Protestant Consensus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter M.I.Knight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

M.I.Knight

Guest
I have a question for those who believe in “Sola scriptura”. How do you know which books belong in the Bible?

If your answer is because their was a broad consensus among Early Christians, then I have two more questions for you. "Why do you except the concensus of Early Christians regarding the which books belong in the Bible? Why don’t you except the consensus of Early Christians regarding the Eucharist?

If your answer is because the consensus of Early Christians regarding the Eucharist is not Biblical, then I have two more questions for you. How do you interpret John Chapter 6? How do you interpret the words phago, trogo, and sarx?
 
I made a mistake. I originally wanted to post this in another forum. Sorry.
 
Mr. Knight. As a protestant, I accept the same NT books as you do. However, we would probably differ over the OT books that were included in the canon. The reason why I don’t believe that the Apocrypha belongs to the OT canon is because the Hebrews didn’t recognize it. Josephus (Jewish historian) denied it. The amount of errors that are contained it. It’s not quoted from in the NT. Finally, Jesus himself never recognized.

Hope this answers your question.

Josiah
 
josiah,

Oh me, oh my, the same old story. But look a new statement was made.

He said JESUS didn’t recognise them. Now just how does Josiah know whether Jesus recognised them or not?
Can he point to some place where Jesus said ,“I do not recogmise them”?

I love to read the Protoevangelium of James. Wasn’t James an Apostle? Give me a valid and logical reason fo saying I should not read that Book

Josephus the Jewish General and historian wrote his book in about the year 90 AD. This man was a military man. Who would expect him to be interested or to have the ability to decide what Books would go into the Bible? He was secular! :yup:
 
40.png
josiah:
Mr. Knight. As a protestant, I accept the same NT books as you do. However, we would probably differ over the OT books that were included in the canon. The reason why I don’t believe that the Apocrypha belongs to the OT canon is because the Hebrews didn’t recognize it. Josephus (Jewish historian) denied it. The amount of errors that are contained it. It’s not quoted from in the NT. Finally, Jesus himself never recognized.

Hope this answers your question.

Josiah
Click to expand...
I would like your proof that Jesus never accepted them. Jesus quoted from the septuagint mainly. The Septuagint included the deuterocanonicals. About 80% of the quotations in the NT from the OT are from the Septuagint, which does not match the Hebrew scriptures. Also the early Christians believed that the septuagint was authoritative, including Justin and Irenaeus, who speak about it.

There are still Jews that include the deuterocanonicals in there scriptures. What I find amazing is that the Jews celebrate a holiday that they call hannukah, that comes from the book of Maccabbees. That is kind of ood.

Many of the teachings of Jesus came from the deuterocanonicals.

They are not apocrypha, the apocrypha are books like the apocalypse of Peter.
 
40.png
josiah:
Mr. Knight. As a protestant, I accept the same NT books as you do. However, we would probably differ over the OT books that were included in the canon. The reason why I don’t believe that the Apocrypha belongs to the OT canon is because the Hebrews didn’t recognize it. Josephus (Jewish historian) denied it. The amount of errors that are contained it. It’s not quoted from in the NT. Finally, Jesus himself never recognized.

Hope this answers your question.

Josiah
Click to expand...
Dear Josiah,

Thanks for responding to my question. So Protestants disagree with Catholics regarding the Old Testament because the Hebrews didn’t recognize it. Josephus (Jewish historian) denied it. The amount of errors that are contained it. It’s not quoted from in the NT. Finally, Jesus himself never recognized. Can you show where you learned this information, so I can be sure you are telling me the truth and not lying or being fooled. Please be specific in showing me where you learned this information. Thanks and God Bless You.

note: (When I write “it”, I mean: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel.)
 
40.png
josiah:
Mr. Knight. As a protestant, I accept the same NT books as you do. However, we would probably differ over the OT books that were included in the canon. The reason why I don’t believe that the Apocrypha belongs to the OT canon is because the Hebrews didn’t recognize it. Josephus (Jewish historian) denied it. The amount of errors that are contained it. It’s not quoted from in the NT. Finally, Jesus himself never recognized.

Hope this answers your question.

Josiah
Click to expand...
The Hebrews didn’t recognize the Apocrypha? Never heard that one before. In the [great] book, This is the Faith, Cannon Francis Ripley, the author, says that when Martin Luther was translating the Bible from Latin to German/English, he decided to leave the “Apocrypha” out.

Also, I recommend the book The Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church. I believe that’s the name. It’s a great book.
 
M.I. Knight:
Dear Josiah,

Thanks for responding to my question. So Protestants disagree with Catholics regarding the Old Testament because the Hebrews didn’t recognize it. Josephus (Jewish historian) denied it. The amount of errors that are contained it. It’s not quoted from in the NT. Finally, Jesus himself never recognized. Can you show where you learned this information, so I can be sure you are telling me the truth and not lying or being fooled. Please be specific in showing me where you learned this information. Thanks and God Bless You.

note: (When I write “it”, I mean: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel.)
Click to expand...
Sure Mr.Knight.

Let’s look at how Christ declared the Hebrew canon.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Here in the above verse, Jesus divides the written word of God into three categories. The Hebrew Bible, known by the acronym TaNaKh, has these three divisions, first the Torah, the first five books of Moses, second the Nevi’im or Prophets, and third the Ketuvim or Writings. Christ was appearing to the disciples shortly after His resurrection and He was expounding to His disciples on the testimony of the scriptures about Himself, from one end of the Bible to the other. From the beginning at Moses; next to the prophets; and then on to the last division that began with Psalms; Christ explained from the Hebrew Bible, the TaNaKh, how it revealed Him to be the Messiah.

Next,

Jesus seems to exclude the Apocrypha in his statement in Luke 11:51 - “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation” (NKJV).

Christ uses the expression “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah,” The death of Abel is recorded in Genesis, the first book in the Hebrew canon. The death of Zechariah is included in 2Chronicles, which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible ( Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order ( II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers. The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already established in his day.

One last thing to consider:

Matt. 5:18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.

A Catholic Bible commentary says the following about the above verse:

*jot or tittle: *“Jot” refers to yôd, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet; “tittle” is a slight serif on a Hebrew letter that distinguishes it from another, similarly formed letter.
Source: The New Jerome Bible Commentary, copyright 1990, 1968, by Prentice Hall, Inc., ISBN 0-13-614934-0, page 641.
So it would seem, based on the above Catholic commentary, that Catholics do, in fact, accept that Christ was referring to scripture in the Hebrew language, and NOT a Greek translation!

Peace and love to you.
I hope this makes some sense

Josiah
 
40.png
jimmy:
I would like your proof that Jesus never accepted them. Jesus quoted from the septuagint mainly. The Septuagint included the deuterocanonicals. About 80% of the quotations in the NT from the OT are from the Septuagint, which does not match the Hebrew scriptures. Also the early Christians believed that the septuagint was authoritative, including Justin and Irenaeus, who speak about it.
Click to expand...
Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and The great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha.

In 382 Bishop Damascus had Jerome (the greatest Bible scholar of the early Medieval period) work on a Latin text to standardize the Scripture. The resulting Vulgate was used throughout the Christian world though Jerome himself separated the Apocrypha from the rest. He stated the church reads them “for example and instruction of manners”, but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine”. More damning was his statement that “they exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture” (Preface to Vulgate Book of Solomon,) He initially refused to translate the apocrypha into Latin but later made a hasty translation of a few books.
40.png
jimmy:
Many of the teachings of Jesus came from the deuterocanonicals.
Click to expand...
List one.
40.png
jimmy:
They are not apocrypha, the apocrypha are books like the apocalypse of Peter.
Click to expand...
No sir. The apocalyse of Peter is considered to be Pseudepigrapha, which is different from the Apocrypha.
 
40.png
AsStAnselmPrays:
The Hebrews didn’t recognize the Apocrypha? Never heard that one before. In the [great] book, This is the Faith, Cannon Francis Ripley, the author, says that when Martin Luther was translating the Bible from Latin to German/English, he decided to leave the “Apocrypha” out.

Also, I recommend the book The Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church. I believe that’s the name. It’s a great book.
Click to expand...
Do you believe in the infallability of the scriptures? I’m sure you do.
So, actually, the catholic church has done more to undermine the infallibility of scriptures by actually placing the apocrypha (which has many errors it) into the canon of scripture. How do you get an infallible Bible when there are known historical and geographical errors in it?

Josiah
 
40.png
Exporter:
Josephus the Jewish General and historian wrote his book in about the year 90 AD. This man was a military man. Who would expect him to be interested or to have the ability to decide what Books would go into the Bible? He was secular! :yup:
Click to expand...
The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (ca. A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of divinely inspired canon.

Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish teacher (20 B.C.- A.D. 40) quoted extensively from virtually every canonical book but never once quoted the Apocrypha as inspired.

The Jewish Talmud teaches that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after the time of Malachi, both of whom lived about four centuries before Christ, while the books of the Apocrypha were composed in the vicinity of two centuries before Christ.

There are several statements by Rabbis that prophecy ceased in the fourth century B.C. acknowledging that the Apocrypha was written in a period when God had ceased giving inspired writings.
 
I hope we don’'t have any “new Catholics” reading this thread. There have been so many nonCatholic ideas and fantacies in this thread that a reading by the uninitated may warp their minds. The name of the thread is “Protestant Consensus”. Seems to have gotten off topic, eh?
 
40.png
Exporter:
I hope we don’'t have any “new Catholics” reading this thread. There have been so many nonCatholic ideas and fantacies in this thread that a reading by the uninitated may warp their minds. The name of the thread is “Protestant Consensus”. Seems to have gotten off topic, eh?
Click to expand...
Just answering questions directed at me. That’s all.
 
40.png
josiah:
I give the author of that article an “A” for effort, but his rebuttals to the criticisms of the apocrypha are pretty weak.

peace
Click to expand...
Hi Josiah:
Perhaps it would be helpful if you identified some specific criticisms.

Your brother,
Fiat
 
40.png
josiah:
I give the author of that article an “A” for effort, but his rebuttals to the criticisms of the apocrypha are pretty weak.
Click to expand...
Mmmm? I give the author of that article an “H” for history and I felt his explanations were quite strong. But I do understand that your indoctrination runs counter to Catholic theology, and a deep rooted protestant indocrtination is difficult to deny. God Bless you.
 
40.png
josiah:
Sure Mr.Knight.

Let’s look at how Christ declared the Hebrew canon.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Here in the above verse, Jesus divides the written word of God into three categories. The Hebrew Bible, known by the acronym TaNaKh, has these three divisions, first the Torah, the first five books of Moses, second the Nevi’im or Prophets, and third the Ketuvim or Writings. Christ was appearing to the disciples shortly after His resurrection and He was expounding to His disciples on the testimony of the scriptures about Himself, from one end of the Bible to the other. From the beginning at Moses; next to the prophets; and then on to the last division that began with Psalms; Christ explained from the Hebrew Bible, the TaNaKh, how it revealed Him to be the Messiah.

Next,

Jesus seems to exclude the Apocrypha in his statement in Luke 11:51 - “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation” (NKJV).

Christ uses the expression “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah,” The death of Abel is recorded in Genesis, the first book in the Hebrew canon. The death of Zechariah is included in 2Chronicles, which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible ( Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order ( II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers. The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already established in his day.

One last thing to consider:

Matt. 5:18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.

A Catholic Bible commentary says the following about the above verse:

*jot or tittle: *“Jot” refers to yôd, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet; “tittle” is a slight serif on a Hebrew letter that distinguishes it from another, similarly formed letter.
Source: The New Jerome Bible Commentary, copyright 1990, 1968, by Prentice Hall, Inc., ISBN 0-13-614934-0, page 641.
So it would seem, based on the above Catholic commentary, that Catholics do, in fact, accept that Christ was referring to scripture in the Hebrew language, and NOT a Greek translation!

Peace and love to you.
I hope this makes some sense

Josiah
Click to expand...
Dear Josiah,

Thankyou for providing me with this information. I will now go and research what you have written to make sure it is true. If I find out it is not true, I will write you a counterpost. I hope you will not be offended. Thanks and God Bless you.
 
Dear Josiah,

Thanks for giving me your source. I will now go and research your information to make sure it is true. If I find out it is not true, you will be the first to now. Thanks and God bless you.
 
40.png
Fiat:
Hi Josiah:
Perhaps it would be helpful if you identified some specific criticisms.

Your brother,
Fiat
Click to expand...
Sure. First the commentator tries to explain away the error in the Judith, referring to Nebuchadnezzar as the King of the Assyrians. He has alot more explaining to do b/c there are more problems in the apocrypha:
Tobit…contains certain historical and geographical errors such as the assumption that Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser (1:15) instead of Sargon II, and that Nineveh was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus (14:5) instead of by Nabopolassar and Cyaxares.
Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.), despite the fact that his lifespan was only a total of 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)!
catholic answers:
4. Well, if the New Testament never quotes from these seven books, doesn’t that indicate that they were not considered to be inspired?
Click to expand...
Following this reasoning, we’d have to throw out the eight other Old Testament books—such as the Song of Songs—that are also not quoted in the New Testament.
First of all, the author has faulty information here. There were only three books that weren’t quoted from in the OT.
Second, although not all OT books are quoted from in the NT doesn’t prove this author’s point. Why? Because the OT has 3 divisions (The Law, Prophets, and the Writings), and the NT has atleast one quote from each of these categories. Therefore it isn’t necessary for the NT to quote each OT book.

Lastly,
Matt. 5:18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.

A Catholic Bible commentary says the following about the above verse:

*jot or tittle: *“Jot” refers to yôd, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet; “tittle” is a slight serif on a Hebrew letter that distinguishes it from another, similarly formed letter.
Source: The New Jerome Bible Commentary, copyright 1990, 1968, by Prentice Hall, Inc., ISBN 0-13-614934-0, page 641.

So it would seem, based on the above Catholic commentary, that Catholics do, in fact, accept that Christ was referring to scripture in the Hebrew language, and NOT a Greek translation.

I could say more, but this should suffice for beginners.

Peace and Love
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top