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

[PRmerger]

but on the fact that every single book & epistle in that 66 book canon is without error & doesn’t contradict itself, as well as other godly attributes that make it “God-breathed.”

Let’s see how your system works.

If you are evaluating the text of this manuscript to see if it’s theopneustos, and you read this:

Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment,

wouldn’t you conclude that it’s in error?

For, clearly, some men have NOT died once. Some died, and were raised. (the son of the Zarephath widow, the son of the Shunammite woman, Dorcas, Lazarus, Eutychus). That means, they died TWICE.

And, at the end of time, some men will NOT DIE at all.

So using your paradigm, you must reject Hebrews.

Is that correct, taz?

 

[PRmerger]

Again, this godly criteria needed to be established because of all these other non-inspired gnostic, pseudoepigraphical, & other writings began to surface - many of them contradicted each other, as well as the “actual” **Inspired Scripture recognized **as such since the first century (like Paul’s epistles & the Gospel of Luke, etc).

Who **recognized **them? (More on this later).

Was there a Bible that they used to see if these texts contradicted the Bible?

Oh, wait…that wouldn’t work. Although that seems to be what you were suggesting–“we know what’s theopneustos because it doesn’t contradict what’s in the Bible”.

What would have to happen, taz, would be this: Sacred Tradition proclaimed the Good News. ORALLY. And then some of it was put to writ.

And when texts came to the surface, they were evaluated. Those texts which didn’t contradict this paradosis were recognized* and included in the Sacred Liturgy.

*Recognized: discerned by men…bishops, to be exact.

No church member was given the freedom to read these texts and decide BY HIMSELF whether he considered it theopneustos.

They took the word of their elders…AKA presbyters (AKA…PRIESTS) on this.

 

[PRmerger]

Also, just because Hanukkah is mentioned in the books of Maccabees, & Jews celebrated it, that doesn’t make Maccabees Inspired, because BOTH books don’t have the godly attributes that qualify them as being God-breathed (inerrant, lack of contradictions, etc). The 66 OT canon & 27 NT canon found in Protestant Bibles do.

Again, how do you know if Maccabbees contains errors, unless you already have the Bible to compare it to?

But you don’t have the Bible yet, if you’re trying to discern what belongs in the Bible.

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

 

[stewstew03]

vernisage.us/SteveChristie/22/index.html

If you view the notes in the upper right hand corner of the screen, you can view it in the notes, beginning on p.6.

Nah - go ahead and spell it out for me - that site is not to be taken seriously.

The celebration of Purim (Esther 9:26), that both OT Jews & NT Jews celebrated - many of which continue to celebrate it even today. Plus, Esther is part of the OT Inspired Scripture as belonging to The ‘Five Rolls’ (‘Megilloth’) in the “Writings” of the THREE-fold division of the OT that Jesus recognized as Inspired Scripture (Luke 24:44-45), which Paul recognized Luke’s Gospel as Inspired Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7), which Peter recognized Paul’s epistles as Inspired Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So, Esther being Inspired Scripture is recognized by Jesus, Paul, & Peter. So, your question is a moot point.

Um… You didn’t answer the question. What is the DOCTRINE that Esther supports?

 

[adf417]

Again, this godly criteria needed to be established because of all these other non-inspired gnostic, pseudoepigraphical, & other writings began to surface - many of them contradicted each other, as well as the “actual” Inspired Scripture recognized as such since the first century (like Paul’s epistles & the Gospel of Luke, etc). And it’s because they didn’t have the NT Scriptures under one cover like we do today, that it took so long to “formally” establish a canon. I say “formally,” because “informally,” the 27 books were already recognized by the second century by many Christians, because they have the EXACT SAME godly attributes that you find in the 39 book Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures of the OT canon recognized in the Protestant OT, that aren’t found in the 7 Apocrypha books, which were recognized in Jesus’ day by the Pharisees (who ADDED their extra-biblical “traditions” TO them), which Jesus rebuked using THEIR own THREE-fold division Scriptures (Luke 24:44-45), which later Jews & Protestants ALSO recognized.

“Exact same”
This sounds so definitive I will have to ask for the list of criteria defining these attributes. The one that would definitive include books like Hebrews, Philemon, 3 John…and the one definitively excluding books like the Epistle of Barnabas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas… Care to share this piece of info? It would be a tremendous help.

Not sure if I asked you before but sense I have never seen an answer I will ask again. Can you also share what it is you think the purpose of the early councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were about? Was there any purpose to them at all? This too would be extremely helpful.

Peace!!!

 

[thetazlord]

Thank you for putting in print what’s obvious to everyone else.

Thanks for quoting “part” of what I wrote completely out of context. Your assumption by bolding & placing the word “myself” in bigger font “assumes” a personal interpretation of Scripture, which is not what I was saying. It was in response to your comment:

We believe the Scriptures are recorded in human history by human beings under God’s inspiration, without the violation of human free will, which God is also incapable of.

My response was “I believe that myself,” so your comment was irrelevant to what we were talking about. Please don’t twist what people say, who disagree with you, into something there aren’t saying. It’s dishonest.

By the way, where is the huge and active forum for your denomination, where I can go day after day and dispute the truths with your denomination, and tell them what they ought to believe about the scriptures?

I don’t belong to a “denomination” like you do. My SOLE Authority is the Word of God. If you wish to dispute me, feel free to correct me with Scripture - not YOUR personal or religious “interpretation” of it.

 

[thetazlord]

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?

There is nothing historically false about those statements. That is completely historically true. The LATER writers of the “additions” of Esther & Daniel, were not the original writers of those actual books that were written centuries EARLIER. That is why they were “additions” - they were ADDED to the ends of those books. They did not have the prophetic authorship that Esther & Daniel had. Therefore, they are “not” Inspired.

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!

Actually, only TWO of those books were neither quoted nor referenced from the New Testament. But that’s not the point, your quote specifically states “they never quoted from any section of the Apocrypha,” while every section of “the Law, the Prophets, & the Writings” were, even if those TWO individual books weren’t “specifically” quoted.

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

No, you are just taking what was written out of context, just as you do Scripture. The point that you completely missed was that Jesus affirmed the THREE-fold division of the Hebrew Scriptures that the Pharisees believed in (Luke 24:44-45) that He corrected them with, but “not” with a SINGLE verse from ANY of the 7 Apocrypha books - not even the “additions” to Esther & Daniel.

 

[thetazlord]

Well, that’s your definition of “Scripture only”.

But let’s say you’re a pastor of a church and this is what you preach, re: Sola Scriptura.

And let’s say one of your members says: I don’t agree with your definition.

Is he free to be a member of your church and come to his own definition?

He tells you “I believe my definition is correct not because somebody ‘told me,’ but because read the Bible and studied it by MYSELF and discerned that your definition is incorrect”.

Is he permitted to hold his definition, which is different from yours, in your church?

Belonging to a member of a local church whose pastor “disagrees” on the definition of sola scriptura is a completely separate issue than what sola scriptura means. The problem is that you are still not getting what “sola scriptura” actually means. If a concept is taught in Scripture (like the Trinity), but not the actual word, then that concept doesn’t violate sola scriptura. The Reformers, as well as most ALL churches, that profess sola scriptura understand this, even if they disagree among themselves the actual “definition” of sola scriptura. You’re actually addressing two different & separate things.

 

[thetazlord]

Let’s see how your system works.

If you are evaluating the text of this manuscript to see if it’s theopneustos, and you read this:

Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment,

wouldn’t you conclude that it’s in error?

For, clearly, some men have NOT died once. Some died, and were raised. (the son of the Zarephath widow, the son of the Shunammite woman, Dorcas, Lazarus, Eutychus). That means, they died TWICE.

And, at the end of time, some men will NOT DIE at all.

So using your paradigm, you must reject Hebrews.

Is that correct, taz?

Do I really have to explain this to you??? Obviously, there are people who “died twice” like Lazarus, as well as those who won’t die at all, like when those who “are still alive & ‘caught up’ to be with the Lord in the air” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17), like Enoch & Elijah did. But that’s not what the writer of Hebrews is talking about. He’s referring to judgment at death. In the previous & later verse, the writer talks about Jesus “appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” & “Christ was offered once to bear sin of many.” The idea of having a “second chance” after death, like reincarnation, is a false religious philosophy. Once a person has faced the judgment after death, there is no “second chance” after death. Remember, Lazareth wasn’t taken to Heaven yet. He was in Sheol/Hades with the other OT saints, before Jesus raised Him from the dead. As far as Dorcas & Eutychus goes, obviously, they had not received judgment yet since they were brought back to life, which was done to glorify our Lord & legitimize the authority of those as genuine apostles of Christ. However, this ended at the end of the apostolic age once the last apostle (John) died. In the post-apostolic Church age, once a person dies, then remain dead. They don’t “come back” & get a “second chance,” like the religious “belief” in Eastern religions. You are getting WAY off the OP again. Could you “attempt” to remain on target, or do you like going off on tangents to purposely avoid it???

 

[thetazlord]

Who **recognized **them? (More on this later).

Was there a Bible that they used to see if these texts contradicted the Bible?

Oh, wait…that wouldn’t work. Although that seems to be what you were suggesting–“we know what’s theopneustos because it doesn’t contradict what’s in the Bible”.

Again, the “Bible” the early Church had were the OT Scriptures, which was ALREADY recognized as Inspired Scripture by the FIRST century (2 Timothy 3:16; Luke 24:44-45). So, the early Church did have Inspired Authority to go by. You have to take into consideration that if you lived in the first century, & were part of the Church, the apostles like Peter, Paul, James, & John were still alive. Therefore, you would have personally known these men, who legitimized their authority of their writings by miracles. No such authority is found in the 7 Apocrypha books, because they contain historical & theological errors & contradictions in them, both with earlier & later Inspired Scriptures. This part, you are still not getting.

What would have to happen, taz, would be this: Sacred Tradition proclaimed the Good News. ORALLY. And then some of it was put to writ.

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

And when texts came to the surface, they were evaluated. Those texts which didn’t contradict this paradosis were recognized* and included in the Sacred Liturgy.

…which were ALREADY being circulated in the FIRST century Church, such as Paul’s epistles.

*Recognized: discerned by men…bishops, to be exact.

No church member was given the freedom to read these texts and decide BY HIMSELF whether he considered it theopneustos.

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). You are confusing how LATER church councils discerned between the ALREADY Inspired NT canon (that was recognized - “unofficially” - as early as the SECOND century) with what the FIRST Century Church recognized as Inspired Scripture by the apostles who wrote them.

They took the word of their elders…AKA presbyters (AKA…PRIESTS) on this.

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). Scripturally, the kind of priesthood of the OT doesn’t exist in the NT Church age, because Jesus is our “High Priest” which is why we go through HIM to get to the Father (John 14:6), rather than a human “priest.”

 

[thetazlord]

Again, how do you know if Maccabbees contains errors, unless you already have the Bible to compare it to?

But you don’t have the Bible yet, if you’re trying to discern what belongs in the Bible.

http://popsych.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/circular-logic.jpg

I would if I lived in the first century like the rest of the early Church. I’d have both the OLD Testament that BOTH Maccabees contradict, as well as most of the NEW Testament that both Peter & Paul - who would have still been alive - which Maccabees contradict also. But the fact that the Church does have the Bible, there is no excuse for not being able to recognize that the Maccabees, as well as the rest of the Apocrypha books, contain errors & contradictions in them. So, your “circular reasoning” argument is irrelevant.

 

[thetazlord]

Nah - go ahead and spell it out for me - that site is not to be taken seriously.

Then if you won’t make the effort to even look at it, then it’s like saying that you have already made your mind up. So, what’s the point of “spelling it out” since you have already made up your mind up, & won’t recognize the contradictions even if I show it to you? No offense, but you are no different than a Protestant who refuses to even make the effort to look at Catholic references when they are offered.

Um… You didn’t answer the question. What is the DOCTRINE that Esther supports?

Um…yes I did. I even referenced it. Look again.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem is that you are still not getting what “sola scriptura” actually means.

You can see how it’s confusing to us here, taz, when you declare yourself to be the authoritative definer of SS.

Am I not permitted to think for myself?

Or are you the only one who is permitted to think for himself, but you get to tell others exactly how to interpret Scripture, define SS, and think?

It’s odd for you to act as a magisterium for all, while also resisting the idea of a magisterium for you.

You seem to be reserving for yourself that which you object to in the CC.

Why is this?

 

[thetazlord]

“Exact same”
This sounds so definitive I will have to ask for the list of criteria defining these attributes. The one that would definitive include books like Hebrews, Philemon, 3 John…and the one definitively excluding books like the Epistle of Barnabas, Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas… Care to share this piece of info? It would be a tremendous help.

Not sure if I asked you before but sense I have never seen an answer I will ask again. Can you also share what it is you think the purpose of the early councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage were about? Was there any purpose to them at all? This too would be extremely helpful.

Peace!!!

Sure. What Hebrews, Philemon, & 3 Peter all have in common with both the 39 Hebrew OT books, as well as the rest of Greek NT books is that ALL are errorless & contain NO contradictions - between both previous AND later Scriptures. Plus, they have either godly prophetic authorship (OT) or Christly disciple authorship (NT), or their authorship of their contemporaries (like Luke → Paul, Mark → Peter). Although the author of Hebrews is not known (most likely Paul, or perhaps Clement) that is irrelevant, because like the rest of the NT, Hebrews too contains NO errors nor contradictions with previous or later Scripture, like you do with the 7 Apocrypha books found in Catholic OT’s. This is why Jesus Himself didn’t recognize them when He recognized the THREE-fold division (“the Law…the Prophets…and the Writings”)(Luke 24:44-45). As far as the later non-inspired epistles (like Barnabas, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the “Apocalypse” of Peter, 1 Clement, etc) some of them have errors & contradictions in them, such as 1 Clement, & the “Apocalypse” which is gnostic as well as pseudoepigraphical (Peter did NOT author it, nor a contemporary like Mark). As far as the rest, their authorship is questionable, including Barnabas. And although it’s "assumed’ the Hermas of the “Shepherd” is the same Hermas as in the NT (which even CA Jimmy Akin isn’t 100% sure of), it’s too late of a writing (around 130 A.D.) to be included in the NT canon, which was closed when the last apostle (John) died, who wrote the last book of the Bible around 95-96 A.D. There are other reasons they are not included, but that is the short answer. Hope that helps.

 

[PRmerger]

I would if I lived in the first century like the rest of the early Church. I’d have both the OLD Testament that BOTH Maccabees contradict, as well as most of the NEW Testament that both Peter & Paul - who would have still been alive - which Maccabees contradict also.

If you lived in the first century, eh…

You’d have these texts in your possession? And you’d be able to read them?

Not so much, taz.

Actually…you simply would have trusted in the elders of your church, AKA presbyters…or, your priests.

That’s the early Church model.
And, it’s the Catholic model.

You wouldn’t have been able to read the NT (for, of course, you wouldn’t know what belonged in the NT), because you wouldn’t be able to…READ.

And you wouldn’t even have the parchments, even if you could read.

You would have to be told, orally, via…

SACRED TRADITION.

 

[thetazlord]

You can see how it’s confusing to us here, taz, when you declare yourself to be the authoritative definer of SS.

Am I not permitted to think for myself?

Or are you the only one who is permitted to think for himself, but you get to tell others exactly how to interpret Scripture, define SS, and think?

It’s odd for you to act as a magisterium for all, while also resisting the idea of a magisterium for you.

You seem to be reserving for yourself that which you object to in the CC.

Why is this?

Again, you’re twisting what I’m saying. You are making something very simple to be more difficult to understand than what it is. If something - including a concept, belief, or tradition that affects Christian doctrine - is not found or supported in the Bible, then it violate sola scriptura. That’s what “Scripture only” means. This “shouldn’t” be confusing. Is the concept of the Trinity taught in Scripture alone - yes! It the Deity of Christ taught in Scripture alone - yes! Is the virgin birth taught in Scripture alone - yes! Is the concept of sola scriptura taught in Scripture alone - yes! Is the bodily assumption of Mary taught in Scripture alone - no! Do you see the difference now? So, I’m not “acting as a magisterium for all,” because “I” am not declaring my “OWN” authority - quite the opposite. Rather, I’m appealing to the Authority of Scripture alone! If something is not supported by Scripture - God’s Word, I don’t believe it has the Authority of God. So, by doing so, I’m removing MYSELF from any such authority. That is what sola scriptura is all about! I can’t help it if people who “claim” to be sola scriptura don’t actually practice what they preach. They are hypocrites by doing the contrary.

 

[thetazlord]

If you lived in the first century, eh…

You’d have these texts in your possession? And you’d be able to read them?

Not so much, taz.

Actually…you simply would have trusted in the elders of your church, AKA presbyters…or, your priests.

That’s the early Church model.
And, it’s the Catholic model.

You wouldn’t have been able to read the NT (for, of course, you wouldn’t know what belonged in the NT), because you wouldn’t be able to…READ.

And you wouldn’t even have the parchments, even if you could read.

You would have to be told, orally, via…

SACRED TRADITION.

No, I would have trusted in the apostles BECAUSE OF THE MIRACLES THAT BACKED UP WHAT THEY SAID - NOT the apostles themselves. And - again - they were not “priests” in the OT sense of the word. And - again - if you READ the NT, their “sacred tradition” was based on the OLD Testament written Scriptures, which was fulfilled in the Person of Jesus Christ, that also these “traditions” were WRITTEN DOWN (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6).

 

[PRmerger]

If something - including a concept, belief, or tradition that affects Christian doctrine - is not found or supported in the Bible, then it violate sola scriptura.

Where do you get this concept from?

 

[thetazlord]

Where do you get this concept from?

From Scripture. What part of this that I’ve explained to you - numerous times - are you having trouble understanding?

Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19

 

[thetazlord]

Where do you get this concept from?

Plus, it’s common sense. Sola scriptura means “Scripture only.” Therefore, even if you don’t believe in the Biblically-supported concept, anything that exceeds Scripture - by definition - can’t be Scripture only, because it’s not “in” Scripture. This shouldn’t be that difficult to understand!