Missing pages from one's bible

[Erose]

The Protestant reformation and Sola Scriptura took place because of the changing of the word to fit world views.

If that was true, then Sola Scriptura (never a Christian doctrine or Jewish one) would not be, nor would novel teachings would have been invented, such as the Faith Alone fallacy.

 

[Servus]

If that was true, then Sola Scriptura (never a Christian doctrine or Jewish one) would not be, nor would novel teachings would have been invented, such as the Faith Alone fallacy.

I'm having a hard time following your posts because of how you word them.

 

[Erose]

I can't recall ever seeing Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Parts of Esther, Parts of Daniel used as a reference in a discussion or presentation by a Catholic. I've read many posts and articles written by Catholics, here and elsewhere, and have never seen it. So this is another reason why they seem in a separate category from the rest of the Bible. My guess those books are the ones most Catholics are the least familiar with.

When you are talking to Protestants and debating an issue with them, it would be a waste of time to use passages from writings that they reject as authoritative.

Perhaps you will accept this one:

Wisdom Ch 2:
12Let us, therefore, assail the just, because useless are we, and he is opposed to our work, and upbraids us with transgressions of the Law, and divulges against us the sins of our way of life.
13He boasts that he has the knowledge of God, and calls himself the son of God.
14He has become a censurer of our thoughts.
15He is painful to us, even to behold; for his life is not like other men’s, and his ways are very different.
16We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstains from our ways as from filthiness, and he prefers the last end of the just, and glories that he has God for his Father.
17Let us see then if his words are true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be.
18For if he is the true son of God, He will defend him and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.
19Let us examine him by insults and tortures, that we may know his meekness, and try his patience.
20Let us condemn him to a most shameful death, for there shall be respect given to him because of his words.
21These things they thought and were deceived; for their own malice blinded them.

 

[Servus]

When you are talking to Protestants and debating an issue with them, it would be a waste of time to use passages from writings that they reject as authoritative.

Perhaps you will accept this one:

Wisdom Ch 2:
12Let us, therefore, assail the just, because useless are we, and he is opposed to our work, and upbraids us with transgressions of the Law, and divulges against us the sins of our way of life.
13He boasts that he has the knowledge of God, and calls himself the son of God.
14He has become a censurer of our thoughts.
15He is painful to us, even to behold; for his life is not like other men’s, and his ways are very different.
16We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstains from our ways as from filthiness, and he prefers the last end of the just, and glories that he has God for his Father.
17Let us see then if his words are true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be.
18For if he is the true son of God, He will defend him and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.
19Let us examine him by insults and tortures, that we may know his meekness, and try his patience.
20Let us condemn him to a most shameful death, for there shall be respect given to him because of his words.
21These things they thought and were deceived; for their own malice blinded them.

Christians use scripture passages when talking to those who reject scripture as whole, all the time.

As for the book of Wisdom, it's not a matter of rejecting it. It's a matter of whether or not it's Holy Scripture essentially written by God Himself, or more like the First Epistle of Clement et al.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Why not?

It's as mystery

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What about most other Catholics?

Read their posts! That's the way to find out

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Christians use scripture passages when talking to those who reject scripture as whole, all the time.

No, no no!!!!!

Christians use words when talking to people who reject scripture. What's the point of citations from scripture. Just use what is taught in scripture and drop all that "Matthew 10:17" stuff! Just say "Watch out, for there will be those who will arrest you and take you to court, and they will punish you."

 

[Servus]

No, no no!!!!!

Christians use words when talking to people who reject scripture. What's the point of citations from scripture. Just use what is taught in scripture and drop all that "Matthew 10:17" stuff! Just say "Watch out, for there will be those who will arrest you and take you to court, and they will punish you."

No Christians often use scripture when talking to unbelievers here. I've often used scripture on other forums with a religion sub-forum. You're the first I've ever seen express such an aversion to doing so.

 

[Erose]

Christians use scripture passages when talking to those who reject scripture as whole, all the time.

As for the book of Wisdom, it's not a matter of rejecting it. It's a matter of whether or not it's Holy Scripture essentially written by God Himself, or more like the First Epistle of Clement et al.

Exactly. So I just posted a passage from Wisdom, and you don't care. So should I use it as an example of a prophesy for Christ's passion, when you reject it?

 

[Servus]

Read their posts! That's the way to find out

I do read the posts of prolific long time Catholic members. That's why I said I don't recall ever seeing a Catholic who quotes scripture a lot in discussion, ever refer to one of those seven books.

 

[Servus]

It's as mystery

Hardly.

 

[Fervent]

These terms are Protestant at heart. "Intertestamental period" is a fiction, the Old Testament was still being written not many decades before Christ was born. And the prophetic office was still occupied when Christ was born so prophetic revelation was given through John the Baptist, Anna the prophetess, and Simon who received a word of revelation from God that he would live to see the salvation of Israel. It is a nonsense to claim that there was an "intertestamental period" in which no additional scripture was written.

You're off on a tangent, and essentially making an assertion rather than any kind of demonstration. My use of "intertestimonial period" was out of convenience, because while it may be a "Protestant term" it is readily understood what period it applies to. So rather than addressing the main point of my post, that the main narrative of Biblical Israel had contributed all that was necessary to understand the advent(which is the entire point of the OT) you go off on a tangent about a term I chose to use. That's what is "a nonsense."

 

[Fervent]

Here is the thing. The EO Church accepts every single book that the Catholic Church accepts. The only difference is that the EO does use other writings such as the Prayer of Manasseh and Ps 151, some Patriarchates use 3rd Maccabee’s as well; but if you dig into their understanding of these writings and why they are used, there is a reason; but I don’t speak for them so I won’t.


Yeah, that is what I found to. Most of Protestant denominations rejected the Christian canon for the Jewish one, and no one has a clue how it happened. It just happened. One of the great mysteries of Protestant history.

Whther they accept more, or the same ones, it doesn't matter. After all, the great schism didn't come to fullness until the first millenium and hadn't really started to fracture until the 6th century so if your claim that the canon was set in the 4th century were true the canons would be identical. So since they're not it is apparent that the canon was not finalized when you claim it was. The rejection of the apocypha/dueterocanon is no mystery, the books were moved to an appendix because they did not have the same kind of historical attestation as the rest of the books of the Old Testament as early compilers rejected some and accepted others in various combinations. Over time, them being placed in an appendix led to them never being read or used liturgically so printers took the appendix out of the main index and printed them separately. There's no mystery to it, and the dispute is a general one over the authority of the Roman church rather than an actual examination of canonical issues.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You're the first I've ever seen express such an aversion to doing so.

May I suggest that you read what my post says again. Pay close attention to what I wrote and avoid leaping to conclusions that are contrary to what is written.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My use of "intertestimonial period" was out of convenience, because while it may be a "Protestant term" it is readily understood what period it applies to.

Since for Catholics there was no gap in the prophetic witness to God in Israel There is only one long testimony to God and one long period during which the holy scriptures were written.

You asked for evidence, okay, look at the 7 books that Protestant reject and see when they were composed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Fervent]

Since for Catholics there was no gap in the prophetic witness to God in Israel There is only one long testimony to God and one long period during which the holy scriptures were written.

You asked for evidence, okay, look at the 7 books that Protestant reject and see when they were composed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

More assertion, and still nothing to actually address my objection(s).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

More assertion, and still nothing to actually address my objection(s).

There is no substance to the objections that your posts contain. And the evidence of the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, and Baruch is most convincing that God spoke in the period between the return to Judah from the Babylonian exile and the writing of the gospel and letters of the New Testament.

 

[Fervent]

There is no substance to the objections that your posts contain. And the evidence of the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, and Baruch is most convincing that God spoke in the period between the return to Judah from the Babylonian exile and the writing of the gospel and letters of the New Testament.

Again with assertions with no substantial response.

 

[Servus]

May I suggest that you read what my post says again. Pay close attention to what I wrote and avoid leaping to conclusions that are contrary to what is written.

Oh I see you were being facetious or sarcastic or something like that.

 

[Erose]

Whther they accept more, or the same ones, it doesn't matter. After all, the great schism didn't come to fullness until the first millenium and hadn't really started to fracture until the 6th century so if your claim that the canon was set in the 4th century were true the canons would be identical. So since they're not it is apparent that the canon was not finalized when you claim it was. The rejection of the apocypha/dueterocanon is no mystery, the books were moved to an appendix because they did not have the same kind of historical attestation as the rest of the books of the Old Testament as early compilers rejected some and accepted others in various combinations. Over time, them being placed in an appendix led to them never being read or used liturgically so printers took the appendix out of the main index and printed them separately. There's no mystery to it, and the dispute is a general one over the authority of the Roman church rather than an actual examination of canonical issues.

There is a lot wrong is this post and not sure where really to start. In the West without a doubt the canon was set in the 4th century, as the lists of books in the canon are the same today as they were then. And we have lists given throughout the history of the Catholic Church that coincide with the canon of the Synod in Rome in the 4th century and the canon of the Council of Trent in the 16th century. So I would say that yes it was closed. 2) All books of the Bible are used for liturgical purposes, then as well as today. There are solid arguments that canonicity of the books found in the Bible were based primarily liturgical usage. 3) The Protestants rejected the authority of the Western Church and not the Eastern Church, so what additional writings they accept in their canon doesn’t matter to this debate.

The fact remains that no one knows specifically why Protestants moved away from the Christian Canon to the Jewish one. The best explanation I found was that the publishers of the KJV Bible removed them to save money on publishing, and voila Protestant bible minus the 7 books.