Deuterocanonical books.

[Erose]

It is seriously juvenile. Like something a young teenager would have written in recounting Daniel itself. I haven't read the critical background on it. How it made the 'cut' in anything but as an item of non-relevant historical interest is beyond me. But it is part of the DC.

Juvenile? So Daniel proving to the Babylonian king that his gods are fake gods is juvenile? I think the tactic used by Daniel to prove that Bel was no god, by sprinkling powder all over the floor was ingenious; and how he killed the serpent was pretty smart as well. But you have your opinion I guess, and you are welcome to it. Me I find the account informative.

 

[squint]

Juvenile? So Daniel proving to the Babylonian king that his gods are fake gods is juvenile?

The Book of Daniel does just fine in accounting those events. Bel and the Dragon is like an imbecile recounting the events. Like an Islamist or somebody such.

I think the tactic used by Daniel to prove that Bel was no god, by sprinkling powder all over the floor was ingenious; and how he killed the serpent was pretty smart as well. But you have your opinion I guess, and you are welcome to it. Me I find the account informative.

Oh, yes, I do recall that now. pretty funny. But do I think that kind of critical information is Divine? Uh, no. Any unbeliever could have stumped the priests with that little gimmick. To me that is unbeliever folklore in action.

 

[Erose]

Then elaborate I will. I am suggesting that we reevaluate who had authority to write scripture.

Why?

You call the bible uniform? Then how do you explain how hopelessly divided the christian community is? Did Jesus not say that "a house divided against itself cannot stand"?

Due to people reinterpreting the Bible to suit their beliefs instead of the other way around, isn't the Bible's fault. That fault rests upon the individual, not Scripture.

If ever there was an example of a divided house it is bible-base christianity.

This is the reason why more than the Bible is needed, as in the case of my Faith Tradition where we also have Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

Jesus received authority to deliver the faith to the saints publicly at His baptism. He proceeded to select 12 disciples and train them day and night for over 3 years. Prior to leaving Jesus informed the 12 that they would be sent "another comforter", a.k.a. The Spirit of Truth, to complete their training. This example gave us the model for what it took to become qualified to write scripture.

Excellent point for the necessity of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

I have never seen evidence that anyone else but the saints were so qualified. Have you?

That is why all those who wrote the writings found in Scripture are considered Saints.

The names of the people who selected the books of the bible are suspiciously missing. This means that we lack any credible evidence that they were qualified to construct a bible. Do you need more elaboration?

I disagree. First and foremost, it was the Church as a whole that selected the Canon, through the accepted usage of these writings in the ancient liturgies. It was Saints such as St. Pope Damasus at the Synod of Rome; St. Augustine at the Synod of Hippo; all the Saints at the Synod of Carthage that ended the debates upon some of the writings that were not fully accepted or were accepted by some but were rejected. We have names for many of these Saints who were involved in the establishment of the final canon.

 

[Erose]

First of all, the final canonization of what we consider as the Bible was done around the period of the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD with certain books accepted by some churches notwithstanding. Generally all Christian bibles contain the 66 books that make up the KJV, the most successful and still widely used version of the English Bible ever so the comment on uniformity is your first jump in logic.

It should be pointed out at the time of the formulation of the Christian Canon, no Christian Biblical canon had only 66 books in it. That didn't happen until sometime after the 16th century. In fact there is no definitive evidence that the Jews had already settled on the 22 or 24 books (which was split up in the 39 books found in Protestant Bibles) in their canon before the Christians had settled theirs in the 4th-5th century.

 

[squint]

It should be pointed out at the time of the formulation of the Christian Canon, no Christian Biblical canon had only 66 books in it. That didn't happen until sometime after the 16th century. In fact there is no definitive evidence that the Jews had already settled on the 22 or 24 books (which was split up in the 39 books found in Protestant Bibles) in their canon before the Christians had settled theirs in the 4th-5th century.

There is no question whatsoever that both the Law and the Prophets were well ensconced in writing in Israel long before Jesus showed up in the flesh.

 

[Erose]

The Book of Daniel does just fine in accounting those events. Bel and the Dragon is like an imbecile recounting the events. Like an Islamist or somebody such.



Oh, yes, I do recall that now. pretty funny. But do I think that kind of critical information is Divine? Uh, no. Any unbeliever could have stumped the priests with that little gimmick. To me that is unbeliever folklore in action.

I guess one will use any reason to justify why they are not using the full Christian Bible canon.

Anyway I would be careful devaluing or denigrating a part of a writing that has been considered universally by Christians as Scripture, until 500 years ago.

 

[squint]

I guess one will use any reason to justify why they are not using the full Christian Bible canon.

Anyway I would be careful devaluing or denigrating a part of a writing that has been considered universally by Christians as Scripture, until 500 years ago.

I said earlier I've never read the critical history behind that particular book but I would NOT consider it anything remotely close to Holy Spirit inspired writing. IN the simple light of comparison to Daniel (as we know it today) Bel and the Dragon is a waste of good paper.

 

[Nik0s]

So basically what happened was Luther and the other Reformers took out the books they didn't like. Luther also tried to Remove James, Ester and Revelation if my memory serves me right. Even though they weren't removed, I believe Luther called james an "Epistle of straw."

 

[Erose]

There is no question whatsoever that both the Law and the Prophets were well ensconced in writing in Israel long before Jesus showed up in the flesh.

The evidence from even the period of Jesus walking the earth shows that only the Torah was universally accepted a Scripture by the Israelites. Sadducees and the Samarians only accepted the Torah.

The Pharisees had a canon closer to what Protestants use now, except in some lists Esther is missing, and/or the Book of Baruch and/or the Epistle of Jeremiah are in. In fact there is no listing of the Jewish canon of Scripture that perfectly matches the Protestant OT canon as it stands in the first 400-500 years AD.

Of course you can't forget that the Essenes and Diaspora Jews both had much larger canons than the Pharisees.

 

[squint]

The evidence from even the period of Jesus walking the earth shows that only the Torah was universally accepted a Scripture by the Israelites. Sadducees and the Samarians only accepted the Torah.

The Pharisees had a canon closer to what Protestants use now, except in some lists Esther is missing, and/or the Book of Baruch and/or the Epistle of Jeremiah are in. In fact there is no listing of the Jewish canon of Scripture that perfectly matches the Protestant OT canon as it stands in the first 400-500 years AD.

Of course you can't forget that the Essenes and Diaspora Jews both had much larger canons than the Pharisees.

Considering that the entire N.T. writings cite several hundreds of statements from written Jewish scriptures we better hope that the scriptures existed prior huh?

 

[Erose]

So basically what happened was Luther and the other Reformers took out the books they didn't like. Luther also tried to Remove James, Ester and Revelation if my memory serves me right. Even though they weren't removed, I believe Luther called james an "Epistle of straw."

Yes and no. It is a misrepresentation that Luther removed any books from the Catholic Bible that he grew up with. His German translation included all the Catholic accepted books, plus the writings that were appendixed in the Vulgate as apocrypha. What Luther did though (IMO) is start the process for their removal by reducing their authority.

 

[Erose]

Considering that the entire N.T. writings cite several hundreds of statements from written Jewish scriptures we better hope that the scriptures existed prior huh?

Interesting enough most of the quotes come from the Septuagint, which included the Bel and the Dragon account.

During that time the synagogues used scrolls, and since any copy of a writing was pretty hard to get, these synagogues would have a mix/match of scrolls. Some in Hebrew, and Aramaic, and Greek. Some Synagogues would even have and read writings that did not end up in any Bible canon of today, such as the Assumption of Moses (which is referred to in 1 Peter); and 2Enoch (which is referred to in Jude). At that time there really was no concept of a closed canon. All Jews then, (and even today) held the Torah as the highest form of Scripture, and the rest held various levels of authority depending upon the Jewish sect using them.

 

[squint]

Interesting enough most of the quotes come from the Septuagint, which included the Bel and the Dragon account.

During that time the synagogues used scrolls, and since any copy of a writing was pretty hard to get, these synagogues would have a mix/match of scrolls. Some in Hebrew, and Aramaic, and Greek. Some Synagogues would even have and read writings that did not end up in any Bible canon of today, such as the Assumption of Moses (which is referred to in 1 Peter); and 2Enoch (which is referred to in Jude). At that time there really was no concept of a closed canon. All Jews then, (and even today) held the Torah as the highest form of Scripture, and the rest held various levels of authority depending upon the Jewish sect using them.

"Canonicity. The booklet appears to have been regarded in Alexandria as belonging in the class of sacred writings; but it was never so regarded by the Palestinian Jewish leaders."

BEL AND THE DRAGON - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[Erose]

"Canonicity. The booklet appears to have been regarded in Alexandria as belonging in the class of sacred writings; but it was never so regarded by the Palestinian Jewish leaders."

BEL AND THE DRAGON - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Two points on this: Remember that the Palestinian Jewish leaders didn't accept any writing we have in the NT as canonical either; and which Palestinian Jewish leader do you intend to follow on this? The Pharisees, Sadducees/Samarians, or Essenes?

Or how about following the guidance of those who established the NT canon, which is universally accepted by all Christians?

 

[squint]

Two points on this: Remember that the Palestinian Jewish leaders didn't accept any writing we have in the NT as canonical either;

Well of course not. Why would they? That's pretty funny.

and which Palestinian Jewish leader do you intend to follow on this? The Pharisees, Sadducees/Samarians, or Essenes?

Obviously Jesus and the Apostles drew heavily on the 'written' Law and Prophets.

Beyond that it's downhill pretty fast. (Bel and the Dragon)

Or how about following the guidance of those who established the NT canon, which is universally accepted by all Christians?

How about at least giving a hats off to where the scriptures really came through in the first place and that is from the Jews.

 

[Erose]

Obviously Jesus and the Apostles drew heavily on the 'written' Law and Prophets.

Yep, plus other writings.

How about at least giving a hats off to where the scriptures really came through in the first place and that is from the Jews.

Which ones then? The Jews wrote many religious works, should we accept all of them as Scripture, since Jews wrote them? Also why accept the authority of the Pharisees over the Sadducess, Essenes, Samarians, Zealots, Alexandrian Jews, ect.? What in your mind gives the Pharisees the best authority to determine the OT for you?

 

[squint]

Yep, plus other writings.
Which ones then? The Jews wrote many religious works, should we accept all of them as Scripture, since Jews wrote them? Also why accept the authority of the Pharisees over the Sadducess, Essenes, Samarians, Zealots, Alexandrian Jews, ect.? What in your mind gives the Pharisees the best authority to determine the OT for you?

The Law and the Prophets. Bel and the Dragon presents itself as neither.

 

[Erose]

The Law and the Prophets. Bel and the Dragon presents itself as neither.

Actually Daniel is part of the Prophets, and since Bel and the Dragon is a section of Daniel, it would be in the Prophets. And considering that the Greek version of Daniel is referenced in the NT then it is a safe bet that the authors of the NT had no problem with Bel and the Dragon, considering that Bel and the Dragon, was never a separate document in itself, but has always been a section in the Greek version of Daniel.

That is something to be remembered here; the stories of Bel and the Dragon, is not a separate writing all on its own, but is truly a section of the Greek version of Daniel. Thus what is truly being challenged here isn't Bel and the Dragon, but rather the Greek version of Daniel.

 

[squint]

Actually Daniel is part of the Prophets, and since Bel and the Dragon is a section of Daniel, it would be in the Prophets.

Part of Daniel being cited therein certainly doesn't put it on equal ground, at least imho.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The Apocrypha from the Old Testament is rejected by a large number of groups within Christianity and some only think they are valuable as lessons and not a way of determining doctrine or dogma.

The Gnostic Gospels and to and extent the Ethopian Canon of the New Testament isn't as widely talked about:

My questions for debate are:


1. For "protestants" have you read or studied the Apocrypha, and if so, do you think it's a valuable tool?

2. For all others, have you read any of the Gnotic Texts or the Ethopian canon books? If so, do they have merit in this day and age? If some don't what do we reject. And if we reject some but not all, should there be an Apocrypha for the New Testament like there is for the Old Testament?

Hi,

In answer to your query, I am a Southern Baptist who accepts the disputed books of the Old Testament as Scripture. I am the only Protestant I know who does. I look at how they were treated by the ECFs and that settles it for me. Were the ECFs unanimous on the subject? No. As things are now, so they were then... the status of the disputed books of the O.T. are not universally accepted.

However, I take it a bit further, for me, if a book is/was accepted as O.T. by any of the communions of Orthodoxy, I too accept it, provided it was not written after Apostolic times.

By the way, you seem to want to connect the status of the extra books of the O.T. in the Ethiopian canon with the books of the Gnostics. Are you connecting them? The extra books of the O.T. in the Ethiopian canon were written by Jews before the end of the Apostolic age. The books of the Gnostics were ALL written much after the Apostolic age. The two groups of books are different in kind, quality, sense, content and the status they held for Christians historically. I do not connect them in any way. No orthodox group ever had a Gnostic book in their list of canonical books of the Bible.

And also, yes, I've read the Gnostic books as well as the the extra books of the O.T. in the Ethiopian canon.