E
edkw55
Guest
I apologize for being so sarcastic.
- Status
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
No worries Ed. No offense taken.
It is still incredulous to me that you can say that God inspired the canon at those early councils, but then reject the canon that said early church came up with.
That was one of the first realizations in my conversion.
E
edkw55
Guest
You and the above poster have made a good point. I don’t quite know what to say actually.
God’s blessings,
Ed
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Perhaps we were talking past each other or assuming you had seen such lists.
All lists of books of the Bible, prior to 1540, have this list as was referenced above.
The first book printed on the printing press, the bible, had all 73 books.
Most protestant pastors I spoke with as I converted on this issue, acknowledged that they probably should be in there, but it was not their tradition to have them.
Sadly, that sounds like they are following the wrong tradition.
I had one pastor, when I challenged him on how we can know the Bible is complete and accurate, say to me, " in studying the early church the men who compiled the Bible were really discerning and prayerful and I am confident God led them to compile the correct books"
I then presented him the list of said books from said council and asked why my Bibke did not reflect that list.
He looked like this.
“Ummm. Ummmmm. Let me get back to you”
When he did it was, “it’s not part of our tradition, and the Jews don’t have those books”
To which I replied “are we Jewish or Christian”
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
This link might help you Ed
It has within it a list of at least 5 early church lists of the canon that show it with the 73 books.
catholic.com/quickquestions/didnt-the-catholic-church-add-to-the-bible
I also found this video extremely informative and I crossed checked a lot if it.
youtu.be/PjvXbotd9Lw
It has within it a list of at least 5 early church lists of the canon that show it with the 73 books.
catholic.com/quickquestions/didnt-the-catholic-church-add-to-the-bible
I also found this video extremely informative and I crossed checked a lot if it.
youtu.be/PjvXbotd9Lw
A
adf417
Guest
If I can add to this Jon - the book “Why-Catholic-Bibles-are-Bigger” by Gary Michuta. Its a more in depth look with many citations into everything you have been stating.
Peace be with you ED and thank you for having a truly open mind!
B
benhur
Guest
I think so. I am thinking of how Luther was also “cornered” into a tough position where a decision was to be made and he could not forfeit his differing convictions that he claims were founded on scripture…Good call Ed.
B
benhur
Guest
Amen.
B
benhur
Guest
There is a book or should be , "Why My Bible Is Smaller " detailing all the reasons. Melito, bishop of Sardis around 170 AD did not have the extra books (but also did not have Esther.) Bishop of Caesaria Eusebius recommended his list. Philo, Josephus did not regard Apocrypha as canonical. Epiphanius, bishop of Salarmis in Cyrus references second century list of 39 books. The Hebrew bible itself does not have the extra books. Not sure if Jesus or apostles or NT quotes any Apocryphal books but do most, but not all, the undisputed books. One verse might have a reference to one of the disputed books. Jerome included the disputed books in Vulgate, but doubted them and understood grounds for disputation but understood allegiance to church’s wishes to include them (yet he was the “scholar” ). Maybe he did so as the Septuagint did or first KJV but not as canonical but as for “spiritual reading”…So it is not a protestant canon, the 39.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
As has been mentioned prior to 395, there were lots of varied lists. NONE of them reflect the Protestant Bible.
Melito’s list includes Wisdom and deletes Esther and has no New Testament listed.
Scholars have shown that over 80% of the New Testament quotes the Septuagint. There are many references of the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament. Even Jesus celebrated as a religious holiday, Channakuh which is found in the book of Maccabees.
But regardless quoting in the New Testament is a poor judge of validity as the following books of the Protestant Old Testament are not quoted;
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum and Zephaniah.
Check out this link for all the references: scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
Maybe Gary Michudos book should be re titled “Why Protestant Bibles are Smaller” for selling in Protestant book stores.
The truth really is there aren’t many Protestants aware if this issue let alone concerned by it. It is not ever explained to them in any way sometimes not even in their seminaries.
So your choice of books largely is;
- Catholic Books in defense of us “adding books to the Bible”
- secular historians which corroborate the above.
- Protestant anti catholic polemics and books requiring mental gymnastics.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Many protestants won’t even address the argument. More than once when I mention these facts, I have heard: 1)“I’m not going to look further into it” 2)“I don’t need to know history to study the Bible” 3)“These are distractions from having a personal relationship with Jesus”As has been mentioned prior to 395, there were lots of varied lists. NONE of them reflect the Protestant Bible.
Melito’s list includes Wisdom and deletes Esther and has no New Testament listed.
Scholars have shown that over 80% of the New Testament quotes the Septuagint. There are many references of the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament. Even Jesus celebrated as a religious holiday, Channakuh which is found in the book of Maccabees.
But regardless quoting in the New Testament is a poor judge of validity as the following books of the Protestant Old Testament are not quoted;
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum and Zephaniah.
Check out this link for all the references: scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
Maybe Gary Michudos book should be re titled “Why Protestant Bibles are Smaller” for selling in Protestant book stores.
The truth really is there aren’t many Protestants aware if this issue let alone concerned by it. It is not ever explained to them in any way sometimes not even in their seminaries.
So your choice of books largely is;
- Catholic Books in defense of us “adding books to the Bible”
- secular historians which corroborate the above.
- Protestant anti catholic polemics and books requiring mental gymnastics.
Seems to me it makes many protestants uncomfortable and they would prefer to avoid the details altogether.
E
edkw55
Guest
I completely agree with you. This attitude among so many protestants has frustrated me forever, Another biggie that led me to begin considering Catholicism.
Ed
B
benjohnson
Guest
Sounds very Lutheran.
We don’t deny other authorities - Sola Scriptura only trumps when one of those other authorities goes off the rails,
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
And when there are disagreements we can just part ways and make a new denomination?Sounds very Lutheran.
We don’t deny other authorities - Sola Scriptura only trumps when one of those other authorities goes off the rails,
SS doesn’t trump anything because it is subject to human interpretation. Which is precisely why there is no list of books in the New Testament. There are plenty of mentions about the Church, the intended authority.
@SyroMalankara - That is absolutely correct! Those are exactly the responses I got when I reverted and I still get when I talk about Scriptures with my Protestant brothers. They avoid the subject at all costs.
A
adf417
Guest
Many good reasons for the formation of a council to establish a canon once and.dr all!Peace!!!
B
benjohnson
Guest
Not Lutherans - we reject denominationalism.
Now… If you could please ignore the fact that there are many Lutheran synods, I’d be obliged
Lutherans SS is a practice of the church, not of individuals.
E
edkw55
Guest
The words below are not mine. I just want to know if they are true???
Peace!!!
In the Catholic Church, “the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon” was that defined by the Council of Trent.Trent confirmed the statements of earlier and less authoritative regional councils which also included the deuterocanonical books, such as the Synod of Hippo (393), and the Councils of Carthage of 397. The Councils of Carthage and Hippo did not establish the canon for the Church as a whole. The New Catholic Encyclopedia actually affirms the fact that the Canon was not officially and authoritatively established for the Western Church until the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
I think I need to learn a lot more about the Synod of Hippo and the Councils of Carthage. I am getting a little suspicious.
Ed
E
edkw55
Guest
As a matter of fact I have no business even discussing this topic until I am much more informed…wow!!!..time to buy more books…my wife will love it for sure…
Ed
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
To properly understand this I suggest you get that book we recommended. It will have all this info in it.
First we must understand how councils and the church work.
In many cases. Things are not dogmatically declared in a council until they are being disputed.
Ie: Arius in the council of Nicea and the beliefs of the Nicene creed were not created in the 5th century, but formulated based on true Christian practice and clearly defined when challenged by the Arians.
Same with Trent and the Canon. In response to the reformers changing the Bible, the church dogmatically declared what it had always held as true.
This reinforces the councils of hippo and Carthage and others who had created lists earlier.
The lists were created to tell everyone what could be read in church as scripture. Every Bible from that time until the reformation had all 73 books.
Keep reading!
E
edkw55
Guest
I will and thanks…ed
- Status