What Constitutes The Bible?

[Gabriel_of_12]

You most certainly have not proved that the Catholic church came into existence in the first century.
It was not the authority of the church. That is not what you teach. The church approved them subsequently. It was not the approval that made them scripture.

You are the first person to suspect that the Catholic church invented the scriptures. That is not the argument here. You just confirmed that the Catholic church was in existance to authoritatively approve the new testament in its entirety, and accept the LXX as Canonoical. The Catholic church today believes and teaches the same doctrinal Christian teachings from the first century church. What makes her apostolic is due to the unbroken succesion from the original apostles, She is Holy because Jesus founded the Catholic church upon Peter and the apostles through their succesors, She is one Church undivided on the Sacred Scripture and Oral Traditional teachings from Jesus and the apostles themselves, She is Catholic because she includes every nation and people making her universal. IT is documented Catholic from the first century writings from her saints. You arguments support the Catholic Church in existance and She was the only entity or body of Christian believers to put the books together as we have them today from the fourth century.

No. There is no proof that the LXX at the time of Jesus contained them. This is conventional stuff. Get off the google search and read a book!

IF your theory holds true, how do you account for the 300 quotations in the new testament from the LXX? It proves that the LXX was read by the apostles and Jesus themselves. Is Catholic bible a good enough book for you to read?

The books were never accepted as canonical by the Jews. They were read. Heck some of the books are quoted by Jews but canonical? Nope.

**History disagrees with you on many technicalities, especially from the Hebrew school of Jamnia in 100 a.d. One of the technicalities deals with which books they taught from and which books they did not, although they possesed both the Hebrew text and Greek text only on some of the LXX. **

It is true that at Hippo and Carthage they were accepted.

This is another proof that; the only Christian church in existance “Catholic” no other.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are the first person to suspect that the Catholic church invented the scriptures. That is not the argument here. You just confirmed that the Catholic church was in existance to authoritatively approve the new testament in its entirety, and accept the LXX as Canonoical. The Catholic church today believes and teaches the same doctrinal Christian teachings from the first century church. What makes her apostolic is due to the unbroken succesion from the original apostles, She is Holy because Jesus founded the Catholic church upon Peter and the apostles through their succesors, She is one Church undivided on the Sacred Scripture and Oral Traditional teachings from Jesus and the apostles themselves, She is Catholic because she includes every nation and people making her universal. IT is documented Catholic from the first century writings from her saints. You arguments support the Catholic Church in existance and She was the only entity or body of Christian believers to put the books together as we have them today from the fourth century.

Apostolic succession can be had for a thousand bucks anymore. It is meaningless. No early bishop of Rome taught or believed what you guys emphasize. Did Peter venerate images? No. Did he tell the man to stand up when he bowed down? Yes. Did he talk about some magical laying on of hands from one bishop of Rome to the next? Of course not. Did he teach the real presence and the Mass as being the center of worship? Of course not. Did he say a single word about Mary? Not one. He would not even recognize your church as having anything remotely like the church he belonged to.

IF your theory holds true, how do you account for the 300 quotations in the new testament from the LXX? It proves that the LXX was read by the apostles and Jesus themselves. Is Catholic bible a good enough book for you to read
The LXX cannot be proven to contain the deuterocanonical books! Did you just skip right over the quotes I gave. Are you saying that the NT quotes the deuterocanonical books. I have read the fanciful and absurd quotes from scripturecatholic. With one or two exceptions they take a string of words from the KJV and the Apocrypha, same translators, and ignore the exact same words in the OT. It is a complete snowjob. Tell you what, if you think the deuterocanonical books have more than 2 or 3 references in the NT, I would be happy to go over them one at a time. One at at time. I will grant you 2 or 3 references, but not direct quotes. You guys have got to lay off your doctorates in Google studies and read Catholic scholars who say there are 3 deuterocanonical references AT MOST.
I will provide a link that addresses a couple of them:
confrontingcatholicism.com/apocrypha_21.html

**History disagrees with you on many technicalities, especially from the Hebrew school of Jamnia in 100 a.d. One of the technicalities deals with which books they taught from and which books they did not, although they possesed both the Hebrew text and Greek text only on some of the LXX. **

There is not a council of Jamnia. No one believes that anymore. Heck even Catholics do not believe that.
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

I am sick of arguing with people who get their information from the University of Google.

 

[Peter_J]

No early bishop of Rome taught or believed what you guys emphasize. Did Peter venerate images? No. Did he tell the man to stand up when he bowed down? Yes. Did he talk about some magical laying on of hands from one bishop of Rome to the next? Of course not. Did he teach the real presence and the Mass as being the center of worship? Of course not. Did he say a single word about Mary? Not one. He would not even recognize your church as having anything remotely like the church he belonged to.

I think an even better question would be, Did Peter teach Sola Scriptura? Or Sola Fide? Etc.

 

[sambos671]

Rightlydivide;4272819:

You most certainly have not proved that the Catholic church came into existence in the first century.
It was not the authority of the church. That is not what you teach. The church approved them subsequently. It was not the approval that made them scripture.

You are the first person to suspect that the Catholic church invented the scriptures. That is not the argument here. You just confirmed that the Catholic church was in existance to authoritatively approve the new testament in its entirety, and accept the LXX as Canonoical. The Catholic church today believes and teaches the same doctrinal Christian teachings from the first century church. What makes her apostolic is due to the unbroken succesion from the original apostles, She is Holy because Jesus founded the Catholic church upon Peter and the apostles through their succesors, She is one Church undivided on the Sacred Scripture and Oral Traditional teachings from Jesus and the apostles themselves, She is Catholic because she includes every nation and people making her universal. IT is documented Catholic from the first century writings from her saints. You arguments support the Catholic Church in existance and She was the only entity or body of Christian believers to put the books together as we have them today from the fourth century.

No. There is no proof that the LXX at the time of Jesus contained them. This is conventional stuff. Get off the google search and read a book!

IF your theory holds true, how do you account for the 300 quotations in the new testament from the LXX? It proves that the LXX was read by the apostles and Jesus themselves. Is Catholic bible a good enough book for you to read?

The books were never accepted as canonical by the Jews. They were read. Heck some of the books are quoted by Jews but canonical? Nope.

**History disagrees with you on many technicalities, especially from the Hebrew school of Jamnia in 100 a.d. One of the technicalities deals with which books they taught from and which books they did not, although they possesed both the Hebrew text and Greek text only on some of the LXX. **

It is true that at Hippo and Carthage they were accepted.

This is another proof that; the only Christian church in existance “Catholic” no other.

What about Josephus speaking about the 22 accepted books in his letter to Aphion? Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus and if you look the Tanakh has the 22 books which are the same books as the 39 most protestants have in their bibles. Josephus says that there is an argument over the Greek books but only the 22 have always been accepted. The rest he claims is speculation. The Tanakh is ordered differently but includes all 39 books. Keep in mind this verse:

Luke 11:49-51 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

With regard to prophet Martyrs. We know that Antiochus IV made martyrs of many Jews during his reign but Zacharias was the last to be mentioned by Jesus indicating that possibly the Last book he was conserned about was 2 Chronicles the last book in the order of the Tanakh.

Bereshit - Genesis
Shemot - Exodus
Vayikra - Leviticus
Bamidbar - Numbers
Devarim - Deuteronomy
Neviim - Prophets
Ketuvim - writings

Surely he would have known about the sons of the women mentioned in 2 Macc. 7. But he doesn’t mention them even though Hebrews 11 does. Which BTW I find is the only undisputed quote from the DC. Note that there are quotes from the Pseudopigraphia in Jude but the RCC doesn’t consider them canon.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Two of the gospel accounts were not written by apostles and we all agree that they are inspired, authoritative writings.
I’d say the Church had authority, not just the apostles.

michel

Indeed. For instance, none of the gospels state within them who wrote them, hence it is the authority of the Church, based upon the tradition of who wrote them, which recognizes the gospels to be inspired.

 

[I_am_Me]

But we both believe it. We both believe the Bible. You just believe in additional things. Go ahead try to talk a Christian out of believing his Bible…

I will NEVER Follow anything but God word! Deb

 

[cazayoux]

I will NEVER Follow anything but God word! Deb

Same here.
I have to ask you Deb … how do you know what the word of God is?
Is it only written?
What came first, the church or the bible?

michel

 

[sambos671]

Still no one has replied to my post # 104 I’ll quote it here.

What about Josephus speaking about the 22 accepted books in his letter to Aphion? Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus and if you look the Tanakh has the 22 books which are the same books as the 39 most protestants have in their bibles. Josephus says that there is an argument over the Greek books but only the 22 have always been accepted. The rest he claims is speculation. The Tanakh is ordered differently but includes all 39 books. Keep in mind this verse:

Quote:
Luke 11:49-51 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

With regard to prophet Martyrs. We know that Antiochus IV made martyrs of many Jews during his reign but Zacharias was the last to be mentioned by Jesus indicating that possibly the Last book he was conserned about was 2 Chronicles the last book in the order of the Tanakh.
Quote:
Bereshit - Genesis
Shemot - Exodus
Vayikra - Leviticus
Bamidbar - Numbers
Devarim - Deuteronomy
Neviim - Prophets
Ketuvim - writings

Surely he would have known about the sons of the women mentioned in 2 Macc. 7. But he doesn’t mention them even though Hebrews 11 does. Which BTW I find is the only undisputed quote from the DC. Note that there are quotes from the Pseudopigraphia in Jude but the RCC doesn’t consider them canon.

 

[cfrancis]

Still no one has replied to my post # 104 I’ll quote it here.

Josephus was a Hebrew Jew (as opposed to a Hellenized Jew). It isn’t surprising he advocates a certain canon.

Note that there are quotes from the Pseudopigraphia in Jude but the RCC doesn’t consider them canon.

Likewise, there are OT books not cited/referenced/hinted to in the NT which the Catholic Church considers canonical.

 

[I_am_Me]

Same here.
I have to ask you Deb … how do you know what the word of God is?
Is it only written?
What came first, the church or the bible?

michel

I would have to say the Word came first Because in John it says…In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. For me to believe anything it has to line up with Gods word if it doesnt i know it is NOT from of God. God does not lie. God bless Deb

 

[sambos671]

Josephus was a Hebrew Jew (as opposed to a Hellenized Jew). It isn’t surprising he advocates a certain canon.

Likewise, there are OT books not cited/referenced/hinted to in the NT which the Catholic Church considers canonical.

What about Josephus was a Jew but he was also a contemporary of Jesus who was also a Jew. Jesus use of prophet martyrs ended with Zachriah why not during Maccabees? So Josephus may be right.

 

[cfrancis]

What about Josephus was a Jew but he was also a contemporary of Jesus who was also a Jew. Jesus use of prophet martyrs ended with Zachriah why not during Maccabees? So Josephus may be right.

May be, but the argument is an argument from silence.
A brief glimpse at Josephus’ bio implies he would be a supporter of a non-Hellenized canon; so it comes as no surprise he advocates such.
The excerpt you provided reveals a dispute over canons - (s) plural - revealing the existence of at least two, probably more.
It appears your argument is, by this excerpt from Josephus, the canon he advocates is the only canon Jesus and the NT church used. Is that right?

 

[sambos671]

May be, but the argument is an argument from silence.
A brief glimpse at Josephus’ bio implies he would be a supporter of a non-Hellenized canon; so it comes as no surprise he advocates such.
The excerpt you provided reveals a dispute over canons - (s) plural - revealing the existence of at least two, probably more.
It appears your argument is, by this excerpt from Josephus, the canon he advocates is the only canon Jesus and the NT church used. Is that right?

Well, to be honest we don’t know. What we do know is this the one verifiable use of the DC in the NT is in Hebrews 11 referring to 2 Macc. 7. However, that doesn’t prove that Macc was considered canon by the writer of Hebrews because Jude quotes from the Pseudopigraphia and that isn’t canon. So apart from what Jesus said to relate to the Tanakh we have the writers after the Apostles like Clement and Polycarp quoting from Judith and Tobit and the other Church fathers quoting from the DC which suggest at least a respected view of the DC but canon? The ECF also respected the Sheperd of Hermas but that never made canon either.

 

[cfrancis]

Well, to be honest we don’t know. What we do know is this the one verifiable use of the DC in the NT is in Hebrews 11 referring to 2 Macc. 7. However, that doesn’t prove that Macc was considered canon by the writer of Hebrews because Jude quotes from the Pseudopigraphia and that isn’t canon. So apart from what Jesus said to relate to the Tanakh we have the writers after the Apostles like Clement and Polycarp quoting from Judith and Tobit and the other Church fathers quoting from the DC which suggest at least a respected view of the DC but canon? The ECF also respected the Sheperd of Hermas but that never made canon either.

Good summary! Add to it the fact that OT books not cited/referred to/hinted at in the NT are, also, considered canon. So the “it’s used in the NT” test is not a “deal maker/breaker”.

 

[sambos671]

Good summary! Add to it the fact that OT books not cited/referred to/hinted at in the NT are, also, considered canon. So the “it’s used in the NT” test is not a “deal maker/breaker”.

Yep thats true. Except if you read Archer (protestant) he indicates that Jesus includes all the 39 books or the 22 of the Tanakh by his referrence of Able to Zachariah or from Genesis to 2 Chron which is the 1st and last books of the Tanakh in its order not in the Greek order

 

[cfrancis]

Yep thats true. Except if you read Archer (protestant) he indicates that Jesus includes all the 39 books or the 22 of the Tanakh by his referrence of Able to Zachariah or from Genesis to 2 Chron which is the 1st and last books of the Tanakh in its order not in the Greek order

Is this the reference to Zechariah to which you refer?

2 Chron 24
20 Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people and said to them, “Thus God has said, ‘Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD and do not prosper? Because you have forsaken the LORD, He has also forsaken you.’”
21 So they conspired against him and at the command of the king they stoned him to death in the court of the house of the LORD.

 

[sambos671]

Is this the reference to Zechariah to which you refer?

2 Chron 24
20 Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people and said to them, “Thus God has said, ‘Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD and do not prosper? Because you have forsaken the LORD, He has also forsaken you.’”
21 So they conspired against him and at the command of the king they stoned him to death in the court of the house of the LORD.

Yes.

 

[cfrancis]

Yes.

OK, that’s 2 Chronicles, and Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, was killed during the rule of Joash, king of Israel, who ruled roughly 836 BC to 798 BC.
Is the argument that Christ’s statement set the canon to those books written before these dates?

 

[mackbrislawn]

I would have to say the Word came first Because in John it says…In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. For me to believe anything it has to line up with Gods word if it doesnt i know it is NOT from of God. God does not lie. God bless Deb

Quite true. The Word, being God, came first. The Word, of course, is Jesus. All things were created by the Word.

Revelation is contained in God’s word. Now, we also know there was revelation long before there was written scripture. Hence, revelation is not confined to written sources.

Scripture began with Moses, generations after revelation began. The people of God, the congregation of God, church if you will, existed long before scripture. Scripture came out of the people of God, written by them and for them. This applies to both the OT scriptures and the NT scripture.

Of course, the people of God believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures, so we can say that God is the ultimate author. God is the source of all revelation.

 

[sambos671]

OK, that’s 2 Chronicles, and Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, was killed during the rule of Joash, king of Israel, who ruled roughly 836 BC to 798 BC.
Is the argument that Christ’s statement set the canon to those books written before these dates?

No. It does not it is following the order of the Jewish OT or the Tanakh which I’ve listed before the writings end with 2 Chronicles. Malachi are listed in the prophets. Jesus being Jewish may have followed the order of the Jewish OT ending with 2nd Chronicles. The Tanakh is not listed chronologically.