The Holy Bible (origin\compilation)

[savienu]

I will read them myself before I would say either way. Like I said, I have not even seen these books.

That’s fair enough. I would go to a bookstore and get your hand on a Bible containing the deuterocanonical texts and read them. They are referenced in the New Testament, although I will admit I’m no Bible scholar and I can’t think of specific places where they are right now.

 

[DJR]

Under what criteria were these books accepted?Who first accepted them? Did Christ or the Apostles ever make a spefic reference to these books?

There are no direct quotes, by Christ or the apostles, of the OT Deuterocanonical books, but that is not a criterion for accepting their canonicity, as there are other OT books accepted by Catholics and Protestants alike that neither Christ nor the apostles quoted from, e.g., Esther.

The way a Catholic accepts any book as being inspired, whether NT or OT, is only by the authority of the Catholic Church, as there is no other method to know with certainty which books should be found in the Bible. That’s one reason why Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura.

If Sola Scriptura were true, then the Bible would be the sole method of gaining the knowledge of which books should be in the Bible, but the Bible does not contain that information. And even if it did, one would first have to arrive at the conclusion that the book where that information is found belongs in the Bible, which is circular.

The canon of the Bible comes from oral tradition only, and as between Catholics and Protestants, the question becomes: Whose oral tradition is correct? However, believing in an oral tradition contradicts the very basis of Sola Scriptura. By what method does a Protestant come to the conclusion that there are 66 books in the Bible? The Protestant must show chapter and verse, and use the Bible only, if he/she wants to adhere to Sola Scriptura. Otherwise, he/she is merely taking someone’s opinion on the matter.

The question is: What is God’s opinion on what constitutes Sacred Scripture? Using the Bible alone, which is the only place a Protestant can legitimately go for the answer, how does the Protestant answer that question?

In any event, no one has a complete Bible, not even the Catholic Church. Some parts of Sacred Scripture are missing. For an example, see 1 Corinthians 5:9 (KJV): “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators.”

That statement is from Saint Paul’s so-called first epistle, but it demonstrates that there was a prior epistle written by Saint Paul to the Corinthians.

Also see James, chapter 4:5 (KJV): Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?

That quote is found nowhere else in the Bible, but Saint James calls it Scripture. Therefore, there is more to the Bible than what we have, which I would think would be a problematic thing for those who believe in Sola Scriptura. Their sole rule of faith is incomplete, so how do they know what else they should believe? What is contained in those missing inspired books?

May God bless you in your search for Truth.

 

[Ignatius]

Under what criteria were these books accepted?

Who first accepted them?
Did Christ or the Apostles ever make a spefic reference to these books?

Yes, it is the canon of the Septuagent version. Most authorities knowledgable about this believe that this was the version almost universally used in Asia minor during the time of Christ. It is also the canon subsequently used up until about 1830, when the deuterocanonical books were removed.

Now a question for you. What happened in the early 1800’s that justifies removing the books which were part of the Bible since before Christ? I don’t know of anything other than plain human hubris.

 

[mackbrislawn]

That they were useful for instruction, reproof, and the building up of the faith.

I don’t really know. They were in general use during the time of Jesus. Most likely it would have been the rabbis of post-captivity Israel.

Someone has a list of the New Testament references to these books; hopefully, I can find it for you. The Early Church was referring to them constantly, since they are full of very explicit prophecies about the Messiah. I mean, how could anybody read the Book of Wisdom and not say, “Hey! That’s Jesus!!” :bounce:

I have a book that lists four pages of citations from the New Testament that allude to the these books. This book is even written by a Baptist pastor; he calls these books the apochrypha and pseudopigrapha. Actually, these are standard terms in use by scholars.

So there are a host of NT references to these books. Of course, someone not familiar with these books would have no idea that when the NT mentions them that that is what it is doing.