Protestant bible History

[Rightlydivide]

We also agree that God’s sovereignty did not stop in 400 AD in North Africa. That is why it is perfectly consistent to accept the Marian Dogmas, the appropriate use of images, and the definition of papal authority as defined by the authority God’s sovereignty breathed into His Church and promised would be “with you all days.”

. Based upon what you consider to be authoratative, of course you are consistent. I would never say otherwise. Don’t think I have…

A question though, which is germane to the topic:

IF the OT is quoted with authority by the NT writers, by what authority did the Jews accept “thus saith the Lord”?

 

[mdcpensive1]

Your question belabors a fundamental misunderstanding of my view from what I can tell. It is not to suggest that there was not contentious debate; there was.
It boils down to the sovereignty of God to have the book he desires for his people to have.

On a practical level, the very simple answer is they did not have as much support as the ones that did. The Didache has an uncertain authorship, the same thing that hung up Hebrews and
2nd Peter, for awhile. Hermas, I suspect, is just bizarre. But that is not germane to my point though.

On the level of fully supporting the sovereignty of God; it could not have been any other way.

God’s sovereingty did not stop in 400 AD in Northern Africa. It continues today. It continued 400 years ago. On a side note, we have the same number of books, its the importance we place on the 7.

I am sorry if I misunderstood the question. If I may try again to conclude from what you are saying that it is the sovereinty of God which determines scripture. In a case like this, can the sovereignty of God add to scripture from writings of today. In other words, what does the sovereignty of God do that the Church was not given authority to do?

PS, I liked your answer to the two non-scripture writings I mentioned for the most part.

mdcpensive1

 

[Rightlydivide]

I am sorry if I misunderstood the question. If I may try again to conclude from what you are saying that it is the sovereinty of God which determines scripture. In a case like this, can the sovereignty of God add to scripture from writings of today. In other words, what does the sovereignty of God do that the Church was not given authority to do?

PS, I liked your answer to the two non-scripture writings I mentioned for the most part.

mdcpensive1

Just to clarify your position
You would agree that scriptures were committed TO the church, not the other way around?
And that the churches approval , in your case Trent, was subsequent to their inspiration?

 

[Teflon93]

Just to clarify your position
You would agree that scriptures were committed TO the church, not the other way around?
And that the churches approval , in your case Trent, was subsequent to their inspiration?

Let’s not fudge the origin of Scripture, the books of which had different origins. The Old Testament did not come through the Church Christ founded but through the Jews; St Augustine and many others believed the Septaguint to be specifically inspired in the event which gave it its name.

The New Testament was written by members of the Catholic Church during the 1st and 2nd centuries of its existence. St Augustine believed the Latin Vulgate of Jerome to be inspired in much the same way the Septaguint was (see “On Christian Doctrine”). In any case, the canon of the Bible was settled via an ecumenical council of the Church at Nicea in 325 and reaffirmed at Trent 1,200 years later in response to Protestants modifying the canon without authority.

The KJV was prepared in England some 1,580 years too late for Pentecost, without Church authority, at the behest of the new King of England. Since the King of England is not God, nor the vicar of the Church founded by Christ, his authority was insufficient to issue a translation of the Bible, just as the President of the United States lacks authority to issue a George W. Bush Version Bible today.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Let’s not fudge the origin of Scripture, the books of which had different origins. The Old Testament did not come through the Church Christ founded but through the Jews; St Augustine and many others believed the Septaguint to be specifically inspired in the event which gave it its name.

How did the Jews know what was scripture.?

The New Testament was written by members of the Catholic Church during the 1st and 2nd centuries of its existence. St Augustine believed the Latin Vulgate of Jerome to be inspired in much the same way the Septaguint was (see “On Christian Doctrine”). In any case, the canon of the Bible was settled via an ecumenical council of the Church at Nicea in 325 and reaffirmed at Trent 1,200 years later in response to Protestants modifying the canon without authority.

 

[mercygate]

. Based upon what you consider to be authoratative, of course you are consistent. I would never say otherwise. Don’t think I have…

A question though, which is germane to the topic:

IF the OT is quoted with authority by the NT writers, by what authority did the Jews accept “thus saith the Lord”?

The authority of the Rabbis gave the scriptures their authority. The belief was that when Moses received the commandments, he also received the interpretation of the commandments to be handed down orally to the teachers.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The authority of the Rabbis gave the scriptures their authority. The belief was that when Moses received the commandments, he also received the interpretation of the commandments to be handed down orally to the teachers.

How did you come to that conclusion? Scripture? Midrash?
Any specific verses to share? IF you wish.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Just for the record, I’m here to ask questions in an attempt to clear up my confusion, not to engage in a debate.

Now that I’ve made that clear—

My question is:

Originally Posted by Kay Cee forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
How does someone who rejects the authority of the Catholic Church know what the canon should be? How does such a person get the correct information about what books belong in the Bible?

(Sorry about the italics, but it refuses to go out of that.)

*My emphasis is on the word “How.” *

*Knowledge of what the canon should be is not something we’re born with. Therefore, this information is communicated to us. I agree that God decides the canon, but **how *does He communicate this information to us? What, in other words, is the “telephone” God uses to give us this information?

*The answer should be no more than just a word or two. (If you want to explain your answer in greater detail, that’s fine, but the initial answer should be short.) *

 

[mercygate]

How did you come to that conclusion? Scripture? Midrash?
Any specific verses to share? IF you wish.

Scripture, Talmud & Midrash. All of the above. Google it and you’ll find a lot of sources – some written to help Christians understand Jewish oral tradition – which doesn’t seem very ORAL considering how much the Rabbis WRITE about everything!

One more point. The priest, Ezra (who wrote the Book of Ezra) is credited with organizing the OT canon and the putting the Book of Psalms in order.

 

[CentralFLJames]

God’s sovereignty? I do not think that is what you are asking for.
What precisely do you consider utter hogwash…specifically please.

For starters look at these two **opinions **of yours:

1. There was never any more chance of the wrong books being in the eventual canon than Christ not being crucified. It speaks to his sovereignty.
2. Most of the books of the eventual NT are accepted as scripture in the first 200 years, no council needed.

Prove it without pointing to the Catholic Church as holding proper canon. And do so especially in light of the fact that what the Catholic Church holds as valid canon is NOT the same thing that you or Protestants nor other non-Christians (Jehovah’s Witness and Mormons etc.) hold as canon.

Also note that “most” is not going to cut it with respect to “living by every words that proceeds from God”. Give us a comprehensive list of all the early church’s, bishops and popes and prove to us that these all accepted “most” of the books of the Catholic NT (not the Protestant’s bible-lite that was invented 1400 years later) were accepted by fiat by the early church members all acting on their own.

HOGWASH.

James

 

[Rightlydivide]

Scripture, Talmud & Midrash. All of the above. Google it and you’ll find a lot of sources – some written to help Christians understand Jewish oral tradition – which doesn’t seem very ORAL considering how much the Rabbis WRITE about everything!

I am pointing to the era of Christ and how THEY knew “thus saith the Lord”. Perhaps it is too large a topic for this thread but so germane to my point…I cannot seperate the two.
The Talmud is not applicable because it did not exist at this time. While some dates differ, we are looking at 200 or so AD for the first part. Now, I understand one can attempt to draw historical or theological conclusions from the compilations in the Talmud. That is not useful for this particular conversation though. If I were to concur the Talmud is reliable enough to draw inferences on the…defacto canonization process…I would have to decide by what means I discount the parts that repudiate clearly indicate that Jesus is not who WE think he is.
You see we do not KNOW when the Jewish canon was set. But the inspried writers of the New Testament record Christ and the Apostles quoting scripture without reservation, this we agree on.
You demand, well not YOU specifically, a date when the canon was set for the NT for it to be authoratative and yet that is not what occurs in the Bible for the OT.
No one thinks the canon was officially set and yet what we read is spoken of without any reservation. Thus saith God…
No doubt my fideism or presuppositional apologetics are not the norm around here but you guys have to look at what comes before to understand what comes after

 

[Rightlydivide]

For starters look at these two **opinions **

of yours:

1. There was never any more chance of the wrong books being in the eventual canon than Christ not being crucified. It speaks to his sovereignty.
2. Most of the books of the eventual NT are accepted as scripture in the first 200 years, no council needed.

You think the sovereignty of God is hog wash? Do you think it could have been some other way?
And the second…well no one doubts the four gospels and Pauline corpus were considered canonical the first two hundred years.
Lets do it this way I suppose for the first two hundred years. Do YOU know of anyone, certainly not Irenaues, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, or anyone recorded in Eusebius that denied the four gospels in the first two hundred years. Outside of a few well know Gnostics of course.

 

[Rightlydivide]

For example Irenaues says:
The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are

 

[Kay_Cee]

Can’t anybody answer my question? Post #46.

 

[CentralFLJames]

You think the sovereignty of God is hog wash? Do you think it could have been some other way?
And the second…well no one doubts the four gospels and Pauline corpus were considered canonical the first two hundred years.
Lets do it this way I suppose for the first two hundred years. Do YOU know of anyone, certainly not Irenaues, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, or anyone recorded in Eusebius that denied the four gospels in the first two hundred years. Outside of a few well know Gnostics of course.

Please stop trying to manipulate me into a strawman. Of course I acknowledge God’s Sovereignty - so much so that I know He will not permit heretics to hijack His canon and redefine it by creating two sets of books. There is ONLY ONE canon AND ONE authoritative teaching and interpretation - and the Catholic Church has it. No one outside the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth since only the CC has the direct authority to teach. Nearly all of us Catholic laity have been laid hands on by a bishop (during confirmation) that himself was ordained by a direct descendant of an apostle. What do you have other than opinion? The early churches were not well organized and there was not a lot of copies of scripture being circulated over large distances. Scripture was conveyed mostly through oral tradition and we do not have any tape recordings to give us evidence that they all said the same thing in each church. What we do know is that there was an early liturgy - things we DON’T see in most Protestant churches today. Why is that when we know from history that is how it was?

You are the one making the assertions so the burden of proof is on you to make your case. If you think you have it right - make your case and prove it.

James

 

[mercygate]

For example Irenaues says:
The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are

But why would you take his word for it?

 

[Filius99993]

I do not mean to pick on you personally Filius, but your three points seem to me to summarize reasonably the attitude that some on these forums have towards people who belong to other churches. Misled, mistaken absolutely, but insincere, acting in bad faith and dishonest? Most members of other faith’s I have met are nice, faithful to Jesus Christ, and really believe in what their particular minister is teaching them. Horror of horrors, some of them are better behaved and lead lives more moral than some Catholics I know including myself. I thank God often that he has reserved judgement to himself, or most of us would be condemned by one or the other of our fellows.

I think it really just depends on which Protestant you look at. Being a teenager, most of the people who call themselves Christians are as I have described in the post above yours. They’re full of the “personal-interpretation” crud. I agree with you in that there are many Catholics who aren’t nearly as pious as some Protestants. And there are some, as Teflon has stated, that follow the same manifesto that I listed. Notice, I didn’t use the word “protestant” in my previous post… because I myself used to follow that system of belief.

 

[peary]

If I remember correctly, Luther first tried to reform the Church from the inside but was excommunicated…

**The fact of the matter was is that the Church had begun reforming itself almost a hundred years before Luther, beginning with the mendicant orders. Luther seemed to be unaware of what was going on in the Church, even in his own religious order.

The problem with Luther was his vast unending ego. True, he was a professor of theology at his local university in Germany, but it is apparent that inwardly, he fancied himself so good a theologian that he wanted to rival even Augustine himself, and he said so on several occasions.

Because of his errors, he left the priesthood, got a nun pregnant and lived with her and had children. Whether or not he was ever properly married to her is debatable.

Luther brought up some legitimate points with his 95 theses, but later, the Council of Trent had answered these sufficiently, along with other questions that revolters had, and that should have been the end of it. But the damage to the body of Christ was already done.**

 

[Rightlydivide]

But why would you take his word for it?

I have no reason to doubt that the prevailing opinion was such; although in many cases he is inaccurate. Your question alone suggests I have been unsuccessful in explaining my perspective of you would not have said “take his word”. The fault lies with me. I have tried to.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Please stop trying to manipulate me into a strawman. Of course I acknowledge God’s Sovereignty - so much so that I know He will not permit heretics to hijack His canon and redefine it by creating two sets of books. There is ONLY ONE canon AND ONE authoritative teaching and interpretation - and the Catholic Church has it. No one outside the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth since only the CC has the direct authority to teach. Nearly all of us Catholic laity have been laid hands on by a bishop (during confirmation) that himself was ordained by a direct descendant of an apostle. What do you have other than opinion? The early churches were not well organized and there was not a lot of copies of scripture being circulated over large distances. Scripture was conveyed mostly through oral tradition and we do not have any tape recordings to give us evidence that they all said the same thing in each church. What we do know is that there was an early liturgy - things we DON’T see in most Protestant churches today. Why is that when we know from history that is how it was?

You are the one making the assertions so the burden of proof is on you to make your case. If you think you have it right - make your case and prove it.

James

You were the one who said my view of God’s sovereignty was hog wash and now you seem to agree with me on that point anyway. The history of the first two hundred years is well known. Ignatius quotes from the four but does not name them. He does not quote from any other gospel. Polycarp quotes from them and no other. Ireneaus mentions all four by name.
The same thing can be said of the Pauline corpus.
The disputed books are quoted by some and not others. I am not saying anything that a Catholic historian would disagree with; at least any I have read. What we differ on are theological; not historical…as far as the canon is concerned.