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

[Nicea325]

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.

That is a serious flaw and premise. You do not TRUST bishops,popes,councils or theologians?

Then why do you adhere to a 27 NT canon? Where does Jesus authority remotely even mention a 39/46 or 27 NT canon? Let alone a compilation of of OT/NT writings? When does Jesus even remotely explain the doctrines of the Trinity or the Incarnation?

Who gave us all of the above? The CHURCH (Bishops,councils,popes).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What link did you use? And once again, if 5 closed the canon, why did they meet again?

You can laugh at my ignorance or you can answer my questions…or you can do both

I will try and rephrase it; The bible books were canonized by the Catholic church. The meetings and counils and Pope promulgations continued throughout the ages to defeat heretics and heresies who were introducing more books, contesting the already canon of books like St. Jerome, St. Augustine. This dispute began long before the canon was official, and continued all the way up to the last definitive council Trent which now will excommunicate anyone who rejects or refutes this canon of scripture since the fourth century.

I did not copy this from a link, this comes from my personal library from a 10 year study on the bible. If you need a link and are serious about viewing this history, I can relocate them from my library. This thread was going to fast for me to keep up with.

 

[TriuneUnity]

That is a serious flaw and premise. You do not TRUST bishops,popes,councils or theologians?

Then why do you adhere to a 27 NT canon? Where does Jesus authority remotely even mention a 39/46 or 27 NT canon? Let alone a compilation of of OT/NT writings? When does Jesus even remotely explain the doctrines of the Trinity or the Incarnation?

Who gave us all of the above? The CHURCH (Bishops,councils,popes).

I do not trust the authority of bishops when it comes to determining what is and is not inspired by God. The only one I trust in such a situation is God Himself. Since it was the intention of God that His people have access to His revelation, I trust that God ordained events as such that we have access to that revelation. Jesus only quotes from a canon of 39 books. The apostles only quote from a 39 book canon. The only writings verifiable from the apostles are a 27 book canon, which books were around long before Hippo, Carthage, or Athanasius.

 

[Nicea325]

No. Similarity in language is not a reference, sorry. What you just posted above has probably been said similarly in other threads. That doesn’t mean you are referencing them!

I do not think so. First of all,when did language become a factor for referencing? So differences in language is only applicable?

No. Jesus or the apostles.

All speculative. You do not have a shred of evidence they NEVER quoted or referenced it,because you have to show me historical evidence Jesus or the Apostles only adhered to a 39 OT canon. Tell me the year it was made official and by whom?

And no where does He adhere to a 46 book canon, either. So we are left with which books He quoted as being Scripture.

Exactly! Then you just rebuked your own belief that the 39 OT was offical before Jesus birth

Not really. Given that the Jews of Palestine did not accept them, and as Brian has pointed out… no one knows which deuterocanonical books were in the Septuagint when the apostles were writing their epistles and gospels. If a book existed in the Septuagint then that the Catholic church doesn’t recognize now, would the Church automatically accept it

Exactly! Then how can you conclude there already existed a 39 OT canon during Jesus life time? Show me the historical evidence? Which begs the questioned again: Where does Jesus or the Apostles reject them? The Sadducees rejected anything outside the 5 books of Moses and the Pharisees accepted more books outside the 5. Hhhhmmm?

So how could have a 39 OT canon have existed?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Let’s keep it simple ok, You are getting into the disputes of the already canon of books. I can take you further back for this. What I thought we were discussing was the official canon of scripture. Going into these debates between Catholic scholars becomes boring, the final net result is what matters to me. Besides during these Catholic councils, and Saintly refutations, Protestantism did not exist during these times to try and fit a protestant view into them. You might be able to tell by now I have been down this road with Protestants. Protestants cannot fit their theology into the minds of Catholic Saints and writings.

We should thank these Catholic Saints and Catholic councils for defending the Apostolic faith is the end result. Going into a battle already won, and make argument, is like going to a museum with my Sister and Brother in law who mock and critique every moment in history and museum artifact, with out taking in what history has given.

In a nutshell, save this for another thread, not interested in belated Catholic theological debates at this time.

 

[Nicea325]

I do not trust the authority of bishops when it comes to determining what is and is not inspired by God.

Okay,then why are you following a 39 OT/27 NT canon then? Then it would mean the entire long and complex process of canonization is in question. So you are claiming the current canons 39/46 and 27 NT are in possible error? And who made you an authority? Why should anyone trust you? Based on what? Then you must be in deep denial or do not comprehend the historical background of canonization.

Again,if you do not trust the authority of the bishops,then why are you following a 27 NT canon? Why not 40 or 47 or 50 books in the NT? Who determined what was and was not scripture? You? Some special mere mortal 100,500,1,000 years ago?

**The only one I trust in such a situation is God Himself. **

Shouldn’t we all? But the question at hand is not about trusting God,but HOW and WHO he chose to make such a determination as to what is inspired or not. Certainly was not you and I.

Since it was the intention of God that His people have access to His revelation, I trust that God ordained events as such that we have access to that revelation. Jesus only quotes from a canon of 39 books.

I’ll ask again, show me the historical evidence ONLY a 39 OT canon was settled before Jesus was born? You still have not shown me anything.

You base your conclusion merely to what IS WRITTEN in scripture. But still you have no certainty he never did quote outside the current Jew/Protestant OT canon. Sorry to rain on your parade,but Christianity is not binded to a book alone. Where does Scripture say everything Jesus ever did and said is ALL written down? Scripture says otherwise.

**The apostles only quote from a 39 book canon. The only writings verifiable from the apostles are a 27 book canon, which books were around long before Hippo, Carthage, or Athanasius. **

There you go again making the claim the Apostles ONLY quote from a 39 book canon? But you have not provided a single shred of evidence the 39 OT canon was already made official prior to Jesus birth? Likewise, written scripture does not state he never did either.

 

[Nicea325]

**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. **

Well duh! Logically you cannot see it because Protestants reject the Books of Maccabees.Hence,Judas also known as Maccabeus is also a hero. So why would it be impossible for the author of Hebrews to reference Mattathias and his sons?

Did not the author of Hebrew mention Enoch? Is that book in our Bibles?

Again,it has to be a undisputable fact that there existed ONLY a 39 canon by the time of Jesus. I have yet to read such historical and empirical evidence confirming such a claim.

 

[answermethis]

Well, with the understanding that only one person has the authority to declare what is and is not canonical. That would be the Author, who happened to be Christ. When Jesus quotes a section of the Old Testament as Scripture, that immediately makes it Scripture. Since Christ is speaking through the apostles as they write the NT, it would mean when they quote Scripture, it also assigns this value to it.

I think I am following. If Christ, therefore, quoted from Protocanonical books and cited them as scripture or if a writer of a NT book quotes from a Protocanonical book and it is cited as scripture then the authority is assigned. Right?

Ok, so is there a source that verifies these quotes?

How specific a quote and citation is necessary?

I noticed that the verse citation mentioned referencing the Deuterocanonical books were not sufficient for some reason I am not following

How is it decided which NT books to include, there were other writings that were rejected and maybe they quoted OT

And where is the authority that this is the test by which one puts writings into the Bible?

Thank you

 

[elvisman]

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.

Sorry, pal - but you DID. You got it from the Catholic Church at the Councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century. That’s why you have the canon of Scripture that you do - after it was "edited" leter by prideful, rebellious Protestants, of course.

 

[elvisman]

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

.
Also - this whole notion that Jesus and the NT writers DIDN’T study and quote from the Septuagint doesn’t have a historical or linguistic leg to stand on.
It’s amazing what Scriptural and historical acrobatics you have to do to arrive at your position.

---

PS - Give me PROOF of your last statement (in red).

 

[TriuneUnity]

Sorry, pal - but you DID. You got it from the Catholic Church at the Councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century. That’s why you have the canon of Scripture that you do - after it was "edited" leter by prideful, rebellious Protestants, of course.

Oh no, assault by Lifesavers! Run. Seriously, I don’t wish to discuss it with you, elvis. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, though.

 

[answermethis]

Oh no, assault by Lifesavers! Run. Seriously, I don’t wish to discuss it with you, elvis. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, though.

Could you please respond to my last post.
I am trying to follow what you are saying but it is the early stuff that I get confused by when discussing this with my brother.
Thanks

 

[TriuneUnity]

**
Okay,then why are you following a 39 OT/27 NT canon then? Then it would mean the entire long and complex process of canonization is in question. So you are claiming the current canons 39/46 and 27 NT are in possible error? And who made you an authority? Why should anyone trust you? Based on what? Then you must be in deep denial or do not comprehend the historical background of canonization.**

I do understand the historical background of canonization. I realize that God has so ordered events that His Church recognizes as Scripture that which is Scripture. My confidence as such is not because of any inherent ability within the Church, but within God to so will that His Church would recognize His voice in Holy Writ.

Again,if you do not trust the authority of the bishops,then why are you following a 27 NT canon? Why not 40 or 47 or 50 books in the NT? Who determined what was and was not scripture? You? Some special mere mortal 100,500,1,000 years ago?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think I am following. If Christ, therefore, quoted from Protocanonical books and cited them as scripture or if a writer of a NT book quotes from a Protocanonical book and it is cited as scripture then the authority is assigned. Right?

Their status as Scripture would be verified as actually being Scripture, yes.

Ok, so is there a source that verifies these quotes?

How specific a quote and citation is necessary?

Generally, when Scripture is quoted, it precedes with “As the Scriptures say…” or “as it is written,” or something to that effect, followed by a verbatim quotation of the text. Other times, it doesn’t give a direct quotation, but states what occurred in a specific situation, for example, “as happened to our fathers when the serpents were sent by God to destroy them…etc.”

I noticed that the verse citation mentioned referencing the Deuterocanonical books were not sufficient for some reason I am not following

Because they weren’t citations. They were language similar to language in the DC books. That is not a citation. It’s not even an allusion.

How is it decided which NT books to include, there were other writings that were rejected and maybe they quoted OT

Based mainly on whether the letter was received by a church from an apostle or disciple of Christ. Remember that the NT letters are written much closer to their recognization as Scripture than, say, the OT books, which were written hundreds of years before the Church began looking at the issue of the canon.

 

[answermethis]

Their status as Scripture would be verified as actually being Scripture, yes.

Generally, when Scripture is quoted, it precedes with “As the Scriptures say…” or “as it is written,” or something to that effect, followed by a verbatim quotation of the text. Other times, it doesn’t give a direct quotation, but states what occurred in a specific situation, for example, “as happened to our fathers when the serpents were sent by God to destroy them…etc.”

Because they weren’t citations. They were language similar to language in the DC books. That is not a citation. It’s not even an allusion.

Based mainly on whether the letter was received by a church from an apostle or disciple of Christ. Remember that the NT letters are written much closer to their recognization as Scripture than, say, the OT books, which were written hundreds of years before the Church began looking at the issue of the canon.

I see, and none of the citations from the Deuterocanonical scriptures followed these requirements. Is these your personal requirements or have they come down in that form from Jesus or His Apostles? Where can I access this information and do you have a resource for seeing how these quotes follow this requirement using the earliest manuscripts available?
Other writings of the time were also ascribed to the Apostles but were not included by the councils, was this a mistake and should another look be granted these works???

 

[elvisman]

Oh no, assault by Lifesavers! Run. Seriously, I don’t wish to discuss it with you, elvis. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, though.

Of course you don’t you know that I won’t let you get away without providing evidence or other back up proof for your comments.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Also - this whole notion that Jesus and the NT writers DIDN’T study and quote from the Septuagint doesn’t have a historical or linguistic leg to stand on.
It’s amazing what Scriptural and historical acrobatics you have to do to arrive at your position.

---

PS - Give me PROOF of your last statement (in red).

Since Jesus is the WORD; he did not need anything; the Scriptures are His own words; which is why the Jews were so amazed that He knew the Scriptures but also knew He did not study them by anyway known to them. Also, Jesus told the Apostles that the HS would bring what He said to their remembrance. How much more common sense and evidence do you need?

John 5 should mean something to you in this regards IMO.
“You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. 39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.”

 

[elvisman]

Since Jesus is the WORD; he did not need anything; the Scriptures are His own words; which is why the Jews were so amazed that He knew the Scriptures but also knew He did not study them by anyway known to them. Also, Jesus told the Apostles that the HS would bring what He said to their remembrance. How much more common sense and evidence do you need?

John 5 should mean something to you in this regards IMO.
“You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. 39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.”

Huh??
My whole point - whether Jesus studied from or merely quoted from the Septuagint from memory because he is God doesn’t negate the fact that he and the NT writers DID quote from the Deuterocanonicals. If they quoted from them - then they ARE the inspired Word of God.

Jesus told the Apostles that the HS would guide the Church to ALL truth (John 16:12-15).

 

[BrianH]

Huh??
**My whole **point - whether Jesus studied from or merely quoted from the Septuagint from memory because he is God doesn’t negate the fact that he and the NT writers DID quote from the Deuterocanonicals. If they quoted from them - then they ARE the inspired Word of God.

Jesus told the Apostles that the HS would guide the Church to ALL truth (John 16:12-15).

Do you have a quote that will stand up to the scrutiny? Just one at a time…

 

[Hereswith]

Interesting discussion. But although you say “Most Protestants would agree” I would like to assert that many Protestants couldn’t care less. I was raised Protestant and numbers were never discussed. Except for 3, as in Trinity, and that only in a limited way. Maybe very fundamentalist sects discuss such things, but mine did not. Can’t lump all Protestants together, is all I’m saying.