Protestant Canon

[Porknpie]

Was the book written by a prophet of God?
Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message?
Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction?
Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
Was the book accepted as God’s Word by the people to whom it was first delivered.

Dr Blank,

It this the criteria that you believe the early Church used? If so, please cite the source document or text so that I can read it myself.

 

[drblank1]

There is no such thing as “level of writings” that declares something to be inspired.

That’s a man-made tradition that you’ve been duped into believing. You never read in a single page of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, that there is some sort of way you can read a “level of writing” and determine whether it is inspired or not.

In fact, I say that “Saul went into a cave to relieve himself” is very, very low level writing.

And therefore, using your logic, you would have to say that 1 Samuel is not inspired.

So be careful about declaring some things to be a way to discern whether something is inspired or not…that is something some man just told you and you believed him, unfortunately.

When I say level of writing, its the differnce between God inspired, or useful writings, to downright jibberish. The apocrapha books did not hold up to the critieria of what the early church considered inspired (which I provided for you earlier).

Tobit, Sirach, Judith and Baruch are prophets. Wisdom is part of the psalmic literature.

Thus they are as included as Psalms, Samuel, Job and 1 and 2 Kings.

Please show ANY historical evidence where the Jewish pepole catologued any of these books within the 22/24 books of the 3 major divisions of the OT.

Then you will have to throw out Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum–none of which are quoted by Jesus or the Apostles.

Jesus quoted from Genesis to Zachariah. That is a major reason why the early church included them as canon.

And you would have to include some pagan writings, which are quoted by St. Paul.

Please cite any pagan reference that Paul quoted as a matter of Christian faith.

Can you quote the Bible verse that says that all writings must be written in Hebrew to be considered theopneustos?

No, but it was a cheif requirement for the Jews to consider them inspired.

And, did you know that the Pauline epistles were written in the same language as the Septuagint?

So you’d better be prepared to throw out anything in the NT–none of that was written in Hebrew either.

Not an issue, We are only refering to the OT in which it was (and is still) a requirement of the mainstream Jews that all canonical writings were in Hebrew text.

 

[Porknpie]

The 4th century church didn’t get it wrong thanks to the guidance of the Lord.

Very true. Christ promised to lead his Church to all Truth. He did so on the Canon and continues doing so on faith and morals.

Canon was set at that time. The apocrapha wasn’t added as canon until Trent in response to the Reformation…

The deutercanonicals were declared scripture at the Council of Rome and the Synods of Hippo and Carthage some 1,100+ years before Trent.

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.” Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397).

PnP

 

[drblank1]

So when did God appear to you and tell you that Hebrews is inspired and the Epistle of Barnabas is not inspired?

(Please note: this is a tongue in cheek question. I am** certain** that God has never appeared to you and presented the 27 book canon of the NT to you.)

You defer to the authority of the CC to tell you this.

When you defer authority to the CC, do you know that is not kosher with what is God tells us in the Bible?

Test everything. Hold on to the good. (1 Thess. 5:21)

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11)

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

He [an overseer] must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. (Titus 1:9)

 

[Porknpie]

“God got it right” is very Christian.

Your view that the Catholic church is God’s spokeman, is very Catholic.

The Holy Spirit that dwells in each true believer is the spokesman of God. And that is very Biblical.

Also the view of St Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of St John the Apostle

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 the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper** 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 also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

And the view of St Cyprian
”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

Do you have Priests in your church Dr Blank?

And St Cyril recognizes this Church as being the Pillar and Ground of Truth
“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).

Those are just a few DrBlank who hold the view of PR.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Continuing on with Althaus in regards to the canon and interpretation, from ‘The Theology of Martin Luther’, by Paul Althaus:

    “The principal that Scripture interprets itself includes the rule that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to the simple literal sense.  One may depart from this principal only when the text itself compels a metaphorical interpretation.  In all so-called ‘spiritual’ interpretation, however, each one can read his own spirit into the words.” Althaus, “Theology”, pg. 77

According to Luther, Scripture should always be interpreted in It’s literal sense and that when you have to resort to a ‘spiritual interpretation’, one can end up reading one’s ‘own spirit into the words’. Again, Althaus, does not seem to have considered the (even slight) possibility that Luther might be guilt of exactly this. After all, Scripture make it very clear that Salvation is NOT by faith alone (James), and so since Luther really wanted Scripture to say SBFA, and it does NOT - then he had to resort to a ‘spiritual interpretation’. What could Luther say about James? He couldn’t say that it should be ‘interpreted according to the simple literal sense”, because that would shoot a gaping hole in his Salvational beliefs. His answer was to demote James from the list of the ‘main books’ of the NT.

I would suggest that Luther ‘read his own spirit into the words’ by ‘finding’ what he really needed to find in Scripture, but wasn’t there – Salvation By Faith Alone. Again, this does not seem to have occurred to Althaus, but I would bet that something similar has ‘occurred’ to all of those Orthodox or Roman Catholic theologians who were formerly Lutheran Theologians.

Luther may have disagreed with the idea that the Scriptures need to be interpreted by ‘a teaching office’ but he agreed very much in the space of just a few years, in that he deemed himself to be THE ‘teaching office’. If Luther had really believed that Scripture was ‘clear in itself’, he would not have found it necessary to write his Prefaces in 1522 or to later act as if he were the most reliable teacher of God’s Absolute Truth in the world.

“Rather than seeking to found a Church or a kingdom of God on earth, he simply claimed the right to pronounce on doctrine, like a one-man version of the Sorbonne, the theological faculty of the University of Paris, which for centuries had seen itself as having a particular privilege in this regard. But he felt also compelled to do so by an authority higher than the Wittenberg university charter; he saw himself as God’s prophet in the last days on earth, spreading God’s good news.” Diarmaid MacCulloch, “The Reformation”, pg. 132

While it is true that the Sorbonne did have a rather high opinion of themselves in the Middle Ages, one can hardly imagine the Sorbonne taking responsibility upon their collective shoulders to create a canon within a canon, effectively demoting 4 books of the NT.

“He based his assertion that the Scripture is clear and unequivocal on the Scripture itself. In view of his doctrine of Scripture, that is the only possible way. Just as Scripture validates itself, so it alone can bear witness to its clarity…….The voice of experience does not consistently speak in favor of the clarity of Scripture.” Althaus, “Theology”, pg. 77-8

Here we have Althaus making a rather ‘un-Lutheran’ admission – that the voice of experience does not speak well for the ‘clarity of Scripture’. That seems obvious enough to most people. Althaus though states that ‘Scripture validates itself’. But does it ‘validate itself’ before or after 4 books of the NT are ‘demoted’ to a category from which doctrine is not to be determined? In other words, how can Scripture ‘validate itself’ if you don’t really have a set understanding of what (Christian) Scripture really is? Plus of course, where to you start? Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? How can Scripture validate itself or the canon criticize the canon, when you don’t have a place to begin. The answer – the beginning for Luther was obviously Salvation by Faith Alone. Once you establish that as a reference point, as we have been reading from various scholars, THEN you can begin to state separating the ‘main books’ from the ‘others’.

“For many men the Scripture is not clear at all; they either do not understand it at all or they understand it wrongly. The reason for this, Luther explains, is that the godless are held captive by Satan and that God allows even godly men to err for a while so that he may in this way show them that he alone to enlighten them.” Althaus, “Theology”, pg. 77-8

OK, so just exactly who (specifically and exactly) are these men for whom Scripture is not clear? Whether they do not understand it at all or they simply understand it wrongly, it ought to be pretty easy to ‘pick them out of a lineup’ - right? If it is the “Godless” men who don’t understand the Scriptures, then shouldn’t we be able to look at the actual actions and teachings of various men and determine whether they really understood Scripture?

How do you reconcile the position of the Catholic and Lutheran churches when they profess the following?

1. Thus, Lutherans and Catholics are able jointly to conclude, »Therefore
   regarding Scripture and tradition, Lutherans and Catholics are in such
   an extensive agreement that their different emphases do not of them-
   selves require maintaining the present division of the churches. In this
   area, there is unity in reconciled diversity« (ApC 448).82
   raadvankerken.nl/fman/3246.pdf

 

[drblank1]

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.” Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397).

PnP

Thanks for the post but there is one glaring issue with this. This was a regional council and did not have the authority to speak for the church as a whole.

And endorsements of this council (or Hippo) was not what the RCC claims. Cardinal Cajetan, in commenting on the final chapter of Esther, wrote:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridgearker Society (1849), p. 424)

Cajetan agrees with Jerome that the word ‘canon’ was understood to have two distinct meanings. The inspired writings, authoritative for establishing doctrine were ascribed proto-canonical status. The apocrypha and ecclesiastical books, though not authoritative for setting doctrine, had value for edification and were assigned a deutero-canonical status.

And the only two Early Church Fathers (Jerome and Origen) considered true Bible scholars both rejected the Apocrypha. And the both lived in Palestine for a while and were familiar with the Jewish canon.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I haven’t seen any exact proof of how you know dr blank Jesus had this canon you believe he had. We have a basic idea based on what Jesus and the apostles quote but it is by no means exhaustive and the confusion of the early church on this matter of a canon in general is probably our most clear evidence teh apostles left no rule (canon) for the church as a whole other than a series of oral instructions and teachings.

 

[drblank1]

Also the view of St Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of St John the Apostle

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 the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper** 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 also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

And the view of St Cyprian
”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

Do you have Priests in your church Dr Blank?

And St Cyril recognizes this Church as being the Pillar and Ground of Truth
“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).

Those are just a few DrBlank who hold the view of PR.

We have many priests. They are called true believers.

But yes, we have ministers that lead us. But no where do the above comments, nor does the Bible give complete authority to the leadership of the church to interpret the Bible.

PR defers to the Catholic presbytery to tell her what to believe. I defer to the Holy Spirit and the Bible to test what I am taught; as instructed in the Word.

But we are off topic. Sorry Mr. Moderator.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

We have many priests. They are called true believers.

But yes, we have ministers that lead us. But no where do the above comments, nor does the Bible give complete authority to the leadership of the church to interpret the Bible.

PR defers to the Catholic presbytery to tell her what to believe. I defer to the Holy Spirit and the Bible to test what I am taught as instructed in the Word.

But you have no apostolically founded ministry I’m willing to bet. The messianics are a recent movement in church history after all. But if you are to defer to the bible, how do you trust in the New testament itself? You have to rely on those “catholic” fathers whose church at heart you reject.

 

[drblank1]

I haven’t seen any exact proof of how you know dr blank Jesus had this canon you believe he had. We have a basic idea based on what Jesus and the apostles quote but it is by no means exhaustive and the confusion of the early church on this matter of a canon in general is probably our most clear evidence teh apostles left no rule (canon) for the church as a whole other than a series of oral instructions and teachings.

I have posted much on why the apocrapha was not considered canon by the early church, and more importantly, the Jewish people. We will go through it again:

1. God declares the Jewish people the oracles of the OT (Romans 3:2).
2. The Jewish people widely denied/deny the apocrapha as canon.
3. There is historical accounts of what was considered Jewish canon in Jesus’ day.

“For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, … only 22 books. which contain the records of ail the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;…It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers;…and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, or to make any change in them.” (Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1, Section 8).

These 22 books exactly corresponds to the OT minus the apocrapha.

1. Jesus excludes the apocrapha. Luke 11:51, and Luke 24:44

 

[drblank1]

But you have no apostolically founded ministry I’m willing to bet. The messianics are a recent movement in church history after all. But if you are to defer to the bible, how do you trust in the New testament itself? You have to rely on those “catholic” fathers whose church at heart you reject.

If you mean apostolic succession, then no we do not. And I do not beleive the Catholic church does as well as there is no Biblical evidence to support the idea.

The catholic (notice little “c”) fathers did much to further the church and they were all not in agreement on many things. But both of the Bible scholars from the early church (Jerome and Origen) excluded the apocrapha. So I do agree with them in this instance.

I just don’t agree with the Catholic (capital “C”) church in adding to canon at Trent.

 

[po18guy]

Was the book written by a prophet of God?
Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message?
Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction?
Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
Was the book accepted as God’s Word by the people to whom it was first delivered?

The first is the most important and since the authors of the apocrapha are unknown, that alone disqualifies them as inspired of God.

The authors of many books are unknown! The Pentateuch is attributed to Moses only by tradition. Do you therefore throw your bible out? Your standards are pure opinion.

 

[po18guy]

If you mean apostolic succession, then no we do not. And I do not beleive the Catholic church does as well as there is no Biblical evidence to support the idea.

And, just where does “the bible” (whatever that is) tell you that everything must be contained within it? It does not. Where, for example, in the bible is the Sacred Table of Contents spelled out? You cannot use the title page, as that is not inspired. Only the Pope and Council had the authority to do that - and did it for your benefit.

The catholic (notice little “c”) fathers did much to further the church and they were all not in agreement on many things. But both of the Bible scholars from the early church (Jerome and Origen) excluded the apocrapha. So I do agree with them in this instance.

“Both” You mean there were only two? As well, Jerome later accepted those books, whereas you continue to reject them by your own authority. You are telling God that you did it your way.

Understand this: There is only one Church. You are a member only if you are validly baptized - otherwise you are a christian (small c).

I just don’t agree with the Catholic (capital “C”) church in adding to canon at Trent.

You have just revealed a profound lack of knowledge of biblical history. How can seven books, used consistently since pre-Christian times, be “added”? Please do the truth a favor and read 5 Myths about 7 Books.

Someone has taught you error. It’s high time to unlearn it.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;11671251]Continuing on with Althaus in regards to the canon and interpretation, from ‘The Theology of Martin Luther’, by Paul Althaus:

    “The principal that Scripture interprets itself includes the rule that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to the simple literal sense.  One may depart from this principal only when the text itself compels a metaphorical interpretation.  In all so-called ‘spiritual’ interpretation, however, each one can read his own spirit into the words.” Althaus, “Theology”, pg. 77

According to Luther, Scripture should always be interpreted in It’s literal sense and that when you have to resort to a ‘spiritual interpretation’, one can end up reading one’s ‘own spirit into the words’. Again, Althaus, does not seem to have considered the (even slight) possibility that Luther might be guilt of exactly this. After all, Scripture make it very clear that Salvation is NOT by faith alone (James), and so since Luther really wanted Scripture to say SBFA, and it does NOT - then he had to resort to a ‘spiritual interpretation’. What could Luther say about James? He couldn’t say that it should be ‘interpreted according to the simple literal sense”, because that would shoot a gaping hole in his Salvational beliefs. His answer was to demote James from the list of the ‘main books’ of the NT.

Your understanding of sola fide doesn’t seem to match what Lutherans, or even Luther believed, so I can understand why you’ve come to this misconception about James.

If your understanding of sola fide had been Luther’s, then he would have had to dismiss Galatians, as well.
Chapter 5:6. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith.

In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

This understanding by Luther is reflected in Pope Benedict’s words, when he said that Luther’s faith alone is correct if it does not exclude love.

“There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow.”

This thinking by Luther provides at least one possible bridge between Catholic and Lutheran thought on justification, as is offered in James Akin’s article about Faith Alone.
I do not believe it is prudent for either side to bring up the Fathers on this issue, since they would have had no knowledge of the 1500’s dispute, but the modern day Catholic Church sees Luther’s sola fide in a new light, not complete agreement, not even in the JDDJ, but certainly not as some radical departure, as was once the case.

Luther presents his reasons for his view of the canonicity of James, his initial views in that first preface that appeared in only the 1522 NT publication, and in his later usage of James in his ministry. If you choose to believe other motives on his part, you are welcome to your opinion.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

The first is the most important and since the authors of the apocrapha are unknown, that alone disqualifies them as inspired of God.

Careful, drblank.

Do you know who the author of Hebrews is?
And where in the Gospel of Mark does it say who the author is?

You may note that each and every objection you have offered to the deuterocanon opens you up to excluding a whole bunch of books that are in your Bible.

You cannot exclude the deuterocanon without excluding, using your logic, books that you accept.

So be very, very careful about what you are proposing.

Also, where in the Bible does it say who wrote Deuteronomy? Book, chapter and verse that says this, please!
Also, who wrote Proverbs? Book, chapter and verse that says this, please!

Remember, if you cite the authorship of these books with something other than a verse from the Bible, then you are deferring to the authority of someone other than the Bible.

And that makes you *not *a Bible Alone advocate.

In fact, I know you cannot be a Bible Alone advocate, for you defer to the authority of the CC each and every time you quote from, say, Hebrews, as the inspired Word of God. For you cannot know that it is inspired, except by trusting in the authority of the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

When I say level of writing, its the differnce between God inspired, or useful writings, to downright jibberish. The apocrapha books did not hold up to the critieria of what the early church considered inspired (which I provided for you earlier).

And that means you would have to exclude 1 Samuel (which has jibberish), Proverbs (whose authorship is unknown), Hebrews (authorship also unknown).

And, I note that you seem to be deferring to “what the early church considered inspired”, which means you defer to some other authority besides the Bible to tell you something about what has been revealed by God.

That makes you NOT a Bible Alone advocate.

Please show ANY historical evidence where the Jewish pepole catologued any of these books within the 22/24 books of the 3 major divisions of the OT.

One of your own historians, Protestant J. N. D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books” (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.

Jesus quoted from Genesis to Zachariah. That is a major reason why the early church included them as canon.

Remember, there’s a whole bunch of books in your OT that no one ever quoted from. So, again, be very, very careful about what criteria you are using to exclude the DC, because you will have a very, very, very thin Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

Please cite any pagan reference that Paul quoted as a matter of Christian faith.

Hymn to Zeus by Aratus, [BIBLEDRB]Acts 17:28[/BIBLEDRB].
Euripides on Bacchus, [BIBLEDRB]Acts 26:14[/BIBLEDRB].
Menander Thais, [BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 15:33[/BIBLEDRB]
Epiminides Oracles, [BIBLEDRB]Titus 1:12[/BIBLEDRB].

Enoch 60:8, Jude 14
Assumption of Moses, Jude 8

No, but it was a cheif requirement for the Jews to consider them inspired

Can you tell me how the Jews in Alexandria came up, then, with a canon that was written in Greek?

Were they not Jews?

Please see this:

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0001_0_00765.html

and tell me what you think.

Not an issue, We are only refering to the OT in which it was (and is still) a requirement of the mainstream Jews that all canonical writings were in Hebrew text.

Except for the Jews who consider the Septuagint canonical.

You can’t deny them their right to decide for themselves what is inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

When you defer authority to the CC, do you know that is not kosher with what is God tells us in the Bible?

How do you know what belongs in the Bible, except by deferring to the authority of the CC?

Test everything. Hold on to the good. (1 Thess. 5:21)

Amen! Very Catholic, this!

In fact, you can thank the CC for including this in the canon of the NT.

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11)

Amen!

But if you want to do what the Bereans did, you have to become a Sola-Old Testament advocate. For the Scriptures that the Bereans examined were not your Bible’s Scriptures, but rather the OT alone.

So, be careful about citing the Bereans as an example. You will only be able to use the OT as your authority.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Amen!

But you don’t know what belongs in Scripture, unless you defer to the authority of the CC.

Is the Epistle of Barnabas inspired? No? How do you know? Who told you? (Answer: the CC discerned this for you!)

He [an overseer] must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. (Titus 1:9)

Amen!

 

[PRmerger]

Those are just a few DrBlank who hold the view of PR.