Non-Catholics: Where's the inspired list?

[Church_Militant]

Is there any list anywhere in the Bible that defines what is inspired scripture and what is not. The only early church records are all Catholic, so you’re outta luck there. The only guarantee that you have an inspired canon at all is because of the authority of the church that wrote, protected and confirmed it as canon. Otherwise all you have to go on is your personal assertion that the Bible that you have in your hand is inspired. There are a lot of other religions that have writings that they claim are inspired and your assertion does nothing more than put you on the same level that they’re on. Dubious at best and ludicrous at worst. The only authoritative proof of inspiration is the authoritative statement of the church that Jesus Himself founded in 33 AD.

So…now prove to us the inspiration of each and every book in the Bible. Let’s start with Jude, which quotes two non-Canonical books of Jewish traditional writings as inspired text. (The Assumption of Moses and The Book of Enoch)

 

[Luke1_48]

Church Militant:

Is there any list anywhere defines as showing what is scripture and what is not. The only early church records are all Catholic, so you’re outta luck there. The only guarantee that you have an inspired canon at all is because of the authority of the church that wrote, protected and confirmed it as canon. Otherwise all you have to go on is your personal assertion that the Bible that you have in your hand is inspired. There are a lot of other religions that have writings that they claim are inspired and your assertion does nothing more than put you on the same level that they’re on. Dubious at best and ludicrous at worst. The only authoritative proof of inspiration is the authoritative statement of the church that Jesus Himself founded in 33 AD.

So…now prove to us the inspiration of each and every book in the Bible. Let’s start with Jude, which quotes two non-Canonical books of Jewish traditional writings as inspired text. (The Assumption of Moses and The Book of Enoch)

YAQUBOS came up with a really lame list that contridicted the Protocanonicals…

 

[asteroid]

I once ordered a sample teaching tape from a place which did distance learning theology degrees. The prospectus was impressive. However, the tape was not. The lecturer at one point was trying to prove WHY there are 66 books in the Bible (I wasn’t Catholic then). I would have loved him to do so but his reasoning was totally and utterly flawed. As was much of the reasoning on that tape.

Now here’s something daft. The book of Isaiah proves there are 66 books in the Bible:

The 66 chapters of Isaiah correspond to the Bible.

The first 39 correspond to the Old Testament books.

Then there is a natural break and a new section begins.

The last 27 chapters correspond to the New Testament

These 27 can be grouped into 3 sets of 9 chapters.

The central 9 chapters (ch49-57) start with a chapter on The Servant of the Lord (a type of Jesus) and the liberation of Zion.

The central chapter of those 9 is chapter 53 - one of the most famous in the Old Testament.

That chapter has 12 verses. Verse 6 says (New American (revised)):

We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the Lord laid upon him the guilt of us all.

Isn’t that amazing - the central verse of the central chapter of the New Testament part of Isaiah summarizes much of the good news of Jesus.

Amazing.

Trouble is - it doesn’t work with a Catholic Bible as Isaiah hasn’t got 73 chapters. So the Protestants MUST be right.

Don’t take that seriously. Please. I once went through that (there’s more of it but I can’t remember it) when preaching in a Baptist church and told them not to take it seriously. They didn’t heed my words. Oh well.

Of course, there’s no internal evidence as to which books are in the Bible.

Blessings

Asteroid

 

[Church_Militant]

Thanks Asteroid, I appreciate that, and it is pretty weird. I’m glad you saw through it.

So…where is all this proof? C’mon n-Cs, any other time you’d be all over us like a pack of wolves. :bounce: :ehh:

 

[truthinlove]

Church Militant:

Thanks Asteroid, I appreciate that, and it is pretty weird. I’m glad you saw through it.

So…where is all this proof? C’mon n-Cs, any other time you’d be all over us like a pack of wolves. :bounce: :ehh:

Proof? Its in the Word of God of course, anytime anyone has added to the Word of God(after Revelation, see warning in Deut about “do not add to the Word of God lest you be found a liar”), it contradicts what is already written. Faithful Christians of the 2nd century did not just take someone’s word that the NT books were God’s Word, they compared them and after studying them they were accepted as part of the Holy Scripture. Although we have no record of such, the same surely happened with the OT Scriptures, but by the time Christ was born, and without a Catholic church in existence, there was no dispute of what was contained in OT Scripture and what was not. The Catholic church did not add the apocryphal books until sometime in the 1546(council of Trent). Do those books line up with Scripture? I have not read them myself but I would say no. Especially since early Catholics(universal, not Roman) did not agree they were. If this answer doesn’t suit you, could you produce the list the Jews had before the Catholic church began? There wasn’t one was back then, how’d they know without a Catholic Church/Pope to tell them what was and was not Scripture? light bulb comes on

You also seem to have the wrong impression of those “cleansed by the blood of Christ”. We are not a pack of wolves, but harmless as doves. Christ loved every person on this world enough to die on the cross for each and every one of them. Our love falls very short but we(Christians) strive to love others as we love ourselves.

Trust in Christ,

 

[Genesis315]

Faithful Christians of the 2nd century did not just take someone’s word that the NT books were God’s Word, they compared them and after studying them they were accepted as part of the Holy Scripture.

Compared them with what? I could write a bunch of books right now that are all consistent, and on the last page write that it is the Word of God and that no one can add or subtract fro it? How would you know that was not true? It seems like you’re implying thre must have been some sort of oral Tradition that they used to to confirm the books of the Bible.

 

[RyanL]

truthinlove,
please read my questions as sincere, and not as sarcastic…i earnestly want to know what you think…

truthinlove:

Faithful Christians of the 2nd century did not just take someone’s word that the NT books were God’s Word, they compared them and after studying them they were accepted as part of the Holy Scripture.

so why do YOU take THEIR word for it? why don’t YOU have to compare and study and determine on your own if each book should be part of the Holy Scripture? what makes you better/less then them?

truthinlove:

Although we have no record of such, the same surely happened with the OT Scriptures

did you catch what you just said? **Although we have no record of such. **that means this is pure speculation. why should we listen to pure speculation?

truthinlove:

but by the time Christ was born, and without a Catholic church in existence, there was no dispute of what was contained in OT Scripture and what was not.

wrong. you err not knowing the scriptures. the saduccees rejected all but the pentatuch. saduccees were jews. pharasees were jews. they disagreed. hence, there was no “single pre-Christ” cannon of scriptures. palistenian jews had one, alexandrian jews had one, and apparently the saduccees had another.

truthinlove:

If this answer doesn’t suit you, could you produce the list the Jews had before the Catholic church began? There wasn’t one was back then, how’d they know without a Catholic Church/Pope to tell them what was and was not Scripture?

once again, there was no “single” cannon, however the septuagint was around (PROVABLY) well before Christ. this is the basis for the deuterocannonical books (please don’t call them apocrypha). also, if you’re looking for a “jewish magisterium”, re-read deuteronomy 17:8-13.

may the Peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you always,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

oh, one more question…could you tell me where chanukah comes from in your bible (chapter and verse, please)?

 

[MikeB]

truthinlove:

Proof? Its in the Word of God of course, anytime anyone has added to the Word of God(after Revelation, see warning in Deut about “do not add to the Word of God lest you be found a liar”), it contradicts what is already written. Faithful Christians of the 2nd century did not just take someone’s word that the NT books were God’s Word, they compared them and after studying them they were accepted as part of the Holy Scripture. Although we have no record of such, the same surely happened with the OT Scriptures, but by the time Christ was born, and without a Catholic church in existence, there was no dispute of what was contained in OT Scripture and what was not. The Catholic church did not add the apocryphal books until sometime in the 1546(council of Trent). Do those books line up with Scripture? I have not read them myself but I would say no. Especially since early Catholics(universal, not Roman) did not agree they were. If this answer doesn’t suit you, could you produce the list the Jews had before the Catholic church began? There wasn’t one was back then, how’d they know without a Catholic Church/Pope to tell them what was and was not Scripture? light bulb comes on

Am I reading that you claim that the Catholic Church added to the Scriptures? The books removed from the King James version were in the Scriptures from the time the Bible was compiled in the 4th century until they were removed. As a matter of fact there are even copies of the earliest King James that still have the disputed books in them. The Catholic Church didn’t add books, but the non-Catholics removed Sacred Scriptures. Who is at fault?

 

[Church_Militant]

truthinlove says:

Proof? Its in the Word of God of course,

Really? Where? Where is your inspired list in the Bible text itself?

anytime anyone has added to the Word of God(after Revelation, see warning in Deut about “do not add to the Word of God lest you be found a liar”), it contradicts what is already written.

I’d suggest that those who allege this about the Catholic Church all too readily discount the same admonition that applies to removing from the Bible. The actual historical records (not that revisionist jive) indicates that the DCs were indeed removed from the Bible by Martin Luther (as well as at least 4 books from the NT. :bigyikes: )

Faithful Christians of the 2nd century did not just take someone’s word that the NT books were God’s Word, they compared them and after studying them they were accepted as part of the Holy Scripture.

Did they now? And when was that done and when was it decided what was canon and what was not?

Although we have no record of such, the same surely happened with the OT Scriptures, but by the time Christ was born, and without a Catholic church in existence, there was no dispute of what was contained in OT Scripture and what was not.

Yes…you’re right there: It’s called the Septuagint, or the Alexandrian text. However, you’re wrong about no dispute since even the Jews of today have disputes about what is canon to them.

The Catholic church did not add the apocryphal books until sometime in the 1546(council of Trent). Do those books line up with Scripture? I have not read them myself but I would say no.

You can say (and have said) blessed well anything that you want to, but this remark indicates that you do not know what you are talking about and since you have not read the DCs (afraid?) and cannot speak firsthand to this issue. I have indeed read them (many times) and they do indeed line up with the rest of the Bible.
The historical fact is that the original 1611 KJV includes the DCs.

The DCs were part of the Septuagint and EVERY Bible prior to the deformation. They were removed by them because they didn’t align with the new winds of doctrine that blew threw the Christian world at that time and contradicted the doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Read Luther’s own writings and you’ll find that it’s true.

Especially since early Catholics(universal, not Roman) did not agree they were.

This is historically inaccurate since the Christian church has called itself the Catholic Church from (at least) just prior to the death of St. John. (the last apostle to pass away)

Here’s what his close friend and disciple Ignatius of Antioch said in a letter when he was bishop of the church at Antioch in about 107 AD:
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
The whole letter is here catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume01/ignatius06.cfm

If this answer doesn’t suit you, could you produce the list the Jews had before the Catholic church began? There wasn’t one was back then, how’d they know without a Catholic Church/Pope to tell them what was and was not Scripture? light bulb comes on

This is a straw man argument…why would the Jews care what the Catholic Church said about the OT? Or any other non-Jew for that matter? However, there is indeed historical eveidence that the Jews in Israel at the time of Christ did indeed use the Greek Septuagint, since 90% of all the OT quotes in the NT are from the Septuagint.

You also seem to have the wrong impression of those “cleansed by the blood of Christ”. We are not a pack of wolves, but harmless as doves. Christ loved every person on this world enough to die on the cross for each and every one of them. Our love falls very short but we(Christians) strive to love others as we love ourselves.

Trust in Christ,

You misinterpreted my meaning. All I meant was that usually a thread like this draws alot of responses from our n-C members. It was not an implication of my opinion of n-Cs in all cases.
Pax tecum,

 

[deb1]

truthinlove:

Proof? Its in the Word of God of course, anytime anyone has added to the Word of God(after Revelation, see warning in Deut about “do not add to the Word of God lest you be found a liar”), it contradicts what is already written. Faithful Christians of the 2nd century did not just take someone’s word that the NT books were God’s Word, they compared them and after studying them they were accepted as part of the Holy Scripture. Although we have no record of such, the same surely happened with the OT Scriptures, but by the time Christ was born, and without a Catholic church in existence, there was no dispute of what was contained in OT Scripture and what was not. The Catholic church did not add the apocryphal books until sometime in the 1546(council of Trent). Do those books line up with Scripture? I have not read them myself but I would say no. Especially since early Catholics(universal, not Roman) did not agree they were. If this answer doesn’t suit you, could you produce the list the Jews had before the Catholic church began? There wasn’t one was back then, how’d they know without a Catholic Church/Pope to tell them what was and was not Scripture? light bulb comes on

You also seem to have the wrong impression of those “cleansed by the blood of Christ”. We are not a pack of wolves, but harmless as doves. Christ loved every person on this world enough to die on the cross for each and every one of them. Our love falls very short but we(Christians) strive to love others as we love ourselves.

Trust in Christ,

I am not certain what you are getting at by a list of the OT.Do you need proof that the Jewish people used the Deuterocanonical books? Jewish people celebrate Hannukah, a holiday from the book of Macabees. A book, ironically enough, found in the Catholic bible. SO apparently, the Jews before Jesus’s time were familar with that particular book.

I am a little confused by your statement about those cleaned by the blood of Christ. Are you implying that Catholics aren’t Christians? I might have read your post wrong and if so I apologize.

How can you say that something doesn’t line up with scripture if you haven’t read it? I would suggest that you pick up a Catholic bible and read the Deuterocannical books. I promise you there isn’t anything unholy or evil in them. In fact, you’ll probably like them.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Church Militant:

You can say (and have said) blessed well anything that you want to, but this remark indicates that you do not know what you are talking about and since you have not read the DCs (afraid?) and cannot speak firsthand to this issue. I have indeed read them (many times) and they do indeed line up with the rest of the Bible.
The historical fact is that the original 1611 KJV includes the DCs.

Yes the 1611 KJV had the “Apocrypha” in it as well as the Geneva Bible. However, they were regarded as good historical works, but not good for doctrines. Anyways, the debate was over the canon in existence since the council of Rome. Which books in that canon were inspired or not. Luther rejected the O.T. deuterocanonicals as well as the Epistle of James, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Book of Revelations. Calvin and Anglicans rejected only the O.T. deuterocanonocials. The Council of Trent declared the canon declared at the Council of Rome (and declared at each council since then) inspired and binding to the faithful.

 

[Milliardo]

Oh, the Deutrocanonicals added only in Trent? Everytime I read this statement, I only think how poor the grasp of this person is on history. Fact is, by 419 AD the Council of Carthage already completed the canon; Trent merely upheld Hippo and Carthage in the face of what Luther had done. Here’s Canon XXIV from Carthage:

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church
under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

• Genesis
• Exodus
• Leviticus
• Numbers
• Deuteronomy
• Joshua the Son of Nun
• The Judges
• Ruth
• The Kings (4 books)
• The Chronicles (2 books)
• Job
• The Psalter
• The Five books of Solomon
• The Twelve Books of the Prophets
• Isaiah
• Jeremiah
• Ezechiel
• Daniel
• Tobit
• Judith
• Esther
• Ezra (2 books)
• Macchabees (2 books)

The New Testament:

• The Gospels (4 books)
• The Acts of the Apostles (1 book)
• The Epistles of Paul (14)
• The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2)
• The Epistles of John the Apostle (3)
• The Epistles of James the Apostle (1)
• The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1)
• The Revelation of John (1 book)

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the
other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are
the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

See it here: newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm That’s 419 AD, 1000 years before Luther. Next.

 

[truthinlove]

I regret I have not time to answer everyone. The Word of God has always been accepted by Christians(in NT times), and true believing Jews(not the Pharisees(they perverted the Scriptures into legalism), and Saducees(they did not believe Biblical accounts of angels or the resurrection). When someone preached or wrote the NT in the first century(it was completely written down by 95AD, although not in one place yet) they compared what was said/written to what they already had, the OT Scriptures.

In Acts, the Bereans are commended, not for believing him(an apostle), or looking to Peter(pope) or some magisterium for the answers to whether it was Scripture or not, BUT for searching the Scriptures(OT) to see if these things are so.

The Bible is full of statements upholding the fact that God’s written Word is the final basis of truth for mankind. It is evidenced by hundreds of references in the Old Testament as, for example, Isaiah 8:20, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

Likewise in the New Testament, it is the written Word of God and it alone to which the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles refer as final authority. In the temptation, Jesus three times repelled Satan saying, “It is written…”, as, for example, in Matthew 4:4, “But he answered and said, `It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

When refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Lord said, “…Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” The Lord’s total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is seen in his words in Matthew 5:17-18, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” On the night before he was crucified, Jesus prayed to his Father with the clearest words, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth”.
Christ Jesus said also that Scripture cannot be broken. The Bible testifies to its own essential truth, e.g. “Thy Word is true from the beginning…” “O Lord God, thou art that God, and thy words be true…” The written Word of God is the “word of truth.” God says of his written Word, “These words are faithful and true”. The written Word of God is infallible and inerrant in all areas. The believer is told explicitly to submit his mind to God, “bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ”.

Now that said I’m not against tradition in its place. I worship on a Sunday at 9:30am because of tradition, I take the Lord’s Supper at the end of a worship hour and not the beginning because of tradition, I have a fellowship break between the hour of Lord’s Supper worship and the hour of instruction from the Word of God because of tradition. Why are these traditions ok? Because they don’t conflict with the Word of God. I also don’t elevate tradition equal or above the Word of God. Nothing is equal or above God’s Word(not even the pope) in authority or truth.

 

[truthinlove]

More in-depth historical record…

Ultimately it was God who decided what the Biblical canon was. It was just a matter of God convincing the church which books should be included in the Bible. Compared to the New Testament, there was very little controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. The books of the Old Testament were divinely inspired and authoritative the moment they were written. The human recognition of the inspiration was almost always immediate as the writers and prophets were accepted as spokesmen from God. Shortly after the book of Malachi was written (B.C. 430), the Jews officially recognized and closed the Old Testament canon.

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in (A.D. 170). The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Psalm45_9]

Milliardo:

Oh, the Deutrocanonicals added only in Trent? Everytime I read this statement, I only think how poor the grasp of this person is on history. Fact is, by 419 AD the Council of Carthage already completed the canon; Trent merely upheld Hippo and Carthage in the face of what Luther had done. Here’s Canon XXIV from Carthage:

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church
under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

• Genesis
• Exodus
• Leviticus
• Numbers
• Deuteronomy
• Joshua the Son of Nun
• The Judges
• Ruth
• The Kings (4 books)
• The Chronicles (2 books)
• Job
• The Psalter
• The Five books of Solomon
• The Twelve Books of the Prophets
• Isaiah
• Jeremiah
• Ezechiel
• Daniel
• Tobit
• Judith
• Esther
• Ezra (2 books)
• Macchabees (2 books)

The New Testament:

• The Gospels (4 books)
• The Acts of the Apostles (1 book)
• The Epistles of Paul (14)
• The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2)
• The Epistles of John the Apostle (3)
• The Epistles of James the Apostle (1)
• The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1)
• The Revelation of John (1 book)

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the
other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are
the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

See it here: newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm That’s 419 AD, 1000 years before Luther. Next.

Which is what I said, the Council of Trent bound that canon shut.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi truthinlove,

If this is your refutation of the Catholic Canon then you fail because all the authorities that you cite (and you obviously accept their authority to discern and confirm the canon) are Catholic…every blessed one of them!

The evolution of the canon that you describe is exactly the point that we are making here…that the Catholic Church did indeed decide what was the canon of scripture by it’s Christ ordained authority and that the Bible that they affirmed was indeed the 73 book canon that we have today.

My earlier post points up the clear historical fact that the early church had already taken the name Catholic by the time that St. John died…So that means that all the sources that you accept as authoritative were indeed Catholic.

This means that the only way that you can rest assured that the Bible that you have is inspired is that the church that Jesus actually founded, which calls itself Catholic to this day, used the authority that he gave them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to set the Canon of the Bible. The one with 73 books.

If you accept the authority of the Catholic bishops and councils from Hippo to Trent to affirm again and again this issue, then how can you in good conscience reject that authority of that same church today. If you do you rob yourself of the assurance that God intended for you to have.

You are wrong about the Jewish canon though because the only canon that Jews actually accept is the Pentateuch. Ask any Orthodox Jew.

Pax vobiscum,

By the way, you neglected my question in my OP about the book of Jude…

So…now prove to us the inspiration of each and every book in the Bible. Let’s start with Jude, which quotes two non-Canonical books of Jewish traditional writings as inspired text. (The Assumption of Moses and The Book of Enoch)

 

[Zooey]

There are two sets of the OT (Jewish)canon. One is the list in (originally) Hebrew/Aramaic. The other–the Septuagint–was in Greek. The Greek canon is larger.
Catholics use the Greek canon. Most Protestants use the smaller Hebrew canon.Frankly, I think this is all very arbitrary…
Besides, many, if not most, Protestant Bibles today have the full Greek canon, admittedly not the same order as Catholic Bibles.
I suspect that we would all be better off **reading & studying the Bibles we have **(regardless of which canon), instead of :tsktsk: banging each other over the head with them…
But that’s me…

 

[Milliardo]

CM, funny how truthinlove dodged again the sticky point for Protestants, which is the Old Testament canon when he said:

The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

Of course, he left out the issue of the Old Testament canon. As evidenced above, Hippo and Carthage found authoritative and inspired as well the Dueterocanonicals, something Protestants could not accept.

 

[asteroid]

It’s odd where we get our ideas.

As a protestant I was always told too that the Catholics added in 7 books at the Council of Trent. I accepted that without question.

I haven’t met many protestants who have bothered to check that information. Some look at Trent and see the canon of scripture listed there and surmise from that that the Council were the first people to produce the list. And some people said (in error) that Jerome rejected these books. I certainly never bothered to check and just took the view on board as truth.

Nobody ever wondered how Luther could have removed the books from scripture, saying they weren’t scripture, if the Catholic Church hadn’t yet “added” them to scripture.

Nobody ever seemed to look at the development of the OT canon through history and noticed how these books were included rather earlier than Trent.

As a protestant I believed exactly the same as truthinlove about this: “Do those books line up with Scripture? I have not read them myself but I would say no.” I dismissed them without reading them or studying the history.

After looking at these things all I can say is that Trent reaffirmed in no uncertain way the canon that the Church already had. And it did it, at least in part, to stand firm on the truths the church had believed for over 1000 years, in the face of new groups claiming those truths were wrong. Which is the sort of thing councils have often done.