The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[BobRyan]

Don't worry Kylissa, Coffee's not gotten a straight answer on a topic he wanted clairification on and same as me not getting an answer yet based on another question I raised.

So welcome to the club.

Coffee has been avoiding the list #267 for some time now.

But you can't have it both ways. you can't claim you need all of those doctrines to be RCC - then pretend that not having them in the first century NT text - shows the RCC existed at that point. it does not.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Oh? I'm not that familiar with Catholic history. But did the Council of Trent actually change what books were considered canon?

Read the Bible.

Peter said they already were accepting the NT text as scripture.

This just isn't that hard.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Targaryen]

Coffee has been avoiding the list #267 for some time now.

But you can't have it both ways. you can't claim you need all of those doctrines to be RCC - then pretend that not having them in the first century NT text - shows the RCC existed at that point. it does not.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob...please pay attention for ONCE in your posting career here. I know it's very hard to accept,since EGW's "teachings" tends to cut off the rational side of your brain more often then not.

There is church tradition that RCC claim is in line with the teachings of the NT and they will provide passages for it, whether YOU believe they aren't there is guess what IRRELEVANT.

And guess what too....some of these things you get on your soapbox about all the time, aren't generally practised by Catholics in this day and age. Sorry, we don't live in the year 1618 anymore. There is no Inquisition burning heretics anymore, nor is there Protestants burning catholics.


Just for ONCE...give it up.

 

[Albion]

Was Scripture canonized before the Great Schism of 1054? Of course?

That's kind of my point. When the majority of the canon was decided, it was decided by THE Church.

Well, yes and no. In the 4th century several church councils proclaimed the canon, but all of the books--with the exception of three or four that are seldom cited in doctrinal disputes--were already in use by the churches of the Christian world and considered to be inspired.

So it's not as though there was nothing...and then the church decided that 70+ books were to be the Bible. And then, as already noted, various churches used a different set from then until now and the RCC changed its mind somewhat in the 16th century.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Well, yes and no. In the 4th century several church councils proclaimed the canon, but all of the books--with the exception of three or four that are seldom cited in doctrinal disputes--were already in use by the churches of the Christian world and considered to be inspired.

So it's not as though there was nothing...and then the church decided that 70+ books were to be the Bible. And then, as already noted, various churches used a different set from then until now and the RCC changed its mind somewhat in the 16th century.

The Jews also changed theirs after the rise of Christianity in hopes of slowing the attraction to Christ.

 

[Erose]

Well, yes and no. In the 4th century several church councils proclaimed the canon, but all of the books--with the exception of three or four that are seldom cited in doctrinal disputes--were already in use by the churches of the Christian world and considered to be inspired.

So it's not as though there was nothing...and then the church decided that 70+ books were to be the Bible. And then, as already noted, various churches used a different set from then until now and the RCC changed its mind somewhat in the 16th century.

Changed its mind in what way? The Catholic Church has not changed its canon, since the first official witness of its establishment at the Synod of Rome, under Pope St. Damascus I, and then the acceptance of the same canon at the synod of Hippo, under St. Augustine, then the synod of Carthage. All of which is the same Biblical Canon used by Catholics today. Council of Florence displayed that the canon in the West was already viewed a closed, as one of the requirements of unification that the Copts had to accept was the Catholic canon, which is the same canon listed at the Synod of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage.

What Trent did was finally dogmatize the canon in response to the Protestant revolt. It didn't change anything whatsoever in the canon list. No books taken out and no books added.

So what change was facilitated?

 

[Albion]

Changed its mind in what way?

It decided against a small section of the Apocrypha that it had previously included in the canon. While this is not an enormous change, I think it puts to rest the claim that the decision made in the 4th century was infallible and unchangeable. Both Protestants and Catholics reassessed and made changes in the 16th century.

 

[Erose]

The Jews also changed theirs after the rise of Christianity in hopes of slowing the attraction to Christ.

Well the Jews had a various number of "canons" depending upon what group you were a member of. Sadducees and Samarians only accepted the Torah, the Jews in Diaspora used the LXX, the Essenes used a much larger canon, and the Pharisees, who for the most part won the day in Judaism, had a similar canon accepted by all Jews today; but where still undecided upon a few books, such as Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Esther. We don't know what the canon was for some of the other sects, such as the Zealots.

So the whole idea that the Jews already had an accepted canon in place at the time of Jesus, is ludicrous and historically without any support. Then you throw in the now accepted fact that the Council of Jamnia was a work of fiction by a Jewish apologist, it just ceases to be a viable argument. Sadly many modern books on the History of Christianity still mention Jamnia.

 

[concretecamper]

It decided against a small section of the Apocrypha that it had previously included in the canon.

Could you substantiate this statement?

 

[Erose]

It decided against a small section of the Apocrypha that it had previously included in the canon. While this is not an enormous change, I think it puts to rest the claim that the decision made in the 4th century was infallible and unchangeable. Both Protestants and Catholics reassessed and made changes in the 16th century.

It made no such decision whatsoever. Yes there was some Apocryphal writings in an appendix in many of the Vulgate manuscripts which included 1st and 2nd Esdras and the prayer of Manasseh, and some also included an apocryphal writing of Laodicea; but these were never ever considered part of the accepted canon which could be read in Church. They were considered (and still are) writings that can be edifying to read and study, much like how some of the main line protestants view today the other 7 contested writings plus the Apocrypha.

These writings were still included in the Catholic Bibles until the 18th century (it should be noted that the original version of the Douay Rheims Bible was printed with the Apocrypha minus the Letter of Laodicea), which coincides to about the same time that Protestant Bibles stopped including the contested and Apocrypha in their Bibles, which from what I understand due to issues of cost. If I would have to make an educated guess, this is probably the same reason why Catholic Bibles stopped including the Apocrypha in their printed versions.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Here is the canon from the council of Carthage

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.​

The New Testament.

The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
The Revelation of John, j. book.​

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.​

 

[MoreCoffee]

A footnote to my last post:

"five books of Solomon." According to Augustine, five books were sometimes ascribed to Solomon: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus.

 

[By Faith Alone]

Looks like the Holy Spirit had some work to do in cleaning up the garbage, being left with the 66.

I love how God works. Don't you?

Those "books for edification" are NOT inspired.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Looks like the Holy Spirit had some work to do in cleaning up the garbage, being left with the 66.

I love how God works. Don't you?

Those "books for edification" are NOT inspired.

Those protestants were not the Holy Spirit. That was man's work not God's. And not even an inspired work.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Wondering why the epistles are in the wrong order.

GOD gave us the Bible.

Right. HE gave it through the Catholic Church. The Church Christ instituted. There was no other at the time.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Would you be willing to describe the process by which He did so?

(And FWIW, I wouldn't be arguing that the Catholic Church specifically gave us the Bible.)

God gave it to us, but the Catholic Church codified it. Decided which books were and which weren't to be considered Scripture. Decided which books were and which weren't to be used in Liturgy.

Regarding the Council of Trent making it official, that's true. The Church never makes it official until some question rises as to whether or not something is true. Then the Church decides, with the Holy Spirit, what's right and wrong.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What the council of Trent did and what it explicitly says it did was to affirm the canon proposed in north Africa in the late fourth century AD. This idea that Trent canonised scripture for Catholics is a nonsense.

Session IV 8th April 1546 AD

Decree Concerning The Canonical Scriptures

The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, keeps this constantly in view, namely, that the purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the Church after the errors have been removed.

This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures,[1] our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature[2] as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct.

It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.

It has thought it proper, moreover, to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books received by this council.[4]

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

Let all understand, therefore, in what order and manner the council, after having laid the foundation of the confession of faith, will proceed, and who are the chief witnesses and supports to whom it will appeal in conforming dogmas and in restoring morals in the Church.​

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thanks. Apparently St. Jerome had his misgivings concerning the canon of the OT when he translated it into Latin. Jerome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, but Jerome is not authoritative. He's not Magisterium.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That is interesting in light of the fact that Jerome's Latin Vulgate was the standard Catholic translation for centuries. In any event, the church did not have a teaching concerning the exact canon of scripture in the fourth and fifth century. Thus, Jerome was able to hold his opinions in good conscience, knowing that they did not vary from the teaching of the church.

True. And the Vulgate did have those books of the DeuteroCanon.

 

[Root of Jesse]

2Peter 1:19-20 "holy men of old" (not Catholics) "moved by the Holy Spirit" (not Catholic) "spoke from God"

Which excludes "and then waited many centuries for a Catholic council to tell them about it so they could believe in it".

That is a key detail often missed in this catholic argument.

in Christ,

Bob

So tell us, Bob, what was the Hebrew Canon of the century before Christ? BTW, the Holy Spirit is decidedly Catholic...By the way 2, Peter was Catholic. In fact, the second Catholic, Mama Mary being the first.