• 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.

Deutercanonical Citations in the New Testament

B

bbbbbbb

Guest
St. Jerome is not authoritative, and is entitled to his opinion. The reason it was settled at Trent was because the Reform folks questioned it, which is how the Church usually defines its doctrines-when people have questions about it. This means there was no real objection to what the Councils of Rome and Carthage promulgated.
For them it may be essential, but it is not considered so by the Church. As I stated, I believe, as they do, that the NT references the Deuterocanonical books, but I don't think it's essential. Why? Because there are several books in the rest of the Canon that the NT ignores. Therefore, it matters not that the NT quotes the DC.

Go ahead with your exercise. I just wondered why YOU think it must be so. And you haven't given an answer, so I'll assume there's no good reason, other than that your sect thinks they shouldn't be there...

LOL, now I am a member of a "sect" and not a "separated brother". Interestingly, the only mention of sects in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a nuanced reference to religions such as Mormonism.

I have attempted to address your question numerous times. Whether or not the DC should be a part of the canon is not the topic of this thread. If you wish, you can start your own thread on the canonicity of the DC and I will gladly share a relatively typical range of criticisms levelled at the DC as to why it is secondary in terms of spiritual value. These criticisms have been bandied around and within your church for centuries, starting primarily with Jerome who, other opinions to the contrary, was and is a significant influence within Catholic theology.

At any rate, I am bemused that you have included Jerome with the "Reform folks" who have questioned it. I suppose it ought to be comforting to me to know that Jerome is considered by you to be part of my "sect". I won't turn him away just for his opinions on the DC.
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
Moving along, I will proceed on to the twenty-second set of alleged quotations of the deutercanonical books, this time by Jesus, Luke, and Paul -

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 4:46 Therefore He came again to Cana of Galilee where He had made the water wine. And there was a royal official whose son was sick at Capernaum. 47 When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and was imploring Him to come down and heal his son; for he was at the point of death. 48 So Jesus said to him, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe.” 49 The royal official *said to Him, “Sir, come down before my child dies.” 50 Jesus *said to him, “Go; your son lives.” The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and started off. 51 As he was now going down, his slaves met him, saying that his son was living. 52 So he inquired of them the hour when he began to get better. Then they said to him, “Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.” 53 So the father knew that it was at that hour in which Jesus said to him, “Your son lives”; and he himself believed and his whole household. 54 This is again a second sign that Jesus performed when He had come out of Judea into Galilee.

Jesus used the term "signs and wonders" which is synonymous with "miracles" as seen in other gospels. The Old Testament is filled with "signs and wonders" which is why the Pharisees expected a man who claimed to be a prophet to perform these acts of God.

Acts 5:12 At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s portico. 13 But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem.

Again, "signs and wonders" is a synonym for "miracles". It is interesting to note that Acts 2 is not cited here, even though the term is used there, as well. However, the signs and wonders of the day of Pentecost are shown to be a fulfillment of the passage in Joel
Acts 2:14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. 15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; 16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:
17 ‘And it shall be in the last days,’ God says,
‘That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
And your young men shall see visions,
And your old men shall dream dreams;
18 Even on My bondslaves, both men and women,
I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit
And they shall prophesy.
19 ‘And I will grant wonders in the sky above
And signs on the earth below,
Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke.
20 ‘The sun will be turned into darkness
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come.
21 ‘And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’



Acts 15:12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.


Again, "signs and wonders" is a synonym for "miracles". The reference is to multiple miracles performed through Barnabas and Paul, without citing the passages where these are referenced.




II Corinthians 12:11 I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody. 12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles. 13 For in what respect were you treated as inferior to the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not become a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong!


In this passage Paul is defending his apostleship, claiming that the various miracles, signs, and wonders which accompanied him is proof it. It is interesting to note that he includes miracles here as a synonym for signs and wonders.




Wisdom 8:1 Indeed, she spans the world from end to end mightily
and governs all things well.
2 Her I loved and sought after from my youth;
I sought to take her for my bride
and was enamored of her beauty.
3 She adds to nobility the splendor of companionship with God;
even the Ruler of all loved her.
4 For she leads into the understanding of God,
and chooses his works.
5 If riches are desirable in life,
what is richer than Wisdom, who produces all things?
6 And if prudence is at work,
who in the world is a better artisan than she?
7 Or if one loves righteousness,
whose works are virtues,
She teaches moderation and prudence,
righteousness and fortitude,
and nothing in life is more useful than these.
8 Or again, if one yearns for wide experience,
she knows the things of old, and infers the things to come.
She understands the turns of phrases and the solutions of riddles;
signs and wonders she knows in advance
and the outcome of times and ages.
9 So I determined to take her to live with me,
knowing that she would be my counselor while all was well,
and my comfort in care and grief.


The passage in Wisdom 8 is a meditation upon Wisdom personified as a woman. It is similar to the initial chapters of Proverbs. In verse 8 signs and wonders are mentioned, but not necessarily synonymous with miracles performed by individuals.


Thus, the words and the concepts of signs and wonders are very commonly found throughout the entire Bible and the New Testament usage of the term is not a quotation or citation from any particular passage.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
LOL, now I am a member of a "sect" and not a "separated brother". Interestingly, the only mention of sects in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a nuanced reference to religions such as Mormonism.
When did one preclude the other? And if you're talking about name-calling, quit calling Catholicism a denomination. I meant nothing by it. I don't call Mormons a sect, FWIW.
I have attempted to address your question numerous times. Whether or not the DC should be a part of the canon is not the topic of this thread. If you wish, you can start your own thread on the canonicity of the DC and I will gladly share a relatively typical range of criticisms levelled at the DC as to why it is secondary in terms of spiritual value. These criticisms have been bandied around and within your church for centuries, starting primarily with Jerome who, other opinions to the contrary, was and is a significant influence within Catholic theology.
The topic is Deuterocanonical citations in the NT. Your title implies that something must be cited in the NT in order to be canonical. I've asked why, and all you say is that some Catholics and Orthodox believe it's important and/or necessary. I've asked why it is important, and have yet for you to answer that, which is why I keep asking. Why is it important to you???
At any rate, I am bemused that you have included Jerome with the "Reform folks" who have questioned it. I suppose it ought to be comforting to me to know that Jerome is considered by you to be part of my "sect". I won't turn him away just for his opinions on the DC.
I didn't include Jerome with the Reform folks, either. Jerome, being Catholic, believed in constant need of reform, and did his best to constantly reform. The fact that he questioned things about Catholicism, like the Canon, means very little. Lots of people questioned doctrines of the faith. That doesn't mean, in any way, that they didn't obey Mother Church.

See, this is part of the problem, people imply things that may not have been said or meant, as I implied that you thought it was necessary for NT to cite the Deuterocanon. If that's not what you meant, so be it.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by Root of Jesse St. Jerome is not authoritative, and is entitled to his opinion. The reason it was settled at Trent was because the Reform folks questioned it, which is how the Church usually defines its doctrines-when people have questions about it. This means there was no real objection to what the Councils of Rome and Carthage promulgated.
For them it may be essential, but it is not considered so by the Church. As I stated, I believe, as they do, that the NT references the Deuterocanonical books, but I don't think it's essential. Why? Because there are several books in the rest of the Canon that the NT ignores. Therefore, it matters not that the NT quotes the DC.
LOL, now I am a member of a "sect" and not a "separated brother". Interestingly, the only mention of sects in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a nuanced reference to religions such as Mormonism.

I have attempted to address your question numerous times. Whether or not the DC should be a part of the canon is not the topic of this thread. If you wish, you can start your own thread on the canonicity of the DC and I will gladly share a relatively typical range of criticisms levelled at the DC as to why it is secondary in terms of spiritual value. These criticisms have been bandied around and within your church for centuries, starting primarily with Jerome who, other opinions to the contrary, was and is a significant influence within Catholic theology.

At any rate, I am bemused that you have included Jerome with the "Reform folks" who have questioned it. I suppose it ought to be comforting to me to know that Jerome is considered by you to be part of my "sect". I won't turn him away just for his opinions on the DC.
Wasn't Jerome a RC? :confused:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7234016-12/#post46966950
Jerome and banning Translations

Furthermore we declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff."

............In 1408 the third synod of Oxford, England, banned unauthorized English translations of the Bible and decreed that possession of English translation's had to be approved by diocesan authorities. The Oxford council declared:
"It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things.

We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error."...................

.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Wasn't Jerome a RC? :confused:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7234016-12/#post46966950
Jerome and banning Translations

Furthermore we declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff."

............In 1408 the third synod of Oxford, England, banned unauthorized English translations of the Bible and decreed that possession of English translation's had to be approved by diocesan authorities. The Oxford council declared:
"It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things.

We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error."...................

.

Yes, he was. But he was subject to the Pope, not the Pope himself. And while he had reservations early on, he changed his mind later, and obeyed the Pope, rather than stray from the Church.

He was not authoritative. FWIW, Nancy Pelosi is "RC" as you say. Do you think you can believe what she says the Catholic Church teaches? If you do, there's a bridge I have to sell, interested?
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Site Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,896
9,864
✟344,531.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
At the denomination-specific forum there has been a long-running thread originally started by our beloved LLoJ. During the course of the thread our mutual friend, BarryatLake, presented a standard list of alleged citations of the deutercanonical books in the New Testament. I have been in the process of examining each pairing to establish their validity and have attempted to do so in a balanced and fair manner.

I think that many of these "citations" are not citations at all. But the question would have to be decided from the Greek text. Is the NT quoting the Greek text of a deuterocanonical book from the LXX, or are there merely similar concepts, which can be explained by the fact that the deuterocanonical books and the NT both share roots in the Hebrew OT?

For example, Matthew 2:16-18 cites Jeremiah 31:15. It does not cite any deuterocanonical book (nor do most Catholics claim that it does).

Similarly, Matthew 6:19-20 does not cite Sirach 29:11-13. The wording is utterly different, with no matching non-trivial words. The meaning differs as well.

Matthew: Μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅπου σὴς καὶ βρῶσις ἀφανίζει, καὶ ὅπου κλέπται διορύσσουσιν καὶ κλέπτουσιν· θησαυρίζετε δὲ ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ, ὅπου οὔτε σὴς οὔτε βρῶσις ἀφανίζει, καὶ ὅπου κλέπται οὐ διορύσσουσιν οὐδὲ κλέπτουσιν· (Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.)

Sirach: θὲς τὸν θησαυρόν σου κατ᾿ ἐντολὰς ῾Υψίστου, καὶ λυσιτελήσει σοι μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ χρυσίον. σύγκλεισον ἐλεημοσύνην ἐν τοῖς ταμείοις σου, καὶ αὕτη ἐξελεῖταί σε ἐκ πάσης κακώσεως· ὑπὲρ ἀσπίδα κράτους καὶ ὑπὲρ δόρυ ἀλκῆς κατέναντι ἐχθροῦ πολεμήσει ὑπὲρ σοῦ. (Lay up thy treasure according to the commandments of the most High, and it shall bring thee more profit than gold. Shut up alms in thy storehouses: and it shall deliver thee from all affliction. It shall fight for thee against thine enemies better than a mighty shield and strong spear.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
Yes, he was. But he was subject to the Pope, not the Pope himself. And while he had reservations early on, he changed his mind later, and obeyed the Pope, rather than stray from the Church.

He was not authoritative. FWIW, Nancy Pelosi is "RC" as you say. Do you think you can believe what she says the Catholic Church teaches? If you do, there's a bridge I have to sell, interested?

I rather think it unlikely that in a thousand years anyone will know a thing about Saint Nancy Pelosi. IMO Saint Jerome is not in the same class as her. That said, I would probably not vote for Saint Jerome if he was running for a seat in the U.S. Congress, but I respect his scholarship when it comes to the translation of the Bible. But, then, you are entitled to your opinion.
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
bb, you really confuse me, what is your problem ? In an earlier post I agreed with you that 'yes",St. Jerome did not consider that the DC was a part of the Canon of Scripture, as did other early Christians. There were numerous other Church Fathers who quoted the deuterocanonical books as Scripture (see The Old Testament Canon ), while some did not.

St.Jerome appears to have rejected most of the deuterocanonical parts of Scripture. But he did accept portions and included all seven books in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. Ultimately, he recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.

Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books. The bottom line: "We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God," wrote Augustine, "but by the canon of the Catholic Church."

Since it is unreasonable to expect every person to read all of the books of antiquity and judge for himself if they are inspired, the question boils down to whose authority is to be trusted in this matter. One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established.

Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John "We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

Are you addressing this to RootofJesse or myself?
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
"I think that many of these "citations" are not citations at all. But the question would have to be decided from the Greek text. Is the NT quoting the Greek text of a deuterocanonical book from the LXX, or are there merely similar concepts, which can be explained by the fact that the deuterocanonical books and the NT both share roots in the Hebrew OT?

For example, Matthew 2:16-18 cites Jeremiah 31:15. It does not cite any deuterocanonical book (nor do most Catholics claim that it does).

Similarly, Matthew 6:19-20 does not cite Sirach 29:11-13. The wording is utterly different, with no matching non-trivial words. The meaning differs as well.

Matthew: Μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅπου σὴς καὶ βρῶσις ἀφανίζει, καὶ ὅπου κλέπται διορύσσουσιν καὶ κλέπτουσιν· θησαυρίζετε δὲ ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ, ὅπου οὔτε σὴς οὔτε βρῶσις ἀφανίζει, καὶ ὅπου κλέπται οὐ διορύσσουσιν οὐδὲ κλέπτουσιν· (Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.)

Sirach: θὲς τὸν θησαυρόν σου κατ᾿ ἐντολὰς ῾Υψίστου, καὶ λυσιτελήσει σοι μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ χρυσίον. σύγκλεισον ἐλεημοσύνην ἐν τοῖς ταμείοις σου, καὶ αὕτη ἐξελεῖταί σε ἐκ πάσης κακώσεως· ὑπὲρ ἀσπίδα κράτους καὶ ὑπὲρ δόρυ ἀλκῆς κατέναντι ἐχθροῦ πολεμήσει ὑπὲρ σοῦ.
(Lay up thy treasure according to the commandments of the most High, and it shall bring thee more profit than gold. Shut up alms in thy storehouses: and it shall deliver thee from all affliction. It shall fight for thee against thine enemies better than a mighty shield and strong spear.)"

Thank you for the excellent post.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I rather think it unlikely that in a thousand years anyone will know a thing about Saint Nancy Pelosi. IMO Saint Jerome is not in the same class as her. That said, I would probably not vote for Saint Jerome if he was running for a seat in the U.S. Congress, but I respect his scholarship when it comes to the translation of the Bible. But, then, you are entitled to your opinion.

The point is that Nancy Pelosi has about as much authority as St. Jerome. But, as usual, you missed it. DOH!
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
bb, you really confuse me, what is your problem ? In an earlier post I agreed with you that 'yes",St. Jerome did not consider that the DC was a part of the Canon of Scripture, as did other early Christians. There were numerous other Church Fathers who quoted the deuterocanonical books as Scripture (see The Old Testament Canon ), while some did not.

St.Jerome appears to have rejected most of the deuterocanonical parts of Scripture. But he did accept portions and included all seven books in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. Ultimately, he recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.

Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books. The bottom line: "We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God," wrote Augustine, "but by the canon of the Catholic Church."

Since it is unreasonable to expect every person to read all of the books of antiquity and judge for himself if they are inspired, the question boils down to whose authority is to be trusted in this matter. One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established.

Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John "We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

Barry, one thing people sometimes forget is that it wasn't within Jerome's authority, or the ECF's, to decide. They could hold an opinion, they could change their opinion one way or the other, but ultimately, they were beholden to the Magisterium, and the Pope. So Jerome had some problems early on, but changed his mind in favor, and did translate them, in other words, he was not a dissident Catholic. And just because there's writings from him doesn't mean they were set in stone. The Church is the ultimate authority, yes?
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
The Church is the ultimate authority, yes?

According to the RCC, no. All that matters is itself. It never looks to the church, it only looks at itself.

And yes, it does have a UNIQUE Bible - one that NONE other has EVER accepted, a UNIQUE canon, a UNIQUE embrace of what is and is not Scripture. NONE OTHER - ever - has agreed with the RCC on this, none does now.

And yes, to date, no one has been able to fine even one - not even one - quote from any DEUTERO book (of the RCC's choice or otherwise) quoted in the NT as Scripture. At best, just allusions that COULD be from some DEUTERO book - but in no sense indicated thus is Scripture - entirely meaningless and irrelevant in terms of affirming as Scripture.





.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
According to the RCC, no. All that matters is itself. It never looks to the church, it only looks at itself.
Of course, you leave out the main point of the post. But I'll play.
We believe there is only one Church and that Christ cannot be divided into denominations. So, what's your point? Do you believe Christ can be divided?
And yes, it does have a UNIQUE Bible - one that NONE other has EVER accepted, a UNIQUE canon, a UNIQUE embrace of what is and is not Scripture. NONE OTHER - ever - has agreed with the RCC on this, none does now.
Well the Church is unique. Universal. Besides, why does anyone else have to agree? Does that matter? Is Christianity a democracy?
And yes, to date, no one has been able to fine even one - not even one - quote from any DEUTERO book (of the RCC's choice or otherwise) quoted in the NT as Scripture. At best, just allusions that COULD be from some DEUTERO book - but in no sense indicated thus is Scripture - entirely meaningless and irrelevant in terms of affirming as Scripture.
There are no quotes, either, from Ecclesiastes. Should we cut it out?





.[/QUOTE]
Huh?
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,550
28,531
74
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Barry, one thing people sometimes forget is that it wasn't within Jerome's authority, or the ECF's, to decide. They could hold an opinion, they could change their opinion one way or the other, but ultimately, they were beholden to the Magisterium, and the Pope......?
When was the RCC's Magisterium first set up?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7322044-34/
Infallible teaching magisterium?
From ewtn:

Scripture alone-Scripture forced to stand apart from the
infallible teaching magisterium that has been given Christ's own
authority to accurately interpret Scripture, and Sacred Tradition,
which is the Church's living interpretation of those written words
-is unstable and leads to the myriad of conflicting, erroneous,
and sometimes spiritually fatal "human traditions" (c.f. Matt.
15:3-9; Mark 7:6-7) that lead people away from Christ.

Where do these statements originate?

1 Infallible teaching magisterium

2 Christ gave 'them' authority to 'accurately' interpret Scripture.

Magisterium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Catholicism, the magisterium is the authority that lays down what is the authentic teaching of the Church.[1][2] For the Catholic Church, that authority is vested uniquely in the pope and the bishops who are in communion with him.[3]
Sacred Scripture and Tradition "make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church",[4] and the magisterium is not independent of this, since "all that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is derived from this single deposit of faith."[5]

The exercise of the Church's magisterium is sometimes, but only rarely, expressed in the solemn form of an ex cathedra papal declaration, "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, [the Bishop of Rome] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church",[6] or of a similar declaration by an ecumenical council. Such solemn declarations of the Church's teaching involve the infallibility of the Church........




.
 
Upvote 0
B

barryatlake

Guest
LittleLamb, the Magisterium was formed on Christ's Apostles. Speaking to them, Jesus said:, “he who hears you, hears me” (Luke 10:16). The Magisterium speaks with the authority of Christ, guided and empowered by the Spirit of Truth.

So ultimately there is no opposition between the Bible and the Magisterium of the Church. In fact they are so interdependent that the New Testament itself calls the Church “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (I Timothy 3;15). Biblical authority and Church authority–you can’t have one without the other.

Root of Jesse, yes, I absolutely agree with your Post # 91. Thank You.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
We believe there is only one Church and that Christ cannot be divided into denominations.

I agree. Thus, I believe you are wrong. The RC Denomination does NOT look to the church - ever, for anything. It looks to itself.

I agree with you - we should look to the church. It's just that the RC Denomination forbids that, it itself we look to it. Exclusively, uniquely, singularly, particularly, individually, currently.


There are no quotes, either, from Ecclesiastes. Should we cut it out?
I think the whole point is silly..... who cares what books are or are not specifically quoted from AS SCRIPTURE in the NT? I think the whole premise is silly.

But of course, NO DEUTERO book is quoted in the NT.... As Scripture or otherwise. So the whole premise only serves to discredit those DEUTERO books - and you're right, most OT books, too.





.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
8,859
3,210
Pennsylvania, USA
✟951,114.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The Deuterocanon are referred to by some of the earliest Christians. There are not many references vs. those from commonly held scripture but nonetheless, they exist.

St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (ca. 98 AD) chapter 12:14 cites Wisdom of Solomon 12:12 The Lost Books of the Bible: The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

14 Who shall say unto him, what dost thou? or who shall resist the power of his strength? 7

The Lost Books of the Bible: The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians


St. Clement cites a couple of verses from the book of Judith in Chapter 22:23 of his epistle

The Lost Books of the Bible: The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

23 The blessed 11 Judith, when her city was besieged, desired the elders, that they would suffer her to go into the camp of 12 their enemies: and she went out exposing herself to danger for the love she bore to her country and her people that were besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman.


137:11 Judith, viii. ix. x. xiii. The Lost Books of the Bible: The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians


St. Polycarp (early 100s) in his epistle to the Philippians (3:12) refers to the book of Tobit: The Lost Books of the Bible: The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians


10 Stand therefore in these things, and follow the example of the Lord; being firm and immutable in the faith, lovers of the brotherhood, lovers of one another: 7 companions together in the truth, 8 being kind and gentle towards each other, despising none.

The Lost Books of the Bible: The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians





St. Irenaeus (ca. 175 AD) refers to the book of Baruch in his work: On the Apostolic Preaching




86. If then the prophets prophesied that the Son of God was to appear upon the earth, and
prophesied also where on the earth and how and in what manner He should make known His
appearance, and all these prophecies the Lord took upon Himself; our faith in Him was well-founded,


http://www.documentacatholicaomnia....onstration_Of_The_Apostolic_Preaching,_EN.pdf

compare to Baruch 3:36-37

36 He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it unto Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved.

37 Afterward did he shew himself upon earth, and conversed with
men.

BARUCH CHAPTER 3


The direct reference to Baruch is not included on the link to where I cited St. Irenarus but is duly noted in an Eastern Orthodox publication of this preaching:

On the Apostolic Preaching



So while the Deuterocanon was cited in low ratio to commonly held Bible scripture, early Christian preachers (the above in direct succession to the apostles) knew & respected it.
 
Upvote 0