I believe the author of Hebrews was Peter, but this is not the place to say why, only that I personally would not remove it.Hebrews.
No known author
I personally could not place 1 and 2 Timothy in the second Century, sometimes scholars like dabbling in revisionism. Why? Because they have found new historical evidence? No. They get bored and like to dabble in the what ifs, stop being scholars for a moment and become forensic scientists instead.As far as I know, current scholarship generally puts the composition of 1 and 2 Timothy in the Second Century. Why should Protestants accept those as canon? A “burning in the bosom” a la Mormonism (that seems to be what the Westminster Confession of Faith says)? What about 2 Peter, whose authenticity was widely disputed in the early Church? I don’t think the Protestant canon has a leg to stand on.
By this do you mean you reject the Lutheran canon of Scripture and embrace the Catholic canon while, at the same time, rejecting the authority of the pope?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.
You’re spot on here, many did. Essentially followers of the heretics Luther, Calvin et.al. The deuterocanon contains things those folks didn’t care for at all!You mean the deuterocanonical books?
No, there wasn’t a consensus, in fact many learned Catholics before Trent challenged their inclusion.
I am anything but a defender of Luther, but he did not apostatize, he became an excommunicated heretic but he never totally rejected God.I don’t know. Martin Luther apostatized and rejected the deuterocanonicals, as you know. But I have no idea what I’d think about the canon with a non-Catholic mind.
Anyway, how is that question relevant?
Question, if you didn’t agree with a book your church accepted what would your position be? Would you and like minded colleagues start a new church with that book excised?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.
What he said. The Protestant Reformers did not reject all authority of the Church. Only sees the Church as in submission to the ultimate authority of ScriptureWhich 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.
Look up Eusebius, St. Jerome, Cardinal Cajeton, and Erasmus. Tell me if they were “heretics.”You’re spot on here, many did. Essentially followers of the heretics Luther, Calvin et.al. The deuterocanon contains things those folks didn’t care for at all!
These were local councils, specific to their bishoprics. These cannot logically speak for all Christians - and what do you make of the Eastern canons if these local councils did not recognize the books accepted in the East? You’re grasping at straws if you try to claim these local councils spoke for the entirety of the church. Very few Roman Catholic apologists still try to pass off this argument.While they were not infallible, the Councils of Rome in 382, of Hippo in 393 (presided over by St Augustine!), and of Carthage in 397 authoritatively determined the canon. After the Council of Rome, Pope Damasus I issued a canon of Scripture that was identical to the one Catholics use today. You can find it here (though, it doesn’t name Baruch, because that book was considered a part of Jeremiah):
crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com/2006/12/st-damasus-and-canon-of-scripture.html?m=1
There is no “Lutheran canon”. At least not to my knowledge, there is no official Lutheran doctrinal statement in the Book of Concord that defines the “Lutheran canon”.By this do you mean you reject the Lutheran canon of Scripture and embrace the Catholic canon while, at the same time, rejecting the authority of the pope?
I’m currently reading the DC’s. I didn’t find anything in Judith that I objected to doctrinally, and Wisdom, so far, seems wonderful.You’re spot on here, many did. Essentially followers of the heretics Luther, Calvin et.al. The deuterocanon contains things those folks didn’t care for at all!
We can add to this list the similar canon of none other than St. Athanasius the Great, contra mundum…Look up Eusebius, St. Jerome, Cardinal Cajeton, and Erasmus. Tell me if they were “heretics.”
The disputed books have been disputed since the beginning of His church.
Lutherans do not reject the authority of the pope. We only expect him to exercise the authority granted him in the early councils, which is in his jurisdiction, precisely like that of the Bishop of Alexandria’s in his, etc.By this do you mean you reject the Lutheran canon of Scripture and embrace the Catholic canon while, at the same time, rejecting the authority of the pope?
The Pope issued a universal statement. Didn’t you read that part?These were local councils, specific to their bishoprics. These cannot logically speak for all Christians - and what do you make of the Eastern canons if these local councils did not recognize the books accepted in the East? You’re grasping at straws if you try to claim these local councils spoke for the entirety of the church. Very few Roman Catholic apologists still try to pass off this argument.
Without a council, how universal was a statement from the pope?The Pope issued a universal statement. Didn’t you read that part?
Regarding the Eastern canons, Pope Innocent I issued this bull to Experius, the Bishop of Toulouse, rebuking the Eastern “extra” books:
bible-researcher.com/innocent.html
But this means that the Church has no better guarantee of being right as you or I do.What he said. The Protestant Reformers did not reject all authority of the Church. Only sees the Church as in submission to the ultimate authority of Scripture
Considering that the Pope ends the statement by stating the unity of the Church under the Bishop of Rome, pretty universal.Without a council, how universal was a statement from the pope?
That unity comes via a council. Perhaps this is the reason there has never been a universally accepted canon of scripture?Considering that the Pope ends the statement by stating the unity of the Church under the a Bishop of Rome, pretty universal.