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

[adf417]

This is false.

Correct!

Either 2 Thessalonians 2:15 would proof text against that statement or hold the statement true also for the letters (writings) Paul wrote.

Peace!!!

 

[Duane1966]

Again from the website that I linked earlier.

              **I. TobitThe Book is Prophetic:**

In the Book of Tobit, the Archangel Raphael appears to Tobit disguised as a man. When he reveals his true identity, he identifies himself in this way (Tobit 12:15):

I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who enter and serve before the Glory of the Lord.In this capacity, he explains (Tobit 12:12),I can now tell you that when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, itwas I who presented and read the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and I did the same thing when you used to bury the dead.So the Book of Tobit is presenting a bold claim: that there are seven angels who stand in the presence of God, and who participate in the offering up of the prayers of the saints. No other Book in the Old Testament canon of the Catholics, Protestants, or Jews includes this detail. Yet here’s the fascinating thing: according to the New Testament, this claim is true. Thereareseven angels who stand in the Presence of God,and who are responsible for presentingthe prayers of the saints before Almighty God.**Specifically, look toRevelation 8:2-4, which says:ThenI saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.How could the author of Tobit possibly know such intimate details of the Inner Sanctum of Heaven if this were not part of Divine Revelation?

        ** The Book was Accepted by the Early Church:**

Origen mentioned, in the middle part of the third century, that unlike the Jews,“the Churches use Tobias” as Scripture. His opponent, Africanus,likewise saysthat Tobit“prophesied” about the Babylonian Captivity.Even before this, St. Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromata, argues against the Gnostics that it’s the Christians who are the true gnostics (that is, the true learned). *At one point, he says: Therefore the Gnostic prays in thought during every hour, being by love allied to God. And first he will ask forgiveness of sins; and after, that he may sin no more; and further, the power of well-doing and of comprehending the whole creation and administration by the Lord, that, becoming pure in heart through the knowledge, which is by the Son of God, he may be initiated into the beatific vision face to face,having heard the Scripture which says, “Fasting with prayer is a good thing.”That passage he’s calling Scripture is Tobit 12:8. And theStromatawas written between 198 and 203 A.D. In addition, copies of the Book of Tobit werefound in both Hebrew and Aramaic among the Dead Sea Scrolls, suggesting that at least some of the Jews around the time of Christ considered it canonical.

 

[Duane1966]

Again from this website: catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/defending-deuterocanon-book-by-book_28.html?m=1

II. JudithThe Book is Prophetic:*

Judith (whose name, meaning*“Jewess,” is the female form of*“Judah”) appears to be a symbol of Israel and the Church, and prefigures Mary in a number of ways. Genesis 3:15 promises that the Serpent (the devil) would be an enmity with the Woman (representing Mary and the Church) and the Seed of the Woman (representing Christ), a battle we also see playing out in Revelation 12. The Book of Judith continues this theme, pitting Judith against theBabylonians, Assyrians, Medeans,andChaldeans.The Marian parallels to Judith are numerous.In Judith6:19, Judith says,“Lord, God of heaven, behold their arrogance! Have pity on the lowliness of our people, and look with favor this day on those who are consecrated to you.” This is fulfilled in the Magnificat, in which Mary, consecrated to the Lord, declares that (Luke 1:51-52),“He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree.”Likewise, Judith says (in Judith 8:32),“Listen to me. I am about to do something that will go down through all generations of our descendants,” just as Mary promised in Luke 1:48 that*“behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed.” And Judith 15:9,“You are the glory of Jerusalem, the surpassing joy of Israel; you are the splendid boast of our people,” is used in the Liturgy to describe Mary.

The Book was Accepted by the Early Church:*

The*passage referenced above, in which Origen talks about how the Christians accepted the canonicity of Tobit (despite Jewish rejection), analogizes it to the situation of the Book of Judith. *The implication is that Judith, like Tobit, is accepted by the Christians, despite being rejected by the Jews.*St. Clement of Alexandria, likewise, refers to Judith as a model of virtuous womanhood, and as a demonstration of how women are called to be Saints along with men. *After describing the great deeds of Moses in Scripture (and right before describing the great deeds of Esther),

Clement writes:

But Judith too, who became perfect among women, in the siege of the city, at the entreaty of the elders went forth into the strangers’ camp, despising all danger for her country’s sake, giving herself into the enemy’s hand in faith in God; and straightway she obtained the reward of her faith,—though a woman, prevailing over the enemy of her faith, and gaining possession of the head of Holofernes.*Clement is, without a doubt, treating the Book of Judith as Scriptural here. And this also comes from theStromata, written no later than about 203.

As early as this is, we can actually go back more than a century earlier to find Pope Clement making the same point, and using the same two Books (Judith and Esther):

Many women also, being strengthened by the grace of God, have performed numerous manly exploits. The blessed Judith, when her city was besieged, asked of the elders permission to go forth into the camp of the strangers; and, exposing herself to danger, she went out for the love which she bare to her country and people then besieged; and the Lord delivered Holofernes into the hands of a woman.Esther also, being perfect in faith, exposed herself to no less danger, in order to deliver the twelve tribes of Israel from impending destruction. For with fasting and humiliation she entreated the everlasting God, who seeth all things; and He, perceiving the humility of her spirit, delivered the people for whose sake she had encountered peril.What’s incredible is that,according to the Protestant historianPhilip Schaff, PopeClement’s letter to the Corinthians,*“may be dated about A.D. 97,” and could be as old as about 68 A.D. *Even assuming the later date, this is at a time when the Apostle John is still alive, and we’ve got the pope using the Book of Judith as if it’s Scripture.

 

[ericc]

…at “The Great Synagogue” under the leadership of Ezra around 400 B.C., which closed the OT canon long before the 7 Apocrypha books & “additions” to Esther & Daniel were ever written.

I can’t find evidence that Men of the Great assembly closed the OT canon. Even at that stage the Sadducees disagreed with the Pharisees on which books are considered divine, the Sadducees recognizing only the 5 books of Moses. None of the OT books recorded the closure of the OT canon. No priest, rabbi, prophet, holy man from the Men of Great Assembly declared the OT canon closed. Even at the time of Jesus, the disagreement with the Pharisees still remain.

Then when was the OT canon closed then? Who has the authority to close it? By Jesus time, there were no more prophets and the Jews commonly accepted that the last OT prophet to be Malachi after which there would be no more prophecy. Jamnia is nothing more than a school for rabbi or where such educated people gather. There is no record of a Sanhedrin closing the OT canon in Jamnia. A group of rabbi getting together to select which books they like to be in the OT does not give any authority or credence to their actions.

If the OT canon was considered closed since Ezra, why would Ethiopian Jews use the Septuagint? If the OT canon is closed, why would Israel Karaites Jews reject the Talmud? Many claim the Masoretic Text to be the final closure. Unfortunately, there are Jews such as the above that don’t recognise that and MT is really quite recent 1000 AD and not error free either.

If the Jews reject Maccabees in the OT canon, why would they celebrate Hanukkah which originated from 1 Maccabees? Jesus celebrated it.

The Talmud regard Sirach as “Scripture” too.

As such, there is no consensus as to which books constitute the OT canon that is acceptable to all practitioners of Judaism.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I can’t find evidence that Men of the Great assembly closed the OT canon. Even at that stage the Sadducees disagreed with the Pharisees on which books are considered divine, the Sadducees recognizing only the 5 books of Moses. None of the OT books recorded the closure of the OT canon. No priest, rabbi, prophet, holy man from the Men of Great Assembly declared the OT canon closed. Even at the time of Jesus, the disagreement with the Pharisees still remain.

Then when was the OT canon closed then? Who has the authority to close it? By Jesus time, there were no more prophets and the Jews commonly accepted that the last OT prophet to be Malachi after which there would be no more prophecy. Jamnia is nothing more than a school for rabbi or where such educated people gather. There is no record of a Sanhedrin closing the OT canon in Jamnia. A group of rabbi getting together to select which books they like to be in the OT does not give any authority or credence to their actions.

If the OT canon was considered closed since Ezra, why would Ethiopian Jews use the Septuagint? If the OT canon is closed, why would Israel Karaites Jews reject the Talmud? Many claim the Masoretic Text to be the final closure. Unfortunately, there are Jews such as the above that don’t recognise that and MT is really quite recent 1000 AD and not error free either.

If the Jews reject Maccabees in the OT canon, why would they celebrate Hanukkah which originated from 1 Maccabees? Jesus celebrated it.

The Talmud regard Sirach as “Scripture” too.

As such, there is no consensus as to which books constitute the OT canon that is acceptable to all practitioners of Judaism.

Excellent points!!

Why do the Jews celebrate Hannakuh if it’s not in their canon of scripture ?

 

[stewstew03]

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?

I’m confused – are you citing Luke 24:44 as evidence that Jesus rejected the Septuagint?

 

[Duane1966]

And again from this website:catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/defending-deuterocanon-book-by-book_28.html?m=1

V. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)The Book was Probably Referenced by Jesus Christ:*

Sirach 27:6 says that*“The fruit discloses the cultivation of a tree; so the expression of a thought discloses the cultivation of a man’s mind.” *Christ seems to be quoting (or at least alluding) to this passage in Matthew 7:16-20:”You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

Other parts of the New Testament follow this pattern - for instance, James 1:19 seems to quote Sirach 5:11.The Book was Declared Scripture by the Third Ecumenical Council:*The First Council of Ephesus,the Third Ecumenical Council,declared:Forasmuch asthe divinely inspired Scripturesays, “Do all things with advice”…The Council is quoting Sirach 32:19. As the Protestant historian Philip Schaff notes, this is significant, since it shows that“The deutero-canonical book of Ecclesiasticus is here by an Ecumenical Council styled ‘divinely-inspired Scripture.’” Why does this matter? Because a number of Protestant bodies claim to accept the early Ecumenical Councils, even while denying what those Councils declared on this, and many other issues. For example, the Lutheran World Federation, ina joint statement with the Eastern Orthodox, called the first Seven Ecumenical Councils“normative for the faith and life of our churches today”and“authoritative for our churches.”

The Book was Accepted by the Early Church:

TheDidacheis a first century Christian document summarizing the faith, and the practices of the Church, for new Christians. It goes back to virtually the beginning of the faith: in fact, it may well beolderthan parts of the New Testament. **In it, it says,“Do not be one who holds his hand out to take, but shuts it when it comes to giving.”That’s almost a direct quotation of Sirach 4:31,“Let not your hand be extended to receive, but withdrawn when it is time to repay.”

But whatever ambiguity may exist as to whether the Didache is quoting Sirach, there’s no question about the use of Sirach as Scripture in a number of other early Church writings. For example,inSt. Clement’sPaedagogus, written c. 189-200 A.D., we hear:For the Father takes great care of man, and gives to him alone His own art.The Scripturetherefore says, “Water, and fire, and iron, and milk, and fine flour of wheat, and honey, the blood of the grape, and oil, and clothing,—all these things are for the good of the godly.”That Scriptural quotation is from Sirach 39:26-27.

The Babylonian Talmud
The Book was Accepted by the Early Jews:

*Michael Barber has described,one of the most fascinating discoveries in regards to this Book is that despite being rejected by modern Jews,Sirachis quoted as Scripture by the Jewish Talmud. As you may know, the Jewish canon of Scripture is divided in three parts: the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi’im) and the Writings (KetubimorHagiographa). According toFolio 92b of Tractate Baba Kamma, the Book of Sirach belongs in this third category of Scripture, along with Books like Psalms, Proverbs, and Ezra. *

Here’s the relevant passage:

This matter was written in the Pentateuch, repeated in the Prophets,*mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, and also learnt in a Mishnah and taught in a Baraitha: It is stated in the Pentateuch as written,*So Esau went unto Ishmael[Genesis 28:9]; repeated in the prophets, as written,And there gathered themselves to Jephthah idle men and they went out with him[Judges 11:3];*mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, as written:Every fowl dwells near its kind and man near his equal…**[Sirach 13:5]*Without a doubt, this is the Talmud quoting Sirach 13:5(orEcclesiasticus)as Scripture. Rabbi Dr. Ezekiel Isidore Epstein, responsible for the English translation of the Talmud,concedesas much in a footnote.*

 

[clem456]

Correct!

Either 2 Thessalonians 2:15 would proof text against that statement or hold the statement true also for the letters (writings) Paul wrote.

Peace!!!

The assertion that only Scripture is God breathed does not pass the test of reason.
Before Scripture was written this happened:

19So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23

 

[fasolislithuan]

Thetazlord. After reading your answer I see that you admit the incompetence of “Sola Scriptura” to establish a Scriptural canon but for different reason: not for inefficiency and insufficiency but for lack of aptitude: It’s not the pertinent tool.

You say:

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

.

Now, let’s remember, you’ve explained, to clarify the term, Sola Scriptura as:

In the simplest terms: ** all traditions, doctrines, dogmas, rituals, or interpretations** cannot ‘exceed,’ ‘add or take away from,’ nor contradict Scripture, which is supported from the beginning of the Bible all the way through to the last page of it

Therefore, from your words, not only doctrine, rituals, interpretations but even traditions and dogmas are subjects to the judgment of Sola Scriptura.

Now analyze both quotations together. In logic with your first assertion, the determining of the exact contents of the Bible is not doctrine, beliefs, because it’s not subject to Sola Scriptura.If it were that way then Sola Scriptura it would be competent. And taking into account your proper definition of Sola Scriptura the determining of the exact contents of the Bible is neither dogma, tradition, interpretation because all of them (in your words) are also subjects of Sola Scriptura, whereas establishing the canon of Scriptura has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. It’s the first time I’ve read or listened that claim from a christian.

I’m baffled myself. I ask: If the determining of the exact contents of the Bible (not subjected to Sola Scriptura) is not a issue of doctrine, belief, dogma, tradition, interpretation (let’s recall, all of them subjects of Sola Scriptura) then what is exactly? A subject for historians or perhaps for scientists? If it’s not dogma, doctrine, belief, tradition… what is the necessity to establish the exact contents of the God’s Word beyond an sterile task of erudition? Why then, the necessity of EC councils, the incessant ECF’s discussions about the exact canon if it’s not a matter of doctrine, beliefs, traditions, dogma? You claim the Bible are** exactly** 66 books but, do you know?: This is unnecesary and secundary. You, me or anybody aren’t bound to believe the Bible is exactly 66 books because you has asserted this is not a matter of belief, dogma, doctrine, tradition. Is there any purpose of claiming and showing us the Bible are exactly x books if is only a question of intelectual or historical refinement and not a matter of doctrine, tradition, dogma, interpretation,etc, all of them, matters subject to Sola Scripture (accord your definition of Sola Scripture)?

If this reasoning is outlandish, trying to avoid the acknowledgement that Sola Scripture is insufficient and unable to determine a crucial truth of faith as the contents of the Bible, your intellectual inconsistence is also remarkable. Let’s remember again your argument:

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

.

Well, I can show some quotes where you reject the Deuterocanonical Books for theological considerations. For example:

The reason he gives is irrelevant, since what language these books were originally written in isn’t what makes them Inspired or not. The fact that each & every one of them have historical and/or theological errors & contradictions in them that conflict with prior & later Scriptures

You emphazising the theological errors:

Also, the reason they aren’t Inspired, is because unlike the Hebrew/Aramaic OT Scriptures & the NT Greek Scriptures, the 7 Apocrypha & “additions” to Daniel & Esther contain historical and/or theological errors & contradictions that conflict with previous & later Inspired Scripture.

Those theological errors are not a mere consideration of each book in isolation. The conflicts with other books of the Bible implies doctrinal and dogmatic considerations, precisely the same considerations that Sola Scriptura theoretically is competent.

The definitive evidence is this passage where you perfectly explain how Sola Scriptura is the canon (“rod”) to reject these 7 Deuterocanonical Books, contradicting your premise that “Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with establishing the canon of Scriptura” and is not the pertinent tool to discern the “canonicity” of these 7 Books.

By comparing them to the non-apocrypha OT & NT Scriptures (ie; the Hebrew/Aramaic OT & Greek NT Scriptures). When you compare their historical/theological claims to them, the 7 Apocrypha books contain errors & contradict the OT/NT Scriptures. Since the Bible is God-breathed, then God-breathed Scripture is the “canon” (or “rod”) used to measure whether something is an error or contradiction…

You’ve refuted yourself !

I reaffirm in my conclusions. The exact contents of the Word’s God is a fundamental truth of our common faith. You cannot dispatch the matter passing the buck saying that Sola Scripture is not competent. If Sola Scriptura is unable and incompetent to determine the exact contents of the Bible then Sola Scriptura has to be rejected like insufficient rule, unable to judge fundamental truths of faith. “Sola Scriptura” is, at the very least in this case, fallible. And therefore, by extension, untrustworthy.

 

[thetazlord]

Originally Posted by thetazlord
…
No NT writer (including Paul) states that people or extra-biblical “traditions” are Inspired, or God-breathed,

Then please show me the verse that STATES people & extra-biblical traditions are “Inspired” (theopneutos).

 

[thetazlord]

Greetings thetazlord I pray your day is a blessed one.

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?

As the NT was being written & being accepted by the early first century Church, since the apostles were still alive to confirm them, like Peter, Paul, & John, it wasn’t as much as a problem. But as time went on & the apostles died, false “gospels” that were falsely attributed to the apostles, or their contempories, began to be written, like the gnostics & pseudoepigraphical “gospels.” So, although the Church had the Inspired texts, godly criteria was required to discern between the Inspired texts & the forgeries. This is why an “official” NT canon was required, just as there was one for the OT Scriptures.

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.

Peace!!!

It’s not an assumption. Peter affirmed ALL of Paul’s epistles as Inspired Scripture, as did Paul for Luke’s. The evidence (not “assumption”) for the Catholic church not using the same godly criteria used for the NT, for the Apocrypha is that there are historical and theological errors & contradictions in every Apocrypha writing. That’s not an “assumption,” but a bona fide fact.

 

[thetazlord]

I can’t find evidence that Men of the Great assembly closed the OT canon. Even at that stage the Sadducees disagreed with the Pharisees on which books are considered divine, the Sadducees recognizing only the 5 books of Moses. None of the OT books recorded the closure of the OT canon. No priest, rabbi, prophet, holy man from the Men of Great Assembly declared the OT canon closed. Even at the time of Jesus, the disagreement with the Pharisees still remain.

Then when was the OT canon closed then? Who has the authority to close it? By Jesus time, there were no more prophets and the Jews commonly accepted that the last OT prophet to be Malachi after which there would be no more prophecy. Jamnia is nothing more than a school for rabbi or where such educated people gather. There is no record of a Sanhedrin closing the OT canon in Jamnia. A group of rabbi getting together to select which books they like to be in the OT does not give any authority or credence to their actions.

If the OT canon was considered closed since Ezra, why would Ethiopian Jews use the Septuagint? If the OT canon is closed, why would Israel Karaites Jews reject the Talmud? Many claim the Masoretic Text to be the final closure. Unfortunately, there are Jews such as the above that don’t recognise that and MT is really quite recent 1000 AD and not error free either.

If the Jews reject Maccabees in the OT canon, why would they celebrate Hanukkah which originated from 1 Maccabees? Jesus celebrated it.

The Talmud regard Sirach as “Scripture” too.

As such, there is no consensus as to which books constitute the OT canon that is acceptable to all practitioners of Judaism.

The same reason those who call themselves “Christian” add books to the NT, & even other “revelations” of Jesus Christ. They don’t recognize error when they read it.

 

[thetazlord]

Excellent points!!

Why do the Jews celebrate Hannakuh if it’s not in their canon of scripture ?

Because non-Messianic Jews are apostate. Next question.

 

[thetazlord]

I’m confused – are you citing Luke 24:44 as evidence that Jesus rejected the Septuagint?

No, that He rejected the Apocrypha books in the Septuagint, not the Inspired books that are translated from the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures in the Septuagint themselves. Let me ask you: “Why” did Jesus separate “the Psalms” from “the Prophets” in Luke 24:44-45 as a THIRD division of the OT, instead of just referring to the OT canon as “the Law & the Prophets”?

 

[thetazlord]

Thetazlord. After reading your answer I see that you admit the incompetence of “Sola Scriptura” to establish a Scriptural canon but for different reason: not for inefficiency and insufficiency but for lack of aptitude: It’s not the pertinent tool.

That’s because sola scriptura has nothing to do with establishing the canon itself. The two have nothing to do with one another. So, it doesn’t make sola scriptura “incompetent” because it has nothing to do with the canon itself. Catholics here really are having a hard time understanding what sola scriptura is, despite numerous attempts of explaining it in the simplest terms.

 

[fasolislithuan]

That’s because sola scriptura has nothing to do with establishing the canon itself. The two have nothing to do with one another. So, it doesn’t make sola scriptura “incompetent” because it has nothing to do with the canon itself. Catholics here really are having a hard time understanding what sola scriptura is, despite numerous attempts of explaining it in the simplest terms.

 

[ericc]

The same reason those who call themselves “Christian” add books to the NT, & even other “revelations” of Jesus Christ. They don’t recognize error when they read it.

Thanks for avoiding a response. Now we know for sure that Ezra didn’t close the canon.

I was preparing my followup question on who convened the Protestant council that determined the Protestant canon infallibly and who gave them that authority. I guess that is a moot point now.

 

[fasolislithuan]

That’s because sola scriptura has nothing to do with establishing the canon itself. The two have nothing to do with one another. So, it doesn’t make sola scriptura “incompetent” because it has nothing to do with the canon itself. Catholics here really are having a hard time understanding what sola scriptura is, despite numerous attempts of explaining it in the simplest terms.

But this cannot be a satisfactory answer. In fact you’re only reiterating your message #57 without adding evidences of your claim. You’re only making assertions but your own words in other posts refute your position, as I’ve shown in message #69. That Catholics “here really are having a hard time understanding what sola scriptura is” is only your pressumption but is not a fact. For example I’ve analized your understanding of sola scriptura (with your words) in my last message #69 and it’s unconvincing and refutable because is contradictory with your assertion that “sola scriptura has nothing to do with establishing the canon itself”. Yourself have used Sola Scriptura to reject Deuterocanonical Books as I’ve already shown in message #69 and as a result you’ve refuted yourself.

The case rest on this:

You cannot defend that (we called it the* first argument*):

That’s because sola scriptura has nothing to do with establishing the canon itself. The two have nothing to do with one another. So, it doesn’t make sola scriptura “incompetent” because it has nothing to do with the canon itself.

and that (we called it the second argument):

By comparing them to the non-apocrypha OT & NT Scriptures (ie; the Hebrew/Aramaic OT & Greek NT Scriptures). When you compare their historical/theological claims to them, the 7 Apocrypha books contain errors & contradict the OT/NT Scriptures. Since the Bible is God-breathed, then God-breathed Scripture is the “canon” (or “rod”) used to measure whether something is an error or contradiction…

without contradict yourself.

• If the first argument is true then the second is indisputably false. You’ve defended the rejection of Deuterocanonical books as canon is based in their errors. And you’ve defended the God-breathed Scripture is the canon or “rod” used to measure wether something is an error. So the determining of these books as canonical for you is dependient of the ‘rod’ used to measure their presumed errors, i.e. God-breathed Scripture. Not dependient of extrabiblical resources. The rod is God-breathed Scripture. That’s your words:

God-breathed Scripture is the “canon” (or “rod”) used to measure whether something is an error or contradiction.

But you’ve previously claimed that Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with establishing the canon. Then, there are only two possibilities:

a) You’re contradicting yourself and you’re not aware.
b) You’re aware that you’re contradicting yourself. You’re aware that you cannot reject some books as Sacred Scriptures with the measuring rod that yourself admit has nothing to do with the determining of the canon. Then you’re an hypocritical (That’s a possibility that I don´t think it´s need)

• But if the first argument is false, or in other words, that Sola Scriptura is a pertinent tool that can be used to determine the canon then we can analyze if your second argument is correct: Is God-breathed Scripture the “canon” (or “rod”) used to measure whether something is an error or contradiction (to dismissing as canonical)? The answer is an emphatic NO. Your words are the evidence:

In order to appreciate the reason there are the number of books in the Bible - no more, no less - begins with the recognition of the godly attributes (inerrancy, lack of contradictions, written by recognized apostles of God & disciples of Christ or their close contemporaries: Mark → Peter; Luke → Paul; etc) that don’t exist in any other religious or secular texts.

In this quote you admit a extrabiblical process of recognition (godly atributes, lack of contraditions ,recognition of authentic authors). This discernment is extrinsecal to the Bible and requires external knowledge. It demands critical and external studies who submit the authority of the “measuring rod” (God-breathed Scripture) to fallible and human judgements (from protestant perspective). And it exposes the incoherence of Sola Scriptura followers that considering any extrabiblical judgement “fallible and human” they need to submit not only their consciences but the sole and infallible rule to these fallible judgements to establish the protestant canon.

Therefore Sola Scriptura is in any case an incompetent tool:

1. Either it’s incapable to judge and determine the canonical character of any book liable to belong to Sacred Scriptures (because has nothing to do with establishing the canon), so it cannot be used as a tool to reject as canonical any Bible Books (including Deuterocanonicals) The result is always a canon based on extra-biblical and fallible authorities (from protestant perspective) and thus a fallible and untrustworthy Bible of 66 books.
2. Or being Sola Scriptura capable to make a judgement it’s without a doubt insufficient, because it’s necessary the implementation of extra-biblical tools to do the work. The resultt is always a canon based on fallible authoritites (from protestant perspective) and thus a fallible and untrustworthy Bible of 66 books.

 

[adf417]

As the NT was being written & being accepted by the early first century Church, since the apostles were still alive to confirm them, like Peter, Paul, & John, it wasn’t as much as a problem. But as time went on & the apostles died, false “gospels” that were falsely attributed to the apostles, or their contempories, began to be written, like the gnostics & pseudoepigraphical “gospels.” So, although the Church had the Inspired texts, godly criteria was required to discern between the Inspired texts & the forgeries. This is why an “official” NT canon was required, just as there was one for the OT Scriptures.

We agree the 27 inspired books were in fact written and in circulation by the time the 1st century came to a close. But at this time, and for hundreds of years to come, other books were also considered inspired and used in the liturgy. I underline “and for hundreds of years” because it fly’s in the face of your logic. If the earliest of ECF’s had it wrong how, when, where did this “godly criteria” come about? Your logic would have us believe that the 27 books were inspired, and known. in the 1st century, other gnostic writings crept in, with no authority, the crept out with no authority. And the completion of this “creeping out” did not come about till the 16th century. Is this your narrative? Can you point to the time when this “creeping out” begin?

What was the purpose of the early councils? Did they have ANY purpose at all?

Peace!!!

 

[ericc]

Jon S;12725734:

Excellent points!!

Why do the Jews celebrate Hannakuh if it’s not in their canon of scripture ?

Because non-Messianic Jews are apostate. Next question.

What kind of answer is that? From whose POV? Jews or Christians? Or yours? All Jews at that time celebrated Hannukah, whether they are followers of Christ or not.

But your response didn’t answer the question. If it is not Scripture, why would the Jews (Jesus and his followers as well) celebrate it? Jewish Christians continued to observe Jewish customs for some time in early christianity, they still go to their synagogues, prayed in the Jerusalem temple, circumcision etc. Jon deserved a better answer than a “Next question” as if you have satisfied answering his question. If you don’t have time to do a proper response, ask for more time and I am sure forumers here are more than willing to wait for a thought out answer.