Deutero-canonical / Apocryphal Books

[WFS5801]

My questions are very pointed and don’t leave any “wiggle room”, so again, I would appreciate if you would answer.

I thought you might be interested in this. This is kind of “detail” you will usually get from Evangelicals when asked how we got the Bible and how we know it was preserved accurately. This section specifically deals with the New Testament Canon. There’s more on the Old testament at the link. It’s a PDF document.

www.ucg.org/reprints/pdf/BiblePreservedAccurately.pdf

*The New Testament

No one is absolutely certain about how the New Testament canon came together. We do know that in A.D. 397 the Synod of Carthage confirmed as canonical the 27 books of what is now our New Testament. But it really only recognized that these 27 books already had been in use and read in the churches for some three centuries.

There are two theories about how the canon of the New Testament came together.The one adhered to by most today says that it was a gradual process over nearly three centuries and that no one person was key in the process.

The second, lesser-known theory holds that the apostles Paul, Peter and John were the final canonizers of the New Testament,and that John,with help from other believers, was able to finish and distribute copies of the entire 27 books to the churches in Asia Minor and the Holy Land.

Neither theory has explicit proof, though both have some supporting evidence. The latter view, which the publishers of The Good News consider to be correct, appears to be supported in several New Testament passages. One is 2 Peter 3:16, where the apostle Peter, writing to the early Church,commented that he considered the letters of Paul part of the “Scriptures.”

Peter was putting the writings of the apostle Paul on an equal footing with the Old Testament Scriptures.This would indicate that the apostles already considered some of the apostolic writings divinely inspired and deserving to be included in the canon of Holy Scripture.

Paul himself appears to have had a hand in the process of canonization of the New Testament, selecting which books and letters, particularly of his writings, were to be preserved for us.

In 2 Timothy 4:13,the last of Paul’s prison letters that remains from before his execution, he tells Timothy to “bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come—and the books, especially the parchments.”

This is a puzzling request,unless Paul was asking Timothy to bring books and letters from which he would select those that would be part of the canon. We know that some of his letters, such as the one to the church in Laodicea mentioned in Colossians 4:16, were not preserved—so obviously some selection process took place. Presumably those Paul chose were then passed off to other apostles, likely Peter and then John.

It seems most likely that the apostle John,“the disciple whom Jesus loved”(John 21:20) and who outlived all the other apostles, under God’s inspiration made the final selections of the writings that would be included as Scripture in what we know as the New Testament.

In Revelation 22:18-19, in the final chapter of the final book of the Bible, John gives a warning that appears to indicate that the Bible was then complete, with nothing more to be added or taken away.“If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

In A.D.397 the Synod of Carthage accepted the 27 books that comprise our New Testament as canonical. But they were not the canonizers of these books.They had long since been distributed and were accepted and read in churches throughout the empire for some 300 years.

We can rest assured that the eternal God had a sure hand in ensuring His Word would survive for future generations and we have exactly the writings He chose to be preserved for us.*

So there you have it. Maye it just “came together” over the years, or maybe St. Paul, St John and St Peter had already set the Canon before they died (which is odd, since there was so much debate about it in the next few centuries). Whatever it was, the Church never decided they merely affirmed and, apparently, there were never any serious debates about what was Canon and what was not (despite the inconvenient fact that there definitely were debates on these issues, which is why Councils were called to decide). But let’s put these details aside and be assured that God had a hand in “ensuring his Word would survive…somehow”

Yeah, he did. It was through His infallible Holy Catholic Church. This is basically how they dealt with this issue in my Protestant church. I know it’s a bit “fuzzy wuzzy” but that’s how we dealt with it. “Somehow” God preserved it.

 

[Poco]

Ok. Trying to make this as simple as possible. Many books were written before the time of Jesus Christ. Many were written after. Jesus Christ founded “one” church, not “a bunch of churches”. The “One True Church”, guided by the Holy Spirit selected 73 books to be in the Holy Bible.

If someone wanted to remove some of those books at a later date, well…

 

[WFS5801]

Ok. Trying to make this as simple as possible. Many books were written before the time of Jesus Christ. Many were written after. Jesus Christ founded “one” church, not “a bunch of churches”. The “One True Church”, guided by the Holy Spirit selected 73 books to be in the Holy Bible.

If someone wanted to remove some of those books at a later date, well…

Succinct and to the point.

BTW, I like your G.K. Chesterton quote. One of my favorite writers.

 

[Salvatore123]

Poco - Good luck, my friend, on your journey to Rome and Home May God Bless you and keep you safe!

WFS5801 - I sincerely thank you for responding to my post and especially for being so honest with your own history. This may sound odd, but you are the FIRST person who was either a former protestant or current protestant who acknowledged what we all really, deep down, know is the truth behind “sola scriptura” and the so-called Reformation: non-Catholics simply cannot point to any one or any organization EXCEPT the Catholic Church when it comes down to “proof” that the Church confirmed the canon.

The Catholic Church has ALWAYS acknowledged that the Holy Spirit guided its decision on canonization of sacred scripture. But unlike Moses coming down from the mountain with two tablets in his hands where God had actually written down his laws, there is no other way to explain how the books of the OT and NT came to be accepted except that it was done by MEN on earth who were guided by the Holy Spirit.

And I especially liked the way you frankly explained what you were taught about the first 1500 years post-Christ: God (as incredible as it sounds) allowed his believers to wander around aimlessly and without certainty as to what his Word was, until suddenly, in the 1500s, a few dozen people such as Luther and Tyndale, were called by God to FINALLY get the matter “settled” and get people on the “right path” . . .

Rightly and Semper apparently get angry and refuse to engage when confronted by questions that even YOU acknowledge lead to pretty “ridiculous” answers when one removes the role of the Catholic Church:

“Honestly, in my church (Christian Church, the middle ground between the Churches of Christ (the ones who don’t allow musical instruments in church) and the Disciples of Christ – liberals who have women pastors) we didn’t study much Bible history before Wycliffe and Luther. It was kind of the vague, “there were always those who held to the true faith” – and the Widenesses were one of those groups (ridiculous, I know). Of course, none of them got it completely right until Alexander Campbell came along and really set out to “restore” the Church.”

Perhaps they might be willing to try to answer my questions now that a former protestant - a former one of “their own” - so honestly answered when one believes as they believe: the answer HAS to be “I don’t know - it just sort of miraculously happened”.

And you see (and I am NOT telling you something you don’t already know, so please do not take my post as such), that is what really makes me question how they can logically hold to the belief in ONLY the bible, when the bible itself does not state what, when, where, or how, the bible came to be.

They cannot tell you why a book (and I do not mean to denigrate the word of God in saying this) as “dry” as Philemon is inspired, but a work as beautiful and as inspiring as “Imitation of Christ” by St. Thoma a Kempis. Now I am NOT saying Philemon should be removed and “Imitation of Christ” put in its place - that is not my point. My point is that when one adheres to “sola scriptura”, one cannot, BY DEFINITION, look to anyone or anything other than the scripture itself, to determine what should be considered scripture. If Philemon “jumps out” at anyone reading this post as a writing that “clearly was inspired by God”, then please feel free to tell me what I am so obviously missing.

Also, the italicized passage you cite contains a reference I have encountered time after time after time about how the Catholic Church “defied God” by “changing the Bible”, and they rely on the following passage to support their contention:

“Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

Do they not realize that verse is referring ONLY to Revelation? How can they seriously claim that verse applies to the entire bible, when the entire bible is NOT prophetic? Do they also not realize that when St. John wrote Revelation, neither the OT nor the NT had been compiled into one “book” we now refer to as the bible, and thus that verse CANNOT mean what they claim?

Again - thank you for being so honest. Their response to key questions about canonization is to simply throw out questions about the Catholic Church and its “unbiblical practices”, yet they - as you say - gloss over pre-reformation history and just sort of accept that the bible somehow “came to be” and somehow “there were always those who held to the true faith”, yet they fail to say WHO those “true believers” were for the first 1500 years, they fail to say HOW these people passed along their “true faith”, and they fail to provide any sort of timeline from the death of St. John until the Reformation.

I can only hope one of them attempts to answer . . .

P.S. - I actually had “one” tell me that I was “lying” when I told him that the oldest manuscripts/codices we have of sacred scripture are, almost uniformly, written in all caps, with no chapter numbers, page numbers, or verse numbers. When I asked did he really believe that the “table of contents” and “index” in bibles are inspired, he said “absolutely”.

 

[Little_Mary]

Here is a question that I posed to my own personal SS friend, with whom I have been talking to about SS off and on for weeks now. It is more about the different religions we have, but it can certainly be applied to SS and all the thousands of different interpretations of bible verses.

He also claims that He is “spiritual and not religious” He says that religions get started when “The Holy Spirit inspires someone with an idea and they build a church around it”. [His words, not mine]

So I asked him WHY would God give different/opposing messages to different people? Why, oh why would He do that?

 

[Salvatore123]

Little Mary,

Only a CRUEL God would do such a thing. In fact, I think it would be more cruel to give conflicting “signs” to people, than to simply allow them to exist in the “wilderness” for 1500 years to try to figure it out for themselves.

It’s like a conversation I had with a Pentecostal friend here in Louisiana while going to graduate school before I went to law school. At the time, Jimmy Swaggart had not yet “fallen from grace” and you could turn him on every Sunday and hear him shouting what I can only describe as “gibberish” because they were sounds that were not of any type of language known to exist on Earth. My friend, who believed in a literal interpretation of “speaking in tongues”, told me that Swaggart was “so caught up in the Holy Spirit, that he was simply the mouthpiece of God”.

I asked him the first question that came to my mind (and the look on his face after hearing my question was like he had never even THOUGHT of the question before):

“Dan - why in the world would the Holy Spirit, if he wanted to communicate with his people, cause someone to speak gibberish so that no one - including the speaker - could tell you what he had just said? Don’t you think if the Holy Spirit was really speaking through a person, then (1) it was probably pretty important what the Holy Spirit was trying to communicate, and (2) the Holy Spirit would at least cause the speaker to talk in a language that the listeners would understand so that they could get the message?”

I am not saying that my question alone caused my friend to rethink his entire “theology” on “speaking in tongues”. But he never brought that issue up again for discussion

 

[WFS5801]

Perhaps they might be willing to try to answer my questions now that a former protestant - a former one of “their own” - so honestly answered when one believes as they believe: the answer HAS to be “I don’t know - it just sort of miraculously happened”.

Many Protestants do look at the Bible as something miraculous – almost as something with a will of its own. I’ve read on other forums that in St. John 1, when referring to the Word, it means the Bible. I’ve read where it states in the Bible “when the perfect comes” this refers to the Bible. It’s almost Bible-olatry.

Another passage from Father Weninger’s book on Protestantism:

*But, before entering on the discussion, I ask. you, From whom did you receive the Bible?

Was it written by Luther, under Divine inspiration, or brought down to him from Heaven by an angel? You have received the Bible from the Catholic Church: you know that the Bible is the Bible, the inspired word of God, only because you have received it as such from the infallible authority of the Catholic Church.

From the Bible itself you cannot prove its inspiration. You cannot discover in it a list of the inspired books. You cite in vain such passages as the following from the second Epistle to Timothy: “All Scripture is divinely inspired.” Neither this nor any other passage tells you whether this or that particular book is of Divine inspiration: the precise books that are to be received as the inspired word of God, you can only learn from the Catholic Church. St. Augustine was right in saying, “I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Church did not oblige me to do so.”

You maintain that the Church from whom you have received the Bible, is essentially corrupt: how then do you know that she has not unscrupulously falsified or interpolated it, as Luther did in the famous passage of the Epistle to the Romans, “We account a man to be justified by faith,” to which Luther added the word “alone.” If the Church was in error for a thousand years, as you maintain, who can assure you that during so long a period of wilful corruption, she did not change, remodel, mutilate, or at least interpolate the Scripture? You do not accuse the Church of having falsified the Bible; your silence is an implicit admission, that she has seen nothing in it that contradicts her claims; and such is the real state of the case.

Once more I affirm that without the Catholic Church you cannot know that the Bible is an inspired book. If Luther and the early Reformers had claimed that they had received the Bible from the hands of an angel, as Mahomet claimed for the Koran, Protestantism would have some show of consistency: as it is, Protestantism contradicts itself, and must either acknowledge the infallibility of the Catholic Church, or give up the inspiration of the Bible. *

Emphasis mine. I’m guessing you won’t get a good answer to this question, Salvatore. Because it does come down to the Church set the Canon and gave Protestantism the Bible. Protestants (Evangelicals anyhow) will not want to admit that fact.

 

[Little_Mary]

Hi Salvatore! My friend not only did not answer my question, but he, also, like your friend, never brought it up again.

I think that means that we gave them something to think about. I hope so.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Remember though, the church holds the Bible to be sacred and canonical not because it subsequently approved them by its authority. But because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were committed to the Church.

Thats Catholic belief.

As far as how the Jewish canon. We can start with two presuppositions; the New Testament is filled with quotes about scripture and the importance of scripture and never indicates scripture was unknown or unsettled. Next, there is no historical evidence to indicate other wise. A larger OT canon is a 4th century idea not an early Christian one.

Next, we also know the Jewish sources like Josephus and the earliest Christians did not adhere to a larger canon. Take Josephus for example, he cites the smaller canon. Melito is another example. I am going to not throw everything into the thread at once. These should suffice to begin.

 

[WFS5801]

Remember though, the church holds the Bible to be sacred and canonical not because it subsequently approved them by its authority. But because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were committed to the Church.

Thats Catholic belief.

But you’ve sidestepped the issue here. Of course the Church approved by its authority books written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But it was the Church that decided which books were inspired. Those books became Canon and no others, even though others had been used in the Church and were more “venerated” by some then those that became Canon.

As far as how the Jewish canon. We can start with two presuppositions; the New Testament is filled with quotes about scripture and the importance of scripture and never indicates scripture was unknown or unsettled. Next, there is no historical evidence to indicate other wise. A larger OT canon is a 4th century idea not an early Christian one.

Next, we also know the Jewish sources like Josephus and the earliest Christians did not adhere to a larger canon. Take Josephus for example, he cites the smaller canon. Melito is another example. I am going to not throw everything into the thread at once. These should suffice to begin.

At the time of Josephus there was no Jewish Canon. So, like the early Christians before the Bible Canon was promulgated, the Jews still had the right to dispute what was and wasn’t inspired. Josephus gave his opinion, and that’s all it was, his opinion. The fact remains that the Deutero-cannonical books were widely used and even quoted by the authors of the New Testament as Scripture.

 

[Salvatore123]

I really pray for the virtue of patience - I really, really do.

But then I read someone citing, as authoritative “Jewish canon”, “Josephus”, and “Melito”, and I am left scratching my head:

Why do the protestants accept some guys named Josephus and Melito but they won’t accept histories written by Catholics?

I JUST DON’T GET IT . . .

1. Rightly, you say: “As far as how the Jewish canon.”

What Jewish canon? WHO decided what was the Jewish canon? WHEN was the Jewish canon decided? And WHERE IN THE BIBLE does it state the name or names of the people you claim to be responsible for establishing the Jewish canon?

1. Rightly, you say: “We can start with two presuppositions; the New Testament is filled with quotes about scripture and the importance of scripture and never indicates scripture was unknown or unsettled.”

How can you say that? WHICH scripture is the NT referring to? Please give me a citation, book, verse - ANYTHING - in the NT that specifically refers to ONE collection as being THE DEFINITIVE JEWISH CANON. You cannot do it! You know why? Because the Septuagint was written BEFORE Christ and the Apostles and the Jews did not “accept” their “Hebrew canon” until long after the last Apostle died.

So where does that leave your first “pressupposition”? Nowhere! My God man - you can’t just throw something out there with no support, no evidence, no anything - and just expect everyone to accept what you say as an established fact. You demand facts from Catholics but you provide absolutely none yourself.

1. Rightly, you say: " Next, there is no historical evidence to indicate other wise. A larger OT canon is a 4th century idea not an early Christian one."

Says who? Josephus? Melito? You are NOW elevating people who were not even around when Christ was alive, as factual historians as to what is or is not sacred? Why do protestants get to do such a fanciful thing and yet you excoriate Catholics who, you claim, do the same thing? I seem to recall Luther following the same canon as ALL Catholics until he suddenly got “enlightened”, shacked up with an ex-nun, STILL venerated Mary, and then started to try to eliminate books FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON!!!

Now where is your support for someone like that? Luther was one of the most notorious anti-Jewish clerics around, and yet he is worshipped as a saint by protestants. Why? Because he took on the “whore of Babylon”, whose followers worship statutes?

Man . . . I am STILL waiting for you and the other guy to answer my earlier questions.

At least WFS5801 had the humility to realize one day, “Hey - wait a minute. Something ain’t quite right.” HE RESPONDED TO MY QUESTIONS WITH TRUTHFUL ANSWERS: “I/WE DON’T/DIDN’T KNOW. AND WE JUST MOVED ON TO THE NEXT SUBJECT.”

What do you think happened to him? Catholics kidnapped him, drugged him, and smuggled him onto Catholic Answers to help undermine sola scriptura?

 

[WFS5801]

Man . . . I am STILL waiting for you and the other guy to answer my earlier questions.

I just realized that this all the further Rightly appears to be going with the New Testament Canon questions.

So I re-quote Rightly and ask the following…

Remember though, the church holds the Bible to be sacred and canonical not because it subsequently approved them by its authority. But because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were committed to the Church.

Thats Catholic belief.

Really? This is it? This is far as you’re going to go to explain how the New Testament Canon came to be? No more than stating the obvious (for Christians), that the books included in the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Ghost? Now you’re going to go on to the Old Testament Canon? Huh?

So, for a minute, let’s throw the Catholic Church completely out of the picture. Let’s pretend the Catholic Church and its Councils never existed – just for sake of argument.

Okay… a blank sheet. Take a breath… And…

How exactly did the Protestants know which 27 books should be in the New Testament Canon? By what process was this determined? By what authority did they do this? When, exactly, did this happen? Since the Bible is the Protestant’s Rule of Faith, you would think there would be a driving need for Protestants to answer these questions so that they could give their doctrine – “sola scriptura” – a firm foundation based on researched facts. This process can’t be left with the non-explanation that – somehow – it just happened.

C’mon, answer Salvatore’s questions, which are pretty much the same ones I’ve just asked.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The New Testament repeatedly refers to the Old Testament as scripture. Humans cannot determine what is inspired. They can only recognize it. Different Christians recognize different canons. No one uses the Catholic canon…except the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox uses a different canon. The Oriental Orthodox uses a different canon as well. All of these churches use apostolic succession and yet everyone recognizes a different canon.
So why is the Protestant one the correct one? Because you cannot change the canon 400 years later. Well…you can, but you shouldnt.
No one decides a canon. That is a Catholic belief. Humans recognize under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The earliest Christian churches did just that. However, make no mistake, up until the 7th century some churches still recognized a different New Testament canon because Revelation was so late to be accepted in some parts. There is the catch. If the Catholic Church set the OT canon, why did the other two apostolic churches not accept it? The answer is that Christians recognize different canons. Now you have to decide which church is correct.
The Catholic churches approval was subsequent, that is the key word. It was scripture the minute it was penned. That is Catholic belief…officially anyway.
Josephus knew the correct canon. There is simply nothing to indicate that the canon was open. It has no legs. The Catholic Church added books, which is their right, but it does not make it RIGHT.
One thing is missing from all of the Catholics who are responding to me. A shred of proof from that era that the canon was open. If they had it, they would present it. I present proof of two men. There are of course several more.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I am curious as to why you think we disagree about the history of the New Testament?
Here is a good link, what do we disagree about?
churchhistory101.com/docs/New-Testament-Canon.pdf

 

[Nicea325]

The New Testament repeatedly refers to the Old Testament as scripture. Humans cannot determine what is inspired.

Based on what standards? So how do you know what you are reading is truly inspired,if humans cannot determine?

They can only recognize it. Different Christians recognize different canons. No one uses the Catholic canon…except the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox uses a different canon. The Oriental Orthodox uses a different canon as well. All of these churches use apostolic succession and yet everyone recognizes a different canon.

Indeed.

So why is the Protestant one the correct one? Because you cannot change the canon 400 years later. Well…you can, but you shouldnt.

Correct-ONLY to Protestants,not other to RCC,Orthodoxs and others. Exactly! You cannot change it 1500 years later either.

No one decides a canon.

So in other words,the canon is not really a canon but a random guess?

That is a Catholic belief.

As oppose to what other HUMAN belief?

Humans recognize under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Recognize it but cannot determine it?

The earliest Christian churches did just that. However, make no mistake, up until the 7th century some churches still recognized a different New Testament canon because Revelation was so late to be accepted in some parts. There is the catch. If the Catholic Church set the OT canon, why did the other two apostolic churches not accept it?

The above only opens up a can of worms. And let me ask you something? Do ALL Christians ACCEPT Jesus divinity and the Trinity? Why is that in 2011 some do not accept it?

The answer is that Christians recognize different canons. Now you have to decide which church is correct.

And it certainly is not the Protestant belief.

The Catholic churches approval was subsequent, that is the key word. It was scripture the minute it was penned. That is Catholic belief…officially anyway.

Yeah and did the Arians accept the declarations of Nicea 325 A.D.?

Josephus knew the correct canon.

I cannot believe you are still adhere to this bogus belief. Josepheus NEVER EVER states or declares a FIXED canon was set in place…NO WHERE! Show me one place where he states it was FIXED? Furthermore,what on earth makes you think Josepheus was the OFFICIAL spokesmen for the Jewish canon? You simply are reading into his words and want it to say something more. The fact he gives a LIST does not equate into a FIXED canon. I asked you once in the past: They year it was FIXED. The place? And WHO DECIDED the canon BEFORE JESUS? The Sadducees? The Essenes? Who? Show me one Bible giving those key facts? Show us the process and HOW LONG IT TOOK?

There is simply nothing to indicate that the canon was open. It has no legs.

And there is nothing to indicate that it was FIXED.

The Catholic Church added books, which is their right, but it does not make it RIGHT.

That is your Protestant belief,not an accurate historical fact. Even my NIV study Bible makes it very clear: The early church used the LXX,not the Protestant OT canon. Take it with its authors and editors.

One thing is missing from all of the Catholics who are responding to me. A shred of proof from that era that the canon was open. If they had it, they would present it. I present proof of two men. There are of course several more.

Two men PROVE a FIXED canon? Josephus NEVER states a FIXED canon-NO WHERE!And if you believe it was FIXED,then show us the PROOF it was FIXED and set in stone BEFORE Jesus. Give us the specific names or group of Jews who FIXED it?

 

[Salvatore123]

Rightly,

You said: “One thing is missing from all of the Catholics who are responding to me. A shred of proof from that era that the canon was open. If they had it, they would present it. I present proof of two men. There are of course several more.”

You want proof that the OT and NT canon were definitively fixed by a certain date?

Only one OFFICIALLY declared council - the Council of Trent - definitively, for all time, declared the canons of the OT and the NT to be fixed, listed the books in each canon, and declared that anyone holding a contrary opinion was anathema.

Now, you may not LIKE what Trent did, and I know you don’t give it any authority because you are not Catholic.

***But that is MY official authority. As for earlier discussions where history shows the OT canon of 46 books/partial additions recognized by the Catholic Church, EVERY ONE of the following is consistent:

Pope Damasus I brought the matter up with St. Jerome when he commissioned the Latin Vulgate in 425 AD and “decreed” that the Vulgate be published. Although Damasus died before Jerome finished his work, Jerome DID include the books you say the Catholics “ADDED” many years later. And guess what Jerome referred to when he added the deuteros? The Septuagint - an OT work written long before Jesus was born.

It was discussed, at several councils mentioned by an earlier poster: Councils of Rome, Constantinople, four at Carthage, Hippo, Canon of Innocent I, Nicea II. EVERYONE OF THESE discussed the OT as formally declared by Trent in 1546. Not ONE was different. ***

Now, Rightly, please, please, please - I am reduced to BEGGING you, please:

1. Tell me the DATE the OT was fixed.
2. Tell me the DATE the NT was fixed.
3. Tell me WHO fixed the OT canon.
4. Tell me WHO fixed the NT canon.
5. Tell me WHAT AUTHORITY was given to those people you say fixed the OT canon.
6. Tell me WHAT AUTHORITY was given to those people you say fixed the NT canon.
7. Tell me WHAT STANDARD was used by those people you say fixed the OT canon, to fix that canon.
8. Tell me WHAT STANDARD was used by those people you say fixed the NT canon, to fix that canon.

***And I hope you realize that once you answer any of the questions 1-8, and it turns out that those answers are NOT found in the bible, then sola scriptura is what it always has been - DEAD.

A book cannot authenticate itself.***

I am sorry, Rightly. But if you refuse or do not specifically answer the questions I posed above, then you, sir, either don’t have answers or you do and you don’t like them.

These are not difficult questions.

 

[Rightlydivide]

No one decides a canon. That is a Catholic belief. Humans recognize under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

This is from my post above. I posted it to show that is why the questions asked seem to not take into account what I have previously stated.
Human beings cannot fix a canon. If I have not been clear about that, I am not sure how else to explain it. God fixes a canon. Humans recognize a canon. This recognition occurs over time. Our evidence for this is in the Bible. Christ and his apostles recognize scripture. They do. No council or human being “fixed” that. They recognized it. They do not just recognize the law or the first five books as scripture. So we know for a fact that there was scripture.
What made it scripture from your perspective? It was not Christ. He is operating under the belief that they already recognize it as scripture. It is not from the apostles either. Someone made it scripture. God. Then humans recognized it. Once writings are not recognized as scripture, you cannot start recognizing them 500 years later…well you can but should not.

I am not even certain that my view disagrees with what Catholics officially believe. Catholics believe the authority is subsequent (their words that I agree with).
The dates given in the post above do not address the first 350 years of Christian history. The years that Christians, for the most part, did not recognize anything different than the Jews as far as the OT canon.

 

[Nicea325]

Rightly,

You said: “One thing is missing from all of the Catholics who are responding to me. A shred of proof from that era that the canon was open. If they had it, they would present it. I present proof of two men. There are of course several more.”

You want proof that the OT and NT canon were definitively fixed by a certain date?

Only one OFFICIALLY declared council - the Council of Trent - definitively, for all time, declared the canons of the OT and the NT to be fixed, listed the books in each canon, and declared that anyone holding a contrary opinion was anathema.

Now, you may not LIKE what Trent did, and I know you don’t give it any authority because you are not Catholic.

***But that is MY official authority. As for earlier discussions where history shows the OT canon of 46 books/partial additions recognized by the Catholic Church, EVERY ONE of the following is consistent:

Pope Damasus I brought the matter up with St. Jerome when he commissioned the Latin Vulgate in 425 AD and “decreed” that the Vulgate be published. Although Damasus died before Jerome finished his work, Jerome DID include the books you say the Catholics “ADDED” many years later. And guess what Jerome referred to when he added the deuteros? The Septuagint - an OT work written long before Jesus was born.

It was discussed, at several councils mentioned by an earlier poster: Councils of Rome, Constantinople, four at Carthage, Hippo, Canon of Innocent I, Nicea II. EVERYONE OF THESE discussed the OT as formally declared by Trent in 1546. Not ONE was different. ***

Now, Rightly, please, please, please - I am reduced to BEGGING you, please:

1. Tell me the DATE the OT was fixed.
2. Tell me the DATE the NT was fixed.
3. Tell me WHO fixed the OT canon.
4. Tell me WHO fixed the NT canon.
5. Tell me WHAT AUTHORITY was given to those people you say fixed the OT canon.
6. Tell me WHAT AUTHORITY was given to those people you say fixed the NT canon.
7. Tell me WHAT STANDARD was used by those people you say fixed the OT canon, to fix that canon.
8. Tell me WHAT STANDARD was used by those people you say fixed the NT canon, to fix that canon.

***And I hope you realize that once you answer any of the questions 1-8, and it turns out that those answers are NOT found in the bible, then sola scriptura is what it always has been - DEAD.

A book cannot authenticate itself.***

I am sorry, Rightly. But if you refuse or do not specifically answer the questions I posed above, then you, sir, either don’t have answers or you do and you don’t like them.

These are not difficult questions.

Salvatore I had the same discussion with Rightlydived a few months back and he is so adamant Joesphus gives and admits the OT canon. However,upon close examination of his works he NEVER declares or states the Jews FIXED (only considered or listed books) the OT canon. If it was fixed,why doesn’t Josephus gives names,dates,locations and the process? Silence.

More important,if he believes the OT was fixed before Jesus and was binding to the Jews,then how ironic not Jesus or any NT writer ever mention the OT canon?

 

[Nicea325]

This is from my post above. I posted it to show that is why the questions asked seem to not take into account what I have previously stated.
Human beings cannot fix a canon. If I have not been clear about that, I am not sure how else to explain it. God fixes a canon. Humans recognize a canon. This recognition occurs over time. Our evidence for this is in the Bible. Christ and his apostles recognize scripture. They do. No council or human being “fixed” that. They recognized it. They do not just recognize the law or the first five books as scripture. So we know for a fact that there was scripture.
What made it scripture from your perspective? It was not Christ. He is operating under the belief that they already recognize it as scripture. It is not from the apostles either. Someone made it scripture. God. Then humans recognized it. Once writings are not recognized as scripture, you cannot start recognizing them 500 years later…well you can but should not.

I am not even certain that my view disagrees with what Catholics officially believe. Catholics believe the authority is subsequent (their words that I agree with).
The dates given in the post above do not address the first 350 years of Christian history. The years that Christians, for the most part, did not recognize anything different than the Jews as far as the OT canon.

The year it was FIXED. The place? And WHO DECIDED the canon BEFORE JESUS? The Sadducees? The Essenes? Who? Show us one modern Bible giving those key and very vital facts? Show us the process and HOW LONG IT TOOK?

 

[WFS5801]

The New Testament repeatedly refers to the Old Testament as scripture. Humans cannot determine what is inspired. They can only recognize it. Different Christians recognize different canons. No one uses the Catholic canon…except the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox uses a different canon. The Oriental Orthodox uses a different canon as well. All of these churches use apostolic succession and yet everyone recognizes a different canon.

Only one Church, the Catholic, has an infallible Pope.

But the situation isn’t as dire as you pretend. All these churches, including the Protestant ones, accept the 27 books of the New Testament. And the Greek Orthodox Church accepts all the Deutero-Canonicals that Roman Catholic Church accepts. What they have done is added others. Again, the Greek Orthodox Church is cut off from the One True Church, they are subject to error.

And again, you still haven’t explained exactly how the Protestants came by “their” New Testament Canon. I might as well tell you the secret. They accepted the Canon handed down by the Catholic Church. There, it’s out now. While claiming that the Church was the wicked “whore of Babylon” they still accept the New Testament Canon preserved through the centuries by the Catholic Church. So the Church wrote, selected, canonized and preserved the New Testament Canon. That basically all there is to it.

So why is the Protestant one the correct one? Because you cannot change the canon 400 years later. Well…you can, but you shouldnt.

Proof for this assertion? I didn’t think so. What the Church did was select what books were Canon, then published the list – and then republished that same list several times.

Here’s a bit on how that worked:

*(i) Before the collection of New Testament books was finally settled at the Council of Carthage, 397, we find that there were three distinct classes into which the Christian writings were divided. This we know (and every scholar admits it) from the works of early Christian writers like Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and a whole host of others that we could name. These classes were (I) the books ‘acknowledged’ as Canonical, (2) books ‘disputed’ or ‘controverted’, (3) books declared ‘spurious’ or false. Now in class (I) i.e., those acknowledged by Christians everywhere to be genuine and authentic, and to have been written by Apostolic men, we find such books as the Four Gospels, 13 Epistles of St Paul, Acts of the Apostles. These were recognised east and west as ‘Canonical’, genuinely the works of the Apostles and Evangelists whose names they bore, worthy of being in the ‘Canon’ or sacred collection of inspired writings of the Church, and read aloud at Holy Mass. *

So here we have the books always considered inspired. Now it gets a bit “dicier” for Protestants…

But there was (2) a class—and Protestants should particularly take notice of the fact, as it utterly undermines their Rule of Faith ‘the Bible and the Bible only’—of books that were disputed, controverted, in some places acknowledged, in others rejected; and among these we actually find the Epistle of St James, Epistle of St Jude, 2nd Epistle of St Peter; 2nd and 3rd of St John, Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse of St John. There were doubts about these works; perhaps, it was said, they were not really written by Apostles, or Apostolic men, or by the men whose names they carried; in some parts of the Christian world they were suspected, though in others unhesitatingly received as genuine.There is no getting out of this fact, then: some of the books of our Bible which we, Catholic and Protestant alike, now recognise as inspired and as the written Word of God, were at one time, and indeed for long, viewed with suspicion, doubted, disputed, as not possessing the same authority as the others. (I am speaking only of the New Testament books; the same could be proved, if there were space, of the Old Testament; but the New Testament suffices abundantly for the argument.)

So here we find several books of the Bible included in the “controverted” class, including the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelations) and Hebrews. But more.

But further still—what is even more striking, and is equally fatal to the Protestant theory—in this (2) class of ‘controverted’ and doubtful books some were to be found which are not now in our New Testament at all, but which were by many then considered to be inspired and Apostolic, or were actually read at the public worship of the Christians, or were used for instructions to the newly-converted; in short, ranked in some places as equal to the works of St James or St Peter or St Jude. Among these we may mention specially the ‘Shepherd’ of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, Apostolic Constitutions, Gospel according to the Hebrews, St Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans, Epistle of St Clement, and others. Why are these not in our Bible today? We shall see in a minute.

(Quotes from “Where We Got the Bible” by Father Graham)

So these books were considered inspired by many and even read in public worship. So, there was a need for the Church to decide (not affirm) what was really Canon and what was not. This fact is glossed over by Protestants because it is inconvenient to “sola scriptura.”

There was also the spurious list, but I’ll leave those as no one claimed them as Canon.

(Continued)