If Peter was the leader of the church, why did Paul rebuke him? - Page 4

Faithful Ag

Joined: Jul 27, 2015

Posts: 890

User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

8:03p, 7/15/23

Faithful Ag

Joined: Jul 27, 2015

Posts: 890

User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to AgLiving06 • 8:17p, 7/15/23

AgLiving06 said:

Here's the thing. This entire discussion started because Thaddeus made a false claim. I copied his exact claim and then he changed it to another false claim. Then you stepped in with another attempt to change the claim.

Here's the thing. When I entered this thread (before Thaddeus) it was to engage with M1 about what he considers to be scripture (a question he has repeatedly dodged in other threads and again here). He, like many Sola-Scriptura Protestants, cannot and will not provide the definitive answer to what is scripture. Instead M1 called me and other Catholics pigs.

ALL of this happened BEFORE Thaddeus entered the thread. My question has always remained consistent and no Protestant has provided an answer to it. Not one. You took offense because Thaddeus invoked the name of your precious Luther, and you felt the need to defend Luther. But my question and discussion has always remained on the topic of WHAT IS SCRIPTURE. You are the one that is attempting to make the focus on Luther, and the specific claims about his treatment of Scripture.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

Faithful Ag said:
I would suggest to you that the confusion in what Luther may or may not have done comes from Luther and the Protestant view, not from me or Thaddeus.

No. I provided fact. That's the difference. Even Thaddeus admitted it when he changed his argument from "Luther had 66 books, to "he moved the books as step 1 to removing them." That is a material change in the argument from one that claims the books are not there, to claiming they are there.
Faithful Ag said:
I think the actual disclaimer Luther included immediately before the newly created "Apocryphal Section" was:

"Apocrypha: These books are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading."

Luther plucked the 7 Deuterocanonical Books out of their traditional OT places and compiled them together in a new section between the OT and NT. He moved them. He added his disclaimer. This is fact.

Quote:
Quote:
Faithful Ag said:
So the books are still printed in a new section, but are no longer to be treated as Scripture so they don't count anymore reducing the number of books to 66, and have since been removed completely.
AgLiving06 said:
That they were removed is not due to Luther, which was the entire point from the start. That they were moved does not correlate to them being removed. Lutherans can and do still see usefulness in the Apocrypha, but only when understood in their rightful historical place.

Respectfully, that was YOUR point. My point has always been the issue that the books were in fact removed from the Bible and NOBODY cares by who, when, or by what authority these decisions were made!

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

Your accusation is around who has the authority to change the order of divine revelation. My point is that you can't actually point to anything divine or even with authority that set the Scripture in a divine order. So your claim itself doesn't hold.

Faithful Ag said:
The books were there. Now they are gone.
WHO DECIDED?
WHEN?

AgLiving06 said:
I don't know. Maybe you should research it and let us all know? It's not my area of study. If I had to guess it was probably Calvin or Zwengli who always accused Luther of not going far enough, but that's just a guess.

What is Scripture is NOT something we should be GUESSING about. That's my point!

The history is actually pretty clear:
+ The Scriptures included the 7 Books of the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha

+ In the early 1500's Luther moved them to a new section with the disclaimer that they are not equal to Scripture

+ In response, the Council of Trent was called and the Church affirmed them as Scripture in line with what the Church had held prior to Luther and the Reformers

+ Over the next 250 years these books continued to be printed in Bibles including the Original KJV, and other Protestant translations but always in their new section between the OT and NT where Luther had relegated them along with his disclaimer.

+ In the mid-late 1800's the Bible societies worked to have these books completely removed from Bibles (finally) for doctrinal reasons. Protestants did not put up much resistance at that point because after 250 years of being in their new place with the "Apocryphal warning"' and disclaimer they were no longer viewed by most as Scripture anyway.

+ Nobody knows who was responsible, who made the decision, when the decision was made, exactly why they decided to remove them, or by what authority they claimed to have in order to make such decisions.

+ To you and for most Protestants this issue is something they have not personally studied, given much thought, and don't seem to care that much about. But when you, m1, or others attack and/or make characterizations about Catholics and our faith, and throw Bible verses at us along with your interpretation to support your attacks - THIS issue is what it will always comes back to fundamentally. The Protestant authority is their altered and incomplete Bible alone. The Catholic authority is the Church and the Bible that comes to us through her Sacred Traditions. The question(s) a Protestant needs to ask and be able to answer are theses:
The Books were there. Now they are gone.
WHO removed them?
WHEN?
By WHAT AUTHORITY?

Today most Protestants hold a "Sola-Scriptura" position. These same Protestants are opposed to Sacred Tradition as being authoritative, but at the same time they fail to see that the Bible they profess to be the only infallible source has seen major changes in only the past couple hundred years. When the Declaration of Independence was signed these books were still included in the Bible (even if they were relegated to a new section).

This fact should be alarming for any Protestant, and something all Bible-Alone believers should be able to answer.

AgLiving06 said:

Lets start with facts.

First, we know that even within the Jewish community the Apocrypha was disputed. So straight away, we know that the Jews themselves didn't always include it. So you have a problem here.

The varying factions of Jews and their views on what is scripture is not the key issue. Jesus and his Apostles referenced and quoted from these books as Scripture, the early church used these books, and the Bible contained these books when Luther translated his Bible and so the problem is not mine.

Quote:
Second, the best you can do for dating a potential canon would be to point to Jerome and the Vulgate. But that would be a Western Bible and not an Eastern or universal Bible. So you have a problem here too.

The Scriptures included these books before Jerome translated the Vulgate, after, and when Luther did his translation. They were there. Now they are gone. Again, the problem is not mine.

Quote:
Third, your argument is that by reordering the Scriptures, but not removing anything, Luther somehow materially changed the Word of God. You've not shown evidence for this. The Apocrypha was known for centuries, so not a valid argument. This is another problem for you.

By what authority did Luther reorder Scripture? He added the declaration that the Apocryphal books are not equal to Scripture. By what authority? The "apocrypha" was never before seen as a collection of writings until Luther grouped them together. There were additional writings considered apocryphal that were/are not included as Scripture. Where did Luther derive his authority?

Quote:
Fourth, Noone had to follow Luther's version. Rome doesn't and the EOdox don't. You need to prove this is a problem.

Neither the EO or the RCC adhere to a "Sola-Scriptura" theology, and our faith and beliefs include what has been handed down to us through Sacred Tradition (which includes the Holy Scriptures). We reject the idea that the Bible Alone is our infallible authority. The problem Protestants have is that they hold a Bible-Alone, Sola Scriptura theology but they cannot provide a defense for the questions I am asking about what constitutes Holy Scripture.

Quote:
Fifth, and maybe most important, for Rome it always comes down to authority and that's always been problematic. Either in this thread or another, we talked about Sola Scriptura vs alternatives, and I made a claim that the problem with Scripture + "XYZ" is that "XYZ" becomes the actual norming source and that's no different here. You're conditioned to look for a source superior to Scripture to define it for you, ala the Pope. So it's not really a surprise for you to demand an authority. But you need to prove actual harm by what Luther did, and appealing to "someone who did something is causation without correlation. Luther's Bible retained all of the books. Prove the harm done?

"XYZ" = INTERPRETATION

Sola Scriptura cannot exist on its own.

The "XYZ" you are adding to Scripture is "Interpretation" because it is the meaning of Scripture that matters. In order for the Bible to remain infallible or without error you must know with absolute certainty that:
1. You must have the correct books/writings included in your Scriptures with nothing extra and nothing missing. You cannot be wrong on WHAT IS SCRIPTURE and be right on it being the sole, infallible rule of faith.
2. You must then have the correct interpretation of the Scriptures because the wrong interpretation renders the infallible words fallible. How do we know who has the right interpretation and where does the authority to interpret ultimately rest?

So the problem of Scripture + "XYZ" is not problematic for Catholics because we are not Bible Alone and we have the Church to discern what the Scriptures are and what they mean. The XYZ problem for Protestants is fundamental because you rely on Sacred Tradition to receive what is Scripture, then you reject parts of what was received, and then you want to only use what you decided to keep AND make that the sole rule of faith - which still relies on the XYZ of your interpretation of what you decided to keep.

The proof in the harm done is obvious:
The books were there.
Now the books are gone.

(I moved this post here because I accidentally posted a blank post and wanted to make sure this wasn't missed on the new page)

4

4 edits

AgLiving06

Joined: Nov 29, 2015

Posts: 5,415

User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Faithful Ag • 5:16p, 7/17/23

Quote:
Here's the thing. When I entered this thread (before Thaddeus) it was to engage with M1 about what he considers to be scripture (a question he has repeatedly dodged in other threads and again here). He, like many Sola-Scriptura Protestants, cannot and will not provide the definitive answer to what is scripture. Instead M1 called me and other Catholics pigs.

ALL of this happened BEFORE Thaddeus entered the thread. My question has always remained consistent and no Protestant has provided an answer to it. Not one. You took offense because Thaddeus invoked the name of your precious Luther, and you felt the need to defend Luther. But my question and discussion has always remained on the topic of WHAT IS SCRIPTURE. You are the one that is attempting to make the focus on Luther, and the specific claims about his treatment of Scripture.

If this was true, why did you insert yourself into a discussion between Thaddeus and me? You didn't have to, but you jumped in to try and defend him. This entire conversation could have ended with a simple admission that he was wrong in his understanding, but instead you've gone on for pages try to avoid the simple truth.

And this has little to do with Luther specifically. I can readily admit the man had his flaws. What I do have a problem with is someone, who should know better, making incorrect statements. The first step to healing the Church is to acknowledge the history and figure out how to move forward. If some can't even be honest about that, then there's really no hope.

Quote:
Luther plucked the 7 Deuterocanonical Books out of their traditional OT places and compiled them together in a new section between the OT and NT. He moved them. He added his disclaimer. This is fact.

And? It was historically accurate. This actually wouldn't have been particularly disputed until Trent.

Quote:
Respectfully, that was YOUR point. My point has always been the issue that the books were in fact removed from the Bible and NOBODY cares by who, when, or by what authority these decisions were made!

Again, you've inserted yourself into a conversation and demanded I respond to your third party claims that aren't part of the primary discussion.

Quote:
What is Scripture is NOT something we should be GUESSING about. That's my point!

The history is actually pretty clear:
+ The Scriptures included the 7 Books of the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha

First, you're continuing to make a point that isn't relevant to me, especially in this particular debate. Or maybe said differently, it's as relevant to me as it is to you, so I have to ask why you haven't done the research? You seem to demand I defend a position I don't hold and that's not something I'm interested in doing. I have my suspicions as I pointed out.

Second, Deuterocanonical books as canon themselves is not historical fact, but only true for Rome at the time of Trent. Their history is decidedly mixed.

From J.N.D Kelly - Early Christian Doctrines:

"It was in the fourth century, particularly where the scholarly standards of Alexandrian Christianity were influential, that these doubts began to make their mark officially. The view which now commended itself fairly generally in the Eastern church, as represented by Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem,10 Gregory of Nazianzus and Epiphanius,12 was that the deuterocanonical books should be relegated to a subordinate position outside the canon proper. Cyril was quite uncompromising; books not in the public canon were not to be studied even in private. Athanasius displayed greater flexibility, ruling2 that they might be used by catechumens for the purpose of instruction. Yet it should be noted (a) that no such scruples seem to have troubled adherents of the Antiochene School, such as John Chrysostom and Theodoret; and (b) that even those Eastern writers who took a strict line with the canon when it was formally under discussion were profuse in their citations from the Apocrypha on other occasions. This official reserve, however, persisted for long in the East. As late as the eighth century we find John Damascene maintaining the Hebrew canon of twenty-two books and excluding Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, although he was ready to acknowledge their admirable qualities.

The West, as a whole, was inclined to form a much more favourable estimate of the Apocrypha. Churchmen with Eastern contacts, as was to be expected, might be disposed to push them into the background. Thus Hilary, though in fact citing all of them as inspired, preferred to identify the Old Testament proper with the twenty-two books (as he reckoned them) extant in the Hebrew; while Rufinus described5 Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith and 1 and 2 Maccabees as 'not canonical, but ecclesiastical', i.e. to be read by Christians but not adduced as authoritative for doctrine. Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was 'to be classed among the apocrypha', not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine. For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament, to which, breaking away once for all from the ancient Hebrew enumeration, he attributed forty-four books. The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I despatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405."

So, sure I can agree that the "history is clear" in the sense that these books were not consistently seen as canonical or on par with canon for many centuries.

Quote:
+ To you and for most Protestants this issue is something they have not personally studied, given much thought, and don't seem to care that much about. But when you, m1, or others attack and/or make characterizations about Catholics and our faith, and throw Bible verses at us along with your interpretation to support your attacks - THIS issue is what it will always comes back to fundamentally. The Protestant authority is their altered and incomplete Bible alone. The Catholic authority is the Church and the Bible that comes to us through her Sacred Traditions. The question(s) a Protestant needs to ask and be able to answer are theses:

The Books were there. Now they are gone.
WHO removed them?
WHEN?
By WHAT AUTHORITY?

I don't claim to speak for all of Protestantism, nor do I want to. My desire has been to find and be part of the best representation of the historic church. I believe that has been found with the Lutheran Church who reformed the western church to remove the excess and false doctrine that had crept into the Church.

So, as I said previously, you have just as much incentive to look at answering those questions as I do....so I look forward to your report out on it.

Quote:
The varying factions of Jews and their views on what is scripture is not the key issue. Jesus and his Apostles referenced and quoted from these books as Scripture, the early church used these books, and the Bible contained these books when Luther translated his Bible and so the problem is not mine.

Already dealt with this.

Quote:
The Scriptures included these books before Jerome translated the Vulgate, after, and when Luther did his translation. They were there. Now they are gone. Again, the problem is not mine.

This is false as I've already shown.

Quote:
By what authority did Luther reorder Scripture? He added the declaration that the Apocryphal books are not equal to Scripture. By what authority? The "apocrypha" was never before seen as a collection of writings until Luther grouped them together. There were additional writings considered apocryphal that were/are not included as Scripture. Where did Luther derive his authority?

1. Nobody had to follow him.
2. He had every right to declare what was been the historical position of the Church.
3. Luther wouldn't have included other books because, once again, he followed the historical church.

Quote:
Neither the EO or the RCC adhere to a "Sola-Scriptura" theology, and our faith and beliefs include what has been handed down to us through Sacred Tradition (which includes the Holy Scriptures). We reject the idea that the Bible Alone is our infallible authority. The problem Protestants have is that they hold a Bible-Alone, Sola Scriptura theology but they cannot provide a defense for the questions I am asking about what constitutes Holy Scripture.

Tangent that's not relevant. Sola Scriptura isn't what was being discussed.

Quote:
The proof in the harm done is obvious:
The books were there.
Now the books are gone.

Not for Lutherans. They are around with the same historical importance as found within the early church.

Faithful Ag

Joined: Jul 27, 2015

Posts: 890

User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to AgLiving06 • 8:50p, 7/17/23

Respectfully, you need to go back and read through this thread again because your version of events is inaccurate.

AgLiving06 said:
Faithful Ag said:
Here's the thing. When I entered this thread (before Thaddeus) it was to engage with M1 about what he considers to be scripture (a question he has repeatedly dodged in other threads and again here). He, like many Sola-Scriptura Protestants, cannot and will not provide the definitive answer to what is scripture. Instead M1 called me and other Catholics pigs.

ALL of this happened BEFORE Thaddeus entered the thread. My question has always remained consistent and no Protestant has provided an answer to it. Not one. You took offense because Thaddeus invoked the name of your precious Luther, and you felt the need to defend Luther. But my question and discussion has always remained on the topic of WHAT IS SCRIPTURE. You are the one that is attempting to make the focus on Luther, and the specific claims about his treatment of Scripture.
If this was true, why did you insert yourself into a discussion between Thaddeus and me? You didn't have to, but you jumped in to try and defend him. This entire conversation could have ended with a simple admission that he was wrong in his understanding, but instead you've gone on for pages try to avoid the simple truth.

You're wrong again. Go back and read the thread. Thaddeus inserted himself into a discussion between YOU and ME. On page 2 you engaged with me several times about my question to M1 on what constitutes Scripture. I responded to you and was engaging you. So if anything you allowed Thaddeus to derail our conversation when he chimed in on page 3 and you went full tilt defending Luther. Prior to all of that I never once brought up Luther. Thaddeus invoked Luther and you went on the attack/defense (both).

AgLiving06 said:
Faithful Ag said:
Luther plucked the 7 Deuterocanonical Books out of their traditional OT places and compiled them together in a new section between the OT and NT. He moved them. He added his disclaimer. This is fact.
And? It was historically accurate. This actually wouldn't have been particularly disputed until Trent.

Please be specific. What was historically accurate?

AgLiving06 said:
Faithful Ag said:

Respectfully, that was YOUR point. My point has always been the issue that the books were in fact removed from the Bible and NOBODY cares by who, when, or by what authority these decisions were made!
Again, you've inserted yourself into a conversation and demanded I respond to your third party claims that aren't part of the primary discussion.

Again, go back and read the thread. You and I were having a conversation and you apparently dropped OUR conversation to focus exclusively on Thad's Luther quip. I did not insert myself into anything. Thad was the one that was late to the party (still praying for your son, Thad). Not me. My point WAS the primary discussion.

AgLiving06 said:
Faithful Ag said:

What is Scripture is NOT something we should be GUESSING about. That's my point!

The history is actually pretty clear:
+ The Scriptures included the 7 Books of the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha
First, you're continuing to make a point that isn't relevant to me, especially in this particular debate. Or maybe said differently, it's as relevant to me as it is to you, so I have to ask why you haven't done the research? You seem to demand I defend a position I don't hold and that's not something I'm interested in doing. I have my suspicions as I pointed out.

The specific question I was asking when YOU ENGAGED ME was What exactly is Scripture? What books are considered to be in Inspired Word of God? Nothing extra & nothing missing.
OT= ??
NT= ??
OT+NT=??

Do you accept or reject the "Apocrypha" as Scripture?

AgLiving06 said:
Second, Deuterocanonical books as canon themselves is not historical fact, but only true for Rome at the time of Trent. Their history is decidedly mixed.

From J.N.D Kelly - Early Christian Doctrines:

The West, as a whole, was inclined to form a much more favourable estimate of the Apocrypha. Churchmen with Eastern contacts, as was to be expected, might be disposed to push them into the background. Thus Hilary, though in fact citing all of them as inspired, preferred to identify the Old Testament proper with the twenty-two books (as he reckoned them) extant in the Hebrew; while Rufinus described5 Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith and 1 and 2 Maccabees as 'not canonical, but ecclesiastical', i.e. to be read by Christians but not adduced as authoritative for doctrine. Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was 'to be classed among the apocrypha', not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine. For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. Augustine, for example, whose influence in the West was decisive, made no distinction between them and the rest of the Old Testament, to which, breaking away once for all from the ancient Hebrew enumeration, he attributed forty-four books. The same inclusive attitude to the Apocrypha was authoritatively displayed at the synods of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively, and also in the famous letter which Pope Innocent I despatched to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, in 405."

So, sure I can agree that the "history is clear" in the sense that these books were not consistently seen as canonical or on par with canon for many centuries.

Okay. So we can rehash the dialog of the early Church about these books, but at the SAME TIME the Church discerned the 27 books of the NT they also included these OT books as Scripture (Carthage & Hippo). Closely followed by the Vulgate which also included them. Thank you for proving my point:

The Books were there. Now they are gone.
WHO removed them?
WHEN?
By WHAT AUTHORITY?

AgLiving06 said:
Faithful Ag said:

+ To you and for most Protestants this issue is something they have not personally studied, given much thought, and don't seem to care that much about. But when you, m1, or others attack and/or make characterizations about Catholics and our faith, and throw Bible verses at us along with your interpretation to support your attacks - THIS issue is what it will always comes back to fundamentally. The Protestant authority is their altered and incomplete Bible alone. The Catholic authority is the Church and the Bible that comes to us through her Sacred Traditions. The question(s) a Protestant needs to ask and be able to answer are theses:

The Books were there. Now they are gone.
WHO removed them?
WHEN?
By WHAT AUTHORITY?
I don't claim to speak for all of Protestantism, nor do I want to. My desire has been to find and be part of the best representation of the historic church. I believe that has been found with the Lutheran Church who reformed the western church to remove the excess and false doctrine that had crept into the Church.

So, as I said previously, you have just as much incentive to look at answering those questions as I do....so I look forward to your report out on it.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here - but where do you stand on these books? Do you accept them or reject them as Scripture? You have not made your position clear.

AgLiving06 said:
Faithful Ag said:

The Scriptures included these books before Jerome translated the Vulgate, after, and when Luther did his translation. They were there. Now they are gone. Again, the problem is not mine.

This is false as I've already shown.

Okay, so there might have been debate prior Hippo & Carthage but both affirmed them as Scripture, and Jerome accepted the decision of the Church and translated these books in the Vulgate shortly thereafter. The books were there for the next millennium and a half (nearly).

AgLiving06 said:
Faithful Ag said:

By what authority did Luther reorder Scripture? He added the declaration that the Apocryphal books are not equal to Scripture. By what authority? The "apocrypha" was never before seen as a collection of writings until Luther grouped them together. There were additional writings considered apocryphal that were/are not included as Scripture. Where did Luther derive his authority?

1. Nobody had to follow him.
2. He had every right to declare what was been the historical position of the Church.
3. Luther wouldn't have included other books because, once again, he followed the historical church.

You are not answering the question, and you have not shown or provided any support for this elusive "historical position of the Church"?

AgLiving06 said:
Faithful Ag said:
Neither the EO or the RCC adhere to a "Sola-Scriptura" theology, and our faith and beliefs include what has been handed down to us through Sacred Tradition (which includes the Holy Scriptures). We reject the idea that the Bible Alone is our infallible authority. The problem Protestants have is that they hold a Bible-Alone, Sola Scriptura theology but they cannot provide a defense for the questions I am asking about what constitutes Holy Scripture.
Tangent that's not relevant. Sola Scriptura isn't what was being discussed.

I absolutely disagree. The thread was about denying Peter as the leader of the Apostles and the Church, with proper authority being the underlying question. The difficulty Protestant's have is clearly defining and support what is Scripture.

1

2 edits

AgLiving06

Joined: Nov 29, 2015

Posts: 5,415

User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to Faithful Ag • 4:27p, 7/18/23

Quote:
You're wrong again. Go back and read the thread. Thaddeus inserted himself into a discussion between YOU and ME. On page 2 you engaged with me several times about my question to M1 on what constitutes Scripture. I responded to you and was engaging you. So if anything you allowed Thaddeus to derail our conversation when he chimed in on page 3 and you went full tilt defending Luther. Prior to all of that I never once brought up Luther. Thaddeus invoked Luther and you went on the attack/defense (both).

Thaddeus made a claim on 7/5/2023 that was not in response to anything you said. On 7/6/2023 I responded to your post, to BluHorseShu and then Thaddeus. Thaddeus and I go back and forth a bit, and then on 7/7/2023 you inserted yourself into that conversation. You didn't have to. You and I had been going back forth on a different topic, but you decided to step in, I guess to cover for the incorrect statements that Thaddeus made?

Quote:
Please be specific. What was historically accurate?

The disclaimer he added around the Apocrypha is historically accurate description of the reception of those books, as I proved out.

Quote:
Again, go back and read the thread. You and I were having a conversation and you apparently dropped OUR conversation to focus exclusively on Thad's Luther quip. I did not insert myself into anything. Thad was the one that was late to the party (still praying for your son, Thad). Not me. My point WAS the primary discussion.

I've read the thread. I responded to a comment from Thaddeus. His comment was not in response to anything you or I wrote. You've inserted yourself in (and still continue to).

Quote:
The specific question I was asking when YOU ENGAGED ME was What exactly is Scripture? What books are considered to be in Inspired Word of God? Nothing extra & nothing missing.
OT= ??
NT= ??
OT+NT=??

Do you accept or reject the "Apocrypha" as Scripture?

I do not accept the canon as set forth at Trent. The Lutheran Church (and other ancient Churches) have never taken the steps that Rome took at Trent. Rome is unique in that. But to align with the historical Church we would hold the Apocrypha to be less than Scripture, but good and useful reading.

Quote:
Okay. So we can rehash the dialog of the early Church about these books, but at the SAME TIME the Church discerned the 27 books of the NT they also included these OT books as Scripture (Carthage & Hippo). Closely followed by the Vulgate which also included them. Thank you for proving my point:

The Books were there. Now they are gone.
WHO removed them?
WHEN?
By WHAT AUTHORITY?

When have we ever rehashed the early Church? You've made claims that are historically inaccurate.

As the link itself showed, not even Jerome wanted to include the Apocrypha in the Vulgate, but was pressured into doing it.

BTW, not even Trent in voting to approve the vulgate as canon got above 50% voting to accept it. The majority either voted no or abstained from voting.

In terms of your bolded questions, I still leave that with you to find the answers for us. You've shown a lot of passion around it and the relevance is the same for you and me. I look forward to your report out on it.

Quote:
Okay, so there might have been debate prior Hippo & Carthage but both affirmed them as Scripture, and Jerome accepted the decision of the Church and translated these books in the Vulgate shortly thereafter. The books were there for the next millennium and a half (nearly).

And Luther included them in his Bible. What's the problem?

Quote:
You are not answering the question, and you have not shown or provided any support for this elusive "historical position of the Church"?

In fact, I'm the only one in this conversation that seems to have researched the history and come prepared to talk. You've not even answered your own questions that you've been asking for months at this point... "Who removed the books, by what authority and when..."

As I've said, the history makes it clear that these books were disputed and we have centuries of debate of them.

So maybe the better question is why did Rome believe they could speak for the whole Church? I know you'll revert to claiming that the Pope had that authority, but that's just an internal to Rome claim that not even the EOdox will agree with. I'm going to need to see a historical claim widely supported that said the Pope had this authority (hint...there is none).

Quote:
being the underlying question. The difficulty Protestant's have is clearly defining and support what is Scripture.

What the thread is about and what my conversation with Thaddeus were about are two different things, which you continue to fail to grasp.

1