Sola Scriptura circa 700 AD

[redleghunter]

Actually it’s a per solam Scripturam et Traditionem model.

What you presented was inspired Scriptures as servant to tradition.

 

[Barney2.0]

What you presented was inspired Scriptures as servant to tradition.

I presented them as both equal infallible truths from God.

 

[Barney2.0]

And his last as well. He, like many before him in the Church did not view them as part of the protocanon.

He included in the Bible, he never separated it as uninspired until much later though which seriously compromises the Protestant position.

 

[Barney2.0]

Oral tradition? How so?

A long Apostolic tradition of attribution to Ezra.

 

[redleghunter]

He included in the Bible, he never separated it as uninspired until much later though which seriously compromises the Protestant position.

What books in the dueterocanon did the early fathers deem inspired?

 

[redleghunter]

I presented them as both equal infallible truths from God.

You said the Scriptures require Tradition to ascertain truth from them.

 

[Barney2.0]

You said the Scriptures require Tradition to ascertain truth from them.

Yes scripture can only be interpreted with Tradition or through the lens of the Church, likewise scripture is useful for doctrine, reproof and correction, so they’re both equal.

 

[Barney2.0]

What books in the dueterocanon did the early fathers deem inspired?

All books in the Septuagint Deuterocanon as the Septuagint longs with the developing New Testament were the main texts and scripture of the early Church.

 

[redleghunter]

All books in the Septuagint Deuterocanon as the Septuagint longs with the developing New Testament were the main texts and scripture of the early Church.

I don't know of any church fathers which viewed the texts as inspired. Meaning containing words "thus saith the Lord" and the words and or presence of a prophet. The rule I see used by Church doctors is inspired text is from a prophet, Our Lord or an Apostle. One of the reasons even Athanasius did not mention Esther as part of his canon. I do know most of the church fathers deemed the dueterocanon books as worthy for liturgy and for those who are learning the faith to read. But not deemed inspired Scriptures.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes scripture can only be interpreted with Tradition or through the lens of the Church, likewise scripture is useful for doctrine, reproof and correction, so they’re both equal.

If one interprets the other then they are not equal.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Then can you name me a canon of the Old Testament that didn’t vary regionally? Show me any canon universally established among the Jews of the time of Jesus Christ.

That is irrelevant, for their is no canon of the Old Testament that is universally established among Christians today, but it remains that as said, based on the internal testimony of the NT, by the time of Christ an extensive body (canon) of writings had been established as wholly inspired-of-God and authoritative, which as a body were referred to as Scripture. Obviously the hearers knew what this referred to.

The council of Carthage You haven’t exposed anything so far. The Church already gave the books the same status as any other book in about three councils Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), to claim anything else would be clear misinterpretation of the facts.

I did indeed expose the inference that these settled the canon, and instead the door was open to disagreement until after the death of Luther. To claim anything else would be clear misinterpretation of the facts.

Yes three fallible Church councils have their view that these books are part of the Bible, if they were wrong then there would be widespread opposition from the Church that these books shouldn’t be in the Bible, such a thing never occured which shows the councils were merely confirming an already held belief about the books.

First, the issue is these being treated as Scripture, not merely included in the Bible, and listen to what conclusion your logic would also lead to. If these councils were right then there would not be widespread doubt, disagreement and even opposition within the Church to these books being considered Scripture.

Again, as even the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)

Far more here , by the grace of God. Stop parroting Catholic propaganda.

It’s very different to Martin Luther coming and saying “hey let’s remove these books because they’re forgeries and not inspired.” Both are fallible decisions yet one decision is not foreign to Church history while one is.
Luther distinguished between Canonical books and Deuterocanonical books, Deuterocanonical books are classified as secondary to the Canonical books although both are inspired. Which is why Luther organized them differently, he didn’t include them in a sections of inspired and non inspired to suggest so would be pure absurdity.

Where are you getting this? What part of “Apocrypha, that is, books which are not held equal to the sacred Scriptures, and nevertheless are useful and good to read” leads you to think that Luther did not consider and thus not treat them as being sacred Scripture?

 

[Barney2.0]

That is irrelevant, for their is no canon of the Old Testament that is universally established among Christians today, but it remains that as said, based on the internal testimony of the NT, by the time of Christ an extensive body (canon) of writings had been established as wholly inspired-of-God and authoritative, which as a body were referred to as Scripture. Obviously the hearers knew what this referred to.

I did indeed expose the inference that these settled the canon, and instead the door was open to disagreement until after the death of Luther. To claim anything else would be clear misinterpretation of the facts.

First, the issue is these being treated as Scripture, not merely included in the Bible, and listen to what conclusion your logic would also lead to. If these councils were right then there would not be widespread doubt, disagreement and even opposition within the Church to these books being considered Scripture.

Again, as even the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)

Far more here , by the grace of God. Stop parroting Catholic propaganda.

Where are you getting this? What part of “Apocrypha, that is, books which are not held equal to the sacred Scriptures, and nevertheless are useful and good to read” leads you to think that Luther did not consider and thus not treat them as being sacred Scripture?

You didn’t answer my question, you made the claim that there was a universal canon among the Jews, I asked for proof. If there was settled universal canon among the Jews at the time of Christ or the early Church then surely you’d be able to provide an example. The door wasn’t open to disagreement, the Church already decided on the number of books which the Catholics seemingly decided to ratify at Trent in response to the Protestant reformation. Disagreement and opposition arose after the council of Nicaea because of the confirmation of a Triune God in accordance with scripture, doesn’t mean the Council of Nicaea was wrong. There was widespread opposition and disagreement after the council of Chalcedon which confirmed he dual natures of Christ it doesn’t mean it was wrong to make the decision. There was widespread disagreement and opposition in the Church in virtually every Church council in history. Furthermore I don’t think you know the meaning of Deuterocanonical, it means it’s a disputed canon which is why we call them Deuterocanonical and not Canonical. None of the Chuvh Fathers rejected the Deuterocanonical books:

Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?

I already earlier demonstrated that Martin Luther discarded 2 Maccabees in one of his debates because he felt that it wasn’t inspired or taught Biblical teachings. So far your pretty much just parroting Protestant propaganda and quoting various sources without actually knowing the context or meaning of your sources.

 

[Barney2.0]

I don't know of any church fathers which viewed the texts as inspired. Meaning containing words "thus saith the Lord" and the words and or presence of a prophet. The rule I see used by Church doctors is inspired text is from a prophet, Our Lord or an Apostle. One of the reasons even Athanasius did not mention Esther as part of his canon. I do know most of the church fathers deemed the dueterocanon books as worthy for liturgy and for those who are learning the faith to read. But not deemed inspired Scriptures.

Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?

 

[redleghunter]

Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?

Yes Athanasius did.

In his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367.

Athanasius on the Canon of Scripture

 

[Barney2.0]

Yes Athanasius did.

In his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367.

Athanasius on the Canon of Scripture

The following is taken from the link I posted:

St. Athanasius, in the Festal letter number 39, gives a list of the canon. Now, of the Deuterocanonicals he does term Baruch as a canonical book. He does exclude the other Deuterocanonicals. He also excludes Esther. So Protestants pointing to him is of no use as his list does not match the Protestant canon. However, as we will also see with St. Cyril of Jerusalem and others, the list of the canon is not all of inspired Scripture, and because books are excluded from the canon does not necessarily mean that they are not Scripture.

St. Athanasius says this about the Deuterocanonicals:

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read... Athanasius the Great: Part of Festal Letter 39 (c. 367 A.D.)[2]

Mark Bonocore elaborates on the possible meaning of St. Athanasius excluding the Deuteros from the canon itself:In regard to Athanasius, what I think we need to consider is that, in his Epistle 39, he is speaking as the Patriarch of Alexandria --a **liturgical** office. What he seems to be doing, therefore, is defining the ***Liturgical*** canon for the Alexandrian Patriarchate (a diocese including all of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis in Palestine ...and, by association, Ethiopia). Such an address by a reigning Patriarch can only be Liturgical in nature, and would not ...at this time ...address the inspiration or lack of inspiration of a particular book. In this, what cannot be denied is that the Egyptian and Libyan Church **did** believe the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, etc. to be inspired Scripture. They were unquestionably included in the Alexandrian Septuagint from pre-Christian times; and remain in the Biblical canon of the Ethiopian Jews to this very day. (Email from Mark Bonocore, August 2, 2001) Thus, the theory that we saw at the beginning of this paper, that the term ‘canon’ sometimes only means ‘those books that are read in the Liturgy’ will most seem to fit St. Athanasius when we see him in practice. He is not meaning to describe through the term ‘canon’ the full extent of Scripture. That is what the Protestant apologists falsely assume when he gives us the list. St. Athanasius refers to the Deuterocanonical books according to my count 46 times, as noted in the index of Schaff, NPNF2, Volume 4, which does not in fact give all his writings. Here is a sampling of some of St. Athanasius' citations and references to the Deuterocanonicals:

"[T]he sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;' [Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;' [Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides Israel, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom;' [Baruch 3:12] and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters' [Jer 2:13]" [3] Athanasius the Great: Defense of the Nicene Faith,2 (A.D. 351), in NPNF2, IV:158.

He terms the Sacred Writings, which include Hebrews, Psalms, and Jeremiah, with Baruch as well. He refers to Baruch as Sacred Writings which are thus, inspired Scriptures.

The Word, or Sacred Scripture, chides Israel through Baruch."And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,’ [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;’ [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:313

In the same breath that St. Athanasius speaks of Sacred Writings in Isaiah and Hebrews, he speaks of the Story of Susanna, only found in the Catholic Bible, and Baruch. He speaks in the same language of the other three Biblical citations. He preaches here on the doctrine of the Son’s eternal status. He makes no distinctions between the books. Unquestionably St. Athanasius sees these writings as Scripture, as only Scripture can be termed authored by ‘sacred writers.’t is written that 'all things were made through the Word,' and 'without Him was not made one thing,’ [John 1:3] and again, 'One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things,’ [1 Cor 8:9] and in Him all things consist,’ [Col 1:17] it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, 'O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord,', they recount things I heaven, things on earth, and the whole creation, as works; but the Son they name not. For thy say not, ‘Bless, O Word, and praise O Wisdom; to shew that all other things are both praising and are works’; but the Word is not a work nor of those that braise but is praised with the Father and worshipped and confessed as God.’ [Daniel 3:57-Three Youths] Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:71 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:387.

This passage of the three youths in the furnace is found in the Catholic Bible, not the Protestant Bible. It is preceded by the passage "It is written" which applies only to Scripture. St. Athanasius refers to Colossians, 1st Corinthians, and John in the same breath as referring to the Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel. He is using this passage to say that Jesus is not a creation, but is confessed as God. This is an important doctrinal point he is establishing. He makes no distinction between the inspiration of these books. He is showing through the Deuterocanonical passage, proof of the doctrine of Jesus deity.

Daniel said to Astyages, 'I do not worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh;' [Daniel 14:5-Bel & the Dragon]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 3:30 (A.D. 362),in NPNF2, IV:410.

Here is another Deuterocanonical part of Daniel not contained in the Protestant Bible.

"But if this too fails to persuade them, let them tell us themselves, whether there is any wisdom in the creatures or not? If not how is it that the Apostle complains, 'For after that in the Wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God?’ [1 Cor 1:21] or how is it if there is no wisdom, that a 'multitude of wise men' [Wisdom 6:24] are found in Scripture? for 'a wise man feareth and departeth from evil;’ [Prov 14:16] and 'through wisdom is a house builded;’ [Prov 24] and the Preacher says, 'A man's wisdom maketh his face to shine;' and he blames those who are headstrong thus, 'Say not thou, what is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire in wisdom concerning this.’ [Eccl 8:1,7:10]

But if, as the Son of Sirach says, 'He poured her out upon all His works; she is with all flesh according to His gift, and He hath given her to them that love Him,'[Sirach 1:8,9]" [7] Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 2:79 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:391

Here he quotes Wisdom and Sirach along with other Scriptural books. The reference to Wisdom is termed ‘Scripture’. In the same breath that he quotes from Ecclesiastes that the Preacher ‘says’, He says that the Son of Sirach ‘says’. He can refer to them in one breath as 'non-canonical' while still quoting them as Scripture. These books were not read in the Liturgy, but were still seen as Scripture and inspired. Since, however, after all his severe sufferings, after his retirement into Gaul, after his sojourn in a foreign and far distant country in the place of his own, after his narrow escape from death through their calumnies, but thanks to the clemency of the Emperor,- -distress which would have satisfied even the most cruel enemy,-- they are still insensible to shame, are again acting insolently against the Church and Athanasius; and from indignation at his deliverance venture on still more atrocious schemes against him, and are ready with an accusation, fearless of the words in holy Scripture, 'A false witness shall not be unpunished;’ [Proverbs 19:5] and, 'The mouth that belieth slayeth the soul;' (Wisdom 1:11) we therefore are unable longer to hold our peace, being amazed at their wickedness and at the insatiable love of contention displayed in their intrigues. [Athanasius the Great: Defence Against the Arians, 3 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:101

Here St. Athanasius speaks of the fearless words of Holy Scripture. First he quotes Proverbs and then he quotes the Book of Wisdom. He thus terms Wisdom as ‘the fearless words of Holy Scripture.’ He uses it against his enemies. Obvious, even his enemies recognized the Book of Wisdom as the 'fearless words of Holy Scripture'. It is almost amazing to think that some people will use St. Athanasius as an important benchmark of rejecting the Deuteros, but either are ignorant of or conveniently ignore the fact that the Saint himself uses the term ‘fearless words of Holy Scripture’ in reference to the Book of Wisdom.

Let us not fulfill these days like those that mourn but, by enjoying spiritual food, let us seek to silence our fleshly lusts(Ex. 15:1). For by these means we shall have strength to overcome our adversaries, like blessed Judith (Judith 13:8), when having first exercised herself in fastings and prayers, she overcame the enemies, and killed Olophernes. And blessed Esther, when destruction was about to come on all her race, and the nation of Israel was ready to perish, defeated the fury of the tyrant by no other means than by fasting and prayer to God, and changed the ruin of her people into safety (Esther 4:16) [Athanasius the Great: Letter 4, 2 (A.D. 333), in NPNF2, IV:516.St. Athanasius refers to the need to go to spiritual food to overcome fleshly lusts. He calls Judith 'Blessed', and shows how her example shows how to overcome fleshly lusts through prayers. He also terms Esther 'Blessed'. Thus, he keeps the books and persons of Esther and Judith at the same level of inspiration. Again, no distinction.The Spirit also, who is in him, commands, saying, 'Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord thy vows. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord (Sir. 18:17).') [Athanasius the Great: Letter 19, 5 (A.D. 333), in NPNF2, IV:546The Holy Spirit inspires Scripture, as all Christians agree (2 Tim. 3:16). St. Athanasius sees the Scripture of Sirach where the Spirit 'commands', through the book of Sirach. If Sirach was unscriptural, how could it 'command'? Obviously St. Athanasius sees Sirach as Scripture.But this wearied them, for they were not anxious to understand, 'for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory(1 Cor. 2:8).' And what their end is, the prophet foretold, crying, 'Woe unto their soul, for they have devised an evil thought, saying, let us bind the just man, because he is not pleasing to us’(Wis. 2:12). The end of such abandonment as this can be nothing but error, as the Lord, when reproving them, saith, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures(Mt. 22:29).’ [Athanasius the Great: Letter 19:5 (A.D. 347), in NPNF2, IV:546St.

Athanasius terms the Book of Wisdom as written by a prophet. He terms Wisdom 2 as speaking of Jesus, as he was crucified. This is right in the midst of his quotations of 1 Corinthians and the book of Matthew. He quotes his opponents, just as Jesus alludes to his opponents in Matthew, of not knowing the Scriptures. Just as Jesus reproves the Sadduccees for not ‘knowing’ Scripture, Athanasius reproves them for not knowing Wisdom, which is obviously Scripture.

According as the wisdom of God testifies beforehand when it says, "The devising of idols was the beginning of fornication." (Wis. 14:12)Against the Heathen, 9 (A.D. 347), in NPNF2, IV:9.Here we see St. Athanasius arguing against idolatry, using the book of Wisdom. He calls it 'the wisdom of God'. He uses the passage to teach against idolatry. Again, he sees this as authoritative in reproving idolatry.

With the actual outlook of St. Athanasius on those books in practice, it is obviously a misreading of St. Athanasius in the 39th festal letter to say that his list of the canon is meant to be a list of all the Books that he considers Scripture. Included here we have seen citations from Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel. He calls the books Scriptures, calls the books as written by prophets, and uses it in proving doctrine. A side note is that as I said earlier he does not list Esther as part of the canon, and is ‘noncanonical’ but he does refer to the book a couple of times in the Schaff edition. (NPNF2, Vol. 4, pp. 516, 531) He does not say ‘It is written’ about Esther and makes no distinguishing from that book from other ‘canonical’ books. That is the same way he mostly refers to the Deuterocanonical books. He doesn’t feel he has to ‘prove’ they are Scripture, he assumes it. He quotes it in support of what he is saying, without the need in many cases to say "It is written" or ‘As scripture says’. That is the same way he mostly refers to the non-Deuterocanonical books (without saying ‘As Scripture says’ or "it is written’, or ‘fearless words of Scripture.’) That is the same as with other Fathers. In this study, I am going to those type of quotes because those are more explicit in identifying those passages as Scripture. Many times St. Athanasius doesn’t say those distinguishing comments at all (i.e. ‘Scripture says’, or ‘It is written’) but takes for granted that the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture (the same way he speaks of the Protocanonicals). He goes to these noncanoncal books but still considers them Scripture. All these books are Scripture, and treated as Scripture, so it is obvious that the term ‘canon’ does not mean ‘the full extent of Scripture.’ Most likely, the term is used only in reference to its use in a liturgical context, as indicated by Mark Bonocore. In fact this theory that the term ‘canon’ by St. Athanasius only refers to those books read in the Liturgy, makes perfect sense with the book of Esther. He excluded Esther from the liturgical canon. In fact, since the book of Esther never even uses the word ‘God’ it would make perfect sense to not use it in the Liturgical worship where worship of God is the focus. However, that does not mean that St. Athanasius saw either Esther or the Deuterocanonicals as uninspired. We’ve seen St. Athanasius use words unhesitatingly ascribing the Deutercanonicals as the ‘fearless words of Holy Scripture.’

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You didn’t answer my question, you made the claim that there was a universal canon among the Jews, I asked for proof. If there was settled universal canon among the Jews at the time of Christ or the early Church then surely you’d be able to provide an example.

Again, just where do you get your claims? Do you just make what you read say what you want it to? Rather than making the claim that there was a universal canon among the Jews, I stated that "there was also variant views as there are today on many things," and that the "Jews" "were not a monolithic community, yet is a fact, yet it is also a FACT - based on the internal testimony of the NT - that by the time of Christ an extensive body (canon) of writings had been established as wholly inspired-of-God and authoritative, which as a body were referred to as Scripture. Obviously the hearers knew what this referred to."

For the RC sophistry is to argue that since there was no universal canon among the Jews, therefore we needed Rome to settle the canon, yet the fact that since a body of extensive body (canon) of writings had been established as wholly inspired-of-God and authoritative before Rome presumed she was essential for this - and did not settle the canon for her own church until over 1400 years after the lat book was penned - refutes her premise.

The door wasn’t open to disagreement, the Church already decided on the number of books which the Catholics seemingly decided to ratify at Trent in response to the Protestant reformation.

Again, just where are you getting this propaganda? Do just dismiss the documentation, even from Catholic sources, which testifies to the fact that scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books as wholly inspired Scripture continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon after the death of Luther. Thus Luther was no maverick, but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon.

Disagreement and opposition arose after the council of Nicaea because of the confirmation of a Triune God in accordance with scripture, doesn’t mean the Council of Nicaea was wrong. There was widespread opposition and disagreement after the council of Chalcedon which confirmed he dual natures of Christ it doesn’t mean it was wrong to make the decision. There was widespread disagreement and opposition in the Church in virtually every Church council in history.

Besides the fact that the authority of Rome is not the basis for veracity, your response is a series of false analogies, for dissent on the Trinity and other controversies that ecumenical councils defined did occur but these were was disallowed of Catholics since they were defined by an ecumenical (thus supposedly infallible and indisputable), councils, leaving dissenters to be heretics.

In contrast, disagreement was allowed over the canonicity (proper) of certain books that continued down through the centuries and right into Trent. You have to deny history to maintain your propaganda. Among others of note,

Origen in the 2nd century (c. 240) rejected the apocrypha as he held to the Palestinian canon (plus the Letter of Jeremiah), and likewise Cyril of Jerusalem (plus Baruch), but like St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368) and Rufinus who also rejected the apocrypha, Origen used them or parts thereof , as others also did with these second class books.

● Jerome (340-420), the preeminent 3rd century scholar rejected the Apocrypha, as they did not have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and were not received by all, and did not generally work toward "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church." His lists of the 24 books of the O.T. Scriptures corresponds to the 39 of the Protestant canon,

In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states,

“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)

● Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 367), excluded the Book of Esther (which never actually mentions God and its canonicity was disputed among Jews for some time) among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. (Athanasius of Alexandria - Wikipedia)

Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390) concurred with the canon of Anastasius.

● The list of O.T. books by the Council of Laodicea (363) may have been added later, and is that of Athanasius but with Esther included. It also contains the standard canon of the N.T. except that it omits Revelation, as does Cyril, thought to be due to excessive use of it by the Montanist cults

● John of Damascus, eminent theologian of the Eastern Church in the 8th century, and Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century also rejected the apocrypha, as did others, in part or in whole.

● The fourth century historian Euesibius also provides an early Christian list of both Old and New Testament books. In his Ecclesiastical History (written about A.D. 324), in three places quoting from Josephus, Melito and Origen, lists of the books (slightly differing) according to the Hebrew Canon. These he calls in the first place 'the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, undisputed among the Hebrews;' and again,'the acknowledged Scriptures of the Old Testament;' and, lastly, 'the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.' In his Chronicle he distinctly separates the Books of Maccabees from the 'Divine Scriptures;' and elsewhere mentions Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as 'controverted' books. (Eusebius on the Canon of Scripture)

● Cyril of Jerusalem (d. circa. 385 AD) exhorts his readers “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.” (Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon of Scripture)

His lists supports the canon adopted by the Protestants, combining books after the Hebrew canon and excludes the apocrypha, though he sometimes used them, as per the standard practice by which the apocrypha was printed in Protestant Bibles, and includes Baruch as part of Jeremiah.

● Likewise Rufinus:

38.But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: 5 that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.

With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways 6 and the Judgment of Peter.7 They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named "apocrypha,"8 which they would not have read in the churches.

These are what the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God they should draw for drinking. (Rufinus of Aquileia on the Canon of Scripture)

●Summing up most of the above, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.

The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books... (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament, eph. mine)

Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four volumes) explained, “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.”

►"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63

►The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”— CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan

►Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64 Evangelicals and the Canon of the New Testament

And just prior to Trent, The Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament and soon received papal sanction.

Furthermore I don’t think you know the meaning of Deuterocanonical, it means it’s a disputed canon which is why we call them Deuterocanonical and not Canonical. None of the Chuvh Fathers rejected the Deuterocanonical books:
Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?

Again, you are moving the goal posts as it were, for the issue is not whether some of the Deuteros is used or referenced and even included in a Bible, but whether it is wholly inspired Scripture. Your Catholic source states is that "Remember, canonical does not necessarily mean all that is Scripture," and makes the error of equating merely quoting or referencing a source as denoting it is inspired Scripture, which would make all the book of Enoch inspired Scripture.(Jude 14) Luther himself rejected James as Scripture, yet referenced it for support.

Also, another tactic is to use references to statements which lack source citations in the original, as referring to certain writings of the Deuteros, yet they can just as easily be from canonical Scripture. Thus when trying to make deny the clear statement of Athanasius "that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit...", your source resorts to making "'Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord your vows. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord" as referring to Sirach 18:17 as Scripture.

Yet what Matt16:18 does not tell you is that the source citation to that book is not in the original, and even what he provides is evidently the wrong one ("Lo, is not a word better than a gift? but both are with a gracious man"), while it easily is seen to refer to, "Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High: And call upon me in the day of trouble..." (Psalms 50:14-15) And it is possible that the writer is quoting from memory and paraphrase.,

But I am not going to go thru all the vain laborious attempts your source puts into trying to deny that some so-called church fathers did not reject Deuterocanonicals as Scripture, contrary to their own statements, for it is clear that they stated denial of books whose canonical status Trent later made compulsory, as scholarly RC sources of far more weight than anonymous Matt16:18 attest, as documented.

I already earlier demonstrated that Martin Luther discarded 2 Maccabees in one of his debates because he felt that it wasn’t inspired or taught Biblical teachings. So far your pretty much just parroting Protestant propaganda and quoting various sources without actually knowing the context or meaning of your sources.

Actually it is you who are denying plain statements from Catholic sources which attest to the Fact that scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books as wholly inspired Scripture continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon after the death of Luther.

Denying this make your appear to be compelled to defend your church, no matter what cost to intellectual honesty. Your continued denial of this fact is simply untenable.

 

[Barney2.0]

Again, just where do you get your claims? Do you just make what you read say what you want it to? Rather than making the claim that there was a universal canon among the Jews, I stated that "there was also variant views as there are today on many things," and that the "Jews" "were not a monolithic community, yet is a fact, yet it is also a FACT - based on the internal testimony of the NT - that by the time of Christ an extensive body (canon) of writings had been established as wholly inspired-of-God and authoritative, which as a body were referred to as Scripture. Obviously the hearers knew what this referred to."

For the RC sophistry is to argue that since there was no universal canon among the Jews, therefore we needed Rome to settle the canon, yet the fact that since a body of extensive body (canon) of writings had been established as wholly inspired-of-God and authoritative before Rome presumed she was essential for this - and did not settle the canon for her own church until over 1400 years after the lat book was penned - refutes her premise.

Again, just where are you getting this propaganda? Do just dismiss the documentation, even from Catholic sources, which testifies to the fact that scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books as wholly inspired Scripture continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon after the death of Luther. Thus Luther was no maverick, but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon.

Besides the fact that the authority of Rome is not the basis for veracity, your response is a series of false analogies, for dissent on the Trinity and other controversies that ecumenical councils defined did occur but these were was disallowed of Catholics since they were defined by an ecumenical (thus supposedly infallible and indisputable), councils, leaving dissenters to be heretics.

In contrast, disagreement was allowed over the canonicity (proper) of certain books that continued down through the centuries and right into Trent. You have to deny history to maintain your propaganda. Among others of note,

Origen in the 2nd century (c. 240) rejected the apocrypha as he held to the Palestinian canon (plus the Letter of Jeremiah), and likewise Cyril of Jerusalem (plus Baruch), but like St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368) and Rufinus who also rejected the apocrypha, Origen used them or parts thereof , as others also did with these second class books.

● Jerome (340-420), the preeminent 3rd century scholar rejected the Apocrypha, as they did not have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and were not received by all, and did not generally work toward "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church." His lists of the 24 books of the O.T. Scriptures corresponds to the 39 of the Protestant canon,

In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states,

“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)

● Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 367), excluded the Book of Esther (which never actually mentions God and its canonicity was disputed among Jews for some time) among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. (Athanasius of Alexandria - Wikipedia)

Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390) concurred with the canon of Anastasius.

● The list of O.T. books by the Council of Laodicea (363) may have been added later, and is that of Athanasius but with Esther included. It also contains the standard canon of the N.T. except that it omits Revelation, as does Cyril, thought to be due to excessive use of it by the Montanist cults

● John of Damascus, eminent theologian of the Eastern Church in the 8th century, and Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century also rejected the apocrypha, as did others, in part or in whole.

● The fourth century historian Euesibius also provides an early Christian list of both Old and New Testament books. In his Ecclesiastical History (written about A.D. 324), in three places quoting from Josephus, Melito and Origen, lists of the books (slightly differing) according to the Hebrew Canon. These he calls in the first place 'the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, undisputed among the Hebrews;' and again,'the acknowledged Scriptures of the Old Testament;' and, lastly, 'the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.' In his Chronicle he distinctly separates the Books of Maccabees from the 'Divine Scriptures;' and elsewhere mentions Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as 'controverted' books. (Eusebius on the Canon of Scripture)

● Cyril of Jerusalem (d. circa. 385 AD) exhorts his readers “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.” (Cyril of Jerusalem on the Canon of Scripture)

His lists supports the canon adopted by the Protestants, combining books after the Hebrew canon and excludes the apocrypha, though he sometimes used them, as per the standard practice by which the apocrypha was printed in Protestant Bibles, and includes Baruch as part of Jeremiah.

● Likewise Rufinus:

38.But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: 5 that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.

With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways 6 and the Judgment of Peter.7 They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named "apocrypha,"8 which they would not have read in the churches.

These are what the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God they should draw for drinking. (Rufinus of Aquileia on the Canon of Scripture)

●Summing up most of the above, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.

The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books... (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament, eph. mine)

Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four volumes) explained, “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.”

►"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63

►The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this saying that “he seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”— CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan

►Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64 Evangelicals and the Canon of the New Testament

And just prior to Trent, The Polyglot Bible (1514) of Cardinal Ximenes separated the Apocrypha from the canon of the Old Testament and soon received papal sanction.

Again, you are moving the goal posts as it were, for the issue is not whether some of the Deuteros is used or referenced and even included in a Bible, but whether it is wholly inspired Scripture. Your Catholic source states is that "Remember, canonical does not necessarily mean all that is Scripture," and makes the error of equating merely quoting or referencing a source as denoting it is inspired Scripture, which would make all the book of Enoch inspired Scripture.(Jude 14) Luther himself rejected James as Scripture, yet referenced it for support.

Also, another tactic is to use references to statements which lack source citations in the original, as referring to certain writings of the Deuteros, yet they can just as easily be from canonical Scripture. Thus when trying to make deny the clear statement of Athanasius "that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit...", your source resorts to making "'Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay to the Lord your vows. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness, and put your trust in the Lord" as referring to Sirach 18:17 as Scripture.

Yet what Matt16:18 does not tell you is that the source citation to that book is not in the original, and even what he provides is evidently the wrong one ("Lo, is not a word better than a gift? but both are with a gracious man"), while it easily is seen to refer to, "Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High: And call upon me in the day of trouble..." (Psalms 50:14-15) And it is possible that the writer is quoting from memory and paraphrase.,

But I am not going to go thru all the vain laborious attempts your source puts into trying to deny that some so-called church fathers did not reject Deuterocanonicals as Scripture, contrary to their own statements, for it is clear that they stated denial of books whose canonical status Trent later made compulsory, as scholarly RC sources of far more weight than anonymous Matt16:18 attest, as documented.

Actually it is you who are denying plain statements from Catholic sources which attest to the Fact that scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books as wholly inspired Scripture continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon after the death of Luther.

Denying this make your appear to be compelled to defend your church, no matter what cost to intellectual honesty. Your continued denial of this fact is simply untenable.

Can you prove to me that based on the internal testimony of the NT - that by the time of Christ an extensive body (canon) of writings had been established as wholly inspired-of-God and authoritative, which as a body were referred to as Scripture? The Jews settled there canon at Jamnia, the Hasmonean dynasty used one canon among many variants. I asked you a clear question which was to prove there was a settled canon among the Jews. All councils will have disagreement my analogy wasn’t false it’s just to show you that there won’t be a Church council without disagreement, infallible or non infallible doesn’t make a difference. Luther had enough support to start a schism why is it suprising that he was supported in removing the Deuterocanonical books from the Bible. Not everything Canonical is necessarily inspired scripture, as something Canonical is merely something fit to be read in the liturgy. The fact that the Church as a majority never rebuked the decisions of the council would mean the Church was misguided for centuries. Correction Cardinal Ximenes seperated the Deuterocanonical books from the Protocanonical Old Testament, he didn’t seperate it out of the Bible. St Cyril argued the Deuterocanonical books to be of a secondary rank or position to the Canonical books, which isn’t contrary to the position of the Church in any way. None of the Chruch Fathers rejected the Deuterocanonical books:

Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture?

Reasons Why the Deuterocanon Belongs in the Bible – The Liturgical Legion – Medium

Nice job misquoting the Church Fathers. Once more your merely using Protestant sophistry and propaganda.

 

[redleghunter]

St. Athanasius, in the Festal letter number 39, gives a list of the canon. Now, of the Deuterocanonicals he does term Baruch as a canonical book. He does exclude the other Deuterocanonicals. He also excludes Esther. So Protestants pointing to him is of no use as his list does not match the Protestant canon. However, as we will also see with St. Cyril of Jerusalem and others, the list of the canon is not all of inspired Scripture, and because books are excluded from the canon does not necessarily mean that they are not Scripture.

I already pointed out he did not see Esther as inspired Scriptures. And there is debate whether or not he viewed Lamentations as that which he called Baruch.

Which in the case of St Athanasius as a doctor of the Church his OT canon is closest to the Protestant OT canon and if we include St Jerome the OT canon of the Protestants matches. Which provides the evidence that I have shown and many others is that Luther did not make up the deuterocanon controversy. The Protestant OT canon has historic Church support.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Can you prove to me that based on the internal testimony of the NT - that by the time of Christ an extensive body (canon) of writings had been established as wholly inspired-of-God and authoritative, which as a body were referred to as Scripture?

Of course, do you not read the multitude of references to Scripture both as a body and to those within this body? And directed them to Jews, including His disciples, which evidences they knew what was being referred to, and who never disputed whether these were Scripture?

As an accepted body of inspired writings, the Lord exhorted, ,

• Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (John 5:39)

And thus refers to the tripartite division of the Hebrew Scriptures:

• And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)
• And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)

Likewise,

• And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)

• These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

• And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. (Acts 18:24)

• For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
• And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. (Acts 28:23)

Do you think these Jews said, "we have no established body of inspired writings and thus you cannot condemn us for not believing them?

Such as when the Lord Jesus saith unto them,

• Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyesm' (Matthew 21:42)

• Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
• But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? (Matthew 26:54)
• I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled. (Mark 14:49)

• And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. (Luke 4:21)
• He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (John 7:38)
• If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; (John 10:35)

And there are multitudes more .

The Lord and His disciples simply could not appeal to the Scriptures, including as sectioned, if there was not body of writings that had been established as being inspired Scripture, and thus authoritative!

The Jews settled there canon at Jamnia,

What? I already showed that this claim is dubious at best, and even Steve Ray of your Catholic Answers cult denies the very thing you assert, and yet here you are blithely parroting another old refuted polemic. And you expect me to continue to attempt to reason with you?

the Hasmonean dynasty used one canon among many variants.

And Rome uses one canon among many variants, not even identical with the EO's, who see you as removing one or two books.

I asked you a clear question which was to prove there was a settled canon among the Jews.

And as stated, there was no universally settled canon, then nor today, but the issue was and is whether Luther and others could reject certain books, which he and they could, regardless that you cannot accept that reality.

All councils will have disagreement my analogy wasn’t false it’s just to show you that there won’t be a Church council without disagreement, infallible or non infallible doesn’t make a difference.

You did indeed engage in a false analogy, as you used invalid dissent as corespondent to that of those who could and did disagree with some fallible councils on the canon. The former were held as heretics, while the latter included esteemed scholars who were not rebuked by Rome for their position on the canon.

Not everything Canonical is necessarily inspired scripture, as something Canonical is merely something fit to be read in the liturgy.

Which thus means that you have canonical texts which are not inspired yet are judged as fit to be read in the liturgy, while in reality Jerome and others state that books of the Deuteros were not classed as Scripture and thus were not fit to be read in the liturgy.

In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states,


“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)

The fact that the Church as a majority never rebuked the decisions of the council would mean the Church was misguided for centuries.

Not so, for this was a matter one could disagree on, but by the same logic you employ here, the fact that the Church as a majority never rebuked saints and scholars who differed with the affirmations of said council would mean the Church was misguided for centuries.

Correction Cardinal Ximenes seperated the Deuterocanonical books from the Protocanonical Old Testament, he didn’t seperate it out of the Bible.

You need correction: for once again the issue is not whether the Deuteros can be included in the Bible (I myself have it) but whether it is wholly inspired Scripture, and that Catholics could licitly differ with what Trent would latter require assent to. Which they could and did.

St Cyril argued the Deuterocanonical books to be of a secondary rank or position to the Canonical books, which isn’t contrary to the position of the Church in any way. None of the Chruch Fathers rejected the Deuterocanonical books:

You tried this already, and it will not change the substantiated FACT that scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books as to whether they were wholly inspired Scripture continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.

Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon.

Nice job misquoting the Church Fathers. Once more your merely using Protestant sophistry and propaganda

Which is simply a unsubstantiated spitwad, while the fact is that I quoted correctly, and the citation of Sirach 18:17 that your source added is indeed not in the original, and in fact it is not even at the address given, while it easily corresponds to (Psalms 50:14-15)

Thus it remains that by the time of Christ an extensive body (canon) of writings had been established as wholly inspired-of-God and authoritative, which as a body were referred to as Scripture, testifying to such establishment, if yet progressive, not needing Rome. And that
scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books as to whether they were wholly inspired Scripture continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.

Since you have amply demonstrated that you simply will not accept these well documented facts, and cannot be reasoned with, as all may see, then further attempts do so hardly warrant more time, tomes, and energy.

 

[Barney2.0]

Of course, do you not read the multitude of references to Scripture both as a body and to those within this body? And directed them to Jews, including His disciples, which evidences they knew what was being referred to, and who never disputed whether these were Scripture?

As an accepted body of inspired writings, the Lord exhorted, ,

• Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (John 5:39)

And thus refers to the tripartite division of the Hebrew Scriptures:

• And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)
• And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)

Likewise,

• And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)

• These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

• And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. (Acts 18:24)

• For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
• And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. (Acts 28:23)

Do you think these Jews said, "we have no established body of inspired writings and thus you cannot condemn us for not believing them?

Such as when the Lord Jesus saith unto them,

• Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyesm' (Matthew 21:42)

• Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
• But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? (Matthew 26:54)
• I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled. (Mark 14:49)

• And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. (Luke 4:21)
• He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (John 7:38)
• If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; (John 10:35)

And there are multitudes more .

The Lord and His disciples simply could not appeal to the Scriptures, including as sectioned, if there was not body of writings that had been established as being inspired Scripture, and thus authoritative!

What? I already showed that this claim is dubious at best, and even Steve Ray of your Catholic Answers cult denies the very thing you assert, and yet here you are blithely parroting another old refuted polemic. And you expect me to continue to attempt to reason with you?

And Rome uses one canon among many variants, not even identical with the EO's, who see you as removing one or two books.

And as stated, there was no universally settled canon, then nor today, but the issue was and is whether Luther and others could reject certain books, which he and they could, regardless that you cannot accept that reality.

You did indeed engage in a false analogy, as you used invalid dissent as corespondent to that of those who could and did disagree with some fallible councils on the canon. The former were held as heretics, while the latter included esteemed scholars who were not rebuked by Rome for their position on the canon.

Which thus means that you have canonical texts which are not inspired yet are judged as fit to be read in the liturgy, while in reality Jerome and others state that books of the Deuteros were not classed as Scripture and thus were not fit to be read in the liturgy.

In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states,


“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)


Not so, for this was a matter one could disagree on, but by the same logic you employ here, the fact that the Church as a majority never rebuked saints and scholars who differed with the affirmations of said council would mean the Church was misguided for centuries.

You need correction: for once again the issue is not whether the Deuteros can be included in the Bible (I myself have it) but whether it is wholly inspired Scripture, and that Catholics could licitly differ with what Trent would latter require assent to. Which they could and did.

You tried this already, and it will not change the substantiated FACT that scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books as to whether they were wholly inspired Scripture continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.

Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon.

Which is simply a unsubstantiated spitwad, while the fact is that I quoted correctly, and the citation of Sirach 18:17 that your source added is indeed not in the original, and in fact it is not even at the address given, while it easily corresponds to (Psalms 50:14-15)

Thus it remains that by the time of Christ an extensive body (canon) of writings had been established as wholly inspired-of-God and authoritative, which as a body were referred to as Scripture, testifying to such establishment, if yet progressive, not needing Rome. And that
scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books as to whether they were wholly inspired Scripture continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.

Since you have amply demonstrated that you simply will not accept these well documented facts, and cannot be reasoned with, as all may see, then further attempts do so hardly warrant more time, tomes, and energy.

You didn’t answer my first question, I said to provide a complete universal canon that the Jews held before Jamnia. You quoted scripture referencing scripture none necessarily point to a canon of scripture. Having no established canon doesn’t mean the Jews didn’t have scriptures. The Jews had scriptures, yet no organized canon of what was the Bible. Jesus could have undoubtedly appealed to scripture as scripture existed, he doesn’t need an established canon, canon also doesn’t necessarily mean inspired. There was no authoritive Jewish canon established before Jamnia, if there was then please produce one for all to see clearly. I’m not Catholic and Catholic Answers isn’t a cult, I would like to know how Steve Ray disagrees with me and how this is relevant to our discussion. Our Church obviously has a different liturgy to the Roman Catholics, so we would obviously have different canons. We don’t see the Roman Catholics as removing books, in a worst case scenario we’d dispute their liturgy. I’ve already demonstrated Saint Jerome and other never denied the Deuterocanonical books. There were numerous Church councils pronouncing the books as inspired way before Trent, when was there a time when the Chruch didn’t regard the books as inspired, that’s what you’d have to prove. The third Council of Carthage stated the following:

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two Books of the Maccabees.

17 Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John.

18 So let the church over the sea be consulted to confirm this canon. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.

20 Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. Because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church.

Anyone who would dispute the inspired status of the Deuterocanonical books would be a confirmed heretic in the historical Church, what was open for debate and dispute was if the status of the Deuterocanonical books ranked as secondary or equal to the Canonical books or the Protocanon. Fallible councils are still binding and virtually all of Protestantism views the council of Carthage and Hippo as legitimate and binding. I’m seeing many Synods and Church councils including the Deuterocanonicals as inspired yet none in the opposite direction which does put your argument into severe jeopardy. There’s no documentation of arguing of their inspired nature, only of their nature in relation to the Protocanon. Please prove to me that the citation of Sirach 18:17 was not in the original version. Luther also had enough support from certain people within Roman Catholic Church to start a heretical reformation. Again scholarly disagreements over the Deuterocanonical books don’t change the historical position of the Church one these books. So far all you’ve done is parrot Protestant propaganda, to the point where you have appealed to Jews or misquoted the Church Fathers to give weight to your argument.