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

[ericc]

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.

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

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

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.

All these arguments are unnecessary. The Church has defined the NT as inspired. You have accepted it as inspired. NT writers quoted predominantly from the Septuagint. This is a fact. Since we have accepted these NT writings as inspired , it must necessarily follow that the Septuagint must be inspired as well as these quotations formed part of the NT writings. It CANNOT be any other way. The Septuagint MUST be inspired because the NT writings quoted it.

During the 1st century, the Hebrew Bible has not been well defined as to which books are in it. Whereas the Septuagint was already well in used for hundreds of years. The NT writers knew that the Gentiles are brought under the New Covenant. It is no surprise that NT writers writing in Greek adopt the Greek OT rather than Hebrew. Gentiles are not literate in the Hebrew language. The Dead Sea Scrolls evidenced that the Hebrew “Bible” contents are still in a state of flux and with a number of variants existing at that time. The OT Bible is in quotes because there was no bible then. It has not been defined then which books are considered to “make the hands unclean” or which text variants to adopt. If you do your research, you will see a number of variants out there.

Since you have recognized that that NT writings as inspired and that the Septuagint was quoted as Scriptures, then my question to you is why are you replacing the Septuagint with some other version of the OT? If you accept the Hebrew MT Bible as canon, on whose authority do you rely on to make that decision? The Rabbinic Jews? They don’t speak for Christians. In fact the Word of God for them stop at the OT. Why would you accept from them, in your own words, apostate non-Messianic Jews, that authority to define the Christian Word of God for you? These apostate non-Messianic Jews, do not believe Jesus is the Messiah, do not believe Jesus is God, and that Jesus is a common criminal, a trouble maker. So on whose authority do you accept the MT OT as canon for the Christian faith? Who gave you that authority? Yourself? You are in no position to determine canonicity. No Reformer has any authority whatsoever to determine canonicity for the Christian faith.

Sure you can “make” your own Bible. But that is as canon as it could be for you. There is nothing to prevent further reformation of your faith to cut/copy/paste any versions of the bible you see fit.

 

[thetazlord]

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

First, Peter doesn’t say “Baptism now saves you.” He said “Corresponding to this - the “antitype” - (referring to the Flood waters of baptism) baptism now saves you.” You’re not even quoting Peter’s entire statement, but rather just a fragment of it completely out of context. Peter wasn’t saying that the waters of baptism themselves (the antitype) saves you, any more that the Flood waters themselves (the type) “saved” Noah & his family. What actually “saved” Noah was his faith in what God said by getting “in” the ark. Likewise, what “saves” you is your faith in Christ, when you are “in” Christ. That’s Peter’s point that is completely missed when you only quote-mine a fraction of a verse, completely out of context. If you read through the NT, particularly in Acts, Peter performed numerous miracles to back up what he said later, including being able to speak in known human foreign languages (tongues) at Pentecost that he previously didn’t know.

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

No, it’s not. Catholics believe that “presbyters” priests. The Bible describes elders as presbyters, not priests. That’s a completely different Greek word. The priesthood that the Catholic church recognizes that is similar to the OT priesthood is completely foreign to the NT. The “royal priesthood” that Peter refers to refers to ALL genuine believers in Christ, not those limited to clergy.

Very Catholic, this!

Just not everything was written down.

How can what I just wrote be “Very Catholic,” & in the same breath you say “Just not everything was written down”? You just contradicted yourself.

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.

I have. But you reject those Scriptures, because the Word of God contradicts with your “tradition” & “precepts the doctrines of men” (Matthew 15:9).

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.

Wrong. You are professing your opinion based on nothing more than your assumption, which is false. You are confusing how YOU base your faith (“a man says…”), not me.

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

Not at all. It takes the position that since NOWHERE in Scripture does it say that extra-biblical “tradition” that hasn’t been eventually written down is just as Inspired (God-breathed) as Scripture is (2 Timothy 3:16), then we shouldn’t “add to” Inspired Scripture these man-made “traditions” since God gave no command to do so. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise, since the burden of proof is on YOU, not me, to prove your “belief” & “tradition.” Since you can’t, then you are simply believing in “the traditions of men.”

 

[thetazlord]

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?

Scripture describes Mary as “the mother of Jesus” & “the mother of my Lord.” So, although Jesus is God, Mary is never described in the NT as “the mother of God,” because God is not limited to Jesus, but also the Father & the Holy Spirit. That is why the NT writers never refer to her that way, & neither should we. This too is common sense.

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

No. You just reject those Scriptures that support it.

 

[thetazlord]

Scripture is written by inspired human beings.

Wrong. Scripture never describes “human beings” as being “Inspired” (theopneustos), it ONLY describes Scripture as being “Inspired” (2 Timothy 3:16)

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.

Saying that God-breathed Scripture can contradict itself, is like saying GOD can contradict Himself. If God “breathes” into the Scriptures, & yet there can still be contradictions in them, then you are believing in a God that not only contradicts Himself, but is also not “all-powerful” to prevent those contradictions from entering HIS God-breathed" Word. I’m afraid that “I” am not the one of “oh ye of little faith.”

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.

I never made that assertion - you did. Despite Peter’s denials, God used him as a vessel to write part of His inerrant, non-contradictory God-breathed Word without error. But that doesn’t make Peter himself “God-breathed” - only what Peter wrote.

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

I do. I just “exceed” what’s written about Peter.

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.

I have a Master degree & I am well-educated in the history of the Bible - including the OT - & how it “actually” can to be, as well as what books Jesus Himself, as well as Ezra from the OT, as well as the early first & second century Church recognized as God-breathed Scripture (Luke 24:44-45). I would suggest you refer to my previous posts where I explain this in more detail.

 

[thetazlord]

Very Catholic, this.

Please! No it’s NOT! Scripture AND “Sacred EXTRA-SCRIPTURAL Traditon” is too! You are contradicting yourself - AGAIN!

 

[thetazlord]

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?

You are free to disagree all you want, & it wouldn’t prevent you from worshiping there are get you “excommunicated” from the church. Just keep in mind that, obviously, one (or both) of what two of your disagree on “might” be wrong, since you both can’t be right. And the way you can know who is right is by comparing what the two of you “believe” TO Scripture. And whoever is “adding to” Scripture is wrong.

 

[thetazlord]

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.

The Pharisees were a “community” as well. Should the followers of Jesus been a “community” with them? Common sense is based on God-breathed Scripture, not fallible human beings.

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.

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.

 

[thetazlord]

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?

You can disagree all you want. I doesn’t change the fact that those Scriptures DO say, “do not ADD” and/or “do not TAKE AWAY” & “do not EXCEED what is WRITTEN.” Again, I can’t help if you reject that Scriptures for the sake of YOUR “tradition” & YOUR “personal, private interpretation.” I’m going by what Scripture STATES. YOU are rejected it, & “exceeding” it.

 

[thetazlord]

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

Can you cite which ones were?

In addition to 3rd & 4th Esdras & the prayer of Mannaseh, I believe 3 & 4 Maccabees were also in the Septuagint, as well as others. So, “why” did the Catholic church “remove” these books from the Septugint & it was “okay,” but it was “wrong” for Protestants to “remove” the other non-inspired books from it?

 

[thetazlord]

All these arguments are unnecessary. The Church has defined the NT as inspired. You have accepted it as inspired. NT writers quoted predominantly from the Septuagint. This is a fact. Since we have accepted these NT writings as inspired , it must necessarily follow that the Septuagint must be inspired as well as these quotations formed part of the NT writings. It CANNOT be any other way. The Septuagint MUST be inspired because the NT writings quoted it.

But what you’re not addressing is “why” or “how” the Church was able to determine that the 27 NT book canon was Inspired. You’re merely accepting that they are because the Catholic church “says” they are Inspired. That is why those things I mentioned in my last post are “necessary.” Otherwise, you make Inspiration based on popular opinion & vote, whch God-breathed Truth is not determined by opinion or vote - even Church opinion or vote. The NT writers also quoted from non-canonical sources, like the “Assumption of Moses” & 1 Enoch. So, ‘why’ aren’t they in the Catholic OT canon too? And if the Septuagint “MUST be Inspired because the NT writings quoted from it,” then “why” did the Catholic church remove 1 & 2 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, & the Prayer of Manessah, even though they too were in the Septuagint? If the the Septuagint “MUST be Inspired” then shouldn’t these writings be Inspired as well?

During the 1st century, the Hebrew Bible has not been well defined as to which books are in it. Whereas the Septuagint was already well in used for hundreds of years. The NT writers knew that the Gentiles are brought under the New Covenant. It is no surprise that NT writers writing in Greek adopt the Greek OT rather than Hebrew. Gentiles are not literate in the Hebrew language. The Dead Sea Scrolls evidenced that the Hebrew “Bible” contents are still in a state of flux and with a number of variants existing at that time. The OT Bible is in quotes because there was no bible then. It has not been defined then which books are considered to “make the hands unclean” or which text variants to adopt. If you do your research, you will see a number of variants out there.

This is incorrect & not supported by history. The Law of Moses was recognized as early as the days of Joshua. Plus, Jesus referred to the OT as “the Law & the Prophets,” so Jesus was acknowledging that the Hebrew Bible was Inspired. It’s not until Luke 24:44-45 that Jesus breaks the Hebrew Bible down into “the Law…and the Prophets…and the Writings,” rather than just the “the Law & the Prophets.” This THREE-fold division of the Hebrew Bible is not only what later Jews & Protestants recognized, but also Ezra, who led the “The Great Synagogue” around 400 B.C. which strictly dealt with the Hebrew books - not the later 7 books (and “additions” to Esther & Daniel) that were written during the 2nd & 3rd Centuries B.C. that later became known as the Apocrypha. The reason that the Hebrew OT Scriptures were translated into Greek was because Jews, in general, weren’t speaking Hebrew anymore, but Greek, due to the Greek conquest under Alexander the Great. It has nothing to do with the Gentiles, because the Gentiles weren’t reading the Septuagint when it was first translated. But just because they were translated into Greek, doesn’t “automatically” make the Apocrypha Inspired, just because they too were translated into Greek. As far as the variants are concerned, it’s a really irrelevant point, because the Sadducees didn’t accept “the Prophets” either. Yet, when Jesus corrected the Jewish leaders, He mostly addressed the Pharisees, who - according to CA Jimmy Akin - did accept the Hebrew Scriptures, but not the 7 Apocrypha texts.

Since you have recognized that that NT writings as inspired and that the Septuagint was quoted as Scriptures, then my question to you is why are you replacing the Septuagint with some other version of the OT?

Why do you reject 1 & 2 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, & the Prayer of Manessah, even though they too were in the Septuagint, which “MUST be Inspired”? Concerning your question, the Hebrew texts (“the Law…and the Prophets…and the Writings”) are Inspired, but not the Apocrypha, based on the Authority of Jesus (Luke 24:44-45).

If you accept the Hebrew MT Bible as canon, on whose authority do you rely on to make that decision? The Rabbinic Jews? They don’t speak for Christians. In fact the Word of God for them stop at the OT. Why would you accept from them, in your own words, apostate non-Messianic Jews, that authority to define the Christian Word of God for you?

Again, I accept it on the Authority of Jesus Christ (Luke 24:44-45), as well as the authority of Ezra who wrote Inspired Scripture who led “The Great Synagogue” which defined the Hebrew Scriptures, which are also agreed & in the Protestant OT. So, it’s not the apostate non-Messianic Jews that are my authority, but rather Jesus & the Messianic Jews from the OT era, like Ezra, who are.

Sure you can “make” your own Bible. But that is as canon as it could be for you. There is nothing to prevent further reformation of your faith to cut/copy/paste any versions of the bible you see fit.

Nah, I’ll stick with the Bible that God Himself Inspired & informed us regarding the OT through Ezra & through Jesus (Luke 24:44-45), & the NT Scriptures that the early Church recognized, such as Paul, Peter, & John, which later Christians would also recognize, based on the fact that the 39 Hebrew OT books & the 27 Greek NT books ALL have the same godly attributes that qualify them as being “God-breathed,” not a matter of simply “voting” or “mutually agreeing” that they are Inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure you can “make” your own Bible. But that is as canon as it could be for you. There is nothing to prevent further reformation of your faith to cut/copy/paste any versions of the bible you see fit.

Indeed.

What is reserved for taz is reserved for all–they get to read the ancient manuscripts and decide FOR THEMSELVES what they consider inspired and what they don’t.

#scary

And that means that these folks, who claim that St. Paul is the “false apostle” are free to make their own Bible as well.

Just what the devil ordered! Chaos and confusion, and now everyone gets to decide what he believes is the Word of God.

 

[PRmerger]

First, Peter doesn’t say “Baptism now saves you.” He said “Corresponding to this - the “antitype” - (referring to the Flood waters of baptism) baptism now saves you.” You’re not even quoting Peter’s entire statement, but rather just a fragment of it completely out of context.

Ummm…since I didn’t give it context, how could I have presented it “out of context”, taz?

I simply asked what miracle was associated with that which St. Peter wrote, since you declared that you will believe something not by the authority of their apostleship, but if it has a miracle to back it up.

Are these not your words?

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

And I am curious where this belief comes from, because it certainly isn’t found in Scripture–“I believe what a man says* not because of his leadership or position* but because he proved it with a miracle”

Not found in a single page of the Bible.

In fact, it contradicts the Bible.

For did not Jesus tell us to obey our leaders? I’m pretty sure he didn’t say, “Obey them only if they have a ‘MIRACLE THAT BACKED UP WHAT THEY SAID’.”

That sounds a lot like a…

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

 

[PRmerger]

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

The more I read this, the more cognitive dissonance it produces.

Firstly, besides not being found in a single page of the Bible (#manmadetradition), it actually contradicts the Bible.
usccb.org/bible/matthew/23

and: Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.–Hebrews 9:17

Secondly, if you had been a 1st century Jew listening to St. Paul preach in the temple for 3 months (which, BTW, boggles the mind to think that you believe that*** everything he preached could have been written down***!), you wouldn’t have accepted it until you saw a miracle he performed?

That boggles the mind as well.

And, remember, since you’re claiming you don’t accept what others tell you, you would have had to witness this miracle first hand.

So, in summary: you as a 1st century Jew, listening to St. Paul preach, wouldn’t have believed his testimony until you saw him perform a miracle, first hand.

#astonishing

 

[ericc]

But what you’re not addressing is “why” or “how” the Church was able to determine that the 27 NT book canon was Inspired. You’re merely accepting that they are because the Catholic church “says” they are Inspired. That is why those things I mentioned in my last post are “necessary.” Otherwise, you make Inspiration based on popular opinion & vote, whch God-breathed Truth is not determined by opinion or vote - even Church opinion or vote. The NT writers also quoted from non-canonical sources, like the “Assumption of Moses” & 1 Enoch. So, ‘why’ aren’t they in the Catholic OT canon too? And if the Septuagint “MUST be Inspired because the NT writings quoted from it,” then “why” did the Catholic church remove 1 & 2 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, & the Prayer of Manessah, even though they too were in the Septuagint? If the the Septuagint “MUST be Inspired” then shouldn’t these writings be Inspired as well?

There is no necessity to address the why or how. We do not know how a dead man can rise again or how a virgin birth can happen. We do not know how/why can Three Persons be God and equal. We do not know the how or why but we believe they are true because the Church told you so. The Church taught these orally and later on compiled all these knowledge in the Bible and some she kept as Tradition. She gave you the Bible.

Fact is you have accepted that the Church has identified the NT books as inspired canon. And the NT books quoted predominantly the Septuagint which must therefore give those books similar status. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. We therefore rely on the Church , the bride of Christ, and the HS to guide us into all truths. After identifying which NT books are inspired, we can’t ignore/discard the Septuagint books which these NT books quoted and call them uninspired. That would cause a contradiction. God doesn’t contradict. If it is inspired, the whole thing is.

Yes, we are accepting the NT because the Church says so. And you are accepting the NT because you defer to the Church’s authority to make that determination. I know you guys are not fans of obedience but it’s ok. I accept that is the nature of some. Protestants didn’t contribute a single thing to determine canonicity of the NT. You piggy back on the effort of others and even attempted to remove some of them. Protestants contribute nothing to the OT either. You are just nodding your heads whatever Judaism says. Jews accept that after Malachi the age of prophecy has ended for them. Why would you accept anything they say after Malachi? They are after all your so-call apostate non-Messianic Jews. They don’t accept our Jesus Christ as God and Messiah. They branded Jesus a common criminal and trouble maker. Even if you accept that the Jews in the so-call council of Jamnia decided the canon for the OT in the 1st and 2nd century, that decision only applies to the Jews, not the Christians. You must understand that. Why do you take something that was meant for the Jews practicing Judaism into your church? That "council " is not binding on us Christians. If you research the Jamnia council decisions, you would have known that your so call determination of the OT canon during Men of the Great Assembly is still wide open. Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes were doubted but eventually adopted as canon at Jamnia. If these have been a “done deal” in Ezra, they need not talk about these books. The evidence therefore indicate that the OT canon in Ezra was not closed. Face the evidence.

You need to distinguish between inspired vs canon. A book not included in the canon does not necessarily mean it is not inspired. 1 and 2 Esdras is in your Bible, aka Ezra and Nehemiah. This topic is about the Protestant canon, not how the Catholic Church got its canon. Please stay on topic. Diversionary tactics won’t work.

This is incorrect & not supported by history. The Law of Moses was recognized as early as the days of Joshua. Plus, Jesus referred to the OT as “the Law & the Prophets,” so Jesus was acknowledging that the Hebrew Bible was Inspired. It’s not until Luke 24:44-45 that Jesus breaks the Hebrew Bible down into “the Law…and the Prophets…and the Writings,” rather than just the “the Law & the Prophets.” This THREE-fold division of the Hebrew Bible is not only what later Jews & Protestants recognized, but also Ezra, who led the “The Great Synagogue” around 400 B.C. which strictly dealt with the Hebrew books - not the later 7 books (and “additions” to Esther & Daniel) that were written during the 2nd & 3rd Centuries B.C. that later became known as the Apocrypha.
But just because they were translated into Greek, doesn’t “automatically” make the Apocrypha Inspired, just because they too were translated into Greek. As far as the variants are concerned, it’s a really irrelevant point, because the Sadducees didn’t accept “the Prophets” either.

We have gone through the Ezra point before. I asked for evidence that the OT canon was closed then, you gave none. The OT canon wasn’t closed even around the time of Jesus. I am not arguing whether the Sadducees are right or not, I am disputing your contention that the OT canon was closed by the Jews during Ezra time or even Jesus time. You are repeating stuff that you know you can’t substantiate.

I accept just because the LXXX was translated does not mean every book in it is canon or inspired. And the Church identified the ones that are.

The variants are important because it shows that there are a number of different Hebrew text for the same scripture. Some shorter/longer. But which one is “correct”? At that time, that has not been determined yet. It is not about Sadducees rejecting other books.

cont’d

 

[ericc]

Cont’d

Why do you reject 1 & 2 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, & the Prayer of Manessah, even though they too were in the Septuagint, which “MUST be Inspired”? Concerning your question, the Hebrew texts (“the Law…and the Prophets…and the Writings”) are Inspired, but not the Apocrypha, based on the Authority of Jesus (Luke 24:44-45).

Again, I accept it on the Authority of Jesus Christ (Luke 24:44-45), as well as the authority of Ezra who wrote Inspired Scripture who led “The Great Synagogue” which defined the Hebrew Scriptures, which are also agreed & in the Protestant OT. So, it’s not the apostate non-Messianic Jews that are my authority, but rather Jesus & the Messianic Jews from the OT era, like Ezra, who are.

Nah, I’ll stick with the Bible that God Himself Inspired & informed us regarding the OT through Ezra & through Jesus (Luke 24:44-45), & the NT Scriptures that the early Church recognized, such as Paul, Peter, & John, which later Christians would also recognize, based on the fact that the 39 Hebrew OT books & the 27 Greek NT books ALL have the same godly attributes that qualify them as being “God-breathed,” not a matter of simply “voting” or “mutually agreeing” that they are Inspired.

You wrote a lot of verbage but none of them adequately addressed the questions I asked of you: Let me repeat.

1. How did you know or determine that the canon of Protestant Bible is inspired?
2. Who gave you the authority to determine the canonicity of your Bible?
3. When was the canon of the Protestant Bible finalised and decided by who?
4. Which Council determined the canon for the Protestant Bible? When was it held? Where was it held?
5. Did the Protestant Bible adopt the NT from the Catholic Bible?
6. Did the Protestant Bible adopt the OT from the Judaism MasoreticText Bible?

These do not require biblical answers so it should be readily answered?

Luke 24:44-45 does not discuss canonicity. It does not give anyone any authority to decide canonicity. All it state is that what was written about Jesus in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled. Nothing more. I do not know why you are quoting this to support your case because it doesn’t. Jesus did not say he gave the Protestants authority to decide for themselves the canon for the Protestant Bible. It is not in the Bible , period. Protestants weren’t around. You can’t give yourself authority when the supposed receiver of the authority did not exist. You can not quote the Bible when the Bible did not exist for centuries, until the Church gave it to the world.

Ezra, Messianic Jew? You must be joking by about a few hundred years off.

Ezra or the men of the Great Assembly didn’t close the OT canon. Luke 24:44-45 doesn’t talk about canonicity. The Christian Bible wasn’t formed till much later. So are you telling me the Protestant got their Bible before us? Protestantism didn’t exist till 1500s. So state something that makes sense. Sola Scriptura didn’t exist in the 1st century.

And please do stay on topic. Don’t wander off talking about Catholic canon. That is not the thread topic. That is why I don’t reply to off-topic diversionary tactics.

 

[PRmerger]

Scripture describes Mary as “the mother of Jesus” & “the mother of my Lord.” So, although Jesus is God, Mary is never described in the NT as “the mother of God,” because God is not limited to Jesus, but also the Father & the Holy Spirit. That is why the NT writers never refer to her that way, & neither should we. This too is common sense.

The bolded section: very Catholic!

As far as Mary not being the Mother of God, but just the mother of Jesus, well, you put yourself in a precarious position when in dialogue with non-Christians.

All they have to do is say: “The Catholics call Mary the Mother of God because they believe Jesus is God. You refuse to do that…you don’t really believe Jesus is God, then?”

Also, it’s not a coincidence that Mary was declared theotokos at the same time that Jesus’ divinity was being questioned and denied by some. #Nestorianism.

Thus, an inability to call Mary the Mother of God translates to an inability to call Jesus God. #logic

 

[PRmerger]

I have a Master degree

In what?

A Master’s degree in, say, Elizabethan poetry is hardly relevant here.

& I am well-educated in the history of the Bible - including the OT - & how it “actually” can to be, as well as what books Jesus Himself, as well as Ezra from the OT, as well as the early first & second century Church recognized as God-breathed Scripture (Luke 24:44-45).

That’s great.

But your position is that anyone can read these manuscripts and discern whether they are theopneustos–even illiterate peasants in the Middle Ages should be doing this, rather than taking the Church’s word on this–so it’s not necessary to be “well-educated in the history of the Bible”.

 

[fasolislithuan]

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…"

Ho,ho. Sorry, I couldn’t resist myself.

The protestant canon is a sort of jack-in-the-box. All bizarre explanation is possible

 

[PRmerger]

You are free to disagree all you want, & it wouldn’t prevent you from worshiping there are get you “excommunicated” from the church.

Fair enough.

So a member of your church can proclaim that he believes that St. Paul is demonic and his epistles are all theologically incorrect and you wouldn’t excommunicate him.

He’d be free to worship at your church.

Just keep in mind that, obviously, one (or both) of what two of your disagree on “might” be wrong, since you both can’t be right. And the way you can know who is right is by comparing what the two of you “believe” TO Scripture. And whoever is “adding to” Scripture is wrong.

Well, taz, that makes your paradigm the most otiose of otiose.

You profess that Bible verse “A” means “X” and a member of your church professes that Bible verse “A” means “Not X”…and that’s as far as it goes.

There is no other authority to which you can appeal to tell him that he is wrong.

It’s just a standstill. You believe X. He believes not-X.

Both of you just have to shrug and say, “You’re doing exactly what I’m doing–praying and asking the Holy Spirit for guidance–but I guess we just don’t know for sure who’s correct, since we’re both FALLIBLE, eh?”

 

[clem456]

Wrong. Scripture never describes “human beings” as being “Inspired” (theopneustos), it ONLY describes Scripture as being “Inspired” (2 Timothy 3:16)

Wrong.
You contradict the direct and literal words of scripture.

22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

(Edited)

Since (Edited) your assertion that the community Christ breathed life into is not God-breathed (inspired) is laughable and is nothing but a transparent agenda.

(Edited)