Don't like ads? PRO users don't see any ads ;-)
Public Pastes
Guest

Untitled

By: a guest on May 7th, 2012  |  syntax: None  |  size: 5.16 KB  |  hits: 12  |  expires: Never
download  |  raw  |  embed  |  report abuse  |  print
Text below is selected. Please press Ctrl+C to copy to your clipboard. (⌘+C on Mac)
  1. "Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles.  In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles.  They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently.  For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book.  This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today.  By Jesus referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today.  Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture."
  2.  
  3.  
  4. Apostolic Apologetics Responds
  5.  
  6. This portion of the argument is pretty much incoherent. While as I have stated, there was no concensus on the canon of Scripture at this time, even if we conceded for the sake of argument that there was a set order for the Tanakh at this time, Genesis being the first book and "Chronicles" being the last book says nothing about what was between them. It simply doesn't make sense as far as supporting the rejection of the deuterocanon. For example, the last book is claimed to be "Chronicles", which is part of the historical books, which includes a great deal of the deuterocanon. I would again mention here my earlier point that Jesus nor the Apostles ever mentions 1 Chronicles.
  7.  
  8. Again, This "argument" doesn't make much sense and contains various errors. In general, the Hebrews referred to Scriptures in three ways:
  9.  
  10.     Five Books of Moses (Torah) - also sometimes called the Pentateuch, especially in Greek or Christian circles.
  11.     Prophets (Nevi'im).
  12.     Writings (Ketuvim).
  13.  
  14. Had Jesus or the Apostles specifically referred to the "12 Prophets" (or Nevi'im Aharonim), this wouldn't exclude the major prophets, such as Jeremiah as being Canonical. No protestant would even argue this. As such, it's important to know that Jeremiah included Baruch, thus the references in general to the Nevi'im (Prophets) do not exclude deuterocanonical books. Specifically referring to the "12 Minor Prophets" (Nevi'im Aharonim) may be an attempt to obfuscate the matter further, though for now I'll chalk this one up to the apparent ignorance of the facts on the part of Carm (giving them the benefit of the doubt).
  15.  
  16. =========================================
  17.  
  18.  
  19. Carm Claims
  20.  
  21. "6.  The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha.  The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent.  This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4"
  22.  
  23.  
  24. Apostolic Apologetics Responds
  25.  
  26. This is pretty much the stock false attack on the Catholic Church's inclusion of the deuterocanonical books. The errors of Carm in this, are again, multitude.
  27.  
  28. 1. There's no such thing as a "Universal Council". The Council of Trent was an Ecumenical Council, but it wasn't the first Ecumenical Council to list the books of Sacred Scripture exactly as Trent does, including the deuterocanonical books. That includes the Council of Florence (Session 11, February 4, 1442) which took place over 100 years before Trent. You can read more about that, including the decree on my deuterocanon page.
  29.  
  30. 2. Even if the Catholic Church hadn't included the books until Trent, that does not account for their inclusion in the Canon of Scripture adhered to by various Orthodox Churches that do not accept Trent (and most generally any council after 1054 AD).
  31.  
  32. 3. There is NO COUNCIL that gives the Canon of Sacred Scripture as modern Jews or Protestants have it. None.
  33.  
  34. 4. If the council of Trent added the deuterocanon, how did Martin Luther move them to an index called "Apocrypha" 20 years earlier?
  35.  
  36. 5. If the Council of Trent added the books to the Bible, how did the Gutenberg Bible, the first Bible Published via Printing Press, printed 100 years before Trent, include the deutercanonical books?
  37.  
  38. 6. If the Catholic Church added the deuterocanonical books to the Bible at Trent, how did the Latin Vulgate (from the 4th Century AD) include them? How did the Vetus Latina (even earlier Latin Bibles), the Major Codices, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc include them?
  39.  
  40. The fact of the matter is, that while an old, and common heard argument, the notion that the Catholic Church added books to the Bible at the Council of Trent is quite simply false. Historical evidence is quite clearly to the contrary, and anyone inclined to look at old Bibles (either on line, or in museums) can verify it to be so. Again, my deuterocanon page, linked above, and also at the bottom of this document, goes into these issues in some depth not done here.
  41.  
  42. Given the facts, it's quite obvious that in the case of the alleged "Council of Jamnia", and in the case of protestantism, the attempts to remove the deuterocanonical books were based on hatred for the Church, and indeed an attempt for Jewish "authorities" to make pronouncements on books they knew Christians considered Sacred Scripture, and that contained prophecies predicting Christ and support for other Christian doctrine.
create a new version of this paste RAW Paste Data