- Sep 29, 2015
- 19,320
- 16,156
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
I do. You quoted Schaff.Forget Schaff, why not go with Jesus and the divinely inspired apostles?
Upvote
0
I do. You quoted Schaff.Forget Schaff, why not go with Jesus and the divinely inspired apostles?
You deflected from what Schaff said to Schaff himself...anyways...you go with the Roman Church and it's Canon, and I'll go with Jesus, the Jews, the Apostles and their Canon. Deal?I do. You quoted Schaff.
No. I gave Schaff credit for editing a decent collection of the Church Fathers. A collection that I have spent many many hours reading. But what you quoted Schaff as saying, that I reacted to.You deflected from what Schaff said to Schaff himself...
Yes, moving on, because what Schaff said is neither here nor there. Not the person I would quote about canonicity. I might instead look to quote Jaroslav Pelikan, particularly his book 'Whose Bible Is It?', Viking, 2005.anyways...
I will go with the Catholic Church and it's longstanding canon. No contest. As long as you think you have the canon of Jesus and the Apostles, do what you think is right. As to a Jewish canon, settled some time after Jesus, somehow excluding every Christian book, I would not bind myself to that as at all authoritative.you go with the Roman Church and it's Canon, and I'll go with Jesus, the Jews, the Apostles and their Canon. Deal?
I was referring to the Canon already accepted at the time of Jesus with the addition of the writings of the Jewish Apostles.As to a Jewish canon, settled some time after Jesus, somehow excluding every Christian book, I would not bind myself to that as at all authoritative.
There was no one Jewish canon accepted at the time of Jesus. For example, the Sadducees only accepted the Torah. Jews in Alexandria used the LXX. Qumran used various books not in other canons. It was open season until the Pharisees closed book well after Jesus, well after most all of the NT had been written.I was referring to the Canon already accepted at the time of Jesus with the addition of the writings of the Jewish Apostles.
At the time of Jesus, the Septuagint was the more widely accepted Holy writings for the Jews as a whole. this is why Paul often quoted from those writings. The Saduccees, who only accepted the Books of Moses, accepted much less than what became the Bible of the Pharisees in the generations following the Cross and the rise of a Christian alternative.I was referring to the Canon already accepted at the time of Jesus with the addition of the writings of the Jewish Apostles.
Nevertheless, neither the apostles nor Jesus quoted from the apocrypha.There was no one Jewish canon accepted at the time of Jesus. For example, the Sadducees only accepted the Torah. Jews in Alexandria used the LXX. Qumran used various books not in other canons. It was open season until the Pharisees closed book well after Jesus, well after most all of the NT had been written.
Just because your Bible does not include the references does not mean the deuterocanon was not quoted. That is a limitation on your particular Bible version more than anything. Scripture Catholic - DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENTNevertheless, neither the apostles nor Jesus quoted from the apocrypha.
I would have happily let it go, but you kept debating it.Anyways, I'm not fond of debates, my original enquiry was the pope's take on the Koran.
I believe you took the first shot with this...I would have happily let it go, but you kept debating it.
No. It was in post 55 that I wroteI believe you took the first shot with this...
"That you are missing a few books is your problem, just like it is a Muslim's problem that they think the Koran is inspired. Some people want to add books and some people want to subtract books. From a Catholic point of view the canon is simply closed."
...after I kindly said I'll stick to the 66, thank you.
This is an absolutely true statement that the Catholic Church has accepted 73 books in the Bible and they have done so for over 1600 years. The Catholic Church has a canon. It excludes the Koran. It includes 73 particular books. And you respondedThe Koran got it wrong. Dead wrong. Not a reliable guide. If you want the reliable guide, it is the canonical Scriptures, just those 73 books that the Church has ruled being within the covers of the Bible. Nothing in the Koran has been ruled to be within the canon. And the canon is closed, so the Koran will never be included.
To which I respondedI'll stick with the 66, thanks.
So if you want to say I 'started it' that would have been in post 55. But I stated a fact, that the Catholic Church has a fixed and closed canon of 73 books. You felt the need to make that an issue. We had been talking about the Koran, more or less successfully. Now you seem to be ready to wrap it up, and I approve.That you are missing a few books is your problem, (As in not my issue, I don't really care that you have a lighter Bible, not germane to this discussion) just like it is a Muslim's problem that they think the Koran is inspired (as in I don't really care that they think it is inspired and the most perfect book, they're still dead wrong). Some people want to add books and some people want to subtract books (neither cut it with me). From a Catholic point of view the canon is simply closed (as in you won't be very successful changing my mind so please don't even bother to waste my time or yours).