SPLIT: Sola Scriptura debate

[BornAgainRN]

OF COURSE it’s circular reasoning. We agree that all scripture is inspired by God, but how do you know what is scripture? If I write on a 3x5 card “this is scripture” will you then tape it into your bible?

Tell me how you know, using scripture alone, that the books in the bible are scripture. Or, if you appeal to another authority, tell me how you know that authority is valid.

In addition to 2 Timothy 3:16, 3 widely recognized principles were used to validate the books & epistles of the Bible as being ‘Inspired’ & worthy of being put in the Bible, which was a result of divine revelation from God:

First, the writing had to have a recognized prophet or an apostle (or one associated with them, as in the case of Mark, Luke, Hebrews, James, & Jude).

Second, the writing could not disagree with or contradict previous Scripture.

Third, the writing had to have general consensus by the Church as an Inspired book. So, when the various councils throughout church history met to consider the canon, they didn’t ‘vote’ for the canonicity of a book, but rather recognized after the fact, what God had already Authored. By Jesus’ day, all the books of the Old Testament were recognized as authoritative & read in the synagogues. Jesus even read from Isaiah. The last book, Malachi, was written about 430 B.C. Jesus acknowledged the Old Testament Jewish canon (which have the EXACT same books that are in modern day Bibles, only some books then were combined), in Luke 24:44-45:

"Now He [Jesus] said to them, 'These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.“Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,”

The Old Testament was divided into 3 sections - The Law, the Prophets, & the Writings (which included the Psalms), which Jesus acknowledged as Scripture. In verse 25, Jesus described Scripture as “Moses & all the Prophets.” Many Jews considered the Law of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy) to be ‘separate’ from the rest of the Old Testament (the Prophets).

Jesus also acknowledges the OT canon as Scripture in Luke 11:49-51:

“For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.’”

Abel was the first ‘prophet’ who was first mentioned in the first book of the Hebrew canon, & Zechariah was the last ‘prophet’ mentioned in the last book of the Hebrew canon.

The same 3 ‘methods’ used to test canonicity that applied to the OT also applied to the NT. And that’s how we came to get out Bible, & why we can be assured of Paul’s statement that ALL Scripture - both the OT & the NT is Inspired by God.

 

[snarflemike]

In addition to 2 Timothy 3:16, 3 widely recognized principles were used to validate the books & epistles of the Bible as being ‘Inspired’ & worthy of being put in the Bible, which was a result of divine revelation from God:

First, the writing had to have a recognized prophet or an apostle (or one associated with them, as in the case of Mark, Luke, Hebrews, James, & Jude).

Why? By what authority does this become a proper test? You need to question your assumptions, which you clearly have not done.

Second, the writing could not disagree with or contradict previous Scripture.

The Jews crucified Christ because they thought he disagreed with previous Scripture. Besides, anybody could write something that doesn’t disagree with or contradict previous scripture.

Third, the writing had to have general consensus by the Church as an Inspired book. So, when the various councils throughout church history met to consider the canon, they didn’t ‘vote’ for the canonicity of a book, but rather recognized after the fact, what God had already Authored.

Interesting. So multiple early councils took the time to state what everybody already knew? Why would they bother to do that? Are you suggesting that there was no dispute, no confusion on what was scripture? Did everybody agree? “General consensus” is such a vague term. Did they do polls? Why was the canon listed in more than one council, if everybody already knew what it was?

The same 3 ‘methods’ used to test canonicity that applied to the OT also applied to the NT. And that’s how we came to get out Bible, & why we can be assured of Paul’s statement that ALL Scripture - both the OT & the NT is Inspired by God.

Ah, but the Church “recognized” books, as early as the 4th century, that you don’t have in your bible. These books certainly met your “general consensus” test, and no Church council ever offered the Protestant canon as the correct canon, so why do you use that canon?

 

[Michael_Francis]

These posts have been split from Did Mary & Joseph have children? Did Jesus have half-brothers & half-sisters? where they were off topic.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Ah, but the Church “recognized” books, as early as the 4th century, that you don’t have in your bible. These books certainly met your “general consensus” test, and no Church council ever offered the Protestant canon as the correct canon, so why do you use that canon?

If you’re referring to the Apocrypha, there are legitimate reasons why they aren’t in Protestant Bibles. First, they weren’t part of the original Hebrew canon, even though they have been ‘meshed in’ with the Old Testament books now. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus acknowledged the Hebrew Scriptures by referring to them as ‘The Law, the Prophets, & the Psalms (which are part of the ‘Writings’),’ which is how the Jews separated them & referred to them. Jesus, nor any of the Bible writers, acknowledged the Apocrypha as being authoritative. In fact, even St. Jerome didn’t recognize it as being at the same level as Scripture, but ended up putting it in the Bible.

The reason why the Old & New Testament books that both Catholics & Protestants today agree on as being authoritative is because these books are without error & without contradicting previous Scripture. The same can’t be said about the Apocryphal books, although they do give us some good historical information about the ‘intertestimonial period.’.

 

[EricFilmer]

In addition to 2 Timothy 3:16, 3 widely recognized principles were used to validate the books & epistles of the Bible as being ‘Inspired’ & worthy of being put in the Bible, which was a result of divine revelation from God:

First, the writing had to have a recognized prophet or an apostle (or one associated with them, as in the case of Mark, Luke, Hebrews, James, & Jude)…

Jesus, nor any of the Bible writers, acknowledged the Apocrypha as being authoritative. In fact, even St. Jerome didn’t recognize it as being at the same level as Scripture, but ended up putting it in the Bible.

BornAgainRN, I would like you to consider the following passage from the Book of Enoch:

“And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgment upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” (Enoch 1:9)
( source )

This text is quoted in the NT in the Letter of Jude, where we also see Enoch’s name specifically being mentioned as well as him described as having the gift of prophecy:

“It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying,
‘Behold, the Lord came with myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all,
to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness
which they have committed in such an ungodly way,
and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him’.” (Jude 1:14-15)

Aside from this passage from Jude, the Book of Enoch is not included in either Catholic Bibles nor Protestant Bibles.
Based on your outline for what constitutes valid canonical Scripture, I am curious as to your explanation for this omission from the Bible.

 

[Pheonix]

If you’re referring to the Apocrypha, there are legitimate reasons why they aren’t in Protestant Bibles.

Like what? I have yet to see a logical, coherent, and legitimate argument about rejecting the deuterocanon.

First, they weren’t part of the original Hebrew canon, even though they have been ‘meshed in’ with the Old Testament books now.

I don’t understand why Protestants try and use this argument to reject the deuterocanon. It just doesn’t work. First of all, this argument is not a legitimate reason to reject the deuterocanon. Second of all, this argument is egregious in nature.

The logic behind this argument is “the deuterocanon is not Scripture because the Jews rejected it.” If this is true, and the inspiration of Scripture depends on the acceptance of the Jews, then we must also reject the New Testament. After all, the Jews reject that; they don’t believe Christ is the Messiah.

The point is the Catholic Church did not use “the Jews accepted this and rejected this” as a criterion when they were determining the Canon of Scripture. Besides, Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, which did in fact contain the deuterocanon.

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus acknowledged the Hebrew Scriptures by referring to them as ‘The Law, the Prophets, & the Psalms (which are part of the ‘Writings’),’ which is how the Jews separated them & referred to them.

There’s a problem with this argument. It’s the old “quotation = canonicity” fallacy. In other words, if Jesus or the other biblical writers quoted something in New Testament, then it must be Scripture.

1. There are several instances where the New Testament quotes non-canonical books, including the Assumption of Moses, the Book of Enoch, and the Ascension of Isaiah. Further, St. Paul quotes from the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander. If “quotation = canonicity,” then why aren’t these works in the Old Testament canon?
2. The New Testament never quotes from the following books of the Old Testament, accepted by both Catholics and Protestants as Scripture: Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, and Nahum. According to the logic of the “quotation = canonicity” argument, we have to throw these books out of our Bibles.

And don’t try the old cop-out answer that goes something like “but the Jews accepted those books.” The argument doesn’t work. Why? Because as I explained above, you cannot depend on the Jews to determine what is God’s inspired Word and what is not without committing a logical fallacy.

Jesus, nor any of the Bible writers, acknowledged the Apocrypha as being authoritative.

This is false. There are several references to the deuterocanon in New Testament. Here’s a few:

~John 10:22-26 tells us that Jesus and the Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah. The only place in the Old Testament where this feast is mentioned, and even divinely established, is in 1 and 2 Maccabees.

~Matthew 2:16 tells us about Herod’s slaying of the innocents. Wisdom 11:7 alludes to this event.

~Matthew 6:19-20 tells us about storing up our treasure in Heaven. This follows Sirach 29:13.

In fact, even St. Jerome didn’t recognize it as being at the same level as Scripture, but ended up putting it in the Bible.

Another egregious argument. You need to study up on St. Jerome a little more. While it’s true that St. Jerome did not believe the deuterocanon was inspired at first, he late came to accept the deuterocanon as God’s inspired Word. He even vehemently defended their status as God’s Word. Thus, you cannot use St. Jerome to argue against the deuterocanon.

The reason why the Old & New Testament books that both Catholics & Protestants today agree on as being authoritative is because these books are without error & without contradicting previous Scripture.

The deuteocanonical books do not contradict any Scriptures, as they are themselves God’s inspired Word.

The same can’t be said about the Apocryphal books, although they do give us some good historical information about the ‘intertestimonial period.’.

You keep making these kind of assertions, but don’t include any evidence to back up your claims. Please provide evidence that the deuterocanonical books hold contradictions between the other books of Scripture.

 

[Church_Militant]

If you’re referring to the Apocrypha, there are legitimate reasons why they aren’t in Protestant Bibles. First, they weren’t part of the original Hebrew canon, even though they have been ‘meshed in’ with the Old Testament books now.

You need to get your terminology straight Steve. There are no “Apocryphal” writings in the Catholic Bible (or even n-C ones for that matter). We have 7 Deuterocanonical books in our Bibles and they were accepted and canonized by the Catholic Church after much discussion in 382AD and were again affirmed by the Council of Trent between December 13, 1545, and December 4, 1563 after Luther and other Reformers questioned their canonicity.

There is more than ample documentation that the ECF accepted and canonized them. See The Old Testament Canon | Catholic Answers

Council of Rome

“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

Council of Hippo

“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage III

“[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, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

Augustine

“The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them” (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

 

[Church_Militant]

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus acknowledged the Hebrew Scriptures by referring to them as ‘The Law, the Prophets, & the Psalms (which are part of the ‘Writings’),’ which is how the Jews separated them & referred to them.

Which ignores the fact that even in Jesus day the OT scriptures were in Greek from the Alexandrian translation and were used to teach Jews and potential converts because though very few knew Hebrew (Since Jesus and the apostles actually spoke Aramaic. A language written in Hebrew characters, but definitely not Hebrew. Ask and faithful Orthodox Jew) almost everyone spoke Greek after having been rules by them for so long. It’s one reason that the New Testament was penned in Greek (except perhaps Matthew which many scholars say was in Aramaic and then translated to Greek later.) since it was the lingua franca of the day until Latin replaced it under Rome’s Imperial rule.

Jesus, nor any of the Bible writers, acknowledged the Apocrypha as being authoritative.

Really? Then precisely why is it so often quoted in the New Testament?

The Deuterocanonical Books of the Catholic Bible

From my friend Wolseley:
And while we’re on the subject of “extra-canonical books”, here’s a good question, posed to me by many Protestants: “If the books of the Apocrypha are supposed to be canonical, then why didn’t Jesus ever quote from them?”

And the answer is, He did…and so did the Apostles:

In fact, even St. Jerome didn’t recognize it as being at the same level as Scripture, but ended up putting it in the Bible.

Jerome’s issue was the lack of Hebrew copies available to him. Today, this is a moot point since the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the 1950s had copies of them in Hebrew, so they did exist. Jerome just didn’t have them to work with. Notice also that he chose to acquiesce to the authority of the Church in this matter. Something modern n-Cs can’t seem to handle.

The reason why the Old & New Testament books that both Catholics & Protestants today agree on as being authoritative is because these books are without error & without contradicting previous Scripture.

Again, if that were the case and the real issue, then why were they included in the n-C translations (including the much vaunted KJV) up until some Bible society cut them out in the 1850s in an effort to cut their costs? In fact, all actual 1611 editions of the KJB still contain them to this day.

Again, see all the places where our Lord and the apostles taught from them and quoted them.

The same can’t be said about the Apocryphal books, although they do give us some good historical information about the ‘intertestimonial period.’.

Here again, you don’t know your history. Look at the facts I have provided and reconsider listening to whoever taught you all this stuff.

 

[BornAgainRN]

BornAgainRN, I would like you to consider the following passage from the Book of Enoch:

“And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgment upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” (Enoch 1:9)
( source )

This text is quoted in the NT in the Letter of Jude, where we also see Enoch’s name specifically being mentioned as well as him described as having the gift of prophecy:

“It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying,
‘Behold, the Lord came with myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all,
to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness
which they have committed in such an ungodly way,
and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him’.” (Jude 1:14-15)

Aside from this passage from Jude, the Book of Enoch is not included in either Catholic Bibles nor Protestant Bibles.
Based on your outline for what constitutes valid canonical Scripture, I am curious as to your explanation for this omission from the Bible.

But Jude, nor anyone else, considered the Book of Enoch to be Inspired. Plus the Bible quotes lots of books that aren’t in the Bible, but the Bible writers nor anyone else considered them Inspired either. Just because a Bible writer quotes from a book outside the Bible, doesn’t mean that it is Inspired. By Jesus acknowledging the Hebrew canon (which contain the EXACT same books as Protestant Bibles have), He was validating them as being authoritative. Even some early CATHOLIC fathers & the Jews themselves who were entrusted by God to preserve the ‘oracles’ of the Old Testament (Romans 3:2), didn’t consider the Apocrypha as being Inspired. If they had, the Jews would have acknowledged them as authoritative by including them in the original Hebrew canon, but they didn’t.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Which ignores the fact that even in Jesus day the OT scriptures were in Greek from the Alexandrian translation and were used to teach Jews and potential converts because though very few knew Hebrew (

If you are referring to the Septuagint, yes, the Apocrypha was in it, but there aren’t any passages that are quoted from them in the New Testament. And even if they were, that wouldn’t make them authoritative. After all, Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch. Does that make it authoritative? No.

Really? Then precisely why is it so often quoted in the New Testament?

 

[Michael_Francis]

No problem Steve, though I see you are still refusing to examine links we give you. If you expect this discussion to continue you need to get off that. No one has time to rewrite stuff we have already set out to respond to the same errant rhetoric you are cranking out. Had you looked at my link above you’d have seen.

Matthew 6:12, 14-15—“Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your heavenly father forgive your transgressions.”
Sirach 28:2—“Forgive your neighbor’s injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.”

Luke 1:17 (describing John the Baptist)—“He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of fathers towards children and the disobediant to the understanding of the righteous, to prepare a people fit for the Lord.”
Sirach 48:10—“You are destined, it is written, in time to come, to put an end to wrath before the day of the Lord, to turn back the hearts of fathers towards their sons, and to re-establish the tribes of Jacob.”

Luke 1:28, 1:42—“And coming to her, he said, ‘Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you!’…Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Judith 13:18—"Then Uzziah said to her: 'Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women of the earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the Creator of heaven and earth.

Luke 1:52—“He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones, but lifted up the lowly.”
Sirach 10:14—“The thrones of the arrogant God overturns, and establishes the lowly in their stead.”

Luke 12:19-20—“I shall say to myself, ‘Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!’ But God said to him, ‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?’”
Sirach 11:19—“When he says: ‘I have found rest, now I will feast on my possessions,’ he does not know how long it will be till he dies and leaves them to others.”

Luke 18:22—“When Jesus heard this, he said to him, ‘There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.’”
Sirach 29:11—“Dispose of your treasure as the Most High commands, for that will profit you more than the gold.”

John 3:12—“If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?”
Wisdom 9:16—“Scarce do we guess the things on earth, and what is within our grasp we find with difficulty; but when things are in heaven, who can search them out?”

John 5:18—“For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God.”
Wisdom 2:16—“He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.”

John 10:29—“My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.”
Wisdom 3:1—“But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them.”

 

[Church_Militant]

No problem Steve, though I see you are still refusing to examine links we give you. If you expect this discussion to continue you need to get off that. No one has time to rewrite stuff we have already set out to respond to the same errant rhetoric you are cranking out. Had you looked at my link above you’d have seen.

Oh, and there are no apocryphal books in the Catholic Bible, so stop referring to them as such. Apocryphal works are the Gnostic Gospels and stuff like that, which were never included in the Canon. We’ve already shown you that the Catholic councils that canonized the Bible we have today included these as inspired. Your denial has no merit since you nor any modern men has the authority to change that.

Matthew 6:12, 14-15—“Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your heavenly father forgive your transgressions.”
Sirach 28:2—“Forgive your neighbor’s injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven.”

Luke 1:17 (describing John the Baptist)—“He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of fathers towards children and the disobediant to the understanding of the righteous, to prepare a people fit for the Lord.”
Sirach 48:10—“You are destined, it is written, in time to come, to put an end to wrath before the day of the Lord, to turn back the hearts of fathers towards their sons, and to re-establish the tribes of Jacob.”

Luke 1:28, 1:42—“And coming to her, he said, ‘Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you!’…Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Judith 13:18—"Then Uzziah said to her: 'Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women of the earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the Creator of heaven and earth.

Luke 1:52—“He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones, but lifted up the lowly.”
Sirach 10:14—“The thrones of the arrogant God overturns, and establishes the lowly in their stead.”

Luke 12:19-20—“I shall say to myself, ‘Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!’ But God said to him, ‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?’”
Sirach 11:19—“When he says: ‘I have found rest, now I will feast on my possessions,’ he does not know how long it will be till he dies and leaves them to others.”

Luke 18:22—“When Jesus heard this, he said to him, ‘There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.’”
Sirach 29:11—“Dispose of your treasure as the Most High commands, for that will profit you more than the gold.”

John 3:12—“If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?”
Wisdom 9:16—“Scarce do we guess the things on earth, and what is within our grasp we find with difficulty; but when things are in heaven, who can search them out?”

John 5:18—“For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God.”
Wisdom 2:16—“He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.”

John 10:29—“My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.”
Wisdom 3:1—“But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them.”

 

[snarflemike]

If you’re referring to the Apocrypha, there are legitimate reasons why they aren’t in Protestant Bibles. First, they weren’t part of the original Hebrew canon, even though they have been ‘meshed in’ with the Old Testament books now. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus acknowledged the Hebrew Scriptures by referring to them as ‘The Law, the Prophets, & the Psalms (which are part of the ‘Writings’),’ which is how the Jews separated them & referred to them. Jesus, nor any of the Bible writers, acknowledged the Apocrypha as being authoritative. In fact, even St. Jerome didn’t recognize it as being at the same level as Scripture, but ended up putting it in the Bible.

The reason why the Old & New Testament books that both Catholics & Protestants today agree on as being authoritative is because these books are without error & without contradicting previous Scripture. The same can’t be said about the Apocryphal books, although they do give us some good historical information about the ‘intertestimonial period.’.

So you’re violating your own precept of “general consensus”. Can you name a single Church council that listed a canon that did not include the Deuterocanonicals? The answer is, you cannot. No Church council ever acknowledged a “general consensus” for the Protestant canon, and yet that is the canon you accept. So it seems you pick and choose when to use the “general consensus” argument, which makes it not an argument at all, but simply a prop to support what you choose to believe when it is convenient, and something to be tossed aside when it is inconvenient.

 

[Patavium]

In addition to 2 Timothy 3:16, 3 widely recognized principles were used to validate the books & epistles of the Bible as being ‘Inspired’ & worthy of being put in the Bible, which was a result of divine revelation from God:

First, the writing had to have a recognized prophet or an apostle (or one associated with them, as in the case of Mark, Luke, Hebrews, James, & Jude).

Second, the writing could not disagree with or contradict previous Scripture.

Third, the writing had to have general consensus by the Church as an Inspired book. So, when the various councils throughout church history met to consider the canon, they didn’t ‘vote’ for the canonicity of a book, but rather recognized after the fact, what God had already Authored. By Jesus’ day, all the books of the Old Testament were recognized as authoritative & read in the synagogues. Jesus even read from Isaiah. The last book, Malachi, was written about 430 B.C. Jesus acknowledged the Old Testament Jewish canon (which have the EXACT same books that are in modern day Bibles, only some books then were combined), in Luke 24:44-45:

"Now He [Jesus] said to them, 'These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.“Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,”

The Old Testament was divided into 3 sections - The Law, the Prophets, & the Writings (which included the Psalms), which Jesus acknowledged as Scripture. In verse 25, Jesus described Scripture as “Moses & all the Prophets.” Many Jews considered the Law of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy) to be ‘separate’ from the rest of the Old Testament (the Prophets).

Jesus also acknowledges the OT canon as Scripture in Luke 11:49-51:

“For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.’”

Abel was the first ‘prophet’ who was first mentioned in the first book of the Hebrew canon, & Zechariah was the last ‘prophet’ mentioned in the last book of the Hebrew canon.

The same 3 ‘methods’ used to test canonicity that applied to the OT also applied to the NT. And that’s how we came to get out Bible, & why we can be assured of Paul’s statement that ALL Scripture - both the OT & the NT is Inspired by God.

When did the Jews close their canon of Scripture, i.e. the Old Testament? Protestants and “Bible only” Christians would say before the time of Christ because that will bolster their claim based on Romans 3:2. Unfortunately this claim is neither supported by Bible nor by Jewish reliable sources. If canon of Jewish Scripture was closed before Christ’ time, we would expect He and His apostles only quoted from that closed canon, which is not the case, as we will see later. According to Encyclopedia Judaica the third part of Jewish Scripture (Ketuvim or the Writings) was closed in second century AD [10]. Sirach or Ecclesiasticus was quoted as Scripture in Jewish Talmud [11], composed after second century AD. How about Jamnia (or Javneh) council in 90 AD that purportedly closed canon of Jewish Scripture? Jamnia council hypothesis was created based on Jewish Misnah that only discusses canonical status of Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. All the above mentioned sources indicate that Jewish canon was closed after Christ crucifixion. Christians are not obliged to follow Jewish decision made after Christ crucifixion, considering what He taught through His parable of the vineyard’s tenants in Matthew 21:33-41 – let out the vineyards to other tenants (verse 41). Note that the existence of Scripture or even all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16) in Christ and apostolic time does not automatically imply existence of closed canon. Daniel read Jeremiah as Scripture in the first year of Darius (the Mede) reign (Daniel 9:1-2) before prophets Haggai and Zechariah received the words of the Lord in the second year of Darius reign and wrote them.

if being quoted in New Testament is the requirement to enter the canon, then New Testament does not quote from Esther, Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes either. New Testament also quoted from outside both Catholic and Protestant’ Old Testament. Jerome saw a manuscript of apocryphal work (now lost) attributed to Jeremiah that had the exact words quoted in Matthew 27:9 [12]. What Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:9, preceded with the phrase “it is written”, resembles but not equal to Isaiah 64:4. According to Ambrosiaster [13] (c. 4th century AD) it is quotation from apocryphal Apocalypse of Elijah. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:4 about the spiritual rock that followed the Israelites during Exodus and he named two magicians who opposed Moses in 2 Timothy 3:8 – both are not found in the book of Exodus. In 2 Peter 2:22, Proverbs 26:11 is placed in par with a proverb from outside the Bible. Jude 9 quotes from the Ascension of Moses [14] and Jude 14-16 quotes from the 1 Enoch 1:9. The standard reply for the above non-scriptural quotation is they are not quoted as scripture, like quotation from Cretan poet Epimenides in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12. However quotation from non-Jewish works was obviously non-scriptural to the Jews (though as we will see later, God’s word may come through non-Jews). 1 Enoch is cited it in the same way Matthew 15:7-9 cite Isaiah 29:13 (of LXX). We also have quotation from unknown scripture in John 7:38 and James 4:5, both preceded with the phrase “scripture says”. To conclude being quoted in New Testament is not the criteria of canonicity and not being quoted in New Testament is not the criteria for non-canonical either.

Since we can find Able in the book of Genesis (Chapter 4) and Zechariah in the book of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 24:20-21) – those two are the first and the last books in Jewish Scripture, then does it show that Old Testament approved by Christ is the Jewish Scripture? There are two problems with this argument. First, the order of books in Jewish Scripture is not static. Chronicles is the last book of the current Jewish Scripture but it was not always so. Jewish Scripture has three parts: the Law (five books), the Prophets (eight books) and the Writings (eleven books). Encyclopedia Judaica [17] shows eight different orders of books of the Writings, of which three Chronicles is the first book. Those who rely on Josephus testimony should know that Chronicles cannot be the last book because the last five books according to Josephus are books of hymns and conduct of life. Second, Zechariah of Chronicles (who was priest, not prophet) was son of Jehoiada, while parallel verse in Matthew 23:35 identifies him to be son of Barachiah. Most likely Christ referred to Prophet Zechariah, son of Berechiah (Zechariah 1:1, Ezra 5:1), who together with Haggai and Malachi were the last Jewish prophets.

vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/who-has-the-correct-number-of-books-in-the-bible/

 

[EricFilmer]

Disclaimer
Let me clarify to whoever is reading my posts in this thread that I do not believe that the Book of Enoch is divinely inspired. In terms of the biblical canon, I place my faith in what has been designated by the Church. My point is that if someone does not believe that the Magisterium is empowered by God to determine such matters, then it is difficult to explain why the Book of Enoch does not belong in the Bible.

Ok, moving on…

But Jude, nor anyone else, considered the Book of Enoch to be Inspired.

1) Because…???
In other words, explain to me how you are able to make such an emphatic statement regarding what Jude did or did not believe was inspired.

2) Keep in mind that in Jude 1:14 we are told that Enoch was delivering a prophecy from God. If this was not a valid prophecy then how did it end up in the NT? And if it is a valid prophecy then explain how it is not considered inspired. Valid prophecy, by definition, is inspired by God.

3) As to your statement that no one “considered the Book of Enoch to be inspired”, I will point out that many Jews prior to the end of the 1st Century believed that it was, as did a number of ancient Christians. Although the Catholic Church eventually ruled against it, Ethiopian Christians continued to include it in their Bibles. Note, for example, the biblical canon recognized by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. This is an ancient Orthodox Church which states that its founder was the Ethiopian mentioned in Acts 8, and there are 45 million members today. They believe that the Book of Enoch is divinely inspired, so your claim that no one believes this is demonstrably false.

4) If you assess what is and is not divinely inspired text based on what other people believe, then you are not using the principle of Sola Scriptura to demonstrate the canon of Scripture. Instead of “The Bible Alone,” you are using “The Bible and Other People’s Opinions Alone”.

Plus the Bible quotes lots of books that aren’t in the Bible, but the Bible writers nor anyone else considered them Inspired either. Just because a Bible writer quotes from a book outside the Bible, doesn’t mean that it is Inspired.

There is a big difference between, say, the Book of Numbers referencing the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14) and Jude describing a text from Enoch as being prophetic. There is no reason to think that the Book of the Wars of the Lord was anything but a simple history book, whereas valid prophecy is, by definition, divinely inspired.

Moreover, it is not a valid argument to say that the Book of Enoch is not divinely inspired because the Bible quotes other books which are not considered divinely inspired either. After all, I can simply ask you why you don’t consider these other books as valid Scripture. If you are an adherent of Sola Scriptura then you need to give a response backed up with Scripture, not based upon people’s opinions concerning the matter.

By Jesus acknowledging the Hebrew canon (which contain the EXACT same books as Protestant Bibles have), He was validating them as being authoritative.

1) If Jude, an Apostle, believed this then why did he quote the Book of Enoch? Obviously Jesus never told him that only the Hebrew Canon counted as authoritative OT texts.

2) If Paul thought that only the Hebrew Canon was authoritative then why didn’t he clarify this when telling Timothy that “all” the Scriptures Timothy had known “from his childhood” were efficacious for righteous living (2Tim 3:15 ff)? In those days, there were books not in the Hebrew Canon that many Jews believed to be divinely inspired. It was not until the end of the 1st Century (and long after Paul wrote 2Timothy) that the Jews started setting down the requirements that they felt authentic Scripture needed to have. So at the time Paul wrote about “all Scripture”, the general presumption would have been that this included the Book of Enoch. As a matter of fact, that is exactly how Tertullian interpreted 2Tim 3:15, as I will show in a moment.

3) Jesus never actually said that the Hebrew canon was the only OT source for authoritative Scripture. If you are presenting such a notion as the “litmus test” for determining the validity of an OT era text then you are not actually using the Scriptures but rather an extra-biblical, man-made tradition.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Even some early CATHOLIC fathers & the Jews themselves who were entrusted by God to preserve the ‘oracles’ of the Old Testament (Romans 3:2), didn’t consider the Apocrypha as being Inspired.

1) Sure, some did not consider Enoch to be divinely inspired, but others did. For example, the Epistle of Barnabas quotes the Book of Enoch three times, twice referring to it as Scripture (4:3, 16:5, 6). Other ECFs who made references to it include Anthenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Tertullian.

2) There was a lot of debate among the Early Church Fathers concerning whether or not the Book of Revelation was divinely inspired. Therefore, explain why it is ok for the Book of Revelation to be in the Bible but not the Book of Enoch.

3) The essence of this thread is to examine the merits of Sola Scriptura. As an adherent of Sola Scriptura one would expect you to use “Scripture Alone” to demonstrate the validity of the canon of Scripture and to explain why other books do not belong in the Bible. But in this case you are appealing to the beliefs of certain Early Church Fathers (i.e., patristic writings) and the Jews. But the principle of Sola Scriptura is “Scripture Alone”, not “Scripture, Patristics and Rabbinical Concepts Alone.”

4) Romans 3:2 states, “To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.” That means that God’s initial revelation to humanity is found within Judaism. This does not say that the Jews have a guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit in determining what is and is not authentic Scripture. If you say that it does then that becomes highly problematic from a Christian perspective for the simple fact that the Jews deny that the entire NT is divinely inspired.

If you try to argue that Romans 3:2 only refers to the Jewish understanding of God’s revelation concerning the OT era then this is still problematic from a Christian perspective. The Jews have always taught that God’s revelation to them is found both in a written format (such as the Torah), as well as an unwritten format, known as the Oral Torah, which in time was compiled as the Talmud. So if you believe that Romans 3:2 indicates that Christians have to go by what the Jews consider valid OT oracles of God, then Christians have to add the entire Talmud to their Bibles. Are you prepared to go that far?

If they had, the Jews would have acknowledged them as authoritative by including them in the original Hebrew canon, but they didn’t.

1) Once again, here you are not using “Scripture Alone” to tell me why the Book of Enoch does not belong in the Bible. Rather, you are basing your argument on rabbinical concepts.

2) It was not until the end of the 1st Century that the majority opinion among the Jews was to exclude the Book of Enoch from what they considered authentic Scripture. But they also rejected the entire NT. Shall we now say that the entire NT is not authoritative? Plus, according to Tertullian, Christians ought to accept the Book of Enoch because of what 2Tim 3:16 teaches, and he claims that the reason why the Jews eventually rejected the Book of Enoch is because it contains prophecies of Christ (Source).

And finally, I ask you to define for me exactly what you mean by the term “authoritative.” The way I see it, the only essential question is whether or not a text in question is divinely inspired. If it is, then it belongs in the Bible, and if it is not then it doesn’t. So please clarify what you mean when you speak of a book being authoritative, and how such a term is relevant to this discussion.

 

[Church_Militant]

But St. Jude obviously considered the Book of Enoch factual, else why would he have quoted it?

Same with the account of the devil and St. Michael the archangel regarding the body of Moses.

If these apostles (and we know that St. Paul was particularly scholarly) considered traditional Jewish texts accurate enough to refer to in their inspired writings, then what does that then tell you about their think about Traditional writings?

Even in St. Paul’s letter to Timothy notice here what he tells him in 2nd Timothy 2.
15. Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Does he specify just the scriptures here? No…he does not, and since Paul was a scholar speaking to Timothy who he was encouraging in his studies, then again…what does that tell you?

BTW, I’m still waiting for you to supply me a single verse or passage that specifically tells us that everything that Christians believe and practice has to be found in the Bible. Where does the Bible ever lay claim to being the ultimate and final authority for believers? If you cannot supply such scripture then why then can you believe in the modern new wind of doctrines of men of Sola Scriptura, since it clearly violates its own premise?

 

[SonCatcher]

But Jude, nor anyone else, considered the Book of Enoch to be Inspired. Plus the Bible quotes lots of books that aren’t in the Bible, but the Bible writers nor anyone else considered them Inspired either. Just because a Bible writer quotes from a book outside the Bible, doesn’t mean that it is Inspired. By Jesus acknowledging the Hebrew canon (which contain the EXACT same books as Protestant Bibles have), He was validating them as being authoritative. Even some early CATHOLIC fathers & the Jews themselves who were entrusted by God to preserve the ‘oracles’ of the Old Testament (Romans 3:2), didn’t consider the Apocrypha as being Inspired. If they had, the Jews would have acknowledged them as authoritative by including them in the original Hebrew canon, but they didn’t.

What Hebrew “canon” did Jesus acknowledge explicitly. Provide your source for an authoritative Hebrew canon from before the time of Jesus.

There was none. There were only collections of scrolls. Some were large collections, others were smaller. Some included multiple copies of the same book (with small variations in text, no less). The Essenes at Qumran (keepers of the Dead Sea Scrolls) had several slightly different copies of Isaiah, for example, and regarded all of those copies as canonical. They also had deuterocanonical (Tobit, Sirach), apocryphal (Jubilees, additional psalms) and pseudoepigraphical (Enoch) works in Hebrew and regarded them as canonical, as well.

 

[BornAgainRN]

No problem Steve, though I see you are still refusing to examine links we give you. If you expect this discussion to continue you need to get off that. No one has time to rewrite stuff we have already set out to respond to the same errant rhetoric you are cranking out. Had you looked at my link above you’d have seen.

By calling the ‘Deuterocanonical’ books ‘Apocryphal,’ I’m not meaning it as an insult, but rather using the term it was used as, out of respect for the early Catholic fathers, who also used the term to describe them, in order to ‘specifically’ address these books, when comparing them to the books in Protestant Bibles. That’s all.

I empathize that people don’t have time to rewrite what others have said, so they post links. However, it’s not that I don’t read the links. It’s that when I click on them, & skim the articles, it’s stuff I have seen many times before. Also, I hope you can empathize with me, that since I can’t do the same, by putting noncatholic links to support my position, I ‘must’ retype everything, which I don’t mind doing.

 

[BornAgainRN]

What Hebrew “canon” did Jesus acknowledge explicitly. Provide your source for an authoritative Hebrew canon from before the time of Jesus.

There was none. There were only collections of scrolls. Some were large collections, others were smaller. Some included multiple copies of the same book (with small variations in text, no less). The Essenes at Qumran (keepers of the Dead Sea Scrolls) had several slightly different copies of Isaiah, for example, and regarded all of those copies as canonical. They also had deuterocanonical (Tobit, Sirach), apocryphal (Jubilees, additional psalms) and pseudoepigraphical (Enoch) works in Hebrew and regarded them as canonical, as well.

Jesus acknowledged the Hebrew canon as authoritative (which was completed around 430 B.C.) by referring to them in passages like Luke 11:49-51; 24:27; 24:44-45, etc., but He never acknowledged the ‘Deuterocanonical’ books as being authoritative. Although He read out of the Septuagint (which contained it), Jesus, nor any Bible writer, acknowledged or quoted from it. And even though Jude quoted from Enoch, he didn’t say the book was authoritative, & although not every OT book was quoted (only 2 weren’t), by Jesus acknowledging the Hebrew canon in the passages from Luke, Jesus was declaring them to be authoritative.