credited with things that happen during those times. .
The problem is that Islam is a Jonny-come-lately to that party which essentially hijacks an existing holy book for an existing world-religion and begins its own V2 revision edit replace of what already existed at the time of Mohamed. Even Christianity did not do that.
It also seems to be quite popular with Catholics here at CF. I had never heard of it until I ran across various posts from Catholics defending the deutercanonical books by dismissing the canon established by Jews at the alleged Council of Jamnia.
The fact remains that the Jewish canon does not include the deutercanonical books. It probably has no more relevance to Christianity than the canon of Islam (which was hotly debated for quite a lengthy period). By that, I mean that Islam also includes the Bible (Injil) in its canon of scriptures. Whether or not Islam embraces deutercanonical books is of no relevance to Jews or Christians.
I rather think that the Christian church had separated from the Jews long before the fourth century. In fact, Stephen's famous oration prior to his martyrdom, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, makes that abundantly clear.
Deuterocanonicals were not written by Catholics (nor by anyone else that had met Christ or was alive after Christ ascended to heaven) and were never included in the Hebrew Bible according to first century Jewish historian - Josephus.
Indeed, but Josephus was only familiar with a subset of the Jews of his era,
For example, since we know the Beta Israel, the Ethiopian Jews read and continue to read many of the books that were in the Septuagint but not the Masoretic text
As I pointed out Christianity is different because it doesn't abrogate the past but instead embraces it so broadly you're right that Islam does hijacks abrahmic religions to create it's own and declare it is the right one. but that was 1400 years ago and it's not a very useful to lead with. It's not my job to fix people or their theology, but rather to show them Christ. A genuine encounter with Christ is far greater than any rhetoric I can spit out so my goal is to show them Christ not expose their lies.The problem is that Islam is a Jonny-come-lately to that party which essentially hijacks an existing holy book for an existing world-religion and begins its own V2 revision edit replace of what already existed at the time of Mohamed. Even Christianity did not do that.
I’m a Protestant (a traditionalist Congregationalist minister or teaching elder) although I consider myself and all Nicene Christians to be Catholic, so I assume by Catholic you mean Roman Catholic, and I dismiss the Council of Jamnia as irrelevant, and read the Septuagint as the primary Old Testament text in my two parishes, because it is the version quoted in the New Testament. I read certain parts of 1 Enoch unlikely to cause confusion for the same reason (St. Jude quotes it).
As I pointed out Christianity is different because it doesn't abrogate the past but instead embraces it so broadly you're right that Islam does hijacks abrahmic religions to create it's own and declare it is the right one. but that was 1400 years ago and it's not a very useful to lead with. It's not my job to fix people or their theology, but rather to show them Christ. A genuine encounter with Christ is far greater than any rhetoric I can spit out so my goal is to show them Christ not expose their lies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?