Featured Why Does the RCC have extra Books In their canon?

There was no RCC until the Bishop of Rome pulled out of the Orthodox-Catholic Church.

 

As did the Reformed's precious Geneva Bible:

Here's the 'Prayer of Manassah', as placed right between II Chron. and Ezra in the Geneva Bible:

 

All right. What other historical source contains the account of the woman whose seven sons were tortured and murdered for their faith? Give me just one other (don't need a half dozen) and I will concede you are right on this point. Oh yes, it has to be before Hebrews was written.

 

You want to argue from silence. That is not the way I debate. Because I have no knowledge of other historians that have recorded such events doesn't mean that the event has not been recorded. I am not about to wade through all other possible historical references to find what you want. You can do that if you wish.

To state your premise another way: There are no other historical references in the world that have this event recorded therefore the writer of Hebrews must have copied from the writer of Maccabees.

The above is an example of a universal sweeping statement which is a logical fallacy. If there is but one example found then you are proven false. Your problem is that no one has taken the time to go back in history and look in every cave, under every rock, or even in every existing library to find the sources. Your premise has not been proved. And for anyone who wants to do some serious research it can easily be disproved, but I don't have the time for that.

 

I think the Anglican Church's position about the Apocrypha is right; as in many things, they are balanced and take the middle road. From the Book of Common Prayer:

"And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine..."

 

Actually you don't have to look in every cave and under every rock. Others have already done that and it's uniformly agreed that 2 Maccabees is the only source of this information.

 

Er...no. The Jews only fixed the OT Canon at Jamnia/ Yavneh from about 80AD, when they deleted the DCs from their Canon. Their reason? The Second Temple had recently (70AD) been destroyed and they had been kicked out of the Promised Land so clearly G-d was upset with them (again). What might He be upset about. Well, amongst other things, the fact that they were using versions of the OT written in a filthy goyim language (Greek ie: the LXX) rather than pure G-dly Hebrew and therefore all goyim versions should be ditched, along with the DCs in them, to purify Judaism and restore G-d's blessings upon them. Not only that, but these filthy goyim versions with the DCs in were being used by nasty heretical minim (sectaries) who were apostates from pure Judaism. Who were these ghastly minim? Rabbinical commentaries from Jamni/ Yavneh refer to them as being Nazarenes ie: Christians. So the Early Church in the NT period used the LXX complete with DCs and so did many Jews up to Jamnia.

So, who would you rather follow as your authority for the Canon: the Early Church or a Jewish reform movement which was avowedly anti-Christian?

 

excellent!! Thanks for posting this!

 

You mean revisionist history. This is complete hogwash! The church was written about as early as 110AD.

Ignatius of Antioch, in his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

So, there is solid and irrefutable historic evidence counter to your claim. Further, we can see solid documentation for apostolic succession…

In his work “Against Heresies [A.D. 180] ”St. Irenaeus begins to list the successors of Peter at Rome with these words: "But since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches, we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome while showing that the tradition and the faith it proclaims to men comes down through the successions of the bishops even to us" (ibid., 3.2).

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Here, Ignatius shows the Primacy of the Church of Rome
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

And here is the apostolic succession listed:
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Approximately 300 years later, we see Augustine confirming the list…

St. Augustine of Hippo – A.D. 412:
“If the very order of epicopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as the one representing the WHOLE CHURCH, the Lord said “Upon this rock I will build my Church… Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus … “ (Letter 53, To Generosus 1:2)

The early church was sacremental in nature - just look at some of the Christian places of worship in the Catacombs of Rome. Further, most Baptists know this is false history. Baptist indeed!

WM

 

You can't disprove a universal negative. No one has done that. It is impossible to accomplish.

It is like saying "There is no God." How do they know. Have they looked on every planet in the universe?

You have stated a premise that cannot be proved. It is a logical fallacy. And, for anyone willing to do the research I am sure that they can come up with the answers. After all it is only history. One thing we know for sure, Hebrews is not a quote from Maccabees just because the content is similar. It is historical content and that is all. The people of that time were aware of the events of that time.

 

One should not read third century and later terms back into terms and practices of the first century and early second century. "Bishop", as Ignatius used the term, is merely a "senior pastor", not a third order of ministry -- that is, a hierarchical bishop. The earliest that monarchical bishops can be traced back to is the late second century.

Wesley was correct; apostolic succession back to the apostles, and bishops as a third order of ministry based on scripture is a fable. There are only two orders of ministry in scripture -- elder, and deacon. The words for elder/presbyter and bishop are one and the same -- so, this was the same office, not two distinct offices. Even the Anglican Church admits this.

 

As far as the OT, the Jewish Canon of Scripture, we would follow the Jews of course. Jesus quoted from their Sacred Scriptures in the NT. The canon has already been completed by that time, in fact well before that time. The Jews would not allow any book into their canon that was dated after 400 B.C. That in itself discredits the entire apocrypha. Their canon was complete at that date. The Jews knew what books God had given them. They didn't need the RCC to tell them. They never accepted the Apocrypha.

 

Because they hid in the underground caves of the catacombs where their dead were buried, makes them sacramental in nature??? What a lark!! They were being persecuted and that was a safe place to meet. It has nothing to do with the nature of their services.

 

>"And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine..."

The Christian Reformed Church agrees.

 

And this is your response to the historical writings?

Oh o.k. We shouldn't read third century terms back into... Blah..blah..blah. I know why you say that... because this destroys your argument!

So you and Wesley say. Are you discounting the writings that i quoted? If you are, then provide some historical documentation to contradict them. Otherwise you are only stating your opinion.

WM