Isn't 66 an incomplete number of books in the (Protestant) Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WesleyF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BrianH said:
Oh please. We have all seen that these will be random phrases pulled out of context. Look at what happened with TU looked at the last list. All of them were either not the case or matching a few phrases here and there. Most if not all of the teachings and quotes are found in earlier OT documents.
Click to expand...
Yeah…and? And what TU is nothing new by Protestants.And why? Because TU did not disprove that the other 7 were not used. All TU did was use other biblical references. And?

So it is lgeit for TU quote other references,but the other 7 are not valid references? Who is TU to determine what is or is not scripture?
One of error of Protestanism: Private judgment…aka Luther. Luther had NO authority to reject or remove books.

So it was impossible that the NT writers never quoted the 7 books? Based on what? 500 years of Protestant rejection of the 7? That is not a qualifer.

What needs to confirmed without a doubt that they were NEVER quoted or referenced at all.
 
BrianH said:
Uh…how is 73 or 75 any better? Because it starts with 7? I think the whole number argument is speculative. But thats just me.
Click to expand...
You know, if you take the 66 books of the Protestant translations, and add in the year 1517, which is when the Reformation began, you will get a total of of 1583, which if you then subtract the value of the name LUTHER in Greek, you will get 763…far more impressive than either 73 or 75.

Oh, and you should see this bridge I have here for sale 😃
 
Nicea325 said:
When did Jesus or the apostles quote from any DC book?

Compare the similarities. Pure coincidence or actual references? Here is a few:

Mt 7:12, Lk 6:31, “…all that you wish men to do to you, even so do you also to them…”
Similar to Tob 4:16

Lk 14:13, “…when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame…” Similar to Tob 4:17.

Mt 13:43, “Then the just will shine forth…” Found in Wis 3:7.

Mt 18:15, “But if thy brother sin against thee…” Similar to Sir 19:13

Mt 25:36, “…sick and you visited me…” Similar to Sir 7:39.

Mt 27:42, “…if He is the King of Israel, let Him come down now from the cross…” Similar to Wis 2:18-20.

Mk 14:61-62, “…are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One: And Jesus said to him, I AM.” Found in Wis 2:13.

Lk 2:37, “…as a widow…She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer.” Found in Judith 8:4-6.

Lk 24:4, “…two men stood by them in dazzling raiment.” Found in 2Macc 3:26.

Jn 16:15, “All things that the Father has are mine.” Found in Wis 2:13.

Of course the apostles used the Septuagint when writing their own letters because they were writing their letters in Greek, thus they quoted from the Greek Scriptures. As for the Isaiah quotation, since Mark is writing in Greek, it would be logical that the quotation alluded to is going to have a septuagintal form. Whether Jesus quoted from the Septuagint is largely immaterial, anyway. If the Scripture is valid, then any translation of the Scripture is valid.

Well it has been argued by some scholars Matthew wrote his in Aramaic. Exactly,so it is not impossible to state Jesus’ never did quote from the LXX.
Click to expand...
Mt 18:15, “But if thy brother sin against thee…” Similar to Sir 19:13 Admonish a friend, it may be he hath not done it: and if he have done it, that he do it no more.

Lk 14:13, “…when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame…” Similar to Tob 4:17 Pour out thy bread on the burial of the just, but give nothing to the wicked.

Lk 24:4, “…two men stood by them in dazzling raiment.” Found in 2Macc 3:26 Moreover two other young men appeared before him, notable in strength, excellent in beauty, and comely in apparel, who stood by him on either side; and scourged him continually, and gave him many sore stripes.

Jn 16:15, “All things that the Father has are mine.” Found in Wis 2:13 He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord.

I’m not seeing it.
 
Nicea325 said:
So it is lgeit for TU quote other references,but the other 7 are not valid references? Who is TU to determine was is or is not scripture?
Click to expand...
Well, for one, you used Hebrews 11 a number of times and referenced it to events described in the 2 books of Maccabees. Being that the author of Hebrews introduces the section as describing the lives of David, Jonathan, Samuel, et al, it would be natural to use those Scripture references… you would have to prove that he is talking about the Hasmoneans.
 
TriuneUnity said:
You know, if you take the 66 books of the Protestant translations, and add in the year 1517, which is when the Reformation began, you will get a total of of 1583, which if you then subtract the value of the name LUTHER in Greek, you will get **763…**far more impressive than either 73 or 75.

Oh, and you should see this bridge I have here for sale 😃
Click to expand...
I don’t think so, 763 still contains the beastly number in it, appears you just can’t hide from the beast?

What do you know of the 153 fish the Apostles caught when they began to eat breakfast with Jesus at the seashore after his resurrection?
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
I don’t think so, 763 still contains the beastly number in it, appears you just can’t hide from the beast?

What do you know of the 153 fish the Apostles caught when they began to eat breakfast with Jesus at the seashore after his resurrection?
Click to expand...
:banghead:
 
Nicea325 said:
Yeah…and? And what TU is nothing new by Protestants.And why? Because TU did not disprove that the other 7 were not used. All TU did was use other biblical references. And?

So it is lgeit for TU quote other references,but the other 7 are not valid references? Who is TU to determine what is or is not scripture?
One of error of Protestanism: Private judgment…aka Luther. Luther had NO authority to reject or remove books.

So it was impossible that the NT writers never quoted the 7 books? Based on what? 500 years of Protestant rejection of the 7? That is not a qualifer.

What needs to confirmed without a doubt that they were NEVER quoted or referenced at all.
Click to expand...
The argument that DC are referenced in the NT, much less alluded to, requires a certain standard of proof. I have read enough on the topic to know there are 3 or 4 real possibilities but all these lists are not going to fly and must be examined.
As far as the Protestant canon, it my understanding that only Trent closed the canon for Catholics in a final manner. I do not think that Protestants can point to a decisive council and as such do not use that argument.
 
Dokimas said:
Mt 18:15, “But if thy brother sin against thee…” Similar to Sir 19:13 Admonish a friend, it may be he hath not done it: and if he have done it, that he do it no more.
Lk 14:13, “…when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame…” Similar to Tob 4:17 Pour out thy bread on the burial of the just, but give nothing to the wicked.
Click to expand...
I see them as clear as day; But one has to have the Apostolic teaching and Apostolic Tradition to see;

Mark 4:“The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables,
12
so that ‘they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand, in order that they may not be converted and be forgiven.’”
Click to expand...
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
I see them as clear as day; But one has to have the Apostolic teaching and Apostolic Tradition to see;

Mark 4:“The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables,
12
so that ‘they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand, in order that they may not be converted and be forgiven.’”
Click to expand...
God doesn’t want me to see?
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
I see them as clear as day; But one has to have the Apostolic teaching and Apostolic Tradition to see;

Mark 4:“The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables,
12
so that ‘they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand, in order that they may not be converted and be forgiven.’”
Click to expand...
Apostolic teaching that these are direct references or allusions…nah…that does not exist.
 
TriuneUnity said:
:banghead:
Click to expand...
You seem well versed. I am trying to understand my old brother’s standing on this question. Can you please tell me …Who has the authority to decide which of the scriptures are profitable, inspired and infallible so that we neither look to writings that are misleading or overlook writings that are the Word of God.
 
Nicea325 said:
Yeah…and? And what TU is nothing new by Protestants.And why? Because TU did not disprove that the other 7 were not used. All TU did was use other biblical references. And?

So it is lgeit for TU quote other references,but the other 7 are not valid references? Who is TU to determine what is or is not scripture?
One of error of Protestanism: Private judgment…aka Luther. Luther had NO authority to reject or remove books.

So it was impossible that the NT writers never quoted the 7 books? Based on what? 500 years of Protestant rejection of the 7? That is not a qualifer.

What needs to confirmed without a doubt that they were NEVER quoted or referenced at all.
Click to expand...
Prove a negative…:rolleyes:😃
 
QUOTE=BrianH;6512892]As far as the Protestant canon, it my understanding that only Trent closed the canon for Catholics in a final manner. I do not think that Protestants can point to a decisive council and as such do not use that argument.
Click to expand...
Trent never closed the canon of scripture; Trent only defended the original canon of scripture from ever and ever being disputed again from among her scholars, theologians, Bishops, since Luther opened the can of worms again when he rejected the already canonized books. The deutero books were contested even by Catholic biblical scholars, but were never able to remove them from the original canon of the Church since the fourth century. Trent now states to anyone who rejects these books let them be anathematized (self excommunicates themselves from the Catholic church).

Let us be clear here, Trent never canonized any books of the bible, she only protected them from being removed from her canon from antiquity.
 
answermethis said:
You seem well versed. I am trying to understand my old brother’s standing on this question. Can you please tell me …Who has the authority to decide which of the scriptures are profitable, inspired and infallible so that we neither look to writings that are misleading or overlook writings that are the Word of God.
Click to expand...
I base the veracity of the Scriptures on the veracity of Christ. The truthfulness of any section of Scripture, whether Old or New Testaments relies on the authority of the word of Christ, which is the word of God. I do not trust bishops, popes, councils, or theologians when it comes to that matter.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
School of Jamnia, not a Jamnia council. This confirmation comes from Jewish sources and St. Jerome who was the most respected Hebrew/Greek scholar in his time, respected by both (Hebrew) Jews and Catholics. Sorry no protestants ever existed during this time. But some protestants revere St. Jerome scholary biblical work today.
Click to expand...
What Jewish sources?
 
40.png
Gabriel_of_12:
Trent never closed the canon of scripture; Trent only defended the original canon of scripture from ever and ever being disputed again from among her scholars, theologians, Bishops, since Luther opened the can of worms again when he rejected the already canonized books. The deutero books were contested even by Catholic biblical scholars, but were never able to remove them from the original canon of the Church since the fourth century. Trent now states to anyone who rejects these books let them be anathematized (self excommunicates themselves from the Catholic church).

Let us be clear here, Trent never canonized any books of the bible, she only protected them from being removed from her canon from antiquity.

I remember reading that the Catholic canon is not officially closed…but I did not recall if it was conjecture or not.
So in your view, what set the canon? The local regional synods?:confused:
 
Why exclude books that have an underlying pattern that paralell’s the pattern the revelator saw and described in the book of Revelation. Surely the author of Maccabees didn’t do that knowingly, or the author of Tobit. The pattern is absent in the book of Enoch and I’m sure from whatever source the argument over Moses’ body is described.

The Church was the first to officially canonize Scriptures. Independent of an other religious authority. Other religious authority were content with afree for all so can they claim reason to do so that is equal to or as primary?

Don’t all late comers have to include in their reason to include or exclude books a need to point out what isn’t sacred rather than what is. Otherwise wouldn’t they just use Scriptures already called Sacred by the Church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top