Posted on 03/13/2015 12:40:51 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
1.) The King James Bible and/or Protestant Bible contains 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books.
Roman Catholics include all of these books within their sacred canon, with the addition of other books not included within the Protestant Canon.
The Coptic Bible contains more books than all of the aforementioned (including the 27/39) and books that Roman Catholics believe to be canonical - and some other books.
2.) The First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD issued the Nicene Creed, adhered to by almost all Christians (Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Protestants and Coptics) with the exception of a few Protestant denominations. St. Jerome noted in his writings that the Book of Judith was considered (at the First Council of Nicaea) to be "sacred scripture."
The principal argument used against deuterocanonical books is that supposedly neither Jesus nor the Apostles quoted from them. If this is indeed true, then a counter argument is that neither Ezra, Nehemiah or Esther were quoted from.
It has been posited that to quote from one book in a set ("history": Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther or "poetry": Ecclesiastes or Song of Solomon) validates the entire set. But this counter argument used against Roman Catholics, Coptics and Greek Orthodox is grounded in conflation and extrapolation and opens up the door to 3:
3.) If Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14) and the Assumption of Moses (Jude 19), then to quote one verse from those books would validate the whole of both books.
4.) Some argue that we need to look to the "Deluxe" sets (Codex Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) --- the oldest surviving Greek Manuscripts available --- to determine what books are or are not canonical. The problem with this is that each codex contains at least one book that neither Protestants nor Catholics believe to be Canonical and secondly, until the discovery made by Tischendorf and others of these codices. the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) was believed for over 1000 years to be valid. But none of theses codices contains the long ending while both the long and short ending can be found among Greek fragments.
So which of the aforementioned Bibles do you believe to be the "true" Bible?
Well, that's a huge problem right there. The oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews. That would be the Old Testament and Christ said He would send the Holy Spirit to give the apostles the information to write. God said He would preserve His word for all generations. Have you another source for His word?
What Scripture was Paul referring to?
What did the Jews of those days consider Scripture?
That would be the answer.
It’s the OT without the added Apocrypha.
So tell me what’s in the added Apocrypha that we need to know that’s not in the rest of the OT?
And what about the books of the Apocrypha that contain error? Are they God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture as well, even with the error in them?
I prefer King James. After all, that is the one Paul used, and if it is good enough for Paul, it is good enough for me.
:-)
Troublemaker......
Yes, saying it the way I typed it is not really how I feel. I was trying to point out that the “inspired” part is of more consequence than I used to see it.
And there is no edit feature once you post...
I do my best.
:-)
I hear ya!
On the Daily Readings thread you get six translations of the Catholic Bible. Did you know that?
New American Bible Revised Edition
RSV
Jerusalem
Douay Rheims
Vulgate Clementina
and Greek.
Now that’s hard to argue with. The Catholic Bibles are all the correct Bible. They have the complete canon of books.
Be sure and ping me when someone answers you. I have yet to get one after all this time.
An web series I watch had an episode last week on where Scripture came from. Lutheran point of view, but that doesn’t come into much play for this topic. I found it interesting, figured I’d share it. Don’t think this should be all that controversial...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKirUtgA990
I’m not holding my breath.
What Scripture was Paul referring to?
What did the Jews of those days consider Scripture?
St Paul was referring to the Scriptures he himself read, namely the Septuagint. And guess what OT books the Jews put into the Septuagint? All the books included in the canon decided by the Church. So if the books were good enough for the Jews and St Paul...............
Now, some Jews did reject these books, but what was their record in determining and understanding the WORD of God.
well, the Word of God walked among them, taught them and did they understand Him? NO! They had Him put to death.
The Christian Faith is a revealed Faith, it comes from God not man. The Holy Spirit was promised to THE CHURCH, to lead it to ALL TRUTH. The Holy Spirit calls the Church the PILLAR OF TRUTH.
Unfortunately for Protestants, the canon of Scripture was determined over 1100 years before the first Protestant showed up on earth.
When THE CHURCH had to decide which books were Scripture and which were not, the Holy Spirit led IT to the correct answer. The Holy Spirit was not poured out onto the unbelieving Jews late in the first century who rejected the Septuagint’s canon. It’s funny that some would let unbelieving, Christ rejecting, sons of Satan determine their canon as opposed to men who received authority from Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 28 to baptize and TEACH.
when the Church set the canon, it did not do so in the midst of religious wars over doctrine as was occurring in the 16th century when the Protestants threw out seven books of the OT that every Bible they opened contained. this is an extremely important point. the 4th century Church used two criteria to determine if a book was Scripture or not and these two tests were the same for the OT AND NT:
1. did the book teach the Catholic Faith received from the Apostles?
2. was the book read in the Church during Mass?
so the same Holy Spirit filled bishops of the Church that determined Hebrews was Scripture, Matthew was Scripture, Acts was Scripture, Thomas was not Scripture, the Shepard was not Scripture, Clement was not Scripture, decided 46 OT books WERE Scripture. ( 1100 years before anyone ever heard of a Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, etc etc )
no group claiming to be Christian used a 66 book Bible BEFORE the 16th century.
is it reasonable to conclude that the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to properly determine the NT canon, but not the OT???
one final thought, God is not the author of confusion. Protestantism with their thousands of denominations and conflicting views on baptism, Eucharist, salvation, etc etc can not be counted on to produce a correct canon.
the Holy Spirit not only inspired the writers of Scripture, He also protected those Scriptures from error, He used the Church to determine the NT canon and He used the same Church to determine the OT canon.
metmom - there is your answer about the Jews.
Then any writings that contain error, are not Scripture.
That eliminates some of what the RCC added at the Council of Trent.
That eliminates some of what the RCC added at the Council of Trent
the Catholic Bible Martin Luther picked up in 1515, how many books were in it?
what year did the first 66 book Bible first appear on earth?
can you answer these two simple questions?
one more thought:
can the “natural man” understand the things of God? or is the Holy Spirit required to?
take your answer to those two questions and then ask yourself “am I relying on natural men ( unbelieving 1st century Jews ) to determine my OT canon or believing Christians?
The majority of the books and fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls are manuscripts that mostly agree with the KJV...
Of the 5500 or so extant manuscripts which are not of the Catholic brand agree with the KJV over 95% of the time...
Most of the scripture quoted by the early church Fathers in their writings match those of the KJV...
The KJV is the only bible created using the line of manuscripts that came out of Jerusalem and Antioch, Syria, where followers of Jesus were first called Christians while all other English written bibles (300 or so) come from a line of manuscripts that originated out of Alexandria, Egypt, the Catholic line of bibles...
Just sayin'...
Every mention of "Scripture" in the NT is of the OT, either the Alexandrian Canon or Septuagint, except for 2 Pet 3:15-16 and 2 Pet 3:2, which cite the Pauline Epistles as "Scripture," and 1 Tim 5:18, which cites a passage from Luke as Scripture.
From the earliest times, the Gospels and Epistles were regarded as divinely inspired, but controversy regarding most other NT books existed well into the fourth century.
OrigenWhat did the Jews of those days consider Scripture? That would be the answer. It’s the OT without the added Apocrypha.Origen's travels gave him exception opportunities to know the traditions of widely separated portions of the Church and made him very conversant with the discrepant attitudes toward certain parts of the New Testament. He divided books with Biblical claims into three classes:
•those universally received;
•those whose Apostolicity was questions;
•apocryphal works.In the first class, the Homologoumena, stood the Gospels, the thirteen Pauline Epistles, Acts, Apocalypse, I Peter, and I John. The contested writings were Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, James, Jude, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and probably the Gospel of the Hebrews. Personally, Origen accepted all of these as Divinely inspired, though viewing contrary opinions with toleration. Origen's authority seems to have given to Hebrews and the disputed Catholic Epistles a firm place in the Alexandrian Canon, their tenure there having been previously insecure, judging from the exegetical work of Clement, and the list in the Codex Claromontanus, which is assigned by competent scholars to an early Alexandrian origin.
Eusebius
Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, was one of Origen's most eminent disciples, a man of wide erudition. In imitation of his master he divided religious literature into three classes:
•Homologoumena, or compositions universally received as sacred, the Four Gospels, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, Hebrews, Acts, I Peter, I John, and Apocalypse. There is some inconsistency in his classification; for instance, though ranking Hebrews with the books of universal reception, he elsewhere admits it is disputed.
•The second category is composed of the Antilegomena, or contested writings; these in turn are of the superior and inferior sort. The better ones are the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, II Peter, II and III John; these, like Origen, Eusebius wished to be admitted to the Canon, but was forced to record their uncertain status; the Antilegomena of the inferior sort were Barnabas, the Didache, Gospel of the Hebrews, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter.
•All the rest are spurious (notha).
The answer to that question cannot be determined from Scripture alone, because although approximately 300 of the 350 or so OT citations in the NT are from the Septuagint (which includes the deuterocanonical books), the NT writers (Jude) also cite non-canonical literature.
So tell me what’s in the added Apocrypha that we need to know that’s not in the rest of the OT?
While there are passages in the NT that support the doctrine of Purgatory (Mat. 12:32, Mat. 5:25-26) and the practice of praying for the dead (Acts 9:36-37,40-41, John 11:41-42, 1 Kings 17:17-24), these subjects are mentioned explicitly in the deuterocanonical Book of 2 Maccabees.
2 Maccabees 12Since Luther rejected the doctrine of Purgatory and the practice of praying for the dead, Luther sought a pretext for eliminating 2 Maccabees from the Canon, which he found in the so-called "council of Jamnia," a group of Jews which rejected the Septuagint (and the authority of Christ's Church, circa 100 A.D.).38 Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was approaching, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there.
39 On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his companions went to gather up the bodies of the fallen and bury them with their kindred in their ancestral tombs.
40 But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.f
41 They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden.
42 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.g
43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind;
44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin.
And what about the books of the Apocrypha that contain error? Are they God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture as well, even with the error in them?
Do the Scriptures contain error?
This begs the question of canonicity.
100% presumption.
By that logic the Greek poet that Paul quoted in Acts 17.28 should validate his whole work.
If Jude decided, under the inspiration of the HS, to use a quote from some source ... it is only the final product that is inspired ... not the source.
Jesus says you are making that up...And for those who require red letters,
Luk_24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Your Catholic books do not fit into the law, the prophets and the psalms...Your deuteralcomical bibles have torn those OT books into pieces while adding books that are not part of the law, prophets and psalms...
Then any writings that contain error, are not Scripture.
That eliminates some of what the RCC added at the Council of Trent.
That bears repeating since we know those extra books the Catholics so love are full of proven errors...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.