The Bible

[TexUs]

I totally understand the concern and implications for God's sovereignty. Here's the thing, God has already limited Himself - He is a Trinity. He doesn't have to be a Trinity - but He wills it.

Prove it.
The Trinity is part of God's nature, it's a three way relationship which, I'd venture, enables him to love us, because his very nature is three part relationship!

A moral God wills Himself to follow His own laws

I wish you'd stop peddling this because anytime you're asked for proof you can't come up with any.

Hell is certainly real. Wrath is probably going to be sorrow.

Or... Here's a thought... Wrath could be exactly what the Bible says it will be.

Actually, St. Jerome recognized he apocrypha as canonical, which is why he included them in the Latin Vulgate.

You must literally make stuff up to suit your argument of the day, I already included his quote once and it had to be provided again for you to admit you were wrong. I mean really, where'd you come up with this????????

During the time that Christ was alive, the Scripture that Christ and the Apostles used was the Septuagint", which included the apocrypha books.

So Christ, speaking Aramaic, used the Greek translation of the Hebrew text? LOL.


Think things through.

When the Jewish Council removed those books from the Old Testament, the Early Christians did not follow them

That's absolute rubbish because we see when they did this there were already people (of the church) throwing out and not considering them Scripture.


I think you'll find the *ONLY* organization that consistently (and still does) upholds the Apocrypha is the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[aspen]

I don't believe that being a Trinity lessens God in any way. How could it? How can anything lessen God? He wouldn't be God then. Now, I don't fully understand the Trinity, I'm not sure that man fully can, but I do know He is absolute...He is that He is!
And I don't believe that God holds to the laws He gave to mankind. I think this for 2 reasons. 1) God lay them down for a race that had fallen, the laws were given so they may strive (but ultimately failing and therefore needing Jesus) to atone for their sins. And 2) God needn't hold Himself to rules of man, like He is needing to exert self control on some of His more unsavory attributes. He is that He is, and what He is, is perfect!

Any time we define something or someone, we limit it by definition. God limited Himself to a Triune God - it has nothing to do with limiting His sovereignty. I work as a counselor by profession, which limits me from being a hermit. The reason God has to follow His own laws is because in the reality He has created no one can be Good if they engage in evil. God is Good - there cannot be two sets of rules, one for Him and one for us.


Here is another way to look at the situation - if God did live by separate moral guidelines, Jesus could have done anything He wanted because by definition His behavior was not sinful. That means He could not be tempted - and He could have taken the Devil up on all three temptation because they would not be sin for Him. We know that this is not the case - Jesus could have sinned (He just didn't) and He was certainly tempted.


Hope that makes sense.

 

[TexUs]

God limited Himself to a Triune God

Prove it.

 

[aspen]

[/color]Hi Aspen,

By lessen, do you mean "humble"? I most certainly think that God humbled Himself when He became incarnated as a man. God not only knows "humility", but He also knows it from experience.

Jesus did humble himself - that is true. I am not claiming that God lessened Himself as a Trinity - all I am saying is He defines Himself as Triune - any time a definition is used it limits. His definition as Triune does not limit His omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence - it only limits His nature (3 and 1). Since He choose to do it, He is sovereign over everything, including Himself.

Paradoxes sure are cool!

[/color]
Prove it.

You would have to deny the Trinity - are you willing to do this? I am not. God declared Himself to be Triune - that is a definition. To claim otherwise is to deny His word

 

[TexUs]

Prove God limited Himself to a Triune God


I don't deny the Triune God.

 

[aspen]

Prove [font="tahoma][u][i][b]God limited Himself[/b][/i][/u] to a Triune God[/font][/color]
[font="tahoma]
[/font]
[font="tahoma]I don't deny the Triune God.[/font]
[/quote]


[color="#000080"]If you believe the Bible is the word of God, you have to believe God is a Trinity. To think less is to take away from the scriptures and to think more is to add to it.

I do not need to spend page after page proving that God is a Trinity - you already believe it. If you choose to add to the scriptures by believing more, go ahead.

And forget claiming that God can be anything He wants and it doesn't matter if it isn't explicitly stated in the Bible; you would freak out if I called God "Mother" because it is not explicitly stated in the Bible.

 

[TexUs]

Prove [font="tahoma]God limited Himself to a Triune God[/font]
[font="tahoma]
[/font]
[font="tahoma]I don't deny the Triune God.[/font]

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

I'm wondering if all this is just misunderstanding what eachother is trying to convey.

I could be wrong, (like that time in 1989 :lol: )

Maybe what we're all trying to say is that,

God did not limit himself, yet, God limited out view and understanding of Him. Such as saying, "God limited himself to a Triune" That's one of the parts of God that he's allowed us to view, not that any of us completely understand with our human minds. But, with the wisdom that God has given us, we do have an understanding of it. So we're not completely ignorant.

We can speculate for an eternity on God and never fully come to a realization of just exactly what His mind is. In theory, God could chose to make himself into a million spirits, or fleshes, or what ever. But, what we know of him He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All one, yet 3. This is what we know of his "physical" atributes.

God following rules,, while laughable when we think of God as He has revealed himself to us, isn't so far fetched with human reasoning.

In the Human realm, we have leaders and followers. Leaders make laws, and the people under them follow. We expect that the Leaders will also folow inline with the laws they put in place. It's not so far fetched for a man to think that God is following a set of laws and rules that He set forth for us. As we all know the Law was created to reveal the sinfull nature of man. Breaking the Law is sin. We know that God cannot sin. A way for a human mind to comprehend the nature of God is that He too is following His set of rules.


The vastness of who God is can't be understood by a mere man and our knowledge of God is limited. We can only rationalize and it seems to help us relate if we view the God structure as we view mans structure of Government. God is obviously limitless. Our minds can't comprehend that even if we think we can.

To view God as limiting himself, seems insulting to some. It implies that there are boundaries that someone could chose to cross. We also view limitations as in human nature, where we either limit ourselves to a certain group of choices or paths or ideas.

When we view the very nature of God as He as revealed to us, we know that God is Love, desires mercy not sacrifice, is vengefull, and Just. We know that the right to life is God's and His alone. The very nature of God is Love, although we can't fathom why there is a lake of fire, and that seems a harsh reality and a harsh punishment. But, those are choices he's given to us. We read in the Bible of all the times God has destroyed entire civilizations. We think of God as wrathfull, which is the complete opposite of the very nature that God says he has, which is Love.

What we have to trust is, there is a reason for everything God does. I think if we read in the Bible we can see God's wrath, and judgements, and punishments as a mercy for others. Where God is the judge, there is not one thing that is done that doesn't have benefit for another. God could have let the whole world continue to sin and become more evil, and have nothing to do with him. While allowing Noah and his family to exist and procreate. The eventual result would be the demise of the entire world. It was a mercy for God to destroy the world and save the few good, that provided a way for the multitude of believers we've had over centuries.

It is very hard for us as humans to relate to the nature of God and have an idea of what God is, so the way we describe things often times is misunderstood or insulting to another person.

All in all I think evryone of us is saying pretty much the same thing. We're just humans and using our knowledge and our ways of communication (which by the way is limitless when combined with each persons way of thinking and speaking and conveying conversation about ideas).

 

[Selene]

Jesus did humble himself - that is true. I am not claiming that God lessened Himself as a Trinity - all I am saying is He defines Himself as Triune - any time a definition is used it limits. His definition as Triune does not limit His omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence - it only limits His nature (3 and 1). Since He choose to do it, He is sovereign over everything, including Himself.

Paradoxes sure are cool!

Paradox? Oh, ok....I think I see. It is like one of those things. God is Almighty and All-powerful that He can do anything including creating a rock that He cannot lift. Yet, He is powerful enough to lift it, but cannot lift it.

 

[aspen]

Paradox? Oh, ok....I think I see. It is like one of those things. God is Almighty and All-powerful that He can do anything including creating a rock that He cannot lift. Yet, He is powerful enough to lift it, but cannot lift it.

Yes!

I'm wondering if all this is just misunderstanding what eachother is trying to convey.

I could be wrong, (like that time in 1989 :lol: )

Maybe what we're all trying to say is that,

God did not limit himself, yet, God limited out view and understanding of Him. Such as saying, "God limited himself to a Triune" That's one of the parts of God that he's allowed us to view, not that any of us completely understand with our human minds. But, with the wisdom that God has given us, we do have an understanding of it. So we're not completely ignorant.

We can speculate for an eternity on God and never fully come to a realization of just exactly what His mind is. In theory, God could chose to make himself into a million spirits, or fleshes, or what ever. But, what we know of him He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All one, yet 3. This is what we know of his "physical" atributes.

God following rules,, while laughable when we think of God as He has revealed himself to us, isn't so far fetched with human reasoning.

In the Human realm, we have leaders and followers. Leaders make laws, and the people under them follow. We expect that the Leaders will also folow inline with the laws they put in place. It's not so far fetched for a man to think that God is following a set of laws and rules that He set forth for us. As we all know the Law was created to reveal the sinfull nature of man. Breaking the Law is sin. We know that God cannot sin. A way for a human mind to comprehend the nature of God is that He too is following His set of rules.


The vastness of who God is can't be understood by a mere man and our knowledge of God is limited. We can only rationalize and it seems to help us relate if we view the God structure as we view mans structure of Government. God is obviously limitless. Our minds can't comprehend that even if we think we can.

To view God as limiting himself, seems insulting to some. It implies that there are boundaries that someone could chose to cross. We also view limitations as in human nature, where we either limit ourselves to a certain group of choices or paths or ideas.

When we view the very nature of God as He as revealed to us, we know that God is Love, desires mercy not sacrifice, is vengefull, and Just. We know that the right to life is God's and His alone. The very nature of God is Love, although we can't fathom why there is a lake of fire, and that seems a harsh reality and a harsh punishment. But, those are choices he's given to us. We read in the Bible of all the times God has destroyed entire civilizations. We think of God as wrathfull, which is the complete opposite of the very nature that God says he has, which is Love.

What we have to trust is, there is a reason for everything God does. I think if we read in the Bible we can see God's wrath, and judgements, and punishments as a mercy for others. Where God is the judge, there is not one thing that is done that doesn't have benefit for another. God could have let the whole world continue to sin and become more evil, and have nothing to do with him. While allowing Noah and his family to exist and procreate. The eventual result would be the demise of the entire world. It was a mercy for God to destroy the world and save the few good, that provided a way for the multitude of believers we've had over centuries.

It is very hard for us as humans to relate to the nature of God and have an idea of what God is, so the way we describe things often times is misunderstood or insulting to another person.

All in all I think evryone of us is saying pretty much the same thing. We're just humans and using our knowledge and our ways of communication (which by the way is limitless when combined with each persons way of thinking and speaking and conveying conversation about ideas).

I am sure there are many things about God that He has chosen not to reveal to us, however that doesn't address the issue. God is knowable therefore He has to have limits - I explain this by claiming that He limits Himself. Just like we could never know infinity, we could never know an infinite God because we associate knowing with limits. For example, we know that God is separate from nature - if we didn't believe this we would be pantheists.

 

[Rach1370]

Hey WhiteKnuckle! Awesome post!
Hey Aspen, just checking you're still cool with our 'debate'? I'm even tempered and enjoying our back and forth, hoping you're the same!
I've been a bit startled by some of the people on this board dumping on you wherever you turn up. My husband informs me that some fundamentalist types over in the US can't seem to see that Catholics can be Christians as well (which is kinda odd to me, as I seem to follow them doctrinally). I'm sorry for that, and their behavior. I'm kinda hoping that you and I can show them that Christians can disagree and still have love for a brother!

So, anyway, back to the discussion!

Any time we define something or someone, we limit it by definition. God limited Himself to a Triune God - it has nothing to do with limiting His sovereignty. I work as a counselor by profession, which limits me from being a hermit. The reason God has to follow His own laws is because in the reality He has created no one can be Good if they engage in evil. God is Good - there cannot be two sets of rules, one for Him and one for us.

I think you're still trying to put God into human definition and understanding...I would have said that as the Bible describes every member of the Trinity as by Himself fully God, that rather than limiting Himself, He's just made Himself more! Three different persons, fully God, but each with specific 'jobs' to do. Think of it!! If God was just God the Father, not a Trinity, He still could have orchestrated th salvation of mankind, but as a Trinity He has given us amazing access to Him!! The Son humbled Himself to come to us, so that we may know Him! The Spirit dwells within us, helping us put sin to death every day! The Trinity enables God to have perfect unity and fellowship with Himself! I really don't think that being a Trinity has limited God in any way!

Now, as far as the "God being under His own rules" thing goes, I do understand what you're trying to say. I agree that God cannot lie and therefore what He tells us of His nature is true. But I think I disagree on which side you're coming in on! To me, the purpose of having rules, of being under law, is to restrain darker impulses or natures. Even us Christians have to rely on self control and the Holy Spirit to deny our sinful natures. To say God must follow these laws implies that He has the same problem! Which I know you're not really saying!! I think that God is not good and just because He follows His laws, I think He is good and just because that is His very nature. He is completely Holy!! And that's why He gave the laws that He did!

 

[aspen]

Hey WhiteKnuckle! Awesome post!
Hey Aspen, just checking you're still cool with our 'debate'? I'm even tempered and enjoying our back and forth, hoping you're the same!
I've been a bit startled by some of the people on this board dumping on you wherever you turn up. My husband informs me that some fundamentalist types over in the US can't seem to see that Catholics can be Christians as well (which is kinda odd to me, as I seem to follow them doctrinally). I'm sorry for that, and their behavior. I'm kinda hoping that you and I can show them that Christians can disagree and still have love for a brother!

So, anyway, back to the discussion!



I think you're still trying to put God into human definition and understanding...I would have said that as the Bible describes every member of the Trinity as by Himself fully God, that rather than limiting Himself, He's just made Himself more! Three different persons, fully God, but each with specific 'jobs' to do. Think of it!! If God was just God the Father, not a Trinity, He still could have orchestrated th salvation of mankind, but as a Trinity He has given us amazing access to Him!! The Son humbled Himself to come to us, so that we may know Him! The Spirit dwells within us, helping us put sin to death every day! The Trinity enables God to have perfect unity and fellowship with Himself! I really don't think that being a Trinity has limited God in any way!

Now, as far as the "God being under His own rules" thing goes, I do understand what you're trying to say. I agree that God cannot lie and therefore what He tells us of His nature is true. But I think I disagree on which side you're coming in on! To me, the purpose of having rules, of being under law, is to restrain darker impulses or natures. Even us Christians have to rely on self control and the Holy Spirit to deny our sinful natures. To say God must follow these laws implies that He has the same problem! Which I know you're not really saying!! I think that God is not good and just because He follows His laws, I think He is good and just because that is His very nature. He is completely Holy!! And that's why He gave the laws that He did!

I am really enjoying our conversation Rach - it is so refreshing to read your well-though out posts that may disagree with mine, but without any rudeness at all - thank you!!

I see what you mean about trying to understand God with human reasoning and I cannot discount it, as much as I want to. The only thing I want to add is that God gave me this reasoning and He was the first to approach me in a way I could understand, so as long as I don't get too crazy about defining who He is and start a cult in South America - I think I am ok pursuing Him, with my mind; as well as my heart and strength.

I think you raised an important point about the word limit and why we have rules. I understand that rules are often used to restrict evil impulses in humans, but not always. There are plenty of rules that are strictly used for defining - it is this use of the word "limit" that I am using for God. According to Genesis, Adam and Eve had rules in the Garden that they followed (probably without knowing it) Adam was supposed to name the animals, not eat them or breed them. It is my understanding that we have a skewed view of a lot of concepts because we have been exposed to sin. If we never knew sin, many of these concepts would have a completely different meaning.

So to be clear, God does not limit Himself to avoid sin or evil - He uses it in a different way - to be know by us and the angels.

 

[Selene]

That's absolute rubbish because we see when they did this there were already people (of the church) throwing out and not considering them Scripture.


I think you'll find the *ONLY* organization that consistently (and still does) upholds the Apocrypha is the Roman Catholic Church.

It was in 90 A.D. when the Jewish Council removed those 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel from the Old Testament. The weblink below explains it. And for your informatin, the Roman Catholic Church is not the ONLY one that upholds the Apocrypha. The Orthodox Church also upholds it. According to the weblink below:

These fourteen writings first appeared after the Old Testament was translated to Greek about 200-100 BC. This translation, called the Septuagint, was well done for the Pentateuch, not that well done for some of the prophetic books. Jews in Palestine never called it scripture. Greek speaking Jews and Christians outside of Palestine assumed it was scripture, since it was in the Septuagint.​

​

When the early Christian monk Jerome translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin, he had to answer a question: "Should he include these books or not?" Early in his life he thought all the Septuagint was inspired, but later he believed only the Hebrew originals, and not the apocrypha were scripture. Jerome coined a term to describe these books: Apocrypha from the Greek word for hidden, to distinguish these from both "true scripture" and other religious writings.​

​

In 90 AD. the Jewish Council at Jamnia excluded from the Old Testament all but the writings Jews and Protestants accept today. Among Christians there was no consensus until Augustine championed the Apocrypha at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD (after Jerome's death). These writings were in Bibles used by Christians for over 1,100 years. Even the King James Bible originally included it.​

http://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm​

 

[Nomad]

Even the King James Bible originally included it.

Like Jerome, the KJV translators viewed the apocrypha as profitable to read, but they did not believe it was canonical. See the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church below.

[font="Verdana][size="2"]VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"]Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
[/size][/font][font="Verdana][size="2"]Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"]And the other Books (as Hierome (Jerome) saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="2"]The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.[/size][/font]

​

 

[Selene]

Like Jerome, the KJV translators viewed the apocrypha as profitable to read, but they did not believe it was canonical. See the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church below.

The fact that the Christians have accepted and used those books for over 1000 years until the Protestant reformation already makes it canon. As for the Jewish Council, they may have taken those books out of the Old Testament, but they still practice many things from the books that were taken out. For example, every Hannukah, the Jewish people commemorate Judas Maccabees. The story of Judas Maccabees can only be found in the First and Second Book of Maccabees, which the Jewish Council took out. Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books. St. Augustine already upheld and championed the Apocrypha at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD and it had always been accepted and used by the Christians.

 

[TexUs]

It should be a simple concept that "between the front and back covers of a "Bible" doesn't make it Scripture". Else my copyright page, which has been "accepted" by Christians should be considered Scripture.

Yet some don't understand this.

 

[Selene]

It should be a simple concept that "between the front and back covers of a "Bible" doesn't make it Scripture". Else my copyright page, which has been "accepted" by Christians should be considered Scripture.

Yet some don't understand this.

Yes, my Bible has all the books that you have, which are accepted as Scripture.

 

[Nomad]

The fact that the Christians have accepted and used those books for over 1000 years until the Protestant reformation already makes it canon.

No, the apocrypha was not accepted as canon by all without question. It has been an object of dispute throughout Church history. This is simply not debatable.

The other problem you face is the fact that the Jews, who according to the Apostle Paul, were the custodians of the OT Scriptures never accepted the apocryphal writings as inspired Scripture. This fact alone demonstrates that the Church had no business toying with the apocrypha.

St. Augustine already upheld and championed the Apocrypha at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD and it had always been accepted and used by the Christians.

No, once again, it was not accepted by all without question. It matters very little what Augustine 'championed' at a regional council which did not have the authority to make anything binding on the entire Church. According to Rome, only ecumenical councils have the authority to pronounce dogma. The first ecumenical council to rule on the extent of the canon and include the apocrypha as Scripture was the johnny-come-lately council of Trent in the 16th century. Trent was the 19th ecumenical council in Church history. If the apocrypha was generally accepted as you seem to think, the issue would have been settled by ecumenical council long long before Trent. All of this combined with the protests of various fathers/ecclesiastical writers demonstrates and highlights the conflict that continued over the apocrypha for a millennium and a half.

 

[Selene]

No, the apocrypha was not accepted as canon by all without question. It has been an object of dispute throughout Church history. This is simply not debatable.

The other problem you face is the fact that the Jews, who according to the Apostle Paul, were the custodians of the OT Scriptures never accepted the apocryphal writings as inspired Scripture. This fact alone demonstrates that the Church had no business toying with the apocrypha.

Why should we follow the decisions of the Jewish Council in 90 A.D? We're not Jewish. We're Christians, and the Christians have always used the Greek Septuagint. Since when did the Christians follow the Jews? Christians follow Christ and during the times of Christ, the Greek Septuagint was used. And where in the Bible did St. Paul say that the Jewish people were the custodians of the Old Testament Scriptures.

No, once again, it was not accepted by all without question. It matters very little what Augustine 'championed' at a regional council which did not have the authority to make anything binding on the entire Church. According to Rome, only ecumenical councils have the authority to pronounce dogma. The first ecumenical council to rule on the extent of the canon and include the apocrypha as Scripture was the johnny-come-lately council of Trent in the 16th century. Trent was the 19th ecumenical council in Church history. If the apocrypha was generally accepted as you seem to think, the issue would have been settled by ecumenical council long long before Trent. All of this combined with the protests of various fathers/ecclesiastical writers demonstrates and highlights the conflict that continued over the apocrypha for a millennium and a half.

Since the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D., no one questioned their usage. These books have been used and accepted by the following people:

1 Clement (of Rome) (16 pgs) 97/98 A.D.​

Epistle of Barnabas (13 pgs) c.100 A.D.​

Ignatius (21 pgs) c.110-117 A.D.​

Papias disciple of John (3 pgs) 110-113 A.D.​

Didache (Teach. of 12 Disc.)(6 pgs) < 125 A.D.​

(anonymous) to Diognetus (6 pgs) c.130 A.D.​

Polycarp, disciple of John (4 pgs) c.150 A.D.​

Justin Martyr (119 pgs) 138-165 A.D.​

Shepherd of Hermas (47 pgs) 160 A.D.​

Theophilus [Antioch] (33 pgs)168-181/188 A.D.​

Melito of Sardis (11 pgs) 170-177 A.D.​

Athenagoras (34 pgs) c.177 A.D.​

Irenaeus (264 pgs) 182-188 A.D.​

Tertullian [Rome] (854 pgs) 200-220 A.D.​

Clement of Alexan. (424 pgs) 193-217/220 A.D.​

Hippolytus, (233 pgs) 225-235/6 A.D.​

Origen (622 pgs) 230-254 A.D.​

Novatian (39 pgs) 250-257 A.D.​

Anonymous against Novatian(7 pgs) c.255 A.D.​

And Treatise on Rebaptism (11 pgs)​

Cyprian and friends (270 pgs) 248-258 A.​

For over 1000 years, these books have been used and accepted and there was no protest. No one questioned it. The only reason it was made a dogma in the Council of Trent was because the Protestants decided to follow what the Jewish Council of Jamnia decided in 90 A.D. When the Council of Trent made that into a dogma, there were not declaring something new. They were making something that was already accepted and in use for over 1000 years into a dogma.

​

​

 

[Nomad]

Why should we follow the decisions of the Jewish Council in 90 A.D? We're not Jewish.

The Jews settled the OT canon long before 90AD. Jamnia did absolutely nothing to change that. If you want to protest that fact, then produce documentation from the so-called council of Jamnia.

We're Christians, and the Christians have always used the Greek Septuagint.

Not exactly. Not all NT quotations of the OT come from the LXX. Many come from the Hebrew. And when Jerome translated the OT for his Vulgate he used Hebrew not Greek. The other problem that you need to chew on is the fact that none of the extant copies of the Septuagint contain the same list of apocryphal books and none of them contain the same list as that produced by Trent. Once again, the apocrypha was a matter of contention and dispute throughout Church history.

And where in the Bible did St. Paul say that the Jewish people were the custodians of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Rom. 3:1 What advantage is there then in being a Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?

Rom. 3:2 Much, in every respect. For in the first place, they were entrusted with the utterances of God.