Protestants: Why Reject 7 books if Jesus didn't?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlruwhAlquds
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Christianapologist said:
The work of choosing the 66 books was already accomplished in several early councils. One of the criteria was that they could not contradict God’s Word. If you think that there is an apparent contradiction, look deeper and at the narrow and broad context.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if you answered my question before throwing in a red herring. What contradictions are you referring to in the “apocrypha” that are not in the examples i gave above - and many more?

BTW, im not the one who thinks there is an apparent contradiction. You are the one who is asserting this.

Peace!!!
 
Last edited:
Dumb question:

Is there no way to reconstruct what the canon was at the Jerusalem synagogues? After all, the scribes and priests from Jerusalem were (sort of) like the bishops from the OT. If anyone had Divine authority to determine a Jewish canon at that time, it would be them…
 
Last edited:
There is only one truth - Jesus Christ. However, there is partial truth and full truth. The Church which Christ founded - the Pillar and Foundation of Truth - is our guide, exactly as Christ intended.

66 book bible; once saved, always saved; limited atonement, the bondage of the will; saved by faith alone - each and every peculiar reformation belief, is a creation of man’s imagination.

Take the bible we love. The Pillar and Foundation of truth has determined that it contains 73 books. Man decided that it contains only 66.

Therefore, we are to choose wisely.
 
AlbMagno said:
Is there no way to reconstruct what the canon was at the Jerusalem synagogues?
Click to expand...
The present-day Hebrew Bible, in Jewish use, is divided into three sections, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The first section, the Law (the Pentateuch), had clearly been set in canonical form several centuries before the Herodian period. Unfortunately, nobody knows for certain at what date the other two sections were settled. The expression “the Law and the Prophets” is used several times in the Gospels and the Epistles, but we don’t have a list of the books that were included, at that time, under the heading “the Prophets”. Jesus once refers (in Luke 24:44) to “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms”, suggesting that the book of Psalms was not included in the Prophets, but the term in use today, “the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings”, is not found as early as the New Testament period.

The Law ( Torah ): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

The Prophets ( Nevi’im ): Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve (the minor prophets from Hosea to Malachi)

The Writings ( Ketuvim ): Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and at the very end, 1 & 2 Chronicles.

www.biblegateway.com

Luke 24:44 RSVCE - - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com www.biblegateway.com
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
Jesus once refers (in Luke 24:44) to “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms”, suggesting that the book of Psalms was not included in the Prophets, but the term in use today, “the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings”, is not found as early as the New Testament period.
Click to expand...
Are the 7 books in the list you posted?
 
Last edited:
annad347 said:
Are the 7 books in the list you posted?
Click to expand...
No, they’re not. As I said in an earlier post on this thread, we know that those seven books were left out of the Jewish canon, though we don’t know at what date that decision was made. The question being discussed here is a different one, namely whether or not they were included in the early Christian canon.
 
Last edited:
Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain all OT books we know, except for Esther and Nehemiah. That proves that Jews knew and used the equivalent of the Septuagint in the first century AD and before.
 
So that everyone else can read this… you consider Wikipedia a reliable source…???
 
Christianapologist said:
So that everyone else can read this… you consider Wikipedia a reliable source…???
Click to expand...
Not always, but in this case, yes. I have read books by reliable historians and I can confirm that the lists of canonical books are correctly translated on these Wikipedia pages. Next question?
 
Last edited:
Nope… just asking. There was a question mark at the end…
 
Much of the Deuterocanon, IIRC, was written by Alexandrian Jews in the dispersion (Diaspora). Thus, they spoke Greek. So, if Greek excludes books, pretty much the entire New Testament is out, huh?
 
Christianapologist said:
So that everyone else can read this… you consider Wikipedia a reliable source…???
Click to expand...
Not that I want to become the advocate of Wikipedia but its not an unreliable source either… just saying. Its probable as reliable as any other source of information written in a book, newspaper or website. Once information is declared to be false it is corrected… kind of like in books, newspapers and websites.

Information written by man is as reliable as the man who is writing it until another man can prove the first man was wrong.
 
Last edited:
Regarding your thoughts: “BTW, im not the one who thinks there is an apparent contradiction. You are the one who is asserting this.”

Well… It’s own writings describe this. All you have to do it read them…
-Tobit 6:5-7 Condones the use of magic
  • Wrong historical facts in: Judith 1:5 & Baruch 6:2 for starters
  • Teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort. - Salvation by works: Tobit 4:11, Tobit 12:9
  • Wisdom 11:17 - Teaches creation out of pre-existent matter
  • Wisdom 9:15 Teaches the body weighs down the soul
    and much more…
 
BartholomewB said:
The present-day Hebrew Bible, in Jewish use, is divided into three sections, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.
Click to expand...
One of the things that is missing in discussions about the ‘Jewish Canon’ as opposed to the ‘Christian Canon’ might be described as “what the books are ‘for’.”

With the Tanakh, there’s the Torah and the rest could be described as ‘commentary’, whereas the Christian use of the Old Testament could be described as “foundational work for the New Testament.”

In other words, the books themselves provide some kind of equivalence but it’s an illusory equivalence.
 
Good point… So the question… if two men, or woman disagree on a Theological topic, where do you go for the correct answer…?
 
Christianapologist said:
Well… It’s own writings describe this. All you have to do it read them…
Click to expand...
Thanks for the advise. :+1:t3:
Christianapologist said:
Tobit 6:5-7 Condones the use of magic
Click to expand...
You will have to be more specific. I see nothing about magic in this passage.
Christianapologist said:
  • Wrong historical facts in: Judith 1:5 & Baruch 6:2 for starters
  • Teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort. - Salvation by works: Tobit 4:11, Tobit 12:9
  • Wisdom 11:17 - Teaches creation out of pre-existent matter
  • Wisdom 9:15 Teaches the body weighs down the soul
    and much more…
Click to expand...
In my post (9) to you i gave you examples of contradictions in the 1st canon just like these and i asked you what is the differences in these contradictions you are posting and the ones i posted. Care to share your thought on this question?

Peace!!!
 
Yes, I would like to address both of those… can you give me until tomorrow…? It’s been a crazy day… 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top