|
Post by Jay on Jan 13, 2015 23:45:57 GMT
It is true we don't know if the Bible of the 1st 3 centuries contained the deuterocanonical books because we don't have a copy of it from this period. What this means no one can claim that the early church had the deuterocanonicals in their bibles.
I know we don't have the originals of the Scripture nor of any ancient works either.
I have asked this before--where has your church infallibly interpreted all the Scriptures? Where can this work be found? Without this work, you cannot claim to "know authoritatively who understands Scripture correctly and must resort to mere opinion." For example, can you tell me the authoritative interpretation by your church for Romans 8:1? If so, where can i find it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 14:40:25 GMT
Jay,
You said
Let me turn this back around to you and say since we don't have any copies of the Bible from the 1st century, we do not know they contained the book of Esther, since this book was also in dispute in the early Church. Do you see how your argument works against you?
You said:
This demonstrates a poor understanding of Catholicism. The Church usually defines doctrines in general, and then we apply these teachings to the Scritpures. So, since the Church has definitively defined that Jesus is fully God, the Church doesn't have to define Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. 'No one is good--except God alone' " in order to know that Jesus was not denying that He is God by refering to God as a person other than Himself in this passage.
For this reason, Catholics can know the authoritative understanding of the magisterium on Scripture when it comes to matters of faith and morals without the magisterium defining every single verse in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 16:21:01 GMT
Your speculative example does not apply to the "we don't know if the Bible of the 1st 3 centuries contained the deuterocanonical books because we don't have a copy of it from this period. What this means no one can claim that the early church had the deuterocanonicals in their bibles." If we don't have a complete copy of the Bible in the first 3 centuries then we can't say that the deuterocanonicals were in them. We already have a strong case against the deuterocanonicals being considered inspired-inerrant Scripture.
I addressed your last comment elsewhere. Your answer shows that you cannot tell me what the correct interpretation of a given verse or passage is correct or not because your church has not told you. You are in the same boat as Protestants.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 16:47:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 17:11:27 GMT
Did the Jews believe that Esther was Scripture?
I agree Protestants don't have a magisterium but that doesn't mean we can't know what the Scripture means. Having a magisterium does not help a RC in having an infallible interpretation of Scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 17:30:54 GMT
Jay,
You ask
The Jews disputed Esther even until the fourth century A.D. It was disputed in the Talmud in Tractate Megillah, 7a.
Even Protestant Scholars recognize that Esther was questionable in the early centuries, as F.F. Bruce says:
Some of the Fathers also disputed Esther:
|
|