Where did we get The Bible? - A IN-DEPTH STUDY

[BreadOfLife]

Did the Pope and the Vatican provide the Cadillacs for the Bishops?

Did they have any church buildings named after them?

Did they get special parking?

Do you have any more stupid questions?

 

[BreadOfLife]

You dont know the things you say.
"Without these MEN we would not know Gods word."
As if God needs these men to fulfill His sovereign will.

God doesn't need anything from us!!!
God never used any of those men.
They are all heretics.
God used the apostles to bring His gospel to the world.
If those apostles turned against God it would not have stopped His word from being proclaimed to the whole world.
God would have used other men to do His will
If those men turned against Him it would not change Gods sovereign will from being accomplished
And so on and so on.

God doesn't "need" anyone.
However, God used these men to carry the Gospel message through the centuries of persecution that they faithfully endured for Him.

What He doesn't need is faithless ingrates like YOU . . .

You have proven your faith is in men not God or His word
You serve a weak god!

My Gods will, will be done.
And nothing can stop His will from being done!

Acts 5:38-39
- And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone
for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing
but if it is of God, You cannot overthrow it- lest you even be found to fight against God

Wanna bet?

It is God's will that ALL be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth:
1 Tim. 2:3-4
This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants ALL PEOPLE to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Will ALL be saved?? NOT according to Jesus . . .
Matt. 7:13-14
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

God’s will is NOT always done on earth, as it is in Heaven.
That’s why we pray for it (Matt. 6:10).

 

[BreadOfLife]

They were called apostles.
Einstein?

The Apostles lived through CENTURIES of persecution, Einstein??

Wake up . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yet they agree doctrinally with the "Vicar of Christ" that is is Rome, are they not? If the answer is yes, then that is the Roman church with as you say different liturgical rites and cultural differences. The catholic church believes in the faith once delivered to the saints but you cannot say that you believe said faith. Why is that? Because your church would declare every one of the council fathers present at Nicaea as anathematized heretics.

WRONG.

And you’ll have a difficult time trying to convince am Eastern Liturgical Rite that they are the “Roman” Church. They all have Patriarchs - just as the Latin/Roman Rite in the west has a Pope – and are ALL in communion.

Thats because they are the same office as I have demonstrated. Where in Ignatius's authentic letters (not the latter forgeries) does he give a clear hierarchy of the church?

Interesting ho that, whenever an anti-Catholic loses an argument based on an Early Church writing – it is automatically becomes a “forgery”.

I ALREADY presented the evidence from Ignatius’s Letter to the Trallian’s, wherein he lists the Deacons, the Bishops and the Presbyters.

I see we are quoting Jurgens which tells me you haven't actually read the original source material. Jurgens is not dependable historically or textually. He references a lot of forgeries and shall we say, odd redactions and emendations. Above he is referencing a Latin emendation (forgery). Below is a translation of the original Greek text.

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that ye are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestation5 of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are7 also pleased that I do not spare myself. But shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?

Ignatius of Antioch. (1885). The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 67). Christian Literature Company.

Again we see that presbyter and bishop are the same office.

What have you been smoking, son?

From YOUR source:
“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles.”

Deacons
Bishop
Presbyters
Those are THREE distinct categories – NOT two.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Let take a look at Clement of Rome and what he has to say about church offices:


The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments,5 then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops8 in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”10


Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 16). Christian Literature Company.

I guess the Clement forgot about presbyters or maybe priests at this time. He is mediating a dispute and in the section he forgets about the existence of a church office? Weird. I suppose this isn't an infallible statement because its just a personal letter, right? If that's the case why cite it? Or, perhaps the most logical reason is that presbyter and episkapos are in fact the same office as in Titus. But lets read on:


Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions,2 that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate4 those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.


Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 17). Christian Literature Company.

See, Clement believes they are the same office. You should read the whole letter. it is quite edifying.

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

There is nothing confusing or misleading about Clemet's words.
It's just YOUR ignorance of the offices.

Just as a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is NOT necessarily a square -
- The Pope is a Priest/Presbyter.
- A Bishop is a Priest/Presbyter.
- A Priest/Presbyter is NOT a Bishop or Pope.

So, Clement correctly refers to those in the "episcopate" as "presbyters".

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Jewish canon was closed in at the latest second century BC. I contend before then. There are also references to books like Enoch and pagan writers but that doesn't establish them as canon. The Apocrypha is never quoted as scripture in the NT either.

Direct quotes? No – but I never said that.
I said that there are hundreds of references.

For example –
Eph. 6:13-17 – Paul’s reference to the armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield – is an almost verbatim listing from Wis. 5:17-20.

Heb. 11:35 – The teaching about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

This is a theory that has since been discredited. Jabneh never discussed the apocrapha but rather focused on Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. Beckwith oberserves:

The theory that an open canon was closed at the Synod of Jamnia about ad 90 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.6 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 ad 70, 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 ad 75 or as late as ad 117.

(c) As regards 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.

Beckwith, R. T. (1985). The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (p. 276). SPCK.

With Romans 3.1-2 in mind lets explore what a contemporary of the time frame we are discussing has to say about it. Josephus actually gives us a list

(38) 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; (39) 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; (40) 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.

Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1987). The works of Josephus: complete and unabridged (p. 776). Hendrickson.

You will notice Josephus is using the traditional inspired books 22 books that is typically referred to in Jewish writing.

That’s certainly a theory – but to say that this is “fact” is quite a stretch . . .

Norman Geisler, dean of Southern Evangelical Seminar claims that the Canon was closed at Jabneh and that this was where the Deuterocanonical Books were ejected (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-authored by Ralph MacKenzie [Baker Books, 1995]).

Jimmy Swaggart wrote:
“At the end of the first Christian century, the Jewish rabbis, at the Council of Gamnia [Jamnia], closed the canon of the Hebrew book (those considered authoritative)” (Jimmy Swaggart, Catholicism & Christianity [Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 1986], 129).

According to the Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments -
“After Jerusalem’s destruction, Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. Around 100, a council of rabbis there established the final canon of the OT” (Ed. Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments [InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1997], 185).

As to whether this rabbinical school had the Authority to close the Canon – they didn’t, according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:
“After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it” (ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861], emphasis added).

 

[JunChosen]

Paul's audience here is the Jews. He says this of them not a general statement otherwise the Bible contradicts itself.
Cornelius BEFORE he was born again seeked after God,
Acts 10:1-
- There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian regiment.
- a  devout man and one who  feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people and prayed to God always

Are you saying God has a rule for the Jews and a different rule for the Gentiles? Hence, Acts 10:1 only pertains to Cornelius and his kind?

You seem to think that Cornelius is not a saved person, but Note* that there are four characteristics that Cornelius possesses that makes him a believer:
1) A devout [pious] man.
2) Feared [reverenced] God with all his household.
[I will be a God to you and to your household]. Acts 16:31.
3) Gave alms generously to the people.
4) Prayed to God always [only a saved person will pray to God].

Can you see these four signs any where on an unsaved person? NO!!!

To God Be The Glory

 

[Athanasius377]

Direct quotes? No – but I never said that.
I said that there are hundreds of references.

For example –
Eph. 6:13-17 – Paul’s reference to the armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield – is an almost verbatim listing from Wis. 5:17-20.

Yes, the apocyphal books are referred to but never as scripture and never with the formula "Thus saith the LORD, or It is Written". As for Eph 6:13-17 and Wisdom 5:17-20 are quoting from Isa 59:17:


17 He put on righteousness as a breastplate,


and a helmet of salvation on his head;


he put on garments of vengeance for clothing,


and wrapped himself in zeal as a cloak.


18 According to their deeds, so will he repay,


wrath to his adversaries, repayment to his enemies;


to the coastlands he will render repayment.



The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Is 59:17–18). (2016). Crossway Bibles.

Was Paul aware of the apocryphal writings? Most certainly. But he did not treat them as scripture because the canon of the OT was closed and the prophetic voice had ceased in Israel centuries before.

Norman Geisler, dean of Southern Evangelical Seminar claims that the Canon was closed at Jabneh and that this was where the Deuterocanonical Books were ejected (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-authored by Ralph MacKenzie [Baker Books, 1995]).

You really shouldn't use quotes from catholic slanders because they are so rarely accurate. What Geisler actually said was this:


5. The Jewish scholars at Jamnia (c. a.d. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they have always rejected the Apocrypha.


Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: agreements and differences (p. 169). Baker Books.

Jimmy Swaggart wrote:
“At the end of the first Christian century, the Jewish rabbis, at the Council of Gamnia [Jamnia], closed the canon of the Hebrew book (those considered authoritative)” (Jimmy Swaggart, Catholicism & Christianity [Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 1986], 129).

According to the Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments -
“After Jerusalem’s destruction, Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. Around 100, a council of rabbis there established the final canon of the OT” (Ed. Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments [InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1997], 185).

The second quote is accurate. Though they are both repeating the earlier theory that Roger Beckwith demonstrates is not true.

As to whether this rabbinical school had the Authority to close the Canon – they didn’t, according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:
“After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it” (ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861], emphasis added).

That is Beckwith's point. The canon was already established and this academy not only lacked the authority but also never discussed the Apocrypha. Here is the relevant passage with the qoute from the Mishnah and bibliography:


Jamnia (or Jabneh). A city c. 13 miles S. of Joppa. After the fall of *Jerusalem (AD 70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jamnia; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the *Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Songs) which some said did not ‘defile the hands’—a phrase taken by many scholars, to refer to their canonicity (cf. *Mishnah, Yadaim, 3.5). The suggestion that a particular synod of Jamnia, held c. 100 AD, finally settled the limits of the OT Canon, was made by H. E. *Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it.


F. M. Abel, OP, Géographie de la Palestine, 2 (1938), pp. 352 f., with refs. H. E. Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament (1892), pp. 171 f. J. P. Lewis, ‘What do we mean by Jabneh?’, Journal of Bible and Religion, 32 (1964), pp. 125–32; S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 47; 1976), pp. 120–4. J. P. Lewis in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 3 (1992), pp. 634–7, with bibl.




Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A., eds. (2005). In The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev., p. 866). Oxford University Press.

Mishnah 3.5

3:5 A A scroll which was erased and in which remain eighty-five letters

B such as the paragraph, And it came to pass when the ark set forward [Num. 10:35f.],

C imparts uncleanness to hands.

D A scroll in which eighty-five letters are written,

E such as the paragraph, And it came to pass when the ark set forward,

F imparts uncleanness to hands.

G All sacred scriptures impart uncleanness to hands.

H The Song of Songs and Qohelet impart uncleanness to hands.

I R. Judah says, “The Song of Songs imparts uncleanness to hands, but as to Qohelet there is dispute.”

J R. Yose says, “Qohelet does not impart uncleanness to hands, but as to Song of Songs there is dispute.”

K Rabbi Simeon says, “Qohelet is among the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and strict rulings of the House of Hillel.”

L Said R. Simeon b. Azzai, “I have a tradition from the testimony of the seventy-two elders,

M “on the day on which they seated R. Eleazar b. Azariah in the session,

N “that the Song of Songs and Qohelet do impart uncleanness to hands.”

O Said R. Aqiba, “Heaven forbid! No Israelite man ever disputed concerning Song of Songs that it imparts uncleanness to hands.

P “For the entire age is not so worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel.

Q “For all the scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is holiest of all.

R “And if they disputed, they disputed only concerning Qohelet.”

S Said R. Yohanan b. Joshua the son of R. Aqiba’s father-in-law, according to the words of Ben Azzai, “Indeed did they dispute, and indeed did they come to a decision.”



Neusner, J. (1988). The Mishnah : A new translation (p. 1127). Yale University Press.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, the apocyphal books are referred to but never as scripture and never with the formula "Thus saith the LORD, or It is Written". As for Eph 6:13-17 and Wisdom 5:17-20 are quoting from Isa 59:17:

17 He put on righteousness as a breastplate,
and a helmet of salvation on his head;
he put on garments of vengeance for clothing,
and wrapped himself in zeal as a cloak.
18 According to their deeds, so will he repay,
wrath to his adversaries, repayment to his enemies;
to the coastlands he will render repayment.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Is 59:17–18). (2016). Crossway Bibles.

Was Paul aware of the apocryphal writings? Most certainly. But he did not treat them as scripture because the canon of the OT was closed and the prophetic voice had ceased in Israel centuries before.

As I stated earlier – the description of the Armor in Wis. 5:17-20 is almost verbatim – and a much closer description that that of Isaiah 59:17.
I ALSO noticed that you didn’t touch on the mother and her sons spoken of in Heb 11:35 / 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

And, as I stated before - the Canon was OPEN until the Rabbinical gathering at Jabneh – AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

You really shouldn't use quotes from catholic slanders because they are so rarely accurate. What Geisler actually said was this:

5. The Jewish scholars at Jamnia (c. a.d. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon. Since the New Testament explicitly states that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God and was the recipient of the covenants and the Law (Rom. 3:2), the Jews should be considered the custodians of the limits of their own canon. And they have always rejected the Apocrypha.

Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: agreements and differences (p. 169). Baker Books.

THANK YOU for making my first point that the Canon and the 7 Books was discussed at Jabneh.

YOU claimed that it wasn’t.

The second quote is accurate. Though they are both repeating the earlier theory that Roger Beckwith demonstrates is not true.

HUH??

Both Swaggart and the Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments make the claim that the Canon was closed at Jabneh.

That is Beckwith's point. The canon was already established and this academy not only lacked the authority but also never discussed the Apocrypha. Here is the relevant passage with the qoute from the Mishnah and bibliography:

Jamnia (or Jabneh). A city c. 13 miles S. of Joppa. After the fall of *Jerusalem (AD 70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jamnia; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the *Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Songs) which some said did not ‘defile the hands’—a phrase taken by many scholars, to refer to their canonicity (cf. *Mishnah, Yadaim, 3.5). The suggestion that a particular synod of Jamnia, held c. 100 AD, finally settled the limits of the OT Canon, was made by H. E. *Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it.

F. M. Abel, OP, Géographie de la Palestine, 2 (1938), pp. 352 f., with refs. H. E. Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament (1892), pp. 171 f. J. P. Lewis, ‘What do we mean by Jabneh?’, Journal of Bible and Religion, 32 (1964), pp. 125–32; S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 47; 1976), pp. 120–4. J. P. Lewis in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 3 (1992), pp. 634–7, with bibl.

Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A., eds. (2005). In The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev., p. 866). Oxford University Press.

Mishnah 3.5

3:5 A A scroll which was erased and in which remain eighty-five letters
B such as the paragraph, And it came to pass when the ark set forward [Num. 10:35f.],
C imparts uncleanness to hands.
D A scroll in which eighty-five letters are written,
E such as the paragraph, And it came to pass when the ark set forward,
F imparts uncleanness to hands.
G All sacred scriptures impart uncleanness to hands.
H The Song of Songs and Qohelet impart uncleanness to hands.
I R. Judah says, “The Song of Songs imparts uncleanness to hands, but as to Qohelet there is dispute.”
J R. Yose says, “Qohelet does not impart uncleanness to hands, but as to Song of Songs there is dispute.”
K Rabbi Simeon says, “Qohelet is among the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and strict rulings of the House of Hillel.”
L Said R. Simeon b. Azzai, “I have a tradition from the testimony of the seventy-two elders,
M “on the day on which they seated R. Eleazar b. Azariah in the session,
N “that the Song of Songs and Qohelet do impart uncleanness to hands.”
O Said R. Aqiba, “Heaven forbid! No Israelite man ever disputed concerning Song of Songs that it imparts uncleanness to hands.
P “For the entire age is not so worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel.
Q “For all the scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is holiest of all.
R “And if they disputed, they disputed only concerning Qohelet.”
S Said R. Yohanan b. Joshua the son of R. Aqiba’s father-in-law, according to the words of Ben Azzai, “Indeed did they dispute, and indeed did they come to a decision.”

Neusner, J. (1988). The Mishnah : A new translation (p. 1127). Yale University Press.

In the end, it's Protestants who have a much bigger problem than a simple rejection of these 7 Books.

They have the task of trying to reason why God would have allowed these uninspired books to be considered Scripture for the first 1500 years of Christianity. That is a LOT of people who were duped for 15 centuries – or were they? Did Jesus tell the Apostle that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to SOME Truth – or to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15)?

The fact is that Jesus and the NT writers studied from and referenced the Septuagint, as I have illustrated - which included the Deuterocanonical Bools and portions of Daniel and Esther that were jettisoned from the Hebrew Bible. At Jabned, a new Septuagint was compiled - sans those Books..

Eminent Protestant historian, J.N.D. Kelly observed:
“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive . . .
It was included though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books.”

 

[Athanasius377]

There is nothing confusing or misleading about Clemet's words.
It's just YOUR ignorance of the offices.

Just as a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is NOT necessarily a square -
- The Pope is a Priest/Presbyter.
- A Bishop is a Priest/Presbyter.
- A Priest/Presbyter is NOT a Bishop or Pope.

So, Clement correctly refers to those in the "episcopate" as "presbyters".

Come on Bread, thats a leap in logic so wide Evel Knievel couldn't make that jump, lol. So you are telling us that in the section of Clement's letter where he discussed the polity of the church he assumes that corinthians already have some esoteric knowledge that enable them to come to your conclusions? The fact is there was no monarchal episcopate until later even in Rome. In fact the idea that Clement was a pope is absurd. I submit to you that the Roman church at the time was run by a group of presbyters of which Clement was one. Lets here more from Clement on the matter:


It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most stedfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters.


Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 18). Christian Literature Company.


Who then among you is noble-minded? who compassionate? who full of love? Let him declare, “If on my account sedition and disagreement and schisms have arisen, I will depart, I will go away whithersoever ye desire, and I will do whatever the majority commands; only let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace with the presbyters set over it.”


Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 19). Christian Literature Company.


Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts.


Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 20). Christian Literature Company.

So there are two options: Either Clement is playing word games or he believes that a presbyter and Epicopas are the same office. Which is in line with Titus 1:5-9:

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Tt 1:5–9). (2016). Crossway Bibles.

Of course you won't see that because Rome tells you what you must find in the historical record. The fact is Rome and History are not friends. Which is why the modern Roman church's claims fail when one examines church history. Now the office of Bishop and presbyter become separate offices later in the second century that much is clear but at the time of the Clement the church of Rome and Corinth this was not the case.

 

[St. SteVen]

Come on Bread, thats a leap in logic so wide Evel Knievel couldn't make that jump, lol.

LOL
What a great post intro. Kudos.

 

[Athanasius377]

I ALSO noticed that you didn’t touch on the mother and her sons spoken of in Heb 11:35 / 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

A reference to 2 Maccabeees does not make it part of the canon anymore than Jude's reference to Enoch and The Ascension of Moses. So that's a swing and a miss.

THANK YOU for making my first point that the Canon and the 7 Books was discussed at Jabneh.

YOU claimed that it wasn’t.

What is said was they didn't discuss the the Apocrypha only the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes.

HUH??

Both Swaggart and the Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments make the claim that the Canon was closed at Jabneh.

Ok, I'll repeat what was said.


The theory that an open canon was closed at the Synod of Jamnia about ad 90 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.


Beckwith, R. T. (1985). The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (p. 276). SPCK.

and I gave the points Lewis and Leiman made regarding said theory. The authors you cited are repeating the earlier theory. Jimmy Swaggart is not a solid source for the issue of Canon anymore than Fr. James Martin is for sexual ethics.

In the end, it's Protestants who have a much bigger problem than a simple rejection of these 7 Books.

They have the task of trying to reason why God would have allowed these uninspired books to be considered Scripture for the first 1500 years of Christianity. That is a LOT of people who were duped for 15 centuries – or were they? Did Jesus tell the Apostle that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to SOME Truth – or to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15)?

Actually, I don't have the problem you do. Romans 3:1-2 makes clear that the Jews were entrusted with the orcales of God. How could they be entrusted with them if they don't know what they are. But let's took a look at why they were rejected.

Furthermore, the apocrypha itself states that the number of books:



2 Esdras:

So during the forty days, ninety-four books were written. And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first, and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge." And I did so. Five thousand years and three months and twelve days after creation. At that time Ezra was caught up, and taken to the place of those who are like him, after he had written all these things. And he was called the scribe of the knowledge of the Most High for ever and ever (2 Esdras 14:44-48). NRSV

There's that number 24 or 22 depending on what you do with Ruth and Lamentations.

Then there is the silencing of prophecy until the time of John the Baptist, more from the apocrypha:



And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)


And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)


And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)(NRSV)

And then there is Judith. A book so littered with historical inaccuracies it is frankly laughable.


In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh (Judith 1:1 ESV).


The other issue you have is the books were carried in bibles conditionally. Jerome the translator of the Vulgate Latin bible in his introduction states that the books of the Apocrypha were not scripture. The Glossa Ordinaria, THE study bible if you will of the middle ages begins each book with the statement, "Thus begins the book of Judith (or any of the apocrypha), It is not canon".

Rome also knows that these books are inferior and that's why they call them deuterocanonical books. We call them fine to read and even edifying but certainly not scripture.

 

[Athanasius377]

The fact is that Jesus and the NT writers studied from and referenced the Septuagint, as I have illustrated - which included the Deuterocanonical Bools and portions of Daniel and Esther that were jettisoned from the Hebrew Bible. At Jabned, a new Septuagint was compiled - sans those Books..

They compiled a new Septuagint? That would be a major discovery. You might want to correct that statement. The NT authors would have known the LXX as they qoute from a version of it. Jesus on the other hand would have studied and known the Hebrew. And Again, the historical evidence by those at Jabneh themselves reject this outright. The other problem is that there isn't just one LXX. There are different versions and some contain some of the books, others do not.

Another point is that Jesus Himself refers to the canon in Luke and Matthew:


Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Mt 23:34–35). (2016). Crossway Bibles.

The murder of Abel was recorded in the book of Genesis and the Murder of Zechariah was recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. The first book of the Jewish canon is Genesis and the Last book is 2 Chronicles, the entirety of the Jewish Canon.

 

[Athanasius377]

There were actually two versions of the Old Testament floating around when the Bible was compiled into one book in the late fourth century. One was Hebrew and one was Greek. Before Jesus was incarnated, there was a large contingent of Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt, as merchants. Alexandria was a large port city on the Mediterranean Sea. The common language of the Mediterranean countries with regard to commerce and literature, at that time, was Greek. The Jews, being good merchants, worked there for generations and more or less begin forgetting their Hebrew. But, they knew Greek. So, they contacted Israel and asked for a copy of the existing Scriptures to be translated into Greek, which they did. After Jesus came, and rose to heaven, the Apostles and new Christians begin converting Jews to Christianity, using the Old Testament Scriptures. This, of course, upset the Jewish leaders, who then decided to create an official canon (list of books) for their Old Testament. They purposely left out seven books that had previously been there. So, we now had two versions of Scripture. In the late fourth century, the Catholic Church held three councils to determine which of the 300+ books, documents, letters, etc., that were in circulation were worthy of being considered Scripture. Of all of those, they came up with the 27 that almost everyone agrees are the books of the New Testament. They then chose the Greek version of the Old Testament. Bible scholars have studied both versions of the Old Testament and have determined that 80-85% of the direct and indirect references in the New Testament to the Old Testament point to the Greek version. Therefore, we can conclude that the Greek version was the one Jesus and the Apostles used most often.

Yes, I am aware of the Greek Septuagint (LXX). Strictly speaking, the original of what we called LXX was just the Pentateuch. It later referred to the various Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. We know this from Aristeas a member of the royal (Ptolemy's?) court:


In this way, as we said previously, each day they assembled in their quarters, which were pleasantly situated for quiet and light, and proceeded to fulfill their prescribed task. The outcome was such that in seventy-two days the business of translation was completed, just as if such a result was achieved by some deliberate design. 308 When it was completed, Demetrius assembled the company of the Jews in the place where the task of the translation had been finished, and read it to all, in the presence of the translators, who received a great ovation from the crowded audience for being responsible for great blessings. 309 Likewise also they gave an ovation to Demetrius and asked him, now that he had transcribed the whole Law, to give a copy to their leaders
.

Charlesworth, J. H. (1985). The Old Testament pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom, and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works (Vol. 2, p. 33). Yale University Press.

Aside from the Pentateuch there really isn't just one LXX but several perhaps some that were lost. Sometimes they would include devotional literature that was included in the apocrypha and others that were not. Yet not one of the ancient LXX manuscripts contain all of the apocrypha. Moreover some of the books that were attached were not included in the Tridentine canon (3 and 4 Macc, 3 and 4 Esdras, Enoch and Psalm 151) of 1546 and even that list differs from the one adopted at Carthage.

Again I stress, there is no evidence that the Jews ever thought any of the books of the apocrypha were scripture as they were never laid up in the Temple, nor did these books make the hands ceremonially unclean. The evidence shows that Jews numbered their books in the traditional 22 or 24 depending on what you do with Ruth (attached to Judges) and Lamentations (attached to Jeremiah).

As to the later fourth century councils they were local and were not ecumenical and therefore were not considered binding the way Trent is. Trent was when the Roman church decided the canon in 1546.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Come on Bread, thats a leap in logic so wide Evel Knievel couldn't make that jump, lol. So you are telling us that in the section of Clement's letter where he discussed the polity of the church he assumes that corinthians already have some esoteric knowledge that enable them to come to your conclusions? The fact is there was no monarchal episcopate until later even in Rome. In fact the idea that Clement was a pope is absurd. I submit to you that the Roman church at the time was run by a group of presbyters of which Clement was one. Lets here more from Clement on the matter:


It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most stedfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters.


Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 18). Christian Literature Company.


Who then among you is noble-minded? who compassionate? who full of love? Let him declare, “If on my account sedition and disagreement and schisms have arisen, I will depart, I will go away whithersoever ye desire, and I will do whatever the majority commands; only let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace with the presbyters set over it.”


Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 19). Christian Literature Company.


Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts.


Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 20). Christian Literature Company.

So there are two options: Either Clement is playing word games or he believes that a presbyter and Epicopas are the same office. Which is in line with Titus 1:5-9:

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Tt 1:5–9). (2016). Crossway Bibles.

Of course you won't see that because Rome tells you what you must find in the historical record. The fact is Rome and History are not friends. Which is why the modern Roman church's claims fail when one examines church history. Now the office of Bishop and presbyter become separate offices later in the second century that much is clear but at the time of the Clement the church of Rome and Corinth this was not the case.

First of all – we know that Clement was THE Bishop of Rome during his time – and NOT part of a “team” of Bishops of Rome. We know this because of Irenaeus. In his 2ns century document, Against Heresies, he lists of the Bishops of Rome from his own time going ALL the way back to Peter – and they ALL ruled solitarily.

Are you now going to trey to tell me that Against Heresies was a “forgery”?

Secondly – nothing you said negates what I said before –
- The Pope is a Priest/Presbyter.
- A Bishop is a Priest/Presbyter.
- A Priest/Presbyter is NOT a Bishop or Pope.

Clement understood this – even if YOU don’t.

 

[BreadOfLife]

They compiled a new Septuagint? That would be a major discovery. You might want to correct that statement. The NT authors would have known the LXX as they qoute from a version of it. Jesus on the other hand would have studied and known the Hebrew. And Again, the historical evidence by those at Jabneh themselves reject this outright. The other problem is that there isn't just one LXX. There are different versions and some contain some of the books, others do not.

Another point is that Jesus Himself refers to the canon in Luke and Matthew:


Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Mt 23:34–35). (2016). Crossway Bibles.

The murder of Abel was recorded in the book of Genesis and the Murder of Zechariah was recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. The first book of the Jewish canon is Genesis and the Last book is 2 Chronicles, the entirety of the Jewish Canon.

The fact ios that the Deuterocanonicals were part of of the Septuagint during Jesus's time. I have already provided examples from the NT with regard to this.

The rabbis at Jabneh removed the Deuterocanonicals from the Septuagint - hence a "new" version was created.

There are 5 major Traditions in the first century –
The Samaritan tradition
The Sadducee tradition
The Pharisee tradition
The Essene tradition
The Septuagint tradition

Only the Samaritan and Sadducee Traditions were fixed or closed.
None of the others were considered “closed”.

(The Bible is a Catholic Book, Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers, Inc.)

 

[Davy]

These views are not exhaustive by any means. And while the above issues are worthy of time and attention for any seeker of truth, the following are factors relative to the bible that speak directly to the Christian Anarchist point of view:

Never heard of any such "Christian Anarchist point of view".

Anarchists, for those who don't know, means someone who is completely against ANY idea of government or rule of law.

So using that term in association with a Christian, now that is really bad!!!

Anyone needing help on this matter should study Romans 13 about the role of government and law according to Christian doctrine per Apostle Paul.

 

[Athanasius377]

First of all – we know that Clement was THE Bishop of Rome during his time – and NOT part of a “team” of Bishops of Rome. We know this because of Irenaeus. In his 2ns century document, Against Heresies, he lists of the Bishops of Rome from his own time going ALL the way back to Peter – and they ALL ruled solitarily.

Are you now going to trey to tell me that Against Heresies was a “forgery”?

Secondly – nothing you said negates what I said before –
- The Pope is a Priest/Presbyter.
- A Bishop is a Priest/Presbyter.
- A Priest/Presbyter is NOT a Bishop or Pope.

Clement understood this – even if YOU don’t.

Actually, there are parts of "Against Heresies" that are disputed and this is one such passage. It is a Latin translation of a Greek original the earliest of which we have dates from the end of the Fourth century at the earliest. JND Kelley observes:

To illustrate his argument Irenaeus singled out, in a famous and much debated passage, the Roman church; its greatness, its antiquity, its foundation by the apostles Peter and Paul, the fact too that it was universally known, made it an apt example. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam, so the surviving Latin translation runs, propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio. If convenire here means ‘agree with’ and principalitas refers to the Roman primacy (in whatever sense), the gist of the sentence may be taken to be that Christians of every other church are required, in view of its special position of leadership, to fall into line with the Roman church, inasmuch as the authentic apostolic tradition is always preserved by the faithful who are everywhere. This interpretation, or some variant of it, has been accepted by many, but it is awkward to refer in qua to hanc … ecclesiam, and anachronistic to attribute such thinking to Irenaeus.

Kelly, J. N. D. (1977). Early Christian Doctrines (Fifth, Revised, pp. 192–193). Bloomsbury.

 

[Athanasius377]

The fact ios that the Deuterocanonicals were part of of the Septuagint during Jesus's time. I have already provided examples from the NT with regard to this.

The rabbis at Jabneh removed the Deuterocanonicals from the Septuagint - hence a "new" version was created.

There are 5 major Traditions in the first century –
The Samaritan tradition
The Sadducee tradition
The Pharisee tradition
The Essene tradition
The Septuagint tradition

Only the Samaritan and Sadducee Traditions were fixed or closed.
None of the others were considered “closed”.

(The Bible is a Catholic Book, Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers, Inc.)

Once again, just because the books may have been attached to Greek translation of the parts of the OT does not mean they were scripture. Were these books ever:
-Laid up in the Temple?
-Make the hands unclean?
-Referred to as scripture by the NT writers with the introduction "It is written", or "Thus says the LORD"?

The answer to all three is no they were not.

The Rabbi's at the academy of Jabneh did not ever discuss the those books and even if they did according to the very information you cited (which I agree with) they did not have the authority to decide anything.

Lastly, the greatest biblical scholar of the early church Jerome denied the apocrypha was scripture. The fact is more an ancient source knew about the Hebrew language and culture the more likely they were to reject the apocrypha.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Actually, there are parts of "Against Heresies" that are disputed and this is one such passage. It is a Latin translation of a Greek original the earliest of which we have dates from the end of the Fourth century at the earliest. JND Kelley observes:

To illustrate his argument Irenaeus singled out, in a famous and much debated passage, the Roman church; its greatness, its antiquity, its foundation by the apostles Peter and Paul, the fact too that it was universally known, made it an apt example. Ad hanc enim ecclesiam, so the surviving Latin translation runs, propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio. If convenire here means ‘agree with’ and principalitas refers to the Roman primacy (in whatever sense), the gist of the sentence may be taken to be that Christians of every other church are required, in view of its special position of leadership, to fall into line with the Roman church, inasmuch as the authentic apostolic tradition is always preserved by the faithful who are everywhere. This interpretation, or some variant of it, has been accepted by many, but it is awkward to refer in qua to hanc … ecclesiam, and anachronistic to attribute such thinking to Irenaeus.

Kelly, J. N. D. (1977). Early Christian Doctrines (Fifth, Revised, pp. 192–193). Bloomsbury.

Funny you should bring up J.N.D. Kelly to dispute Irenaeus’s Against Heresies.

Kelley, in his Book, Oxford Dictionary of Popes uses this document to show the like of Papal succession going all the way back to Peter in Rome (see Rev. 17-18; Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, 6).

According to Protestant scholar D.A. Carson, Peter was:
“in Rome about 63 (the probable date of 1 Peter). Eusebius implies that Peter was in Rome during the reign of Claudius, who died in 54 (H.E. 2.14.6)” (An Introduction to the New Testament, 180).