Top 5 Books of the Bible

I know I'm not a mod or anything, but there is another thread going on right now discussing the canon of Scripture and how many books should be included in it. I thought that original intent of this thread was a good idea, and I've enjoyed seeing people's thoughts on their top 5 books.

Achilles6129 said:

Show me a quote from 1 Maccabees in the NT. It's not in there. It is also false that the Apostles accepted 1 Maccabees or Sirach in their canon, as there is not a single mention of them as inspired in NT writings (unlike the Psalms, Prophets, Torah, etc.). As a matter of fact the only apocryphal work you will find cited in the NT is the book of Enoch by Jude. And that does not necessarily mean Enoch wrote the entire book of Enoch - only that he actually made the statement ascribed to him.

The OT canon as accepted by Hebrews and the NT canon as accepted by the church. That is the Bible as God intended it.

Christians do not decide the OT canon any more than Jews decide the NT canon. The OT canon writings are Jewish, and God led the Jews to decide which to include and which not to include. Same with the NT.

Again, God was at work here. God led the Jews to decide the books in the OT canon, and he led the Christians to decide the books in the NT canon. It was of the Holy Spirit.

As regards to the other thread about the canon, we can definitely move this discussion on there if you'd like.

Click to expand...

1. There aren't any New Testament quotes of Esther either.

2. The Jews didn't even decide an Old Testament canon until the late first century at the earliest, well after the church had begun so Jews couldn't have the Holy Spirit.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Achilles6129 said:

The OT canon as accepted by Hebrews and the NT canon as accepted by the church. That is the Bible as God intended it.

Christians do not decide the OT canon any more than Jews decide the NT canon. The OT canon writings are Jewish, and God led the Jews to decide which to include and which not to include. Same with the NT.

Click to expand...

This is a really curious and interesting statement. It seems to put rabbinic Judaism on some level with orthodox Christianity and grant it some measure of autonomy.

Of course, it's historically inaccurate- both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls predate the rabbinic corpus and include scores of books as authoritative sources, including books variously labeled deuterocanonical, apocrypha, intertestamental literature, and pseudepigrapha.

But even so, it makes me wonder if there isn't some strange connection between dispensationalism and the exclusive/rabbinic numbering of the canon.

knee-v said:

I know I'm not a mod or anything, but there is another thread going on right now discussing the canon of Scripture and how many books should be included in it. I thought that original intent of this thread was a good idea, and I've enjoyed seeing people's thoughts on their top 5 books.

Click to expand...

I totally agree but the original poster derailed his own, very good thread, by making false claims about which books were in the Bible and criticizing posters about their choice of book.

Yarddog said:

I totally agree but the original poster derailed his own, very good thread, by making false claims about which books were in the Bible and criticizing posters about their choice of book.

Click to expand...

Touché.

Achilles6129 said:

Show me a quote from 1 Maccabees in the NT. It's not in there.

Click to expand...

By your logic, then, the Book of Enoch should be included in our canon since it is quoted.

Achilles6129 said:

It is also false that the Apostles accepted 1 Maccabees or Sirach in their canon, as there is not a single mention of them as inspired in NT writings (unlike the Psalms, Prophets, Torah, etc.).

Click to expand...

You would then eliminate Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.

Achilles6129 said:

As a matter of fact the only apocryphal work you will find cited in the NT is the book of Enoch by Jude. And that does not necessarily mean Enoch wrote the entire book of Enoch - only that he actually made the statement ascribed to him.

Click to expand...

The only ancient Church which accepts Enoch into their canon is the Ethiopian Orthodox but not being canon does not mean that it is not an inspired work.

Achilles6129 said:

The OT canon as accepted by Hebrews and the NT canon as accepted by the church. That is the Bible as God intended it.

Click to expand...

You cannot sustain your position since you cannot show what books were accepted by the Hebrews. The Pharisees chose the present day Jewish canon not the Hebrews. The same Pharisees that rejected Christ and altered their text so that they could try and hide the Christians claims about Jesus in the OT.

Achilles6129 said:

Christians do not decide the OT canon any more than Jews decide the NT canon.

Click to expand...

Then why did the Apostles use the Septuagint? Who knew God better, the Apostles or the Jews?

Achilles6129 said:

The OT canon writings are Jewish, and God led the Jews to decide which to include and which not to include. Same with the NT.

Click to expand...

Show us evidence that God led the Jews, which rejected Jesus, to decide their canon.

Achilles6129 said:

As regards to the other thread about the canon, we can definitely move this discussion on there if you'd like.

Click to expand...

No, I would like you to respect the posters who cherish the books which you falsely claim are not in the Bible. God has inspired those posters with the beauty of those scriptures and we should all be glad with what God has done.

God inspired the Apostles to use the Septuagint, which contained the books in question. You cannot provide a single Apostolic quote disclaiming the Septuagint and the books within it and as Christians, we should allow God to inspire each of us with the books which the Apostles found inspirational.

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

This is a really curious and interesting statement. It seems to put rabbinic Judaism on some level with orthodox Christianity and grant it some measure of autonomy.

Of course, it's historically inaccurate- both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls predate the rabbinic corpus and include scores of books as authoritative sources, including books variously labeled deuterocanonical, apocrypha, intertestamental literature, and pseudepigrapha.

But even so, it makes me wonder if there isn't some strange connection between dispensationalism and the exclusive/rabbinic numbering of the canon.

Click to expand...

Yarddog said:

I totally agree but the original poster derailed his own, very good thread, by making false claims about which books were in the Bible and criticizing posters about their choice of book.

Click to expand...

That's fair, and I'm obviously guilty of derailing the thread as well, but maybe we should get a mod in here to redirect all discussion of the canon to the Protestant Bible thread.

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

That's fair, and I'm obviously guilty of derailing the thread as well, but maybe we should get a mod in here to redirect all discussion of the canon to the Protestant Bible thread.

Click to expand...

It would be sad to see this thread moved to the Protestant thread because it is a great topic. I pray that he will, instead, recognize this and not demand that posters only choose the books which he deems worthy.

God Bless my fellow brother in Christ.
Yarddog

Yarddog said:

It would be sad to see this thread moved to the Protestant thread because it is a great topic. I pray that he will, instead, recognize this and not demand that posters only choose the books which he deems worthy.

God Bless my fellow brother in Christ.
Yarddog

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I definitely don't want to have this thread closed.

How about this, then?

Any book that is included in the Oxford Annotated NRSV 4th edition is fair game. This includes:

The 66 books everyone agrees on.

The books of the Catholic deuterocanon: Tobith, Judith, Wisdom, Eccesiasticus, Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. You can also specific the shorter (Hebrew/Aramaic) or longer (Greek) version of Daniel and the shorter (Hebrew) or longer (Greek) version of Esther.

The additional Books of the Greek deuterocanon: 1 Esdras (2 Esdras in Slavonic, 3 Esdras in the Vulgate Appendix), the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees. You can also specify whether your book of Psalms includes Psalms 151.

The additional Books of the Slavonic deuterocanon: 2 Esdras (3 Esdras in Slavonic, 4 Esdras in the Vulgate).

The Septuagint appendix: 4 Maccabees.

I say all are fair game.

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

How about this, then? Any book that is included in the Oxford Annotated NRSV 4th edition is fair game. This includes:

The 66 books everyone* agrees on ...

I say all are fair game.

Click to expand...

* ... not everyone

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

Fair enough, I definitely don't want to have this thread closed.

How about this, then?

Any book that is included in the Oxford Annotated NRSV 4th edition is fair game. This includes:

The 66 books everyone agrees on.

The books of the Catholic deuterocanon: Tobith, Judith, Wisdom, Eccesiasticus, Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. You can also specific the shorter (Hebrew/Aramaic) or longer (Greek) version of Daniel and the shorter (Hebrew) or longer (Greek) version of Esther.

The additional Books of the Greek deuterocanon: 1 Esdras (2 Esdras in Slavonic, 3 Esdras in the Vulgate Appendix), the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees. You can also specify whether your book of Psalms includes Psalms 151.

The additional Books of the Slavonic deuterocanon: 2 Esdras (3 Esdras in Slavonic, 4 Esdras in the Vulgate).

The Septuagint appendix: 4 Maccabees.

I say all are fair game.

Click to expand...

I'm game but it is Achilles' OP. If he doesn't agree, we can start a new thread.

Achilles6129 said:

This thread is to discuss the top 5 books of the Bible. This includes and is limited to the books of the OT that the Hebrews accept and the books of the NT that the Christians accept - in other words, 66 books.

If you wish to list books other than the 66 accepted as defined above, that is your prerogative - but you know I do not accept them as Scripture.

Click to expand...

Me neither.....

.

Achilles6129 said:

This thread is to discuss the top 5 books of the Bible. This includes and is limited to the books of the OT that the Hebrews accept and the books of the NT that the Christians accept - in other words, 66 books.

If you wish to list books other than the 66 accepted as defined above, that is your prerogative - but you know I do not accept them as Scripture.

Click to expand...

The point is not if "you" accept them as scripture. Those people who listed those books did accept them as scripture as the whole Christian Church did, including the Apostles, since Jesus walked the Earth.

Originally Posted by Achilles6129

This thread is to discuss the top 5 books of the Bible. This includes and is limited to the books of the OT that the Hebrews accept and the books of the NT that the Christians accept - in other words, 66 books.

If you wish to list books other than the 66 accepted as defined above, that is your prerogative - but you know I do not accept them as Scripture.
​

Click to expand...

Yarddog said:

The point is not if "you" accept them as scripture. Those people who listed those books did accept them as scripture as the whole Christian Church did, including the Apostles, since Jesus walked the Earth.

Click to expand...

Source please....


.

I like the gospels, sirach, Tobit, acts... Mmm psalm maybe?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Trogool said:

I like the gospels, sirach, Tobit, acts... Mmm psalm maybe?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Click to expand...

Are you RC by any chance?

..

LittleLambofJesus said:

Are you RC by any chance?

..

Click to expand...

Um, why do you ask?

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner