When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

[OzSpen]

The theory that Jamnia finalized the canon has been largely discredited by all legitimate scholars.

You do make a good point though. Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

I raised none of those matters. Never mentioned Jamnia or a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation (is that the Book of Revelation?)

You invent stuff that I did not write. This is your misrepresentation again with a straw man.

 

[tom55]

I raised none of those matters. Never mentioned Jamnia or a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation (is that the Book of Revelation?)

You invent stuff that I did not write. This is your misrepresentation again with a straw man.

I may owe you an apology then.

What were you talking about when you wrote this: .....the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.)

 

[tom55]

Please document what you are talking about, instead of this generic piece of nothingness.

You did not deal with the issues I raised in #292.

YOU wrote: There was no need to tell the Christians of the first century. They knew which books were in and not in the OT canon. There was no dispute between Jesus and the Jewish leaders over the extent of the OT canon.

So I asked: How or why did the disagreement of which books belong in the OT begin 1500 years later if us Christians have known since the 1st Century which books belong in the OT? Did God change his mind 1500 years later (which is when the dispute started)?

I don't see a post #292

 

[OzSpen]

I may owe you an apology then.

What were you talking about when you wrote this: .....the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.)

Tom,

Please go back to #234 and you'll find it was kepha who wrote that. Don't you know how to use the Search facility on each page of CyB to discover who made that statement?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

YOU wrote: There was no need to tell the Christians of the first century. They knew which books were in and not in the OT canon. There was no dispute between Jesus and the Jewish leaders over the extent of the OT canon.

So I asked: How or why did the disagreement of which books belong in the OT begin 1500 years later if us Christians have known since the 1st Century which books belong in the OT? Did God change his mind 1500 years later (which is when the dispute started)?

I don't see a post #292

Sorry Tom, that was my error. The post to which I referred was #232.

Please demonstrate to me that there was NO discussion about the content of the OT canon until the 1500s. You have provided no evidence that it was those pesky Protestants who caused the kerfuffle.

Oz

 

[epostle1]

This is what I said:

"The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testament canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament."

.There could be other grounds for rejecting them, it's not an absolute statement.

.2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used..

The Catholic perspective on this issue is widely misunderstood (insofar as it can be said to be known at all). Protestants accuse Catholics of “adding” books to the Bible, while Catholics retort that Protestants have “booted out” part of Scripture. Catholics are able to offer very solid and reasonable arguments in defense of the scriptural status of the deuterocanonical books. These can be summarized as follows:

1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the “Bible” of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.

2) Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.

3) Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the east (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus) recognized some distinction but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible).

4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.

5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament Canon is understood.

6) Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above Councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405.

7) The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated.

8) The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its “Introduction to the Apocrypha,” (page iii).

9) Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.

10) Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) “did not exist,” and wanted to “toss it into the Elbe” river.

11) The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther’s gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon (“chief books”) Hebrews, James (“epistle of straw”), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament “Apocrypha.” He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, “Christ is not taught or known in it.” These opinions are found in Luther’s Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522. (he is an authority???)
more here

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT <source of initial quote

 

[tom55]

Tom,

Please go back to #234 and you'll find it was kepha who wrote that. Don't you know how to use the Search facility on each page of CyB to discover who made that statement?

Oz

I apologize. I see now it was Kepha. In your post #235 it does not show that statement as being quoted by Kepha. It appears you wrote it and then posted that funny picture right under it. I think you can see it was an honest mistake.

I do know how to use the search facility but it would not have mattered in this situation.

Once again...I apologize.

 

[tom55]

Sorry Tom, that was my error. The post to which I referred was #232.

Please demonstrate to me that there was NO discussion about the content of the OT canon until the 1500s. You have provided no evidence that it was those pesky Protestants who caused the kerfuffle.

Oz

Thank you for the apology...it is no big deal. I assumed you meant to put a different number but I didn't know what number.

YOU wrote: There was no need to tell the Christians of the first century. They knew which books were in and not in the OT canon. There was no dispute between Jesus and the Jewish leaders over the extent of the OT canon.

That is why I asked YOU: How or why did the disagreement of which books belong in the OT begin 1500 years later if us Christians have known since the 1st Century which books belong in the OT? Did God change his mind 1500 years later (which is when the dispute started)?

I never said there was NO discussion about the content of the OT cannon until the 1500's. If I did then please quote me.

With your above statement YOU are the one implying that Christians have known since the 1st Century which books belong in the OT. I actually AGREE with you. They have known or agreed upon the inspired books of the OT but there was some dispute about a few of the others.

The Sadducees regarded the first five books of the Old Testament as inspired and canonical. The rest of the Old Testament was regarded by them in much the same way the deuterocanonical is regarded by Protestant Christians today. This was precisely why the Sadducees argued with Jesus against the reality of the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33: they couldn't see it in the five books of Moses and they did not regard the later books of Scripture which spoke of it explicitly (such as Isaiah and 2 Maccabees) to be inspired and canonical. Jesus simply holds the Sadducees accountable to take seriously the portion of Scripture they do acknowledge. He argues for the resurrection based on the five books of the Law. Jesus didn't commit Himself to the Sadducees' whittled-down canon.

Jesus does the same thing when addressing the Pharisees who held to a canon resembling the modern Jewish canon that is larger than that of the Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections of Scripture. As with the Sadducees this doesn't imply that Christ or the Apostles limited the canon of Scripture only to what the Pharisees acknowledged.

When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews they used an even bigger collection of Scripture (the Septuagint) which was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek of which the vast majority of Jews at the time regarded as inspired Scripture. As you know the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint as Scripture.

As you also know the Septuagint version of Scripture (from which Christ quoted) includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were allegedly added by Rome in the 16th century. Fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint.

So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible?

It was after the Reformation when the bible that was used for 1500 years became a little bit lighter. After the Reformation it became publically more acceptable to reject what had been accepted for 1500 years. Thankfully those heathens were unsuccessful in throwing out some of the NT books that they didn't agree with.

 

[OzSpen]

.2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used..

kepha,

There is not a word in Scripture that confirms what you have stated here. Therefore, yours is an argument from silence logical fallacy. You are not providing evidence to support your claim.

We can't have a rational discussion when you raise issues about silence and provide zero evidence.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I apologize. I see now it was Kepha. In your post #235 it does not show that statement as being quoted by Kepha. It appears you wrote it and then posted that funny picture right under it. I think you can see it was an honest mistake.

I do know how to use the search facility but it would not have mattered in this situation.

Once again...I apologize.

Tom,

Even though I only chose portion of kepha's quote in #235, surely you should have noted that I addressed the person of kepha for making that statement. I wouldn't start the post, 'kepha', if the quote wasn't from kepha. That should be self-evident.

You say, 'It appears you wrote it'. Come on, Tom! When I address the person as kepha, it mose surely is not me addressing myself as kepha.

Pull the other leg.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you for the apology...it is no big deal. I assumed you meant to put a different number but I didn't know what number.

YOU wrote: There was no need to tell the Christians of the first century. They knew which books were in and not in the OT canon. There was no dispute between Jesus and the Jewish leaders over the extent of the OT canon.

That is why I asked YOU: How or why did the disagreement of which books belong in the OT begin 1500 years later if us Christians have known since the 1st Century which books belong in the OT? Did God change his mind 1500 years later (which is when the dispute started)?

I never said there was NO discussion about the content of the OT cannon until the 1500's. If I did then please quote me.

With your above statement YOU are the one implying that Christians have known since the 1st Century which books belong in the OT. I actually AGREE with you. They have known or agreed upon the inspired books of the OT but there was some dispute about a few of the others.

The Sadducees regarded the first five books of the Old Testament as inspired and canonical. The rest of the Old Testament was regarded by them in much the same way the deuterocanonical is regarded by Protestant Christians today. This was precisely why the Sadducees argued with Jesus against the reality of the resurrection in Matthew 22:23-33: they couldn't see it in the five books of Moses and they did not regard the later books of Scripture which spoke of it explicitly (such as Isaiah and 2 Maccabees) to be inspired and canonical. Jesus simply holds the Sadducees accountable to take seriously the portion of Scripture they do acknowledge. He argues for the resurrection based on the five books of the Law. Jesus didn't commit Himself to the Sadducees' whittled-down canon.

Jesus does the same thing when addressing the Pharisees who held to a canon resembling the modern Jewish canon that is larger than that of the Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections of Scripture. As with the Sadducees this doesn't imply that Christ or the Apostles limited the canon of Scripture only to what the Pharisees acknowledged.

When the Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews they used an even bigger collection of Scripture (the Septuagint) which was a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek of which the vast majority of Jews at the time regarded as inspired Scripture. As you know the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint as Scripture.

As you also know the Septuagint version of Scripture (from which Christ quoted) includes the Deuterocanonical books, books that were allegedly added by Rome in the 16th century. Fully two thirds of the Old Testament passages that are quoted in the New Testament are from the Septuagint.

So why aren't the deuterocanonical books in today's Jewish Bible?

It was after the Reformation when the bible that was used for 1500 years became a little bit lighter. After the Reformation it became publically more acceptable to reject what had been accepted for 1500 years. Thankfully those heathens were unsuccessful in throwing out some of the NT books that they didn't agree with.

Tom,

Even though the NT writers seem to have used the LXX (Septuagint), that does not mean that the OT Jewish canon included the deuterocanonical/Apocrypha books. Let's do some investigation: There was not a period of 1500 years prior to the Reformation when the canon of Scripture was settled as the RCC considers.

Why did the debate about the content of the canon of Scripture become more intense around the Reformation period. It was because of a formal statement made by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent and the Protestants responded with a strong voice. What is contained in the canon is relevant in the 21st century because to have a legitimate faith, one must have a legitimate canon from which that faith gains content. The legitimacy of faith is in the balance.
The Roman Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent (1546 - 1563), decreed certain apocryphal writings to be canonical (authoritative). The books of the Apocrypha included were…

1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus or Sirach, Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, the Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. Greek additions to Esther and several additional sections of Daniel, including the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon.

Josephus (ca. AD 37-100) indicated in this writing that this was the view that was generally accepted in his day by fellow Jews about the content of the books of the OT Jewish canon. He wrote:

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. ’Tis 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 (Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, 1.8, emphasis added).

Which books were contained in these 22 books?

In their efforts to force fit the Old Testament Canon into the alphabetic pattern, the Jews had to combine certain sets of books. This was very natural in most cases because some books, like First and Second Kings, were originally undivided. Likewise, the Twelve Minor Prophets, known since ancient times as the Book of the Twelve because they were written on a single scroll, could naturally be counted as one book. But when all such books were combined and the tally taken, the total came to twenty-four. To arrive at the desired set of twenty-two books, they had to combine two more pairs, which turned out to be Judges with Ruth, and Jeremiah with Lamentations according to Jerome in his Prologue to Samuel and Kings

. The first pair made some sense because they treated the same time period (which is the reason given by Jerome), and the latter pair made some sense because they were written by the same prophet. But the combination just would not stick (The Twenty-Two Books of the Jewish Canon, Richard McGough).

McGough stated that these early church fathers accepted these 22 books as those in the OT Jewish canon:

• Melito 170 AD, cited in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 4.26.14

• Origen 210 AD

• Hilary of Poitiers 360 AD, Tractate on Psalms, Prologue 15

• Athanasius 365 AD, Letter 39.4

• Cyril of Jerusalem, 386 AD, Catechetical Lectures 2, 4.33

• Council of Laodicea 391 AD, Canon 60

• Gregory of Nazianzus 390 AD, Carmina, 1.12

• Epiphanius 400 AD, Del Nensurius et Ponderibus, 4

• Rufinus 410 AD, Commentary in Symbols of the Apostles, 37

• Jerome 410 AD, Introduction to Samuel and Kings

Jerome's statement in support of the OT canon, which did not include the deuterocanonicals, was:

And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the old law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the Lamb, and with downcast looks offer their crowns, while in their presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with unwearied voice crying, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who wast, and art, and art to come (Jerome, The Books of Samuels and Kings).

Why did the Protestants have to defend the OT Scriptures excluding the Apocrypha after the time of Reformation? It relates to the anathema pronounced by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent on those who did not accept the deuterocanonical/Apocrypha books:

And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church (The Council of Trent, Fourth Session, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scripture, emphasis added).

With such a curse pronounced 'if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts....Let him be anathema', it was important to make sure that all Christians had the correct books in the Bible. As it has turned out, it was the Catholic Church that has added to the Scriptures of the OT, based on the evidence provided above.

Oz

 

[Mungo]

With such a curse pronounced 'if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts....Let him be anathema', it was important to make sure that all Christians had the correct books in the Bible. As it has turned out, it was the Catholic Church that has added to the Scriptures of the OT, based on the evidence provided above.

Oz

Oz,

"Let him be anathema" is not a curse. It means let him be excommunicated.

Just thought I'd point that out

Mungo

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,

"Let him be anathema" is not a curse. It means let him be excommunicated.

Just thought I'd point that out

Mungo

That might be how you see it but that is not the meaning of anathema according to the Oxford dictionaries (2016. s v anathema): 'A formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine'.

It is a formal curse that includes excommunication.

Oz

 

[Mungo]

That might be how you see it but that is not the meaning of anathema according to the Oxford dictionaries (2016. s v anathema): 'A formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine'.

It is a formal curse that includes excommunication.

Oz

No Oz,
The Oxford dictionary does not define what the Catholic Church means when it uses a word.

What the Catholic Church means by a word (or phrase) is what the Catholic Church intends to mean by the word.

An anathema was a formal excommunication by the Pope. It no longer exists and was rarely carried out. Anathema sit was a form of words to indicate the gravity of a solemn definition of doctrine and therefore of the situation of anyone denying it..

The definition in the Catholic Dictionary is:
“Solemn condemnation, of biblical origin, used by the Church to declare that some position or teaching contradicts Catholic faith and doctrine.”

Even Matt Slick of C.A.R.M., a virulent anti-Catholic understands this:
We can see that the Bible uses the term to mean separated from Christ. If someone is separated from Christ, he is lost. But is this what is meant in Roman Catholic theology? Apparently not since a Catholic anathema is not a pronouncement of damnation (separation from Christ) but a declaration that an individual is excluded from the fellowship of the Roman Catholic church which includes denial of Communion and the Catholic sacraments.

So, when official Roman Catholic documents pronounce anathema it means that the person is not in right standing with their church, is not to take the sacraments, and might be under discipline. It is an excommunication and at the very least a very strong condemnation of the person's actions and/or beliefs as being against the Catholic Church.

 

[OzSpen]

No Oz,
The Oxford dictionary does not define what the Catholic Church means when it uses a word.

What the Catholic Church means by a word (or phrase) is what the Catholic Church intends to mean by the word.

An anathema was a formal excommunication by the Pope. It no longer exists and was rarely carried out. Anathema sit was a form of words to indicate the gravity of a solemn definition of doctrine and therefore of the situation of anyone denying it..

The definition in the Catholic Dictionary is:
“Solemn condemnation, of biblical origin, used by the Church to declare that some position or teaching contradicts Catholic faith and doctrine.”

Even Matt Slick of C.A.R.M., a virulent anti-Catholic understands this:
We can see that the Bible uses the term to mean separated from Christ. If someone is separated from Christ, he is lost. But is this what is meant in Roman Catholic theology? Apparently not since a Catholic anathema is not a pronouncement of damnation (separation from Christ) but a declaration that an individual is excluded from the fellowship of the Roman Catholic church which includes denial of Communion and the Catholic sacraments.

So, when official Roman Catholic documents pronounce anathema it means that the person is not in right standing with their church, is not to take the sacraments, and might be under discipline. It is an excommunication and at the very least a very strong condemnation of the person's actions and/or beliefs as being against the Catholic Church.

That's an idiosyncratic Roman Catholic Church meaning of anathema. It is not what the Bible teaches or what the English language understands by the word, 'anathema'.
.
The Bible's understanding is:

Anathema
anything laid up or suspended; hence anything laid up in a temple or set apart as sacred. In this sense the form of the word is anath(ee)ma , once in plural used in the Greek New Testament, in Luke 21:5 , where it is rendered "gifts." In the LXX. the form anathema is generally used as the rendering of the Hebrew word herem , derived from a verb which means (1) to consecrate or devote; and (2) to exterminate. Any object so devoted to the Lord could not be redeemed ( Numbers 18:14 ; Leviticus 27:28 Leviticus 27:29 ); and hence the idea of exterminating connected with the word. The Hebrew verb (haram) is frequently used of the extermination of idolatrous nations. It had a wide range of application. The anathema_ or _herem was a person or thing irrevocably devoted to God ( Leviticus 27:21 Leviticus 27:28 ); and "none devoted shall be ransomed. He shall surely be put to death" ( 27:29 ). The word therefore carried the idea of devoted to destruction ( Numbers 21:2 Numbers 21:3 ; Joshua 6:17 ); and hence generally it meant a thing accursed. In Deuteronomy 7:26 an idol is called a herem = anathema , a thing accursed.

In the New Testament this word always implies execration. In some cases an individual denounces an anathema on himself unless certain conditions are fulfilled ( Acts 23:12 Acts 23:14 Acts 23:21 ). "To call Jesus accursed" [anathema] ( 1 Corinthians 12:3 ) is to pronounce him execrated or accursed. If any one preached another gospel, the apostle says, "let him be accursed" ( Galatians 1:8 Galatians 1:9 ); i.e., let his conduct in so doing be accounted accursed.

In Romans 9:3 , the expression "accursed" (anathema) from Christ, i.e., excluded from fellowship or alliance with Christ, has occasioned much difficulty. The apostle here does not speak of his wish as a possible thing. It is simply a vehement expression of feeling, showing how strong was his desire for the salvation of his people.

The anathema in 1 Corinthians 16:22 denotes simply that they who love not the Lord are rightly objects of loathing and execration to all holy beings; they are guilty of a crime that merits the severest condemnation; they are exposed to the just sentence of "everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord" (source: Easton's Bible Dictionary).

Execration means ' the act of cursing or denouncing; also : the curse so uttered' (Merriam-Webster Dictionary. s v execration).

Oz

 

[Mungo]

That's an idiosyncratic Roman Catholic Church meaning of anathema. It is not what the Bible teaches or what the English language understands by the word, 'anathema'.
.

Oz

It may seem idiosyncratic to you but it has a long history of such usage. The first known such usage was at the Council of Elvira in 300-306. It was used at the Council of Nicea (325) and at all Ecumenical Councils since then..

The Holman Bible Dictionary says this:

ANATHEMA (a nuh' theh ma) Someone or something sacrificed to God for destruction in fulfillment of a vow. Greek translation of Hebrew cherem, the holy war ban imposing destruction of war booty (Lev. 27:28; Deut. 20:10-18). Paul invoked the curse of the ban on anyone who did not love the Lord (1 Cor. 16:22). This may have been a technical term in the early church meaning to exclude from church membership. Paul echoed similar sentiments in Romans 9:3, saying he would be cut off from Christ if that were the means to save his Jewish people. Spiritual gifts, especially ecstatic prophecy, do not cause people to say “Jesus is anathema” (1 Cor. 12:3; NASB note). A person preaching any gospel except the gospel of grace promising justification through faith alone should be under the curse, that is anathema (Gal. 1:8-9).

Note the part I have emboldened. It is that technical term of exclusion from church membership that the Catholic Church uses, and it would seem has used from very early times.

 

[tom55]

Tom,

Even though the NT writers seem to have used the LXX (Septuagint), that does not mean that the OT Jewish canon included the deuterocanonical/Apocrypha books. Let's do some investigation: There was not a period of 1500 years prior to the Reformation when the canon of Scripture was settled as the RCC considers.

Why did the debate about the content of the canon of Scripture become more intense around the Reformation period. It was because of a formal statement made by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent and the Protestants responded with a strong voice. What is contained in the canon is relevant in the 21st century because to have a legitimate faith, one must have a legitimate canon from which that faith gains content. The legitimacy of faith is in the balance.
The Roman Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent (1546 - 1563), decreed certain apocryphal writings to be canonical (authoritative). The books of the Apocrypha included were…

Josephus (ca. AD 37-100) indicated in this writing that this was the view that was generally accepted in his day by fellow Jews about the content of the books of the OT Jewish canon. He wrote:


Which books were contained in these 22 books?


McGough stated that these early church fathers accepted these 22 books as those in the OT Jewish canon:

• Melito 170 AD, cited in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 4.26.14

• Origen 210 AD

• Hilary of Poitiers 360 AD, Tractate on Psalms, Prologue 15

• Athanasius 365 AD, Letter 39.4

• Cyril of Jerusalem, 386 AD, Catechetical Lectures 2, 4.33

• Council of Laodicea 391 AD, Canon 60

• Gregory of Nazianzus 390 AD, Carmina, 1.12

• Epiphanius 400 AD, Del Nensurius et Ponderibus, 4

• Rufinus 410 AD, Commentary in Symbols of the Apostles, 37

• Jerome 410 AD, Introduction to Samuel and Kings

Jerome's statement in support of the OT canon, which did not include the deuterocanonicals, was:


Why did the Protestants have to defend the OT Scriptures excluding the Apocrypha after the time of Reformation? It relates to the anathema pronounced by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent on those who did not accept the deuterocanonical/Apocrypha books:


With such a curse pronounced 'if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts....Let him be anathema', it was important to make sure that all Christians had the correct books in the Bible. As it has turned out, it was the Catholic Church that has added to the Scriptures of the OT, based on the evidence provided above.

Oz

The Council of Trent infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pope Damasus promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382. The regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419) the Church once again defined the same list of books as inspired.

The canons of the Old and New Testaments were later ratified (though the books were not enumerated individually) by the later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and Florence (1438-1445). The Council of Trent was a response to the Protestant violation of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical books plus portions of Daniel and Esther. The Council of Trent was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual book. The Council of Trent did not add those books to the canon. If the Council of Trent ADDED those books to the canon how could Martin Luther and the other Reformers have objected to the presence of those books decades before the Council of Trent if they weren't in the canon to begin with?

You ONCE AGAIN fail to give the whole truth and you quote only what fits your belief instead of what DESTROYS your belief. It is a FACT that scholars have reconstructed Josephus’ list differently. His testimony gives a list of books very close to the Hebrew canon as it stands today however Josephus' canon is not identical to that of the modern Hebrew Bible. It is debatable whether or not Josephus' canon had a tripartite structure and one should be careful not to overstate the importance of Josephus since Josephus was a member of the Pharisaic party and, although he might not have liked to think so, his was not the universally accepted Jewish Bible—other Jewish communities included more than twenty-two books.

I love how you quote St. Jerome in the year 391AD but leave out what he said in 402AD. You ONCE AGAIN quote what fits your belief but leave out what DESTROYS your belief. Here is a hint of where you can start your research: "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches?" (Against Rufinus)

I like the person you quoted, Richard McGough. He is one interesting person: http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2014/10/04/debunking-myself-what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been/ :blink:

The deuterocanonicals were accepted in the canon long before the Protestant Reformation and the Protestant reason for removing them from the canon was motivated for theological reasons.

 

[tom55]

Whatever happened to The Universal Church that practiced this:

This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me (Luke 22:19). After Jesus sat down to eat, he took some bread. He blessed it and broke it. Then he gave it to them.... They said to each other, “When he talked with us along the road and explained the Scriptures to us, didn’t it warm our hearts?” (Luke 24:30) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. (1 Corinthians 11:27-28). They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. (Acts 2:42). On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.... (Acts 20:7). And when he had said these things, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat (Acts 27:35). On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come (1 Cor. 16:2)

The Didache, written around 80AD, instructs Christians on what to do on Sunday: “on every Lord's day gather yourselves together, break bread and give thanks after having confessed your transgressions”.

Around the year 152 AD Justin Martyr wrote: On the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a given city or rural district. The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read (scripture), as long as time permits. Then when the reader ceases, the president (priest) in a discourse admonishes and urges the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers. When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people sing out their assent, saying the 'Amen.' A distribution and participation of the elements (Eucharist) for which thanks have been given is made to each person, and to those who are not present they are sent by the deacons. Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president. He provides for the orphans and widows, those who are in need on account of sickness or some other cause, those who are in bonds, strangers who are sojourning, and in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need. And this food is called among us the Eucharist….it is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

I recognize that RITUALISTIC Church. It is still with us today and practicing the same ritual for 2,000 years.

 

[epostle1]

This is what I said:

"The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testament canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament."

.There could be other grounds for rejecting them, it's not an absolute statement.

.2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used..

The Catholic perspective on this issue is widely misunderstood (insofar as it can be said to be known at all). Protestants accuse Catholics of “adding” books to the Bible, while Catholics retort that Protestants have “booted out” part of Scripture. Catholics are able to offer very solid and reasonable arguments in defense of the scriptural status of the deuterocanonical books. These can be summarized as follows:

1) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the “Bible” of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.

2) Almost all of the Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. The deuterocanonical books were in no way differentiated from the other books in the Septuagint, and were generally regarded as canonical. St. Augustine thought the Septuagint was apostolically sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.

3) Many Church Fathers (such as St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Tertullian) cite these books as Scripture without distinction. Others, mostly from the east (for example, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus) recognized some distinction but nevertheless still customarily cited the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. St. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin (the Vulgate, early fifth century), was an exception to the rule (the Church has never held that individual Fathers are infallible).

4) The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), influenced heavily by St. Augustine, listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. Thus, the Council of Trent merely reiterated in stronger terms what had already been decided eleven and a half centuries earlier, and which had never been seriously challenged until the onset of Protestantism.

5) Since these Councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite arbitrary for Protestants to selectively delete seven books from this authoritative Canon. This is all the more curious when the complicated, controversial history of the New Testament Canon is understood.

6) Pope Innocent I concurred with and sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above Councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse) in 405.

7) The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, such as Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), and Codex Alexandrinus (c.450) include all of the deuterocanonical books mixed in with the others and not separated.

8) The practice of collecting these books into a separate unit dates back no further than 1520 (in other words, it was a novel innovation of Protestantism). This is admitted by, for example, the Protestant New English Bible (Oxford University Press, 1976), in its “Introduction to the Apocrypha,” (page iii).

9) Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.

10) Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) “did not exist,” and wanted to “toss it into the Elbe” river.

11) The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther’s gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon (“chief books”) Hebrews, James (“epistle of straw”), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament “Apocrypha.” He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, “Christ is not taught or known in it.” These opinions are found in Luther’s Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522. (he is an authority???)
more here

DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT <source of initial quote

kepha,

There is not a word in Scripture that confirms what you have stated here. Therefore, yours is an argument from silence logical fallacy. You are not providing evidence to support your claim.

We can't have a rational discussion when you raise issues about silence and provide zero evidence.

Oz

I have provided summaries of evidence in the above post, then you accuse me of not providing evidence. But you are right, we can't have a rational discussion when you throw in straw man fallacies. The list of the usage, in various ways, of the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament, is too extensive to post. That's why I put in the link. DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
I have lots more evidence that you won't accept, because hard facts is no match for prejudice.

Tom,

Even though the NT writers seem to have used the LXX (Septuagint), that does not mean that the OT Jewish canon included the deuterocanonical/Apocrypha books. Let's do some investigation: There was not a period of 1500 years prior to the Reformation when the canon of Scripture was settled as the RCC considers.

Why did the debate about the content of the canon of Scripture become more intense around the Reformation period. It was because of a formal statement made by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent and the Protestants responded with a strong voice. What is contained in the canon is relevant in the 21st century because to have a legitimate faith, one must have a legitimate canon from which that faith gains content. The legitimacy of faith is in the balance.
The Roman Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent (1546 - 1563), decreed certain apocryphal writings to be canonical (authoritative). The books of the Apocrypha included were…

Josephus (ca. AD 37-100) indicated in this writing that this was the view that was generally accepted in his day by fellow Jews about the content of the books of the OT Jewish canon. He wrote:


Which books were contained in these 22 books?


McGough stated that these early church fathers accepted these 22 books as those in the OT Jewish canon:

• Melito 170 AD, cited in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 4.26.14

• Origen 210 AD

• Hilary of Poitiers 360 AD, Tractate on Psalms, Prologue 15

• Athanasius 365 AD, Letter 39.4

• Cyril of Jerusalem, 386 AD, Catechetical Lectures 2, 4.33

• Council of Laodicea 391 AD, Canon 60

• Gregory of Nazianzus 390 AD, Carmina, 1.12

• Epiphanius 400 AD, Del Nensurius et Ponderibus, 4

• Rufinus 410 AD, Commentary in Symbols of the Apostles, 37

• Jerome 410 AD, Introduction to Samuel and Kings

Jerome's statement in support of the OT canon, which did not include the deuterocanonicals, was:

Why did the Protestants have to defend the OT Scriptures excluding the Apocrypha after the time of Reformation? It relates to the anathema pronounced by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent on those who did not accept the deuterocanonical/Apocrypha books:

With such a curse pronounced 'if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts....Let him be anathema', it was important to make sure that all Christians had the correct books in the Bible. As it has turned out, it was the Catholic Church that has added to the Scriptures of the OT, based on the evidence provided above.

Oz

No one individual is the Magisterium. It took 300 years to discern what books belong in the Bible, it was as long complicated process and you are ignoring this fact. Excommunication is not a curse, anathema is not used in the same way as the OT. If the Catholic Church is guilty of adding to the OT, then she is guilty of adding the New Testament books, BECAUSE THEY WERE CANONIZED AT THE SAME TIME.

That might be how you see it but that is not the meaning of anathema according to the Oxford dictionaries (2016. s v anathema): 'A formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine'.

It is a formal curse that includes excommunication.

Oz

A curse? That's new to me.

That's an idiosyncratic Roman Catholic Church meaning of anathema. It is not what the Bible teaches or what the English language understands by the word, 'anathema'.
.
The Bible's understanding is:

Execration means ' the act of cursing or denouncing; also : the curse so uttered' (Merriam-Webster Dictionary. s v execration).

Oz

The word anathema is one of the most misunderstood terms in anti-Catholic apologetics. Almost all anti-Catholics, from the lowbrow end of the spectrum to those who give themselves airs of scholarship, misunderstand it. http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/anathema

Not what the Bible teaches? Are you sure about that?

Of special interest are Paul’s ecclesiastical uses of anathema—Galatians 1:8–9 and 1 Corinthians 16:22—in which Paul says that if a person is guilty of certain faults then "let him be anathema." Minimally, this directed the Christian community to hold the offender in a certain regard. This involved his exclusion from fellowship, as clearly must be done in the case of a person preaching a false gospel. Such exclusion—for a variety of offenses—is attested to elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., Matt 18:15–18), and often spoken of as "handing [the offender] over to Satan" so that he might suffer without the Church’s protection and thus be driven to repentance (1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2:5–11; Tit. 3:10).
Later in Church history, this exclusion to provoke repentance received the name "excommunication." Originally, the Church did not differentiate between excommunication and anathema, which is why ecumenical councils have traditionally constructed their dogmatic canons using the formula "If anyone says . . . let him be anathema," meaning that anyone teaching the condemned proposition is to be anathematized or cut off from Christian society.
Among ecumenical councils, this usage began with the first—I Nicea (A.D. 325)—which applied the formula to those denying the divinity of Christ. Since then the formula has been used by all ecumenical councils that have issued dogmatic canons. (Since Vatican II did not issue any dogmatic canons, it never used the term anathema).

 

[OzSpen]

The Council of Trent infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments.

tom55,

No sinful, fallible, imperfect human beings, whether at the Council of Trent or Council of Nicea, can produce an infallible document or 'infallibly reiterate' anything.

Oz