A few questions for Protestants

epostle said:

Sincere seekers want the truth of the development of the canon of Scripture, not fairy tales.

Click to expand...

From the one that came out on top in controlling the narrative after the fall of the Jerusalem church to the Gentiles? Other Christian churches were forced to bury their books in the desert or in hillsides.

timothyu said:

From the one that came out on top in controlling the narrative after the fall of the Jerusalem church to the Gentiles?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what that means.

timothyu said:

Other Christian churches were forced to bury their books in the desert or in hillsides.

Click to expand...

Copies were made of everything, including false books. As a side note, there are no original manuscripts. They don't exist. Just extant copies. This is the first time I've seen this theory that churches buried their books. There was no defined canon for 4 centuries, "Bible Christians" didn't exist during that time because there was no Bible (as we know it).

Valletta said:

I'm not a member of any denomination, I'm a Catholic. My statement was 100% historically accurate. The Catholic Church finalized the canon in the late 300s and the same 73 books, in the same order, comprise the Bible today. All apocryphal text was rejected in the 300s.

Click to expand...

Good Day. Valletta

I would say your assertion is baseless from an historical prospective.

Just to be clear the Roman Catholic Church can claim and proclaim for it's members a Canon.
I have no issue with that but seeing I am not a member of that it is of little use to me.

BTW way I like Jerome do see the Historical books of the Jews as very useful as far as history goes and have read them, but do not see them as Canonical in the strictest sense. I know you have choose other wise and that is fine, but in that choice I believe you have errored.

Much like:

I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)

I know you have choose other wise and that is fine.

Actually there are 242 Catholic denominations according to World Christian Encyclopedia (Barrett, Kurian, and Johnson; Oxford University Press)


In Him,

Bill

epostle said:

Referring to the Catholic Church as a denomination is a revisionism in itself. Sincere seekers want the truth of the development of the canon of Scripture, not fairy tales.

Cardinal Cajetan can say whatever he wants, it doesn't change the fact that the canon of Scripture was settled by the CC after centuries of debate and discernment. "Apocrypha" includes uninspired books along with inspired books. The other concept restricts it to mean only the Deuterocanonical Books (rejected by non-Catholic Christians) which is a revised definition of the term "Apocrypha".

The CC doesn't have to agree with Cajetan, has to agree with the Church, which he does. There is nothing in this quote that disproves the Deuterocanonical Books as Scripture.

Development of Doctrine doesn't go backwards.

First you have to prove Trent had errors re: the Canon of Scripture by proving the canon was wrong from the beginning. This you cannot do.

Jerome’s attitude is ambiguous and may have changed over time. Furthermore, no one Church Father can settle the canon.

While learning to translate Hebrew, Jerome was in contact with non- Christian Jews who were intellectual descendants of the Pharisees and therefore rejected the deuterocanonicals (see Days 255 and 257). Under this influence, he at least for a time rejected their canonicity.

This is indicated in the prologues to the Vulgate, where he says certain books are non-canonical (e.g., he says this of Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and Tobit in the prologue to Kings). In other cases, he says a book is not read among Hebrew-speaking Jews but does not clearly state his own view (e.g., he says this of Baruch in the prologue to Jeremiah).

Nevertheless, Jerome shows deference to the judgment of the Church. In the prologue to Judith, he tells his patron that “because this book is found by the Nicene Council [of A.D. 325] to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request” to translate it. This is interesting because we have only partial records of First Nicaea, and we don’t otherwise know what this ecumenical council said concerning the canon.

Jerome’s deference to Church authority was also illustrated when he later defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, writing: “What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the church- es?” (Against Rufinus 2:33). In the same place he stated that what he said concerning Daniel in his prologues was what non-Christian Jews said but was not his own view. This may indicate Jerome changed his mind or that his reporting of Jewish views may not indicate his own view.

Jerome’s deference to the Church is correct. The guidance of the Holy Spirit is given to the Church as a whole. No one Church Father, however prominent, can settle the canon of Scripture, and on this subject Jerome was in the minority (see Day 273).
source

Click to expand...

Good day,

Finally some one who will quote some primary sources....

Jerome says "the Church" he does not say it is his own view. Lets let the man speak for Himself.

As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

Lets look at the whole of that Quote (s) that you pasted, as to Nicaea that is true most Scholars think what Jerome did here was to accept the statement about Nicaea, but he know it was not true and there is no historical evidence that is was we see such attribution by anyone historically that Nicaea did such a thing.


Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work , translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have hacked away at the excessively error-ridden panoply of the many codices; I conveyed in Latin only what I could find expressed coherently in the Chaldean words. Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.

He did it because they asked he told them that the Jews viewed this book differently. I not so sure this is "deference to Church authority"'.

As to Daniel, sufficient to say I disagree with your understanding of what Jerome wrote.

And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the old law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the Lamb, and with downcast looks offer their crowns, while in their presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with unwearied voice crying, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who wast, and art, and art to come.

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings


33. In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, "As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion." Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not baring written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and free that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.

34. I beg you, my most sweet friend, who are so curious that you even know my dreams, and that yon scrutinize for purposes of accusations all that I have written during these many years without fear of future calumny; answer me, how is it you do not know the prefaces of the very books on which you ground your charges against me? These prefaces, as if by some prophetic foresight, gave the answer to the calumnies that were coming, thus fulfilling the proverb, "The antidote before the poison." What harm has been done to the churches by my translation?You bought up, as I knew, at great cost the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and the Jewish authors of the fifth and sixth translations. Your Origen, or, that I may not seem to be wounding you with fictitious praises, our Origen,(for I may call him ours for his genius and learning, though not for the truth of his doctrines) in all his books explains and expounds not only the Septuagint but the Jewish versions. Eusebius and Didymus do the same. I do not mention Apollinarius, who, with a laudable zeal though not according to knowledge, attempted to patch up into one garment the rags of all the translations, and to weave a consistent text of Scripture at his own discretion, not according to any sound rule of criticism. The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words65 "He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water," and in the words used on the cross itself, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani," which is by interpretation "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" not, as it is given by the Septuagint, "My God, my God, look upon me, why hast thou forsaken me?" and many similar cases. I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the seventy translators; but I assert that the Apostles of Christ bare an authority superior to theirs. Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these exist in the Hebrew. Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from tile Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end.

35. By all this it is made clear, first that the version of the Seventy translators which has gained an established position by having been so long in use, was profitable to the churches, because that by its means the Gentiles heard of the coming of Christ before he came; secondly, that the other translators are not to be reproved, since it was not their own works that they published but the divine books which they translated; and, thirdly, that my own familiar friend should frankly accept from a Christian and a friend what he has taken great pains to obtain from the Jews and has written down for him at great cost. I have exceeded the bounds of a letter; and, though I had taken pen in hand to contend against a wicked heresy, I have been compelled to make answer on my own behalf, while waiting for my friend's three books, and in a state of constant mental suspense about the charges he had heaped up against me. It is easier to guard against one who professes hostility than to make head against an enemy who lurks under the guise of a friend.



I never suggested the a Church Father could settle the issue. As the church Fathers were all over the place as were prominent Roman Catholics at the time of reformation. Can you give me 3-4 Church Father pre Trent ( that settled the issue for the Roman Catholic Denomination) that says they are relying on some (supposed) authority of the "church" for their Canon.

Clearly Cajetan believed that Jerome had that authority... you can disagree with the Bishop here but he was the main Bishop that faced Luther and is was an official of the Roman Catholic Church one would think he knew what he was talking about.

You have yet to prove that Cajetan's documented view was not the view of the Church in his day, you would have to agree on this question Luther and Cajetan were in agreement as were many others. You have supposed with out justification some authority claimed at Trent that nobody that I can find points to historically to settle this issue for them.

I am using Cajetan as an Historical point in time reference of what was being taught by Bishop's of the Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry but I do find His comments a bit useful (as Historical teaching) then any current post Trent Roman Catholic.

Now, you can say he was in error in His view. But then Historically you need to show some one in His day that took exemption, or maybe the Roman Catholic Church using it's self proclaimed authority to correct his mistake.

In Him,

Bill

BBAS 64 said:

Good Day. Valletta

I would say your assertion is baseless from an historical prospective.

Just to be clear the Roman Catholic Church can claim and proclaim for it's members a Canon.
I have no issue with that but seeing I am not a member of that it is of little use to me.

BTW way I like Jerome do see the Historical books of the Jews as very useful as far as history goes and have read them, but do not see them as Canonical in the strictest sense. I know you have choose other wise and that is fine, but in that choice I believe you have errored.

Click to expand...

The 73 books decided upon by the Catholic Church in the late 300s was the Bible for all of Europe until the reformation, over a thousand years later.At that time 7 books were dropped. Luther wanted other books dropped, such as Revelation, but only 7 were removed from the Protestant canon. Please carefully read the words of Jerome below in context. I have "bolded" his key statements. Jerome, as do so many Catholic Bible writers of modern times, made today what we refer to as a footnotes. He noted differences of our OT with the Jews of his time. Remember too that at the time of Christ different groups of Jews recognized different lists for Holy Scripture. A "canon" is a list, and Jerome did accept the Catholic Church canon "in the strictest sense." He's making the point that he makes such notes in a scholarly sense rather than for those who would attack him.

33. In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion. Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not having written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and freely that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be. (Against Rufinus 2:33).

Valletta said:

The 73 books decided upon by the Catholic Church in the late 300s was the Bible for all of Europe until the reformation, over a thousand years later.
At that time 7 books were dropped. Luther wanted other books dropped, such as Revelation, but only 7 were removed from the Protestant canon.
Please carefully read the words of Jerome below in context. I have "bolded" his key statements. Jerome, as do so many Catholic Bible writers of modern times, made today what we refer to as a footnote. He noted the Jews of his time used a different group of OT books. A "canon" is a list, and Jerome did accept the Catholic Church canon "in the strictest sense."

33. In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion. Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not having written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and freely that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be. (Against Rufinus 2:33).

CHURCH FATHERS: Apology Against Rufinus, Book II (Jerome)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

Click to expand...

Good day, Valletta

Not sure what Version of the book of Daniel reads ( Theodotion) has to do with the question of Canon at all. Nor his historical documentation of the "Churches View" in His day.

You can say he incorrectly represented the Churches view, but in that historical context you would have to objectively prove it.
Pointing to Trent is not a fair way to answer the question, in an historical manner.


As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

300's do you have the primary source for that?

Well certainly a number of people between then and the reformation would disagree with your assertion, and have written as much. Some of them I have posted.

In HIm,

Bill

BBAS 64 said:

Good day, Valletta

Not sure what Version of the book of Daniel reads ( Theodotion) has to do with the question of Canon at all. Nor his historical documentation of the "Churches View" in His day.

You can say he incorrectly represented the Churches view, but in that historical context you would have to objectively prove it.
Pointing to Trent is not a fair way to answer the question, in an historical manner.


As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

300's do you have the primary source for that?

Well certainly a number of people between then and the reformation would disagree with your assertion, and have written as much. Some of them I have posted.

In HIm,

Bill

Click to expand...

The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. Jerome was working on the Vulgate at the time the Church formally accepted the canon. Realize that there were many many prayerful and holy people working and praying upon determining which text was God-breathed. Obviously there were differences of opinion, just like the Apostles had disagreements that they worked out. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. As to your question, most Protestant Bibles are missing portions of Daniel that are in the Catholic Bible.

Valletta said:

The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. Jerome was working on the Vulgate at the time the Church formally accepted the canon. Realize that there were many many prayerful and holy people working and praying upon determining which text was God-breathed. Obviously there were differences of opinion, just like the Apostles had disagreements that they worked out. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. As to your question, most Protestant Bibles are missing portions of Daniel that are in the Catholic Bible.

Click to expand...

Good day, Valletta

Thanks for the chat....

I still believe that Jerome actually records the view of the Church in his day, and that Cajetan in the reformation as Jerome being authoritative on this matter ( we may disagree) I will let their words stand for them self.

How should we receive the Gelasian Decree today?

Today, most scholars consider the Decretum Gelasianum to be an anonymous work, likely from Italy, in the 6th century. This is after both Damasus and Gelasius lived. Mentions of the text don’t appear in manuscripts until the 9th century, if I recall correctly. Even then, it’s not widely discussed and nobody claims the Damasean portion “decided the canon,” even with the false attribution to a pope. All the while, differing perspectives on the canon (mainly concerning the OT) persist all the way through the Council of Trent in 1569. At Trent, they are still a matter of debate. The Council of Florence does list canonical books before Trent but not dogmatically.

Neil and Allen (2014), authors of the most comprehensive and current analysis of Gelasius’ letters that I know, say this:

“The Gelasian Decretal (Letter 42) was the first Roman document to fix the canon of tradition, although the canon of Scripture was not set down by a bishop of Rome until the time of Hormisdas (514-523).”[7]

Pope Damasus, the Council of Rome and the Canon of Scripture



I see his views in line with the thinking of the Roman Catholic church:



Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New.36 In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon. To determine this canon, it based itself on the Church's constant usage. In adopting this canon, which is larger than the Hebrew, it has preserved an authentic memory of Christian origins, since, as we have seen, the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament.

The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible

I guess I will stick to the Hebrew Canon (Defined above), with the understanding that there are other books that are useful (canon), that would include some of the works that the Roman Catholic Church includes it their own Cannon as defined by Trent to clear up doubts and uncertainties (which clearly existed) for their members going forward.

Thanks Again!

In Him,

Bill

BBAS 64 said:

Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New.36 In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon. To determine this canon, it based itself on the Church's constant usage. In adopting this canon, which is larger than the Hebrew, it has preserved an authentic memory of Christian origins, since, as we have seen, the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament.

The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible

I guess I will stick to the Hebrew Canon (Defined above), with the understanding that there are other books that are useful (canon), that would include some of the works that the Roman Catholic Church includes it their own Cannon as defined by Trent to clear up doubts and uncertainties (which clearly existed) for their members going forward.

Thanks Again!

In Him,

Bill

Click to expand...

Realize that when various heresies crop up the Catholic Church often makes pronouncements. It should thus be no surprise that at the time of the reformation, with different versions of the Bible being produced, that the canon was twice again re-affirmed by the Church. As I stated: "This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D." Understand that Christians in Europe used the 73 book Bible for a thousand years or so before reformation times, and I am sure it was confusing to some Catholics (and would raise doubt as you said) to be told by Protestant followers that only 66 books were valid, or to hear the comments added to a number of Protestant Bibles. The Catholic position is that men during the reformation had no authority to remove any books from Holy Scripture. Likewise at the time the canon was finalized the Church decided that Catholics were not bound to follow Jews in their decided canon, Jews who did not follow Jesus and denied the Gospels. Realize that some content contradicting new Jewish belief, such as the story in Hebrews about those who were tortured for their belief in the resurrection, is found in 2 Macc.

epostle said:

"Bible Christians" didn't exist during that time because there was no Bible (as we know it).

Click to expand...

But all the writings existed and were used. Just because they weren't amalgamated in a box set of greatest hits does not mean they were not used prior.

timothyu said:

But all the writings existed and were used. Just because they weren't amalgamated in a box set of greatest hits does not mean they were not used prior.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written. So there was a period when none were written. I suppose every potential text for the Bible, apocryphal or not, was "used," if you mean someone read it. But it is true that once the Gospel readings were written those were used at masses throughout the land. As to other texts, there were differences at what was used for mass readings from area to area. The Church set out to determine what was God-breathed and what was not. As I have said, the process spanned centuries, with Revelation being the last NT book accepted.

Valletta said:

The Catholic Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written.

Click to expand...

Actually the Church existed starting at Caesarea Philippi when Jesus said it would be built on truth from God, not from man. Not a gentile in sight.

timothyu said:

But all the writings existed and were used. Just because they weren't amalgamated in a box set of greatest hits does not mean they were not used prior.

Click to expand...

The Bible is a the fruit of the Church, a church didn't pop out of a book. The assumption here is the Bible produced a church, which is absurd.

In order for Protestants to exercise the principles of sola Scriptura they first have to accept the antecedent premise of what books constitute Scripture — in particular, the New Testament books. This is not as simple as it may seem at first, accustomed as we are to accepting without question the New Testament as we have it today.

Although indeed there was, roughly speaking, a broad consensus in the early Church as to what books were scriptural, there still existed enough divergence of opinion to reasonably cast doubt on the Protestant concepts of the Bible’s self-authenticating nature, and the self-interpreting maxim of perspicuity.

The following overview of the history of acceptance of biblical books (and also non-biblical ones as Scripture) will help the reader to avoid over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible.

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon

(sources for the chart are all Protestant, eliminating doctrinal bias)

But all the writings existed and were used. Just because they weren't amalgamated in a box set of greatest hits does not mean they were not used prior

Click to expand...

The Book of Revelation was not "used" as Scripture until after 350 A.D. It seems you refuse to accept that false books were considered Scripture by some, and the Church had to sort out the mess. The point is, the canon of Scripture is not in Scripture, thus refuting the man made tradition of sola scriptura.

epostle said:

. The assumption here is the Bible produced a church, which is absurd.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But also a Gentile institutionalised church did not create scripture either. They just amalgamed om pre-existing writings what fit their narrative. As time went on tradition became human truth and questioning its authority became the same dangerous threat to its existence as questioning Corporatism is today. Both met and are meeting the problem in the same human inspired way, with censorship and imprisonment/execution.

epostle said:

In order for Protestants to exercise the principles of sola Scriptura they first have to accept the antecedent premise of what books constitute Scripture — in particular, the New Testament books.

Click to expand...

In other words, follow the controlled narrative of the church they protested. Where is the progress in that? How are we ever supposed to get back to the Kingdom, the Kingdom that the church set aside in order to rejoin the backwards world of man 1700 years ago.

timothyu said:

Actually the Church existed starting at Caesarea Philippi when Jesus said it would be built on truth from God, not from man. Not a gentile in sight.

Click to expand...

Jesus said, "I will build". It does not mean "I have built". Rock (Peter) was a Jew, not a Gentile.

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates *to the person of Peter*, not his confession of faith.

Matt. 16:13 – also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to Rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.
Most Christians understand the Church was born at Pentecost, and some see the water and blood that flowed from Jesus' pierced side as a symbolic birth of the Church.

epostle said:

Jesus said, "I will build". It does not mean "I have built".

Click to expand...

Stating the foundation of that church would be truth from only God was the beginning then and there (and Simon being a chip (Peter) of the foundation was the first to state, not man's but Gods truth. Man likes to twist that because man doesn't like to be called a natural born liar). Jesus was/is the church, not man (and especially not man's truths). It was not some institutionalized religion formed later on that could lay claim as a matter of reverse engineering. Especially not one that would reject the Kingdom in favour of the power and glory of an empire of man. The church was begun at the Gates of Hell, and Pentecost was only when the team finally received their uniforms and equipment and went out to play. They started out well, winning games for the Kingdom, but eventually their players were replaced by players from the opposing team and the games were of no value any more.

timothyu said:

Agreed. But also a Gentile institutionalised church did not create scripture either.

Click to expand...

Straw man fallacy. There never was a "Gentile institutionalised church".

timothyu said:

They just amalgamed om pre-existing writings what fit their narrative.

Click to expand...

How does that work? The Gospels and Epistles "fit a narrative"??? If that's true, then the books of the Bible are not inspired.

timothyu said:

As time went on tradition became human truth

Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense. The Bible mandates tradition, it is not a dirty word.

timothyu said:

and questioning its authority became the same dangerous threat to its existence as questioning Corporatism is today.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the canon. FYI, Catholics are free to disagree with the Church and raise questions; that right is protected by canon law. It happens all the time. We are not free to rebel.

timothyu said:

Both met and are meeting the problem in the same human inspired way, with censorship and imprisonment/execution.

Click to expand...

Both sides made mistakes centuries ago. That statement is meaningless and way off topic.

timothyu said:

Stating the foundation of that church would be truth from only God was the beginning then and there (and Simon being a chip (Peter) of the foundation was the first to state, not man's but Gods truth. Man likes to twist that because man doesn't like to be called a natural born liar). Jesus was/is the church, not man (and especially not man's truths). It was not some institutionalized religion formed later on that could lay claim as a matter of reverse engineering. Especially not one that would reject the Kingdom in favour of the power and glory of an empire of man. The church was begun at the Gates of Hell, and Pentecost was only when the team finally received their uniforms and equipment and went out to play. They started out well, winning games for the Kingdom, but eventually their players were replaced by players from the opposing team and the games were of no value any more.

Click to expand...

Your take on early church history isn't much different from the false narratives conjured up by Bible cults founded less than 200 years ago. Is the full doctrine of the Trinity "man's truth"? If you are anti-trinitarian, and I suspect you are, then you are anti-Protestant. The problem I have with anti-institution Christians is they can't even organize an inner city soup kitchen, but sit at their computer condemning everyone else but them. It's really annoying. Don't run from my question with irrelevant comments. Answer the question. Is the full doctrine of the Trinity "man's truth"?