Where and when was established the canon of Scriptures that protestants believe? (SPLIT)

[PRmerger]

A human sacrifice “alone” wouldn’t save you from the gates of Hell. Jesus’ atonement had to be both human AND God. Therefore, it’s not a violation, because the command to prohibit of human sacrifice in the OT involved the sacrifice of human beings sacrificing only human beings. Christ’s atonement involved the God-Man being the will of God - not man. IOW, God was the One Who willed the God-Man Christ to be sacrificed on the cross.

When you understand the difference between humans sacrificing humans, & God sending His God-Man to be sacrificed in our place (the atonement), you’ll realize it’s not a contradiction, like the contradiction of God commanding mankind not to eat the blood of any flesh, but then commanding us to eat His “literal” blood. I asked you to read through my reply a few times before answering. But based on how quickly you replied, it’s obvious that you didn’t do that, which demonstrates you aren’t understanding the question being raised. Try again.

All of the above is a nonsequitur, taz.

It still doesn’t address the fact that God abhors human sacrifice, and yet a human sacrifice was at the heart of God’s loving plan for humanity.

Similarly, God disliked the drinking of blood, and yet the command to drink HIS blood was at the heart of God’s loving plan for humanity.

And again, remember, if God doesn’t really like us doing it literally, why, oh why, would he command us to do it figuratively?

“Don’t actually idol worship, but if you just figuratively do it, that’s fine!”

That’s just ga-ga, la-la nonsense.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh my goodness, that’s not even** the same thing!** Yes, Jesus equated lust with the act of adultery as a violation of the Seventh Commandment, but that’s because lust is a literal thought, which was identified with the sin of adultery in the OT (Proverbs 6:25). As a Catholic you should know this. So, your analogy isn’t even close to being the same thing. Again, this only proves you aren’t comprehending what I’m saying! And - AGAIN - READ what I write, & think through your replies BEFORE commenting…PLEASE! It will greatly aid in our exchanges.

The same thing?

Ummm…I don’t think you understand analogies, taz.

Analogies in no way make the assertion that 2 analogs are “the same thing”.

Let’s take this very simple analogy:

Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring.

What you are saying is: Oh my goodness! A Christmas tree is NOT “the same thing” as an earlobe! How in the world could you even say that they are “the same thing”! A Christmas tree is majestic and green! An earlobe is a fleshy piece of cartilage! Therefore, your analogy is false!

Well, any 5th grader can see that the analogy is TRUE. Your assertion that a Christmas tree and an earlobe are “not the same thing”, therefore the analogy is false is…well, peculiar.

 

[thetazlord]

Jesus recognized the OT canon by saying, “the Law…the Prophets…AND the Psalms” (Luke 24:44-45), rather than just saying “the Law & the Prophets.” That’s because when He corrected the Pharisees, He quoted their Scriptures,

Very Catholic, this.

No, it’s not! The Catholic OT canon is a FOUR-fold division - not the THREE-fold division that Jesus cites in Luke 24:44-45. Here is how the Catholic FOUR-fold division of your OT canon breaks down:

1. Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy;
2. Historical books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees;
3. Sapiential (Wisdom) books: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom, Sirach;
4. Prophetic books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

Notice, when Jesus says “the Law & the Prophets, & the Psalms” in Luke 24:44-45, He doesn’t include a “fourth” division like this. This is why Jews as refer to their OT canon as TaNaKh (The Torah, or Law; the Prophets; & the Writings, which begins with the Psalms), which is why Protestants acknowledge the EXACT SAME books & THREE-fold division.

Proverbs is part of Psalms, then?

<SIGH!> No, Proverbs is not “part” of Psalms. That’s not what I said. LISTEN this time! Proverbs is “part” of the “third” division that Jesus “refers” to as “the Psalms.” In the TaNaKh, the “Writings” is this third “division” which the first book are the Psalms.

Quote:
which even CA Jimmy Akin admits were the EXACT SAME as the Protestant OT canon."

Source, please?

Gladly. And it’s from CatholicAnswers too. It begins around the 58 second mark. Remember, in context, I was addressing that when Jesus corrected the Pharisees, He corrected them using their OT canon, which Jesus acknowledged as Scripture as “the Law & the Prophets & the Psalms.” So, please keep that in mind when you listen to Jimmy Akin before you reply or twist what I say out of context, like you have numerous times in the past:

youtube.com/watch?v=dF5NYPENhp4

 

[thetazlord]

The same thing?

Ummm…I don’t think you understand analogies, taz.

Analogies in no way make the assertion that 2 analogs are “the same thing”.

Let’s take this very simple analogy:

Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring.

What you are saying is: Oh my goodness! A Christmas tree is NOT “the same thing” as an earlobe! How in the world could you even say that they are “the same thing”! A Christmas tree is majestic and green! An earlobe is a fleshy piece of cartilage! Therefore, your analogy is false!

Well, any 5th grader can see that the analogy is TRUE. Your assertion that a Christmas tree and an earlobe are “not the same thing”, therefore the analogy is false is…well, peculiar.

That analogy is so poor & strawman to what we’re talking about, I’m not even going to comment. Sorry, but you are really grasping for straws now.

 

[thetazlord]

And again, remember, if God doesn’t really like us doing it literally, why, oh why, would he command us to do it figuratively?

Because it’s figurative & God’s command was against literal drinking of blood. You answered your own question! What is “blocking” your understanding of what I’m saying is that your interpretation of John 6 is that it’s both figurative and literal. If that is true, then it would be a violation of God’s previous command. It’s only not a violation if God were giving a figurative command ONLY, which is what He’s doing in John 6. Otherwise, He “is” contradicting Himself, which God can’t do, because “God can’t change.”

And - again - God abhored humans sacrificing humans. God the Father who sent his God-Man Son to die is not human! That is part you are STILL not getting!

 

[fasolislithuan]

.

I’d like to know if you can explain us why you consider Hebrews or 3John God-breathed Scriptures.

Saludos.

 

[PRmerger]

<SIGH!> No, Proverbs is not “part” of Psalms. That’s not what I said. LISTEN this time!

Careful, taz. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics. You are starting to get shrill, and that typically leads to posting things which are bannable.

You need to be here, so just watch how you are responding.

Proverbs is “part” of the “third” division that Jesus “refers” to as “the Psalms.” In the TaNaKh, the “Writings” is this third “division” which the first book are the Psalms.

Excellent.

And the deuterocanon are “part” of the 3 fold division cited in Luike.

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

That analogy is so poor & strawman to what we’re talking about, I’m not even going to comment. Sorry, but you are really grasping for straws now.

Just so you know: when someone makes an analogy, you never assume that the 2 analogs are “the same thing”.

That’s not how analogies work.

Oh my goodness, that’s not even** the same thing**!

 

[PRmerger]

Gladly. And it’s from CatholicAnswers too.

Excellent. The more you listen to Jimmy, the better.

It begins around the 58 second mark. Remember, in context, I was addressing that when Jesus corrected the Pharisees, He corrected them using their OT canon, which Jesus acknowledged as Scripture as “the Law & the Prophets & the Psalms.” So, please keep that in mind when you listen to Jimmy Akin before you reply or twist what I say out of context, like you have numerous times in the past:

youtube.com/watch?v=dF5NYPENhp4

So the Pharisees used the same canon that some Protestant churches use.

But Jesus and his Apostles used the Septuagint.

Hmmm…
Pharisees…
Or…
Jesus and the Apostles.

I think I’m going to go with Jesus and the Apostles.

Shouldn’t you?

 

[thetazlord]

I’d like to know if you can explain us why you consider Hebrews or 3John God-breathed Scriptures.

Saludos.

There are multiple reasons: they both contain no errors AND they both contain no contradictions AND they were written by either an apostle (like John) or a contemporary of them (which based on the internal text of Hebrews, the author was or possibly Paul himself) AND they were read during the liturgy in the early church. Now, I understand that other non-canonical writings like 1 Clement were written by contemporaries of the apostles as well, as well as read in the early church, but unlike 3 John & Hebrews, these non-canonical texts contain errors in them, such as 1 Clement who believed that the Phoenix (a bird that lived for 1,600 died & then rose from the dead) was a real-life animal, which was not confirmed by any other writer of Inspired Scripture. So, although non-canonical books “might” have “parts” of the qualities of Inspired Scripture, if they fail in even on area (like 1 Clement) does, then it can’t not God-breathed like Hebrews 3 John or the rest of the NT, nor the OT.

 

[PRmerger]

There are multiple reasons: they both contain no errors AND they both contain no contradictions AND they were written by either an apostle (like John) or a contemporary of them (which based on the internal text of Hebrews, the author was or possibly Paul himself) AND they were read during the liturgy in the early church. Now, I understand that other non-canonical writings like 1 Clement were written by contemporaries of the apostles as well, as well as read in the early church, but unlike 3 John & Hebrews, these non-canonical texts contain errors in them, such as 1 Clement who believed that the Phoenix (a bird that lived for 1,600 died & then rose from the dead) was a real-life animal, which was not confirmed by any other writer of Inspired Scripture. So, although non-canonical books “might” have “parts” of the qualities of Inspired Scripture, if they fail in even on area (like 1 Clement) does, then it can’t not God-breathed like Hebrews 3 John or the rest of the NT, nor the OT.

What is the source you are using to determine whether something has an error?

Remember, it can’t be the Bible, because you are trying to find out what belongs in the Bible.

 

[thetazlord]

Excellent. The more you listen to Jimmy, the better.

So the Pharisees used the same canon that some Protestant churches use.

But Jesus and his Apostles used the Septuagint.

Hmmm…
Pharisees…
Or…
Jesus and the Apostles.

I think I’m going to go with Jesus and the Apostles.

Shouldn’t you?

You completely missed the point, (Edited) Again - when Jesus corrected the Pharisees, He acknowledged their OT canon which was limited to the EXACT SAME books that are in Protestant OT’s. He did not acknowledge the 7 Apocrypha books when He said “the Law & the Prophets & the Psalms.” What you are doing is quote-mining what I’m writing completely out of context & falsely claiming something I’m not saying. Plus, with all due respect to Mr. Akin, he fails to mention that there were other books in the Septuagint that Catholics REMOVED from it. So, Jesus & the apostles did not recognize the Septuagint “as a whole” & “pass it down” as recognized Inspired Scripture. Otherwise, you have to acknowledge the books that Catholic removed as well that are not in Catholic OT’s too. So, based on what Jimmy Akin admitted, plus Jesus’ declaration of the THREE-fold division on the Protestant OT, rather than the FOUR-fold division of the Catholic OT based on a “partial” Septuagint, the “actual” OT that Jesus & His disciples would have recognized as Inspired Scripture was that found in Protestant OT’s. Plus, the reason why the NT quotes so frequently from the Greek Septuagint is because, the NT was written in…well…GREEK! Plus, the Greek Septagint was what first century Jews would have understood better than Hebrew, which the average Jew would have spoken Greek, rather than Hebrew. If they all spoke Hebrew, the NT writers would have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures rather than the Greek Septuagint. That’s why quoting the Septuagint doesn’t legitimize the Apocrypha simply because it’s in there, because - AGAIN! - you would also have to legitimize the books books that Catholics removed from the Septuagint as well. So, why aren’t “they” in Catholic OT’s too? Answer me that.

 

[thetazlord]

What is the source you are using to determine whether something has an error?

Remember, it can’t be the Bible, because you are trying to find out what belongs in the Bible.

I’ve explained this to you already in depth. You are repeating yourself as usual, which demonstrates you are either not listening or not learning. I’m not going to repeat myself, since you aren’t going to get it anyways.

 

[PRmerger]

There are multiple reasons: they both contain no errors AND they both contain no contradictions AND they were written by either an apostle (like John) or a contemporary of them (which based on the internal text of Hebrews, the author was or possibly Paul himself) AND they were read during the liturgy in the early church. Now, I understand that other non-canonical writings like 1 Clement were written by contemporaries of the apostles as well, as well as read in the early church, but unlike 3 John & Hebrews, these non-canonical texts contain errors in them, such as 1 Clement who believed that the Phoenix (a bird that lived for 1,600 died & then rose from the dead) was a real-life animal, which was not confirmed by any other writer of Inspired Scripture. So, although non-canonical books “might” have “parts” of the qualities of Inspired Scripture, if they fail in even on area (like 1 Clement) does, then it can’t not God-breathed like Hebrews 3 John or the rest of the NT, nor the OT.

Regarding Clement containing “an error” (originally posted by you as a historical error), you can’t dismiss it because it contains a story of something fanciful.

That would mean you’d have to dismiss Acts, which talks about people being healed by handkerchiefs!

Incidentally, I could make some arbitrary criterion like, “To be inspired it has to mention the name of Jesus”.

That sounds pretty reasonable,no?

Except that means we have to throw out 3 John, which mentions Jesus…NOT ONCE.

Incidentally, since the authorship of Hebrews is UNKNOWN, that should be quite problematic for you, taz. How do you know that the author even saw Jesus rise from the dead if you can’t even determine who it is who wrote the text?

#veryproblematic

 

[PRmerger]

You completely missed the point, (Edited) Again - when Jesus corrected the Pharisees, He acknowledged their OT canon which was limited to the EXACT SAME books that are in Protestant OT’s.

So Jesus acknowledged that the Pharisees used that canon.

And the Pharisees and you have the same canon.

I don’t think that puts you in good company.

I’d rather go with what Jesus and his apostles used myself.

Just sayin…

 

[fasolislithuan]

There are multiple reasons: they both contain no errors AND they both contain no contradictions AND they were written by either an apostle (like John) or a contemporary of them (which based on the internal text of Hebrews, the author was or possibly Paul himself) AND they were read during the liturgy in the early church. Now, I understand that other non-canonical writings like 1 Clement were written by contemporaries of the apostles as well, as well as read in the early church, but unlike 3 John & Hebrews, these non-canonical texts contain errors in them, such as 1 Clement who believed that the Phoenix (a bird that lived for 1,600 died & then rose from the dead) was a real-life animal, which was not confirmed by any other writer of Inspired Scripture. So, although non-canonical books “might” have “parts” of the qualities of Inspired Scripture, if they fail in even on area (like 1 Clement) does, then it can’t not God-breathed like Hebrews 3 John or the rest of the NT, nor the OT.

Who does say they both contain no errors but 1Clement it does?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There are multiple reasons: they both contain no errors AND they both contain no contradictions AND they were written by either an apostle (like John) or a contemporary of them (which based on the internal text of Hebrews, the author was or possibly Paul himself) AND they were read during the liturgy in the early church. Now, I understand that other non-canonical writings like 1 Clement were written by contemporaries of the apostles as well, as well as read in the early church, but unlike 3 John & Hebrews, these non-canonical texts contain errors in them, such as 1 Clement who believed that the Phoenix (a bird that lived for 1,600 died & then rose from the dead) was a real-life animal, which was not confirmed by any other writer of Inspired Scripture. So, although non-canonical books “might” have “parts” of the qualities of Inspired Scripture, if they fail in even on area (like 1 Clement) does, then it can’t not God-breathed like Hebrews 3 John or the rest of the NT, nor the OT.

Do you realize how many books contain no errors and contradictions?

There is 0 proof on who wrote Hebrews.

Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch, some in the Early Church (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria) believed the Book of Enoch was part of Scriptures.

Mark - other than Tradition from the Church, there is no other evidence that Mark wrote it.

Clement was not only contemporary of the Apostles, he learned from them and succeeded in the See of Rome. Your Phoenix claim is not credible. How about Jesus mention of the mustard seed? Does that not fall under your same conditions?

It is really baffling how Clement I is not in the New Testament.

 

[PRmerger]

(Edited)

You have never, NOT EVEN ONCE, answered the question as to how you know what is correct or erroneous.

You simply keep repeating that you evaluate a manuscript “to see if it has errors”.

But the question that all of us here want answered is: where did you get the blueprint for what is correct or not if you didn’t have the Bible?

I think this question has been posed to you (Edited) but you have still to answer it.

How do you know that “it is appointed for man to die once”, for example, is erroneous or not?

How do you know that “baptism saves you now” is correct or erroneous?

Based on what?

It really sounds as if you’re NOT a Bible Alone advocate, for you are saying you get your info from some other source.

We just want to know what that source is…since you don’t have a Bible.

Remember, it didn’t come floating down from heaven on the wings of a dove.

It was given to you by the CC.

Except you’re saying you don’t accept this from the Church. You evaluated all of the books on their own.

So where’d you get your info to compare the manuscripts from?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Actually, EWTN “does” believe Judith was a real person, as well as the events.

Do you have a citation?

Yet my Catholic Bible describes Judith as being “fictional.” And a story believed to be true is different than a parable that is used to describe a spiritual reality. That is why the story of Judith is false not Inspired, while a parable describing something that IS true can be Inspired.

Of course it’s a story. You don’t think that the authors and those who preserved the book for years didn’t notice some of the things you’ve pointed out? In fact, even the NAME “Judith” means “Lady Jew.”

Catholicism teaches that the entire Bible is true, but also that one must discern the genre of the literature.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Those “study notes” are a complete joke.

The author completely makes up a standard to fit his agenda on the inclusion of scripture in the canon. For example, he says:
Steve Christie: Although the Apocrypha was in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the TaNaKh & the Apocrypha), it was not part of the TaNaKh, which didn’t include the ‘additions of Esther & Daniel,’ which were written in the ‘Intertestimental Period’ (around 400 B.C. to about 6 B.C.), while the actual books of Esther & Daniel were written around the 5th to 6th Centuries B.C. Therefore, the Apocrypha isn’t ‘canonical.’
Huh?? So because Esther and Daniel were written around the 5th/6th Centuries (BC), the deuterocanonical books aren’t canonical?
Steve Christie: Although Jesus, His disciples, & the New Testament writers quoted from the Septuagint, they never quoted from any ‘section’ of the Apocrypha nor called it ‘Scripture,’
First, there is no mention that NT quotations are a requirement for canonicity – this is simply extrabiblical tradition. Secondly, if the absence of NT quotes is your standard, then Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum, Esther, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes are all non-canonical as well!

As I said, the “Steve Christie” bible study notes are a joke…

Gotta agree with you here.

I was looking for the alleged “contradictions” in Sirach, and found what looks like an argument that, while Sirach says alms-giving atones for sins, this supposedly contradicts the NT.

Except that it doesn’t.

Alms-giving is a form of loving your neighbor. So much so that we use the word “charity” to describe alms-giving when it literally means “love.”

Compare this with
1Pe 4:8 Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins.

I guess 1Peter isn’t theopneustos, either, according to “Steve Christie”.