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

If you deny that the words for elder/presbyter and bishop in the NT were synonymous, you are either ignorant of the facts or dishonest.

See, I don't discount tradition, but when tradition contradicts scripture and earliest church teaching and practice, I side with the latter.

 

Tradition has nothing to do with it. What I provided you with was historical evidence. Now either provide evidence to the contrary or concede that you have nothing but opinion to back up your statements. We both know that you cannot, hence the accusations of ignorance and dishonesty. Either put forth some sort of evidence to support your accusations or stop wasting bandwidth.

WM

 

Hmm... I believe scripture is pretty solid evidence. Even honest RC scholars admit and agree with what I said about the "historic episcopate", and that in the scriptures the words elder/presbyter and bishop are synonymous. No amount of twisting and deflecting can change that fact.

I think you and some of our Calvinist brethren would enjoy Chubby Checker.

My, my, first I have to battle Calvinist error, and now RC mythology.

 

You keep saying things like "Even honest RC scholars admit and agree with what I said..." but you never quote your sources. Ultimately, you are unable to give historical sources to buttress your biased claims. Hmmm...

You've done nothing except pat yourself on the back as a way out of engaging in a worthy intellectual endeavor. Hey... You started it and apparently I finished it.

WM

 

Let's consider the terminology the Bible uses:

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

elders πρεσβυτερος
--an elder of a church, also the same as presbyter. The same name given to the pastor.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

overseers επισκοπος
The Pastor is the overseer or the episcopos; also translated "bishop."

His function is "to feed the church of God," which is the function of the pastor.

He is to oversee "all the flock," as a shepherd does. The word pastor means shepherd. His basic duty is shepherding the flock, feeding them, overseeing them. We have all the duties and functions and titles of the pastor in these two verses right here.

 

That is quite true.

 

How did this discussion go so easily away from the extra books in the Catholic canon to officers of the church? My, my how we love to stray off topic.

Like many areas, scripture might have been clearer about pastors, bishops, elders and presbyters. However, I believe Paul contemplated two officers in the local church--pastor and deacon. This seems to be the model he writes about.

However, this does not mean the office of bishop is absent from the New Testament economy. The prime examples, maybe the only examples, are Timothy and Titus. These men were not charged with duties in a local church. They exercised authority over several churches. Paul instructed both these men in how to choose elders/pastors/presbyters. He even sent Titus to Crete to appoint elders in the new churches, which is one of the main functions of a bishop. These are the bishops of the N.T. Paul didn't write about them, rather he wrote to them.

 

Again, let me emphasize, that the Septuagint that existed before the time of Jesus NEVER included those Apocryphal books. In fact many of the apocryphal books were not written until after Christ was born. It would have been impossible for Christ to have used them or the apostles for that fact. They are bogus books that the Jews never included in their canon, nor did the early Christians recognize as inspired, but only as extra reading material.

 

Others here have made the mistake of challenging me with regard to evidence. I always -- repeat, always have the evidence to back up my claims, and when I post it, people have a habit of becoming strangely quiet. Don't believe me? Try reading the forum. I will shut your mouth, too, but I am just too weary right now to do it.

You finished it? -- ha ha, no. But I will enjoy finishing you. If you weren't so disrespectful and insulting, I wouldn't have enjoyed it. Instead, I would have enjoyed engaging in a discussion.

 

Of course, the RCC reply is that the non Catholic denominations use an expurgated version....:love2:

 

<Shrug> If you're going to ignore the historical facts, then there's no hope in dialoguing with you.:BangHead:

 

Er...no. Different words were used: presbyteros for 'elder', episkopos for 'bishop'and diakonos for 'deacon'. And it's quite clear that the meaning of episkopos used in the later Pauline texts (the Pastoral Epistles) is different in meaning (regional) from the meaning of used by Luke in Acts 20: 28 (local). So there were in fact three offices and that is in fact the Anglican position.

 

Same comment to you as to DaChaser; I'd rather rely on the early Christians to tell me what the Canon is than a bunch of anti-Christian Jews.

 

DHK has given the correct position.

It is an incontrovertible fact that the words for elder, presbyter, pastor, and bishop were interchangeable and synonymous terms for one and the same office. Biblical scholarship has confirmed and affirmed this. It doesn't take a lot of research to know that this is true.

The Anglican position? Come, come, now; there is no such thing as "THE" Anglican position on any issue! I know whereof I speak, having immersed myself in Anglicanism and Anglican scholarship for many years. On this particular issue, the Anglo-Catholic position is different from the Evangelical Anglican position, but still some Anglo-Catholics are able to admit the truth.

A couple more things; John Wesley, from reading Lord King's account of the early church, said, ""I firmly believe I am a scriptural ἐπίσκοπος, as much as any man in England or in Europe; for the uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable which no man ever did or can prove".

Lord Peter King's book: An Inquiry Into The Constitution, Discipline, Unity, And Worship Of The Primitive Church: That Flourished Within The First Three Hundred Years After Christ


That's enough for now. I hope I can continue later.

 

There is no doubt that the meaning of episkopos by the time of the Pastorals had changed to regional superintendency.

The real question here is why anybody would wish to remove the Deuterocanonicals! The OT scripture in most common use in the earliest church was the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT, as is evident from the fact that two-thirds of NT references to the OT are indentifiable as references to the Septuagint. In particular, there are plenty of references in the NT to the Deuterocanonicals, which are simply part of the Septuagint. Of course the early fathers also happily cited from the Deuterocanonicals. It took until the Council in Florence 1451 until the dust finally settled on canoncity, but certainly the Deuterocanonicals were in the running from the start. Ben Sirach in particular was so popular in church readings that it got called liber ecclesiasticus "church book", or simply Ecclesiasticus.


Whether the Council of Jamnia/ Yavneh even existed is debated by scholars; there never was a "Council" of Yavneh IMO. Yavneh was, indeed, the place from which the Pharisees (also called Rabbis) ran the government of Palestine that had been entrusted to them by the Romans. Presumably some of their debates took place there also, possibly including the famous one about which of the hagiographa "render the hands unclean". But this was no "council". It was simply a lawyers' debate about the precise boundaries of a library that had already been established by usage. Note Joshua ben-Sira's grandson's phrase, "the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers". Josephus too mentions the law, the prophets, and four other books which contain songs and precepts. It isn't certain what they were, but one plausible guess is Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, these last two being the very ones about which doubts are raised in the Mishnah. So the Aramaic-speaking Jews of Palestine had one sacred library, established by custom, the Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt had another. The Qumran sectarians gave great respect to the Books of Jubilees and Enoch in addition, and seem to have disliked the book of Esther. But (so I understand) fragments of all the books of the Hebrew Scriptures except Esther have been found at Qumran, suggesting that the so-called "Hebrew canon" was already as stable as the Septuagint, and formed the sectarians' starting point. The Rabbinical debates about whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs "soil the hands" may not even have been very seriously intended, though Akiba seems to have taken them seriously. Perhaps the lawyers were, as lawyers will, merely positing hypotheticals or raising iconoclastic questions for the fun of it.

Be that as it may, whatever Jamnia decided can in no way be considered binding on Christians. Jesus had passed His authority to the apostles, not to the Jewish priests and scribes. And it seems quite likely that however the Masoretic canon actually was arrived at, its final form may well have been influenced by the Jewish desire to combat that new sect Christianity. Why would Christians let their canon be dictated by those who oppose them?

So why did Martin Luther et al. kick out the Deuterocanonicals? Books like 2 Maccabees contain scriptural evidence for hated RC doctrines (in 2 Macc: prayers for the dead to free them from sin, merits of the martyrs, intercession of the saints). That's rather annoying if you are also propagating sola scriptura as a way of getting rid of the RC magisterium. So you construct some odd reason why against all history these books should be ignored (by adopting the Masoretic canon), and if that throws out old favorites like Ecclesiasticus, well, too bad.

 

Really? Remember accusing me of ignorance and dishonesty? Give me a break!

WM

 

Note that JND Kelly in his book Early Christian Doctrine he says with regard to these books

Evidence of this can be seen in the earliest of Christian Writings

Also it is clear that the New Testiment writers used LXX translation (except for matthew) when quoting OT texts. Also the writer of Hebrews refers to 2 Macc. 7 in his "hall of faith" discourse.

 

There are several area's problematic in this article by Dr. Phil Stinger.

The first and most obvious is that he admits that the view of NT writers used the LXX in quoting scriptures is conventional wisdom. In other words the majority of academics have concluded that yes NT writers used the LXX for quotations. Which means a small minority of people decent from this view.

His first oposition to this view is strangely

Which is ridiculous. Because Jesus rarely says where is is quoting from like in Luke 4:1-4 when he shows down the devil

Most of Jesus quotes are without preamble of book and verse. Next when you do read Jesus quote such as in Mark 7:6-8 Jesus recites out of Isaiah

this passage (Isaiah 29:13) when compared between the Massoritic text and the LXX it turns out this passage as read in Luke is more in agreement with the LXX than the Massoretic text.

His next problematic statement is

. This is also not true since the dead sea scrolls find. We have found the hebrew text for books of Judith and Tobit and others as well. Therefore it can be determined that the LXX translations of these books came from a Hebrew sourse. Note the Hebrew OT was not even finalized until Jamnia after Christianity had begun. And certain anti-christian verses were purposefuly made to lessen the messianic prophesies such as a Virgin will conceive to young woman. This was to stem the flow of Jews becoming Christian in the early days and note the Massorite texts were not completed until 500 years after Jesus Christ thus the LXX were translated from earlier texts.

Next problem with this article is

The author acts as if there is only one version of the LXX when there are several recensions. Some of the recenscions come after Jesus Christ so the very loose translation" can be attributed to a latter recension. Also note that there are several instances where the Hebrew more closely relates to the LXX though overall the MT are in agreement with the older text indicating there were certain things that were left out in the MT maintained in the LXX because of its earlier version. Also note, the MT are in Hebrew and LXX is in greek; where translation becomes an understandable issue unlike the MT which are just hebrew copies that do not deal with translation. It is significant that there are agreements with the LXX in the qumran find.

There are more issues I have with this article but I must make several post to list them all