Just what do you mean, specifically, when you say “God -breathed”? You use the term a lot, it might clear some things up if you explained specifically what you mean by that.
You’ve provided no evidence otherwise.
As one small detail, we’ve discussed the fictitious nature of the Council of Jamnia on another thread–and a subject about which there are even many, many other threads in the forums here. But you don’t have to take my word for it, with the Internet this research is fairly easy to do on your own. Or simply go to the library and look at a copy of Luther’s 1535 Bible and/or the Glossa Ordinaria for yourself–that’s what I did when I was interested in finding out the truth about this topic.
Like I said, that’s not evidence enough. Jamnia may or may not have closed the Jewish canon, but what is claimed to have occurred at Jamnia certainly did occur at that time and as history went along.
A blog? Sorry but your responses come across as “I have my mind made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.” Being religious doesn’t mean you have to check your critical thinking skills at the door. Have a good day.
Show us some studies than Dave…I have provided, Jewish and Chtistian examples. Sorry I can’t rewrite books on the forum.
But you’re not citing any scripture for your premise. Can you show me where in the bible it says that the deuterocanonical books contain error or should be excluded from the canon? Or, more importantly, can you point out the scripture verse that says the OT/NT canon is closed? I’m not talking about your rationale for excluding them. I’m asking you to point out book/chapter/verse that would provide some clarification on the books that belong in the canon, and when the canon should be closed.
The fact that those articles don’t deal with the errors in the 7 Apocrypha book doesn’t make them strawman. It makes the errors…well…irreconcilable errors.
Jesus making these fictional, theorectical stories to explain a greater spiritual truth isn’t the same as believing that Judith was a real person. The former aren’t believed to be real, while the latter is. I don’t think you are understanding the difference between an analogy or parable, and an outright error.
If a piece of writing claims something (or someone) to be real & it’s not, then it’s false & not Inspired.
No, I’m well-aware of the differences. I’m afraid you don’t understand that aside from parables & analogies - which are understood to be not real - all of the actual events & people spoken about in the Prostestan canon are indeed real. According to my Catholic Bible, Judith was believed to be a real historical person. Unlike Judith, you don’t find in the Protestant canon, people who are believed to be real, but the events are “fictional,” like Judith. But that’s not the only error with Judith that makes it not Inspired.
First, just because the Hebrew version doesn’t explicitly refer to Daniel explicitly as a “prophet” doesn’t mean that he’s not. By definition, a prophet is someone who speaks authoritatively the things of God, which is what Daniel did when he described the dreams of King Nebuchadnezzar & others. Second, when Daniel was originally written & the OT canon was established under the leadership of Ezra at the “Great Synagogue” around 400 B.C., Daniel would have been included in the Writings (Ketuvim). Daniel & it’s LATER “additions” were later placed in the Prophets, because the Greek Septuagint was a LATER translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, & when the 7 Apocrypha books & the “additions” were placed in the Septuagint, the “rearrangement” of these books would have simply reflected that Daniel was indeed a prophet. So, this isn’t evidence that Jesus “accepted” the “additions,” just that He was quoting from the Septuagint - the translation read from during the time Jesus walked the earth.
Actually, if you read John 10:22-23, it states the Jesus was simply walking on Solomon’s porch during Hanukkah (“the Feast of Dedication”). It doesn’t actually say that Jesus was celebrating Hanukkah. And even “if” He was (which, again, isn’t supported by the text, since Hanukkah was a Jewish feast, Jesus wouldn’t be violating sola scriptura, since Hanukkah wouldn’t be a “tradition” that would conflict with previous OT Inspired Scripture. But it’s a moot point anyways for the aforementioned reason.
Jesus never stated that the Books of Maccabees were Scripture, as they are not found in the THREE-fold division of the OT that Jesus affirmed as Scripture (Luke 24:44-45), & He was not “fine” with extra-Scriptural “tradition” (Matthew 15:1-9). What Protestantism would “deny” is your conclusion.
Simple. Most of the NT was already recognized as Inspired Scripture by mid-first century, while the earliest Church fathers were still alive (like Paul, Peter, & John), which later ECF’s would have known. The false assumption that occured was that since the Greek Septuagint contained the translations of the Hebrew Scriptures and the 7 Apocrypha books and the “additions” of Esther & Daniel, they simply assumed that the latter were Inspired as well. IOW, because of their assumption, they didn’t use the same criteria they used for the NT. The NT was based on godly criteria & testimony from people like Peter, Paul, & John. The Apocrypha wasn’t based on the same godly criteria, but an assumption.
When the Protestant canon was established, it included the 7 Apocrypha books, but as a separate “section” in their Bibles, but the Reformers didn’t consider them Inspired. The insight that they had errors & contradictions came later. So, although they “might” not have considered them Inspired for this reason, nonetheless, the were correct - Scripturally - for removing them.
God-breathed is the same as Inspired, which Paul states ALL Scripture is Inspired (or, God-breathed)(2 Timothy 3:16). No NT writer (including Paul) states that people or extra-biblical “traditions” are Inspired, or God-breathed, in the context Paul means in 2 Timothy 3:16 regarding Scripture.
Jamnia didn’t close the Jewish canon. The “Great Synagogue” under the leadership of Ezra did, which Jesus recognized later (Luke 24:44-45).
That’s because sola scriptura has nothing to do with establishing the canon of Scriptura. Sola scriptura has to do with the sole authority of the Christian faith in determining doctrine, beliefs, etc comes from the Word of God, & anything that “adds to,” “takes away from,” or contradicts the Word of God (such as “some” of the claims in the 7 Apocrypha books), doesn’t. The canon of Scripture is based on the 39 books in the OT & the 27 books of the NT having the same thing in common that the 7 Apocrypha books don’t - inerrancy, lack of contradictions (both historically & theologically). I’m afraid your disbelief of Protestant canon based on your disbelief in sola scriptura has nothing to do with one another, & is a strawman.
I can show you in the deuterocanonical books, where they conflict with both the earlier OT Hebrew Scripture, as well as the later NT Greek Scriptures, which the NT writers affirmed as Inspired Scripture. Regarding the NT declaring the OT canon being closed, I explained this in my post. If you can’t see it, then let me help by asking you - why did Jesus refer to the OT canon as “the Law…and the Prophets…and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44-45)? Why didn’t He simply refer to it as “the Law & the Prophets” like He did elsewhere in Scripture?
This is false.
You continue to overlook the obvious. If the NT was already recognized by the mid-first century, why was everybody reporting different canons from then and well into the 5th century? I do agree it is simple, when you consider what it was that the early councils of Rome, Hippo, & Carthage actually did. You do agree there were actual councils meeting for some reason, right?
Do show other evidence of what these meeting were all about?I agree it is your assumption that the 7 “Apocryphal” books have anything to do with the NT canon and therefor makes this a classic straw man - classic.
