What Church Is Most Biblical?

[jmcrae]

when i said core what i mean is ‘essential to salvation’. belief in mary’s perpetual virginity is not a requirement to salvation, is it?

In the sense that those who will go to Heaven believe this (or at least don’t not believe it, in the case of little children and others who do not have the use of reason), among other things. It’s not the most important thing, but yes, it is an essential.

 

[jmcrae]

yikes! whats he doing there???

Defending your right to freedom of (and even from) religion.

 

[Mannyfit75]

i need a second, third & 4th catholic opinion about this. (or perhaps you can quote the cathechism to support you). but before I make the thread, let me clarify one more time: are you saying that a christian who believes that mary had sex after giving birth to jesus is forfeiting his chances for salvation?

Let me uses Jesus Christ own words. He said this to his apostles. “He who hears you, hears me, he who rejects you rejects me. He who rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

The Church declare Mary to be a virgin before and after the birth of Jesus Christ. When the Church speaks, Jesus speaks also. Therefore rejecting this true is rejecting what he has taught. Jesus was given authority from the Father, His teaching is not his own, but from God, the Father.

End of Discussion. You cannot separate the teachings of the Church with that of Jesus Christ. Hence the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. He is the Head. So if a Christian deny this truth that Mary is not a virgin, then he is denying the very words of Jesus Christ himself.

First of all it was the saducees idea, not Jesus. Second in the Saducees’ scenario there were only seven husbands. In Tobit however the woman got healed by an angel, so obviously she married an 8th guy. Else the healing would have had no meaning.

Jesus also knew these books. I did quoted Maccabbees to further my case. Jesus himself was familiar with Scripture both the Hebrew Text as well as the Septuagint. You also have to take into account that there were are also Helenistic Jews in Palestine, and it was common to find Septuagint in their Temples.

maccabess was referring to the cleansing and repair of the defiled temple. got nothing to do with what jesus said.

Really so you think Jesus didn’t know about these Scriptures? Consider the fact that the Septuagint was written 300 BC. The Septuagint by the way was written by Jews who know how to speak and write Greek.

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

 

[Mannyfit75]

LOL! You are stretching it, buddy. Its like saying that since the apostles are submitters to God therefore they are muslims. muslim means submitter. ok ok! maybe i will agree that the Apostles were Catholic Muslims! And the great commission was a practice that is Islamic Catholic! Right?

No I’m not stretching it. You know Paul in his letters said this consider an event.

Hebrew 11:35

35 Women received their dead raised to life again. But others were racked, not accepting deliverance, that they might find a better resurrection.

2 Macc. 7:1-42, I could quote this but it is a long passage.

drbo.org/chapter/46007.htm

Summary: If no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows

early christians were divided on the use of these references.

Jesus said if there is any disagreement amongst you, take it to the Church. The Church did just that when 46 OT and 27 NT were announced to be Canonical in Council of Hippo and Carthage. Disagreement settled.

You forget, the pillars and foundations of early christianity were initially composed of 100% jews.

First Jews but the Gentiles overwhelm the number. This is has been show clearly in Acts. In fact the Jews were jealous of the Gentiles because Paul praised them for accepting that Jesus is the Messiah.

please, quit that age-old childish excuse already. blaming the jews for not accepting jesus. oh my goodness.

I’m not being childish here. I pretty much know that because the Jews rejected Jesus. God punished them by destroying their Holy Temple which was sacked by the Romans and millions of them were called. Feel free to read an account of the Jewish Roman Wars in the late first century.

God also said that if His people does not keep his precepts or commandments, he will hand them over to their enemies. This has been shown in the OT stories as well, and further confirmed in the NT. I don’t know how long you want to refute very claim that I made; but I will happily protect the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, which is the Church, the Household of God.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I told my Baptist friend that the Catholic Church is the most Biblical church. I asked him why he didn’t fallow some Bible passages I e-mailed him after he told me the Church doesn’t fallow the correct Ten Commandments and he didn’t answer.

1. As for being Biblical - it all depends what you mean

We are more Biblical, in a way, in that we have taken the command to exterminate unbelievers & misbelievers both very seriously and for longer than other Churches

We have

• enslaved the heathen
• enslaved negroes
• put homosexuals to death
• put witches to death
• put misbelievers to death
• applied the Levitical qualifications for admission to the priesthood - which is why any man not in perfect health has until recently not be ordainable without a dispensation (which is why the ordination of blind men has been so rare)

• all by applying the letter of parts of the Bible. Are these good ways for a Church, any Chiurch, to “be Biblical” ? Surely not. "The letter kills - it is “the Spirit [that] makes alive”.

Some parts of the Bible are not only pre-Christian in time - but also anti-Christian in spirit. Holy War & exterminating Amalekites is alright for a Christian who has no objection to imitating the policies of Adolf Hitler, but when Samuel blamed King Saul for not exterminating Amalek, he was doing nothing different from the more thorough Nazis, such as those who obliterated Lidice in 1942. The Nazis were only being faithful to their convictions; just like Samuel & Joshua. But when convictions mean misery & death for others, they need to be examined, & not accepted uncritically.

Catholic history is full of massacres by Catholics - often undertaken because of a POV which transferred the sometimes anti-Christian ethics of the OT, into the NT. Several Protestant Churches have made the same mistake. The problem is, or one of them is, that when our convictions claim to be based on something ultimate, whether Divine Revelation, or the authority of the Fate-led Fuehrer, or of a similar leader, they acquire exceptional power to be harmful, because they claim the highest of all possible sanctions.

For fallen & sinful man to claim so high a sanction is exceptionally dangerous, because this kind of sanction has exceptional power to do exceptional harm. Unless these sanctions & convictions are open to correction. But the higher the sanction, & the more all-enveloping the authority of it, the more self-inclosed the system is that it sanctions - so it becomes incapable of correction from without; it is locked up in the prison of its own fallen ego. It has become an ideology, & one that can of itself only be demonic. The Bible is a great gift - but it cannot absolutely prevent the Church from becoming imprisoned in that way, nor from adopting an ideology: there are things in the Bible that may even encourage these tendencies.

What the Church does nor need is an ideology - it needs Christ, as it needs nothing & no-one else. This is why the fact of grace alone is so vitally important - for Christ comes always on terms that are His - never on ours. Christ is alone the Saviour - not ideology, not the Bible.

1. “Being Biblical”, whatever that may amount to, is not measurable. It’s a quality - not a quantity. So it’s impossible to compete in “being Biblical” with others. This is a very good thing, because it pushes us back to faith: it is by faith that we believe that Christ is present in the Church - reason has ten thousand proofs to the contrary. “Because we are sinners, we…” - what do we do ? Rely on reason or on things we can see & measure ? No - “…we trust in Your Mercy and Love”. That is what we do.

 

[BrewMax]

:nope: Brew, you have been told over and over about this in the various threads you have visited. When you are proved wrong, you don’t respond, you just leave, go to another thread, and repeat your unhistorical claims. But for this thread’s sake, I will repeat, :yawn: and hope to get an ON TOPIC response from you.

If the church wasn’t Catholic, what was it? To which Church was St. Ignatius referring in 110 AD?

The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church.” Newadvent.org

newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

To which Church was St. Augustine referring?

*The use of the term “Catholic” to distinguish the “true” Church from heretical groups is found also in Augustine who wrote:

"In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.
"And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.
“Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should … With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
— St. Augustine (354–430): Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith[4]. *

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic

Catholic and Orthodox were one Church until Schism in 1054.

Brew, you would have a lot more credibility if you would read your history before making unsupported statements.

Better to keep quiet and be thought ignorant than to open your mouth and confirm ignorance.

Are you saying that it absolutely was not Orthodox then?

 

[BrewMax]

I am very sure.

For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him, and believeth that his mother never had sex

 

[jmcrae]

[First of all, Mary DID have other children besides Jesus. The Scriptures tell us this.

All the Scriptures tell us is that Jesus had male and female kinfolk - the phrase translated as “brothers and sisters” signifies nearest same-generation kinfolk - meaning that if he had no brothers or sisters, then they were his cousins, or step-siblings from a previous marriage of Joseph’s. But there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Mary (or Joseph, for that matter) ever had any other children.
[/quote]

 

[BrewMax]

All the Scriptures tell us is that Jesus had male and female kinfolk - the phrase translated as “brothers and sisters” signifies nearest same-generation kinfolk - meaning that if he had no brothers or sisters, then they were his cousins, or step-siblings from a previous marriage of Joseph’s. But there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Mary (or Joseph, for that matter) ever had any other children.

I disagree. Greek and Hebrew languages had words that could be translated to mean speifically sibling rather than kinfolk or cousin. The writers of Scripture knew the difference. Besides the argument of word usage, the Scriptures specifially tell us that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until Jesus was born. This proves the virgin birth but disproves the notion that Mary was perpetually virgin.

 

[dosdog]

I disagree. Greek and Hebrew languages had words that could be translated to mean speifically sibling rather than kinfolk or cousin. The writers of Scripture knew the difference. Besides the argument of word usage, the Scriptures specifially tell us that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until Jesus was born. This proves the virgin birth but disproves the notion that Mary was perpetually virgin.

First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were children of Mary.

Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called “a brother (adelphos) of Jesus.” In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm

PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY
by Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D.
cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

Martin Luther’s Devotion to Mary
Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):
web.archive.org/web/20030810025622/ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ95.HTM

 

[BrianH]

“Every time hoes hou appears in the Authorized Version of the New Testament, (the OT Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew original, is irrelevant) it DOES indicate the previous activity (or lack of activity in this particular case) stops or changes.”

Mat 18:30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

Mat 26:36 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. (hoes hou was translated “while” here)

Luk 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

Luk 13:21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Act 23:12 And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.

Act 25:21 But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar.

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

 

[Mannyfit75]

BrewMax:

First of all, Mary DID have other children besides Jesus. The Scriptures tell us this. Secondly, Tobit is NOT God inspired Scripture. I know that you must believe that the apocrypha is inspired Scripture to be in grace with the Catholic church. That fortunately is not my burden to carry. There are countless errors of many kinds in the apocrypha. God’s inspired word simply does not contain errors such as these. Enough on the apocrypha though, it is for another thread. I apologize

Yes, the Book of Tobit is inspired. The Apostles used it, Jesus use it, and the ECF used it. Even Paul said in 2 Timothy 3:16 said this clearly:

All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

When Paul wrote this, the Scripture included both the Hebrew Scripture and the Septuagint. The Jews did not have a closed of Canon of Scripture until 90 AD in the Council of Jamnia. Paul’s Epistle was written around 40-50 AD. If you deny that the Book of Tobit is not inspired, then you are contradicting Paul’s word in the Letter.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Countless errors, that’s just a lie. The belief that Mary remain a virgin has been proven not only in Scripture, but in the writings of the ECF.

“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age." Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).

“For if **Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ **and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).

“But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: **I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.” **Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius, 21 (A.D. 383).

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

Those who denied that Mary remain a virgin were heretics. Jerome despite the claim and insist that Mary remain a virgin. This was the belief just as the whole of Christianity in the first Century, second Century, and thereafter believe it.

Name one Church Father who believe that Mary wasn’t Ever Virgin? You can’t find it because it was not true nor was it believed.

 

[BrewMax]

Yes, the Book of Tobit is inspired. The Apostles used it, Jesus use it, and the ECF used it. Even Paul said in 2 Timothy 3:16 said this clearly:

All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

When Paul wrote this, the Scripture included both the Hebrew Scripture and the Septuagint. The Jews did not have a closed of Canon of Scripture until 90 AD in the Council of Jamnia. Paul’s Epistle was written around 40-50 AD. If you deny that the Book of Tobit is not inspired, then you are contradicting Paul’s word in the Letter.

You are speaking of his preaching in 2 Timothy and attempting to include apocryical writings as by association. Reason is what stops this from working. I would in any other sense agree with you on this, but the premise I would have to use it that Paul would not speak of inspired Scripture to include blatant errors, contradictions and untruths. These books do teach us some history especially that of the Macabean period, but they cannot be God’s inspired word.

 

[adrift]

So are you contending that is was not part of Christian worship?
When do you contend people were speaking in tongues? The entire chapter is about Christian worship.

Paul says in 1st Corinthians 14

39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, **and forbid not to speak with tongues.**40 Let all things be done decently and in order

They way they were doing it was a scandal, to be sure, but it does not mean it was not part of Christian worship. I have never known anyone, well now I do, who contended something as indefensible as this assertion. Even the article you keep refering to NEVER says it was not part of worship.

It was not part of worship. Church used here does not imply worship. Church is the body of Christ. We have evolved the meaning to a place of worship, a building. That is not the meaning being used in the scriptures you refer to.

 

[BrianH]

It was not part of worship. Church used here does not imply worship. Church is the body of Christ. We have evolved the meaning to a place of worship, a building. That is not the meaning being used in the scriptures you refer to.

“If therefore the whole church be come together into one place”
So the body of Christ is in ONE PLACE?

 

[Mannyfit75]

You are speaking of his preaching in 2 Timothy and attempting to include apocryical writings as by association. Reason is what stops this from working. I would in any other sense agree with you on this, but the premise I would have to use it that Paul would not speak of inspired Scripture to include blatant errors, contradictions and untruths. These books do teach us some history especially that of the Macabean period, but they cannot be God’s inspired word.

The Deutrocanonical have no errors. If you wish to point out those errors,** feel free to open a thread**. If you are too lazy, I’ll make up for you.

The Catholics here will refute your claim they contain any so called blatant errors, contradictions, and untruths.

As far as Christian history so. The Christians from the first Century all the way to the present use the so called Deutrocanonical Books. I find it extremely erroneous for Protestant Christians such as yourself accept the Hebrew Canon that was claimed to be finalized at the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD. This Council had all Jewish Rabbis who were decided which books should be use. They concluded that only Hebrew Canon should be allowed. They reject Non-Hebrew Scripture. In the Council they also rejected any Messiah claim that Jesus Christ had, and concluded that Jesus Christ was a false Messiah.

The Christian Church at the time, which was Catholic by the way did not consider the Council of any importance. Since the Scripture they use have been used since the time of Christ.

You just want to deny the Truth. For like I said, BrewMax. At the time of St. Paul, the Canon of Scripture was NOT closed. The Books used by the Jews and Helenistic Jews were both Hebrew Scripture and the Septuagint. What do you suppose Helenistic Jews speak? Greek?

Don’t get me wrong here, Max. You probably know Scripture more than I. Is it true that Paul had trouble with the Hellenistic Jews? You know of course what a Hellenistic Jew is right? He speaks both Hebrew and Greek. It was comon place for them to use the Septuagint. Like I said those 7 Deutrocanonical Books, were not closed at the time of St. Paul. I find no Scripture text to prove these 7 Books as being claimed by Paul and other Apostles to be erroneous. Unless you can disprove that these 7 Books were not agree upon by the Apostles, or not in use, you may win your case.

However, I doubt it. I have read and done my research concerning the Deutrocanonical Books. Enough of it to refute any discredit you may have of them.

 

[BrianH]

As far as Christian history so. The Christians from the first Century all the way to the present use the so called Deutrocanonical Books. …However, I doubt it. I have read and done my research concerning the Deutrocanonical Books. Enough of it to refute any discredit you may have of them.

Really? From the first century on? Does Vaticanus from the fourth century contain all of the Deutrocanonical books? No, it does not.

Does Sinaiticus from the 3rd century have them all? No.

Let me quote from the book The Canon Debate:

“There are many lists of canonical Old Testament books from vaious church fathers and councils. The lists from the Eastern churches tend to support a restricted canon very much like that of the Hebrew tradition. In several cases (Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, and Epiphanius) Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah are included as parts of jeremiah-Lamentaitons, with no other deutrocanonicals books mentioned. The list from the Council of Laodicea allows only Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah.”

IF every Christian used this why did Melito the bishop of Sardis journey to Palestine to find out what books were accepted as the Old Testament?
Even when a New Testament writer uses a book from the Deurtrocanonicals, and serious scholars list three, not the absurd list usually pawned off as fact around here, does that mean they were considered canonical? Everyone knows several noncanonical books are quoted in the NT. So tell me, when I have lists from early Christian writers like Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Gregory, Hilary, and Jerome that differ on the acceptance of these books, why should I accept that 1st centuiry Christians accepted them? Do you have a quote from a 1st Century writer that supports they were considered canonical?

 

[Mannyfit75]

BrianH:

Really? From the first century on? Does Vaticanus from the fourth century contain all of the Deutrocanonical books? No, it does not.

The first Century did not have a list. The Biblical Canon were not complete at the time.

Here is how OT Canon was form:

1000-50 BC:
The Old Testament (hereafter “OT”) books are written.
C. 200 BC:
Rabbis translate the OT from Hebrew to Greek, a translation called the “Septuagint” (abbreviation: “LXX”). The LXX ultimately includes 46 books.
AD 30-100:
Christians use the LXX as their scriptures. This upsets the Jews.
C. AD 100:
So Jewish rabbis meet at the Council of Jamniah and decide to include in their canon only 39 books, since only these can be found in Hebrew.
C. AD 400:
Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (called the “Vulgate”). He knows that the Jews have only 39 books, and he wants to limit the OT to these; the 7 he would leave out (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [or “Ecclesiasticus”], and Baruch–he calls “apocrypha,” that is, “hidden books.” But Pope Damasus wants all 46 traditionally-used books included in the OT, so the Vulgate has 46.

 

[Mannyfit75]

((more development of Scriptural Canon))

For you, BrianH.

The Biblical canon is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and thus constituting the Christian Bible. Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX), the apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the New Testament developed over time.

The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected form by the end of the first century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions the “memoirs of the apostles,” which Christians called “gospels” and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament.[3] A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was in place by the time of Irenaeus, c. 160, who refers to it directly.[4] By the early 200’s, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation (see also Antilegomena).[5] Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included the four gospels and argued against objections to them.[6] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century.[7]

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[8] and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[9] The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[10] Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[11] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.[12] Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[13] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.”[14] Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[15] and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon