Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nope, same list of books accepted in the 4th century at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage and accepted by Pope Damascus. If you can point to a reference where other books were previously accepted into the canon in the west and then removed, then you'd have a point.
Like this reference in the KJV that nobody seems to get bent out of shape about or try to make claims that the Bible teaches the worship of kings as equal to God?
I find both the stereotypical Catholic as well as the stereotypical Protestant views on this subject such a snorefest.
If you take Matthew's Greek for how it's represented the Triumphal entry, you could readily point to the section you refer to as being that those who were present at Jesus' Crucifixion hurled insults at Him in the same way as the chief priests and teachers of the Law and elders had -- at the time of the writing. In other words, "Expect this same argument from the elders, teachers, even the chief priests. It was adopted from the insults Jesus heard from passersby at His crucifixion -- three days before He was resurrected."
Again, a closer look: it's passersby that hurl the insults. They are definitely not stopping, not an audience. They're not taking it all in. They look up, see the insult at the top of the Cross, and they respond with insults. Cf. John 19:19-20.
It is far more readily concluded that because Jesus had been nailed on a Cross for three hours, losing blood, His speaking was slurred. Only the closest people could hear much of anything.
Why would it be written in Aramaic if no one's speaking Aramaic?
And yet they had Hebrew Scriptures. During Jesus' time. And were virulently anti-Pharisee, anti-Temple-leadership. They form the foil against the idea that this is just Pharisees or scribes pushing Hebrew language. No, it's not. It's Jesus' contemporaries.
That's a possibility. Hellenistic Jewish people were known to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem during Passover.
So what? Their actions at the time contradicts the idea that Hebrew was not valued outside Pharisaical Judaism. It actually was valued by Palestinian Judaism.
The kind of Jew the OC Jews weren't expecting
Do you have a reference where the western church ever accepted any books that are not currently in the Catholic Bible?
Do you have an example where books in the Bible are cross-referenced to chapter/verse of other books that are not Scripture?
I am aware that there are books quoted/referenced in Scripture that are not part of Scripture. That is why the "must be quoted in the NT in order to be part of the canon" test fails. There are OT books that all accept as canon that are never quoted, and there are quotes from books that nobody consider to be part of the canon. Paul even quotes from pagan poets.
Originally Posted by SummaScripturaChopped liver, I guess.
It seems the king of Baybylon looked at it in a different way in Ezek 21That's what it seems; unpalatable to some, but good for you!
Of course, but the converse doesn't bear against the assertion.
Then how can there being no direct quotes in the NT from the deuterocanonical books in any way provide evidence they are not canonical?
Maybe.
No. I get told that RCC, OO and EO don't agree on a canon and that tradition doesn't do this or that - anything but an answer to my question.
So I should misinterpret this passage to accept you view of it? Not only in this passage but in Mark 15:31; Luke 23:25; and John 19:31 all bear witness that there where Jews there at his death. No where in any of these passages does it say that it is gentile passerbys that are ridiculing Jesus. In fact no where does it say that there are any gentiles there at all except for Pilate and the soldiers.
You are confusing chief priests with the high priest even though the high priest is one of the chief priests. I went back and looked and no where does it use the term chief priests as singular. It always uses it as plural. So the plural is correct.
There is no doubt that their were others that passed by but from the accountings of scripture there is an audience as well as others that passed by and it says that both are Jews. Yet these Jews did not understand the Aramaic that Jesus spoke.
That is not the witness of scripture. He cried out in a loud voice "My God, My God why have You forsaken Me?" in Aramaic, to a crowd of Jews whether they were in the existing audience or passing by and there were Jews that did not understand what Jesus said.
I didn't say that no one spoke Aramaic. I said that not every Jew understood Aramaic, and that Aramaic was not the common tongue of the area at the time. If it was then why does scripture point out the few instances that Jesus used Aramaic? If it is all that He spoke or if it was the primary language He used during His ministry then there would have been absolutely no reason for these few sayings of His in Aramaic to be highlighted in Scripture.
There is no doubt that there were Hebrew Scriptures during Jesus' time. I am not denying that. What I am saying is that no one can deny the Phariseical influence of establishing the Hebrew canon and the emphasis of the Law in Jewish history. The Pharisees had a much more direct influence in the history of modern Judaism where quite honestly the essenes had absolutely no influence at all up until the finding of the dead sea scrolls.
All Jews at that time where called to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the passover. You were not Jew if you didn't.
Never said it was not valued. You are putting words in my posts. What I said is that Hebrew was a dead language that was used only in the synagogues and known only by the scribes and teachers of law. The common people of Palistine could not read Hebrew just like the common people of today cannot read Latin or Greek.
The perfect Jew.
I think that we have learned that there is no answer to this question on their part for to do so would force them to admit that Protestants have their own traditions that they follow and they are hardwired to deny all allusions to the idea that they follow traditions and thus cannot be Sola Scriptura.
