Can you really live by Sola Scriptura?

[boughtwithaprice]

The claim I made and what was posted in my discussion earlier was that the New Testament included the four gospels of the life and death and teachings of Jesus and the writings of the Apostles. I never said anywhere that Mark and Luke were Apostles. Perhaps you had a misunderstanding.

Perhaps it was a misunderstanding. Its a minor point, but if Mark and Luke were not Apostles, who authenticated their Gospels and the book of Acts as Scripture?

You mention the Jews authenticated the Old Testament as Scripture and they finalized their edition in the second century? If that is so, are we dependent on a group that wanted to see Christianity suppressed to tell us what the scriptures are? The first and second century Jews were not too friendly to Christians unless they were converted like Paul (Saul). First and second century Christians had access to the Septuagint, which included the deuterocanon.
I would prefer a Christian source to tell me the Scriptures, rather than having my faith limited by my enemies. Paul said the Jews were heirs according to the promise, but enemies of the Gospel. Is their a Christian source from the first and second century that says the Deuterocanon is not scripture?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Perhaps it was a misunderstanding. Its a minor point, but if Mark and Luke were not Apostles, who authenticated their Gospels and the book of Acts as Scripture?

Good question and no one better then Apostles themselves to authenticate their writings. Luke was a physician that traveled with Paul *Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11 writing the gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Mark was also known to the Apostles as an associate of Paul and disciple of Peter (Acts of the Apostles 12:12; 15:37).

You mention the Jews authenticated the Old Testament as Scripture and they finalized their edition in the second century?

Reference source; Encyclopedia Britannica

If that is so, are we dependent on a group that wanted to see Christianity suppressed to tell us what the scriptures are? The first and second century Jews were not too friendly to Christians unless they were converted like Paul (Saul). First and second century Christians had access to the Septuagint, which included the deuterocanon

We are dependent on no one accept God who gave us His Words and is in control of His Word. Most of the Christian Church in the beginning were all Jews and latter included both Jewish and Gentile believers. The Apocrypha (deuterocanon) are not scripture and are mostly written in Greek before the new testament. These were rejected by the Jews as scripture because they were mostly not written in Hebrew and of unknown origins so were not included in the old testament Hebrew scriptures. They were also written before the new testament and Jesus so do not belong in the New Testament scriptures. This is why they are called Apocrypha of unknown origin.

I would prefer a Christian source to tell me the Scriptures, rather than having my faith limited by my enemies. Paul said the Jews were heirs according to the promise, but enemies of the Gospel. Is their a Christian source from the first and second century that says the Deuterocanon is not scripture?

From the early Church fathers..

"Early church fathers such as Athanasius, Melito, Origen, and Cyril of Jerusalem, spoke against the canonicity of much or all of the apocrypha, but the most weighty opposition was the fourth century Catholic scholar Jerome who preferred the Hebrew canon, whereas Augustine and others preferred the wider (Greek) canon, with both having followers in the generations that followed. The Catholic Encyclopedia states as regards the Middle Ages, In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity." (Wiki)

Take Care.

 

[BPPLEE]

Incorrect. First, there was no "Hebrew Bible." Jews disagreed among themselves as to what books comprised Holy Scripture. While readings allowed to be read at Catholic masses in the first centuries were similar, and books like the Gospels were widely accepted, as I told you there were differences from area to area. The Catholic Church decided there was a need and set out to determine which texts were God-breathed and which were not. The Catholic Church process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) in 367. A.D., containing the same books in the same order we use today. Hardly the simple task of gathering those and putting them together as you allege. The 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.

They had the Septuagint

 

[Valletta]

They had the Septuagint

Yes, the Catholic Church used the Greek Septuagint for translations of the OT because the Apostles taught from the Septuagint.

 

[Valletta]

The Apocrypha (deuterocanon) are not scripture and are written in Greek before the new testament. These were rejected by the Jews as scripture because they were not written in Hebrew so were not included in the old testament Hebrew scriptures. There were also written before the new testament and Jesus so do not belong in the New Testament scriptures. This is why they are called Apocrypha of unknown origin.

False. A group of Jews did, after the Catholic Church came into being, reject the deuterocanical books as well as the Gospels. But the fact is that Christians were under no obligation to follow any groups of Jews. Those books were part of all Bibles for a thousand years or so before Protestants dropped those books from the their Bibles. While Luther was successful in getting those books dropped from Protestant versions of the Bible, he was unsuccessful with other books. For example, Revelation remains in Protestant Bibles to this day. While the claim that supposedly none of the deuterocanicals were ever written in Hebrew was a popular excuse for removing the books, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I have seen some of the Dead Sea Scroll myself, prove that myth wrong.

 

[Valletta]

Your response here...

Prove it. I have already provided references in disagreement with you from scripture and the Encyclopedia Britannica that you are unwilling to discuss here. Happy to provide more references if you need them.

"Hebrew Bible, also called Hebrew Scriptures, Old Testament, or Tanakh, collection of writings that was first compiled and preserved as the sacred books of the Jewish people. It also constitutes a large portion of the Christian Bible, known as the Old Testament. Except for a few passages in Aramaic, appearing mainly in the apocalyptic Book of Daniel, these scriptures were written originally in Hebrew during the period from 1200 to 100 BCE. The Hebrew Bible probably reached its current form about the 2nd century CE." - (source; Encyclopedia Britannica)​

There was nothing in any of my posts that state I do not know what the Roman Catholic process was for canonizing the scriptures. That is something your making up. I simply posted that the Roman Catholic Church had nothing to do with writing anything in the bible and that all these manuscripts were freely available and used by all churches outside of the Roman Catholic Church and that the Roman Catholic books of the Apocrypha do not belong in the bible as they have no place there as they do not belong in the Hebrew scriptures and books of the old testament and being written before the new testament in the Greek neither belong in the new testament which is why they are called Apocrypha and not scripture.

Take care.

As you've been told, our Church is called the Catholic Church. Please respect it an use the proper name when responding to me. In OT times Jews disagreed as to what books comprised Holy Scripture--that is a fact. I have pointed out that the myth that none of the Deuterocanonicals were ever written in Hebrew was dispelled by the Dead Sea Scrolls. As I said, Christians were under no obligation to follow a group of Jews. Those books were in the Bible for over a thousand years and removed during Protestant times, sadly the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery did not seem to get people to put them back.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

prove that myth wrong.

No problem. Your post here has already been proven wrong in the very post your micro-quoting from post # 342

False. A group of Jews did, after the Catholic Church came into being, reject the deuterocanical books as well as the Gospels. But the fact is that Christians were under no obligation to follow any groups of Jews. Those books were part of all Bibles for a thousand years or so before Protestants dropped those books from the their Bibles. While Luther was successful in getting those books dropped from Protestant versions of the Bible, he was unsuccessful with other books. For example, Revelation remains in Protestant Bibles to this day. While the claim that supposedly none of the deuterocanicals were ever written in Hebrew was a popular excuse for removing the books, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I have seen some of the Dead Sea Scroll myself, prove that myth wrong.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but no that is not true at all but allow me to explain why if it might be helpful. You do not need to take my word for it at all. Do some prayerful independent study for yourself on google. All of the writings of the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books include;

• 1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
• 2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
• Tobit
• Judith ("Judeth" in Geneva)
• Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4 – 16:24)
• Wisdom
• Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
• Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy ("Jeremiah" in Geneva) (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
• Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90)
• Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
• The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
• Prayer of Manasseh (Daniel)
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees

As posted earlier, the books above are called Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical their claim to being scripture being of dubious origin have been disputed from inside of the Roman Catholic Church (which is why they are called Deuterocanonical or Apocrypha) and outside of the Roman Catholic Church (which is why they are called Apocrypha) because they are of dubious authenticity. Here is a reference from Wiki below.

From the early Church fathers..

"Early church fathers such as Athanasius, Melito, Origen, and Cyril of Jerusalem, spoke against the canonicity of much or all of the apocrypha, but the most weighty opposition was the fourth century Catholic scholar Jerome who preferred the Hebrew canon, whereas Augustine and others preferred the wider (Greek) canon, with both having followers in the generations that followed. The Catholic Encyclopedia states as regards the Middle Ages, In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity." (Wiki)

The Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books were rejected as scripture by the Jews and the Hebrew bible of the old testament because they were of dubious origins and not written in Hebrew or Syriac. So did not fit into the old testament scriptures. All of the books above were written in Greek from 200-400 BC before the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus so also did not belong in the new testament. Which was why there was so much debate inside and outside of the Church as to where they belong which is why they are called Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical and not scripture.

So no your claims here are false. Protestants did not drop these books at all. They did not belong in the old testament and neither do they fit in the new testament which is why there was so much debate and controversy in regards to their inclusion in the bible from inside and outside of the Church and to their claims of scripture. Even in the book of Maccabees for example denies it's own inspiration.

• “So they tore down the altar, and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them.” (1 Maccabees 4:45b-46).

• “Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.” (1 Maccabees 9:27).

• “And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise…” (1 Maccabees 14:41).

This is why there has been much past debate in and outside of the church and why these books are called the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books and not scripture as they are of dubious origin in regards to their claims of scripture and also because they neither belong in the old testament being rejected by the Jews as scripture or the new testament time periods because they were written before Christ. So there we have it. Myth busted. There is more information and background provided here if your interested

Hope this was helpful.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

As you've been told, our Church is called the Catholic Church. Please respect it an use the proper name when responding to me. In OT times Jews disagreed as to what books comprised Holy Scripture--that is a fact. I have pointed out that the myth that none of the Deuterocanonicals were ever written in Hebrew was dispelled by the Dead Sea Scrolls. As I said, Christians were under no obligation to follow a group of Jews. Those books were in the Bible for over a thousand years and removed during Protestant times, sadly the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery did not seem to get people to put them back.

Well you provided your opinion here but it is unsupported by any evidence or fact, and yes thank you I do respect all people from all Church's and believe Gods' people are in every Church. For me though only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it over the teachings and traditions of men that lead us away from God and His Word to break the commandments of God that Jesus warns us about in Matthew 15:3-9. Jesus says that the hour is coming and now is that His true worshipers will worship the father in Spirit and in truth. God is a Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth *John 4:23-24. God is calling us all where ever we might be to come out from following man-made teachings and traditions to return to His Word to hear His voice and follow him *John 10:26-27 which is the only standard of what His true according to the scriptures in Romans 3:4 and John 17:17. I do not see any facts provided in your posts that support any of your early claims of error. You were provided in response facts and evidence from credible references that were not my opinion though in the very post you were quoting from that disagree with your opinion and claims of error from the; Encyclopedia Britannica linked that is in disagreement with that you do not want to discuss. Perhaps you can write the Encyclopedia Britannica and tell them they are in error? Of course you are free to believe as you wish and we can agree to disagree but you still have not proven any of your opinions here if I am being honest with you.

Take Care.

 

[Valletta]

Well you provided your opinion here but it is unsupported by any evidence or fact, and yes thank you I do respect all people from all Church's and believe Gods' people are in every Church.

False. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain Jewish writings from deuterocanonical books such as Tobit, Baruch, and Sirach. This is not in dispute by any scholars I am aware of. Groups of Jews depicted in the Bible also did not recognize the same books as Holy Scripture. So there was no one "Hebrew Bible" at the time Christ lived on this earth. Please take the time to check out the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls for yourself instead of claiming there is no evidence or fact. I have stated many times on these forums that Wikipedia is not a valid source of information since anyone can post there. Here is a link to a scholarly page regarding Qumran Cave 4:
The Aramaic and Hebrew Fragments of Tobit from Qumran Cave 4 on JSTOR

Even in the book of Maccabees for example denies it's own inspiration.

• “So they tore down the altar, and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them.” (1 Maccabees 4:45b-46).

• “Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.” (1 Maccabees 9:27).

• “And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise…” (1 Maccabees 14:41).

You seem to read into these statements things that are not present. None of these quotations you present here from the books of Maccabees deny their own inspiration, as you claim.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

False. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain Jewish writings from deuterocanonical books such as Tobit, Baruch, and Sirach. This is not in dispute by any scholars I am aware of. Groups of Jews depicted in the Bible also did not recognize the same books as Holy Scripture. So there one no one "Hebrew Bible" at the time Christ lived on this earth. Please take the time to check out the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls for yourself instead of claiming there is no evidence or fact.

Nope. What was posted to you is not false at all and you were provided supporting references as evidence in disagreement with you. Your post here has nothing to do with the post you are quoting from and does not support anything your claiming here. I have never said that these books are not in the dead see scrolls and they do not exist so your making arguments no one is arguing about but if your argument here is that because something is found in the dead sea scrolls makes them scripture then that is only an assumption and an opinion your side that is unsupported by any fact of evidence and as such is a logical fallacy because you have not proven that everything from the dead sea scrolls are scripture. In fact the Jews have had all these books from the beginning and have rejected the Apocrypha as scripture because they are of dubious origins. If you take some time to do some more prayerful research and read the posts that were shared with you then you will see I have never been in disagreement as to where any of these books were found so your argument is both logical fallacy and strawman. I was never talking about where these books have been found but why these books are not considered scripture and why they have no place in the bible. So no once again you have no provided any facts just your opinion unsupported by evidence. Here is an interesting source from a Jewish website if your interested as to why they believe the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books are not scripture (see Chabad Jewish practice and approach to Apocrypha).

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Even in the book of Maccabees for example denies it's own inspiration.

• “So they tore down the altar, and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them.” (1 Maccabees 4:45b-46).

• “Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.” (1 Maccabees 9:27).

• “And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise…” (1 Maccabees 14:41).

Your response here..

You seem to read into these statements things that are not present. None of these quotations you present here from the books of Maccabees deny their own inspiration, as you claim.

Well that is not true but allow me to show from the scriptures why I say this if it might be helpful. Everything else in your post that you have added in afterwards has already been addressed in my previous post showing your making arguments no one is arguing about so do not need to be addressed here so I will just address this section of your post above here that you added in afterwards that I did not get a chance to read before I responded to your original post...

Quotes from the book of Maccabees

• “So they tore down the altar, and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them.” (1 Maccabees 4:45b-46).

• “Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.” (1 Maccabees 9:27).

• “And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise…” (1 Maccabees 14:41).

CONCLUSION: No prophets or inspired men in the time of Maccabees.
..............

Hebrew meaning of Prophet

Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries w/TVM, Strong - H5030
נָבִיא (nâbîyʼ | naw-bee') Derivation: from נָבָא;
Strong's: a prophet or (generally) inspired man
KJV: prophecy, that prophesy, prophet.​

Greek meaning of Prophet

Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries w/TVM, Strong - G4396
προφήτης (prophḗtēs | prof-ay'-tace)
Derivation: from a compound of G4253 and G5346;
Strong's: a foreteller ("prophet"); by analogy, an inspired speaker
KJV: —prophet.

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Thayer - G4396
G4396 — προφήτης προφήτου, ὁ (προφημι, to speak forth, speak out; hence, properly, 'one who speaks forth'; see πρό, d. ἆ.), the Sept. for נָבִיא (which comes from the same root as , 'to divulge,' 'make known,' 'announce' (cf. Fleischer in Delitzsch, Com. ü. d. Gen, 4te Aufl., p. 551f), therefore properly, equivalent to interpreter, Exod 7:1, cf. 4:16; hence, an interpreter or spokesman for God; one through whom God speaks; cf. especially Bleek, Einl. in d. A. T. 4te Aufl., p. 309 (B. D. under the word and references there; especially also Day's note on Oehler's O. T. Theol. § 161, and Winers Grammar, Robertson Smith, Prophets of Israel, p. 389 (note on Lect. ii.))), one who speaks forth by divine inspiration​

...........

Question: If Maccabees says that there was no prophets during this time how can the book of Maccabees be scripture when the very definition of scripture from the bible is that all scripture is God breathed and inspired by God through men (prophets) *2 Timothy 3:15-16?

2 Timothy 3:16 [16], All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

This evidence from the scriptures defining what scripture is, and the very quotes from Maccabees proves you are wrong here. As there was no prophets or inspired men therefore no scripture during this time period which is in agreement that Apocrypha is not scripture which is Gods inspired Word given by God through His prophets.

Take your time and think this through.

 

[Valletta]

Your response here..

Well that is not true but allow me to show from the scriptures why I say this if it might be helpful. Everything else in your post that you have added in afterwards has already been addressed in my previous post showing your making arguments no one is arguing about so do not need to be addressed here so I will just address this section of your post above here that you added in afterwards that I did not get a chance to read before I responded to your original post...

For your interest...

Hebrew meaning of Prophet

Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries w/TVM, Strong - H5030
נָבִיא (nâbîyʼ | naw-bee') Derivation: from נָבָא;
Strong's: a prophet or (generally) inspired man
KJV: prophecy, that prophesy, prophet.

Greek meaning of Prophet

Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries w/TVM, Strong - G4396
προφήτης (prophḗtēs | prof-ay'-tace)
Derivation: from a compound of G4253 and G5346;
Strong's: a foreteller ("prophet"); by analogy, an inspired speaker
KJV: —prophet.

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Thayer - G4396
G4396 — προφήτης προφήτου, ὁ (προφημι, to speak forth, speak out; hence, properly, 'one who speaks forth'; see πρό, d. ἆ.), the Sept. for נָבִיא (which comes from the same root as , 'to divulge,' 'make known,' 'announce' (cf. Fleischer in Delitzsch, Com. ü. d. Gen, 4te Aufl., p. 551f), therefore properly, equivalent to interpreter, Exod 7:1, cf. 4:16; hence, an interpreter or spokesman for God; one through whom God speaks; cf. especially Bleek, Einl. in d. A. T. 4te Aufl., p. 309 (B. D. under the word and references there; especially also Day's note on Oehler's O. T. Theol. § 161, and Winers Grammar, Robertson Smith, Prophets of Israel, p. 389 (note on Lect. ii.))), one who speaks forth by divine inspiration

...........

Question: If Maccabees says that there was no prophet during this time how can the book of Maccabees be scripture when the very definition of scripture from the bible is that all scripture is God breathed and inspired by God through men *2 Timothy 3:15-16?

2 Timothy 3:16 [16], All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

This evidence from the scriptures defining what scripture is, and the very quotes from Maccabees proves you are wrong here.

Take your time and think this through.

Did you bother to review the Dead Sea Scrolls for yourself or take a look at the link? The linked text is short and can be read in less than a minute. You will find that the claim that none of the Deuterocanonicals was ever written in Hebrew is dis-proven by the documentation.

As to this new claim of yours, your conclusion is based on faulty logic. You assume that there must be a "prophet" for something to be "inspired by God." This is a false assumption.

Psalm 74:9

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
9 We do not see our signs;
there is no longer any prophet,
and there is none among us who knows how long.

Psalm 74 is inspired, it is part of the Word of God, and yet says "there is no longer any prophet."

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Did you bother to review the Dead Sea Scrolls for yourself or take a look at the link? The linked text is short and can be read in less than a minute. You will find that the claim that none of the Deuterocanonicals was ever written in Hebrew is dis-proven by the documentation.

As to this new claim of yours, your conclusion is based on faulty logic. You assume that there must be a "prophet" for something to be "inspired by God." This is a false assumption.

Psalm 74:9

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
9 We do not see our signs;
there is no longer any prophet,
and there is none among us who knows how long.

Psalm 74 is inspired, it is part of the Word of God, and yet says "there is no longer any prophet."

Your post here again does not address any of the post content you are quoting from in post # 351 again that is in disagreement with what you are posting. As posted earlier, your premise in regards to all the dead sea scrolls being scripture is a logical fallacy or faulty because your premise is unproven or you have not proven that everything from the dead sea scrolls are scripture despite Jewish and Christian evidence already provided to you proving that shows the books of the Apocrypha (meaning dubious origins) are not regarded as scripture by the Jews and even disagreed upon in and outside of the Roman Catholic Church. See post # 350 linked that you ignored earlier. There is only one definition of what scripture is according to the scriptures, and it is found in 2 Timothy 3:16 already pointed out to you.

All you have provided in our discussion are strawman arguments no one is arguing about and your opinion unsupported by evidence of scripture or other supportive references in support of your claims while ignoring the scripture evidence and sourced references that are in disagreement with you that you refuse to discuss here. So your claims of faulty assumptions here are not mine because I have provided evidence from both scripture, Catholic references and Jewish references and the Encyclopedia Britannica that are all in disagreement with your opinions that are all supportive of what has been shared with you and are in disagreement with your claims and opinions that are unsupported by any evidence.

As to Psalms 74:9? Context is king here. Psalms 74 is a Psalm by King David who prophesied and was inspired by God. It is a Psalm or prayer to God in a time when Israel departed Gods' Word and was being invaded by the enemy. David is in prayer asking for God's help because God had departed them and was no longer speaking to them through His prophets. This does not compare to Maccabees that simply states historical events as a good history book with no scripture given by God for His people to hear because there was no prophets during this period so they did not know what to do with the temple. If the writer who is unknown was a prophet he would have told them. He simply provided a historical record and wrote put everything away until a prophet comes among them to give them the inspired words of God on what they should do. So we will of course have to agree to disagree dear friend. Our discussion is there for all to see. Perhaps we can let the reader make up their own minds. I appreciate the discussion with you though even if I do not believe you and hope only the best for you

Take Care.

 

[Valletta]

Your post here again does not address any of the post content you are quoting from in post # 351 that is in disagreement with what you are posting. As posted earlier, your premise in regards all the dead sea scrolls being scripture is a logical fallacy and is a false premise and this was already responded to in another post you simply ignored. See post # 350 linked. There is only one definition of what scripture is and it is found in 2 Timothy 3:16 already pointed out to you. All you have provided in our discussion are strawman arguments no one is arguing about and your opinion unsupported by scripture or evidence that is supportive of your claims while ignoring the scripture evidence and soured references that are in disagreement with you. So your claims of faulty assumptions here are not mine because I have provided evidence from both scripture, Catholic references and Jewish references and the Encyclopedia Britannica that are all in disagreement with your opinions that are unsupported by any evidence to support your claims so we will of course have to agree to disagree dear friend. Our discussion is there for all to see. Perhaps we can let the reader make up their own minds. I appreciate the discussion with you though even if I do not believe you and hope only the best for you

Take Care.

As per the documentation I provided, your assertion about none of the Deuterocanonicals ever being written in Hebrew is proved false by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Are you saying you still believe none of the Deuterocanonicals were ever written in Hebrew? I gave you the link, again, did you bother to even check it out? As to your faulty assumption that inspired text must be given at the time of a prophet, you can see the Psalm text I provided shows you were wrong.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

As per the documentation I provided, your assertion about none of the Deuterocanonicals ever being written in Hebrew is proved false by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Are you saying you still believe none of the Deuterocanonicals were ever written in Hebrew? I gave you the link, again, did you bother to even check it out? As to your faulty assumption that inspired text must be given at the time of a prophet, you can see the Psalm text I provided shows you were wrong.

Sorry dear friend we will have to agree to disagree. I will leave you with the last say because I guess you need it more than I do. I hope only the best for you. There is no point in have a discussion if you are going to ignore everything that has been shared with you as I do not think it profitable for any of us.

Take Care

 

[Valletta]

Nope. What was posted to you is not false at all and you were also provided supporting references as evidence in disagreement with you. Your post here has nothing to do with the post you are quoting from and does not support anything your claiming here. I have never said that these books are not in the dead see scrolls and they do not exist so your making arguments no one is arguing about but if your argument here is that because something is found in the dead sea scrolls makes them scripture then that is only an assumption and an opinion your side that is unsupported by any fact of evidence and as such is a logical fallacy because you have not proven that everything from the dead sea scrolls are scripture. In fact the Jews have had all these books from the beginning and have rejected the Apocrypha as scripture because they are of dubious origins. If you take some time to do some more prayerful research and read the posts that were shared with you then you will see I have never been in disagreement as to where any of these books were found so your argument is both logical fallacy and strawman. I was never talking about where these books have been found but why these books are not considered scripture and why they have no place in the bible. So no once again you have no provided any facts just your opinion unsupported by evidence. Here is an interesting source from a Jewish website if your interested as to why they believe the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books are not scripture (see Chabad Jewish practice and approach to Apocrypha).

Take Care.

I never claimed you disagreed as to where books were physically found, please do not misrepresent my comments. I am well aware that most Jews of today reject both the Gospels and Deuterocanonicals. As I told you before, Jews at the time of Christ had different views as to what consists of Holy Scripture, the Catholic Church decided long before your religion came into being that the opinion of groups of Jews did not trump the authority of Christ's Church. When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible, and it was not the simple process you described, all apocryphal texts were rejected.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

USEFUL LINKS AND RESOURCES FOR ANYONE WANTING TO KNOW THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD

Here is some useful historical and biblical information for anyone interested on the reasons for the reformation for anyone who wants to do their own research and the reason why we can only receive eternal life through Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) which are all relevant to this OP showing we can only live through faith in the scriptures alone.

Useful links...

• Papacy Watch
• Bible Prophecy Truth
• Mary Truth
• Revelation Revealed!
• What day is the Sabbath and does it matter?

May God bless you all as you seek Him through His Word

 

[Valletta]

From the early Church fathers..

"Early church fathers such as Athanasius, Melito, Origen, and Cyril of Jerusalem, spoke against the canonicity of much or all of the apocrypha, but the most weighty opposition was the fourth century Catholic scholar Jerome who preferred the Hebrew canon,

This too is false, at the time of Jerome a group of Jews had previously rejected the the Deuteurocanonical books, Jerome, as any good scholar would, noted this in his translation. Jerome chose, of course, the 73 books of the Catholic Church. That myth that Jerome "preferred" the Jewish canon was dispelled by Jerome himself over 1600 years ago.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

This too is false, at the time of Jerome a group of Jews had previously rejected the the Deuteurocanonical books, Jerome, as any good scholar would, noted this in his translation. Jerome chose, of course, the 73 books of the Catholic Church. That myth that Jerome "preferred" the Jewish canon was dispelled by Jerome himself over 1600 years ago.

Please forgive me but I do not believe you. The Jews already rejected the Apocrypha a few centuries before Christ. Please take it up with Wikipedia, and the Roman Catholic Church as I did not write the reference provided earlier. Also, I am not sure if you noticed but much of that reference posted earlier is from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Wikipedia and The Catholic Encyclopedia

"Early church fathers such as Athanasius, Melito, Origen, and Cyril of Jerusalem, spoke against the canonicity of much or all of the apocrypha, but the most weighty opposition was the fourth century Catholic scholar Jerome who preferred the Hebrew canon, whereas Augustine and others preferred the wider (Greek) canon, with both having followers in the generations that followed.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states as regards the Middle Ages, In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity." (Wiki)

................

It was a quote that was only provided to show that at some point there was not even agreement in the Roman Catholic Church as to the Apocrypha being scripture which both the Jews (a few hundred years before Christ) and Protestants Christians also agree (see also, Chabad Jewish practice and approach to Apocrypha).

You may like to also consider this reference on Jerome from Wiki that is in disagreement with you here...

JEROME; Wikipedia

"Jerome (/dʒəˈroʊm/; Latin: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus; Greek: Εὐσέβιος Σωφρόνιος Ἱερώνυμος; c. 342 – c. 347 – 30 September 420), also known as Jerome of Stridon, was a Christian priest, confessor, theologian, and historian; he is commonly known as Saint Jerome. Jerome was born at Stridon, a village near Emona on the border of Dalmatia and Pannonia.[3][4][5] He is best known for his translation of most of the Bible into Latin (the translation that became known as the Vulgate) and his commentaries on the whole Bible. Jerome attempted to create a translation of the Old Testament based on a Hebrew version, rather than the Septuagint, as Latin Bible translations used to be performed before him."

.................

Here are a few more (there are too many to post here).

Jerome brings the Hebrew Bible to the Western World
Christian Science Journal

"In 390, Jerome—inspired by Paula and her daughter Eustochium—embarked on his most challenging undertaking: the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into contemporary Latin. He had been intensively preparing himself for the past decade to take on this arduous work. Now Jerome was ready to announce publicly that he no longer had confidence in the Septuagint, the Bible version that Christians had always revered and the Greek version from which the Old Latin translation had come. To most Christians, including the theologian Augustine of Hippo, repudiating the Septuagint and the Old Latin texts in favor of a return to "Hebrew truth" seemed downright blasphemous —like denying the Word of God. But convinced he was right in returning to the ancient Hebrew original as the most trustworthy version of all, Jerome withstood the storm of protest he'd stirred up and proceeded with his fresh-from-the-Hebrew translation all the same. And he also took a strong and rather revolutionary stand for the Hebrew canon, which excluded all the Apocryphal books that many Christians had been enjoying for centuries—highly popular books like Judith and Tobit and the Wisdom of Solomon. Jerome was tired, he explained, of having to justify to Jewish Bible scholars in Palestine the Church's stubborn loyalty to a text and a canon that were flawed in so many ways.

See also...

Jerome's preference for the Hebrew bible and his rejection of the Septuagint

There are too many independent sources that are in disagreement with you here.

Take Care.

 

[Valletta]

Please forgive me but I do not believe you. The Jews already rejected the Apocrypha a few centuries before Christ. Please take it up with Wikipedia, and the Roman Catholic Church as I did not write it. Also, I am not sure if you noticed but much of that reference posted earlier is from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

From the early Church fathers..

"Early church fathers such as Athanasius, Melito, Origen, and Cyril of Jerusalem, spoke against the canonicity of much or all of the apocrypha, but the most weighty opposition was the fourth century Catholic scholar Jerome who preferred the Hebrew canon, whereas Augustine and others preferred the wider (Greek) canon, with both having followers in the generations that followed..

Although I've told you the Catholic Church is the name of my Church, you continue to get it wrong showing a lack of common courtesy toward me. Once again you are wrong. Jerome stated:

"What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

Obviously Wikipedia was wrong, as I've told you, anyone can write anything on Wikipedia. That you use Wikipedia as a source for your information is telling. The 73 books of the Bible were chosen in the 300s and the Catholic Church still uses those 73 books in the exact same order today. According to your quote, THE MOST WEIGHTY OPPOSITION was from Jerome, and you can see Jerome stated he was not relating his personal views. Those 73 books were included in Catholic Bibles for A THOUSAND YEARS or so before Protestant removed some.
Please quit spreading misinformation about the Catholic Church. That all Jews supposedly rejected the deuterocanonical books centuries before Christ is a fabrication. You can see that the what you posted about none of those books ever having been written in Hebrew was a falsehood, as the Dead Sea Scrolls discover revealed. The Catholic Church process in choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries in an effort to make sure each book was God-breathed, studying carefully what Jesus and the Apostles taught. The earliest Catholics were Jewish converts. There is no way in the world the Catholic Church would deliberately insert books that were not God-breathed, many making the prayerful decisions were holy God-fearing men doing their best, and the earliest Catholics were Jewish converts. I can accept that people later decided those books should not be part of the Bible, good God-fearing people, but re-writing history is another thing and is not acceptable. You should realize that there were different factions and sects of Jews at the time of Christ who believed different things, including Holy Scripture, just like Protestants and Catholics do today.