Oldbear83 said:

---

Popes were and are a bad idea.

---

Talk to Jesus about it. He instituted it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Power corrupts

---

I wish that the Catholic Church was free from corrupt people like all the Protestant churches are. (smh)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So do you concede, then, that the earliest known lists of Old Testament canon in church history did NOT contain the Apocrypha (save Wisdom, which is debatable) thus showing that your claim that the church always included the Apocrypha is wrong?

---

Absolutely not.

It was a list from ONE person. Just like Melito's canon was the writing of one person, NOT the Church.

The Church affirmed the canon in several Councils - meaning the bishops gathered and agreed (guided by the Holy Spirit) as to what books to include in the full canon. Not just a few Church fathers and their opinions.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Which part is the misrepresentation?

---

You stated that he subtracted them. He didn't. He included them even though he has his doubts about them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jerome lived in Bethlehem during the time he was translating the Vulgate. He lived in a monastery there. He knew the Hebrew language. His unique position allowed him to ascertain that the Church there did not consider the Apocrypha as canon. If he could not find any Hebrew copies of the Apocrypha, wouldn't that support the point that the Jews did not consider it canon Scripture?

---

Not if those Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- If the Church always included them, then why did Jerome's influence continue, to where the majority of major theologians during his time and thereafter continue to hold to his position, that the Apocrypha was not canon? Why did the major reference work during the middle ages, the Glossa Ordinaria, teach that it wasn't canon? And the point remains, which you still haven't addressed, that the Council of Laodicea recognized a different canon than was recognized in later councils, one that did NOT include the Apocrypha...."always included them"?

---

It was not a "majority of the major theologians" that rejected them, but it was a few that did. They, like Jerome, listened to the Church during the Councils that declared them as canon.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Popes were and are a bad idea.

---

Talk to Jesus about it. He instituted it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Power corrupts

---

I wish that the Catholic Church was free from corrupt people like all the Protestant churches are. (smh)

---

Never said the Protestants were perfect. But claiming your pointy-hate leader is "infallible", well that's a special sin all its own, and special to the RC church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Right - GOD gave the world the Bible.

---

Who complied the bible and when?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What is your evidence that many Jews of Jesus' time considered the deuterocanon as canon?

What is your evidence that the deuterocanon was considered part of the Writings?

---

1) The Dead Sea Scrolls include copies of deuterocanonical books like Sirach, Tobit, and Baruch.
2) The prologue to Sirach references "the law and the prophets and the others that followed them" and "the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books," indicating that the Hebrew canon was not closed and that these books were included.
3) OT Scholars, like Otto Kaiser , state that the deuterocanonical books "presuppose the validity of the Law and the Prophets and also utilize the Ketubim, or 'Writings' collection, which was, at the time, still in the process of formation and not yet closed.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Popes were and are a bad idea.

---

Talk to Jesus about it. He instituted it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Power corrupts

---

I wish that the Catholic Church was free from corrupt people like all the Protestant churches are. (smh)

---

Never said the Protestants were perfect. But claiming your pointy-hate leader is "infallible", well that's a special sin all its own, and special to the RC church.

---

pointy-hate leader - What's' up with the derogatory comment like this?

The Pope is only infallible when speaking *ex cathedra* (from the chair of Saint Peter) on matters of faith or morals.

Sorry, there is no reason to trust any living human as speaking for God.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So do you concede, then, that the earliest known lists of Old Testament canon in church history did NOT contain the Apocrypha (save Wisdom, which is debatable) thus showing that your claim that the church always included the Apocrypha is wrong?

---

Absolutely not.

It was a list from ONE person. Just like Melito's canon was the writing of one person, NOT the Church.

The Church affirmed the canon in several Councils - meaning the bishops gathered and agreed (guided by the Holy Spirit) as to what books to include in the full canon. Not just a few Church fathers and their opinions.

---

Melito wasn't making a list of Old Testament canon himself.

He traveled to Palestine to learn what those books were, from the place where Christianity originated, where the first Christians lived. That list is what he found the Christians there to have considered canon.

This is the earliest historical evidence we have of what the earliest Christians had in their Old Testament canon. It did not contain the Apocrypha. Isn't this evidence, then, that the Apocrypha was a later addition by the church?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Which part is the misrepresentation?

---

You stated that he subtracted them. He didn't. He included them even though he has his doubts about them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jerome lived in Bethlehem during the time he was translating the Vulgate. He lived in a monastery there. He knew the Hebrew language. His unique position allowed him to ascertain that the Church there did not consider the Apocrypha as canon. If he could not find any Hebrew copies of the Apocrypha, wouldn't that support the point that the Jews did not consider it canon Scripture?

---

Not if those Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- If the Church always included them, then why did Jerome's influence continue, to where the majority of major theologians during his time and thereafter continue to hold to his position, that the Apocrypha was not canon? Why did the major reference work during the middle ages, the Glossa Ordinaria, teach that it wasn't canon? And the point remains, which you still haven't addressed, that the Council of Laodicea recognized a different canon than was recognized in later councils, one that did NOT include the Apocrypha...."always included them"?

---

It was not a "majority of the major theologians" that rejected them, but it was a few that did. They, like Jerome, listened to the Church during the Councils that declared them as canon.

---

I fully agree with you that Jerome's position is not a subtraction - the Apocrypha was never Jewish canon. He didn't subtract anything, because the Apocrypha was never there to begin with.

But for the sake of the discussion, I was representing Jerome's position in light of your view, that the Apocrypha was always canon, and that Jerome's view represented a demotion of the Apocrypha from canonicity, thus a "subtraction". In that sense, Jerome most certainly subtracted the Apocrypha, and yes, his view was the dominating view of the Church all the way to the time of the Reformation. This article goes through the history: https://christiantruth.com/articles/apocrypha3/

An excerpt: "The overall practice of the Western Church with respect to the canon from the time of Jerome (early fifth century) until the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome.... In the Western Church, opinions among theologians varied on the extent of the canon and the status of the Apocrypha.... But an examination of the historical record reveals that though some followed Augustine, and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, the majority followed the judgment of Jerome."

The article then goes through the list of evidence:

Major texts and bible translations:

• the Glossa Ordinaria (the standard reference text of the time)
• the Biblia Complutensia (bible translation by Cardinal Ximenes, sanctioned by Pope Leo X)
• Latin bibles - Sanctes Pagnini, 1528 and Johannes Petrius, 1527

Major bishops, cardinals, popes, theologians, and scholars:

• Cardinal Cajetan, Primasius, Gregory the Great, the Venerable of Bede, Agobard of Lyons, Alcuin, Walafrid Strabo, Haymo of Halberstady, Ambrose of Autpert, Radulphus Flavacencius, Hugh of St. Victor, Richard of St. Victor, John of Salisbury, Peter Cellensis, Rupert of Deutz, Honorius of Autun, Peter Comestor, Peter Mauritius, Adam Scotus, Hugh of St. Cher, Philip of Harvengt, Nicholas of Lyra, William of Ockham, Antoninus, Alonso Tostado, Dionysius the Carthusian, Thomas Walden, Jean Driedo, John Ferris, Jacobus Faber Stapulensis

.... all held to Jerome's view that the Apocrypha was not canon scripture.


Comment by notable biblical scholar Bruce Metzger: "Subsequent to Jerome's time and down to the period of the reformation a continuous succession of the more learned Fathers and theologians in the West maintained the distinctive and unique authority of the books of the Hebrew canon. Such a judgment, for example, was reiterated on the very eve of the Reformation by Cardinal Ximenes in the preface of the magnificent Complutensian Polyglot edition of the Bible which he edited (1514-17)…Even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther's opponent at Augsburg in 1518, gave an unhesitating approval to the Hebrew canon in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, which he dedicated in 1532 to pope Clement VII. He expressly called attention to Jerome's separation of the canonical from the uncanonical books, and maintained that the latter must not be relied upon to establish points of faith, but used only for the edification of the faithful."


I get that your argument is that Jerome ultimately acquiesced to the judgement of Rome, but he did so because he didn't want to be at odds with church authority (who'd want to be branded a heretic and have to face their wrath?) But there is no evidence that he ever changed his actual belief. Nevertheless, it's plainly obvious that his view was vastly shared throughout Church history, even before the Reformation.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Right - GOD gave the world the Bible.

---

Who complied the bible and when?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What is your evidence that many Jews of Jesus' time considered the deuterocanon as canon?

What is your evidence that the deuterocanon was considered part of the Writings?

---

1) The Dead Sea Scrolls include copies of deuterocanonical books like Sirach, Tobit, and Baruch.
2) The prologue to Sirach references "the law and the prophets and the others that followed them" and "the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books," indicating that the Hebrew canon was not closed and that these books were included.
3) OT Scholars, like Otto Kaiser , state that the deuterocanonical books "presuppose the validity of the Law and the Prophets and also utilize the Ketubim, or 'Writings' collection, which was, at the time, still in the process of formation and not yet closed.

---

1) You're using the same fallacious logic that RealityBites tried? Come on, man. Explain how the mere presence of those books among the Dead Sea Scrolls automatically means they were considered canon.

2) "the others that followed them" and "the rest of the books" do not necessarily mean that the canon was open, or that the Apocrypha were even included among them.

A similar phrase is in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus: "...And not only these things, but the Law itself, and the Prophets, and the rest of the books..." The "these things" he is talking about is the book he is writing, Ecclesiasticus. So he views his own book as separate from the "rest of the books (Writings/Hagiographa)", thus suggesting a closed canon, of which his own book was obviously not part. Notable church historian, Roger Beckwth, in his book The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church further notes about this prologue that the writer "regards even the Hagiographa (the Writings) as 'ancestral' (patrivwn) books, long enough esteemed to have been translated in to Greek, and their number as complete."

3) What is Otto Kaiser's evidence for his claim? I have provided historical evidence to the contrary.

At the Danny Gokey concert right now. Be back soon

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sorry, there is no reason to trust any living human as speaking for God.

---

The Church does NOT claim this. Once again, this is one of MANY false assumptions the Protestants have about the Church.

The Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.

That is it. No more - no less.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I get that your argument is that Jerome ultimately acquiesced to the judgement of Rome, but he did so because he didn't want to be at odds with church authority (who'd want to be branded a heretic and have to face their wrath?)

---

Serious question, do you have access to his private writings or are you projecting your view onto this assumption? St Jerome was a stubborn jerk (God rest his soul) that alienated most of his closest friends and lived in near seclusion. I doubt he was worried about that. Unless you can provide statements from his private writings, your theory is pure conjecture.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But there is no evidence that he ever changed his actual belief. Nevertheless, it's plainly obvious that his view was vastly shared throughout Church history, even before the Reformation.

---

It was not VASTLY held throughout Church history. There were some that did think that they were canonical. There were many that did. The Church felt the same.

The Church believed that the deuterocanon was canon prior to Jerome else he wouldn't have had an issue. He included them as they were there before.

You still haven't answered where the canon came from. Who put the bible together?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) You're using the same fallacious logic that RealityBites tried? Come on, man. Explain how the mere presence of those books among the Dead Sea Scrolls automatically means they were considered canon.

---

The Essenes thought them as part of the canon as demonstrated in the finding of them in the caves. These were the in the Septuagint. The Septuagint contains all 46 books of the OT.

It is correct to say that in the Roman Catholic church papal infallibility only extends to ex-cathedra statements.

Francis has promoted heresy (the blessing of gay marriages, his latest advocacy of perennialism when talking to schoolchildren). It will be interesting to see what happens to Roman Catholicism when he, or a successor of his, does make an ex-cathedra statement legitimizing such things.

Russell Moore will probably get around to defending the culinary choices of illegals from Haiti first though.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sorry, there is no reason to trust any living human as speaking for God.

---

The Church does NOT claim this. Once again, this is one of MANY false assumptions the Protestants have about the Church.

The Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.

That is it. No more - no less.

---

A couple of your recent editions indicate otherwise.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I get that your argument is that Jerome ultimately acquiesced to the judgement of Rome, but he did so because he didn't want to be at odds with church authority (who'd want to be branded a heretic and have to face their wrath?)

---

Serious question, do you have access to his private writings or are you projecting your view onto this assumption? St Jerome was a stubborn jerk (God rest his soul) that alienated most of his closest friends and lived in near seclusion. I doubt he was worried about that. Unless you can provide statements from his private writings, your theory is pure conjecture.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

But there is no evidence that he ever changed his actual belief. Nevertheless, it's plainly obvious that his view was vastly shared throughout Church history, even before the Reformation.

---

It was not VASTLY held throughout Church history. There were some that did think that they were canonical. There were many that did. The Church felt the same.

The Church believed that the deuterocanon was canon prior to Jerome else he wouldn't have had an issue. He included them as they were there before.

You still haven't answered where the canon came from. Who put the bible together?

---

Jerome included the apocryphal books in his Vulgate translation, but he clearly considered them separate from the rest of Scripture as being non-canonical. Does my alleged conjecture about his reasons for doing so make ANY difference about that fact?

"It was not VASTLY held throughout Church history" - the historical evidence I had just given you strongly suggests otherwise. Either way, does it really make ANY difference to the point whether you agree it was "vast" or not? Would "strong majority" really make a difference to your position?

The writer of the article I provided came to the same conclusion: "While there were some who followed Augustine and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in accepting the Apocryphal books, the vast majority of theologians, bishops and cardinals throughout the Middle Ages followed Jerome." What is your historical evidence to the counter?

If there was any question I did not answer, I apologize. I intend to answer any and all questions you want answered. There is just so much material to go through, and it was easy to overlook. I need some clarification about your question, though - which canon? Which bible?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) You're using the same fallacious logic that RealityBites tried? Come on, man. Explain how the mere presence of those books among the Dead Sea Scrolls automatically means they were considered canon.

---

The Essenes thought them as part of the canon as demonstrated in the finding of them in the caves. These were the in the Septuagint. The Septuagint contains all 46 books of the OT.

---

HOW does their presence among the Dead Sea Scrolls necessarily indicate they were canon? You're merely repeating your assertion, you're not providing the reasoning. I'll save you time - you're making a logical fallacy.

The Dead Sea Scrolls also contained a list of community rules for the Essene sect. By your reasoning, are you saying this was considered canon as well?

Realitybites said:

---

It is correct to say that in the Roman Catholic church papal infallibility only extends to ex-cathedra statements.

Francis has promoted heresy (the blessing of gay marriages, his latest advocacy of perennialism when talking to schoolchildren). It will be interesting to see what happens to Roman Catholicism when he, or a successor of his, does make an ex-cathedra statement legitimizing such things.

Russell Moore will probably get around to defending the culinary choices of illegals from Haiti first though.

---

He did NOT allow the blessings of same-sex marriages. The Church CANNON bless sin.

The document did allow for a blessing of individuals. Those people could be in irregular marriages (i.e. second marriage) or legal same-sex so-called marriages. The union cannot be blessed. All people, including sinners, can request a blessing.

Unfortunately, some rogue priests and bishops have abused the document and have don't what they wanted to do.

Quite frankly, I believe the document was written too vaguely.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sorry, there is no reason to trust any living human as speaking for God.

---

The Church does NOT claim this. Once again, this is one of MANY false assumptions the Protestants have about the Church.

The Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.

That is it. No more - no less.

---

A couple of your recent editions indicate otherwise.

---

I'll be quite frank, I don't know what you mean by this. Forgive my ignorance.

I would appreciate if you provided specific examples to what your are trying to state so that I can better understand.

Thx!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jerome included the apocryphal books in his Vulgate translation, but he clearly considered them separate from the rest of Scripture as being non-canonical. Does my alleged conjecture about his reasons for doing so make ANY difference about that fact?

---

Yes, actually. He obeyed the Church and deferred to her wisdom. You said that it was done out of fear. The 73-book canon was not dogma at that point. He was allowed to have his opinion. He wisely chose to follow the Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"It was not VASTLY held throughout Church history" - the historical evidence I had just given you strongly suggests otherwise. Either way, does it really make ANY difference to the point whether you agree it was "vast" or not? Would "strong majority" really make a difference to your position?

---

You've sited a few individuals that didn't believe that they were canon, even thought the Church has always included them. If is was not VASTLY held, the multiple Councils would have never approved the true canon.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The writer of the article I provided came to the same conclusion: "While there were some who followed Augustine and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in accepting the Apocryphal books, the vast majority of theologians, bishops and cardinals throughout the Middle Ages followed Jerome." What is your historical evidence to the counter?

---

That quote, from a Protestant website, from William Webster, known for his anti-Catholic writings. Forgive me when I don't believe his "the vast majority of theologians, bishops and cardinals throughout the Middle Ages followed Jerome."
After doing some research I did learn that that "Melito was writing a book called The Extracts. The Extracts were a collection of defenses of the Christian faith against Jewish attacks trying to find common ground with Jewish believers to defend the Christian faith. So in order to find that common ground, Melito says that he went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done."
Why? Protestant scholar, Lee McDonald reaches the conclusion that Jews of his time did not have a uniform canon.
Glossa Ordinaria I could find no reference to this being a bible or a canon list. It appears to be a book on canon law.
Biblia Complutensia This was a polygot book (speaking in many languages). It had all three Greek, Hebrew, and the full Septuagint.
Latin bibles - Sanctes Pagnini This was another translation from the Hebrew. It doesn't surprise me that it didn't contain the Deuterocanon if it was a Hebrew translation.
Latin bibles - Johannes Petrius, 1527 I couldn't find anything on this with the exception of some excerpts that were written in German. I didn't see anything with this in Latin or it being a full bible. Having said that, color me surprised that a German translation, post-Protestant rebellion, didn't contain the Deuterocanon.

Summarizing these points, William Webster is NOT exactly an unbiased source concerning the Deuterocanon.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If there was any question I did not answer, I apologize. I intend to answer any and all questions you want answered. There is just so much material to go through, and it was easy to overlook. I need some clarification about your question, though - which canon? Which bible?

---

Let's start simple. How about the NT?

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sorry, there is no reason to trust any living human as speaking for God.

---

The Church does NOT claim this. Once again, this is one of MANY false assumptions the Protestants have about the Church.

The Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.

That is it. No more - no less.

---

What exactly does that mean. If he proclaims a doctrine of faith, you believe he cannot be wrong? This is a great error. Morals also. We are ALL accountable directly to God for what we believe and a Pope is not perfect. He can misinterpret Scripture and I assure you that he does. I would dare say that all Popes have disagreements in those areas you named, which proves that they are not error free. Someone is wrong. When we all stand before God, WE are accountable directly to God for what we believe and we should never trust the opinion of any man over what we know to be true from Scripture. That's how we need to face God, by what His Word says.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sorry, there is no reason to trust any living human as speaking for God.

---

The Church does NOT claim this. Once again, this is one of MANY false assumptions the Protestants have about the Church.

The Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.

That is it. No more - no less.

---

What exactly does that mean. If he proclaims a doctrine of faith, you believe he cannot be wrong? This is a great error. Morals also. We are ALL accountable directly to God for what we believe and a Pope is not perfect. He can misinterpret Scripture and I assure you that he does. I would dare say that all Popes have disagreements in those areas you named, which proves that they are not error free. Someone is wrong. When we all stand before God, WE are accountable directly to God for what we believe and we should never trust the opinion of any man over what we know to be true from Scripture. That's how we need to face God, by what His Word says.

---

He is only infallible when teaching "Ex Cathedra" - from the Chair. It protects him from preaching heresy. For instance, he could never proclaim doctrine like a 4th person of the Trinity or that Jesus sinned.

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sorry, there is no reason to trust any living human as speaking for God.

---

The Church does NOT claim this. Once again, this is one of MANY false assumptions the Protestants have about the Church.

The Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.

That is it. No more - no less.

---

What exactly does that mean. If he proclaims a doctrine of faith, you believe he cannot be wrong? This is a great error. Morals also. We are ALL accountable directly to God for what we believe and a Pope is not perfect. He can misinterpret Scripture and I assure you that he does. I would dare say that all Popes have disagreements in those areas you named, which proves that they are not error free. Someone is wrong. When we all stand before God, WE are accountable directly to God for what we believe and we should never trust the opinion of any man over what we know to be true from Scripture. That's how we need to face God, by what His Word says.

---

He is only infallible when teaching "Ex Cathedra" - from the Chair. It protects him from preaching heresy. For instance, he could never proclaim doctrine like a 4th person of the Trinity or that Jesus sinned.

---

Coke Bear, I don't think you see the obvious problem with that claim, that a Pope is 'preserved from error' when he speaks AS pope.

You either ARE or ARE NOT perfect in your statements and claims. Going back to the Old Testament, for example, there was no qualifier about whether a professed prophet was 'speaking in his office' when making a prophecy. He was either right or wrong, and the standard was complete accuracy.

The Pope must not be held to a lesser standard.

If someone claims to speak for Christ, there is no 'off' switch when he/she is just a normal person with imperfect knowledge, that sitting in a certain place or in a certain role somehow makes them perfect.

Tremendous harm has been done by both Protestant Ministers and Catholic Popes who taught false doctrines.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jerome included the apocryphal books in his Vulgate translation, but he clearly considered them separate from the rest of Scripture as being non-canonical. Does my alleged conjecture about his reasons for doing so make ANY difference about that fact?

---

Yes, actually. He obeyed the Church and deferred to her wisdom. You said that it was done out of fear. The 73-book canon was not dogma at that point. He was allowed to have his opinion. He wisely chose to follow the Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"It was not VASTLY held throughout Church history" - the historical evidence I had just given you strongly suggests otherwise. Either way, does it really make ANY difference to the point whether you agree it was "vast" or not? Would "strong majority" really make a difference to your position?

---

You've sited a few individuals that didn't believe that they were canon, even thought the Church has always included them. If is was not VASTLY held, the multiple Councils would have never approved the true canon.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The writer of the article I provided came to the same conclusion: "While there were some who followed Augustine and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in accepting the Apocryphal books, the vast majority of theologians, bishops and cardinals throughout the Middle Ages followed Jerome." What is your historical evidence to the counter?

---

That quote, from a Protestant website, from William Webster, known for his anti-Catholic writings. Forgive me when I don't believe his "the vast majority of theologians, bishops and cardinals throughout the Middle Ages followed Jerome."
After doing some research I did learn that that "Melito was writing a book called The Extracts. The Extracts were a collection of defenses of the Christian faith against Jewish attacks trying to find common ground with Jewish believers to defend the Christian faith. So in order to find that common ground, Melito says that he went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done."
Why? Protestant scholar, Lee McDonald reaches the conclusion that Jews of his time did not have a uniform canon.
Glossa Ordinaria I could find no reference to this being a bible or a canon list. It appears to be a book on canon law.
Biblia Complutensia This was a polygot book (speaking in many languages). It had all three Greek, Hebrew, and the full Septuagint.
Latin bibles - Sanctes Pagnini This was another translation from the Hebrew. It doesn't surprise me that it didn't contain the Deuterocanon if it was a Hebrew translation.
Latin bibles - Johannes Petrius, 1527 I couldn't find anything on this with the exception of some excerpts that were written in German. I didn't see anything with this in Latin or it being a full bible. Having said that, color me surprised that a German translation, post-Protestant rebellion, didn't contain the Deuterocanon.

Summarizing these points, William Webster is NOT exactly an unbiased source concerning the Deuterocanon.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If there was any question I did not answer, I apologize. I intend to answer any and all questions you want answered. There is just so much material to go through, and it was easy to overlook. I need some clarification about your question, though - which canon? Which bible?

---

Let's start simple. How about the NT?

---

- Jerome only obeyed the Church to include the Apocrypha in his translation, NOT to include them in canon. My "conjecture" about his reasons why he deferred to the Church to include them does NOTHING to change the fact that he never thought them to be canon, and as we see clearly from church history thereafter all the way to the Reformation, his view was, yes, vastly shared. I'm giving historical facts. You are only giving opinion.

- Multiple councils approved different canons. You need to learn church history. Your catholic bible was never formally dogmatized until Trent in the 1500's. As I've clearly shown from church history, there was never agreement regarding the Apocrypha by the Church until then. In fact, as I've shown, the canon from Trent was actually the minority view amongst all major scholars and theologians during the Middles Ages.

- Cite Lee McDonald's reasoning for why he believed the Jews didn't have a uniform canon. Does he explain it?

- The Glossa Ordinaria was not a canon list, it was THE standard text on biblical commentaries used to train all theologians of the time. If the Apocrypha was always part of the Bible as you've claimed, then why did the major reference work of the time say that it wasn't?

- yes, the Biblia Complutensia included the full Septuagint..... and explicitly said that the major books of the Apocrypha found in the Septuagint WERE NOT CANON. Focus, man, focus.

- the Latin bibles cited that the Apocrypha were not canon. If you're going to blame this on the fact that they were Hebrew translations, then go ahead and disown your own official Latin bible of the Roman Catholic Church - the Vulgate. Because it's a Hebrew translation too.

- what historical facts did William Webster get wrong?

- who gave us the NT? As I said earlier, it was God who gave it to us. His people, His church, recognized it as his word and received it.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Popes were and are a bad idea.

---

Talk to Jesus about it. He instituted it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Power corrupts

---

I wish that the Catholic Church was free from corrupt people like all the Protestant churches are. (smh)

---

The current Pope is easily the worst in my lifetime.

Happy Sunday All!

KaiBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Popes were and are a bad idea.

---

Talk to Jesus about it. He instituted it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Power corrupts

---

I wish that the Catholic Church was free from corrupt people like all the Protestant churches are. (smh)

---

The current Pope is easily the worst in my lifetime.

---

i agree. He is very Liberal and anti Biblical.

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sorry, there is no reason to trust any living human as speaking for God.

---

The Church does NOT claim this. Once again, this is one of MANY false assumptions the Protestants have about the Church.

The Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.

That is it. No more - no less.

---

What exactly does that mean. If he proclaims a doctrine of faith, you believe he cannot be wrong? This is a great error. Morals also. We are ALL accountable directly to God for what we believe and a Pope is not perfect. He can misinterpret Scripture and I assure you that he does. I would dare say that all Popes have disagreements in those areas you named, which proves that they are not error free. Someone is wrong. When we all stand before God, WE are accountable directly to God for what we believe and we should never trust the opinion of any man over what we know to be true from Scripture. That's how we need to face God, by what His Word says.

---

He is only infallible when teaching "Ex Cathedra" - from the Chair. It protects him from preaching heresy. For instance, he could never proclaim doctrine like a 4th person of the Trinity or that Jesus sinned.

---

Where does the Bible, Jesus or the Apostles this claim about that position?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Where does the Bible, Jesus or the Apostles this claim about that position?

---

They do not ever make such a claim. The church fathers do not make such a claim. The mutual excommunications that terminated the relationship of the Latin church with the rest of Christendom and launched what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 AD testify against it.

The doctrine of papal infallibility was adopted at the First Vatican Council of 1869-1870 in the document Pastor Aeternus.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Where does the Bible, Jesus or the Apostles this claim about that position?

---

They do not ever make such a claim. The church fathers do not make such a claim. The mutual excommunications that terminated the relationship of the Latin church with the rest of Christendom and launched what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 AD testify against it.

The doctrine of papal infallibility was adopted at the First Vatican Council of 1869-1870 in the document Pastor Aeternus.

---

Well there you go. It's all fake and should not be believed. The Bible is the infallible Word of God.

Pray for America. We are in deep trouble as a nation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Jerome only obeyed the Church to include the Apocrypha in his translation, NOT to include them in HIS canon. My "conjecture" about his reasons why he deferred to the Church to include them does NOTHING to change the fact that he never thought them to be canon, and as we see clearly from church history thereafter all the way to the Reformation, his view was, yes, vastly shared. I'm giving historical facts. You are only giving opinion.

---

FIFY.

Did he include the deuterocanon in the bible? Yes! The same canon was affirmed in several councils.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Multiple councils approved different canons. You need to learn church history. Your catholic bible was never formally dogmatized until Trent in the 1500's. As I've clearly shown from church history, there was never agreement regarding the Apocrypha by the Church until then. In fact, as I've shown, the canon from Trent was actually the minority view amongst all major scholars and theologians during the Middles Ages.

---

You have unwittingly my my case in your point. Councils are only called when the Church needs to refute heresy of clarify a particular doctrine. When Luther moved the deuterocanon and tried to remove NT books and amend Ephesians, the Church called the Council of Trent, (Probably later than it should have been called) to officially dogmatize the true canon and properly correct and end some abused that were happening in the Church at that time.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Cite Lee McDonald's reasoning for why he believed the Jews didn't have a uniform canon. Does he explain it?

---

I'll have to do more research as to why he stated that other than it's factual. The Sadducess, Pharisees, and Essenes (and others) had different canons.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- The Glossa Ordinaria was not a canon list, it was THE standard text on biblical commentaries used to train all theologians of the time. If the Apocrypha was always part of the Bible as you've claimed, then why did the major reference work of the time say that it wasn't?

- yes, the Biblia Complutensia included the full Septuagint..... and explicitly said that the major books of the Apocrypha found in the Septuagint WERE NOT CANON. Focus, man, focus.

- the Latin bibles cited that the Apocrypha were not canon. If you're going to blame this on the fact that they were Hebrew translations, then go ahead and disown your own official Latin bible of the Roman Catholic Church - the Vulgate. Because it's a Hebrew translation too.

---

Please allow me more time to do more research on this. As far as I've found, my Google sources show the Biblia Complutensia containing the entire Septuagint. I can find no reference stating that it did not consider the deuterocanon as canon.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- what historical facts did William Webster get wrong?

---

The whole "vast majority" phrase. This is completely false and full of his anti-Cathlolic spin. It it were true, then the Council would have never affirmed them or they would have outright denied them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- who gave us the NT? As I said earlier, it was God who gave it to us. His people, His church, recognized it as his word and received it.

---

Who complied the 27 books and when? How do we know that these are the correct books?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear, I don't think you see the obvious problem with that claim, that a Pope is 'preserved from error' when he speaks AS pope.

You either ARE or ARE NOT perfect in your statements and claims. Going back to the Old Testament, for example, there was no qualifier about whether a professed prophet was 'speaking in his office' when making a prophecy. He was either right or wrong, and the standard was complete accuracy.

The Pope must not be held to a lesser standard.

If someone claims to speak for Christ, there is no 'off' switch when he/she is just a normal person with imperfect knowledge, that sitting in a certain place or in a certain role somehow makes them perfect..

---

I am doing a poor job explaining papal infallibility. The Pope is NOT impeccable in all his speaking. No human person is that. Papal infallibility, though through the Holy Spirit protects him from teaching error.

Peter was the made the leader of the Church in Matt 16:18 and affirmed in Luke 22:32 (I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail). He promises the Church in John 16:13 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth." The Holy Spirit is there to protect them from teaching error.

Here is an article and a few individuals that can better explain.

[url=http://]https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-
This one is by Scott Hahn who was a shinning start in the Protestant world in the early to mid '80's. He was on the fast tract in Presbyterian world when he was challenged one day in class by one of his students. He blew off his question, but it lead him to study deeper to only discover that the Catholic Church was the true chruch. (Try reading Rome Sweet Home.) infallibilityhttps://www.catholic.com/video/scott-hahn-explains-papal-infallibility[/url]
https://www.catholic.com/video/infallibility-of-the-pope

Oldbear83 said:

---

Tremendous harm has been done by both Protestant Ministers and Catholic Popes who taught false doctrines.

---

Please explain to me which Pope has taught false doctrine.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Where does the Bible, Jesus or the Apostles this claim about that position?

---

They do not ever make such a claim. The church fathers do not make such a claim. The mutual excommunications that terminated the relationship of the Latin church with the rest of Christendom and launched what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 AD testify against it.

The doctrine of papal infallibility was adopted at the First Vatican Council of 1869-1870 in the document Pastor Aeternus.

---

Once again, it was formally dogmatized in 1870, but it can be traced back to Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, in his work "Against Heresies" between 175-185 AD, Saint Cyprian of Carthage, in *The Unity of the Catholic Church" in the 3rd Century, and Saint Augustine of Hippo in the 4th Century.

I know you don't care for the papacy, but there are only about 5-6 points that separate us. Some of those points are simply understanding the I'm not sure why you attack our position.