The Holy Bible (origin\compilation)

[protestantman]

To further my last point:

Jesus made references to farming, and sees, weeds, salt, etc. Yet you do not include books about farming or plants in the Bible.

What makes these 7 books edifying. How is it that the word is incomplete without them?

 

[protestantman]

Four Criteria for Canonicity
(why certain books were eventually accepted into the NT Canon, while others were rejected):

1. 
   *]Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
   *]Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
   *]Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
   *]Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).
   There were, for example, 15 “books of Acts” floating around, so I don’t buy the theory that individual believers automatically knew which books were inspired and which weren’t because the Holy Spirit told them and not those who were BIBLICALLY ordained with BIBLICAL authority. They went by strict criteria, and led by the Holy Spirit, not opinions.
   
   List of books accepted and rejected:
   scborromeo.org/truth/fig4.htm

1. 
   I am asking for specifics of OT deuterocanonal books, not NT books.

 

[scylla]

The text of Hebrews 11:35 is non specific. A few verses prior is evidence of that. Thus I cannot be sure that this is or is not a reference to the Septuagint.

I am pretty sure that it cannot reference any other part of the Old Testament, so it really does specifically reference the one reference that matches the account.

But why not accept it, there is no reason not to is there? The majority of Christians do accept it, it is just a recent tradition not to, unless you are a Jew.

It then boils down to who has the authority to decide? And as you do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church it is understandable to reject those books. But then you can accept them, as who has the authority to decide that they are not in Scripture?

God Bless
Scylla

 

[jmcrae]

To further my last point:

Jesus made references to farming, and sees, weeds, salt, etc. Yet you do not include books about farming or plants in the Bible.

What makes these 7 books edifying. How is it that the word is incomplete without them?

Because they are on the Liturgical calendar (and have been since the time of the Essenes, although obviously the Essenes weren’t using them in defence of Christian doctrine) - the Liturgical calendar tells us what readings to read out in public on those days. The Liturgical calendar shows us a kind of a cycle of Christ’s incarnation, life, death, and resurrection, and these particular readings enhance the other readings that are read on the same day, illuminating their meaning.

The original purpose of the canon of Scripture was to determine which books can be read from in the Liturgy. The 46 books of the Old Testament were presumed to be canonical because they were already on the Liturgical calendar.

 

[protestantman]

I am pretty sure that it cannot reference any other part of the Old Testament, so it really does specifically reference the one reference that matches the account.

It is also possible that it was a reference to something that was from other writtings.

But why not accept it, there is no reason not to is there? The majority of Christians do accept it, it is just a recent tradition not to, unless you are a Jew.

Because the scripture is Holy, it requires great care. The punishment is severe for altering the word of God. This said, I am not saying that I am unwilling to accept it. What is it these books have, that cannot be found in any other part of scripture? Why are they neccesary? Each of the 66 books that I have, all have something that cannot be gained from the others.

It then boils down to who has the authority to decide? And as you do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church it is understandable to reject those books. But then you can accept them, as who has the authority to decide that they are not in Scripture?

The same one who has the authority to judge. But I am not here to question there authority, so much as I just want information about them.

 

[protestantman]

Because they are on the Liturgical calendar (and have been since the time of the Essenes, although obviously the Essenes weren’t using them in defence of Christian doctrine) - the Liturgical calendar tells us what readings to read out in public on those days. The Liturgical calendar shows us a kind of a cycle of Christ’s incarnation, life, death, and resurrection, and these particular readings enhance the other readings that are read on the same day, illuminating their meaning.

The original purpose of the canon of Scripture was to determine which books can be read from in the Liturgy. The 46 books of the Old Testament were presumed to be canonical because they were already on the Liturgical calendar.

The word I highlighted is what I dont like. This word is dangerous when speaking about the Holy word of God.

 

[jmcrae]

The word I highlighted is what I dont like. This word is dangerous when speaking about the Holy word of God.

They were on the calendar. The calendar was set up by the Apostles. (They took it from the Jews, without changing it. The New Testament didn’t exist yet.) Therefore, we may presume that the Apostles thought they were appropriate to be read out at the Liturgy.

The Bible is a set of books that are appropriate to be read out at the Liturgy. Therefore, books that are already included on the Liturgical calendar are appropriate to include in the Bible.

 

[protestantman]

They were on the calendar. The calendar was set up by the Apostles. Therefore, we may presume that the Apostles thought they were appropriate to be read out at the Liturgy.

Who specifically created the first calander?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I am asking for specifics of OT deuterocanonal books, not NT books.

Are you aware that the NT contains deutercanonical books as well? Why are they acceptable to you in the NT but not the OT?

 

[jmcrae]

Who specifically created the first calander?

King Josiah. (II Chronicles 34, 35)

Obviously, his commandment to read the Scriptures out to the people every day referred only to the Penteteuch, but his was the original Liturgical calendar from which we derive the one that we continue to use in the Catholic Church, even until today.

 

[protestantman]

Are you aware that the NT contains deutercanonical books as well? Why are they acceptable to you in the NT but not the OT?

Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom
Sirach
Baruch

These books came before the NT

 

[po18guy]

To further my last point:

Jesus made references to farming, and sees, weeds, salt, etc. Yet you do not include books about farming or plants in the Bible.

What makes these 7 books edifying. How is it that the word is incomplete without them?

Well, the edited bible (66 books) that many use is a very recent (in Christianity) arrival. Shouldn’t we, in fact, question the authority of those who have removed the books? I know it’s not our natural impulse, but the debating, arguing and prayer that went into formulating the canon those many centuries ago must be relied on, or we end up doubting and eventually throwing the entire bible out. And, we cannot do that. It is a seamless garment. One rip, and the fabric begins to unravel.

Christ’s peace, brother.

 

[jmcrae]

Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom
Sirach
Baruch

These books came before the NT

Don’t forget chapters 10-16 of Esther, and three sections of Daniel: Daniel 3:24-90, Daniel 13, and Daniel 14.

The Deuterocanon of the New Testament is Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Apocalypse (Revelation), Mark 16:19-20, Luke 22:43-44, John 5:4, and John 8:1-11.

The question was, if it’s okay to reject the Deuterocanon of the Old Testament, then why isn’t it okay to reject the Deuterocanon of the New Testament?

 

[protestantman]

King Josiah. (II Chronicles 34, 35)

Obviously, his commandment to read the Scriptures out to the people every day referred only to the Penteteuch, but his was the original Liturgical calendar from which we derive the one that we continue to use in the Catholic Church, even until today.

Which verse is it were he made that command?
Who changed it from only reading the Penteteuch and why?

 

[po18guy]

Don’t forget chapters 10-16 of Esther, and three sections of Daniel: Daniel 3:24-90, Daniel 13, and Daniel 14.

The Deuterocanon of the New Testament is Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Apocalypse (Revelation), Mark 16:19-20, Luke 22:43-44, John 5:4, and John 8:1-11.

The question was, if it’s okay to reject the Deuterocanon of the Old Testament, then why isn’t it okay to reject the Deuterocanon of the New Testament?

Excellent point on Revelation. No one is willing to edit it out, although there was fierce debate over its inclusion. It is a shock to discover that there is more bible than we’ve been lead to believe.

Christ’s peace.

 

[jmcrae]

Which verse is it were he made that command?

It doesn’t say “Liturgical calendar” in those specific words, but we see that he did so, because we suddenly see him observing the Jewish Liturgical year right after uncovering the Penteteuch and determining its function, and we see him exhorting them to read out the Scriptures every day to the people.

Who changed it from only reading the Penteteuch and why?

I don’t know, off-hand, but we see in the Book of Acts that the early Christians were attending Synagogue services and hearing the daily readings. We also know that the earliest Christian liturgical calendars were lifted whole out of the Synagogue tradition, and that the New Testament readings were added gradually.

 

[protestantman]

Don’t forget chapters 10-16 of Esther, and three sections of Daniel: Daniel 3:24-90, Daniel 13, and Daniel 14.

The Deuterocanon of the New Testament is Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Apocalypse (Revelation), Mark 16:19-20, Luke 22:43-44, John 5:4, and John 8:1-11.

The question was, if it’s okay to reject the Deuterocanon of the Old Testament, then why isn’t it okay to reject the Deuterocanon of the New Testament?

Each must stand on its own. For instance, I like fries from Mcdonalds, that doesn’t mean I like everything from Mcdonalds. Besides, they all have different authors. The author is a very important aspect. Who wrote the OT Deuterocanon books? It is important that the authors were spirit led.

 

[jmcrae]

Each must stand on its own. For instance, I like fries from Mcdonalds, that doesn’t mean I like everything from Mcdonalds. Besides, they all have different authors. The author is a very important aspect. Who wrote the OT Deuterocanon books? It is important that the authors were spirit led.

Well, the Pharisees thought they were, and so did the Apostles. As for me, I think Anne of Green Gables is “spirit led” so don’t let me in to be the judge - I trust the Apostles to have known what they were doing, and I cheerfully abide by their decision.

 

[protestantman]

Well, the Pharisees thought they were, and so did the Apostles. As for me, I think Anne of Green Gables is “spirit led” so don’t let me in to be the judge - I trust the Apostles to have known what they were doing, and I cheerfully abide by their decision.

Point well taken, but I would still like to know who wrote the 7 books in question, and which apostles first accepted them into the calender.

 

[protestantman]

I don’t know, off-hand, but we see in the Book of Acts that the early Christians were attending Synagogue services and hearing the daily readings. We also know that the earliest Christian liturgical calendars were lifted whole out of the Synagogue tradition, and that the New Testament readings were added gradually.

How do you know that the Apostles included them with scripture, and not just alternate reading?