Deutero-canonical / Apocryphal Books

[Salvatore123]

Nicea,

I give up

As I said, I really pray for patience, but mine is at an end with him. He just WON’T answer what I think are questions that are so simple and I am positive I know why: He doesn’t like the answers. It is very difficult to not sound mean-spirited when commenting on what he and others like him say, but the majority of what he says not only defies logic - it defies common sense and even a basic understanding of the english language.

I will give examples (I certainly don’t expect him to respond, as I now believe he never intended to discuss this in good faith from the beginning):

1. He says: “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.”

I am simply amazed at that. No one has EVER claimed that the Holy Spirit did not inspire the Bible, and in so doing, “fixed the canons”. But as the Holy Spirit did not deliver a set of codices or tablets or papyri or whatever else humans used to read and write with back then, who else but human beings went about fixing the canons of the OT and NT while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Can he REALLY believe that the scriptures just appeared out of thin air and floated into Josephus’s or Melito’s lap?

1. He says: “Human beings cannot fix a canon . . . Humans recognize a canon.”

Good grief - if one acknowledges (and he has to - everyone has to) that God or the Holy Spirit did not DELIVER the sacred scriptures to man already pre-written, what in the world is the difference between “fixing a canon” and “recognizing a canon”??? When they teach sola scriptura, do they teach these people to disregard the meaning of words in Webster’s Dictionary?

Even if I were to say, “okay, Rightly - just for the sake of argument, let’s say that humans ‘recognize’ a canon”.

***He refuses and absolutely cannot tell us WHO, WHEN, WHERE, and by WHAT AUTHORITY was the FIRST OT canon recognized by “his Jews” (meaning, only those Jews who adhered to the OT canon that the protestants use - NOT the OT canon known as the Septuagint that an entire population of Jews in Palestine used at the time of Christ and the Apostles).

1. He says: “This recognition occurs over time. Our evidence for this is in the Bible.”

Really? WHERE? WHAT evidence? What time period? How long “over time”? Where does it say ANY OF THESE THINGS IN THE BIBLE? NOWHERE!! NOT ONE SINGLE PLACE - AND IF IT DID, HE SHOULD STAND AND BE COUNTED FOR HIS BELIEF BY EITHER POINTING OUT HIS “PROOF” OR ADMITTING AS WFS5801 DID THAT PROTESTANTS SIMPLY HAVE NO ANSWERS TO THEIR OWN QUESTIONS.

1. He says: “Christ and his apostles recognize[d] scripture. They d[id].”

Well of course Christ could recognize Scripture if he saw it - He was the divine inspiration of it through his use of the Holy Spirit guiding men to write the scriptures!!!

But something that was impossible is the fact that Christ and the Apostles could NOT have “recognized” the NT because they were all dead when the books of the NT were compiled into a single unit we refer to as the New Testament! Good grief - Christ himself was DEAD before even ONE book of the NT was written, so how in the world could Christ have “recognized” the NT scriptures when he was no longer on Earth when they were written? I guess he forgot that fact. COULD Christ have recognized the NT? Well, sure - if one is referring to “ability”. But that is not the question. The question is DID Christ recognize the NT scripture? No! WHY? Because he was already dead when the NT scriptures were written!

How can these people not understand this?

1. Lastly, he says: “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.”

That is something he just made up - made up!!!

He won’t tell you WHICH Jews supposedly “recognized” the OT canon.
He won’t tell you WHEN the Jews supposedly “recognized” the OT canon.
He won’t tell you, even if he named them - such as Josephus and Melito - how THEY had the authority to do ANYTHING, much less “recognize” the OT canon.

But the one thing he has steadfastly refused to discuss or even acknowledge is that even the “right kind of Jews” (meaning, the ones HE refers to as those who “recognized” the OT canon used by the protestants today) did not finalize the Hebrew OT canon until between the 7th and 10th centuries after Christ.

The Masoretic Text (MT, ������, or ) is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible regarded almost universally as the official version of the Tanakh. It defines not just the books of the Jewish canon, but also the precise letter-text of the biblical books in Judaism, as well as their vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah. The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles!!!

So where is his proof that the OT canon the protestants use today was recognized as “fixed” at the time of Christ and the Apostles, when the Masoretes did not do this until at least 600 years after the last Apostle (St. John) died? What does he suggest happened - a “pre-fixation”???

Anyone who has read this thread - especially the posts of the last few days - can see that I have BEGGED Rightly for dates, people, and authority. But he is SO hardened in his view that the bible is a book that, when people read it, they just KNOW it is inspired, he cannot even explain HOW, WHEN, WHAT, WHERE, and WHY the bible he is looking at is inspired.

As WFS5801 said so perfectly when he was being taught by the protestants and was a protestant: “It just IS - next subject” . . . .

 

[WFS5801]

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.

Obviously the Catholic Church did decide what constituted the Canon. Otherwise Protestants would have had no idea what the New Testament Canon was 1,500 years after Christ. You can deny this, but facts work against you.

The Infallible Church, who decided what books where in the Canon, did work under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – that is true. Without the Church there would have been no New Testament Canon for the Protestants to inherit.

Okay, exactly which churches did not recognize the New Testament Canon into the 7th century? Heretics? Gnostics? Schismatics? A few facts and citations, please.

“Why did the two apostolic churches not accept the Old Testament Canon of the Catholic Church?” You mean those churches separated from Rome, because they did not accept other Catholic Church doctrines? Some answers are obvious by the question asked. And, really, it has nothing to do with Protestantism and the Canon they accepted, 1,500 years after Christ. BTW, which two “apostolic churches” are you referring to? The Greek Orthodox and…?

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.

Of course Holy Scripture was inspired the minute it was penned, but that again sidesteps the important point of whom decided what writings were inspired Scripture after the fact. We’re going in circles here. Suppose the Catholic Church never existed. By what process would the Reformers, 1500 years later, have decided which of the hundreds of documents written about Christ in the early centuries were actually inspired? That’s the issue the Church dealt with in Her Councils in the early centuries. The only reason the Protestants did not have to deal with it 1,500 years after Christ was because the New Testament Canon was handed to them by the Catholics and the Old Testament Canon was handed to them by the Jews. Otherwise Protestants would not have had either the New Testament Canon or their version of the Old Testament Canon.

(continued)

 

[WFS5801]

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.

The only thing you “present” is your opinion of what two Jewish men meant when they wrote about the Old Testament – I assume both were speaking of the LXX derogatorily. I’m also assuming that both spoke and wrote in Hebrew, so they were not enamored with a Greek Old Testament. But, unfortunately for them, the writers of the New Testament quoted from the LXX about 80% of the time (easily verified) so these two men’s opinions on this topic are basically worthless when speaking of the Christian Old Testament Canon. Besides, both wrote before any Jewish Old Testament Canon was settled – so as “proof” their words are worthless.

How can the Canon be “open?” That’s a conflict in terms. But if you want to know about these controversies (settled by the Church in Her Councils) you will need to study the writings of the Fathers of the Church. Let me show where to start…

Origin, who traveled widely and knew of many traditions of the Church at different locations, used three classifications for the writings known in the Church. In the first class, the Homologoumena, stood the Gospels, the thirteen Pauline Epistles, Acts, Apocalypse, I Peter, and I John. The contested writings were Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, James, Jude, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and probably the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Eusebius, his student, also had three classifications. Homologoumena, or compositions universally received as sacred, the Four Gospels, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, Hebrews, Acts, I Peter, I John, and Apocalypse. There is some inconsistency in his classification; for instance, though ranking Hebrews with the books of universal reception, he elsewhere admits it is disputed.

*The second category is composed of the Antilegomena, or contested writings; these in turn are of the superior and inferior sort. The better ones are the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, II Peter, II and III John; these, like Origen, Eusebius wished to be admitted to the Canon, but was forced to record their uncertain status; the **Antilegomena *of the inferior sort were Barnabas, the Didache, Gospel of the Hebrews, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter.

St. Cyprian, whose Scriptural Canon certainly reflects the contents of the first Latin Bible, received all the books of the New Testament except Hebrews, II Peter, James, and Jude; however, there was already a strong inclination in his environment to admit II Peter as authentic. Jude had been recognized by Tertullian, but, strangely, it had lost its position in the African Church, probably owing to its citation of the apocryphal Henoch.

There’s much more about this in the article about the New Testament Canon at:
newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm – You can independently verify the citations by going to the writings of the authors yourself.

So, definitely, there was debate about which books were inspired and it wasn’t settled until the Catholic Church definitely settled it at Her Councils.

 

[WFS5801]

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.

You are wrong here. The early Fathers of the Church 1) used the LXX and 2) quoted from the Deutero-Canonicals (just as the New Testament writers did) and, 3) where aware that their Old Testament differed from that of the Jews. So, since the Jews had by that time rejected the LXX and eschewed the Deuteros, they definitely were not following the Jewish Old Testament Canon for the first 350 years of Christianity.

Citations follow (quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on the Old Testament Canon). These facts can be independently verified by reading the Fathers’ writings on your own. newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

Coming down to the next age, that of the apologists, we find Baruch cited by Athenagoras as a prophet. St. Justin Martyr is the first to note* that the Church has a set of Old Testament Scriptures different from the Jews’**, and also the earliest to intimate the principle proclaimed by later writers, namely, the self-sufficiency of the Church in establishing the Canon; its independence of the Synagogue in this respect. *

St. Justin Martyr was born about 100 A.D.

Origen employs all the deuterocanonicals as Divine Scriptures, and in his letter of Julius Africanus defends the sacredness of Tobias, Judith, and the fragments of Daniel, at the same time implicitly asserting the autonomy of the Church in fixing the Canon* (see references in Cornely).** In his Hexaplar edition of the Old Testament all the deuteros find a place.***

Origin was born about 185 A.D.

**St. Hippolytus (d. 236) may fairly be considered as representing the primitive Roman tradition. He comments on the Susanna chapter, often quotes Wisdom as the work of Solomon, and employs as Sacred Scripture Baruch and the Machabees.

For the West African Church the larger canon has two strong witnesses in Tertullian and St. Cyprian. All the deuteros except Tobias, Judith, and the addition to Esther, are biblically used in the works of these Fathers

S. Cyprian was baptized at about 246 A.D.**

 

[Rightlydivide]

Christ quotes scripture as scripture. And yet the Jews did not have a council, no Jamnia doesn’t count…its an outdated theory, to decide or “fix” a canon. Yet, they had scripture. People knew the scriptures. That is the fact that quoting the 100 year Catholic Encyclopedia or claiming frustration when unable or unwilling to contend with facts produces when I present them. The funny thing, nothing quoted refutes my view or what I have stated!
Human beings did not decide the canon. They recognized it. Did any of the Ante-Nicene writers quote scripture or refer to NT writings as scripture prior to the councils? Yes, of course.
Here this link should help
answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/look-at-the-canon
As far as the comment about Revelation, I am referring to the Syriac churches.

 

[Rightlydivide]

What specific point would you like to discuss? The throwing out of large sections of quotations is not productive. Pick one point and I can help people understand our view. You will also see that your view is not based upon historical or scriptural evidence. But pick one please.

 

[Nicea325]

Christ quotes scripture as scripture. And yet the Jews did not have a council, no Jamnia doesn’t count…its an outdated theory, to decide or “fix” a canon.

Yeah-and? Christ quotes scripture-and what does that prove? Then your entire argument is in question. If it is outdated to decide or ‘fix’ a canon,then why are you adhering to ANY Bible with a specific number of books?

Yet, they had scripture. People knew the scriptures. That is the fact that quoting the 100 year Catholic Encyclopedia or claiming frustration when unable or unwilling to contend with facts produces when I present them. The funny thing, nothing quoted refutes my view or what I have stated!

And nothing you presented even proves your point either. And why? Because you flat out dodge the following questions:

1. When was the OT fixed (The year)
2. By whom was it fixed? (What specific group of Jews)
3. By what authority were they given to establish a fixed OT canon?
4. And where was it fixed?

The more you refuse to answer only makes your argument all the less credible.

Human beings did not decide the canon. They recognized it.

So I guess you can apply your same standards to other doctrines: Trinity,Incarnation,etc.

Did any of the Ante-Nicene writers quote scripture or refer to NT writings as scripture prior to the councils? Yes, of course.

And did any of the Sub-Apostolic and Post Apostolic Fathers provide the year,place,by whom the OT was FIXED and set in stone before Jesus? Not that I can recall

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea,

I give up

.

I hear you out. Like I stated,he refused to give me those very important facts as well: When,where,by whom, and by what authority. All he gives is two references which we know and they are WEAK sources to prove the Jews already fixed a canon. His mind-set reminds me of a university professor I had for my historical research and methods course. I never forget he said these words:

If one makes a claim,charge,belief,idea,conviction,etc and cannot back it up with sound empirical evidence or primary sources,then it is only…AN OPINION!

EXACTLY!

 

[WFS5801]

What specific point would you like to discuss? The throwing out of large sections of quotations is not productive. Pick one point and I can help people understand our view. You will also see that your view is not based upon historical or scriptural evidence. But pick one please.

My citations were aimed to specifically bolster points that oppose yours. Namely 1) That the New Testament Canon was fixed by the Church because their was controversy about what books were inspired – the Canon didn’t “organically grow” out of usage, and 2) That the Catholic Old Testament Canon was not the same as the Jewish Old Testament Canon for the first 350 years (as you claimed).

You complained that you were given no “proof” so I provided evidence that backed my claims. Normally this is where you would either dispute the evidence, or admit you were mistaken in your claims. Instead you ignore the evidence you requested and complain there is too much information.

 

[Rightlydivide]

My citations were aimed to specifically bolster points that oppose yours. Namely 1) That the New Testament Canon was fixed by the Church because their was controversy about what books were inspired – the Canon didn’t “organically grow” out of usage, and 2) That the Catholic Old Testament Canon was not the same as the Jewish Old Testament Canon for the first 350 years (as you claimed).

You complained that you were given no “proof” so I provided evidence that backed my claims. Normally this is where you would either dispute the evidence, or admit you were mistaken in your claims. Instead you ignore the evidence you requested and complain there is too much information.

I did not think the citations directly addressed what I had said. There were a few, if they had the actual quote, like from Martyr, that could have been helpful.
How about if I lay out my case one source at a time? Then you answer the question but offer a rebuttal? Brief. I can spend hours answering ten questions but its never useful.
Lets try. Why not? I can tell I frustrate people and its not my intention obviously but I think the whole debate can be reigned in.
2nd Timothy states that all scripture is God breathed. In 60 AD, what in your estimation made OT scripture scripture? Lets see if we agree.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I hear you out. Like I stated,he refused to give me those very important facts as well: When,where,by whom, and by what authority. All he gives is two references which we know and they are WEAK sources to prove the Jews already fixed a canon. His mind-set reminds me of a university professor I had for my historical research and methods course. I never forget he said these words:

If one makes a claim,charge,belief,idea,conviction,etc and cannot back it up with sound empirical evidence or primary sources,then it is only…AN OPINION!

EXACTLY!

Hi Nicea.
Why is this a weak source?

"We have but 22 books, containing the history of all time, books that are believed to be divine. Of these, 5 belong to Moses, containing his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind down to the time of his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in 13 books. The remaining 4 books comprise hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. From the days of Artaxerxes to our own times every event has indeed been recorded; but these recent records have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with those which preceded them, on account of the failure of the exact succession of prophets. There is practical proof of the spirit in which we treat our Scriptures; r, although so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable; and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to lay down his life in their behalf

 

[Poco]

What specific point would you like to discuss? The throwing out of large sections of quotations is not productive. Pick one point and I can help people understand our view. You will also see that your view is not based upon historical or scriptural evidence. But pick one please.

A specific point has been brought up time and time again but you either refuse to answer it or cannot find an answer to it. When, where and who determined a single Jewish canon that might serve as a basis for a for the Old Testament canon of the Christian Bible?

Historical evidence has been provided that shows there was no single Jewish canon. Obviously there is no scriptural evidence as there was no scriptural “Table of Contents”. However, scripture does tell us that the Apostles, their successors and the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, determined the 73 books that are in the Christian Bible. The Catholic Church did not “add” anything. Others “removed” several books in the mid to late 1500’s for whatever reason.

 

[WFS5801]

I did not think the citations directly addressed what I had said. There were a few, if they had the actual quote, like from Martyr, that could have been helpful.

In other words you choose to ignore documented history and claim that it’s “too vague” even though it’s devastating to your point. It was my hope that you would investigate it for yourself, rather than ignoring it.

So, another quote – this time from the original source.

St. Justin Martyr in his Dialogues with Trypho.

Chapter 71. The Jews reject the interpretation of the Septuagint, from which, moreover, they have taken away some passages

Justin: But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ and say it ought to be read, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive.’ And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.

Here we see St. Justin the Martyr arguing with Trypho (a Jewish man) about the differences in their Old Testament Canons, after mentioning that the Jews had removed whole passages from the Bible. (I didn’t realize the “virgin” “youg woman” debate was this old. And is true that the new Catholic translation uses “young woman” instead of “virgin” now?) Remember, St. Justin Martyr was born about 100 A.D. So you’ve chosen to side against one of the Fathers of the Church and with a Jewsish man who rejected Christ(?)

How about if I lay out my case one source at a time? Then you answer the question but offer a rebuttal? Brief. I can spend hours answering ten questions but its never useful. Lets try. Why not? I can tell I frustrate people and its not my intention obviously but I think the whole debate can be reigned in.

Okay, I’ve given my one quote. How does the quote above reconcile with your assertion that the Christians used the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament for the first 350 years of the Church?

2nd Timothy states that all scripture is God breathed. In 60 AD, what in your estimation made OT scripture scripture? Lets see if we agree.

Of course I agree that all Scripture is God-breathed, otherwise it wouldn’t be Scripture. But what does that have to do with who decided which writings are Scripture? As shown many times, the writers of the New Testament, when quoting Old Testament Scripture, used the LXX about 80% of the time. Obviously they believed the LXX was Scripture. (This is admitted by Protestant scholars and is not really subject to debate.)

Now I’m waiting for you follow up on this question (if any) and an answer to my question (above). Thank you.

 

[Poco]

Also, from this page…

From this expression in Josephus, and the fact that Jesus limited Himself to the Pentateuch in debating the Sadducees, the Church Fathers concluded that the Sadducees only accepted the Law of Moses as Scripture. emphasis mine

While the author brings up some other interesting points, I’m sure there was a reason “Jesus limited Himself to the Pentateuch in debating the Sadducees”.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea.
Why is this a weak source?

Quote:
"We have but 22 books, containing the history of all time, books that are believed to be divine. Of these, 5 belong to Moses, containing his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind down to the time of his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in 13 books. The remaining 4 books comprise hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. From the days of Artaxerxes to our own times every event has indeed been recorded; but these recent records have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with those which preceded them, on account of the failure of the exact succession of prophets. There is practical proof of the spirit in which we treat our Scriptures; r, although so great an interval of time has now passed, not a soul has ventured to add or to remove or to alter a syllable; and it is the instinct of every Jew, from the day of his birth, to consider these Scriptures as the teaching of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to lay down his life in their behalf

Hello Rightlydivide. Okay…and kindly show me where he states or confirms: The OT canon was SET and** FIXED**?

Explain how you equate 22 books into a concrete fact it was fixed?

I’ll ask again: What group of Jews? When? Where? What authority?

These are the questions and sources you have not once provided.

Finally,what is more damaging to your argument is the fact you fail to provide what I and others have been asking. Likewise,if you truly believe it was already **fixed ** without a shred of doubt before Jesus birth,I find it rather odd that you can only give TWO sources supporting your position, which by the way no where state or confirm a fixed canon. If it was fixed,where are the vast ancient Jewish sources backing up your claim?

I can tell yo this much,if you where writing a college term paper or thesis you would get hammered for a lack of substantial and empirical evidence. It is on the weak side…no offense.

 

[Rightlydivide]

In other words you choose to ignore documented history and claim that it’s “too vague” even though it’s devastating to your point. It was my hope that you would investigate it for yourself, rather than ignoring it.

So, another quote – this time from the original source.

St. Justin Martyr in his Dialogues with Trypho.

Here we see St. Justin the Martyr arguing with Trypho (a Jewish man) about the differences in their Old Testament Canons, after mentioning that the Jews had removed whole passages from the Bible. (I didn’t realize the “virgin” “youg woman” debate was this old. And is true that the new Catholic translation uses “young woman” instead of “virgin” now?) Remember, St. Justin Martyr was born about 100 A.D. So you’ve chosen to side against one of the Fathers of the Church and with a Jewsish man who rejected Christ(?)

Okay, I’ve given my one quote. How does the quote above reconcile with your assertion that the Christians used the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament for the first 350 years of the Church?

Of course I agree that all Scripture is God-breathed, otherwise it wouldn’t be Scripture. But what does that have to do with who decided which writings are Scripture? As shown many times, the writers of the New Testament, when quoting Old Testament Scripture, used the LXX about 80% of the time. Obviously they believed the LXX was Scripture. (This is admitted by Protestant scholars and is not really subject to debate.)

Now I’m waiting for you follow up on this question (if any) and an answer to my question (above). Thank you.

You didn’t answer my only question.

. In 60 AD, what in your estimation made OT scripture scripture?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hi Nicea.
Why is this a weak source?

Hello Rightlydivide. Okay…and kindly show me where he states or confirms: The OT canon was SET and** FIXED**?

Explain how you equate 22 books into a concrete fact it was fixed?

I’ll ask again: What group of Jews? When? Where? What authority?

These are the questions and sources you have not once provided.

Finally,what is more damaging to your argument is the fact you fail to provide what I and others have been asking. Likewise,if you truly believe it was already **fixed ** without a shred of doubt before Jesus birth,I find it rather odd that you can only give TWO sources supporting your position, which by the way no where state or confirm a fixed canon. If it was fixed,where are the vast ancient Jewish sources backing up your claim?

I can tell yo this much,if you where writing a college term paper or thesis you would get hammered for a lack of substantial and empirical evidence. It is on the weak side…no offense.

I don’t write them anymore. I grade them. Now, why is he a weak source? He states the Jews have twenty two books. What is your basis for not believing his statement?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Also, from this page…

While the author brings up some other interesting points, I’m sure there was a reason “Jesus limited Himself to the Pentateuch in debating the Sadducees”.

The Sadducees like all Jews believed that the Torah, the Law of Moses, was on a much higher plane than the rest of the Scriptures.20 So there is no clear evidence from their arguments that they held less of the canon than the Pharisees. Apocalyptic material, or any Greek syncretism, they rejected outright. It may be that the Sadducees believed that only the Torah was canonical, or that the Torah was vastly more important than other Scripture, but there is simply no evidence for this.

This link supports my view…

 

[Rightlydivide]

In other words you choose to ignore documented history and claim that it’s “too vague” even though it’s devastating to your point. It was my hope that you would investigate it for yourself, rather than ignoring it.

So, another quote – this time from the original source.

St. Justin Martyr in his Dialogues with Trypho.

Here we see St. Justin the Martyr arguing with Trypho (a Jewish man) about the differences in their Old Testament Canons, after mentioning that the Jews had removed whole passages from the Bible. (I didn’t realize the “virgin” “youg woman” debate was this old. And is true that the new Catholic translation uses “young woman” instead of “virgin” now?) Remember, St. Justin Martyr was born about 100 A.D. So you’ve chosen to side against one of the Fathers of the Church and with a Jewsish man who rejected Christ(?)

Okay, I’ve given my one quote. How does the quote above reconcile with your assertion that the Christians used the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament for the first 350 years of the Church?

Of course I agree that all Scripture is God-breathed, otherwise it wouldn’t be Scripture. But what does that have to do with who decided which writings are Scripture? As shown many times, the writers of the New Testament, when quoting Old Testament Scripture, used the LXX about 80% of the time. Obviously they believed the LXX was Scripture. (This is admitted by Protestant scholars and is not really subject to debate.)

Now I’m waiting for you follow up on this question (if any) and an answer to my question (above). Thank you.

The LXX of the time of Christ did not contain the Deuterocanonical books. If you believe it did, please provide proof. This whole Martyr quote does nothing to disprove or prove your view. It actually does…nothing.

 

[Salvatore123]

As Rightly won’t talk to me or answer any of my questions, I could not resist (even though I said I gave up):

I wonder if Rightly realizes that EVERYTHING he has been discussing with everyone other than me over the last couple of pages IS ALL “EXTRA-BIBLICAL”, THAT IS, none of the people and quotes and ancient discussions being referred to appears anywhere in the Bible itself.

What happened to sola scriptura?

As I am sure he won’t answer me, perhaps one of you (Nicea? ) can ask him the same question. And as it will be asked by you, perhaps he will address this . . . but I am not holding my breath (maingly because I don’t like the headaches I get when I hold my breath) . . .