The Bible

[aspen]

I think the real issue is not the [font="arial][size="2"]Deuterocanonical books being included in the Catholic Bible; it's the fact that Luther rejected all of them along with James (too reliant on works), Hebrews (questioned authorship), and Revelation (written too late and too controversial) - he also added the word 'alone' after the word faith in order to support his doctrine of sola fide. The fact is Protestants almost lost 3 books of the NT and added a word to scripture - I think they dodged a bullet. Also, I think we could have very easily been here today listening to a defense of why those three books are not scripture, just like the Deuterocanonical books.[/size][/font]
[font="arial] [/font]
[font="arial][size="2"]As far as Jerome rejecting the Deuterocanonical books - his decision was based on the idea that they possessed no copies of the books in Hebrew at the time. This has changed since we found the Dead Sea Scrolls.[/size][/font]

 

[Nomad]

I think the real issue is not the [font="arial][size="2"]Deuterocanonical books being included in the Catholic Bible; it's the fact that Luther rejected all of them along with James (too reliant on works), Hebrews (questioned authorship), and Revelation (written too late and too controversial) - he also added the word 'alone' after the word faith in order to support his doctrine of sola fide. The fact is Protestants almost lost 3 books of the NT and added a word to scripture - I think they dodged a bullet. Also, I think we could have very easily been here today listening to a defense of why those three books are not scripture, just like the Deuterocanonical books.[/size][/font]

Ah, so much ignorance. No, Protestants didn't 'dodge a bullet.' First, Luther may have struggled at one point with certain NT books, but in the end he didn't 'reject ' them. This is a fact. Look at his German translation. All 27 NT books are present. Second, Luther wasn't the only reformer of his day. There were others and none of them struggled with any NT books as Luther did. Your case is horribly overstated and is actually irrelevant to this entire thread. Luther was not the be all and end all of the Reformation. It did not stand or fall alone with him. You're merely grasping at straws.

As far as Jerome rejecting the Deuterocanonical books - his decision was based on the idea that they possessed no copies of the books in Hebrew at the time.

I don't know where you got such nonsense. You're going to need to produce some corroborating documentation to substantiate such a claim.

 

[frost2021]

o____________o lol well I read a few reply and got overwhelmed. Everything always has to be complicated..

 

[mjrhealth]

And you all ignore what Jesus has to say about scripture.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Nothing has changed, Now what does He say of Himself..

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

And

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

or

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

I see so many christians, that say the bible is a road map to Christ, Funny thing is when the reach the rounabout , where the map says " here is the narrow path", they dont put down the road map, they keep looking at it and so, round and round they go, never actually entering into that narrow road , where Christ is everything.

So you have heard of Him, you have read about Him, is it not time that you got to know Him. There is only one way to do that, and that is give yourself to Him, and let Him teach you,

In HIs Love

 

[Selene]

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.

You have the internet. Look up the Jewish Council of Jamnia.

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.

St. Jerome knew how to speak both Hebrew and Greek, so he used both.

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.

Yes, the Jews were the first people who heard God's message, but did you not read further in the letter what St. Paul says about the Jews?

Romans 10:1-4 Brothers, I have the very warmest love for the Jews, and I pray to God for them to be saved. I can swear to their fervour for God, but their zeal is misguided. Failing to recognize the righteousness that comes from God, they try to promote their own idea of it, instead of submitting to the Righteousness of God. But now the Law has come to an end with Christ, and everyone who has faith may be justified.

So, since the Jews never recognized Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah, why should we follow the decisions of the Jewish Council of Jamnia? We're not Jewish. We're Christians. The law has come to an end with Christ, whom we follow.

 

[TexUs]

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

Pot, kettle.
It astounds me of the hypocritical tendencies of you. Jewish teachings have a bearing on us... until it contradicts your view?

I remember reading somewhere that the Jewish people believed that there were 7 Heavens. If I am not mistaken, it may be mentioned in the Jewish Talmund.

Now then that said, the Jews were the keepers of the OT. You can't deny this. In fact, they so treasured it that they missed the Messiah that fulfilled it. When it comes to the OT, the Jews that kept it were definitely authoritative. And: they threw out the Apocrypha. So, so-long to anything written before 35AD or so.It's been disputed since they surfaced. To ignore this is to ignore history. Your list of "supporters"- didn't even agree on the same Apocryphal books! The only thing you could form an argument from is anything supposedly written in the first century (as after the folks that walked with Christ died the legitimacy of everything goes down the toilet). You then must prove the church universally accepted the writing (they did not). Or an Apostle upheld the entire writing as Scripture (they did not).You're then left with exactly what we've got in the bookstore today.

 

[amadeus]

o____________o lol well I read a few reply and got overwhelmed. Everything always has to be complicated..

Complicated to man, yes! This is why we need to go this way.. with the yoke of Jesus!.

Welcome to the forum!

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matt 11:28-30

 

[TexUs]

Complicated to man, yes! This is why we need to go this way.. with the yoke of Jesus!.

Welcome to the forum!

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matt 11:28-30

But yet... "we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed."
Which means Christ is referring to exactly what he said: Rest for the SOUL, not this life on earth.
[font="Arial][color="#333333"][/color][/font]
[font="Arial][color="#333333"]
[/color][/font]
[font="Arial][color="#333333"]Even Peter, an Apostle of Christ, thought Scripture was complicated so... What'd NOT be normal is to consider Scripture simple![/color][/font]

 

[Nomad]

You have the internet. Look up the Jewish Council of Jamnia.

We both know that this is a cop-out Selene. When one make an assertion regarding a truth claim, the burden of proof rests with the one making the claim. It's not up to me to prove your case for you or to search for documentation that you failed to provide.

I'm going to give you a hint regarding this matter of the council of Jamnia. The reason you cannot locate any documentation from the council of Jamnia, (provided you actually tried), is because none exists. The best we have are Talmudic writings that speculate on rabbinic activity in and around Jamnia at the end of the first century.

"The theory that an open canon was closed at the Synod of Jamnia about 90 AD goes back to Heinrich Graetz in 1871, who proposed (rather more cautiously than has since been the custom) that the Synod of Jamnia led to the closing of the canon. Though others have lately expressed hesitations about the theory, its complete refutation has been the work of J.p. Lewis and S.Z. Leiman. The combined result of their investigations is as follows:

A. The term 'synod' or 'council' is inappropriate. The academy at Jamnia, established by Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, was both a college and a legislative body, and the occasion in question was a session of the elders there.

B. The date of the session may have been as early as 75 AD or as late as 117 AD.

C. As regard the disputed books, the discussion was confined to the question whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (or possibly Ecclesiastes alone) make the hands unclean, i.e. are divinely inspired.

D. The decision reached was not regarded as authoritative, since contrary opinions continued to be expressed throughout the second century.

Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, ch. 7 p. 276

"The decision at Jamnia dealt only with Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs--or, according to Rabbi Akiba, with Ecclesiastes alone. See note #2. How, then, can it have decided the canonicity of books which, as far as we know, the assembly there did not even discuss?"

Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, ch. 7 p. 275

Note # 2

The record is as follows: 'Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai said, "I have heard a tradition derived from the 72 elders on the day that Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed head of the academy, that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes make the hands unclean." Rabbi Akiba said, "God forbid! No man in Israel ever disputed, concerning the Song of Songs, that it does not make the hands unclean, for the whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Hagiographa are holy, but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If there was a dispute, it concerned Ecclesiastes only." Rabbi Johanan ben Joshua, the son of rabbi Akiba's father-in-law, said, "According to the words of Ben Azzai, so did they dispute, and so did they decide."'

Mishna Yadaim 3.5

Now, this so-called council, as far as we can tell, dealt with a disputation over Ecclesiastes and maybe the Song of Songs. There is no evidence that the apocrypha was ever addressed so it's futile to attempt to refer to Jamnia as support for any argument. As a matter of fact, Josephus, writing in the first century, tells us that the Jewish canon contained the same books found in the Protestant canon and none dared to add to them.

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] *but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.

Josephus, Against Apion, Book 1 Para. 8

*The 22 books of Josephus' list is equivalent to the 39 books of Protestant Bibles. The difference in enumeration is due to a difference in the 'grouping' of the various OT books.

We are now in a position to list the 22 books , on the basis of the agreed evidence of Josephus, Jerome, and Epiphanius's De Mensuris et Ponderibus, supported to a large extent by Origen. Jerome's order will be followed, as he alone claims to give the order observed by the Jews.

The Law

1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy

The Prophets

6. Joshua
7. Judges-Ruth
8. Samuel
9. Kings
10. Isaiah
11. Jeremiah-Lamentations
12. Ezekiel
13. The Twelve Prophets

The Hagiographa

14. Job
15. Psalms
16. Proverbs
17. Ecclesiastes
18. Song of Songs
19. Daniel
20. Chronicles
21. Ezra-Nehemiah
22. Esther

Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, ch. 6 p. 254

Notice the absence of the apocryphal writings and Josephus' statement that no one dared to add to this list. We need to get one thing perfectly clear here. Protestants do not rely upon anything that may have taken place at Jamnia. I don't know where you got such an idea. Men like Jerome and others learned directly from the Jews the extent of their canon and the list above is the basic result. Jamnia has nothing to do with this.

 

[aspen]

But yet... "[font="Arial]we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed."[/font][/color]
[color="#333333"][font="Arial]Which means Christ is referring to exactly what he said: Rest for the SOUL, not this life on earth.[/font][/color]
[font="Arial][color="#333333"][/font]
[font="Arial] [/font]
[font="Arial][color="#333333"]Even Peter, an Apostle of Christ, thought Scripture was complicated so... What'd NOT be normal is to consider Scripture simple![/color][/font]

Pee Parade

Why are you always stuck on how miserable everything is? I may as well be taking with a JW.

Ah, so much ignorance.

Hmm....looks like I hit a nerve....

No, Protestants didn't 'dodge a bullet.' First, Luther may have struggled at one point with certain NT books, but in the end he didn't 'reject ' them. This is a fact. Look at his German translation. All 27 NT books are present. Second, Luther wasn't the only reformer of his day. There were others and none of them struggled with any NT books as Luther did. Your case is horribly overstated and is actually irrelevant to this entire thread. Luther was not the be all and end all of the Reformation. It did not stand or fall alone with him. You're merely grasping at straws.

Luther started the Protestant Reformation - he is hardly a marginal figure. You are right about the other Reformers - King Henry the VIII accepted the Deutureocanancal books before the King James Bible was even written. Straws have nothing to do with this discussion - I am merely including a valuable part of history that was not included in the conversation.

I don't know where you got such nonsense. You're going to need to produce some corroborating documentation to substantiate such a claim.

It is call History - I know the history of the Church is not a Protestant strong point, but com'mon - this stuff is pretty basic.

 

[Nomad]

You are right about the other Reformers - King Henry the VIII accepted the Deutureocanancal books before the King James Bible was even written.

I never said that the Reformers accepted the apocrypha as canonical. As a matter of fact, I said the complete opposite on more than one occasion. I posted the following quote two times now you're obviously only seeing what you want to see.

[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]

​

As you can see from the preceding quote from the Anglican 39 Articles of Faith, some branches of the Reformation saw the apocrypha as profitable to read, but not as canonical. What part of this are you not getting?

It is call History - I know the history of the Church is not a Protestant strong point, but com'mon - this stuff is pretty basic.

Again, as I said to Selene, this is a complete cop-out. The burden of proof rests with the one making a truth claim. You really should refrain from making assertions you're not prepared to document.

 

[TexUs]

Pee Parade

Why are you always stuck on how miserable everything is? I may as well be taking with a JW.

I'm sorry if you don't like Biblical view but the sooner you adapt to it the sooner you won't feel infringed upon all the time when scripture is quoted.

Unlike you, I cannot ignore the Bible and let things be taken out of context for the sake of "feel good".

 

[Duckybill]

God never gave us the Bible. Even in the Old Testament, it was the prophets speaking and there were many prophecies spoken in the Old Testament. There was only the spoken word until someone decided to write Israel's history with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, when the Apostles spoke about Scripture, it was the Old Testament books that they were referring to because these were the only Scriptures written at that time. God never gave us the Bible. The only thing that Christ left was the Church. It was the Church that wrote the New Testament books. But the people who wrote these letters and Gospels, they did not know that their letters would become the New Testament. This is the very reason why the Bible is not our sole authority. The Bible cannot interpret itself.

1 Corinthians 14:37-38 (NKJV)
[sup]37 [/sup]If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. [sup]38 [/sup]But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

 

[Selene]

1 Corinthians 14:37-38 (NKJV)
[sup]37 [/sup]If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. [sup]38 [/sup]But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

The Bible was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 14:37-38 was written by St. Paul to the Church in Corinthia. Again, the Bible was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[amadeus]

But yet... "we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed."
Which means Christ is referring to exactly what he said: Rest for the SOUL, not this life on earth.
[font="Arial][color="#333333"][/color][/font]
[font="Arial][color="#333333"]
[/color][/font]
[font="Arial][color="#333333"]Even Peter, an Apostle of Christ, thought Scripture was complicated so... What'd NOT be normal is to consider Scripture simple![/color][/font]

Even life on this planet earth would simple [read: "easy"], if we trusted Him completely all of the time. The problem is that we, with our natural minds, think too much about how difficult it is just to exist in this place. Peter was no exception. He too was only a man, in spite of his calling.

"Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you ." Matt 9:29

If according to our faith the way for us in this world is difficult, then it is difficult. If, on the other hand, according to our faith it is easy, then it is easy. Remember the request of the apostles here?

"And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith." Luke 17:5

When they had made that request of Him, He proceeded to teach them the Word of God . Why?

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Rom 10:17

 

[Duckybill]

This is truly sad indeed to see some here attack God's Word and still profess to be Christians. It reminds me of this parable.

Matthew 13:24-30 (NKJV)
[sup]24 [/sup]Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; [sup]25 [/sup]but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. [sup]26 [/sup]But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. [sup]27 [/sup]So the servants of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' [sup]28 [/sup]He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?' [sup]29 [/sup]But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. [sup]30 [/sup]Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn." ' "

 

[Selene]

This is truly sad indeed to see some here attack God's Word and still profess to be Christians. It reminds me of this parable.

Are you saying that the Bible was handwritten by God and dropped from the sky?

 

[Duckybill]

Are you saying that the Bible was handwritten by God and dropped from the sky? Because that is what the Muslims claim about their Qu'ran.

I'm saying the Bible is the Word of God.

 

[Selene]

I'm saying the Bible is the Word of God.

I have also said that the Bible is the word of God, but I also recognize that it was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. I know that men wrote it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and that the Bible was given to us through the Church and was not dropped down from the sky.

 

[Nomad]

Are you saying that the Bible was handwritten by God and dropped from the sky?

It's probably a good thing you removed that reference to Islam and the Quran. Your assertion there that Muslims believe the Quran was hand written and dropped from the sky is simply not true according to Islamic writing or tradition.The Quran was supposedly dictated to Mohamed by the angel Gabriel over a period of 22 years in the 7th century AD.