Deutercanonical Citations in the New Testament

[bbbbbbb]

thanks! acting like lloj now huh?

I take that as a compliment. I happen to like and respect my brother, LLoJ.

 

[SpyderByte]

I take that as a compliment. I happen to like and respect my brother, LLoJ.

I'd just like for him to respond instead of dodging yet another refutation of his assertions...

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'd just like for him to respond instead of dodging yet another refutation of his assertions...

I am not holding my breath on it. I think he knows full well that trotting out this list is just a smoke screen intended to intimidate folks into actually thinking that the DC is on a par with the canonical books of the OT.

 

[SpyderByte]

I am not holding my breath on it. I think he knows full well that trotting out this list is just a smoke screen intended to intimidate folks into actually thinking that the DC is on a par with the canonical books of the OT.

Yeah you'd suffocate first. He's obviously avoiding this and other responses like the plague because he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on, but refuses to admit he's wrong...

 

[SpyderByte]

thanks! acting like lloj now huh?

1MIN FINAL JEOPARDY: https://youtu.be/B3lLYOGDsts

 

[bbbbbbb]

1MIN FINAL JEOPARDY: https://youtu.be/B3lLYOGDsts

Thanks! That is one of my alltime favorite programs. I suspect that our mutual friend will be a no-show when it comes down to it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I would love it if you would spout the criterion for something being canonical. Does Jesus or an apostle have to reference the book by citation for it to be canon?

 

[SpyderByte]

I would love it if you would spout the criterion for something being canonical. Does Jesus or an apostle have to reference the book by citation for it to be canon?

Well let's see, if it contradicts known history and the words of accepted scripture...but you already err. You assume the canon is a work of man, and not a continuation of the inspired nature of God's word.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

thanks! acting like lloj now huh?

This thread has to be like at a minimum 4 years unused for LLOJ to bump it.

 

[SpyderByte]

I see concretecamper hasn't yet responded. Anyone know if he's been on?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well let's see, if it contradicts known history and the words of accepted scripture...but you already err. You assume the canon is a work of man, and not a continuation of the inspired nature of God's word.

That sounds nice, up until one realizes that frequently skeptics point out contradictions in Scripture and also point out historical inconsistencies--which no doubt you would argue are not contradictions and are not inconsistencies out of a belief in biblical inerrancy.

Which begs a pretty important question: What's the difference between a skeptic pointing out contradictions in books you consider Scripture and you, in theory, pointing out contradictions between books you don't consider Scripture. It would seem to me that the fundamental difference is you and your opinion on what is and isn't Scripture.

As I've noted several times in the past, it seems to me that most arguments against the Deuterocanonicals comes down to "What my church says" in the same way that most arguments for the Deuterocanonicals comes down to "What my church says".

I keep saying I'd like to see some good arguments for either side, but I keep noticing very few good arguments for or against.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SpyderByte]

That sounds nice, up until one realizes that frequently skeptics point out contradictions in Scripture and also point out historical inconsistencies--which no doubt you would argue are not contradictions and are not inconsistencies out of a belief in biblical inerrancy.

Going to stop you right there. There are no contradictions in scripture. The fact that you're reaching for "skeptics" views on scripture tells me a great deal. Explain to me where in scripture there is anything like we find in the apocrypha like "Nebuchadnezzar reigned in Ninevah" like we find in Judith? Oh I know, in an effort to cover the goof, people are now claiming it's historical fiction (http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Judith&ch) but that doesn't save them. Where else did God use "historical fiction" and inspire a fiction? Parables and such within a book of scripture don't count, as they are teachings used inside a greater truthful context. Judith is pure fiction from beginning to end. Other books even make mention of the fact that they aren't inspired by God and ask forgiveness for their shortcomings because of it! It's very simple. God inspired only a certain number of books right? He knows that canon infallibly right? It stands to reason then that that which is God breathed would be set apart from that which is not, like works of terrible ahistorical fiction, and books that do not claim inspiration. Otherwise you open the door for "new revelation" based on what? A feeling? An "infallible" pope? Who knows! God didn't inspire every book ever written, and He knows what is His word. The apocrypha was only added because people found it in the Septuagint, they were never found in the Hebrew scriptures... http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.p...in-a-recent-catholic-answers-article-vintage/
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/apocrypha-and-canon-in-early-christianity/

Now, would you like to take a crack at bbbbbbb has posted? That is after all what this thread is about, and apparently concretecamper has forgotten the request to back up his list.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Going to stop you right there. There are no contradictions in scripture. The fact that you're reaching for "skeptics" views on scripture tells me a great deal.

Instead of actually engaging my point you've instead decided to respond in a knee-jerk fashion.

Your position is one rooted in certain assumptions. I was hoping you'd be able to step outside for a moment to try and look at this more objectively.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SpyderByte]

Instead of actually engaging my point you've instead decided to respond in a knee-jerk fashion.

Your position is one rooted in certain assumptions. I was hoping you'd be able to step outside for a moment to try and look at this more objectively.

-CryptoLutheran

No, your point is pretty well engaged. I've dealt with it numerous times. I can say you obviously ignored everything I posted because I wouldn't follow you down your rabbit trail. I'll ask again, will you address bbbbbbb's point?

 

[sunlover1]

St. Jerome on the Deuterocanon | Shameless Popery

The bottom line here is that not only did Jerome hold the Deuterocanon (as evidenced here by the additions to Daniel) to be apocryphal, he claims that the "judgment of the churches" at the time was also consistent with this perspective.

It's my hunch that Catholics try to minimize Jerome's perspective here as unique, novel, isolated. But when read in context, it appears that he was not alone in thinking this. That he may very well have found that the majority of churches held the deuterocanonical texts to be apocryphal. That it was only the "unlearned" (to use Jerome's term) that believed otherwise.

 

[SpyderByte]

St. Jerome on the Deuterocanon | Shameless Popery

The bottom line here is that not only did Jerome hold the Deuterocanon (as evidenced here by the additions to Daniel) to be apocryphal, he claims that the "judgment of the churches" at the time was also consistent with this perspective.

It's my hunch that Catholics try to minimize Jerome's perspective here as unique, novel, isolated. But when read in context, it appears that he was not alone in thinking this. That he may very well have found that the majority of churches held the deuterocanonical texts to be apocryphal. That it was only the "unlearned" (to use Jerome's term) that believed otherwise.

I once posted a list as long as my arm of ECF'S and prominent members of the RCC(including popes) that agreed with Jerome and predated Jerome, and was told "too bad I don't believe you" and had it hand waved away...

 

[sunlover1]

I once posted a list as long as my arm of ECF'S and prominent members of the RCC(including popes) that agreed with Jerome and predated Jerome, and was told "too bad I don't believe you" and had it hand waved away...

I suppose it's human nature to "fight" to defend our original understandings of things.
I know I've caught myself doing it here in GT.
Not a "wise" action, by any means, but pretty common.

We armchair theologians often demonstrate pride/stubbornness. (foolishness!)
That's all i can figure as to why people ignore 'facts'.
Opinion and surmising is one thing, fact is another.

He said that we will know the truth and that the truth will set us free,
so I guess we better get our act together if we love liberty!

 

[Root of Jesse]

I once posted a list as long as my arm of ECF'S and prominent members of the RCC(including popes) that agreed with Jerome and predated Jerome, and was told "too bad I don't believe you" and had it hand waved away...

Yet they never did anything to excise the Deuterocanon from the Canon.
Also, Jerome, while he may have disagreed, did nothing to advocate for their removal. In other words, he submitted to the will of God and Holy Mother Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

St. Jerome on the Deuterocanon | Shameless Popery

The bottom line here is that not only did Jerome hold the Deuterocanon (as evidenced here by the additions to Daniel) to be apocryphal, he claims that the "judgment of the churches" at the time was also consistent with this perspective.

It's my hunch that Catholics try to minimize Jerome's perspective here as unique, novel, isolated. But when read in context, it appears that he was not alone in thinking this. That he may very well have found that the majority of churches held the deuterocanonical texts to be apocryphal. That it was only the "unlearned" (to use Jerome's term) that believed otherwise.

The problem is that, while we hold that Jerome was doctor of the Church, it doesn't mean that he carries any authority.

 

[SpyderByte]

Yet they never did anything to excise the Deuterocanon from the Canon.
Also, Jerome, while he may have disagreed, did nothing to advocate for their removal. In other words, he submitted to the will of God and Holy Mother Church.

Actually many did, and we're excoriated for it. That's all beside the point, as it was an act of addition by the rcc to include the apocrypha. This means the apocrypha was not a part of the original canon. This leaves the rcc without a footing.