What is the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture?

gotquestions.org ^ | unknown | Got Questions Ministries

[ealgeone]

Question: "What is the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture? What does it mean that the Bible is sufficient?"

Answer: The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. To say the Scriptures are sufficient means that the Bible is all we need to equip us for a life of faith and service. It provides a clear demonstration of God’s intention to restore the broken relationship between Himself and humanity through His Son, Jesus Christ, our Savior through the gift of faith. No other writings are necessary for this good news to be understood, nor are any other writings required to equip us for a life of faith.

[af_vet_1981]

For Catholics who touts traditions and councils, it seems strange to pick and choose which councils to listen to.

It's simple: pick and choose councils of the one holy catholic apostolic church like the First Council in Jerusalem concerning the Gentiles; do not look to the Sanhedrin, or any other council which is not comprised of the one holy catholic apostolic church, for rulings as to what constitutes the Christian faith or practice, including of course the Canon of Scripture.

[HarleyD]

The Council of Jamnia only confirmed the inspired Old Testament that was agreed upon two hundred years BEFORE Christ. These were believers. They were not some heretics as Judas or members of some fanatical group as you're trying to paint them. What the Council of Carthage was to add text never agreed to by believers 600 years earlier.

Council of Jamnia

[af_vet_1981]

The Council of Jamnia only confirmed the inspired Old Testament that was agreed upon two hundred years BEFORE Christ. These were believers. They were not some heretics as Judas or members of some fanatical group as you're trying to paint them.

False allegation, or mind reading; stick to what is written.

My previous statement is unrefuted. Protestantism is going to the Sanhedrin, after the trial, death, burial, and resurrection of the LORD Jesus Christ, for authority to remove scripture from the Christian Bible. Prior to these events the Sanhedrin had that authority. After those events, Jesus built His church and gave the Apostle Peter, and his brother Apostles the power to bind and loose. It was taken from the rabbis and given to the Apostles and, by tradition, their successors in the one holy catholic apostolic church.

If one wishes to practice Judaism, one goes to the rabbinic authorities. Here is a more extensive history of what occurred at Jabneh than the blog answer of John Oakes you linked.

History of the Jews : 4. Gamaliel II, Head of the Sanhedrin

[HarleyD]

No, regrettably you are incorrect. The Old Testament was put into place 200-400 years prior to our Lord Jesus arrival. The Council of Jamnia only confirmed what was in place. That is precisely how our Lord could refer to "the scriptures" speaking about Him and even quote from the verses. Everyone in the crowd knew what scriptures were considered inspired and holy because the fathers confirmed it. And, before you bash these people too much, you may wish to consider many of these people included people like Ezra and Nehemiah.

If Tobias and Maccabees would have been inspired, our Lord would have simply stated, "Woe to you Pharisees and Scribes because you have neglected to throw in Tobias." So we have the authority of Christ himself as to what was inspired.

Our heritage comes as believers. Christians were called Christian at Antioch but Gentiles have only been grafted onto the branch of Israel-not the other way around.

[jjotto]

http://www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48939022.html

...The Men of the Great Assembly — in Hebrew, Anshei Knesset HaGedolah — was an unusual group of Jewish personalities who assumed the reigns of Jewish leadership between 410 BCE and 310 BCE. This time period follows the destruction of the First Temple, and includes the early decades of the Second Temple, up until the invasion of the Greeks, led by Alexander the Great.

Realizing that the Jewish people were growing weaker spiritually, a group of wise leaders came together — expanding the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court, from 70 to 120 members — with a special aim of strengthening Judaism. Initially gathered together by Ezra, they defined Judaism in this tumultuous time when prophecy and kingship were all but gone from the Jewish people...

...The Jewish people have produced hundreds of thousands of prophets (both men and women). Which of their writings should be preserved for future generations and which had limited applicability?

The Men of the Great Assembly make this decision and give us what is known as the Hebrew Bible today — or the Tanach. (Tanach is a Hebrew acronym which stands for Torah, Prophets, Writings.)...

[af_vet_1981]

The Old Testament was put into place 200-400 years prior to our Lord Jesus arrival.

1. Which year was it ?
2. Which Jewish authority did it ?
3. Where is it documented ?
4. Why did the Greek translation of the scriptures, the Septuagint, include the other books ?

The Council of Jamnia only confirmed what was in place.

What was already in place is the Jewish authorities had rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

Was that confirmed or rescinded at Jamnia ?

The Sanhedrin at Jamnia did far more than that. They set new rules for faith and practice in Judaism because of the destruction of the Temple with a mortal threat from Rome, and the perceived threat of Christianity.

"In some circles a tendency toward Christianity was felt, but Paul the Apostle's negativism toward the cardinal tenets of Jewish law led to the sect of Judeo-Christians' break with Paul, and they therefore could easily recruit from among Jews, for they were close to one another in origin and mode of life."

This is what Gamaliel as Nasi (President) of the Sanhedrin had to deal with in order to unite the remnants of the Jews with Judaism (as opposed to Christianity) in a hostile world.

"Among other issues, they reviewed the issue of the sacredness of the two biblical books of the later period, the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, as well as admission of proseltyes descended from Ammon and Moab."

Read the book (page 34) I linked and learn.

[HarleyD]

1. Which year was it ?

Does it matter? The Council of Jamnia confirmed it in 90AD. What you're asking would be like me asking you which is the actual Council that confirmed the Catholic bible, the Council of Carthage or the Council of Trent? Your response would be to say that the Council of Trent confirmed the Council of Carthage. Same difference.

2. Which Jewish authority did it?

No Jewish authority did it. Believers in God did it.

3. Where is it documented ?

If it wasn't documented, then we wouldn't be talking about it nor would you have accepted their existence. Are you familiar with Google?

4. Why did the Greek translation of the scriptures, the Septuagint, include the other books ?

Don't know and don't care. The Greeks came much later after the OT writings were finalized. (Almost 400 years later.) What they liked or disliked is immaterial to the inspired scriptures of God.

The Sanhedrin at Jamnia did far more than that. They set new rules ... perceived threat of Christianity.

We're talking about two different timelines here. The OT books were codified 200-400 years BEFORE Christianity. Christianity wasn't even thought about. No one said, "Hey, I bet Luther would like to use this some day." Jamnia only confirm. What rules the unbelieving Jews created later has absolutely no bearing on the sealing of the OT scriptures 200 years earlier.

And, just because unbelieving Jews may have codified the OT that was set down 200 years ago, doesn't negate the OT. Please remember the unbelieving Caiaphas prophesied about Christ. God uses events to His will.

[af_vet_1981]

1. Yes, it matters. One does not know when The Old Testament was put into place but one does know when Jesus was born, tried, condemned, killed, and rose from the dead. The reason it matters is that the Septuagint was a Greek translation of the holy scriptures that occurred before Jesus' Advent and was widely used in the books of the New Testament.
   
   The Septuagint (LXX) is a Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, translated in stages between the 3rd to 2nd century BCE in Alexandria, Egypt. ...
   
   ...
   
   "Authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint."[13]
   
   Is a Christian under the authority (binding and loosing) the scribes and pharisees or the one holy catholic apostolic church
   
   And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
   
   ...
   
   Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
   
   ...
   
   Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
   
   Matthew, Catholic chapter sixteen, Protestant verse eighteen to nineteen,
   
   Matthew, Catholic chapter eighteen, Protestant verse eighteen,
   
   Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty three, Protestant verses one to three,
   
   
   as authorized, but not authored, by King James
   
   
2. No Jewish authority did it. Believers in God did it.
   
   That is an Islamic answer. Salvation is of the Jews. Moses had the authority. The prophets had the authority. The scribes and pharisees sat in Moses' seat and had the authority, but not after the death, burial and resurrection of the Messiah. The authority was transferred to a new nation, the one holy catholic apostolic church.
   
   
3. The Greeks came much later after the OT writings were finalized. (Almost 400 years later.)
   
   False;
   
   The date of the 3rd century BCE is supported (for the Torah translation) by a number of factors, including the Greek being representative of early Koine, citations beginning as early as the 2nd century BCE, and early manuscripts datable to the 2nd century.
   
   
4. Protestantism is trying to argue that the Sanhedrin at Jabneh (Jamniah) is its authority for excluding the other books in the Septuagint that the one holy catholic apostolic church included in the Bible. The scribes and pharisees at Jabneh no longer had the authority, after the rejection, trial, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, to bind and loose the scriptures for the one holy catholic apostolic church. Anything from their council in 90 CE/AD is not binding on Christians. Christians were already using the Septuagint as evidence by the New Testament books in Greek quoting from the Septuagint.

[HarleyD]

One does not know when The Old Testament was put into place but one does know when Jesus was born, tried, condemned, killed, and rose from the dead.

What we do know is that the Council of Jamnia agreed with what was put into place in 90AD. We know that our Lord Jesus referred to the "scriptures" ..

Mat_22:29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Mat_26:54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?"

Luk_24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

There wasn't any question about what our Lord Jesus was talking about. The OT was already codified.

The Septuagint may have been used along with a lot of other writings, but what was the tradition of the time?

That is an Islamic answer. Salvation is of the Jews.

Well, that is the first time I've been called an Islam. Of course salvation is of the Jews. But not all Jews are believers.

Protestantism is trying to argue that the Sanhedrin at Jabneh (Jamniah) is its authority for excluding the other books in the Septuagint that the one holy catholic apostolic church included in the Bible.

No, Protestantism is saying that the time of our Lord Jesus recognized the OT scriptures just as they are in the Protestant bible. It was agreed with by our Lord Jesus and confirmed by the Council of Jamnia. Catholics just want to add to the text for whatever purposes and they did this 400 years after the death of Christ.

[af_vet_1981]

1. What we do know is that the Council of Jamnia agreed that Jesus was neither the Messiah, nor the King of Israel, nor the Son of God in 90 AD. Using the Sanhedrin council in 90AD as authority for Protestantism's removal of books from the Bible begs the other question:
   
   Since the Sanhedrin is Protestantism's authority for the Canon of Scripture why does Protestantism not accept the Sanhedrin's authority in interpreting those scriptures ?
   
   Did they, or did they not, sit in Moses' seat ?
   
   
2. Well, that is the first time I've been called an Islam.
   
   False; writing "that was an Islamic answer" does not call one "an Islam". It calls the comments "No Jewish authority did it. Believers in God did it." an Islamic answer. The authors of the scriptures were Jewish authorities. The translators of the scriptures into Greek were Jewish authorities. All of this occurred prior to the First Advent and the Septuagint was extensively used in the books of the New Testament. Did the Sanhedrin include the books of the New Testament in the Canon of Holy Scripture ?
   
   
3. No, Protestantism is saying that the time of our Lord Jesus recognized the OT scriptures just as they are in the Protestant bible. It was agreed with by our Lord Jesus and confirmed by the Council of Jamnia. Catholics just want to add to the text for whatever purposes and they did this 400 years after the death of Christ.
   
   That is patently false; the additional books were already in the Septuagint used by Jesus and have been in use continuously since then, even until this day.

[HarleyD]

Since the Sanhedrin is Protestantism's authority for the Canon of Scripture why does Protestantism not accept the Sanhedrin's authority in interpreting those scriptures ? Did they, or did they not, sit in Moses' seat ?

As you should know, Protestants do NOT give anyone the authority in interpreting scripture. That right solely belongs to the believer and God. The Bereans searched the scriptures to see if these things are true. In King Josiah's time they simply read the scriptures and everyone wept. And Christ told the leaders of the church, "You know neither the scriptures nor the power of God." So why would we think the Jewish leaders could interpret the scriptures? While there may be minor points of disagreement, it's not too difficult to understand God's word.

But what you're saying is interesting. Catholics give someone the right to choose which scriptures to accept and the authority of interpreting those scriptures. Where does that lead the believer? Hmmmm.....

The translators of the scriptures into Greek were Jewish authorities. All of this occurred prior to the First Advent and the Septuagint was extensively used in the books of the New Testament. Did the Sanhedrin include the books of the New Testament in the Canon of Holy Scripture ?

Sure, the Jewish "authorities" believe some of the early writings were of value. They just didn't believe that Tobias, Maccabees, or some of the other writings rose to the level of inspired by God.

The New Testament was never in question. It is the Old Testament that Catholics differ from Protestants and Jewish believers. Catholics have simply added to the text and continues to add to the text against the advice of our Lord Jesus and John.

That is patently false; the additional books were already in the Septuagint used by Jesus

There is absolutely no reference of our Lord Jesus EVER using the Septuagint in any quote. What you're saying is that the "scriptures" at the time of our Lord Jesus contained the Septuagint though it was not quoted, the Jews were pulled out in 90AD by the Council of Jamnia, and then believers reinserted by the Council of Carthage. The trouble with this logic is that the Council of Jamnia only CONFIRMED what was being used at the time for 200-400 years. They didn't change anything.

While I understand the conundrum this creates for the Catholic Church, they can't rewrite history as much as they would like. But we're not really just talking about the Old Testament. The Catholic Church looks at all sorts of things as being "inspired and inerrant". So it doesn't matter to Catholics, does it? Catholics can declare anything to be inspired and that's that, including whatever the Pope decides to write down on a cocktail napkin. "Inerrant and inspired" no longer has the meaning the church fathers intended.

But, then, change is suppose to be good. It's certainly not the first time doctrine has been changed by the Church.

[af_vet_1981]

As you should know, Protestants do NOT give anyone the authority in interpreting scripture.

That would coincide with Protestantism being, essentially, a protest and rebellion against fifteen centuries of universal Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

The Bereans were not Protestants. They were Jews. Whether they searched, or not, did not change the truth one whit. What the Apostle Paul and Silas told them was the truth. Similarly, the Sanhedrin at Jabla (Jamnia) searched the scriptures and decided Jesus was not the Messiah, not the King of Israel, and not the Son of God. Ipso facto, they reject all the books of the New Testament as Protestantism rejects the books missing from its Bible, and Protestantism looks to them for assurance in its rebellion against the one holy catholic apostolic church.

There is absolutely no reference of our Lord Jesus EVER using the Septuagint in any quote.

False;

This chart will show how Jesus Christ and the apostles quoted from the Greek Septuagint when they were quoting from the Old Testament.

One looking to the Sanhedrin at Jabla (Jamnia) for assurance is left denying the Old Testament or the New.

can't rewrite history as much as they would like. But we're not really just talking about the Old Testament.

Jamnia would argue that the entire New Testament is invalid; There is one holy catholic apostolic church, built by Jesus on Cephas, and the other Apostles and Prophets, with the Messiah being the chief cornerstone. Protestantism arose in the Sixteenth Century, without a genuine apostle or prophet, could not even agree on doctrine and practice, and has continued to splinter and devolve ever since. It is impossible for it to be the church the Messiah built. For historicity to the First Century one is left with the Catholic/Orthodox or Jamnia Judaism.

[HarleyD]

Whether they searched, or not, did not change the truth one whit. What the Apostle Paul and Silas told them was the truth.

Yes, they trusted but verified.

Similarly, the Sanhedrin at Jabla (Jamnia) searched the scriptures and decided Jesus was not the Messiah

You seem to be stuck on this. This doesn't negate the confirmation of the Old Testament by our Lord Jesus. If you want further proof of the Old Testament APART from the Council of Jamnia, then you may wish to review the writings of Josephus:

The clearest testimony of the extent of the Hebrew canon comes from the first century writer Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100). He said that the Jews held as sacred only twenty-two books (which include exactly the same as our present thirty-nine books of the Old Testament). He wrote:
We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8).

JOSEPHUS: HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON

Josephus was a historian-not a religious leader. His verification should be proof enough since his writings were BEFORE 90 AD.

False;

???? There are no quotes from Tobia or Maccabbees there. We are specifically talking about these additional books that have been added to the Old Testament.

Protestantism arose in the Sixteenth Century, without a genuine apostle or prophet, could not even agree on doctrine and practice, and has continued to splinter and devolve ever since.

Sorry, but Protestants trace their roots back to the likes of Augustine. And I can assure you, if you read Justin or Clements, it is like reading Protestant writings. Catholics have all but abandoned the Council of Orange creeds when they implemented the Council of Trent creeds. These are two opposing views. They simply ushered in Pelagius and heresy. I will agree that most Protestants have splintered but it's because they have become more Catholic in their practice. Catholics have long abandoned the gospel of grace and many Protestants of today are heading down that same road. It is simply make it up as they go along. Before long they'll be worshiping Mary.

[af_vet_1981]

If you want further proof of the Old Testament APART from the Council of Jamnia, then you may wish to review the writings of Josephus:

...

we have but twenty-two [books] ...

Sorry, but Protestants trace their roots back to the likes of Augustine.

Still holding this version of Protestantism to account for accepting and relying on the authority of the Sanhedrin at Jabla (Jamnia), that the Scribes and Pharisees still sat in Moses' seat with the authority to bind and loose, in 90AD/CE after the rejection, trial, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

This version does seem to be trying to reform itself though.

[HarleyD]

Let's see....

Ignore the council who confirmed the OT scriptures...

Ignore historians who verified the OT scriptures...

Ignore actual history showing the OT scriptures...

Ignore the Church that no longer considers the inerrant scriptures anything more than mere writings...

And yet I'm told I have a different version of history??? That would be funny if it wasn't so incredibly sad.

[af_vet_1981]

Let's see....

1. Ignore the council who confirmed the OT scriptures...
   
   The Sanhedrin rejected Jesus as Messiah, King, and Son of God, and you complain Catholics do not also rely on their council. AntiCatholicism has become the religion in place of historic Christianity shared by Catholics and Orthodox throughout the world.
   
   
2. Ignore historians who verified the OT scriptures...
   
   You referenced one Jewish general, Josephus, taken captive by a Roman, who then wrote a history of the Jews. You listed a quote of 22 books. Catholics and Orthodox have always including the other books.
   
   
3. Ignore actual history showing the OT scriptures...
   
   The Septuagint translated the OT scriptures from Hebrew to Greek and is used extensively in the New Testament books, the New Testament books which the council being appealed to rejects.
   
   
4. Ignore the Church that no longer considers the inerrant scriptures anything more than mere writings...
   
   Your point does not make sense.
   
   
5. And yet I'm told I have a different version of history??? That would be funny if it wasn't so incredibly sad.
   
   Protestantism arose, without an apostle, without a prophet, in the Sixteenth Century.

[HarleyD]

You listed a quote of 22 books. Catholics and Orthodox have always including the other books.

Josephus combined various books. For example, Chronicles is counted once whereas it shows up in the Protestant (and Catholic) editions as 1st and 2nd Chronicles. Ezra and Nehemiah are combined as well as Jeremiah and Lamentations. Here is the list below which mirrors the Protestant bible:

1-5. Books of Moses.
6. Joshua.
7. Judges and Ruth.
8. Samuel.
9. Kings.
10. Chronicles.
11. Ezra and Nehemiah.
12. Esther.
13. Isaiah.
14. Jeremiah and Lamentations.
15. Ezekiel.
16. Daniel.
17. Twelve Minor Prophets.
18. Job.
19. Psalms.
20. Proverbs.
21. Ecclesiastes.
22. Song of Songs.

Of course the Catholics and Orthodox included other books. That is the point of this discussion, isn't it? This list, btw, was not only confirmed by Josephus but by Eusebius in the 4th century. So there is plenty of history behind this history.

Your point does not make sense. (Church that no longer considers the inerrant scriptures anything more than mere writings...)

From New Advent (the Catholic encyclopedia):

...The Bible, as the inspired recorded of revelation, contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths which the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing. However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible (see TRADITION); neither is every truth in the Bible revealed...

The Bible

So, while the writings are inspired not everything is revealed*. It is up to the Church to tell you other things; much like Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormons. So, if some day the Pope is at a cocktail party and feels very inspired with something like global warming, then all he needs to do is jot it down and history is made.

* (We'll ignore the issues the Catholic Church has with Paul's writings.)

[af_vet_1981]

Josephus combined various books.

No, he did not combine various books. He wrote that there were 22 books.

The one holy catholic and apostolic church divided those 22 books into 39 books, without the authority of the Sanhedrin authority on which Protestantism relies, and added some of the other holy books translated in the Septuagint to comprise the Bible. All the scripture that Protestantism removed from its version of the Bible in the 16th Century was in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_booksboth the Catholic and Orthodox Canon of the Bible.

The Catholic deuterocanonical scriptural texts are:

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4–16:24)[9]
Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon)
Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)[10]
Additions to Daniel:
Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90)
Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

It is a good thing that Protestantism was unsuccessful at removing Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the Bible as well.

IN BRIEF

134 All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2,8:PL 176,642: cf. ibid. 2,9:PL 176,642-643).

135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).

137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit's action' (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).

138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.

139 The four Gospels occupy a central place because Christ Jesus is their center.

140 The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God's plan and his Revelation. The Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.

141 "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord" (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Ps 119:105; cf. Is 50:4).

[HarleyD]

No, he did not combine various books. He wrote that there were 22 books.

I listed the books as Josephus and Eusebius listed them. It is plain to see some of the books are combined. I'm not sure what else to say except to say the books matches the Protestants version.

While I have given you historical proof that these were the OT books considered inspired by our Hebrew fathers, used at the time of Christ, and verified by Jewish, secular and Christian historians; you have offered no proof that the book of Tobit was considered inspired throughout history (to name but one). Instead you have just offered to me what the Catholic Church tells you to say-that it was used a lot in the churches so it must be inspired. And you conveniently pointed me to the Catholic website where they will verify that what they say is true.

If you're comfortable with that explanation and source material then go for it. Next you'll be telling me Mary was sinless because the Church tells you it was so. I'm sure they have several websites explaining how that is so as well.

[af_vet_1981]

listed the books as Josephus and Eusebius listed them. It is plain to see some of the books are combined.

You have it backwards; there were 22 original books which where then rearranged or split into extra books by the one holy catholic apostolic church from which Protestants inherited them.

The Sanhedrin council did not have the authority to decide the canon for Christians because it occurred after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. The Sanhedrin council denies that Jesus is the Messiah, the King of Israel, and the Son of God. It also denies each and every book in the New Testament is holy scripture. Josephus is also a nonChristian authority who wrote after the coming of the Messiah, albeit not as a religious leader; he probably reflected what the Sanhedrin ruled.

Tobit has been in the Bible since the Septuagint until this day. Both Catholic and Orthodox Christians regard it as sacred scripture. It was taken out of the same Protestant Bible by the same Protestant founder who wanted to remove that the New Testament books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. That should be a significant warning.