You know what they say about fastballs down the middle of the plate.
The Catholic Church closed and dogmatized the existing Canon at Trent, but the canon as we have it was made "official" in the 5th century as the synod of Rome by Pope Damascus in 382ad, reaffirmed at the synod of Hippo soon after and then at the council of Carthage in 397.
Another question would be if Rome waited until Trent to make the contested books canon, then why at the council of Florence, did they require the Coptic Christians that returned to full communion with Rome to accept the Catholic canon hum? That is over a century before Trent.
Council of Florence 1431-1445 A.D. <17ecum11.htm>
Or what about Pope Innocent list from 405ad
Letter of Innocent I on the Canon of Scripture
I can keep going on here. The point is that you have to understand what happens when the Church 'defines' something. It isn't that they are establishing something new, but rather reaffirming and eliminating all debate about that doctrine. The reformers were questioning the existing canon, so Trent define what the canon has always been, to eliminate all debate about what the canon is.
Found out from the Dead Sea Scrolls that this isn't true as all of the contested books are found in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Give me the verses in the other books were the author claims that they are profess that they are writing a Sacred book. For this argument to work, all of the 66 books that you accept must have that feature. I'll wait for those passages.
Jewish Church? Are you talking about the Ebionites or are you talking about the Jews?
If the Ebionites, well we really have very little info on the Christian sect, and what they accepted as canon, I do not believe is part of that info.
If the Jews themselves, there is no evidence that they closed there canon earlier than the Christian Church, and as a Christian, I would think that the post Christ Rabbis would have very little authority.
There is no evidence for this claim. None. In fact there is ample evidence that the Church Fathers viewed these writings as Scripture, because they quoted from these writings as such.
1st and foremost you should understand that 1st and 2nd Maccabees covers about the same timeframe. They are not sequential as lets say 1st and 2nd Kings, but rather their relationship is similar to how the books of Kings and Chronicles are related. 2nd there were more than one Antiochus talked about in those two books.
Bible Encyclopedia: Antiochus
You know what is interesting? The Jews have a very ancient tradition dating back before Christ. They actually pray for the dead. Did you know that? They call it Kaddish.
Lets look at the rest of that passage:
25:16 The fear of God is the beginning of his love: and the beginning of faith is to be fast joined unto it.
25:17 The sadness of the heart is every plague: and the wickedness of a woman is all evil.
25:18 And a man will choose any plague, but the plague of the heart:
25:19 And any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman:
25:20 And any affliction, but the affliction from them that hate him:
25:21 And any revenge, but the revenge of enemies.
25:22 There is no head worse than the head of a serpent:
25:23 And there is no anger above the anger of a woman. It will be more agreeable to abide with a lion and a dragon, than to dwell with a wicked woman.
25:24 The wickedness of a woman changeth her face: and she darkeneth her countenance as a bear: and sheweth it like sackcloth. In the midst of her neighbours,
25:25 Her husband groaned, and hearing he sighed a little.
25:26 All malice is short to the malice of a woman, let the lot of sinners fall upon her.
I think any man who has experienced the wrath of a scorned woman would agree with the author. So where in the rest of the Bible does this contradict?
Post some examples.
I thought you didn't believe in 1st Mac. Not only that were does it say that one must be a prophet to be used by God to write Scripture?
So Josephus is a figure of authority? Tell me why he has such a high level of esteem? He is a Jew who rejected Christ is he not?
So the Manual of Discipline bears authority on Christians?
No such thing as this council of Jamnia. It never existed. Current views is that the Jews closed there canon somewhere between the 4th and 6th centuries.
A couple of things here: the Muratorian Canon refers only to the New Testament canon, not the old. It does speak of the Book of Wisdom, but as an accepted book.
Melito's canon is the shorter one that was originally accepted in Alexandria patriarchate and it was composed of 22 books. It should be pointed out that this canon is even shorter than the Protestant canon, as it doesn't refer to Esther.
In Origens canon he also refers to the 22 books, but includes Esther and the Epistle of Jeremiah.
You see up until the 4th or 5th century the Alexandrian Patriarchate used the 22 book OT. There is no evidence that this was a church wide practice.
Jerome was heavily influenced by his Jewish friends who taught him Hebrew and Aramaic, and helped him find Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts to translate into Latin. The point needs to be made here is that Jerome was not even a bishop, he was priest, who was given the responsibility to fix the Latin Bible, by Pope Damasus. He got much grief from his contemporaries, concerning his opinions and later denied them as his opinions.
CHURCH FATHERS: Apology Against Rufinus, Book II (Jerome)
No the terms these two terms were coined by a Jewish convert, Sixtus of Siena, to differentiate the contested books in his debates with Jews.
Only the 1st sentence of this is true. The synod of Carthage did not mention Jerome's translation, and Jerome's Vulgate did include all books.
Already dealt with this.
Not true.
Don't see it. He uses the same list as Origen, which includes the epistle of Jeremiah.
To be continued...
I'm still thinking in Swahili which is somewhat backward in structure when compared to english. I tend to put the point up first. Not to mention that Anglo_Catholic includes more than I would consider catholic in worship.
