Bible question for Protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter aball1035
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My Church picks the same books in the NT, and I agree; those books make complete sense to me.

The question is relevant only because you should be able to choose at least one NT book you think shouldn’t belong and have a reason for it, assuming you weren’t Catholic. If you could then I think that you would have a case.

So which book would you reject and why? And if you can’t think of one, then neither can I.
You’re saying that because your canon feels right, it is correct? That’s completely irrational. I wouldn’t remove the deuterocanonicals from the OT if I could, does that mean they’re inspired?

Martin Luther would have removed James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation if he could have justified it.
 
House Harkonnen, what’s your way of knowing whether you use the right canon or not?
Well, to choose from I have the Protestant canon, the Roman Catholic canon, the Eastern Orthodox canon, the Oriental Orthodox canon, the Assyrian Church of the East canon, the Ethiopian canon, those are the ones I can think of.

That’s a one in six chance of getting it right, right?

Well the main books of the NT are all the same IIRC, the ones that testify of Jesus.

The difference is of a few books of the OT here and there that have always been disputed by the church.

I trust my canon is correct because the consensus of the church testifies to all the books in the Protestant canon as canon, the other books have been widely disputed. At least the church as a whole agrees that the books in the Protestant canon are canon. I can take the consensus of the church on the matter.
 
Which books would you reject if you weren’t Catholic, and what in that book would cause you to reject it?
I feel like only males can enter Heaven, so I’m gonna include the Gospel of Thomas in my NT from now on. And I’ll reject the Gospel of Mark to make room, because I don’t like that 16:16 says that I have to be baptized.
 
Well, to choose from I have the Protestant canon, the Roman Catholic canon, the Eastern Orthodox canon, the Oriental Orthodox canon, the Assyrian Church of the East canon, the Ethiopian canon, those are the ones I can think of.

That’s a one in six chance of getting it right, right?

Well the main books of the NT are all the same IIRC, the ones that testify of Jesus.

The difference is of a few books of the OT here and there that have always been disputed by the church.

I trust my canon is correct because the consensus of the church testifies to all the books in the Protestant canon as canon, the other books have been widely disputed. At least the church as a whole agrees that the books in the Protestant canon are canon. I can take the consensus of the church on the matter.
I provided an article that refutes the bold (post #15)… Did you read it? Perhaps you’d like more?
 
You’re saying that because your canon feels right, it is correct? That’s completely irrational. I wouldn’t remove the deuterocanonicals from the OT if I could, does that mean they’re inspired?
Not exactly. There’s actually no reason to reject the NT books we have.
Martin Luther would have removed James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation if he could have justified it.
Yes… I’m sure all of the Lutherans agree with you.
 
I feel like only males can enter Heaven, so I’m gonna include the Gospel of Thomas in my NT from now on. And I’ll reject the Gospel of Mark to make room, because I don’t like that 16:16 says that I have to be baptized.
I meant actually.

I have yet to meet a Catholic that really does take issue with the NT Canon but only accepts it because the Church tells them to. The Canon is logical in all respects.
 
Not exactly. There’s actually no reason to reject the NT books we have.
And there’s no reason to reject the Didache, or the Gospel of Thomas, or Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews… The list goes on.

We’re discussing the OT here, not the NT, though.
Yes… I’m sure all of the Lutherans agree with you.
Luther ended up keeping them, because he couldn’t justify excluding them.
 
I meant actually.
Imagine I was serious. How would you refute my post?
I have yet to meet a Catholic that really does take issue with the NT Canon but only accepts it because the Church tells them to.
They probably don’t take issue with it because they believe that the Church is infallible. Do you deny that E-MC^2, but only accept it on the authority of Einstein?

Let’s talk about the deuterocanon now.
 
And there’s no reason to reject the Didache, or the Gospel of Thomas, or Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews… The list goes on.
I think the issue lays where we feel the need to exaggerate in order to prove a point. “Well while we’re at it why don’t we just add this thread to the Canon!” Such a line of thinking only seems narrow minded to me; throwing out logic for the sake of an argument.
We’re discussing the OT here, not the NT, though.
I thought I would mix it up a little since the OT has been discussed to death here… Seeing how many Church’s from the same Tradition do not come to the same conclusion as Rome and Catholics are so quick to yield and say, “well that’s no big deal.” I’ll back out of this one.
Luther ended up keeping them, because he couldn’t justify excluding them.
Those silly Lutherans always keep claiming otherwise for some reason.
 
Imagine I was serious. How would you refute my post?
Depends what time frame I’m in. In this one I would probably take the history and logic approach, Augustine may have that person burned at a stake; likewise some Popes… but I digress. History and logic.

Assuming you were serious I would probably think you were irrational, and you would agree; and I doubt it’s because your Church says so.
They probably don’t take issue with it because they believe that the Church is infallible. Do you deny that E-MC^2, but only accept it on the authority of Einstein?
Einstein and many other Scientists that have confirmed it; not just Einstein.
Let’s talk about the deuterocanon now.
Enjoy!
 
I think the issue lays where we feel the need to exaggerate in order to prove a point. “Well while we’re at it why don’t we just add this thread to the Canon!” Such a line of thinking only seems narrow minded to me; throwing out logic for the sake of an argument.
Imagine how the books you have in your Bible got there. How do you know that the people who decided it weren’t wrong to exclude, say, the Protoevangelium of James?
I thought I would mix it up a little since the OT has been discussed to death here… Seeing how many Church’s from the same Tradition do not come to the same conclusion as Rome and Catholics are so quick to yield and say, “well that’s no big deal.” I’ll back out of this one.
Where have you seen Catholics yield on this issue with the Orthodox (I’m assuming that’s the Church you’re referring to)? If they did so, they’re wrong. We argue that the Orthodox have deviated from Tradition by including those books.
Those silly Lutherans always keep claiming otherwise for some reason.
“I see 'er, Cap’n! Aye, she’s a beaut! Huge appeal to authority fallacy, off the port bow!”
 
Augustine may have that person burned at a stake; likewise some Popes.
St Augustine of Hippo had exactly 0 people burned at the stake, or executed at all, for that matter. Same with the Medieval and Renaissance Popes, though they did turn heretics over to temporal authorities knowing that they would be executed.
Einstein and many other Scientists that have confirmed it; not just Einstein.
That’s irrelevant; I’m saying that Catholics don’t argue with the Church, because we believe her to be infallible, just as you accept the word of quantum mechanicists as true due to their scholarly authority.
History and logic.
Now we’re getting somewhere! 😃

I contend that history and logic support the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals. How would you respond?
 
Imagine how the books you have in your Bible got there. How do you know that the people who decided it weren’t wrong to exclude, say, the Protoevangelium of James?
James was way too dead to include it.
Where have you seen Catholics yield on this issue with the Orthodox (I’m assuming that’s the Church you’re referring to)? If they did so, they’re wrong. We argue that the Orthodox have deviated from Tradition by including those books.
I can’t help you here; it was the same tradition and separate conclusions.
“I see 'er, Cap’n! Aye, she’s a beaut! Huge appeal to authority fallacy, off the port bow!”
I read every word in a pirate voice.
St Augustine of Hippo had exactly 0 people burned at the stake, or executed at all, for that matter. Same with the Medieval and Renaissance Popes, though they did turn heretics over to temporal authorities knowing that they would be executed.
Yes, that’s my answer; I pick doing that to the guy who rejects the long ending of Mark. Further proving that sometimes there needs to be opposition so that people can condemn those verbally who condemn others to death for heresy.

That’s not the point of this thread, but it needed to be done and it was.
That’s irrelevant; I’m saying that Catholics don’t argue with the Church, because we believe her to be infallible, just as you accept the word of quantum mechanicists as true due to their scholarly authority.
Well I know that, but if that was the only reason then you could take a look outside the lens of the Church and (honestly) throw out a book. I contend that it (honestly) could not be done.
Now we’re getting somewhere! 😃

I contend that history and logic support the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals. How would you respond?
They’re good books and I read them, but again; you’re up against Apostolic Church’s as old as yours. So we have to agree to disagree and move on. I’m not the one you need to discuss this with.

It’s not like Lutherans started the whole, “have different OT books” brigade.
 
James was way too dead to include it.
Okay, how about Antiquities of the Jews?
I can’t help you here; it was the same tradition and separate conclusions.
The patristic consensus was the 73-book Catholic canon, in both the East and West.
Well I know that, but if that was the only reason then you could take a look outside the lens of the Church and (honestly) throw out a book. I contend that it (honestly) could not be done.
The heresiarch Marcion did exactly that in the early 2nd century. Who’s to say he was wrong?
They’re good books and I read them, but again; you’re up against Apostolic Church’s as old as yours. So we have to agree to disagree and move on. I’m not the one you need to discuss this with.
Why do you keep copping out? The Orthodox canons of Scripture (yes, there are many within the Eastern Orthodox Church) are contrary to patristics. This is easily demonstrable. You couldn’t even find five Fathers who agreed with the current Orthodox canons. They departed from Tradition.

Now, why don’t you stand your ground and defend your doctrine? If you can’t, then why do you accept your canon as correct?
 
I can’t think of a book that came out of the 1st century that I would add outside of the books we have…

Perhaps the Didache? But even then we’re not sure that it was written in the first century. The Gospel of Thomas logically has no place.

Assuming you’re not a Catholic, which book would you add to the Canon from the 1st century?
I know first and second clement where nearly included and I can understand why.

But we also don’t know that we currently have all the books that they had.

Really, any first/second century letter we have currently must have been held in high esteem in some way to make it to us today.
 
Which Protestant has said that the church has no real authority on the matter?

I think the church is authoritative in regards to many things, it’s simply not the highest authority.

For me as a Lutheran I happy to simply accept the consensus of the church in the matter of the canon.
This United Methodist agrees. (And since I don’t want the Readers’ Digest Condensed Version of the Bible, I tend to buy and read Catholic Bibles. (Besides, Catholics don’t bend over backwards trying to be “politically correct” in translation/revisions, which gets :rolleyes::mad: . Fast.:cool:
But what about the Apocrypha? That was under the consensus of the Church when the Bible was formed.
I read the Deuterocanonicals. They inspire me, which is, :oadmittedly, a totally :osilly reason for accepting them, but I like them. (So shoot me).
 
I read the Deuterocanonicals. They inspire me, which is, :oadmittedly, a totally :osilly reason for accepting them, but I like them. (So shoot me).
In any discussion of the coolness of the deuterocanonicals, I have to bring up Wisdom 2:12-20, which is the clearest and most amazing Messianic prophecy I’ve ever read:

12 "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord.
14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”

And 5:1-13 offers a great image of the Second Coming:

1 Then the righteous man will stand with great confidence in the presence of those who have afflicted him, and those who make light of his labors. 2 When they see him, they will be shaken with dreadful fear, and they will be amazed at his unexpected salvation. 3 They will speak to one another in repentance, and in anguish of spirit they will groan, and say, 4 “This is the man whom we once held in derision and made a byword of reproach—we fools! We thought that his life was madness and that his end was without honor. 5 Why has he been numbered among the sons of God? And why is his lot among the saints? 6 So it was we who strayed from the way of truth, and the light of righteousness did not shine on us, and the sun did not rise upon us. 7 We took our fill of the paths of lawlessness and destruction, and we journeyed through trackless deserts, but the way of the Lord we have not known. 8 What has our arrogance profited us? And what good has our boasted wealth brought us? 9 All those things have vanished like a shadow, and like a rumor that passes by; 10 like a ship that sails through the billowy water, and when it has passed no trace can be found, nor track of its keel in the waves; 11 or as, when a bird flies through the air, no evidence of its passage is found; the light air, lashed by the beat of its pinions and pierced by the force of its rushing flight, is traversed by the movement of its wings, and afterward no sign of its coming is found there; 12 or as, when an arrow is shot at a target, the air, thus divided, comes together at once, so that no one knows its pathway. 13 So we also, as soon as we were born, ceased to be, and we had no sign of virtue to show, but were consumed in our wickedness."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top