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

[PRmerger]

No, I would have trusted in the apostles BECAUSE OF THE MIRACLES THAT BACKED UP WHAT THEY SAID - NOT the apostles themselves.

So when St. Peter said, “Baptism now saves you”, what miracle backs this up?

And - again - they were not “priests” in the OT sense of the word.

Again? Did you say this before? Please cite that post number. Thanks.

At any rate, it’s very Catholic what you say above.

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).

Very Catholic, this!

Just not everything was written down.

Unless you want to profess the doctrine that everything that God wanted revealed was written down…which would, of course, mean you’d have to offer a Bible verse for this.

And since you can’t…that means you just heard a man say that the Bible is the entirety of God’s revelation…who heard another man say it…who heard another man say it…but no one ever read that in a single page of the Bible.

And that makes it a man-made tradition that, ironically, contradicts your definition of SS.

 

[PRmerger]

Plus, it’s common sense.

I hope that you’ll allow Catholics to believe things, also, that are “common sense”.

For example, it’s just “common sense” that Mary is the Mother of God, and should be given that title. Since her son, Jesus, is, of course, God.

You will permit us to use common sense to say this?

Or are you, again, permitting something for yourself which you restrict in others?

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!

So you believe something that’s not found in the Bible.

#irony

 

[clem456]

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.

Your assertion of irrelevance is what is irrelevant.
Your reasoning is circular. It is self evident to everyone apparently, but you. If something self evident is not perceived, there is a perception problem, not a relevance problem.

Scripture is written by inspired human beings. Human beings contradict themselves all the time, but God still breathes life saving inspiration into scripture through the human authors.God is not limited by words. God does not need the perfection of humanity to work salvation for us. (take a look at the cross) All God needs is himself. If scripture contradicts itself in details, God can work with that, oh ye of little trust.

Peter was a walking contradiction. He professed his love for Christ, then denied him. Yet you assert that Peter must be God-like, cause he sure wrote his own scripture, and all three synoptics are derived from him.

It is good that you recognize Peter’s significance, even if your recognition is a little more fundamentalist than the most fundamentalist Catholics.

Since you hold forth about scripture on a daily basis, you owe it to yourself to take scripture 101 from any reputable bible college. Surely there must be one in your area. There you can learn just how messy the transmission of your bible has been. It is good for one’s trust in God to see how messy and convoluted the transmission of scripture has been.

 

[PRmerger]

My SOLE Authority is the Word of God.

Very Catholic, this.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

So let’s say you’re a preacher in your own church and I’m a member of your church.

I read Hebrews 9 and think it means something different from you. I come to a completely DIFFERENT conclusion, by MYSELF–must I keep quiet about this in your church?

Let’s say my private interpretation of Hebrews 9 differs from yours.

Now what? Am I permitted to keep this different opinion?

 

[clem456]

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!

You should think about your word choice before you type.

“Common sense”. Do you see the word “community” in there? Your common sense is non-sense outside the context of others. There is no common sense outside a community by definition.

Likewise, you make circular nonsense with your bible when you pretend to interpret it yourself, outside the community that received The word and continues to transmit The Word.

 

[PRmerger]

But that’s not what the writer of Hebrews is talking about.

Now, remember, you’re reading this manuscript to determine if it has errors in it.

It says that it’s appointed for man to die once…and yet you know that this is NOT CORRECT. It has an ERROR.

So why don’t you reject this text, taz?

Especially since you have NO IDEA WHO WROTE IT.

That’s got to be a big problem for you, isn’t it? Authorship unknown.

And, also remember, that Sola Scriptura means that each and every peasant in the middle ages, who couldn’t read or get his hands on a Bible, still has to read*** every single manuscript*** to determine for himself if it’s theopneustos, as well as find time away from the fields in order to scrutinize these manuscripts to discern, for himself, whether each one is theopneustos.

How would that work again?

Esp. given this veryyyyyy big problem: Hey! I can’t read!

Or is SS only possible for the modern day man who is literate, has a Bible in his hands, has leisure time to study?

 

[PRmerger]

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

I disagree with your private personal interpretation.

I read and studied and prayed and discerned that it doesn’t mean what you say.

Now what?

Am I not permitted to disagree with your personal, private, FALLIBLE interpretation?

 

[PRmerger]

Is the concept of sola scriptura taught in Scripture alone - yes!

Nope, taz.

Scripture is the Word of God, to be sure. But Scripture ALONE being Biblical? No. In fact, it is CONTRARY to Scripture, ironically enough.

Not a single verse of the Bible professes Scripture ALONE. You can read Genesis through Revelation and won’t ever find the phrase Scripture ALONE, nor will you find the concept of Scripture Alone (whatever definition you may want to use, although you have NO AUTHORITY to define it for anyone else) there.

That’s a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing.

 

[adf417]

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.

oooops! you forgot to answer the rest of what I questioned on the early councils. I really would like an answer to that if you don’t mind.

Peace!!!

 

[jbp]

(Edited)

Because I’m interested to understand the protestant position I’d only want to know if you can clarify us where and when was established the canon of Scriptures that protestants believe.

If you can, also tell us approximate period of time (century or better decade, year, date), and the concrete person or the community who established this canon.

Note that I’m not denying the possibility that protestants had received the assistance of the Holy Spirit to determine the Bible canon. I only want to know when and whom.

A greeting.

The canon of scripture as we know it in the Catholic Church was closed by the council of Rome under and promulgated by Pope Damasus in 382 and issued the translation into the Latin Vulgate by Jerome in 383 thus codifying and essentially crystallizing the Canon of Scripture. This was again reinforced by the Council of Carthage under Augustine and also by the council of Hippo Regius in 397 reiterated the canon which had already been closed and defined by Rome.

It wasn’t until Luther came and started messing with the scripture in the 1500s that revisions were made which ended up as the Protestant Bible.

The Ecumenical Council of Trent definitively promulgated what had been issued and defined by Pope Damasus back in 382.

 

[stewstew03]

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.

Well, what’s the standard you’re using? Is it “direct quote”, which is what this Steve Christie fella suggests, or is it “referenced”? And how did you determine this standard? More importantly, where is it in the bible?

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.

Speaking of out of context… let’s look at what you’ve done. Luke 24:44 saysThen he said to them, “These are my words that 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.”
But you claim that Jesus said:Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law and the Prophets and the Writings must be fulfilled.”
You deliberately misquote Jesus to support your extrabiblical tradition. What a shame!!

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

Nope. I asked you: What doctrine of Christian (or Jewish) faith can be established by Esther? Your response was something about the celebration of Purim, which, in case you didn’t know, is neither a Christian doctrine, nor is it a Jewish doctrine. So – are you able to point out any Jewish/Christian doctrine that Esther teaches? How do you know Esther is theopneustos??

 

[ericc]

The OT, which states that the coming promised Jewish Messiah would be God in the flesh, which Jesus fulfilled & declared about Himself, which the Jews rejected. That is what makes them apostate, based on the OT Scriptures.

And yet early Jewish Christians continue to celebrate all the Jewish festivals. Jesus did not teach any one to stop observing any of the Jewish festivals. In fact he still observed those Jewish festivals. To denounced others while he still observed those festivals is to make him a hypocrite. And yet you are quick to call others apostates. Jesus didn’t even do that. Not every Jew has heard His teachings. They are still bound by the prevailing Mosaic Covenant. The NT wasn’t even in existence.

First, if you read that passage in John’s Gospel about Jesus being on the portico of Solomon, it doesn’t actually state that Jesus was “celebrating” Hanukkah. It merely states He was “walking in the Temple” (John 20:22-23). But even if we “assume” that Jesus was celebrating Hanukkah (which He wouldn’t have been bound to follow, since there is no OT Law from God commanding Jews to celebrate it), it would be no different than a Christian American celebrating Independence Day, Thanksgiving, or Christmas on December 25th or Easter on a specified date on a calendar. The purpose of those national holidays is for celebration of what went on those days (or, in the case of Christmas, what the day “represents” what actually happened). But celebrating something that didn’t actually happened - but rather “believed” to have happened - like the bodily “assumption” of Mary, which is based on extra-biblical “tradition” & nothing more, including not from Scripture - violates sola scriptura. IOW, this is why Jesus “could” celebrate Hanukkah (“assuming” He did), but not Mary’s “assumption” - even “if” Jesus would have outlived her. 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.

In all the feasts that John wrote about, Jesus was a participant, not a a tourist or a bystander. Jesus was already in the temple observing the Feast of Dedication. John 10:23 “and Jesus was walking in the temple” . That is his Father’s house. John 2:12-17. He is not a tourist in his Father’s house.

How do you know your Protestant Bible is inspired? It wasn’t in existence till 1500 or thereabout. Which Protestant identified the books of the OT to be included in the Protestant canon? No one did. They copied that from the Masoretic Text Hebrew Bible didn’t they? The MT Bible was done around 1000AD and it is good only for Rabbinic Judaism. Yet there was no Protestant Bible from 1000 AD onwards till 1500. Where did Protestants get the authority to declare which books are inspired? None was given. Which Protestant went though the exercise to decide which books for the OT/NT to be included in the Bible? None did . One of them even tried to take out some.

So where did the Protestant Bible come from? Was there a Council of Protestants in 1500 to decide on the canon of the Protestant Bible? None I could find. So suddenly out of the blue you have a Protestant Bible that is certified divine by yourself without anyone of you going through the exercise of determining it! That’s a “miracle”! There is no evidence that the Protestant Bible was in existence and used between 4th and 15th century. It is a new compilation just to deny and protest the authority of the Catholic Church.

The First Christians decided that the Septuagint is God’s Word. The Septuagint was in existence for at least 200 years before the coming of Christ. It was heavily used by Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria and in Palestine. The NT writers quote from it. There was no political baggage associated with it, except with the Sadducees who only accepted the Torah. There is evidence that the Septuagint continued to be used alongside the Hebrew Bible even after the destruction of the temple in 70AD right through the Middle Ages according to gbbj.org/about/index.html. The Ethiopian Jews continue to use it.

History does not support your version of the Bible. Period. The whole Bible was decided in the 4/5th century. You don’t have divine authority to copy, cut, paste the Word of God.

 

[SJacob7]

This might be a little off topic, but I was wondering what the Church’s criteria was for picking which books from the Septuagint to include and use and which books not to include? Somewhere along the line the Church tossed out a few books from the Septuagint as well. I wonder how they chose? Just curious, don’t mean to derail the thread though.

 

[PRmerger]

This might be a little off topic, but I was wondering what the Church’s criteria was for picking which books from the Septuagint to include and use and which books not to include? Somewhere along the line the Church tossed out a few books from the Septuagint as well. I wonder how they chose? Just curious, don’t mean to derail the thread though.

I wasn’t aware that there were books from the Septuagint that were excluded.

Can you cite which ones were?

 

[SJacob7]

I wasn’t aware that there were books from the Septuagint that were excluded.

Can you cite which ones were?

The books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh were in the Septuagint but are not in the Catholic Bible. So I am a little curious on why they were not included.

 

[PRmerger]

The books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh were in the Septuagint but are not in the Catholic Bible. So I am a little curious on why they were not included.

My understanding is that those books are in the original Douay Rheims.

 

[PRmerger]

The books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh were in the Septuagint but are not in the Catholic Bible. So I am a little curious on why they were not included.

Previous thread which asked your question:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7676061&postcount=3

 

[SJacob7]

My understanding is that those books are in the original Douay Rheims.

I’m not sure on that. I didn’t find them, but my search might not be all inclusive. But if they were, then that would lead to even a bigger problem. Why would they be in the Douay Rheims then taken out of later translations? Just curious…

 

[SJacob7]

Previous thread which asked your question:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7676061&postcount=3

Ok, thanks! So when the bible was put together in the 4 century, there were some books that were in the Septuagint that were not included because the Council didn’t consider them writings inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thanks for the research!!!