Catholic Student Presses Frank on Biblical Inspiration
Cross Examined | 23 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3B2IWN3xcY
1:57 Correction on St. Jerome.
He was a strict loner about these books not belonging, and he did back down to the Church in large and he did translate them.
You are correct that his gut reaction was not to include them, but on that one, he was one against the Christian world, and unlike St. Athanasius, he didn't carry the day, and unlike St. Athanasius, he did back down.
2:04 Correction on quotes.
Esther and Ruth are not quoted in the New Testament.
A Catholic has brought to light that Jesus, when He argued with Sadduccees, only used a much narrower canon. Like no prophets, perhaps just the five books of Moses. That would explain why He didn't use Maccabees when arguing with Pharisees, who had their canon from Ezra, and had resisted updates of it in Maccabean times.
2:35 You are abusing an oral occasion, where he can't look up sources.
Hearing the video, I can.
Judges
Ruth
Ezra
Esther
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Lamentations
Obadiah
Jonah
Zephaniah
None of these are explicitly quoted in the Old Testament.
Source: 10 Old Testament Books Never Quoted in the New Testament
MARCH 27, 2013 BY PETER KROL
https://www.knowableword.com/2013/03/27/11-old-testament-books-never-quoted-in-the-new-testament/
He goes on to say:
They’re mostly short books, except for Judges. Also, Ezra & Nehemiah were on one scroll (in Hebrew) and were likely to be considered a single book with a unified literary structure. Thus, since Nehemiah is quoted (John 6:31), we could possibly take Ezra off this list. For the same reason, we could potentially remove Obadiah and Jonah, as the twelve minor prophets were on one scroll, considered one book (named “The Twelve”).
The one speaking is not a Roman Catholic:
My name is Peter Krol, and I’ve taught the Bible since 1996. I am the President of DiscipleMakers campus ministry and the Preaching Pastor at Grace Fellowship Church of State College, PA.
https://www.knowableword.com/about-us/
So, ten minus three = seven books that are really never quoted, among the undisputed canon ones. Precisely as your Roman Catholic interlocutor actually said there were.
3:04 If Jesus never quoted from "Apocrypha," He didn't take them as authoritative, that's a challenge.
1) Much of what we have of Jesus is His arguing with Pharisees and Sadducees, see previous comment on time stamp 2:04.
2) On top of that His words in the New Testament could have been, as far as volume is concerned, spoken in a week or two to the disciples. He spent 3 and a half years with them.
3) We know the NT texts do not have a complete recapitulation of all He taught anyway, since Luke 24 says every OT book (with or without the seven disputed books) in every part has a Christological implication, also confirmed in II Tim. 3 (verse 14 I think). This means we can't use what He didn't quote (in the books) as an indication He didn't quote it (at all).
4:13 So, third criterium, if nearly all of the early Church did accept the seven disputed books, that would indicate that it was "accepted by the people of God" — unless you are trying to pretend the Jews remain formally his people, not just olive branches, but an olive tree, even after denying Christ.
That was not a position held by the early Church.
5:50 The people of God decides some way.
Why did the Jews trust Ezra about the 22 books? Because he was kind of the OT Pope, back then, the Cohen Gadol.
So, set aside what you think about the papal authority of Pope Damasus I, and consider that when he and Valerius of Hippo (predecessor of St. Augustine) held two synods, the canon was accepted as valid by the New Covenant people of God.
Whether they were right to trust the Pope is not the question. The questions are:
- are the Christian Church the people of God;
- did it accept II Maccabees as last OT book before Gospel of St. Matthew as first NT book?
The answer to the latter is indubitable. Just on a common sense historical level. If you deny the former, you are not a Christian.
6:46 Rome's unique authority is not the question.
You have synod of Rome under Pope St. Damasus I. You have the synod of Hippo, which is too early to be under St. Augustine, it was under his predecessor Valerius, and the synod of Carthage.
From these synods on, it is clear that the NT has 27 books. And from these synods on, that the OT has 45 to 46 books, depending on how you count Baruch, as part of Jeremias or a separate book.
We have no indication that the result of these three concurrent synods were not taken as authoritative lists by the Church.
First, even you admit that the NT canon was fixed here, second, you couldn't point to any part of the Church, just an individual, who brought into doubt whether Syrach or Maccabees belonged.
Roman Catholics do not believen infallibility of the Church as a corrollary to the infallibility of the Pope, we believe the infallibility of the Pope as a corrollary of the infallibility of the Church, and of the fact that the Pope is supreme judge in the Church on earth. So, exactly how people at this time considered that the Church exercised its infallible authority is not the question. The point is the Church certainly did imagine it had infallibility in its common decisions Or, if something is not likely to be corrected by another part of the Church, because there is no "other part" of the Church than the whole church, nothing outside this whole is Church, it means it does not need to be corrected, because it is not wrong.
The Orthodox would point to the same synods as authoritative and say they were accepted all over the Church. They will dispute what certain terms mean.
I and II Esdras would be to us, Ezra and Nehemia, to them, First Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah.
I and II Maccabees would be to us, I and II, to them I-II and III-IV.
As you may be aware, they do not do this for acceptance of the papacy, by now at least.
6:56 Council of Trent 1545
- came more than a millennium after synods of Rome, Hippo and Carthage;
- was independently confirmed by two orthodox councils, Iasi and Jerusalem (the latter under Dositheus), on the point of the OT canon, or at least, if they pretended we had the wrong canon, it was more like it lacked books.
7:15 Correcting once again on Sts Augustine and Jerome.
Yes, Augustine was for, Jerome was against the inclusion.
But Augustine was also kind of his supervisor, as a bishop, Jerome the one doing a task as required, hence he did translate them.
And, again, Augustine and Jerome seemed to agree that Augustine spoke for the "bishopS" of the Church, and that was good enough for Jerome.
7:28 "But now, at the time of correspondence, only "Luke alone is with (Paul)" (4:11). Because Paul speaks of Onesiphorus only in the past tense, wishes blessings upon his house (family), and mercy for him "in that day", some scholars believe that Onesiphorus had at this point died.[5] Towards the end of the same letter, in 2 Timothy 4:19, Paul sends greetings to "Priscilla and Aquila, and the house of Onesiphorus", again apparently distinguishing the situation of Onesiphorus from that of the still-living Priscilla and Aquila. Paul's reference to Onesiphorus, along with 2 Maccabees 12:40–46, is cited by Catholics as one of the early examples of prayer for the dead,[6] while some Protestants opposing this practice reject such an interpretation.[7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onesiphorus
But apart of whether II Maccabees is inspired or just good history, it means the idea of praying for the dead is there among the Jews before Jesus comes along.
So, if He didn't reject it, this approves it.
Calvin tried to pretend that prayers for the dead only came among Jews since rabbi Akiba, but II Macc. doesn't need to be Scripture, it only needs to be history, to prove that wrong.
People also tried to pretend the idea came in from paganism, which is total BS, Greco-Romans offered sacrifice to the dead, which Jews and Christians never did, while Osiris worshippers provided the dead with a prayer.
- J. Bradley Bulsterbaum
- @infinitelink
- I hate to break it to you but Augustine distinguished the Apocrypha from Scripture... where he didn't he later learned and wrote of books not being as he'd thought.
Inclusion of them was likely done for the same reasons Protestant Bibles traditionally included them as well: knowing these were books of literature that ancient Jews, though not considering them Scripture, read or referenced in religion, just not in worship assemblies.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @infinitelink "Augustine distinguished the Apocrypha from Scripture"
I distinguish Apocalypse of Peter from Scripture. I distinguish book of Henoch from Scripture.
Can you show me an exact quote showing he was not referring to sth Catholics would call Apocrypha?
Plus, council of Hippo in 393, back when St. Augustine was a monk, not yet priest or bishop, explicitly included II Maccabees, which makes your claim, if meant to refer to the seven disputed books, highly doubtful.
"these were books of literature that ancient Jews, though not considering them Scripture, read or referenced in religion, just not in worship assemblies."
That's not how the Church has treated these books since the Fourth Century synods.
The most common form to hold Mass on a Martyr's feast, as Epistle reading has an OT reading which is Wisdom 5, verses 1 to 5.
Then shall the just stand with great constancy against those that have afflicted them, and taken away their labours. These seeing it, shall be troubled with terrible fear, and shall be amazed at the suddenness of their unexpected salvation. Saying within themselves, repenting, and groaning for anguish of spirit: These are they, whom we had some time in derision, and for a parable of reproach. We fools esteemed their life madness, and their end without honour. Behold how they are numbered among the children of God, and their lot is among the saints.
The text is known as "stabunt iusti" from its beginning in Latin.
I think the Mass for the Dead involves a reading from II Macc. 12.
These things are not novelties introduced by Trent, they were there all along.
7:49 There are parts of the four canonic Gospels that talk of works being necessary for salvation.
Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. ...
Matthew 25:41f,
read the whole passage.
- Pat E
- @pate6357
- No, there aren't. If one is "saved", that person will WANT to help advance the Kingdom by being useful. Notice the sequence; hell will be full of people who did good works! But NO human can add to Christ's sacrifice (once for all-Hebrews). That is like telling Jesus, "You didn't do ENOUGH!" BLASPHEMY!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @pate6357 If Jesus did enough, but wants someone to do his part, is that blasphemy?
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:
[Colossians 1:24]
Did you just call St. Paul a blasphemer?
I did not state good works were necessary as a payment before one could get justified. But they are necessary as a gratitude in order to stay justified.
Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.
[2 Peter 1:10]
But before you reply there are proof texts for OSAS, they generally refer to the Church, not to the justified individual.
7:53 "that contradicts just about everything Paul says"
Not in Ephesians 2:8—10 or Philippians 2:12,f.
Those are great support for all of Trent Session VI, the canons on Justification.
See my part two of a series, the defense of, in this case:
Great Bishop of Geneva! | 130 Anathemas, Session VI, Justification
https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2024/04/130-anathemas-session-vi-justification.html
No comments:
Post a Comment