[Natural Law]

"So when Protestants don’t keep up with the canon pronounced at Trent, we are accusing of “changing” the canon, but when Rome doesn’t keep up with the most recent canon pronounced by the Jewish authorities, that is “okey-dokey”."

What evidence do you have that the Pharisaic Canon is the newest or most recent? ?

If I were to adopt a Sola Scriptura argument I would point to Acts 17:11. The Hellenistic Jews of Berea used the Septuagint. So if it was good enough for St. Paul it is good enough for Catholic Church and me.

Peace be with you.

[Boogieman]

“What evidence do you have that the Pharisaic Canon is the newest or most recent? ?”

Jews today don’t include the apocrypha. So, obviously their most recent canon doesn’t include it.

“If I were to adopt a Sola Scriptura argument I would point to Acts 17:11. The Hellenistic Jews of Berea used the Septuagint. So if it was good enough for St. Paul it is good enough for Catholic Church and me.”

I have to say, I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen a Catholic cite Acts 17:11, even if it was a bit backhanded. If it’s good enough for you, fine. I don’t mind if the Catholics want to use the apocrypha, just don’t accuse Protestants of some impropriety if they include in the OT only those books that the Jews, both then and now, universally accepted.