Protestant Bible Incorporates the ONLY inspired books

[Nan_S]

ziapueblo, if you’re still around, I would be interested in the other quotes you mentioned above. Please PM me or email them.

Thanks in advance!

God bless,
Mimi

Check out posts #24 and #25 on this thread, posted by Thistle.

Also check out this website: Notes on the Septuagint geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

 

[KingAlfred]

I have been giving thought lately to the Catholic Biblical Books vs the Protestant Biblical Books. An individual wrote to me about this today which I would like to share with you and see if you may be able to offer any comments and/or criticism of the comments:

Jesus had to have had a definite body of writings in mind when he said in John 10:35 that the scriptures cannot be broken. Here he referred to Psalms as “law”. In Luke 24:44 he divided the scriptures into three main groups, Moses, prophets, and the psalms. He of course was the author of all of the Old Testament. I the first chapter of I Peter he explained that it was the spirit of Christ that guided the writers.
In Jesus’s day the Jews used the Hebrew scriptures as well as the Greek translation. The Hebrew canon did not contain the 14 extra books that the Jews at Alexandria inserted as an extra in their translation. Jesus never quoted from them and neither did the writers of the New Testament. Johephus was a Jewish priest and historian of the first century. He had access to the scriptures used at the temple and he refused the extra 14. I am told that Jerome who translated the Vulgate refused personally to accept the Apocrypha. I accept with confidence the standard 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New. This is what was generally accepted by the Jews for the Old and the Christians for both old and new. Jesus made the statement that Heaven and Earth would pass away, but that his word would not pass away. He also stated the his word would judge us in the last day (John 12:48). He should know since he is the Word. The church receives its authority from the Word, not the other way around. That would put Christ under the authority of the church.
I feel the need to accept the authority of the silence of the scriptures as well as what it requires. A place in Hebrews demonstrates this principle. In chapter 7:11-14 we find that the law is changed and therefore the priesthood could not be after order of Aaron for our Lord sprang out of another tribe of which Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. Jesus could not be a priest on earth after the order of Aaron.

The Catholic Church compiled the Bible in the fourth century. Luther translated it into German after launching the Reformation in 1517. King James of England commissioned a ‘Protestant’ version in 1611. History alone shows your theory is wrong. With every translation of the Bible, new agendas are implemented. It’s a very human document, or collection of documents. The Protestant interpretations showed up over *a thousand years *after the book’s publication. Sorry.

 

[Augustine]

Well, for those fluent in Latin, there’s always the Nova Vulgata, which improves on the plain Vulgata by using better originals in Hebrew or Greek, straight from the Vatican at Nova Vulgata.

HTH

 

[Rightlydivide]

Subrosa;3934780]The Hebrew canon was not decided until the year 90 ad at the Council of Jamnia (present day Jaffa). During Jesus’ time it did contain all of the books including the 14 you say it didn’t.

Can you substantiate the last comment. There are no intact copies earlier than the fourth or fifth century and they do not not have the same books. I have never read a quote from 100 BC to 150 AD that lists what books were included .
Thanks.

 

[beeliner]

Can you substantiate the last comment. There are no intact copies earlier than the fourth or fifth century and they do not not have the same books. I have never read a quote from 100 BC to 150 AD that lists what books were included .
Thanks.

Since these books were excluded at Jamnia (as being of too recent origin), they may be assumed to have been extant in Hebrew at the time. If not, there would have been nothing to exclude. Also, fragments survive.

That they were in the LXX is undisputed - I think.

 

[KingAlfred]

Protestantism symbolizes the rise of individual judgment in Christian worship. In Protestantism, the individual comes first, the church second. Everything Protestant is carefully tailored to accommodate that proposition, even the make-up of the Protestant Bible. I’m not condemning Protestantism. At one point, I was strongly attracted to it, but simply could not leave the Catholic religion. I now believe the differences between the two Christian communities are irrelevant, in the face of the decline of Christian Civilization worldwide.

 

[inthecloud]

About the Christian Teachings in the Deuterocanonicals from Jewish Sources:

Wisdom:

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=211&letter=W&search=Wisdom

It is evident that these three parts, or at least the first two (i.-ix., x.-xix.), can not have emanated from the same author, for neither the style nor the views can be ascribed to one and the same person. This leads to the supposition that the original Wisdom of Solomon and the Passover-Haggadah fragment were probably joined together and then treated as one book. Grätz (“Gesch.” 4th ed., iii. 382-385, 611-613) finds in the work allusions to the apotheosis of Caligula (38-40 C.E.), but the deification of the Ptolemies goes back to Egyptian custom. Ch. ii. and iii. refer to Jewish converts, not to Greeks in Alexandria. The character of the book as regards the creative Wisdom, Word, and Spirit indicates a stage prior to the Philonic system, and the Biblical story shows a haggadic form still fresh and not yet compressed into a rigid system, as in Philo (see Siegfried, “Philo von Alexandria,” pp. 22-24, Jena, 1875). The apostle Paul (see Grafe, “Das Verhältniss der Paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia Salomonis,” Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1892; comp. also Saul of Tarsus), the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. i. 3, iv. 12; comp. Wisdom vii. 22, 26), and others have drawn from the Book of Wisdom. This places the date of the book, or at least that of the first part, with certainty in the first century B.C.

But some Jewish scholars now place Wisdom on the Christian era. Sadly this article was not referenced and I did not bookmarked the article with the names of the Jewish scholars that not only say Wisdom was written in the Christian era but was actually written by Christians. I’ll search for it latter.

my.execpc.com/~gto/Apocrypha/Summaries/wisdom.html

No consensus has thus far emerged regarding the date of Wisdom, and various scholars have placed it anywhere between 220 B.C. and 50 A.D. There is virtual agreement that the author made use of the LXX version of Isaiah, which would carry us at least to the end of the 3rd century B.C. Some considerations seem to point to the reign of Gaius “Caligula” (37-41 A.D.) as the likeliest setting for Wisdom. These considerations include the apocalyptic vision in which the author describes the annihilation of the wicked with such ferocious passion (5.16-23) that it is likely called forth by a desperate historical situation in which the security of the Jewish community of Alexandria was dangerously threatened by a power against which it was hopeless to put up any serious resistance.

Ben Sirach and Christianity from a Jewish POV.

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=836&letter=S&search=sirach

The Book of Ecclesiasticus has been honored still more highly among the Christians, being cited in the Epistle of James (Edersheim, in Wace, “Apocrypha,” p. 21), the Didache (iv. 5), and the Epistle of Barnabas (xix. 9), while Clement of Alexandria and Origen quote from it repeatedly, as from a γραφή, or holy book. In the Western Church, Cyprian frequently appeals to it in his “Testimonia,” as does Ambrose in the greater number of his writings. In like manner the Catalogue of Cheltenham, Damasus I., the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), Pope Innocent I., the second Council of Carthage (419), and Augustine all regard it as a canonical book. This is contrary, however, to the opinions of the Council of Laodicea, of Jerome, and of Rufinus of Aquileia, which authorities rank it among the ecclesiastical books. It was finally declared canonical by the Council of Trent; and the favor with which the Church has always regarded it has preserved it in its entirety.

 

[beeliner]

About the Christian Teachings in the Deuterocanonicals from Jewish Sources:

I am not quite sure of your point here.

There is no question that James and Hebrews, once attributed to Paul but now considered post-Pauline and of uncertain authorship, allude to deuterocanonical books, as well as to several books from the protocanonical OT.

That does not make any of them ‘Christian books’ except insofar as the OT is an integral part of the Christian Bible.

That Christianity is based on Judaism is not in dispute - I hope.

 

[JimArsenault]

Mabey we need to learn to accept all the Gospel instead of the parts we like so then we can discern who has the truth.

This might be a good starting place???

**Matt 18: **
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

Mark 10:
13 And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.
14 When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
15 Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”
16 Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them.

Like a child “total dependance upon the obediance to the gospel”

2 Cor 11:
2 For I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God, since I betrothed you to one husband to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
10 By the truth of Christ in me, this boast of mine shall not be silenced in the regions of Achaia.
11 And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!
12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to end this pretext of those who seek a pretext for being regarded as we are in the mission of which they boast.
13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ.
14 And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light.
15 So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

Peace

 

[beeliner]

Mabey we need to learn to accept all the Gospel instead of the parts we like so then we can discern who has the truth.

This might be a good starting place???

**Matt 18: **
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

Mark 10:
13 And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.
14 When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
15 Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.”
16 Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them.

Like a child “total dependance upon the obediance to the gospel”

2 Cor 11:
2 For I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God, since I betrothed you to one husband to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
10 By the truth of Christ in me, this boast of mine shall not be silenced in the regions of Achaia.
11 And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!
12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to end this pretext of those who seek a pretext for being regarded as we are in the mission of which they boast.
13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ.
14 And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light.
15 So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

Peace

Well, OK. And that has what to do with with the theme of the thread?

 

[Subrosa]

Can you substantiate the last comment. There are no intact copies earlier than the fourth or fifth century and they do not not have the same books. I have never read a quote from 100 BC to 150 AD that lists what books were included .
Thanks.

Hi RD -

How about this one, the Muratorian canon, which dates to the second half of the second century. (OK, it puts it past the 150 ad mark, but it’s close)

This is a document stating the New Testament documents, but there is an Old Testament book mentioned. See if you can pick it out.

Sub

 

[JimArsenault]

Well, OK. And that has what to do with with the theme of the thread?

Ok I will try to spell it out.
The Catholic Church early fathers who assembled the first bible made their decisions for reasons which we can **only hope **to understand. Their interpertation of scripture was coming from a completely different **culture and time **and completely different religious background. I know it may be hard for some to get this picture. Sort of like us trying to translate a computer manual to a lost tribe in New Guinea. They have not got the proper background to recieve this information and process it to make sense.
So if our seperated brothers and sisters trusted the fathers of the Catholic Church to hand down the bible in its complete form why did it take over 1000 yrs for them to finally change it and not trust them any more? Ahh it is because there was corruption within the church. Did any 1 ever hear the Gospel about forgivness. well it is in the Lords prayerif that wasn’t thrown out too. I really tire of people dragging up issues about things resolved 1000 yrs ago:shrug: Anyways if the early fathers could not be trusted to compile this book properly how do they know they have it right now???
Well I for 1 trust the magesterium of the church who hold the sacred doctrine. We can argue little text issues until the end of time or we can trust the church that Christ left us.
And What happened to My church will last for all time. That didn’t mean starting from 15-16-17-18 hundred AD.
Sry got so lengthy.
My prayers are with all that they may see the whole truth and come to understand it
Peace

 

[beeliner]

Ok I will try to spell it out.
The Catholic Church early fathers who assembled the first bible made their decisions for reasons which we can **only hope **to understand. Their interpertation of scripture was coming from a completely different **culture and time **and completely different religious background. I know it may be hard for some to get this picture. Sort of like us trying to translate a computer manual to a lost tribe in New Guinea. They have not got the proper background to recieve this information and process it to make sense.
So if our seperated brothers and sisters trusted the fathers of the Catholic Church to hand down the bible in its complete form why did it take over 1000 yrs for them to finally change it and not trust them any more? Ahh it is because there was corruption within the church. Did any 1 ever hear the Gospel about forgivness. well it is in the Lords prayerif that wasn’t thrown out too. I really tire of people dragging up issues about things resolved 1000 yrs ago:shrug: Anyways if the early fathers could not be trusted to compile this book properly how do they know they have it right now???
Well I for 1 trust the magesterium of the church who hold the sacred doctrine. We can argue little text issues until the end of time or we can trust the church that Christ left us.
And What happened to My church will last for all time. That didn’t mean starting from 15-16-17-18 hundred AD.
Sry got so lengthy.
My prayers are with all that they may see the whole truth and come to understand it
Peace

I have no problem with its length, only that it is a gross oversimplification.

Dispute regarding the canonicity of the books in question goes back to the earliest centuries of Christianity.

Such dispute is hardly a Protestant invention.

Nor did the Catholic Church ‘assemble the first bible’. The OT, with or without the deuterocanonicals, was already complete.

The NT is really beyond the scope of this thread, but there is little doubt that, if still open today, the choice of which books to include as canonical would probably be different. It’s very unlikely, for example, that 2 Thess and 2 Peter would make the cut. But as I said, that’s apart from the subject of the thread.

 

[turnorburn]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A lot could be said on either side of the coin, in 1972 as I and 4 others made our way through a Christian bookstore we came upon a selection of bibles, being a babe I trusted the Lord would be my guild when picking one out. It took a sum total of 30 seconds when my eyes came to rest on a King James Version Thompson Chain Reference bible, I’ve been using that same translation ever since, easy as A B C 1 2 3, why is this such a large issue, shouldn’t we be more concerned with our personal relationship with him? If in the end a person doesn’t know him then that person will miss heaven, and a place at the marriage supper of the Lamb. Those words have haunted Christians throughout history when Jesus says to those that profess Christ with their works, “Depart from me I never knew you” that should be our focus point.

 

[dmelosi]

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/N1GossipHL.gif
A lot could be said on either side of the coin, in 1972 as I and 4 others made our way through a Christian bookstore we came upon a selection of bibles, being a babe I trusted the Lord would be my guild when picking one out. It took a sum total of 30 seconds when my eyes came to rest on a King James Version Thompson Chain Reference bible, I’ve been using that same translation ever since, easy as A B C 1 2 3, why is this such a large issue, shouldn’t we be more concerned with our personal relationship with him? If in the end a person doesn’t know him then that person will miss heaven, and a place at the marriage supper of the Lamb. Those words have haunted Christians throughout history when Jesus says to those that profess Christ with their works, “Depart from me I never knew you” that should be our focus point.

Everyone here is in agreement that there is nothing more important than try to get to heaven.

You should always strive to become closer to Christ’s teachings, that is our lifelong spiritual duty.

That is why the discussion of the bible is so important. You don’t want to follow words that may not lead you to the full truth.

 

[beeliner]

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/N1GossipHL.gif
A lot could be said on either side of the coin, in 1972 as I and 4 others made our way through a Christian bookstore we came upon a selection of bibles, being a babe I trusted the Lord would be my guild [guide?] when picking one out. It took a sum total of 30 seconds when my eyes came to rest on a King James Version Thompson Chain Reference bible, I’ve been using that same translation ever since, easy as A B C 1 2 3, why is this such a large issue, shouldn’t we be more concerned with our personal relationship with him? If in the end a person doesn’t know him then that person will miss heaven, and a place at the marriage supper of the Lamb. Those words have haunted Christians throughout history when Jesus says to those that profess Christ with their works, “Depart from me I never knew you” that should be our focus point.

For the purpose of this discussion, it is more a matter of Bible history and redaction than of devotion per se.

I’m not familiar with the reference work you name, I would guess that it is a work of Protestant apologetics.

There are many similar works today, such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary, with no denominational bias whatever. I would be more trustful of one of those.

 

[beeliner]

You don’t want to follow words that may lead you to the full truth.

You don’t???

 

[dmelosi]

You don’t???

Oops… I corrected it.

 

[beeliner]

Oops… I corrected it.

I figured (a) it was a typo or (b) you were being unduly sarcastic, with (a) being the more likely.

 

[JimArsenault]

I have no problem with its length, only that it is a gross oversimplification.

Dispute regarding the canonicity of the books in question goes back to the earliest centuries of Christianity.

Such dispute is hardly a Protestant invention.

Nor did the Catholic Church ‘assemble the first bible’. The OT, with or without the deuterocanonicals, was already complete.

The NT is really beyond the scope of this thread, but there is little doubt that, if still open today, the choice of which books to include as canonical would probably be different. It’s very unlikely, for example, that 2 Thess and 2 Peter would make the cut. But as I said, that’s apart from the subject of the thread.

True there was splintering of the church back in St Pauls time already people didn’t want to follow the “Apostles Tradition”.
And by Bible I was referring to the complete works lets not split hairs please.