Female RC Priests

D28guy · Aug 17, 2005

Matt Black,

Since your post is right under mine I assume you were referring to me when you said...

"That's rather a bizarre claim since the Gospels were not written until after the destruction of the Temple, and Revelation not until c.95AD.
Click to expand...

OK. Lets go back and quote me shall we?....

I said...

"Every book now in the new testament was inscripturated and were being read, circulated and studied by approximently the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

The religious professing christian group known as the Catholic Church was about 300 years from coming into being and had absolutly (((ZERO))) to do with the giving of these scriptures to Gods people."
Click to expand...

Did you notice that bolded word?

Approximetly

The last time I went through the new testament and looked at the dates believed to be when they were written, I saw various dates. Many were prior to 70AD, some were after 70AD, but not much.

So, my statement was accurate...

"Every book now in the new testament was inscripturated and were being read, circulated and studied by approximently the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70AD."
Click to expand...

But the infinetly more important quote was my 2nd statement...the one you ignored in favor of a game of trivial pursuit...

"The religious professing christian group known as the Catholic Church was about 300 years from coming into being and had absolutly (((ZERO))) to do with the giving of these scriptures to Gods people."
Click to expand...

Grace and peace,

Mike

D28guy · Aug 17, 2005

Matt Black,

"I asked on the "What did Constantine actually do?" thread how you assert that the Catholic Church came into being some 300 years later. I'm still waiting for an at least half-decent answer to that one."
Click to expand...

Heres a fully decent one...

What the Constantinian establishment of the Catholic Church meant was that the bishops (note that the Biblical, Presbyterian form of church government had been abandoned by the churches before the time of Constantine) now joined the bureaucrats to form a new governing class in the Empire. The bishops of Italy became the heirs of the Roman Senate, and the bishop of Rome became the Emperor's successor. Throughout the Empire, Catholic bishops used monks (communist ascetics) as terrorists to enforce their rule:

"Bands of monastic vigilantes, led by Schenudi of Atripe (died c. 466) patrolled the towns of Upper Egypt ransacking the houses of pagan notables for idols. In North Africa, similar wandering monks, the Circumcellions, armed with cudgels called 'Israels,' stalked the great estates, their cry of 'Praise be to God' more fearful than the roaring of a mountain lion" (Brown, p. 104). [And we wonder where the Muslims got the idea for their war cry, "Allah Akbar."]

"The Christian bishop," Brown reports, "now ruling large congregations and backed by the violence of the monks, had come to the fore. The Emperor Theodosius committed the bloodbath of Thessalonica [massacring the residents of the city in 390] … yet he went down to history as Theodosius the 'Great,' the exemplary Catholic monarch" (Brown, p. 106).

With its legal establishment, the Catholic Church became wealthy as well as bloody:

"Wealth might be used to cover the costs of an acquittal at the Last Day…. From the fifth century onwards, this rich flood welled into the Christian Church 'for the remission of sins.' The rise of the economic position of the Christian Church was sudden and dramatic: It mushroomed like a modern insurance company. By the sixth century, the income of the bishop of Ravenna was 12,000 gold pieces; the bishop of a small town drew a salary as great as that of a senatorial provincial governor" (Brown, p. 109).

The time-honored, traditional Roman system of exploitation of inferiors by superiors, with all the hierarchy exploiting the people, had been adopted by the Catholic Church-State. This exploitation was possible only because the Catholic Church had already rejected the Gospel of salvation by free grace. The Catholic Church's rejection of the Gospel of justification by faith alone made all its subsequent errors and atrocities not only possible, but inevitable...

...In 324, after defeating Licinius, Constantine proclaimed himself head of the Catholic Church and summoned bishops to Nicaea for a council in which he himself would preside. Two hundred fifty obeyed. In another summons he wrote: "such is the regard I pay to the lawful Catholic Church that I desire you to leave no schism or division of any kind anywhere."

Not only would the Emperor permit no disagreement (for there must be unity of doctrine to match the political unity of the Empire), he also began to subsidize the Catholic Church:

"Inasmuch as I have resolved that in all provinces, namely Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania, certain named ministers of the lawful and most holy Catholic Religion should receive some contribution toward expenses, I have sent a letter to Ursus, the Eminent Finance Officer of Africa, informing him that he must arrange the transfer to Your Steadfastness [Caecilian, bishop of Carthage] of 3000 folles in cash [an enormous amount in that time]. Your task on receipt of this sum of money will be to see that it is distributed among all the persons named above according to the schedule supplied to you by Hosius [bishop of Corduba and religious adviser to Constantine]. If later you find that you still lack means to carry out my intentions in this matter in respect of them all, you must not hesitate to ask Heraclidas our treasurer for whatever you find necessary. I have given him orders in person that if Your Steadfastness should ask him for any sum, he is to arrange for its transfer to you without question" (Eusebius, The History of the Church, Book 10, chapter 6).

In 315, Constantine issued an edict making it a crime for Jews to proselytize. His goal in all this was to ensure that the "proper cult of the Catholic Religion" would be observed throughout the Empire. So much for every man being permitted to practice his religion as he chose. A century later, the penalty for Jewish proselytizing was made death...

Papal Rome

Fifteen centuries after the birth of Christ, little had changed in Western Europe but the names of the gods worshiped. The Western Europeans of the fifteenth century still lived in an enchanted world—a world of magic and miracles.
Instead of the twelve gods of ancient Rome, there were the cults of the twelve apostles, whose relics could cure diseases, control the weather, and inflict harm on those who opposed them.

Instead of the departmental deities of ancient Rome, there were the departmental Saints of papal Rome.

Instead of the cult of Diana, Queen of Heaven, there was the cult of Mary, Queen of Heaven.

The holidays (in pre-Reformation Germany, there were 161 days of holy fasting and abstinence each year), processions, sacrifices, and rituals continued; the apparitions, pilgrimages, relics, and shrines remained; the gladiatorial contests were replaced by autos da fe at which the religious would chant the Psalms and pray the liturgy.

Laing wrote, "though there is a notable difference in the character of the supernatural beings that in the fourth century succeeded to the multitudinous functions of the old departmental spirits, there is little or no change in the attitude of mind …."

The founders of the Catholic Church-State "were keenly interested in winning the pagans to the faith, and they succeeded. But undoubtedly one element in their success was the inclusion in their system of the doctrine of the veneration of Saints. They seem to have felt that in order to make any headway at all, it was necessary for them to match the swarms of spirits available for the pagans with a multitude of wonder-working Saints and Martyrs. How far they were prepared to go is indicated by their favorable attitude toward the pagan veneration of Virgil that amounted almost to deification. The Saints succeeded to the worship of the dead just as they had succeeded to the cult of the departmental deities and to the little gods of the Roman household …. Reports of miracles wrought by human beings were common among the ancient Romans and were accepted by the great mass of people without question …. The [Roman] Christians adapted themselves to the pagan attitude. They matched the miracle-workers of the pagans with the wonder-working Saints; and with their success the number of miracles increased. The sanctity of relics, well established as it has been among the pagans, acquired far greater vogue in [medieval] Christian times and was given a degree of emphasis that it had never had before ….

Like the deified heroes and emperors of pagan times, the Saints were honored with altars, sacred edifices, incense, lights, hymns, ex-voto offerings, festivals with illuminations and high hilarity, prayers, and invocations. They became intermediate divinities …." (Gordon J. Laing, Survivals of Roman Religion, pp. 8-9, 83, 120-121).

One Roman Catholic historian described the religion of early sixteenth-century Europe in these words:

"In 1509 when John Calvin was born, Western Christendom still shared a common religion of immanence. Heaven was never too far from Earth. The sacred was diffused in the profane, the spiritual in the material. Divine power, embodied in the [Roman] Church and its sacraments, reached down through innumerable points of contact to make itself felt: to forgive or punish, to protect against the ravages of nature, to heal, to soothe, and to work all sorts of wonders. Priests could absolve adulterers and murderers, or bless fields and cattle. During their lives, saints could prevent lightning from striking, restore sight to the blind, or preach to birds and fish. Unencumbered by the limitations of time and space, they could do even more through their images and relics after death. A pious glance at a statue of St. Christopher in the morning ensured protection from illness and death throughout the day. Burial in the habit of St. Francis improved the prospects for the afterlife. A pilgrimage to Santiago, where the body of the apostle James had been deposited by angels, or to Canterbury … could make a lame man walk, or hasten a soul's release from purgatory. The map of Europe bristled with holy places; life pulsated with the expectation of the miraculous. In the popular mind and in much of the official teaching of the [Roman] Church, almost anything was possible. One could even eat the flesh of the risen Christ in a consecrated wafer.
Click to expand...

Sadly,

Mike

Click the link: Constantine/Catholicism/Paganism

Matt Black · Aug 17, 2005

And which of these writers lived in the 4th century?

Yours in Christ

Matt

D28guy · Aug 17, 2005

More...this time quotes from the Catholic Digest magazine:

Catholic Digest 12/1994 pg 129

"The Rosary is, unsurprisingly, Not mentioned in the Bible. Legend and history place its beginning in the 13th century long After the Bible was completed. As a Pagan practice, praying on counting beads goes back centuries before Christ.
Buddhists use prayer wheels and prayer beads for the same purpose. Counting prayer beads is common practice in religious cultures.
Click to expand...

Cath Digest 9/1993 pg 129

Question:

My husband has been transferred to Japan and we have been here in Hiroshima for about two months. On a site seeing tour the Japanese guide brought me to a Buddhist shrine. There were statues of Buddha everywhere. The guide told me they represented different aspects of life and that the people offer food to the Buddhas and ask for Favors. It made me think of Our Catholic praying to the saints and wonder whether they have anything like the Ten Commandments to guide them.
There were fountains at the gate where pious visitors washed their hands before entering the shrine grounds. Could this be the same as our holy water?

Ans:

Very probably the physical washing signifies some kind of spiritual cleansing, AS it does with Us! Some Muslims say prayers on rosary like beads Just as We do, so there is no copyright enforced on prayerful customs among the great world religions. The Pagan Romans prayed, each family to its Own household gods, JUST as we do to our patron saints. In Old Testament times the gentile had local gods for their town or country, and our Christian Saints eventually supplanted Them!

The Hebrews, of Course, had the mission of Wiping Out such heathen worship with the worship of the one true God, and while they have always had great respect for spiritual heroes, they Never set up any of their own race as substitutes for the local pagan gods!!

They had no need to make distinctions between praying TO the saints for their intercession with god and total adoration of God as the source of everything, as we must!

Ibid - Page 42

"the liturgy itself was considerably influenced by the Constantinian revolution. Millions of pagans suddenly entered the church
and some of their customs inevitably crept into the liturgy; the use of the kiss as a sign of reverence for holy objects, the practice of genuflection,
devotion to relics, use of candles, incense and other ceremonial features derived from the imperial court. Under this pagan influence Christians
began to face the east while praying which made it necessary for the priest to lead prayers while his back was toward the congregation."

pg 43

for a long time the celebrant was left considerable freedom to improvise in conducting the liturgy. Even wording of the canon was left to his
discretion.

Ibid - Pg 39

"the alliance with the state profoundly influenced every aspect of the church's thought and life. It carried many advantages, but it also entailed some serious drawbacks; ... Mass conversions where social conformity was the chief motivating factor; the widening gap between clergy and laity thanks to the official status conferred on them; persecution of dissenters as a menace to the unity of the state. The church would never be the same again - for better and for worse - and so Constantine's conversion is certainly one of the greatest turning points in the history of the Catholic church and of the world."
Click to expand...

Mike

DHK · Aug 17, 2005

Originally posted by Matt Black:

DHK, you gave stated quite correctly how the Canon of Scripture came to be written (50 to 98AD is far more accurate than Mike's assertion of "everything before 70AD"); what you have failed to do is to assert HOW the Canon came to be determined by the Church ie: how did the believers understand which of Paul's letters were canonical and which weren't; how was the Gospel of Thomas excluded etc. The nearest you get to an explanation is

[qb] That knowledge was passed down and shared with first the other Apostles, and then with the other early beievers. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with this. The preservation of the Bible was done through Bible Believing churches entirely outside the corrupt Catholic Church.
Click to expand...

Be careful! You're coming dangerously close to making out a case for your dreaded Tradition there! I'd also like to know which were these "Bible believing churches entirely outside the corrupt Catholic Church"? When and where did they exist? And when and where did the Catholic Church exist? What documents and writings from that period (whichever that period actually is) are you relying on to support your claim?

Yours in Christ

Matt
Click to expand...

It is not tradition when it is simply the Bible that is being taught. Tradition consists of those things that are handed down that are outside the Bible. Perhaps in some churches an "invitation" could be considered a tradition, though not unbiblical. It doesn't have to do with doctrine. Neither does the way that an offering is taken up (passing the plate or "debit card" ). Many churches have a tradition of giving out a weekly church bulletin. These have nothing to do with doctrine. They are extra-Biblical, but not unbiblical.

The Tradition of the Catholic Church is most often unbiblical and heretical: the assumption of Mary, indulgences, purgatory, etc. You get false doctrine from Catholic tradition. As Christ said,

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

However here is what the Bible really teaches:
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
--Not the teaching of tradition, but the teaching of Biblical truth--that is what Timothy was commanded to pass on to faithful men who in turn would pass on to others. We call this spiritual reproduction.

I have given you Scripture already that verifies how the Apostles knew which books were inspired and which were not. Peter verified the epistles of Paul as Scripture. He also stated the writings of the Apostles as Scripture, and I am sure he knew which ones.
Jesus told them that the Holy Spirit would guide them and lead them into all truth especially regarding the inspiration of the Scriptures.

Consider this testimony of Peter:
2 Peter 1:16-18 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory,
18 This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

If there ever was an experience more glorious, more memorable to man, it would be the transfiguration of Christ. Peter was an eyewitness to the transfiguration along with seeing Moses and Elijah. What a tremendous experience that must have been, and who amony us would not like also to have such an experience!!

But now look what Peter says:
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
--Greater than that experience that Peter had at the Mount of Transfiguration is the Word of God. Though he was an eyewitness to it, and he knew what he saw and heard, he says that you can be even more sure of the written word of God. It is even more reliable than his experience which he witnessed himself. Our word, our canon of Scripture, is a sure word. It is from God. It is inspired. It is more sure and dependable than even the greatest experiences that I had with Christ, Peter says.

Then he goes on to say:
2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--The primary interpretation of this verse (some may claim) is to the Old Testament. But even if it is we may be extension apply the truth of it to the Old Testament. Peter does that himself in 2Pet.3:1,2 when he tells us to take heed to the words of the: Prophets, the Apostles and the Lord. All three groups were just as important to the other.
So what does this passage mean?
No prophecy is of any private interpretation. That means that groups such as the Catholic Church has a monopoly on the Word of God. To claim that the magesterium has the correct interpretation is heresy. This one verse alone supports sola scriptura, for we all have the responsibility of studying the Word of God on our own (2Tim.2:15). When any group, organization, religion, claims excusivity to the interpretation of the Word of God, they are de facto, heretical.
Note now that the "prophecy came not in old time by the will of man." The emphasis here is "not..by the will of man." Man did not write any part of the Word of God; the Holy Spirit of God wrote it all. It wasn't man's will; it was God's will that we have this book we call the Bible. He superintended over all the whole process. I therefore can take by faith this book and say that the books we have are the books that God wants us to have. "They are not by the will of man."

"But holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
These holy men of God (the prophets of the Old Testament and Apostles of the New Testament) spoke only as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That is how they knew which books were Scripture and which books were not. For example Paul wrote four epistles to the Corinthians, but only two of them are inspired of God. How do we know which ones are inspired? It is not us; it is Paul which knew, and Paul which taught those things to the early believers (not the RCC). He knew when the Holy Spirit was guiding him to write inspired Scripture, and when it was not Scripture. The Apostles taught these things "to faithful men who also would teach faithful men." (2Tim.2:2).

There were many good Bible-believing churches that had not departed from the truth in the first three centuries (and even past that). But the Catholic Church did not come into existence until the 4th century. Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and others all warn against false teachers and false doctrine that would early enter into the churches. In fact Jude wanted to write about the "common salvation," but the Holy Spirit told him to write about "conending for the faith." And his entire book is written about false teachers and their false doctrine. In his epistles to the Corinthians Paul is constantly referring to the false teachers that were there at Corinth trying to undermine his authority. He mentions the false Judaizing teachers in the book of Galatians.

Error entered early in the church. From the start the early churches had to battle against it. Even heretical and spurious books were written. Give the Apostles some credit here. Don't you think they knew which writings were inspired and which were not. Their own writings, inspired of God, they knew formed the canon. And they taught the early believers that as Peter told his readers (2Peter 3:1,2). Thus there are no such books as Baruch or Susannah. These are not Apostles or even associates of Apostles. They are frauds.
DHK
Click to expand...

Matt Black · Aug 22, 2005

A couple of points by way of come back.

Yes, the early Church did have to contend with error mainly in the various forms of gnosticism, and you rightly allude to the gnostic writings there. But, (a) the Church expelled the gnostics (Irenaeus in particular was instrumental there) and (b) it is completely wrong to lump the Deuterocanonical OT books like Baruch and Susannah in with the gnostic writings: the former were included in the LXX Greek translation of the OT and used and regarded as inspired by both the Jews of the Diaspora and the early Christians; they were certainly not written by any apostle, false or otherwise, nor did anyone ever claim that they were.

Secondly, Christians were 'doing' long before they were 'writing'. What I mean by that is that the Church was in existence prior even to the verbal rendering of most of the NT, still less its inscripturation. That's the origin of Tradition: what the Church was 'doing' and has always 'done'. That predates the NT Scriptures, and those Scriptures must be read alongside that Tradition.

Lastly (three points not two!), I'm still waiting for evidence dating from the 4th century from you, Mike or indeed anyone else to confirm that (a) the Catholic Church came into being then and (b) the 'true churches/ Christians' continued to exist outwith that Catholic Church, plus what they taught, what they practised. where they were, etc.

Matt

DHK · Aug 22, 2005

Originally posted by Matt Black:
A couple of points by way of come back.

Yes, the early Church did have to contend with error mainly in the various forms of gnosticism, and you rightly allude to the gnostic writings there. But, (a) the Church expelled the gnostics (Irenaeus in particular was instrumental there) and (b) it is completely wrong to lump the Deuterocanonical OT books like Baruch and Susannah in with the gnostic writings: the former were included in the LXX Greek translation of the OT and used and regarded as inspired by both the Jews of the Diaspora and the early Christians; they were certainly not written by any apostle, false or otherwise, nor did anyone ever claim that they were.
Click to expand...

They don't have to be gnostic to be either heretical or uninspired. It was obvious to the early beievers that these were not inspired books of the Bible, as they were not written by Apostle or even close acquaintances of them.
You are wrong about their inclusion in the LXX. In fact that assertion is absurd. Some of the Apocryphal books were not even written until after the time of the death of Christ. The Septuagint was written and completed in about 250 B.C. There is not even one Apocryphal book that was written that early. It is absurd to claim that they were included in the LXX when they did not even exist at the time of the writing of the LXX. Even at the time of the writing of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, Jerome himself protested at the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon of Scripture. He knew they were spurious books. It wasn't until hundreds of years later that they crept into the Septuagint. So to say that they were included in the LXX is a frivilous and unfounded statement. The Jews who wrote the Septuagint, never, at any time accepted these books as inspired. Why would they allow them into their Scripture? They didn't.

Secondly, Christians were 'doing' long before they were 'writing'. What I mean by that is that the Church was in existence prior even to the verbal rendering of most of the NT, still less its inscripturation. That's the origin of Tradition: what the Church was 'doing' and has always 'done'.[/qb][/quote]
That is not the origin of Traditon. That may be the origin of gnostic writings, heresies, etc., It is also the origin of Scripture as Paul and the other Apostles wrote to different churches their epistles which eventually became inscripturated. That is not tradition. That was God's way of revealing to mankind his Word. Before that God used the spiritual gifts of revelatory knowledge and prophecy to reveal his Word to his people. When the Bible was completed in the end of the first century these gifts passed away (1Cor.13:8-13).

That predates the NT Scriptures, and those Scriptures must be read alongside that Tradition.
Click to expand...

What you are referring to are the Scripture.

Lastly (three points not two!), I'm still waiting for evidence dating from the 4th century from you, Mike or indeed anyone else to confirm that (a) the Catholic Church came into being then and (b) the 'true churches/ Christians' continued to exist outwith that Catholic Church, plus what they taught, what they practised. where they were, etc.

Matt
Click to expand...

Even men like Cardinal Hosius claim that believers such as the Waldenses existed back to the time of the Apostles. We know that the Catholic Church started near the beginning of the fourth Century at the time of Constantine when Constantine officially made "Christendom" a state religion. At that time he paganized Christianity, and Christianized paganism. Many of the current idols that the Catholic Church has today entered into the Catholic Church at that time. They have their origins in pagan idolatry.
DHK

born again and again · Aug 22, 2005

Interesting word, "tradition." It's almost like quasi-fact. Not historical fact, but possibly based on some fact combined with some speculation. "Truth" is another very interesting word. It relates to objective fact as well as subjective belief (faith?). The problem arises when subjective belief does not coincide with objective fact. In that case it is truly a matter of faith.

born again and again · Aug 22, 2005

This is the same type of thinking which had the Sun revolving around the Earth for a very long time, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Matt Black · Aug 23, 2005

Evidence, DHK, evidence! You and I both know that Cardinal Hosius did not live in the 4th century. What I'm after from you and Mike (and indeed anyone else) is some 4th or 5th century Christian writings (such as Eusebius) which support your ludicrous assertion that the Catholic Church came into being in the 4th century.

Your assertion about the LXX not including the DCs is seriously absurd and flies in the face of authoritative scholarship. I'm afraid you've destroyed whatever credibility of your argument which you had here with that particular gem.

DHK · Aug 23, 2005

Originally posted by Matt Black:

Your assertion about the LXX not including the DCs is seriously absurd and flies in the face of authoritative scholarship. I'm afraid you've destroyed whatever credibility of your argument which you had here with that particular gem.
Click to expand...

For you to say this is ludicrous. Tell me. Do you know the actual dates that the Apocryphal books were written?
Do you know the date when the LXX was written?
Do you know who translated the LXX?
Do you know that the Jews never accepted the Apocrypha?

born again and again · Aug 23, 2005

Matt, isn't it true that Constantine called all the christian leaders together in the 4th century in an attempt to have a united christian religion and a single religion for Rome; to unite his authority under a common religious belief? Isn't that when the christian leaders decided which writings to place into the "New Testament"?

Matt Black · Aug 24, 2005

DHK, the LXX, including the DCs, was compiled between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC by Jews. It was therefore in existence by the time of Christ and could not have been authored by an Apostle any more than the rest of the OT could have been; are you going to reject the rest of the OT because that wasn't "authored by an Apostle"?!

The Jews accepted the LXX & DCs up until the 'Council' of Jamnia (actually more of a rabbinical school) after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70AD. Their reasons for rejection of it were twofold: (a) it wasn't written in Hebrew and they wanted to assert the primacy of Hebrew in their sacred texts as part of reestablishing as sense of Jewish identity and (b) crucially, the early Christians used it and they wanted to out some clear water between themselves and those sectarian minim .

If the DCs were only admitted to the canon of the OT by the Catholic Council of Trent in 1546, then how come the Orthodox have them in their OT?

Here's a handy neutral linkwhich tells you the facts about the LXX.

Opinions differ about the value of Wikipedia, but THIS ARTICLE includes links to arguments relevant to this thread. In particular, the External Links to Newman and Stanley's articles might be worth some attention.

The LXX is claimed, with justification, to be based on a 2nd century BC version of the OT. And there is no doubt that it was used by the NT authors - there are many cross-references in the NT to scriptures not found in the Masoretic OT.

The counter-claim, that the LXX was not in all cases the best translation, is also explored in the articles, which also contain pro and anti arguments for the excluded books.

I reckon you can take your pick. The arguments do not seem to me to be conclusive either way. To help others, here is the extract from Bob Stanley's article (Wikipedia cross refce) on the OT Deuterocanonicals about how the Council of Jamnia functioned.

They set up 4 criteria that all books had to meet in order to be included.

1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books).

2. The books had to be written in Hebrew.

3. The books had to be written in Palestine.

4. The books had to be written before 400 B.C..

The seven books did not meet all 4 criteria set up by the Jews...

Baruch was not written in Palestine. Disqualified by reason 3.

Sirach and 1Maccabees were written after 400 B.C.. Disqualified by reason 4.

Tobit and parts of Daniel and Esther were written in Aramaic and outside of Palestine.
Disqualified by reasons 2 and 3.

Judith was written in Aramaic. Disqualified by reason 2.

Wisdom was written in Greek. Disqualified by reason 2.

2Maccabees was written after 400 B.C. and in Greek. Disqualified by reasons 2 and 4 .
Click to expand...

So Wisdom and 2 Maccabees are out, being Greek, Judith and Tobit are out because they are written in Aramaic

I don't have any independent corroboration of Bob Stanley's argument. Looking at the way the Council of Jamnia worked, criteria 3 and 4 both look a little arbitrary to modern eyes.

Born again and again, Constantine called one Ecumenical Church Council, that of Nicaea in 325. The issue there was not to unify "under a common religious belief" generally but to settle the dispute between the Catholic-Orthodox Trinitarian Christians on the one hand and the heretical Arians on the other. The issue wasn't settled properly until the Council of Constantinople in 381, some 44 years after Constantine's death. The NT canon was determined by the Councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo in 382, 393 and 397, the last one being some 60 years after Constantine's death. So Constantine had absolutely nothing to do with the NT canon.

[ August 24, 2005, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

born again and again · Aug 24, 2005

So is it your position that Constantine did not desire to have one united Christian Church and one united religion for Rome? And I was only refering to the NT. Isn't it true that, prior to Constantine, different Christian leaders were using different writings to preach their beliefs and that they were brought together to vote (or somehow otherwise decide) on which books would be included in the NT? And isn't i true that none of the books now included in the NT were written prior to approximately 200 A.D.? Looks like the process started with Constantine, but did not finish until after his death.

Matt Black · Aug 24, 2005

No. I'm not convinced that Constantine ever really understood what Christianity was about. What he was aware of was that there was a serious division between the Arian and Trinitarian parties which was causing civil unrest. He wanted to avoid the situation degenerating further into civil war and therefore wanted to reconcile the parties, although he didn't really understand the theological issues involved. That was his rationale behind the Council of Nicaea. Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the OT or the NT (as I said above, that happened several decades after Constantine's death) and had everything to do with Constantine trying to hold his newly-acquired empire together.

born again and again · Aug 24, 2005

Exactly, I think you understood my point. Constantine's concerns were political, not religious. He really did not care what the Christians disagreed on, only that they resolve it. Thank you for pointing out that the Christians did not actually decide which writings to identify as "Scriptures" until several decades later.

Matt Black · Aug 26, 2005

A further interesting article on Jamnia and the DCs is here:-

http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm

Female RC Priests

D28guy New Member

D28guy New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

D28guy New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

born again and again New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

born again and again New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

born again and again New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

Female RC Priests

D28guy New Member

D28guy New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

D28guy New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

born again and again New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

born again and again New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

born again and again New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter