Biblical argument for Protestant canon?

[jcrichton]

As I read Acts and the letters of the Apostles, the focus is on the life of Christ, on accepting the Gospels. It is accepting the new life made possible by His death, resurrection, and the power of the Holy Spirit. The new Christians submitted to the instructions of the Apostles.
St. Paul, especially in Corinthians, deals with behavior within the assembly. Corinth was much like San Francisco of today. It was a seafaring town. Gentiles coming into the Way needed to learn the customs of the Way, how to worship in an orderly fashion.
In his letter to Timothy, St. Paul reminds him to remain faithful to the traditions handed down. Timothy has been steeped in the Scriptures since youth.
It is the Pharisees that revised the Jewish canon, removing books not meeting certain criteria as mentioned in an earlier post. It removed anything not written in Hebrew, or after the Ezra. Those were two of the criteria.
During the time of Christ, there were different Jewish sects, including the Essences. It is why you will find that some Jews had already celebrated Passover, while others had not during the time of Christ’s Passion. The Last Supper was the Passover Supper. Christ had to be taken down from the Cross before Passover. There is a history of Christians fasting on both Wednesday and Friday.
Somebody mentioned the Hanukkah celebration. The scriptural, or historical reference would be Maccabees.** I find nothing offensive or ironic about a religious people celebrating a holiday not written in sacred text. **
The Hellenistic Jews would have kept these writings while the Palestinians, under the Pharisees did not. It is still a historical event. The people of modern Israel would likewise celebrate its establishment after WWII.
Much of how the Catholic Mass is set up comes from Jewish tradition.
We share with our Orthodox brothers and sisters when it comes to teachings regarding Mary and the Saints. The Church has a long history that will not always be found in scripture. It will be found in the stories of men and women who have continued to live according to what has been passed down orally, as well as in writing.

Hi, Deb!

…the point that is being made is that there had to be a source for this “religious” celebration other than “came out of thin air.”

I’m Catholic… have never wondered away from the Faith… I’m also Latino; there are many in various communities who are both “Catholic” and “Latino” who have embraced "Santería " as an offshoot of Catholicism or as part of authentic Catholicism.

Santeria is a marriage of indigenous, African, and Catholic elements… just because there is a Catholic element does not mean that it is an alternate method of Worshiping Yahweh God.

A God-centric people, as the Jews, would not adopt a celebration or religious form just because someone somewhere thought it to be a “great thing” to do… for such acts to be valid, Santeria, as an offshoot of Catholicism would be sound–which we know that it is not!

A God-centric people would only celebrate as sound that which is proven to be part of God’s Design… dig deep enough into the past and you find the celebration’s origins: the Maccabean Revolt!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Indeed! A position many find themselves in when absolute truth is no longer a position to be held.

Peace!!!

Hi!

…the problem lies not in the search for Truth but in the intended quest itself… when truth becomes as fluid and as subjective as the seeker’s tenets there’s nothing to be done…

I liken that to the Protestant’s search for the “Church in Scriptures.” The Truth is there… yet, the preconceived architectural plans cannot be reconciled with what they find… so they continuously attempt to recreate “the true Church.”

Truth, then, appears to be relative. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[DebChris]

Hi, Deb!

…the point that is being made is that there had to be a source for this “religious” celebration other than “came out of thin air.”

I’m Catholic… have never wondered away from the Faith… I’m also Latino; there are many in various communities who are both “Catholic” and “Latino” who have embraced "Santería " as an offshoot of Catholicism or as part of authentic Catholicism.

Santeria is a marriage of indigenous, African, and Catholic elements… just because there is a Catholic element does not mean that it is an alternate method of Worshiping Yahweh God.

A God-centric people, as the Jews, would not adopt a celebration or religious form just because someone somewhere thought it to be a “great thing” to do… for such acts to be valid, Santeria, as an offshoot of Catholicism would be sound–which we know that it is not!

A God-centric people would only celebrate as sound that which is proven to be part of God’s Design… dig deep enough into the past and you find the celebration’s origins: the Maccabean Revolt!

Maran atha!

Angel

They don’t celebrate it “out of thin air.” It’s part of history.
I wrote in one of my earliest post about the Helenistic and Palestinian Jews.
The Helenistic Jews kept Maccabees, just as Catholics have.
What I wrote, I copied directly from one of my New American Bible. It has a short history of Bible development, as well as the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation.

We celebrate many historical events that have been passed down to us orally. Which is exactly my point. What the Pharisees kept as scripture was pre-Ezra and written in Hebrew. It was revised canon.
We celebrate the Assumption of Mary, as do the Orthodox. There is no burial site for Mary. The Orthodox name many of their churches after the Dormitrix (her falling asleep). There is nothing in scripture. It is accepted as magisterial teaching. Magisterial teaching is protected by the Holy Spirit.

 

[adf417]

Hi!

…the problem lies not in the search for Truth but in the intended quest itself… when truth becomes as fluid and as subjective as the seeker’s tenets there’s nothing to be done…

I liken that to the Protestant’s search for the “Church in Scriptures.” The Truth is there… yet, the preconceived architectural plans cannot be reconciled with what they find… so they continuously attempt to recreate “the true Church.”

Truth, then, appears to be relative. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

Or simply incomplete. It is inconceivable in the Protestant mind for someone or some organization to have the fullness of truth and at the same time profess any amount of truth.

The closest i have come to a protestant defining what truth his church professes as not having is something to the effect of “We all agree to 90% of the doctrines of the truth and the other 10% no one knows”. They might as well say - “at least before Jesus left us orphans we got most of it down”.

Peace!!!

 

[DebChris]

Or simply incomplete. It is inconceivable in the Protestant mind for someone or some organization to have the fullness of truth and at the same time profess any amount of truth.

The closest i have come to a protestant defining what truth his church professes as not having is something to the effect of “We all agree to 90% of the doctrines of the truth and the other 10% no one knows”. They might as well say - “at least before Jesus left us orphans we got most of it down”.

Peace!!!

Forgetting of course that Christ said He would not leave us orphans.
He was sending an Advocate, the Holy Spirit who would guide us in all Truth.

The Church was born at Pentecost. Those who were baptized “devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.” [Acts 2:42]

 

[Achilles6129]

So the entire argument is that because the deuterocanonical books were translated alongside other Scriptural books that makes them Scriptural? How does this conclusion follow?

 

[De_Maria]

The Jews never accepted the Deuterocanon as Scriptural, though.

Then why did they translate the Septuagint, which includes the Deuterocanon, from Hebrew to Greek and call it Scripture?

And there’s no proof that the Apostles did either: after all, they never refer to it as “Scripture.”

1. You have no evidence that they didn’t.
2. Yes, they did. It is the Septuagint they held in their hands when they spoke to Greek speaking Gentiles. Why do you think that so many of the oldest versions of the NT were written in Greek?

 

[DebChris]

So the entire argument is that because the deuterocanonical books were translated alongside other Scriptural books that makes them Scriptural? How does this conclusion follow?

They were not translated at the same time. They had been part of the Jewish canon until the Pharisees revised that canon about the 3rd century.
The Bible is a collection of different books written over time. They were written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Hebrew is a dead language.
There are the Palestinian Jews and there are the Alexandrian Jews (those living outside Palestine). *
The Complete Canon was given by the 4th Council of Rome (382), confirmed by councils that followed including Trent.

It is the magisterium, or teaching authority of the Catholic Church meeting in Council that determined which Books would be accepted as part of Canon that comprising the written word of God, and which would be eliminated, as not necessarily inspired.

As Catholics, we accept that the Word came to us Incarnate, as is written in Gospel of John. Much of what was taught to the first Christians was passed down orally. Sacred Tradition, entrusted to the magisterium is protected by the Holy Spirit so that it is handed intact to each generation just as the first Christians received it.*

 

[JohnR77]

This is a partial list:

cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm#matthew

I have seen that link shared many times on this forum. I usually just bite my tongue and keep quiet. But now, I have to speak the truth.
I cringed every time I see it.
It can be useful for a Catholic.
However, I would Never share that link with a Protestant.

Let us look at the first reference **Matthew 4:4
**“But he answered, “It is written,
‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
**Wisdom of Solomon 16:26
**“ … that it is not the production of crops that feeds man,
but that thy word preserves those who trust in thee.”
I can see some connection, but what if the Protestant really knows the Bible.
He will say, “NO ! Matthew is not alluding to the Deuterocanonical Books, but is quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 which was written way before Wisdom.Deuteronomy 8:3
“ … man does not live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.”
Some of the references work. Others do not. The Protestant is likely to dismiss all of them once he finds a few bogus references like the one above.

This can be a Very Strong argument, but we have to limit ourselves to the ones that work. We cannot expect the Protestant to do all the work of researching these quotations. He is usually not looking for an argument to die to himself and to convert to Catholicism**. **

Below is a partial list of Very Strong associations between the New Testament and the **Deuterocanonical Books. **

New Testament allusions to the Deuterocanonical Books
And prophetic verses in those Books

To be clear, my reference in Post #33 above :350 quotations in the New Testament of the Old Testament. Of these 350 quotations 300 come from the Greek Septuagint.
Is a different list in that it includes all Old Testament Books in the Greek.
For example :

Matthew 1.23 -   Isaiah 7.14Is a New Testament quote that is from the Greek Septuagint

“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

The Old Testament Hebrew Masoretic Text is different.
“Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”

Another example :
Luke 4.18-19 - Isaiah 61.1-2a New Testament quote that is from the Greek Septuagint
“to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind”

The Old Testament Hebrew Masoretic Text is different.
“to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound”
Another example :Heb 1.6 - Deut. 32.43

" And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says,
‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’ "

The Hebrew Masoretic Text* omits this quotation*

Peace,
John

 

[adf417]

So the entire argument is that because the deuterocanonical books were translated alongside other Scriptural books that makes them Scriptural? How does this conclusion follow?

No sir! They are scriptural because they are the word of God and we know this because His church tells us so. The fact that they were translated alongside other scriptural books is an aside.

Peace!!!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hello brethren! Today I was browsing around in the YouTube comment section of a video, and I found a very strange argument for 66 books in the (Protestant) Bible. The comment said this:

“Leviticus and Exodus says there would be 66 books in the bible thousand of years before the scriptures were translated into the bible. On the table of shewbread there are 12 unleavened breads arranged in two rows of 6. 6 on the left and 6 on the right. 6 -6 = 66 books. The Lampstand has 7 branches. On each branch there are 3 blossoms, 3 buds and 3 fruits. a total of 9. 9 X 6 branches = 54. On the middle branch there are 4 blossoms, 4 buds and 4 fruits. 4 + 4 + 4 = 12. 54 + 12 = 66. The OLD covenant has 39 books. the 3 branches on the left = 27 + 12 of the middle branch= 39. The NEW covenant has 27 books. The 3 branches on the right = 27. All that the SAINTS need to know is written in the scriptures. ALL. Amos 3:7 May Yahweh bless you.”

I’m a bit surprised by this! I haven’t heard this argument before, has anyone else? Are there any ways to refute this?

God Bless, Pax Christi.

Playing around with numbers can get almost any result you want. For example: The lamp stand has 7 branches and each branch has 3 blossoms. 7 - 3 = 73 books the number of books in a Catholic bible.

As you can see, it is easy to create whatever you want. 73 is convenient for Catholics but we do not argue that 73 books are canonical because the 7 branched lamp stand. We argue that there are 73 canonical books because the Church teaches it to be so.

 

[De_Maria]

So the entire argument is that because the deuterocanonical books were translated alongside other Scriptural books that makes them Scriptural? How does this conclusion follow?

You sort of shot yourself in the foot with that question.

Yes, they were translated along with OTHER Scriptural books. Because they were considered Scripture. Just like the OTHER books which were part of the Septuagint.

 

[jcrichton]

Or simply incomplete. It is inconceivable in the Protestant mind for someone or some organization to have the fullness of truth and at the same time profess any amount of truth.

The closest i have come to a protestant defining what truth his church professes as not having is something to the effect of “We all agree to 90% of the doctrines of the truth and the other 10% no one knows”. They might as well say - “at least before Jesus left us orphans we got most of it down”.

Peace!!!

Hi!

…yeah, what is extremely interesting to me is that there are two factors which Protestants use as their source of authority/security/knowledge/understanding…:

1. Scriptures
2. the Holy Spirit

…yet, they completely invalidate both as they: a) reject/ignore Scriptures that do not support their arguments/theologies, and b) silence and burry the Holy Spirit for nearly 1500 as they claim that the Church Founded by Christ either ceased at the end of the death of the last “Apostle” or was corrupted or co-opted by the Catholic Church–in both scenarios the Holy Spirit and Christ Himself were deposed from Power and Authority only to be rescued by some disgruntled Catholic Monk in the 16th century.

Someone once coined: 'ignorance is bliss." That is a great place from which to expound all sorts of theories–remove Church history and you can write in your own version of Christ’s: ‘…the other Paraclete Who will Bring you to the Fullness of Truth…’ and ‘…I will be with you always, till the end of times…’ and ‘…not even the gates of Hades/hell will prevail against it…’

For Christ’s Church to have failed both Christ and the Holy Spirit would have to failed, terribly!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Forgetting of course that Christ said He would not leave us orphans.
He was sending an Advocate, the Holy Spirit who would guide us in all Truth.

The Church was born at Pentecost. Those who were baptized “devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.” [Acts 2:42]

Hi, Deb!

…and He also promised:

20b And know that I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.’

(St. Matthew 28:20b)
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

So the entire argument is that because the deuterocanonical books were translated alongside other Scriptural books that makes them Scriptural? How does this conclusion follow?

Hi!

…as it was once said: ‘there’s none so blind as he/she who does not want to see…’ (or something to that effect)

Let’s see if I can break it down for you in simple terms:

• Jews and Protestant agree on rejection of Books (they each have their own reasons)
• Judaism, though it is a religion and culture of one nation, has not been regulated/acted/understood/followed by an all encompassing single body
• Jews that were exposed to the Greek culture kept their own version of Sacred Writings, which were translated into Greek
• the Septuagint (LXX) became known as the Greek version of the Sacred Writings which Alexandrian Jews (Hellenistic Judaism) used and accepted as Inspired by God:

Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. Until the fall of the Roman Empire and the Muslim conquests of the Eastern Mediterranean, the main centers of Hellenistic Judaism were Alexandria (Egypt) and Antioch (now Southern Turkey), the two main Greek urban settlements of the Middle East and North Africa area, both founded at the end of the 4th century BCE in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great. Hellenistic Judaism also existed in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, where there was conflict between Hellenizers and traditionalists (sometimes called Judaizers).

The major literary product of the contact of Second Temple Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible from Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic to Koiné Greek, specifically, Jewish Koiné Greek. Mentionable are also the philosophic and ethical treatises of Philo and the historiographical works of the other hellenistic jewish authors.[1] (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism

)

So while you and the Jews and Protestants reject the Septuagint, history and the Dead Sea Scrolls findings bring to light that: a) Jews used and accepted the Septuagint, and b) the Septuagint was the version used by Jesus and the Apostles–who cited from the books that were removed by the Protestants and the Jews that rejected them, at a later period (there was no insertion of extra books into the Septuagint, which Jews, including those in Jerusalem used and accepted).

Please, understand, if you accept what transpired, well, great!.. yet, if you refuse to accept it, well, great!

I’m not here to win a debate; I’m here to offer what I’ve learned and pass it to others–in Jesus’ Words: ‘those who have eyes, let them see!’ (paraphrased)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I have seen that link shared many times on this forum. I usually just bite my tongue and keep quiet. But now, I have to speak the truth.
I cringed every time I see it.
It can be useful for a Catholic.
However, I would Never share that link with a Protestant.

Let us look at the first reference **Matthew 4:4
**“But he answered, “It is written,
‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
**Wisdom of Solomon 16:26
**“ … that it is not the production of crops that feeds man,
but that thy word preserves those who trust in thee.”
I can see some connection, but what if the Protestant really knows the Bible.
He will say, “NO ! Matthew is not alluding to the Deuterocanonical Books, but is quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 which was written way before Wisdom.Deuteronomy 8:3
“ … man does not live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.”
Some of the references work. Others do not. The Protestant is likely to dismiss all of them once he finds a few bogus references like the one above.

This can be a Very Strong argument, but we have to limit ourselves to the ones that work. We cannot expect the Protestant to do all the work of researching these quotations. He is usually not looking for an argument to die to himself and to convert to Catholicism**. **

Below is a partial list of Very Strong associations between the New Testament and the **Deuterocanonical Books. **

New Testament allusions to the Deuterocanonical Books
And prophetic verses in those Books

To be clear, my reference in Post #33 above :350 quotations in the New Testament of the Old Testament. Of these 350 quotations 300 come from the Greek Septuagint.
Is a different list in that it includes all Old Testament Books in the Greek.
For example :

Matthew 1.23 -   Isaiah 7.14Is a New Testament quote that is from the Greek Septuagint

“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

The Old Testament Hebrew Masoretic Text is different.
“Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”

Another example :
Luke 4.18-19 - Isaiah 61.1-2a New Testament quote that is from the Greek Septuagint
“to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind”

The Old Testament Hebrew Masoretic Text is different.
“to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound”
Another example :Heb 1.6 - Deut. 32.43

" And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says,
‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’ "

The Hebrew Masoretic Text* omits this quotation*

Peace,
John

Hi, John!

Thanks for the update!

I understood that the first link was more than twice what was claimed… even with the side warning and the invitation to help narrow down to a more precise list… it is still lending itself to attack…

…as for the differences that you’ve cited:

Matthew 1.23 - Isaiah 7.14

Is a New Testament quote that is from the Greek Septuagint

"Behold, a virgin
​

shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us).

The Old Testament Hebrew Masoretic Text is different.
“Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”
…have you determined if the difference is due to the original Writings being translated differently (language accident) or is it because both text are different (source of translations)?

Maran atha!

Angel​

 

[jcrichton]

Playing around with numbers can get almost any result you want. For example: The lamp stand has 7 branches and each branch has 3 blossoms. 7 - 3 = 73 books the number of books in a Catholic bible.

As you can see, it is easy to create whatever you want. 73 is convenient for Catholics but we do not argue that 73 books are canonical because the 7 branched lamp stand. We argue that there are 73 canonical books because the Church teaches it to be so.

Hi!

…and the Church Teaches this because of what was determined by the Councils that took to the task of compiling the Sacred Writings into one single unit; one of the determining factors was that the books had to have been used in the Church’s Liturgy from Apostolic times!

…of course, when you remove Church history from such determination any conclusion is possible (as the patty cake thing of Protestantism: 'yes, they’re in; no they’re not; well, just in case; well, no take them out; yes, but perhaps; no, Luther and those others new better; yeah, but the Septuagint; no, we don’t believe in that either!); look at the Muslins, they believe that the Catholic Church teaches belief on three gods: the Father, Jesus, and Mary.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Achilles6129]

You sort of shot yourself in the foot with that question.

Yes, they were translated along with OTHER Scriptural books. Because they were considered Scripture. Just like the OTHER books which were part of the Septuagint.

Not really. There’s something called “criteria of canonicity.” It would be silly to consider something Scripture just because it gets translated with something else. A writing has to meet certain criteria in order to be considered Scripture. The question is, what are your criteria of canonicity for the Old Testament?

For Catholics, the criteria are simply what the Catholic Church says. For Protestants, it’s what the Jews say. That’s for starters: we could argue about the contents of the deuterocanonical books themselves, but I think Catholics will keep reverting to the statements of their church. Protestants, of course, do not accept the statements of the Catholic Church, so using those sorts of arguments on a Protestant usually doesn’t work.

 

[Achilles6129]

Just because certain books are referenced in the NT is meaningless for canonicity. The book of Enoch is referenced in Jude, but is non-canonical. The NT has to say that they’re “Scripture” (which Jude doesn’t for the book of Enoch), or they have to meet the criteria of canonicity. If not, reference is meaningless.

 

[James248]

Not really. There’s something called “criteria of canonicity.” It would be silly to consider something Scripture just because it gets translated with something else. A writing has to meet certain criteria in order to be considered Scripture. The question is, what are your criteria of canonicity for the Old Testament?

For Catholics, the criteria are simply what the Catholic Church says. For Protestants, it’s what the Jews say. That’s for starters: we could argue about the contents of the deuterocanonical books themselves, but I think Catholics will keep reverting to the statements of their church. Protestants, of course, do not accept the statements of the Catholic Church, so using those sorts of arguments on a Protestant usually doesn’t work.

Protestants are kind of in the the wrong boat following the canon of the Jews, especially since they were the ones who rejected Jesus in front of Pilate.