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

[wmscott]

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”.

reminds me of Wednesdays mass Gospel reading

Gospel MT 6:1-4

Jesus said to his disciples:
“Take care not to perform righteous deeds
in order that people may see them;
otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father.
When you give alms,
do not blow a trumpet before you,
as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets
to win the praise of others.
Amen, I say to you,
they have received their reward.
But when you give alms,
do not let your left hand know what your right is doing,
so that your almsgiving may be secret.
And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

 

[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.

There is a curiosity respect the mention of the “phoenix” in 1Clement 25. Some scholars think this practice mentioning phoenix of some Church Fathers as Clement or Tertullian derives from the Sacred Scriptures. The reason is because in some manuscripts Job 29,18 renders:** “Then I said: ‘I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the** phoenix**.’” **

The hebrew term* chol* is translated in three ways:
1, sand
2. phoenix, as in the mythical bird
3. palm tree

The verse (Job 29,18) is polemic and there is some literature about it.
The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says the next:

sand—(Ge 22:17; Hab 1:9). But the Septuagint and Vulgate, and Jewish interpreters, favor the translation, “the phoenix bird.” “Nest” in the parallel clause supports the reference to a bird. “Sand” for multitude, applies to men, rather than to years. The myth was, that the phoenix sprang from a nest of myrrh, made by his father before death, and that he then came from Arabia (Job’s country) to Heliopolis (the city of the Sun) in Egypt, once in every five hundred years, and there burnt his father [Herodotus, 2:73]. Modern research has shown that this was the Egyptian mode of representing hieroglyphically a particular chronological era or cycle. The death and revival every five hundred years, and the reference to the sun, implies such a grand cycle commencing afresh from the same point in relation to the sun from which the previous one started. Job probably refers to this.

But the most interesting aspect: There are some Bibles that in fact render Job 29:18 with this interpretation (phoenix).

Christian Bibles:

1. Lexham English Bible
   Job 29:18 (LEB) "And I thought, 'I will pass away in my nest, and like the phoenix I shall multiply [my] days.
2. New Revised Standard
   Job 29:18 (NRS) Then I thought, "I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days like the phoenix;

Jewish Bibles:

1. Jewish Publication Society : “Then I said: ‘I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the phoenix.’”
2. The Complete Jewish Bible
   Job 29:18 (CJB) "I said, 'I will die with my nest, and I will live as long as a phoenix;

So Clement probably is only following a jewish biblical tradition. In fact Clement quotes Job just after describing his chapter on the phoenix. So probably St. Clement had Job 29:18 in mind.

Therefore I consider your thesis weak. I wouldn’t tear my hear out, that Clement used this metaphor, because in fact there are some bible manuscripts that put in the Book of Job the same bird. Not only Church Fathers but a rabbinical has interpreted the passage in Job as referring to the mythical bird, the phoenix, because the presence of the term **phoenix ** in some jewish Bibles reflects an early Jewish exegetical tradition.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

This “Sacred ‘Oral’ Tradition” was written down (1 Corinth 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6) - it’s called the New Testament.

Can you show me where scripture says that all the teachings of Jesus were written down in the canonical NT books?

Wrong. Peter - BY HIMSELF - “decided” that ALL of Paul’s epistles were Inspired Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), as did Paul with Luke’s writings (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7).

Not necessarily true.
For instance, Jesus in Luke was quoting Deuteronomy.

If I quote a section of Deuteronomy which St. Paul calls scripture, will you consider MY writings theopneustos?

The Greek word for “presbyters” (presbyteros) is NOT translated “priests,” but “elders.” The Greek word translated “priest” is “hiereus” (not “presbyteros”), which in the NT refers to ALL believers in Christ as Peter himself attests (1 Peter 2:9).

Actually, the etymology of the English word, “priest” IS presbyteros.

Scripturally, the kind of priesthood of the OT doesn’t exist in the NT Church age, because Jesus is our “High Priest”

True enough.

which is why we go through HIM to get to the Father (John 14:6), rather than a human “priest.”

But this part is a non-sequitor.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And whoever is “adding to” Scripture is wrong.

Ahh, so Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Jude, Peter, James, and whoever wrote Hebrews are wrong?

After all, they “added to” scripture.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Since I’m not “adding” my “interpretation” of Scripture, then I’m not making “circular nonsense.” Only the one who is imputing THEIR extra-biblical “traditions” to it are.

Sola scripura is an extra-biblical tradition (and one that makes null the word of God at that). So yes, you are.

 

[PRmerger]

There is a curiosity respect the mention of the “phoenix” in 1Clement 25. Some scholars think this practice mentioning phoenix of some Church Fathers as Clement or Tertullian derives from the Sacred Scriptures. The reason is because in some manuscripts Job 29,18 renders:** “Then I said: ‘I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the** phoenix****.’”

Ah. So by taz’s (arbitrary) standard we should declare Job to be NOT inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

reminds me of Wednesdays mass Gospel reading

Gospel MT 6:1-4

Jesus said to his disciples:
“Take care not to perform righteous deeds
in order that people may see them;
otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father.

This prompts a question to taz: how do you know if the above concept is correct or not?

And here you don’t have a Bible to use as your blueprint to discern whether something is inspired or not…

Remember, the Bible did not float down from heaven on the wings of a dove!

 

[fasolislithuan]

Ah. So by taz’s (arbitrary) standard we should declare Job to be NOT inspired.

He should apply the same rule to Job if he was coherent.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

[CONTINUED…PART 2]

Most of this is addressed above. To answer your other questions, when I read the Bible - both the Catholic version & the Protestant version, I noticed that the books in the Catholic OT that weren’t in the Protestant OT contained historical & theological errors & contradictions in them with previous & later Scripture, while the Protestant canon didn’t. And as I’ve said over & over & over again, “I” don’t have the “authority” to determine anything including the canon of Scripture, nor does anyone else, which is why I differ it to the Authority of our Lord, Who - through - Inspired Scripture in His Own Words (Luke 24:44-45) affirmed the canon of OT Scripture that the Pharisees recognized, which was establised prior to them by Ezra during “The Great Synagogue.”

You keep saying this, but you’re not providing evidence.

Lu 24:44 Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.”

Please show that “the canon of OT Scripture that the Pharisees recognized” were only those books written at the time of Ezra. In fact, please show me that the Pharisees of Jesus’ time even HAD a single, well-defined canon.

 

[PRmerger]

Please show that “the canon of OT Scripture that the Pharisees recognized” were only those books written at the time of Ezra. In fact, please show me that the Pharisees of Jesus’ time even HAD a single, well-defined canon.

And since the Pharisees had no authoritative magisterium, even if they did have a single, well-defined canon, who would have defined it authoritatively?

 

[PRmerger]

Can you show me where scripture says that all the teachings of Jesus were written down in the canonical NT books?

Indeed.

And St. Paul spoke in the temple for 3 months, so it boggles the mind to think that everything he preached, for 3 months, was written down.

 

[Robyn_p]

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.

The fact that the Church doesn’t use every book in the LXX isn’t as damaging to the Catholic position as you are making it out to be. (Which, since you asked, the reason they are not in the Catholic OT is because those books were never read in the liturgy in the West, while the others were. You can read more about that [here](http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox if you want)/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php)))

Catholics can know with certainty that 3 Maccabees doesn’t belong in the canon but Sirach does because we believe the Church has the authority to decide these things. That’s ultimately what it comes down to, taz. Who gets to decide for Christians what books belong and what don’t? You can keep claiming you discerned for yourself which books belong in the Bible, but the fact is, your method makes the very notion of a canon irrelevant. I can do the same thing and come up with an entirely different list. Then what? Who’s right? Why even bother with Scripture at all at that point?

The question of the canon and the question of authority are inseparable. You can’t get away from it.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Please remain on topic which is Where and when was established the canon of Scriptures that protestants believe?

Do not deviate from this topic or this thread may be closed.

 

[PRmerger]

Ahh, so Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Jude, Peter, James, and whoever wrote Hebrews are wrong?

After all, they “added to” scripture.

Indeed.

What was Scripture was simply the Old Testament.

All of the NT has been “added”.

 

[PRmerger]

Catholics can know with certainty that 3 Maccabees doesn’t belong in the canon but Sirach does because we believe the Church has the authority to decide these things. That’s ultimately what it comes down to, taz. Who gets to decide for Christians what books belong and what don’t? You can keep claiming you discerned for yourself which books belong in the Bible, but the fact is, your method makes the very notion of a canon irrelevant. I can do the same thing and come up with an entirely different list. Then what? Who’s right? Why even bother with Scripture at all at that point?

The question of the canon and the question of authority are inseparable. You can’t get away from it.

There are folks who believe that the writings of St. Paul are not inspired–in fact, there are folks who use the phrase “Jesus’ Words Only”…meaning that they believe ONLY Jesus’ words are theopneustos.

Now what? Who’s right?

If everyone has the right to discern on their own what the canon is…what we end up with is chaos and confusion.

 

[ericc]

You keep saying this, but you’re not providing evidence.

Lu 24:44 Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.”

Please show that “the canon of OT Scripture that the Pharisees recognized” were only those books written at the time of Ezra. In fact, please show me that the Pharisees of Jesus’ time even HAD a single, well-defined canon.

I have asked him about 3 times and he goes back to hiding behind his 3 fold divisions without answering the question. Actually just 2 simple questions: evidence canon is closed and the list of books. He doesn’t have the answer.

 

[ericc]

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.

If you open up the Protestant OT, you don’t see the 3 fold division. It is just a list of OT books.

If you open up the Catholic OT, you don’t see 4 folds either. It is a long list of OT books.

But if you open up a Hebrew Bible, you will see the 3 divisions. So where in Luke 24:44-45 does it say the list of canon OT books? Where does it say the canon is closed?

 

[thetazlord]

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!

As I’ve mentioned MANY times to you, just because something is “fanciful” like miracles, doesn’t make it not true. The lack of any objective evidence - Scriptural or otherwise - is what determines if something is historically true or not. If we can’t find evidence for the existence of the concept of the Phoenix, neither in Scripture, nor in secular history, then it’s not historically true, because birds don’t live for 1,600 years, die, then suddenly rise from it’s own ashes. Since Jesus & the NT writers of Inspired Scripture acknowledge that he Behemoth & Leviathan as actual living animals, then we can trust them, otherwise, we are saying they are lying, which they aren’t, because Jesus proved it by rising from the dead. Same with people being healed by handkerchiefs in Acts. Paul acknowledged Luke’s writings (which includes Acts) as Inspired Scripture, & Peter backed up Paul by acknowledging Paul’s, which they both were able to back up by performing miracles. But nobody backed up Clement’s claims of the Phoenix - either secularly, nor Scripturally.

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.

Mentioning the Name “Jesus” isn’t a criterion for making a writing Inspired, nor did I EVER even insinuate that, let alone state that. So, I don’t know “where” you got that idea - you are really out in left field on your own on that one!

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

It amazes me how much you don’t listen. You are making the common fallacy that when godly criteria are given for a text to qualify for Inspiration, you falsely “assume” that ALL of those criteria MUST be present to make them Inspired. Obviously, the writer of Hebrews is unknown. In fact, it is only by tradition that we know who the authors of the Gospels & Acts are, because they texts themselves don’t say. But lack of authorship doesn’t “disqualify” those texts from being Inspired. Like the Gospels & Acts, Hebrews too is inerrant & lacks contradictions - both theological & historical - something you can’t say about 1 Clement. And to answer your question, I know Jesus rose from the dead because OTHER BOOKS IN THE NT “’'STATE” that He did, & the apostles like James the brother of John DIED for that faith without recanting (Acts 12:2) - something they would “not” have done if it was a lie. All this I’ve told you - numerous times! - yet you keep repeating yourself over and over and over again, proving that you either aren’t listening & having real difficulty comprehending simple English, even after it’s been explained to you numerous times.

 

[thetazlord]

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…

You just proved - again - that you’re not listening or comprehending. The Pharisees & Protestants having the same canon isn’t the point. The point - again! - is that Jesus…JESUS!…is the One Who acknowledged the Pharisees canon as Inspired - not the Apocrypha books. Jesus’ issue was the Pharisees wasn’t the books they used, but because they weren’t following them! They either “added” their extra-biblical “traditions” TO Scripture (“the doctrines the precepts of MEN”)(Matthew 15:9), or they contradicted Scripture - something God can’t do, because God can’t change. Had they based their faith in the promised Jewish Messiah strictly on the Word of God, and not “added to,” “take away from,” or “exceeded what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6), they would have recognized their Messiah, instead of crucifying Him. But they “added to” Scripture a “messiah” that would save them from the oppression of Rome, rather than a “suffering slave” Messiah Who had to die first for the sins of mankind.

 

[thetazlord]

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

In order for something to be an error, you either have to have a basis for it, or if something claims something to be true but there’s not support for it, then it’s an error. If you compare Hebrews & 3 John to the rest of Scripture, there are ZERO errors in it - neither from the OT, nor the NT. Plus, neither text conflicts with anything we can “prove” from secular history. However, in 1 Clement, who believes the Phoenix was a real historical animal who Clement believed existed in his own time, there is ZERO evidence from Scripture that such an animal existed - either from the OT, nor the NT. There is also ZERO evidence from credible secular history that it ever existed either.