M
MDK
Guest
Why would the Holy Spirit be limited to working in Hebrew? It’s difficult to see any general credibility from what you post, due to your failure to recognize the greatest Truth ever to walk the earth.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 Machabees, 2 Machabees, are the 7 books taken out from the Bible by the reformers
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
That’s what they were known as in the west.Why have the Deuterocanonical Books been called apocrypha by Protestant Churches (and apparently the Anglican Church too(the Low Church, not the High Church) )?
That word itself would be enough for many not to consider them legitimately part of Holy Scriptures, would it not?
For instance read Jeromes prefaces in the Vulgate.
The term deuterocanonicals was coined once the decrees of the Council of Trent were appealed to for their being authoritative.
So apocrypha is the historical term, deuterocanonical a relatively new one.
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
The Council of Jabneh theory is pretty well dicounted now. It was promoted a lot for a short period of time, but it’s fallen out of favor for the simple reason there really isn’t any evidence the Council of Jabneh ever really considered the question of canon.Council of Jabneh
The so-called "Council of Jabneh" was a group of Jewish scholars who were granted permission by Rome around the year 90 to meet in Palestine near the Mediterranean Sea in Jabneh (or Jamnia). Here they established a non-authoritative, “reconstituted” Sanhedrin.
Among the things they discussed was the status of several questionable writings in the Jewish Bible. They also rejected the Christian writings and made a new translation of the Greek Septuagint.
According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the “council” in Jabneh in 90 was not even an “official” council with binding authority to make such a decision:
"After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it"
(ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861]).
Best evidence is the Jewish canon was established about the time of Jeremiah or Maccabees. No certainty, but it pretty well clearly predated Christ.
The Council of Jabneh theory seems mostly to live on in internet discussions, it’s really unfair to use it as much proof of anything. For the reason that no one ever appealed to it for anything. One man came up with the theory and did quite a job of promoting it.
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
It’s important because there’s quite a history of people making fake documents. The entire decretal is brought into question because the copies we have have a quote that occurred later than it is possible for it to have if it’s genuine.How is this important?
Now maybe the quote is an addition, but then how does one know what is an addition and what is not.
It doesn’t seem on very solid footing to start with because due to the timing, if such a thing had been decided, it seems strange indeed that Jerome seems oblivious to it, and the back and forth between him on which books to include doesn’t mention the decretal that I’ve ever heard.
So it looks very likely to be one more of the false decretals that were used to influence people.
M
MDK
Guest
It’s ironic that a Protestant would want to discuss history, because going back before the printing press, we find no Protestantism. So, historically speaking, Protestantism does not exist. And, according to truth, God did not make Protestantism. Protestantism should not exist. We know who started that movement to protest God’s Church that was sprung from His side at Calvary, and the Church of which Christ established Peter as the Rock. BTW, that same office of head Bishop established by Christ approved that ecclesial communities born of the “reformation” are not proper “churches” due to lacking a sacramental priesthood. We know who started the Protestant ecclesial communities, and it was men who are not also God.That’s what they were known as in the west.
For instance read Jeromes prefaces in the Vulgate.
The term deuterocanonicals was coined once the decrees of the Council of Trent were appealed to for their being authoritative.
So apocrypha is the historical term, deuterocanonical a relatively new one.
So, in true Protestant form, the truth is not chosen, but rather what one prefers. The Holy Spirit put these books in the canon. Catholicism is about the truth, and the truth is that they are not apocrypha, but the more accurate name is deuterocanon. The Catholic Church is protected by the Holy Spirit in matters such as this. Protestantism has only to rely on their founders, who were heretics.
M
MDK
Guest
This is false in reality, and true in Protestantism (because Protestantism is not reality). It is simply falsehood to say the Jewish canon was closed before Christ.The Council of Jabneh theory is pretty well dicounted now. It was promoted a lot for a short period of time, but it’s fallen out of favor for the simple reason there really isn’t any evidence the Council of Jabneh ever really considered the question of canon.
Best evidence is the Jewish canon was established about the time of Jeremiah or Maccabees. No certainty, but it pretty well clearly predated Christ.
The Council of Jabneh theory seems mostly to live on in internet discussions, it’s really unfair to use it as much proof of anything. For the reason that no one ever appealed to it for anything. One man came up with the theory and did quite a job of promoting it.
M
Murray1105
Guest
The Roman cannon has never changed in 2000 years. Wycliffe(a catholic dubbed the morning star of the reformation) changed the new testament cannon. Luther omitted these books and a few new testament books like Revelation, Hebrews, and James. He later put them back(before the release of his bible translation) by the request of some of his contemporaries. The Geneva and 1611 King James Bibles included the entire roman cannon and added 1st and 2nd esdras and prayer of manassah. and those were the primary english bibles for protestants for about a centuary when the cannon was changed once again to the jewish cannon. Which was formed in response to and to seperate from the christian movement. How does a protestant stand by the bible alone when its been changed so many times? I dont mean to be a protestant basher, But I have asked many protestants this question and gotten no response. Most just change the subject. I just want an honest answer on how this can be justified.
<sigh>The Roman cannon has never changed in 2000 years. Wycliffe(a catholic dubbed the morning star of the reformation) changed the new testament cannon. Luther omitted these books and a few new testament books like Revelation, Hebrews, and James. He later put them back(before the release of his bible translation) by the request of some of his contemporaries.
Why would he go through the effort of translating them if it was his intent to exclude them?
Luther never omitted any of the books of the Bible, at least as it is known in the west. His translation into German, which was completed in 1534, included all the books, including the D-C books, which he listed in an appendix after the OT. His translation of the NT always had all the books, including Revelations, Hebrews, etc.
Jon
M
Murray1105
Guest
They were not listed in the table of contents of his 1523 Old Testament, and they were given the well-known title: “Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read” in the 1534 Bible. Perhaps I am wrong about the omission of Rev, jude, Hebrew, and James. So for arguments sake I will say I was. However I know He omitted the apocrypha in his first translation. The complete luther bible was not done until 1534 but it was an update to his previous translation. He also claimed “james was an epistle of straw” and about Revelation he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.” But needless to say all I want to know is how a christian justifies “sola scriptura” when they added a few books and then got rid of them and more? I am a catholic convert from the Wesleyan church. I have lots of love for protestants. I am one of only two catholics in my family now. The rest are all protestant. No one has given me a legitimate reason for changing what has always been the cannon of the christian bible. These unanswered questions are what led me to the catholic church.
I’m not sure what the bolded question means.They were not listed in the table of contents of his 1523 Old Testament, and they were given the well-known title: “Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read” in the 1534 Bible. Perhaps I am wrong about the omission of Rev, jude, Hebrew, and James. So for arguments sake I will say I was. However I know He omitted the apocrypha in his first translation. The complete luther bible was not done until 1534 but it was an update to his previous translation. He also claimed “james was an epistle of straw” and about Revelation he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.” **But needless to say all I want to know is how a christian justifies “sola scriptura” when they added a few books and then got rid of them and more? **I am a catholic convert from the Wesleyan church. I have lots of love for protestants. I am one of only two catholics in my family now. The rest are all protestant. No one has given me a legitimate reason for changing what has always been the cannon of the christian bible. These unanswered questions are what led me to the catholic church.
Perhaps this article, admittedly apologetic, will help. It may not change your mind (which isn’t my intention, anyway), but it does tell you what Luther did, why he did it, and that what he did was no different than what many scholars did - with Church permission - through the centuries, beginning with St Jerome. The debate on canonicity was closed - for Catholics - by Trent, which happened after Luther died.
You can criticize Protestants today, sadly including American Lutherans, for not including the d-c in their Bibles, but Luther did little different than others of his time and prior. He was not the first, by any means, to criticize the d-c, and those 3 or 4 NT books.
ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm
Jon
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
A long standing position you have there. Martin Chemnitz for one was quite good at setting aside that arguement. For instance in his Examination of the Council of Trent. Repeatedly it was shown that it was the Lutherans who were consistent with the historical faith and it was Rome that was wandering.It’s ironic that a Protestant would want to discuss history, because going back before the printing press, we find no Protestantism. So, historically speaking, Protestantism does not exist. And, according to truth, God did not make Protestantism. Protestantism should not exist. We know who started that movement to protest God’s Church that was sprung from His side at Calvary, and the Church of which Christ established Peter as the Rock. BTW, that same office of head Bishop established by Christ approved that ecclesial communities born of the “reformation” are not proper “churches” due to lacking a sacramental priesthood. We know who started the Protestant ecclesial communities, and it was men who are not also God.
So, in true Protestant form, the truth is not chosen, but rather what one prefers. The Holy Spirit put these books in the canon. Catholicism is about the truth, and the truth is that they are not apocrypha, but the more accurate name is deuterocanon. The Catholic Church is protected by the Holy Spirit in matters such as this. Protestantism has only to rely on their founders, who were heretics.
That is why they were called reformers, they didn’t start a new church, they reformed and restored the church.
The answer to your objection was given centuries ago.
Deuterocanon wasn’t even used as a word at the time of Luther. It’s an innovation after the fact to try and change history.
M
Murray1105
Guest
I know there was debate over the old testament cannon. St. Jerome even questioned it. The council of trent only restated the cannon as defined in the councils of Hippo and Carthage. My question is not so much with luther because my understanding is by the time his bible was made public it had the same cannon as catholic bibles and was a very accurate translation.(with the excaption of the addition of the word “alone” in romans 3:28) My question primarily directed to the early english reformers that produced the geneva and king james bibles. in the geneva and 1611 king james bibles the cannon grew larger than the catholic cannon by adding 1st and 2nd Esdras and The Prayer Of Manassah. Then the protestant church’s removed them and went to the jewish cannon. so protestants first added to what had always been the bible and then removed from it. I would like to know why? I have heard many debates over the roman cannon, But I have never heard a defense of the early protestant cannons. How can Someone believe in the bible alone when the bible has changed so drastically in such a short time. Those christians who believed in the bible alone until a few hundred years ago believed that their bible was correct. Their ancestors however said they were wrong. I just would like to hear a defense of the addition to the cannon, and then how to relate the changing of cannon with “sola scriptura”.
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
Well the canon has always been closed, since the time of Deuteronomy at least, God forbid adding to scripture. It’s always been closed.This is false in reality, and true in Protestantism (because Protestantism is not reality). It is simply falsehood to say the Jewish canon was closed before Christ.
But that didn’t mean God couldn’t add, it’s man who cannot add.
Sure, there were discussions about the canon over the years. But then does a discussion mean the canon is open? If so, I would say this Forum would prove an open canon of scripture today. The canon must have been open during Vatican II, after all they discussed canon, right?
The canon today is the same as the Pharisees used at the time of Jesus, it hasn’t changed. The existence of sects that didn’t agree or that there were discussions doesn’t change that fact.
We don’t have good conclusive evidence for it, and that leads to a lot of speculation which is necessary for any conclusion that would say definitely canon was set by a particular group or at a particular time.
Now for evidence that the canon was set or at least that the canon was pretty well set at the time of Jeremiah, I would refer you to Sirach. The books of Maccabees have evidence that leads some to say that it was they who set a canon.
But I guess to you, Sirach and Maccabees are simply liars. Not evidence to be weighed, but simply to be ignored because you’ve been told to believe otherwise.
I could understand why the imperative in 4 Esdras to stick to the 24 books for most people, would be ignored by you, after all, since it became customary after Trent to drop it completely it’s nothing, not even evidence.
But I guess since I read and study those books, well that just makes me a liar.
M
Murray1105
Guest
The jewish cannon was being debated before christ and after christ. The Sadducees and pharisees disagreed. The Sadducees only belived in the torah.(first five books of moses) The pharisees accepted more. The jews in exile who wrote the dead sea scrolls included other books as well in their cannon like enoch,jubilees,sirach, and tobit. in fact jubilees was considered the sixth book of the torah for them. For the Greek speaking jews the septuagint was the cannon. There was never an offical cannon for the jews until after christianity seperated from the jewish tradition. I think there is much value in all of the books in cannon or not though. Everything in the Bible is true, but not everything that is true is in the Bible.I still just want to know why the 1611 king james and geneva bibles have a bigger cannon than the catholic bible and were later downsized?
M
MDK
Guest
May I appeal to a sense of decency here. No fair minded person would consider an appendix appearance as a legitimate part of the canon. So, please let’s not pretend it means something it did not. He took them out of the canon, did he not?<sigh>
Why would he go through the effort of translating them if it was his intent to exclude them?
Luther never omitted any of the books of the Bible, at least as it is known in the west. His translation into German, which was completed in 1534, included all the books, including the D-C books, which he listed in an appendix after the OT. His translation of the NT always had all the books, including Revelations, Hebrews, etc.
Jon
Lest we pretend that Luther was the first to translate to German, copies of the Bible already existed in German. Luther made his own version of the Bible, without any authority from God to do so.
M
MDK
Guest
This is just such a poor piece of work in content including “facts”, conclusions and in tone from start to finish, there is really nothing decent in it to respond to.Well the canon has always been closed, since the time of Deuteronomy at least, God forbid adding to scripture. It’s always been closed.
But that didn’t mean God couldn’t add, it’s man who cannot add.
Sure, there were discussions about the canon over the years. But then does a discussion mean the canon is open? If so, I would say this Forum would prove an open canon of scripture today. The canon must have been open during Vatican II, after all they discussed canon, right?
The canon today is the same as the Pharisees used at the time of Jesus, it hasn’t changed. The existence of sects that didn’t agree or that there were discussions doesn’t change that fact.
We don’t have good conclusive evidence for it, and that leads to a lot of speculation which is necessary for any conclusion that would say definitely canon was set by a particular group or at a particular time.
Now for evidence that the canon was set or at least that the canon was pretty well set at the time of Jeremiah, I would refer you to Sirach. The books of Maccabees have evidence that leads some to say that it was they who set a canon.
But I guess to you, Sirach and Maccabees are simply liars. Not evidence to be weighed, but simply to be ignored because you’ve been told to believe otherwise.
I could understand why the imperative in 4 Esdras to stick to the 24 books for most people, would be ignored by you, after all, since it became customary after Trent to drop it completely it’s nothing, not even evidence.
But I guess since I read and study those books, well that just makes me a liar.
It’s actually kind of funny that the Lutheran makes claims recognizing the authenticity of Sirach and Maccabees, but then doing what Protestants do in distorting the meanings of Scriptures to come up with what they want regardless of truth.
I will only say that lying makes one a liar. You could benefit from some serious self-examination, and if that shoe fits, I would recommend a different pair of shoes.
M
MDK
Guest
Historical revisioninsm… not just a sport with the Protestants… it’s a livelihood.A long standing position you have there. Martin Chemnitz for one was quite good at setting aside that arguement. For instance in his Examination of the Council of Trent. Repeatedly it was shown that it was the Lutherans who were consistent with the historical faith and it was Rome that was wandering.
That is why they were called reformers, they didn’t start a new church, they reformed and restored the church.
The answer to your objection was given centuries ago.
Deuterocanon wasn’t even used as a word at the time of Luther. It’s an innovation after the fact to try and change history.
If accurate terms were used, they would be labeled correctly as “deformers.” They deformed God’s doctrines when they needed no such change in doctrine nor Sacraments. There was bad adherence to the doctrine by many men in God’s Church, but the doctrine was fine, and still is. As a result of arrogance against God’s doctrine, Lutherans now have only two Sacraments. Noteworthy that these only Sacraments of Lutheran ecclesial community being Baptism and Marriage can be performed by any Justice of the Peace. The Lutheran faith system doesn’t serve anyone as well as they serve it, propping it up where it does not deserve to be. God didn’t make it, but men did by rejecting God’s word in favor of their own. Some who truly love God more than their pride will find their way out of Lutheranism.
By listing and printing them in a different order is not the same as removing them. His doing so did not reflect an opinion that was not held in many quarters, including Cardinal Cajetan. I am not aware that the early council insisted the books be printed in a spceific order, and Luther was not under the standars set by Trent.=MDK;5385976]May I appeal to a sense of decency here. No fair minded person would consider an appendix appearance as a legitimate part of the canon. So, please let’s not pretend it means something it did not. He took them out of the canon, did he not?
Again: Luther did nothing in this way that violated Church practice of his time.
How do you know whether or not God gave His authority? He may not have had the Catholic Church’s authority, but he didn’t need it since, via papal bull, he was no longer under the authority of the Catholic Church. Unless, of course, you are saying that no one has God’s authority to print a Bible unless they have Rome’s permission.Lest we pretend that Luther was the first to translate to German, copies of the Bible already existed in German. Luther made his own version of the Bible, without any authority from God to do so
Jon
M
Murray1105
Guest
Again: Luther did nothing in this way that violated Church practice of his time.
He did Violate church practice. His first bible in 1523 omitted the books completely He changed this in the 1534 edition. Luther also “added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: “thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith” The word “alone” does not appear in the original Greek text, but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb “alone” was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul’s intended meaning”. That’s from wikipedia and gives the sources for that if anyone wants to look. But if the catholoic church ever changed the scripture of cannon at all, protestants would be ready to hang us with a noose.(many do who believe we changed it.) I won’t argue if luther was inspired by god or not. But the facts are he did violate over 1000 years of church practice. He did remove them at first but later changed that. The order of the books isnt really all that important. It’s the content and proper translations that matter. We catholics have made many mistakes throughout history. If we Catholics didn’t abuse certain doctrines in Luthers time, the reformation would most likely never have happened. But our failure led to the reformation. The reformers failed also. Nobodys hands are clean. Pope John Paul II brought the church to its knees so we could confess to the whole world we are sorry for any of our failures. Facts are Facts. dont get offended by them or try to hide the dirty laundry or justify the mistakes others have made. Luther did and said some horrible things. So did the rest of the Reformers and plenty of Catholics.
He did Violate church practice. His first bible in 1523 omitted the books completely He changed this in the 1534 edition
- Status
- Not open for further replies.