The Canonization of Maccabees

[thereselittleflower]

Actually, there is a very strong link on multiple levels. First there is the beauty of God's great and wonderous creation of His Word. People have noticed all kinds of symmetry in it. For example, many things lost in Genesis are regained in Revelation. There is a kind of "closure" to the whole Divine Drama even as it opens unto Eternity. This is an example of thematic symmetry.

But the "jump" from the symmetry of the OT to the "Sign and Seal of God" will require a larger view that takes in the whole 66 Book canon. I will share that when we finish up the review of the OT.

Richard

Richard, I think someone can become so caught up in, and ennamoured with mathmatical symmetry and patterns, etc, that they can no longer see the forest for the trees. . . . .



Peace

 

[BibleWheel]

Hi AngCath,
As I'm sure you know, the Prots would see things in exactly the opposite light - namely that the deuteros were contested throughout the history of the church and only officially established as canonical at Trent (1545 AD) in response to the Reformation.
I imagine this has been discussed here quite a bit. I'm new here, so could you point me to a thread that discusses this?
Thanks!
Richard

Richard, actually, that's not correct.

They were offically canonized as scripture when the books in your New Testament were canonized as scripture, by the same people - over 1600 years ago!

Hi thereselittleflower,

Good to meet you. Welcome to the conversation.

There is a lot more to the issue of the canon than can be resolved by merely asserting they were "canonized over 1600 years ago!" For example, the Greek Orthodox Church disagrees with you about which books were "canonized" and they support their position by appealing to the same councils! This is possible because the councils did not all agree with each other.

At the council of Trent the canon of both the Old and New Testaments was elevated to the level of DOGMA . .

Correct. And that to me is one of the greatest examples of the fallability of councils of men. The council of Trent over-extended itself and washed over a millenium of serious debate about the canon and ignored the clear statements of many of the Catholic Church's own doctors - Jerome being the most obvious example - as well as the beliefs of the entire eastern branch of Christianity.

Just because some individuals thought they knew better than the Church at various times doesn't mean diddly sqwat.

You are absolutely correct. And that is the problem with the council of Trent. It was one little council made up of some individuals who took it upon themselves to speak for the Church Universal. They goofed. Their decisions would have meant "diddly squat" if they hadn't led to the murder of people whose only crime was a passionate devotion to the free distribution of God's Holy Word.

If those Bishops were guided at the end of the 4th century and beginning of the 5th century by the Holy Spirit to canonize the NT scriptures, they were equally guided in their canonization of the OT scripture (including the so-called deuterocanonicals) which were done in the SAME canon at the same time.

Why do you accept their determination of the NT and not the Old?
It is a very pertinent question. . . .

I am a member of the universal Body of Christ. I do not accept the NT because of some individual councils in one branch of the body of Christ. I accept it because it is universally accepted by all Christians. Likewise, the 39 Books of the OT are the only OT books universally accepted by all Christians. The books that are still contested do not bear the mark of being universally accepted by all of God's People, so why should I accept them?

Richard

 

[BibleWheel]

Richard, I think someone can become so caught up in, and ennamoured with mathmatical symmetry and patterns, etc, that they can no longer see the forest for the trees. . . . .

Peace

And I think people can say things like that to avoid the clear evidence of the divine design of the Protestant OT.

I simultaneously behold the glory of the large-scale thematic structure of God's verbal forest even as I gaze into the endless glory revealed in the exact placement of each leaf on every tree. To oppose the two seems to me to be a false dichotomy.

Richard

 

[AngCath]

And I think people can say things like that to avoid the clear evidence of the divine design of the Protestant OT.

You can show us all the patterns you want but that does not necessitate design by God.

 

[BibleWheel]

You can show us all the patterns you want but that does not necessitate design by God.

It doesn't?

Why not?

The probabilities eliminate "chance" as a reasonable explanation for the existence of the patterns.

The natural history of the formation of the canon elminates intentional design by humans.

Do you want to challenge one of these two options, or do you want to suggest a third option that I may have overlooked?

Richard

 

[AngCath]

The natural history of the formation of the canon elminates intentional design by humans.

The history of the development of the Canon eliminates the canon you're using.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Hi thereselittleflower,

Good to meet you. Welcome to the conversation.

Hi Richard. Thank you for the welcome.

There is a lot more to the issue of the canon than can be resolved by merely asserting they were "canonized over 1600 years ago!" For example, the Greek Orthodox Church disagrees with you about which books were "canonized" and they support their position by appealing to the same councils! This is possible because the councils did not all agree with each other.

No . .they don't disagree with us . . but it is very important to understand something. . .the canon was not "closed" in those early councils . . . All those councils did was canonize which books could be read as scripture in Mass. . . the canon, however, was not closed. It remained open and the East considered a few more books to be inspired than the West included in their list.

The Council of Trent elevated this canon to the level of dogma and CLOSED the Canon for the Catholic Church.

Correct. And that to me is one of the greatest examples of the fallability of councils of men. The council of Trent over-extended itself and washed over a millenium of serious debate about the canon and ignored the clear statements of many of the Catholic Church's own doctors - Jerome being the most obvious example - as well as the beliefs of the entire eastern branch of Christianity.

That is your personal opinion .. . that does not mean it is fact.

Jerome was heavily influenced by the Jews. He went to Bethlehem to do much of his work in translating the scriptures. There he became heavily influenced by Jews who looked to the "coucil" of Jamnia as authoritative in determining the Old Testament Canon (which was never attempted to be closed by the Jews before around 100 AD), Because of this influence, Jerome altered his mind on the issue of the "deuterocanonicals" which the small band of rabbis in Jamnia tried to get rid of.

He accepted their arguments. That does not make him, or the arguments, right.

You are absolutely correct. And that is the problem with the council of Trent. It was one little council made up of some individuals who took it upon themselves to speak for the Church Universal.

You are in error Richard. Please forgive me for being so blunt.

It was not one "little" council, and neither did it take upon itself to speak for the Church Universal . . I am using your term in the way I understand you to be using it. The Catholic Church speaks for Herself. Not for those who have separated themselves from Her - which the Protestants had done.

The council of Trent was a MAJOR council. I am sorry you don't see this.

They goofed. Their decisions would have meant "diddly squat" if they hadn't led to the murder of people whose only crime was a passionate devotion to the free distribution of God's Holy Word.

This is pure propagandist revisionism. I took 3 years of indepth study before I converted to Catholicism. I have dealt with all such arguments and found them to be merely propaganda. . . . distorted versions of reality.

For instance, you are very much in error if you think "their only crime was a passionate devotion to the fre distribution of God's Holy Word." . . .

Rather than accept the propaganda against the Catholic Church, please take time to study real history.

I am a member of the universal Body of Christ. I do not accept the NT because of some individual councils in one branch of the body of Christ. I accept it because it is universally accepted by all Christians.

So . . let's take your logical reasoning a step further . .

If you were a lemming, and all the lemmoings started jumping off the cliff to their death because it is universally acepted by all lemmings that you should jump off the cliff along with them, would you jump off the cliff?

It sounds pretty mindless to me. . .

Likewise, the 39 Books of the OT are the only OT books universally accepted by all Christians.

A logically flawed argument.

Most of the Church was Arian at one point. That didn't mean that Arianism was true.

The books that are still contested do not bear the mark of being universally accepted by all of God's People, so why should I accept them?

Richard

This is a logical fallacy.

Richard, they are accepted. Just because a small percentage of those who name the name of Christ reject them means absolutely nothing.


Your logic is flawed.



Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

And I think people can say things like that to avoid the clear evidence of the divine design of the Protestant OT.

I simultaneously behold the glory of the large-scale thematic structure of God's verbal forest even as I gaze into the endless glory revealed in the exact placement of each leaf on every tree. To oppose the two seems to me to be a false dichotomy.

Richard

I stand by what I said Richard.

Richard, I think someone can become so caught up in, and ennamoured with mathmatical symmetry and patterns, etc, that they can no longer see the forest for the trees. . .
​

Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

It doesn't?

Why not?

For the simply reason that the pattern you think you see is only evident to you because of the pattern you DON'T see

In other words, if you saw the pattern as God actually designed it, then the pattern you see now would be frivolous.

The probabilities eliminate "chance" as a reasonable explanation for the existence of the patterns.

The natural history of the formation of the canon elminates intentional design by humans.

You are right. Its formation was divinely inspired in the Early Church councils. Those men were lead by the same infallible charims to select the scripture as those were who were led to write the scripture.

Do you want to challenge one of these two options, or do you want to suggest a third option that I may have overlooked?

Richard

That the Holy Spirit, through the same charism of infalliblity, inspired and led mere men to select the canon of scripture in the late 4th and early 5th centuries that the Holy Spirit used to inspire and lead mere men to write the scriptures.


Peace

 

[BibleWheel]

You can show us all the patterns you want but that does not necessitate design by God.

It doesn't?

Why not?

1] The probabilities eliminate "chance" as a reasonable explanation for the existence of the patterns.

2] The natural history of the formation of the canon elminates intentional design by humans.

Do you want to challenge one of these two options, or do you want to suggest a third option that I may have overlooked?

Richard

The history of the development of the Canon eliminates the canon you're using.

As far as I can tell, your assertion does not relate to the argument I have presented. Furthermore, you did not even attempt to support it with any facts, so it doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion.

Since you have challenged neither point 1 nor point 2 and have not offered an alternate explanation for the pattern, it seems like you have simply conceded the validity of my argument.

Richard

 

[BibleWheel]

It doesn't?

Why not?

For the simply reason that the pattern you think you see is only evident to you because of the pattern you DON'T see

I don't "think" I see a pattern. The pattern is an objective fact. It is part of the real world. Its existence can not be denied - though its significance can be challenged. But to do that, you will need to do one of three things:

1] Refute that the probabilities eliminate "chance" as a reasonable explanation for the existence of the patterns.

2] Refute that the natural history of the formation of the canon elminates intentional design by humans.

3] Offer a third explanation for the existence of the pattern.

In other words, if you saw the pattern as God actually designed it, then the pattern you see now would be frivolous.

And exactly what is the "pattern as God actually designed it"? Can you share it with us, or are you merely making an empty assertion?

Richard