How Many Books Are in Your Bible? 66? 73? 81?

[Major1]

LOL, no one teaches this, but tell me, what is the difference between Tobias' obedience to the angels instructions and Na'amans' obedience to Elishas' instructions?
Does anyone teach that if you wash seven times in the Jordan you will be healed of your infirmity? Na'aman was healed through his obedience and the demon was driven away by Tobias obedience. Why do you have a problem with that?

The first thing that I would say to you is that theologically, Tobit asserts that almsgiving alone “will save you from death,” not, as Paul states in Galatians 2:15..........,
that man is justified (saved) “by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”

And Jesus, in John 3:16 says that ……..
“whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Faith alone, therefore, not works or observing the Law, provides salvation.

Then the second thing I would say is that there is no virtue or directions in Scripture where there is in a burning heart of a fish to drive devils away, alms deeds delivering from death and sin, salvation by works.

 

[Major1]

Thank you for the respect. If you had noticed my earlier post you may have noticed the specific distinction between the primary and secondary canon by which I inferred (if not expressed) that you can not establish doctrine from the secondary canon.

As to what you describe as the real question I am not sure why you frame it in such a way. There are a number of Churches that include more than the 39 books of the OT Canon you prefer. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and as you point out the Western Catholic Church, all have a wider canon. The Anglican position may seem like a foot in both camps.

Sadly the answer provided to your question seems a little partisan. I am long way from convinced that the modern western catholic church makes much of the items on your list, save that they would affirm that the resurrection of Jesus assures us of God's continued care and concern beyond the grave.

There are several quite good articles on the Canon in Wikipedia, reflecting a wide range of opinions, and well grounded in history. I commend them to all who would like to know more about this topic.

Personally, because I am not Catholic and do not attend a Catholic I really do not know exactly what each church teaches. I do however read the Catechisms of the RCC and there are many doctrines that are taught which are not found in the Bible.

Following is a summarized CCC references found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) …………………..

The Catholic Church is the one true church (CCC 2105),
Infallibility of the Catholic Church, (CCC 2035),
The Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture (CCC 100), The Pope is the head and has the authority of Christ (CCC 2034),
The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation (CCC 846),
Sacred Tradition equal to scripture (CCC 82),
Forgiveness of sins, salvation, is by faith and works (CCC 2036 CCC 2080
Full benefit of Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church (Vatican 2, Decree on Ecumenism, 3),
Grace can be merited (CCC 2010 CCC 2027),
The merit of Mary and the Saints can be applied to Catholics and others (1477),
Penance is necessary for salvation (CCC 980),
Purgatory (CCC 1031 CCC 1475),
Indulgences (CCC 1471 CCC 1478 CCC 1498 CCC 1472),
Mary is Mediatrix (CCC 969),
Mary brings us the gifts of eternal salvation (CCC 969),
Mary delivers souls from death (CCC 966),
Prayer to the saints (CCC 2677),
The Communion elements become the actual body and blood of Christ (CCC 1374 CCC 1376).

Again, whether or not those are all taught and are expected to be followed by the adherents, I do not know. What I do know is that they are ALL in writing and none have been removed that I know of.

 

[Philip_B]

Personally, because I am not Catholic and do not attend a Catholic I really do not know exactly what each church teaches. I do however read the Catechisms of the RCC and there are many doctrines that are taught which are not found in the Bible.

Following is a summarized CCC references found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) …………………..

The Catholic Church is the one true church (CCC 2105),
Infallibility of the Catholic Church, (CCC 2035),
The Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture (CCC 100), The Pope is the head and has the authority of Christ (CCC 2034),
The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation (CCC 846),
Sacred Tradition equal to scripture (CCC 82),
Forgiveness of sins, salvation, is by faith and works (CCC 2036 CCC 2080
Full benefit of Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church (Vatican 2, Decree on Ecumenism, 3),
Grace can be merited (CCC 2010 CCC 2027),
The merit of Mary and the Saints can be applied to Catholics and others (1477),
Penance is necessary for salvation (CCC 980),
Purgatory (CCC 1031 CCC 1475),
Indulgences (CCC 1471 CCC 1478 CCC 1498 CCC 1472),
Mary is Mediatrix (CCC 969),
Mary brings us the gifts of eternal salvation (CCC 969),
Mary delivers souls from death (CCC 966),
Prayer to the saints (CCC 2677),
The Communion elements become the actual body and blood of Christ (CCC 1374 CCC 1376).

Again, whether or not those are all taught and are expected to be followed by the adherents, I do not know. What I do know is that they are ALL in writing and none have been removed that I know of.

That is a pretty clear list. I suspect that some of them may be a bit nuanced, and members of the Catholic Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome may actually understand them with some vatiety. The heart of the issue I feel belongs to the idea of continuing revelation and how much authority it has. Please note that I am an Anglican by birth and conviction so do not take upon myself the task of defence of the defence of the Church of the Western Patriarch.

 

[Major1]

That is a pretty clear list. I suspect that some of them may be a bit nuanced, and members of the Catholic Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome may actually understand them with some vatiety. The heart of the issue I feel belongs to the idea of continuing revelation and how much authority it has. Please note that I am an Anglican by birth and conviction so do not take upon myself the task of defence of the defence of the Church of the Western Patriarch.

Understood.

My point is that no matter how a subtle difference or distinction in expression my be perceived, or even if it is not taught at all, the RCC doctrine is still an active RCC doctrine found in their Catechisms.

I for one do not believe in the ongoing revelation of God through men today.

The question is IMO......….
"did God stop giving special revelation and if so when?"

As a Bible believing Christian, I for one believe that God completed the progress of revelation with the writing of the Book of Revelation. It seems to me that in the sixty six Books of the Bible, God has said everything to man He desired to say and God's revelation to man was completed by 95 A.D. when the Apostle John finished the Book of Revelation.

Further, as a Bible believer I believe that although God is not speaking or giving new revelation today He is illuminating His written and preserved Word for believers. Illuminating means that God is giving understanding of the principles of the Bible and these principles are totally sufficient to guide men in all matters of life and in any decisions that believers need to make.

Thus there is no need of further revelation because the Bible as 2 Tim. 3:16 says, is...……..
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

In other words the Bible is complete and adequate and reveals to us all God wants us to know.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I did not know until this year Catholic Bibles have more than 66 books. IMO it is wrong for Catholics to be using different Bibles because Scripture clearly states no part of it shall be added or removed. Either all of us should have the Apocrypha or none of us should have it, depending on its validity as God's Word.

I laughed when reading this, I couldn't help myself.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Understood.

My point is that no matter how a subtle difference or distinction in expression my be perceived, or even if it is not taught at all, the RCC doctrine is still an active RCC doctrine found in their Catechisms.

I for one do not believe in the ongoing revelation of God through men today.

The question is IMO......….
"did God stop giving special revelation and if so when?"

As a Bible believing Christian, I for one believe that God completed the progress of revelation with the writing of the Book of Revelation. It seems to me that in the sixty six Books of the Bible, God has said everything to man He desired to say and God's revelation to man was completed by 95 A.D. when the Apostle John finished the Book of Revelation.

Further, as a Bible believer I believe that although God is not speaking or giving new revelation today He is illuminating His written and preserved Word for believers. Illuminating means that God is giving understanding of the principles of the Bible and these principles are totally sufficient to guide men in all matters of life and in any decisions that believers need to make.

Thus there is no need of further revelation because the Bible as 2 Tim. 3:16 says, is...……..
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

In other words the Bible is complete and adequate and reveals to us all God wants us to know.

Plagiarism: <i>Is God giving new revelation today?</i>

 

[prodromos]

Then the second thing I would say is that there is no virtue or directions in Scripture where there is in a burning heart of a fish to drive devils away,

Do you, or anyone else, tell people with leprosy or other skin diseases to wash seven times in the Jordan to be healed? Why not, since it is in one of the books you accept as Scripture?
Does Scripture describe "obedience" as a virtue? Was it the Jordan river which healed Na'aman, or was it his obedience to Eli'sha's instruction? Was it the burning fish heart which drove away the demon or Tobias' obedience to the angel's instruction?

alms deeds delivering from death and sin, salvation by works.

Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’

But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

At Caesare′a there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God. About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius.” And he stared at him in terror, and said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.

 

[Philip_B]

I did not know until this year Catholic Bibles have more than 66 books. IMO it is wrong for Catholics to be using different Bibles because Scripture clearly states no part of it shall be added or removed. Either all of us should have the Apocrypha or none of us should have it, depending on its validity as God's Word.

Hi, I get that this was a new topic for you. The development of the Canon of Scripture is an interesting topic and fairly well covered for most purposes in the articles on the Canon in Wikipedia.

The short form of the OT (39 Books) is based on what is called the Masoretic Canon as agreed by the Jews somewhat later than we imagine, in order to ensure that Christian writings did not end up in what they accepted as Scripture. In the main these books were written in Hebrew.

In the Graeco-Roman Empire the most widespread language was Koine (common) Greek, and it was the language of the marketplace and of trade. A couple of hundred years before Jesus the decision was taken to translate the Scriptures into Greek so more people could hear and understand them. This task was undertaken by seventy scholars and so was called the Septuagint sometimes referenced as LXX. In this collection are a number of works sometimes called the apocrypha or deuterocanonical texts some/many of which were not first written in Hebrew.

For the most part the LXX were the scriptures used in the early church, especially outside of Israel, and many/most OT quotes in the NT probably come from the LXX. Most of the early canons of scripture documented include the deuterocanonicals.

At the time of the reformation, many of the leaders of the continental reformation considered the question of what is scripture. Even a few of the books of the New Testament nearly got dropped including James, Revelation, and Hebrews. Ultimately the 27 Books of the New Testament that have almost always been all but universally accepted prevailed. For a number of reasons the decided to drop the deuterocanonicals. Part of that was to conform to the OT that was accepted by the Jews as authentic Hebrew scripture, and partly I suspect because a number of doctrines that they were less happy about were in part supported by some of them.

The English Church took another approach as I indicated earlier.

Biblical canon - Wikipedia
Development of the Christian biblical canon - Wikipedia

The longer canon was widely accepted from the fourth century until the reformation, and the Council of Trent (RC) formally closed the canon in 1546 to ensure that nothing further could be added to the canon. The canon of scripture was not the main issue of the reformation, however the different approaches to the canon reflect the dispute that was abroad at the time. The argument of history therefore is perhaps on the side of the Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and others who have added nothing to, nor dropped anything from, the canon from ancient time.

I hope this helps.

 

[Major1]

Do you, or anyone else, tell people with leprosy or other skin diseases to wash seven times in the Jordan to be healed? Why not, since it is in one of the books you accept as Scripture?
Does Scripture describe "obedience" as a virtue? Was it the Jordan river which healed Na'aman, or was it his obedience to Eli'sha's instruction? Was it the burning fish heart which drove away the demon or Tobias' obedience to the angel's instruction?

Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’

But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

At Caesare′a there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God. About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius.” And he stared at him in terror, and said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God.

NO I would not which actually makes your point mute.

Physical healing is not in the atonement.

The danger in claiming physical healing through Calvary’s cross is that well-meaning and desperate people often overlook the spiritual healing available through Calvary. It is a focus on the temporary healing of a body that will go to the grave and rot and decay, rather than an emphasis on the salvation of the spiritual body that will last forever.

 

[prodromos]

NO I would not which actually makes your point mute.

I think you've missed my point, which is to call into question your reasoning for rejecting Tobit as Scripture.

 

[tz620q]

I think you've missed my point, which is to call into question your reasoning for rejecting Tobit as Scripture.

Have you ever wondered why the people that insist the Bible is the sole authority in doctrine have never ruled on a closed canon of scripture? I thought about this odd logic and then realized that it stems from two uncomfortable facts. The first is that by rejecting the authority of the church and fracturing into many diverse communities, they really have no means to make a ruling on something this important. The second is the unwritten secret, which is that they are mostly completely satisfied with being their own authorities and would probably resist if a large group of Protestant communities did make such a ruling on a closed canon. The offshoot of this is that the Protestant Bible changed in the early 1800's with nary a peep of complaint.

 

[Major1]

I think you've missed my point, which is to call into question your reasoning for rejecting Tobit as Scripture.

I can not agree with you my friend. I did understand what your point was but you did not accept my answer which was ...….

The first thing that I would say to you is that theologically, Tobit asserts that almsgiving alone “will save you from death,” .

If there was nothing else in the whole book, that statement alone is enough for the Christian to reject the production. It is that way with every book in the Apocrypha.

But Paul states in Galatians 2:15..........,
that man is justified (saved) “by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”

I actually do not know of any other way to make it clearer than that.

 

[Major1]

Have you ever wondered why the people that insist the Bible is the sole authority in doctrine have never ruled on a closed canon of scripture? I thought about this odd logic and then realized that it stems from two uncomfortable facts. The first is that by rejecting the authority of the church and fracturing into many diverse communities, they really have no means to make a ruling on something this important. The second is the unwritten secret, which is that they are mostly completely satisfied with being their own authorities and would probably resist if a large group of Protestant communities did make such a ruling on a closed canon. The offshoot of this is that the Protestant Bible changed in the early 1800's with nary a peep of complaint.

You bring up a valid point and it does have merit.

However, have you considered the fact that there are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or any of the apostle.

Yes, I am aware that while there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say."

Then have you thought about the Bible fact that Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Luke 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”

Then have you considered that The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews according to Romans 3:2, and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.

Then there is the historical fact that the Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.

Then I will leave you with this to ponder which is real time facts and not an opinion from those who have read those books in question. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the characteristics of the Canonical books:...….
1). they are not prophetic,
2). there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works,
3). there is no predictive prophecy,
4). there is no new Messianic truth revealed,
5). they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them,
6). they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time.
(1 Macc. 9:27 and 14:41).

 

[prodromos]

I can not agree with you my friend. I did understand what your point was but you did not accept my answer which was ...….

The first thing that I would say to you is that theologically, Tobit asserts that almsgiving alone “will save you from death,” .

If there was nothing else in the whole book, that statement alone is enough for the Christian to reject the production. It is that way with every book in the Apocrypha.

But Paul states in Galatians 2:15..........,
that man is justified (saved) “by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”

I actually do not know of any other way to make it clearer than that.

Christ had not yet come, and alms giving does save. It brought salvation to the House of Cornelius.

 

[Major1]

Christ had not yet come, and alms giving does save. It brought salvation to the House of Cornelius.

I hate to be in disagreement with you again but alas that is the case.

The Old Test. saints were not saved by "alms giving" before Christ came.

Since the fall of man, the basis of salvation has always been the death of Christ. No one, either prior to the cross or since the cross, would ever be saved without that one pivotal event in the history of the world. Christ's death paid the penalty for past sins of Old Testament saints and future sins of New Testament saints.

What has changed through the ages is the content of a believer's faith. God's requirement of what must be believed is based on the amount of revelation He has given mankind up to that time. This is called progressive revelation. Adam believed the promise God gave in Genesis 3:15 that the Seed of the woman would conquer Satan. Adam believed Him, demonstrated by the name he gave Eve (v. 20) and the Lord indicated His acceptance immediately by covering them with coats of skin (v. 21). At that point that is all Adam knew, but he believed it.

Abraham believed God according to the promises and new revelation God gave him in Genesis 12 and 15. Prior to Moses, no Scripture was written, but mankind was responsible for what God had revealed. Throughout the Old Testament, believers came to salvation because they believed that God would someday take care of their sin problem. Today, we look back, believing that He has already taken care of our sins on the cross (John 3:16; Hebrews 9:28).

It is absurd to make Cornelius a lost sinner that pleased God by works of the flesh by giving alms!
He was already serving the Lord far beyond a fleshly decision. He needed Peter to direct his new man in the way of righteousness, not by giving anything. That kind of thinking is completely alien to the Bible.

The word of God is plain. Except a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). The kingdom of God cannot be shown to a man not born again, because he cannot and will not see it. If a man believes on Jesus, he is already born again (I John 5:1). If he loves the brethren, he is already born again (I John 4:7). If he does righteousness, he is already born again (I John 2:29). These are evidences of eternal life!

When Was Cornelius Saved?

 

[timtams]

The earliest canons of the Jews and of the Church did not include the apocrypha.

 

[Albion]

Using 66 is the safest and surest approach UNLESS there are essential doctrines that are found only in other books which one church or another chooses to use and consider to be part of the Bible. I don't believe that there are any, however, so....

 

[tz620q]

However, have you considered the fact that there are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or any of the apostle.

I agree with you that there needs to be cohesion within the Bible as it is a revelation from God who is the source of cohesion itself. But I have never understood this argument of self-attestation. It only works if you accept a lot of assumptions up front. The first assumption is that quoting one line from a book is validation for that entire book. A minimalist would insist on having the whole book quoted as absolute proof of acceptance by Jesus and his disciples. On the other end of the spectrum, you could make the claim that a single quote validates the whole canon.

The other assumption is that in only accepting books that are quoted we would get the 39 book Protestant OT. That is not true as there are a couple of other books where there are no quotes found in the NT.

Another assumption is that the NT, which is rejected by the Jews can be used to attest the OT, which was written by the Jews. I doubt you will find many Jews that use that argument on how they arrived at the Masoretic canon.

Finally we have to assume that there was even a Masoretic canon that Jesus and his apostles were quoting from. As is apparent from history, the Jews of this time did not have a closed canon and it would be centuries before Pharisaic Judaism arrived at any consensus at all. Since most of the quotes are better traced to the Septuagint OT, doesn't that attest to it's inspiration over the future Masoretic OT.

Then have you thought about the Bible fact that Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Luke 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”

Don't you find it strange to quote Luke to bolster the Jewish Canon that was created by the Pharisees when Luke 11:43-54 states the following:
“43 Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces.
“Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which people walk over without knowing it.”

One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.”

Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

“Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. So you testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

“Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

When Jesus went outside, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, waiting to catch him in something he might say.

Then have you considered that The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews according to Romans 3:2, and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.

Whether the Septuagint was inspired revelation of not was up for debate at this time by the Jews. If we took what was accepted by different Jewish sects at that time, we could as easily say that the Sadducees were correct and we should only accept the Torah.

As far as Jesus disputing what was inspired revelation of God, this seems like an odd claim. If Jesus said anything, it would be inspired revelation from God whether it was written down or not. The inspiration is not in the writing; but in the source. The argument could be made that the church which tries to preserve these sayings of Jesus more wholly (or holy) whether written or orally transmitted to his disciples is actually better serving that which is inspired revelation.

Then there is the historical fact that the Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.

Again, I have debated this with people and it is only supported if one is very selective in what they accept as history. I actually had a Protestant completely dismiss the Councils of Hippo and Carthage as setting a Biblical Canon, yet holding up Athanasius' Festal letter of 367 as the validation of the Protestant OT. Never mind that Athanasius was a single Bishop, not a council and that he was speaking against books masquerading as Christian books which were actually astrological tables. See the quote from below:
"They have fabricated books which they call books of tables, in which they shew stars, to which they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God.
But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtlety of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church."
The only correlation is that Athanasius called these books apocryphal as the Protestants call the books they removed from the Bible. He is not talking about the same books. The apologetic also fails because Athanasius' Festal Letter of 367 was unknown in modern times until a copy was found in 1842. So it is highly unlikely that the Protestant Canon was based on Athanasius' letter, a letter that was surely not used by the Masorites.

 

[Major1]

I agree with you that there needs to be cohesion within the Bible as it is a revelation from God who is the source of cohesion itself. But I have never understood this argument of self-attestation. It only works if you accept a lot of assumptions up front. The first assumption is that quoting one line from a book is validation for that entire book. A minimalist would insist on having the whole book quoted as absolute proof of acceptance by Jesus and his disciples. On the other end of the spectrum, you could make the claim that a single quote validates the whole canon.

The other assumption is that in only accepting books that are quoted we would get the 39 book Protestant OT. That is not true as there are a couple of other books where there are no quotes found in the NT.

Another assumption is that the NT, which is rejected by the Jews can be used to attest the OT, which was written by the Jews. I doubt you will find many Jews that use that argument on how they arrived at the Masoretic canon.

Finally we have to assume that there was even a Masoretic canon that Jesus and his apostles were quoting from. As is apparent from history, the Jews of this time did not have a closed canon and it would be centuries before Pharisaic Judaism arrived at any consensus at all. Since most of the quotes are better traced to the Septuagint OT, doesn't that attest to it's inspiration over the future Masoretic OT.


Don't you find it strange to quote Luke to bolster the Jewish Canon that was created by the Pharisees when Luke 11:43-54 states the following:
“43 Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces.
“Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which people walk over without knowing it.”

One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.”

Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

“Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. So you testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

“Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

When Jesus went outside, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, waiting to catch him in something he might say.


Whether the Septuagint was inspired revelation of not was up for debate at this time by the Jews. If we took what was accepted by different Jewish sects at that time, we could as easily say that the Sadducees were correct and we should only accept the Torah.

As far as Jesus disputing what was inspired revelation of God, this seems like an odd claim. If Jesus said anything, it would be inspired revelation from God whether it was written down or not. The inspiration is not in the writing; but in the source. The argument could be made that the church which tries to preserve these sayings of Jesus more wholly (or holy) whether written or orally transmitted to his disciples is actually better serving that which is inspired revelation.


Again, I have debated this with people and it is only supported if one is very selective in what they accept as history. I actually had a Protestant completely dismiss the Councils of Hippo and Carthage as setting a Biblical Canon, yet holding up Athanasius' Festal letter of 367 as the validation of the Protestant OT. Never mind that Athanasius was a single Bishop, not a council and that he was speaking against books masquerading as Christian books which were actually astrological tables. See the quote from below:
"They have fabricated books which they call books of tables, in which they shew stars, to which they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God.
But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtlety of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church."
The only correlation is that Athanasius called these books apocryphal as the Protestants call the books they removed from the Bible. He is not talking about the same books. The apologetic also fails because Athanasius' Festal Letter of 367 was unknown in modern times until a copy was found in 1842. So it is highly unlikely that the Protestant Canon was based on Athanasius' letter, a letter that was surely not used by the Masorites.

Way too much information in your post for me to respond. If you want to repost a shorter version and ask one question at a time I would be glad to respond.

 

[prodromos]

I hate to be in disagreement with you again but alas that is the case.

The Old Test. saints were not saved by "alms giving" before Christ came.

Since the fall of man, the basis of salvation has always been the death of Christ. No one, either prior to the cross or since the cross, would ever be saved without that one pivotal event in the history of the world. Christ's death paid the penalty for past sins of Old Testament saints and future sins of New Testament saints.

What has changed through the ages is the content of a believer's faith. God's requirement of what must be believed is based on the amount of revelation He has given mankind up to that time. This is called progressive revelation. Adam believed the promise God gave in Genesis 3:15 that the Seed of the woman would conquer Satan. Adam believed Him, demonstrated by the name he gave Eve (v. 20) and the Lord indicated His acceptance immediately by covering them with coats of skin (v. 21). At that point that is all Adam knew, but he believed it.

Abraham believed God according to the promises and new revelation God gave him in Genesis 12 and 15. Prior to Moses, no Scripture was written, but mankind was responsible for what God had revealed. Throughout the Old Testament, believers came to salvation because they believed that God would someday take care of their sin problem. Today, we look back, believing that He has already taken care of our sins on the cross (John 3:16; Hebrews 9:28).

It is absurd to make Cornelius a lost sinner that pleased God by works of the flesh by giving alms!
He was already serving the Lord far beyond a fleshly decision. He needed Peter to direct his new man in the way of righteousness, not by giving anything. That kind of thinking is completely alien to the Bible.

The word of God is plain. Except a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). The kingdom of God cannot be shown to a man not born again, because he cannot and will not see it. If a man believes on Jesus, he is already born again (I John 5:1). If he loves the brethren, he is already born again (I John 4:7). If he does righteousness, he is already born again (I John 2:29). These are evidences of eternal life!

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM THE BIBLE
Copyright © 2016 Robert Gobelet II
All rights reserved. Except for use in any review, the reproduction or utilization of this work in whole or in part in any form by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including xerography, photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, is forbidden without the written permission of the publisher, Robert Gobelet II, Denton Rd, Linden Tennessee 37096.​

https://www.christianforums.com/help/terms
Copyright Legalities, Spamming and Advertising, Signatures

• Quoted portions of any work should not exceed 20% of the total work. Materials owned by the Associated Press must be quoted using only one sentence. All quoted copyrighted material must be linked to the web page from which it was taken. Do not violate the copyrights of others or promote another work as your own.