I am a Catholic. I am a Christian.

[Lady Vizsla]

kattneko

Lady Kariel

Hey I hope you received my PM. Since you're taking questions for discussion, would you say the Roman Catholic church adheres strictly to Biblical teachings or holds more strongly to church tradition?

I'm not Roman Catholic, so I can't speak strictly to that. I am a Byzantine Catholic. We still respect the Pope and acknowledge the seat of Saint Peter, but we don't have the same traditions. I can give you the over all, simplified Catholic view, for at least most of us. Over all, it's actually a mixture. Because the cannon of the Bible was not established for a few hundred years, as well as because the first century culture was very much and oral culture, the first few years relied heavily on forming a Tradition in the Church. We rely on that as not everything was written down. As it is in accordance with the scriptures, we don't see an issue with both. If something doesn't seem right, we check against the scriptures. If the answer is not there, we look to Traditions. I use a capital T for a reason. little t tradition is something simply handed down generation to generation. Big T Tradition is that and includes the sacred teachings. If something is said to go against the scriptures then we research. Usually, it's miscommunication or misinterpretation made somewhere along the way. We tend to approach with caution though, If we have no answer "I don't know" is a valid answer.

Thanks for your answer. I didn't know much about Byzantine Catholicism, sorry for assuming you were Roman Catholic. Are you Grecian or Turkish by chance?  

[kattneko]

Lady Kariel

kattneko

Lady Kariel

Hey I hope you received my PM. Since you're taking questions for discussion, would you say the Roman Catholic church adheres strictly to Biblical teachings or holds more strongly to church tradition?

I'm not Roman Catholic, so I can't speak strictly to that. I am a Byzantine Catholic. We still respect the Pope and acknowledge the seat of Saint Peter, but we don't have the same traditions. I can give you the over all, simplified Catholic view, for at least most of us. Over all, it's actually a mixture. Because the cannon of the Bible was not established for a few hundred years, as well as because the first century culture was very much and oral culture, the first few years relied heavily on forming a Tradition in the Church. We rely on that as not everything was written down. As it is in accordance with the scriptures, we don't see an issue with both. If something doesn't seem right, we check against the scriptures. If the answer is not there, we look to Traditions. I use a capital T for a reason. little t tradition is something simply handed down generation to generation. Big T Tradition is that and includes the sacred teachings. If something is said to go against the scriptures then we research. Usually, it's miscommunication or misinterpretation made somewhere along the way. We tend to approach with caution though, If we have no answer "I don't know" is a valid answer.

Thanks for your answer. I didn't know much about Byzantine Catholicism, sorry for assuming you were Roman Catholic. Are you Grecian or Turkish by chance?

nope. No problem. Most people don't know there's anything other than Latin Catholic. I am a Melkite, which is the church out of Antioch. We're mostly Lebanese now. I am a European mutt that converted in though.
Btw, Roman Catholic is a degrading term coined around the same time as when we began being referred to amnd the whore of Babylon. It implies that we Catholics have no place outside of Rome.It's western/latin Catholic and eastern/byzantine. While many Catholics do use the R/c term, it is still frowned upon by many. If you choose to research on your own, you will find less biased and more accurate sources using the correct terms.  

[Garland-Green]

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Lady Kariel

Hey I hope you received my PM. Since you're taking questions for discussion, would you say the Roman Catholic church adheres strictly to Biblical teachings or holds more strongly to church tradition?

This question is also not the best way of asking, as it implies a separation where there need be none. Scripture itself was handed down to us through tradition, as were many of the practices we all continue to this day.

Book of Proverbs, Chapter 22
4
The reward for humility and fear of the Lord
is riches and honor and life.
5
Thorns and snares are in the way of the crooked;
whoever guards his soul will keep far from them.
6
Train up a child in the way he should go;
even when he is old he will not depart from it.
7
The rich rules over the poor,
and the borrower is the slave of the lender.
8
Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity,
and the rod of his fury will fail.
9
Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed,
for he shares his bread with the poor.
10
Drive out a scoffer, and strife will go out,
and quarreling and abuse will cease.
11
He who loves purity of heart,
and whose speech is gracious, will have the king as his friend.
12
The eyes of the Lord keep watch over knowledge,
but he overthrows the words of the traitor.

Could there be particularities in interpretation of Scripture that has allowed for unsound traditions to be handed down? I know that the Catholic church has more books in the Bible than we do in the "Protestant" Bibles. How has that affected Catholic doctrine versus Protestant doctrine?

I'm confused, how can Protestants, who hold Scripture to be infallible and the source of all Doctrine, have fewer books than Catholics, who place Scripture on the same level as Tradition?

The simple answer is that we do not hold those books to be Scripture. Some books because the authors themselves did not consider them Scripture, others because they have historical or theological errors.  

[brother_edward]

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Lady Kariel

Hey I hope you received my PM. Since you're taking questions for discussion, would you say the Roman Catholic church adheres strictly to Biblical teachings or holds more strongly to church tradition?

This question is also not the best way of asking, as it implies a separation where there need be none. Scripture itself was handed down to us through tradition, as were many of the practices we all continue to this day.

Book of Proverbs, Chapter 22
4
The reward for humility and fear of the Lord
is riches and honor and life.
5
Thorns and snares are in the way of the crooked;
whoever guards his soul will keep far from them.
6
Train up a child in the way he should go;
even when he is old he will not depart from it.
7
The rich rules over the poor,
and the borrower is the slave of the lender.
8
Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity,
and the rod of his fury will fail.
9
Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed,
for he shares his bread with the poor.
10
Drive out a scoffer, and strife will go out,
and quarreling and abuse will cease.
11
He who loves purity of heart,
and whose speech is gracious, will have the king as his friend.
12
The eyes of the Lord keep watch over knowledge,
but he overthrows the words of the traitor.

Could there be particularities in interpretation of Scripture that has allowed for unsound traditions to be handed down? I know that the Catholic church has more books in the Bible than we do in the "Protestant" Bibles. How has that affected Catholic doctrine versus Protestant doctrine?

I'm confused, how can Protestants, who hold Scripture to be infallible and the source of all Doctrine, have fewer books than Catholics, who place Scripture on the same level as Tradition?

The simple answer is that we do not hold those books to be Scripture. Some books because the authors themselves did not consider them Scripture, others because they have historical or theological errors.

How can that be? In the East we have had our cannon established since the fifth century, and in the West the cannon was fixed in 383 with the Vulgate. And as the books in question were fixed in the Hebrew cannon more than one hundred years before the birth of Christ in the Septuagint, by what authority have you altered infallible Scripture? And by what authority do you libel Scripture as being in error?  

[Garland-Green]

kattneko

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Lady Kariel

Hey I hope you received my PM. Since you're taking questions for discussion, would you say the Roman Catholic church adheres strictly to Biblical teachings or holds more strongly to church tradition?

This question is also not the best way of asking, as it implies a separation where there need be none. Scripture itself was handed down to us through tradition, as were many of the practices we all continue to this day.

Book of Proverbs, Chapter 22
4
The reward for humility and fear of the Lord
is riches and honor and life.
5
Thorns and snares are in the way of the crooked;
whoever guards his soul will keep far from them.
6
Train up a child in the way he should go;
even when he is old he will not depart from it.
7
The rich rules over the poor,
and the borrower is the slave of the lender.
8
Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity,
and the rod of his fury will fail.
9
Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed,
for he shares his bread with the poor.
10
Drive out a scoffer, and strife will go out,
and quarreling and abuse will cease.
11
He who loves purity of heart,
and whose speech is gracious, will have the king as his friend.
12
The eyes of the Lord keep watch over knowledge,
but he overthrows the words of the traitor.

Could there be particularities in interpretation of Scripture that has allowed for unsound traditions to be handed down? I know that the Catholic church has more books in the Bible than we do in the "Protestant" Bibles. How has that affected Catholic doctrine versus Protestant doctrine?

The books were not removed from the Protestant Bibles until a new translation of the King James came out in 1828 (or 1885, depending on sources). The KJV contained all of the books we have when it was printed in 1611. Doing the math, y'all had the same books as us in the KJV longer than they have been removed for. In reality, more books has not affected our doctrine/teachings as much as fewer books have affected Protestantism. I grew up protestant and many of the questions that nagged at me were never fully answered until I looked at the full cannon. Surprisingly enough, the books that Martin Luther wanted to remove included James, Jude, Revelation, and Hebrews as well. Think of how different the teachings would have been had he actually done so? In the end, he did not remove any and left that to future generations.
As for the first part of your question, that is the purpose of the Traditions. We hold to them so that people don't go and re-interpret the scripture for themselves (that's where Jahovah's Witnesses come from). If we are unsure, we turn to the authority of the church and Apostolic succession, those who, if you follow the line, were taught by the apostles. We do not allow that line to break in order to keep to the correct teachings.

I certainly don't agree with everything Martin Luther said or wanted to do... That being said I agree with you that tradition can be a guard against heresy. Tradition can at times also become what it is attempting to combat. Look at the Pharisees and the scribes. Even eisegesis (the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas) is a tradition if you think of it.

What if the first person who interpreted the text did so in light of his tradition, and that tradition was wrong. Am I right in saying that the Apostolic succession is based purely on the interpretation of one particular verse? Matthew 16:18?  

[Garland-Green]

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Lady Kariel

Hey I hope you received my PM. Since you're taking questions for discussion, would you say the Roman Catholic church adheres strictly to Biblical teachings or holds more strongly to church tradition?

This question is also not the best way of asking, as it implies a separation where there need be none. Scripture itself was handed down to us through tradition, as were many of the practices we all continue to this day.

Book of Proverbs, Chapter 22
4
The reward for humility and fear of the Lord
is riches and honor and life.
5
Thorns and snares are in the way of the crooked;
whoever guards his soul will keep far from them.
6
Train up a child in the way he should go;
even when he is old he will not depart from it.
7
The rich rules over the poor,
and the borrower is the slave of the lender.
8
Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity,
and the rod of his fury will fail.
9
Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed,
for he shares his bread with the poor.
10
Drive out a scoffer, and strife will go out,
and quarreling and abuse will cease.
11
He who loves purity of heart,
and whose speech is gracious, will have the king as his friend.
12
The eyes of the Lord keep watch over knowledge,
but he overthrows the words of the traitor.

Could there be particularities in interpretation of Scripture that has allowed for unsound traditions to be handed down? I know that the Catholic church has more books in the Bible than we do in the "Protestant" Bibles. How has that affected Catholic doctrine versus Protestant doctrine?

I'm confused, how can Protestants, who hold Scripture to be infallible and the source of all Doctrine, have fewer books than Catholics, who place Scripture on the same level as Tradition?

The simple answer is that we do not hold those books to be Scripture. Some books because the authors themselves did not consider them Scripture, others because they have historical or theological errors.

How can that be? In the East we have had our cannon established since the fifth century, and in the West the cannon was fixed in 383 with the Vulgate. And as the books in question were fixed in the Hebrew cannon more than one hundred years before the birth of Christ in the Septuagint, by what authority have you altered infallible Scripture? And by what authority do you libel Scripture as being in error?

I believe we have all Scripture. We have the whole sum of Scripture. I believe we disagree on what is Scripture and what is not Scripture. To figure out what is Scripture and what is not Scripture you have to start with God's character. That is the basis. He is truth. He is just. He is infallible. That means He does not make mistakes. Historical mistakes or mistakes in telling us about himself. An example; He won't make claims of infallibility in one verse and then be bested by someone in the next. If two books do not agree on a certain detail then one of them is wrong right? If it is wrong. Is God wrong? Would God present us with semi-truth? You judge what is Scripture by other Scripture right? Though the Apocryphal books were present in the Septuagint they were not quoted by anyone in the New Testament.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test all things; hold fast what is good.  

[brother_edward]

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Garland-Green

Could there be particularities in interpretation of Scripture that has allowed for unsound traditions to be handed down? I know that the Catholic church has more books in the Bible than we do in the "Protestant" Bibles. How has that affected Catholic doctrine versus Protestant doctrine?

I'm confused, how can Protestants, who hold Scripture to be infallible and the source of all Doctrine, have fewer books than Catholics, who place Scripture on the same level as Tradition?

The simple answer is that we do not hold those books to be Scripture. Some books because the authors themselves did not consider them Scripture, others because they have historical or theological errors.

How can that be? In the East we have had our cannon established since the fifth century, and in the West the cannon was fixed in 383 with the Vulgate. And as the books in question were fixed in the Hebrew cannon more than one hundred years before the birth of Christ in the Septuagint, by what authority have you altered infallible Scripture? And by what authority do you libel Scripture as being in error?

I believe we have all Scripture. We have the whole sum of Scripture. I believe we disagree on what is Scripture and what is not Scripture. To figure out what is Scripture and what is not Scripture you have to start with God's character. That is the basis. He is truth. He is just. He is infallible. That means He does not make mistakes. Historical mistakes or mistakes in telling us about himself. An example; He won't make claims of infallibility in one verse and then be bested by someone in the next. If two books do not agree on a certain detail then one of them is wrong right? If it is wrong. Is God wrong? Would God present us with semi-truth? You judge what is Scripture by other Scripture right? Though the Apocryphal books were present in the Septuagint they were not quoted by anyone in the New Testament.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Hebrews, Chapter 11:
35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life.

Is very clearly a reference to Second Maccabees, Chapter 7. And there are hundreds of other references in the New Testament to the deuterocanonical books.

But more importantly, what gives someone the authority to decide that scripture which had been in place for a thousand years or more suddenly was no longer infallible?  

[Garland-Green]

brother_edward

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Garland-Green

Could there be particularities in interpretation of Scripture that has allowed for unsound traditions to be handed down? I know that the Catholic church has more books in the Bible than we do in the "Protestant" Bibles. How has that affected Catholic doctrine versus Protestant doctrine?

I'm confused, how can Protestants, who hold Scripture to be infallible and the source of all Doctrine, have fewer books than Catholics, who place Scripture on the same level as Tradition?

The simple answer is that we do not hold those books to be Scripture. Some books because the authors themselves did not consider them Scripture, others because they have historical or theological errors.

How can that be? In the East we have had our cannon established since the fifth century, and in the West the cannon was fixed in 383 with the Vulgate. And as the books in question were fixed in the Hebrew cannon more than one hundred years before the birth of Christ in the Septuagint, by what authority have you altered infallible Scripture? And by what authority do you libel Scripture as being in error?

I believe we have all Scripture. We have the whole sum of Scripture. I believe we disagree on what is Scripture and what is not Scripture. To figure out what is Scripture and what is not Scripture you have to start with God's character. That is the basis. He is truth. He is just. He is infallible. That means He does not make mistakes. Historical mistakes or mistakes in telling us about himself. An example; He won't make claims of infallibility in one verse and then be bested by someone in the next. If two books do not agree on a certain detail then one of them is wrong right? If it is wrong. Is God wrong? Would God present us with semi-truth? You judge what is Scripture by other Scripture right? Though the Apocryphal books were present in the Septuagint they were not quoted by anyone in the New Testament.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Hebrews, Chapter 11:
35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life.

Is very clearly a reference to Second Maccabees, Chapter 7. And there are hundreds of other references in the New Testament to the deuterocanonical books.

But more importantly, what gives someone the authority to decide that scripture which had been in place for a thousand years or more suddenly was no longer infallible?

I am going to quote a Catholic on this; "There are no indisputable, bullet-proof references to the deuterocanon in the New Testament."

"There are some probable references and allusions but these are difficult to prove."

Like I said earlier it all comes back to the character of God and who He is and what He is like. We should expect Scripture to accurately reflect this.

Why do I reject the Apocrypha?  

[brother_edward]

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Garland-Green

The simple answer is that we do not hold those books to be Scripture. Some books because the authors themselves did not consider them Scripture, others because they have historical or theological errors.

How can that be? In the East we have had our cannon established since the fifth century, and in the West the cannon was fixed in 383 with the Vulgate. And as the books in question were fixed in the Hebrew cannon more than one hundred years before the birth of Christ in the Septuagint, by what authority have you altered infallible Scripture? And by what authority do you libel Scripture as being in error?

I believe we have all Scripture. We have the whole sum of Scripture. I believe we disagree on what is Scripture and what is not Scripture. To figure out what is Scripture and what is not Scripture you have to start with God's character. That is the basis. He is truth. He is just. He is infallible. That means He does not make mistakes. Historical mistakes or mistakes in telling us about himself. An example; He won't make claims of infallibility in one verse and then be bested by someone in the next. If two books do not agree on a certain detail then one of them is wrong right? If it is wrong. Is God wrong? Would God present us with semi-truth? You judge what is Scripture by other Scripture right? Though the Apocryphal books were present in the Septuagint they were not quoted by anyone in the New Testament.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Hebrews, Chapter 11:
35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life.

Is very clearly a reference to Second Maccabees, Chapter 7. And there are hundreds of other references in the New Testament to the deuterocanonical books.

But more importantly, what gives someone the authority to decide that scripture which had been in place for a thousand years or more suddenly was no longer infallible?

I am going to quote a Catholic on this; "There are no indisputable, bullet-proof references to the deuterocanon in the New Testament."

"There are some probable references and allusions but these are difficult to prove."

Like I said earlier it all comes back to the character of God and who He is and what He is like. We should expect Scripture to accurately reflect this.

Why do I reject the Apocrypha?

... but I've just now provide you with a reference to the deuterocanon. Just there. In the post to which you replied. There are links and everything.  

[brother_edward]

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Garland-Green

The simple answer is that we do not hold those books to be Scripture. Some books because the authors themselves did not consider them Scripture, others because they have historical or theological errors.

How can that be? In the East we have had our cannon established since the fifth century, and in the West the cannon was fixed in 383 with the Vulgate. And as the books in question were fixed in the Hebrew cannon more than one hundred years before the birth of Christ in the Septuagint, by what authority have you altered infallible Scripture? And by what authority do you libel Scripture as being in error?

I believe we have all Scripture. We have the whole sum of Scripture. I believe we disagree on what is Scripture and what is not Scripture. To figure out what is Scripture and what is not Scripture you have to start with God's character. That is the basis. He is truth. He is just. He is infallible. That means He does not make mistakes. Historical mistakes or mistakes in telling us about himself. An example; He won't make claims of infallibility in one verse and then be bested by someone in the next. If two books do not agree on a certain detail then one of them is wrong right? If it is wrong. Is God wrong? Would God present us with semi-truth? You judge what is Scripture by other Scripture right? Though the Apocryphal books were present in the Septuagint they were not quoted by anyone in the New Testament.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Hebrews, Chapter 11:
35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life.

Is very clearly a reference to Second Maccabees, Chapter 7. And there are hundreds of other references in the New Testament to the deuterocanonical books.

But more importantly, what gives someone the authority to decide that scripture which had been in place for a thousand years or more suddenly was no longer infallible?

I am going to quote a Catholic on this; "There are no indisputable, bullet-proof references to the deuterocanon in the New Testament."

"There are some probable references and allusions but these are difficult to prove."

Like I said earlier it all comes back to the character of God and who He is and what He is like. We should expect Scripture to accurately reflect this.

Why do I reject the Apocrypha?

and God forbid that I should show such hubris as to believe that I know the character of God, and edit His Scriptures according to my expectations.  

[Garland-Green]

brother_edward

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Garland-Green

The simple answer is that we do not hold those books to be Scripture. Some books because the authors themselves did not consider them Scripture, others because they have historical or theological errors.

How can that be? In the East we have had our cannon established since the fifth century, and in the West the cannon was fixed in 383 with the Vulgate. And as the books in question were fixed in the Hebrew cannon more than one hundred years before the birth of Christ in the Septuagint, by what authority have you altered infallible Scripture? And by what authority do you libel Scripture as being in error?

I believe we have all Scripture. We have the whole sum of Scripture. I believe we disagree on what is Scripture and what is not Scripture. To figure out what is Scripture and what is not Scripture you have to start with God's character. That is the basis. He is truth. He is just. He is infallible. That means He does not make mistakes. Historical mistakes or mistakes in telling us about himself. An example; He won't make claims of infallibility in one verse and then be bested by someone in the next. If two books do not agree on a certain detail then one of them is wrong right? If it is wrong. Is God wrong? Would God present us with semi-truth? You judge what is Scripture by other Scripture right? Though the Apocryphal books were present in the Septuagint they were not quoted by anyone in the New Testament.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Hebrews, Chapter 11:
35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life.

Is very clearly a reference to Second Maccabees, Chapter 7. And there are hundreds of other references in the New Testament to the deuterocanonical books.

But more importantly, what gives someone the authority to decide that scripture which had been in place for a thousand years or more suddenly was no longer infallible?

I am going to quote a Catholic on this; "There are no indisputable, bullet-proof references to the deuterocanon in the New Testament."

"There are some probable references and allusions but these are difficult to prove."

Like I said earlier it all comes back to the character of God and who He is and what He is like. We should expect Scripture to accurately reflect this.

Why do I reject the Apocrypha?

... but I've just now provide you with a reference to the deuterocanon. Just there. In the post to which you replied. There are links and everything.

For me to go in and answer every single one of those claims would take an incredible long time. Time I don't really have at the moment. Perhaps I will at a later time.  

[Garland-Green]

brother_edward

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Garland-Green

The simple answer is that we do not hold those books to be Scripture. Some books because the authors themselves did not consider them Scripture, others because they have historical or theological errors.

How can that be? In the East we have had our cannon established since the fifth century, and in the West the cannon was fixed in 383 with the Vulgate. And as the books in question were fixed in the Hebrew cannon more than one hundred years before the birth of Christ in the Septuagint, by what authority have you altered infallible Scripture? And by what authority do you libel Scripture as being in error?

I believe we have all Scripture. We have the whole sum of Scripture. I believe we disagree on what is Scripture and what is not Scripture. To figure out what is Scripture and what is not Scripture you have to start with God's character. That is the basis. He is truth. He is just. He is infallible. That means He does not make mistakes. Historical mistakes or mistakes in telling us about himself. An example; He won't make claims of infallibility in one verse and then be bested by someone in the next. If two books do not agree on a certain detail then one of them is wrong right? If it is wrong. Is God wrong? Would God present us with semi-truth? You judge what is Scripture by other Scripture right? Though the Apocryphal books were present in the Septuagint they were not quoted by anyone in the New Testament.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Hebrews, Chapter 11:
35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life.

Is very clearly a reference to Second Maccabees, Chapter 7. And there are hundreds of other references in the New Testament to the deuterocanonical books.

But more importantly, what gives someone the authority to decide that scripture which had been in place for a thousand years or more suddenly was no longer infallible?

I am going to quote a Catholic on this; "There are no indisputable, bullet-proof references to the deuterocanon in the New Testament."

"There are some probable references and allusions but these are difficult to prove."

Like I said earlier it all comes back to the character of God and who He is and what He is like. We should expect Scripture to accurately reflect this.

Why do I reject the Apocrypha?

and God forbid that I should show such hubris as to believe that I know the character of God, and edit His Scriptures according to my expectations.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not talking about some personal revelation, some whim of the will, but a general revelation. How God is portrayed in Scripture. What I have a problem with is when the text is notably making historic mistakes. Contradicting other books of the Bible that are historically verified, and I am then talking about dates, places and people. Also doctrines that teach something that is contrary to the Gospel. I don't see how it is hubris to want to protect the Gospel. It is not hubris to think that God would be truthful is it?  

[kattneko]

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Garland-Green

I believe we have all Scripture. We have the whole sum of Scripture. I believe we disagree on what is Scripture and what is not Scripture. To figure out what is Scripture and what is not Scripture you have to start with God's character. That is the basis. He is truth. He is just. He is infallible. That means He does not make mistakes. Historical mistakes or mistakes in telling us about himself. An example; He won't make claims of infallibility in one verse and then be bested by someone in the next. If two books do not agree on a certain detail then one of them is wrong right? If it is wrong. Is God wrong? Would God present us with semi-truth? You judge what is Scripture by other Scripture right? Though the Apocryphal books were present in the Septuagint they were not quoted by anyone in the New Testament.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Hebrews, Chapter 11:
35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life.

Is very clearly a reference to Second Maccabees, Chapter 7. And there are hundreds of other references in the New Testament to the deuterocanonical books.

But more importantly, what gives someone the authority to decide that scripture which had been in place for a thousand years or more suddenly was no longer infallible?

I am going to quote a Catholic on this; "There are no indisputable, bullet-proof references to the deuterocanon in the New Testament."

"There are some probable references and allusions but these are difficult to prove."

Like I said earlier it all comes back to the character of God and who He is and what He is like. We should expect Scripture to accurately reflect this.

Why do I reject the Apocrypha?

and God forbid that I should show such hubris as to believe that I know the character of God, and edit His Scriptures according to my expectations.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not talking about some personal revelation, some whim of the will, but a general revelation. How God is portrayed in Scripture. What I have a problem with is when the text is notably making historic mistakes. Contradicting other books of the Bible that are historically verified, and I am then talking about dates, places and people. Also doctrines that teach something that is contrary to the Gospel. I don't see how it is hubris to want to protect the Gospel. It is not hubris to think that God would be truthful is it?

You see, one of the problems is that these books were removed in the mid 19th century, nearly two millennia removed from Christ's walk upon Earth. These were a part of the Jewish scriptures long before that, removed only in 80 AD when the leaders decided that these writings were "too Christian". More than half of the book of Esther was removed for being "too Christian". These aren't things that I'm pulling from a Catholic source either. These are things taught, and supported with evidence, at the Methodist college I attended. (My apologies, I can't find my textbooks anywhere to give an exact citation). Also, bear in mind that the culture was largely oral, as I have stated previously, order of events, dates, and places didn't matter as much to the people. All that mattered was that it happened. They weren't about to ask for written documentation proving everything as completely accurate, which is why we find so many so-called "contradictions and inconsistencies" in the New Testament.
So, why is it, and I am looking for evidence here, not just "It is not in line with God's Character", that the deuterocanonical books were removed from the Bible in the 19th century? Upon whose authority?
Not only that but why was half of Esther removed?
Why did the KJV add words?
http://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/
Why are other verses, found in the ancient manuscripts still being taken out of new translations of the Bible? http://www.av1611.org/biblevs.html
Why are paraphrased versions so very popular when you know that they do not phrase things accurately as to capture the heart of the matter?
Have you actually ever read the removed canon?
What in there is so distasteful that it needed to be removed after 1500 years of it being official Christian canon and much longer of it being accepted Christian canon? Who is to say that we, as Catholics, are not in fact the ones in error but instead the ones who removed them are?

Note: I edited this to fix a couple of typos my brain made before coffee. Not the content.  

[kattneko]

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Garland-Green

brother_edward

Garland-Green

I believe we have all Scripture. We have the whole sum of Scripture. I believe we disagree on what is Scripture and what is not Scripture. To figure out what is Scripture and what is not Scripture you have to start with God's character. That is the basis. He is truth. He is just. He is infallible. That means He does not make mistakes. Historical mistakes or mistakes in telling us about himself. An example; He won't make claims of infallibility in one verse and then be bested by someone in the next. If two books do not agree on a certain detail then one of them is wrong right? If it is wrong. Is God wrong? Would God present us with semi-truth? You judge what is Scripture by other Scripture right? Though the Apocryphal books were present in the Septuagint they were not quoted by anyone in the New Testament.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Hebrews, Chapter 11:
35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life.

Is very clearly a reference to Second Maccabees, Chapter 7. And there are hundreds of other references in the New Testament to the deuterocanonical books.

But more importantly, what gives someone the authority to decide that scripture which had been in place for a thousand years or more suddenly was no longer infallible?

I am going to quote a Catholic on this; "There are no indisputable, bullet-proof references to the deuterocanon in the New Testament."

"There are some probable references and allusions but these are difficult to prove."

Like I said earlier it all comes back to the character of God and who He is and what He is like. We should expect Scripture to accurately reflect this.

Why do I reject the Apocrypha?

and God forbid that I should show such hubris as to believe that I know the character of God, and edit His Scriptures according to my expectations.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not talking about some personal revelation, some whim of the will, but a general revelation. How God is portrayed in Scripture. What I have a problem with is when the text is notably making historic mistakes. Contradicting other books of the Bible that are historically verified, and I am then talking about dates, places and people. Also doctrines that teach something that is contrary to the Gospel. I don't see how it is hubris to want to protect the Gospel. It is not hubris to think that God would be truthful is it?

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not but you keep on referring to God and the character of HIM and how He is portrayed in the Bible to support your argument but the problem is that at that point you boil Him down to being a character in a story, nothing more. Keep in mind that the scriptures were only written by a few men, maybe 75 tops. If our God is infinite, all powerful, all knowing, the creator of all, how can 75 men fully capture in a few dozen books. the complete character of God. Reading and truly studying and meditating on the scriptures we see many different sides of God's character. Loving, warm, hard, distanced, jealous, patient, forgiving, vengeful, and many more. How can you sit there and just assume it's not in His character when there are infinite sides to Him. You don't know all His secrets, all His plans, all His thoughts. Have you ever thought that the Bible portrays God the way that we *read* it and break it down, not the way that God actually is? I can hand the same section of scripture to ten different people and ask everyone what part of God's character is being portrayed in it right then and I can get ten different answers. He is not a God to be pinned down and put into a box. That's what idolaters do with their gods; this one only takes care of the wheat, this one is loving and good, this one is angry and vengeful, this one has a sense of humor. God is not to be categorized and labeled and said "He can only be this" of "He is not that".
To this day I am still learning the character of my own twin sister. If I do not know the full extent of a person conceived, born, and raised with, whose DNA I share, to whom I told everything and who told everything in return, how is it possible that you, a mere human man, can fully grasp the character of God and be the ultimate judge?