Canon of Scripture

[Rolltide]

That’s easy - the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, in the early 400s AD. He used the same canon that is currently used by Catholics today, and it is still considered the “official Bible” of the Church, even until today.

Do you accept this as an accurate statement, Ginger2, at least with regard to a single, unified Bible in a single language?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That’s easy - the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, in the early 400s AD. He used the same canon that is currently used by Catholics today, and it is still considered the “official Bible” of the Church, even until today.

Sorry, too late.

The Septuagint and the NT were in Greek and accepted as the canon of the Church before Jerome. St. Athanasius in his Paschal epistle of 367 first gives us the list we have today, but the Greek OT and NT had been circulating for centuries, and had been the basis of the Old Latin Version that Jerome was replacing (btw, the Psalter and the Liturgical texts keep the Old Latin, and did not adopt Jerome’s read).

In fact, Jerome rejected the Tradition of the Church (as St. Augustine pointed out) by translating from A Hebrew text (it’s not the same as the Masoretic text of today’s Jews, nor of Luther’s day), and the Protestants just finished the job he did (he was the one to make the distinction between the Deuterocanonicals an issue).

Btw, the rejected books like Sirach were in Hebrew. The Talmud refers to it and others, and fragments have been found in the last century or so in Hebrew.

And, alas, for the Protestants, NOT A SINGLE CHRISTIAN MANUSCRIPT of the Bible does NOT contain the disputed books in the OT. Sooooo if the manuscripts aren’t good enough to give you the canon of the OT, they’re not good enough to give you the NT as well.

 

[Mannyfit75]

2 Macc denies divine inspiration.

Says who? You?

 

[Rolltide]

Btw, the rejected books like Sirach were in Hebrew. The Talmud refers to it and others, and fragments have been found in the last century or so in Hebrew.

If I recall correctly, weren’t at least portions of most of the Deuterocanonicals found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If I recall correctly, weren’t at least portions of most of the Deuterocanonicals found in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

yes. And fragments agree with the Septuagint, against the Masoretic, of the undisputed books.

 

[mgrfin]

While I don’t believe the Apocryphal writings are inspired, I don’t believe they change it either.

However, the dispute arises when doctrine is drawn from them - that is my objection.

And who died and left you Pope, Ginger?

The CatholicChurch is the interpreter of Scripture and responsible for the preservation of the Deposit of Faith, not Ginger 2.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin, Please try to stay on topic.

If I respond to questions off topic it always leads to me be chastised for taking a thread off topic.
If I ignore the “off topic” questions, I am criticized for ignoring the questions.

That being said, Welcome to the Canon of Scripture thread!

I WAS ON TOPIC, GINGER.

I merely said there were no proofs for Sola Scriptura, and no proofs THAT THE BIBLE WAS SELF AUTHENTICATING.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

2 Macc denies divine inspiration.

You want to give us the verses in 2 Macc where divine inspiration is denied.

You’re in way over your head, Ginger.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

Says who? You?

2 Maccabees does not claim to be inspired of God! Read Mach 15: 38 to end. If it is not inspired of God then it does not have the same authority as other Scriptures. Agree?

 

[mgrfin]

2 Maccabees does not claim to be inspired of God! Read Mach 15: 38 to end. If it is not inspired of God then it does not have the same authority as other Scriptures. Agree?

Most of the Books of the O.T. and the N.T. do not claim to be inspired of God.

Mach 15:38 doesn’t say anything about being not inspired.

“Agree”?

No, Catholics will NOT AGREE with you. We claim it to be the same inspired word of God in the same way as Genesis is!

You are possibly confusing terminology. Canonical books and Deuterocanonical books.

“Deuterocanonical books is a term used since the sixteenth century in the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Christianity to describe certain books and passages of the Christian Bible that are not extant in Hebrew.” It has nothing to do whether those books are inspired.

peace

 

[Rolltide]

2 Maccabees does not claim to be inspired of God! Read Mach 15: 38 to end. If it is not inspired of God then it does not have the same authority as other Scriptures. Agree?

So the more likely explanation is that the totality of Christianity was mistaken for 75% of Christian history (AD 33-1500), and that 75% of Christians (1.5 billion Catholics and Orthodox) continue to have faulty Bibles? Even if you buy into personal interpretation, then most people are interpreting it as part of the Bible!

 

[Mannyfit75]

2 Maccabees does not claim to be inspired of God! Read Mach 15: 38 to end. If it is not inspired of God then it does not have the same authority as other Scriptures. Agree?

2 Mac 15:38 RSV-2nd CE

If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could I do.

I don’t see it says it anything like that at all.

 

[Ginger2]

If it is not inspired of God then it does not have the same authority as other Scriptures. Agree?

Lat’s take a poll…

Is the above statement TRUE or False ?

 

[mgrfin]

Lat’s take a poll…

Is the above statement TRUE or False ?

What? We are a General Council now, and we vote on doctrinal issues?

It is not true, and yes, the book is inspred.

peace

 

[Rolltide]

Lat’s take a poll…

Is the above statement TRUE or False ?

True, all of the books of the final canon are inspired and have equal status, but that’s not the issue. The issue is how do you actually determine whether a particular book of scripture is inspired? You claim that the true books of the canon illustrate their own inspiration, but there is ample proof that Christians of the first three centuries didn’t agree on the canon, so clearly even they had problems determining whether it was inspired.

If you are indeed correct, what possible purpose did the Councils of Carthage and Hippo then serve?

 

[mgrfin]

True, all of the books of the final canon are inspired and have equal status, but that’s not the issue. The issue is how do you actually determine whether a particular book of scripture is inspired? You claim that the true books of the canon illustrate their own inspiration, but there is ample proof that Christians of the first three centuries didn’t agree on the canon, so clearly even they had problems determining whether it was inspired.

If you are indeed correct, what possible purpose did the Councils of Carthage and Hippo then serve?

Compare the judgment of the first three centuries as there was a dispute with the Canon of the Bible, with a General Council of the Church.

When voting on an issue of faith and morals during a General Council, and there almost never was unanimous approval of a doctrine. But the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church, including the faithful to the issue of truth.

Because there was not unanimous agreement in the first three centuries, that is only a proof of the infallibility of the Church. It arrives at the truth in a human way. By exposition, by debate, by dispute, and finally by resolution.

peace

 

[ryanoneil]

2 Maccabees does not claim to be inspired of God! Read Mach 15: 38 to end. If it is not inspired of God then it does not have the same authority as other Scriptures. Agree?

Sacred writers are often humble about their divinely inspired writings. (1 Cor. 7:40) Paul says he “thinks” that he has the Spirit of God.

Using the above logic, We can’t be certain if 1 Corinthians is inspired. It doesn’t claim to be inspired of God, so does that mean it doesn’t have the same authority as other Scriptures?

The obvious answer is NO! Maccabees is just as inspired as 1 Corinthians.

P.S. I enjoy debating you Ginger, this is good conversation.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[ryanoneil]

When prophets recognize the inspiration of other prophets they bear witness to each other, and when their prophecies come true.

The New Testament books acknowledge the Old Testament Books. (Not all the Christian OT books) but what was recognized by the Jews as inspired.

The Old Testament witnesses to the truth of the NT which fulfills the OT prophecy.

And finally, that the testimonies of each book is consistant with the others.

What do you think?

2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

One reason Jews rejected the OT deuterocanonical books is because they were being used to verily sucessfully convert Jews to Christianity. The Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 - 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Are you basing your belief on a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

Jesus and the Apostles reference these books over and over again. They make reference to the deuterocanonical books or directly quote them at least 85 times in the new testament. Go here if you want proof scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

I’m afraid that the criteria you use to determine if books are inspired is faulty.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[mgrfin]

The obvious answer is NO! Maccabees is just as inspired as 1 Corinthians.

P.S. I enjoy debating you Ginger, this is good conversation.

Peace,

Ryan

I bet you enjoy it too when the teacher scratches her nails on the blackboard.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

Sacred writers are often humble about their divinely inspired writings. (1 Cor. 7:40) Paul says he “thinks” that he has the Spirit of God.

Using the above logic, We can’t be certain if 1 Corinthians is inspired. It doesn’t claim to be inspired of God, so does that mean it doesn’t have the same authority as other Scriptures?

The obvious answer is NO! Maccabees is just as inspired as 1 Corinthians.

P.S. I enjoy debating you Ginger, this is good conversation.

Peace,

Ryan

Oh, but in my opening statement I clarified, "The claim of inspiration by the author of a single book is not in itself “proof.”

There are 2 points to 1 Cor 7

1. The word translated “think” has not so narrow a meaning as you state.

Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

Act 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide 0 there still.

1. Paul clearly stated his teaching was from God.

1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that **the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord **

But, Paul’s authority is supported by more than his own testimony. Peter also claims Paul’s writings are inspired.

2 Peter 3:16 as also in all (Paul’s) letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction…

I also enjoy speaking with you.