Missing pages from one's bible

Xeno.of.athens · Nov 4, 2022

disciple Clint said:
I am not shocked that Judaism does not include the New Testament since Judaism does not accept the Gospel, come on now that is a very weak response, point in fact that Judaism should be considered the expert on what should should and should not be in the Old Testament which after all is the Jewish Bible.

Why ought a Christian think that Judaism is "expert" about the Christian Old Testament? Judaism in the first century AD is not like Judaism today. In the first century AD there was still a functioning temple and the Jewish priests offered animal sacrifices in the temple but today there is no temple for Judaism and no animal sacrifices. Even the feasts that were enjoined upon Israel were sacrificial in the first century, but they are not so today. So, what Judaism now defines as canonical is not relevant to the Catholic canon.

Erose · Nov 4, 2022

disciple Clint said:
Oh OK please provide the evidence for that statement. Here is a reliable source. Synod of Jamnia | Judaism

Look for any document older than the 19th century that claims that this Synod occurred. Also look for any Jewish source who actually proclaims that this is when their canon got fixed.

You would think that if there canon was established at this council that it would be proclaimed as such, but even in their encyclopedia they don’t even mention this monumental event it article: JABNEH - JewishEncyclopedia.com:

There is no evidence that this council existed, or even if it was at Jamnia and not within a council, there is still no evidence either. Jamnia was one of the cities that did have a seat of Sanhedrin, and there were rabbinic schools there; but if this council would have occurred, I’m sure it would have been some evidence in either Christian or Jewish literature around this time, and that doesn’t exist.

Even today there really isn’t even that many Biblical scholars on your side that pushes this idea.

Erose · Nov 4, 2022

disciple Clint said:
I am not shocked that Judaism does not include the New Testament since Judaism does not accept the Gospel, come on now that is a very weak response, point in fact that Judaism should be considered the expert on what should should and should not be in the Old Testament which after all is the Jewish Bible.

My question why is that? And which Jewish sect are you going to accept the authority thereof?

The Sadducee’s only accepted the Torah, as did the Samaritans.

The Essenes had a very large acceptance of documents as Sacred Scripture.

The Ethiopian Jews have a more books in their Bible.

The Greek speaking Jews which one would say was the largest group of Jews, used and accepted the Septuagint as their Scriptures.

The Pharisees though accepted the 22 scrolls. Most of which are in the current Jewish scriptures; but one interesting point here though is none of the lists of the 22 prior to the 5th century do not match completely.

My question here is why do you accept the authority of a Jewish sect that a) Pushed to have our Lord crucified, and b) led persecutions of Christians in the 1st century?

The Jews lost all authority 6PM on that Friday when Jesus died upon the cross.

Now if you want to follow these specific Jews, then you need to also accept the Talmud and Mishnah as Scripture as well. Jews do not have a closed canon, and many view these two sources of teaching as scripture.

disciple Clint · Nov 4, 2022

The Liturgist said:
The three largest denominational families, to wit, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism (which is the largest Protestant grouping, worldwide) accept these books, the fourth largest denominational family, Lutheranism, has an open canon, the fifth largest denominational family, Calvinism, was founded by John Calvin who believed Baruch to be protocanonical, and the additional books are also recognized by all of the Oriental Orthodox churches, such as the Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Indian Orthodox and the Ethiopian and Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Churches, which collectively amount to somewhere between 55-60 million, making them likely the sixth largest denominational family after Anglicanism, and additionally, the Old Catholics also accept these books, and they were included in the esteemed translation of the Holy Bible authorized by King James I.

To me, this is compelling evidence in favor of their use. Additionally, some of the so-called deuterocanonical books, such as Wisdom and Sirach, were more important to the Early Church than some of the books in the Tanakh, for example, the overlapping narratives of Kingdoms and Chronicles and the minor prophets, and even to a certain extent portions of the Pentateuch that dealt with the exact rules of the Torah.

Also, St. Jude did quote 1 Enoch in his Epistle, which I regard as an endorsement of the full Ethiopian canon. And as has been said before, in the Qumran Caves, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscript fragments have been found of the deuterocanonical books, and others have been found that agree with the readings found in the Septuagint.

I believe that Oriental Orthodox churches also include other books so my point that not all Catholic Churches agree seems to be correct.

disciple Clint · Nov 4, 2022

Xeno.of.athens said:
What do you mean by "Roman Catholics"?

Members of the Roman Catholic faith. Roman Catholicism | Definition, Beliefs, History, & Facts

disciple Clint · Nov 4, 2022

Xeno.of.athens said:
Why ought a Christian think that Judaism is "expert" about the Christian Old Testament? Judaism in the first century AD is not like Judaism today. In the first century AD there was still a functioning temple and the Jewish priests offered animal sacrifices in the temple but today there is no temple for Judaism and no animal sacrifices. Even the feasts that were enjoined upon Israel were sacrificial in the first century, but they are not so today. So, what Judaism now defines as canonical is not relevant to the Catholic canon.

But what was accepted historically as being the Old Testament should still apply today should it not.

disciple Clint · Nov 4, 2022

Erose said:
My question why is that? And which Jewish sect are you going to accept the authority thereof?

The Sadducee’s only accepted the Torah, as did the Samaritans.

The Essenes had a very large acceptance of documents as Sacred Scripture.

The Ethiopian Jews have a more books in their Bible.

The Greek speaking Jews which one would say was the largest group of Jews, used and accepted the Septuagint as their Scriptures.

The Pharisees though accepted the 22 scrolls. Most of which are in the current Jewish scriptures; but one interesting point here though is none of the lists of the 22 prior to the 5th century do not match completely.

My question here is why do you accept the authority of a Jewish sect that a) Pushed to have our Lord crucified, and b) led persecutions of Christians in the 1st century?

The Jews lost all authority 6PM on that Friday when Jesus died upon the cross.

Now if you want to follow these specific Jews, then you need to also accept the Talmud and Mishnah as Scripture as well. Jews do not have a closed canon, and many view these two sources of teaching as scripture.

And how would that be different than accepting the Roman Catholic canon which was formalized in the 1500 if my memory serves me. Prior to that there were some rites using some books and others using others, and that still holds true to day to a lesser extent.

Xeno.of.athens · Nov 4, 2022

disciple Clint said:
But what was accepted historically as being the Old Testament should still apply today should it not.

No, whatever the Sadducees, Pharisees, or other first century Jewish sect defined as canonical is irrelevant to what the Catholic Church defines as canonical.

Xeno.of.athens · Nov 4, 2022

disciple Clint said:
Members of the Roman Catholic faith. Roman Catholicism | Definition, Beliefs, History, & Facts

I see, so, your post is using an insult coined in the sixteenth century by Protestant Englishmen as the name for the Catholic Church.

FenderTL5 · Nov 4, 2022

disciple Clint said:
But what was accepted historically as being the Old Testament should still apply today should it not.

I would agree if you said "what has been accepted historically by the ancient Christian church"
The Septuagint (LXX) is the historical OT Scriptures of the Christian Church

JSRG · Nov 4, 2022

disciple Clint said:
Oh OK please provide the evidence for that statement. Here is a reliable source. Synod of Jamnia | Judaism

The Council of Jamnia was, as far as I can tell, a speculation of the 19th-century Jewish writer Heinrich Graetz (though popularized by some Protestants who took his idea) and is not found in anything older than that. Here are two articles from the last few decades in peer-reviewed journals on the subject (one does need to sign up for an account to read them, but they are free):
On the Origins of the "Council of Javneh" Myth on JSTOR
Jamnia After Forty Years on JSTOR

Britannica is normally a reliable source, but it seems like they really flubbed it here, unfortunately. I can understand not wanting to go too deep in the weeds on the issue as it was a brief mention, but they really should have at least mentioned that the existence of this council is disputed.

Erose · Nov 4, 2022

disciple Clint said:
And how would that be different than accepting the Roman Catholic canon which was formalized in the 1500 if my memory serves me. Prior to that there were some rites using some books and others using others, and that still holds true to day to a lesser extent.

The Catholic Church in communion with the Roman Pontiff has had the same Bible since at the latest the 3rd century. The council reaffirmed what was already. All Churches, including all particular Churches, in communion with Rome has the exact same Bible.

Erose · Nov 4, 2022

disciple Clint said:
And how would that be different than accepting the Roman Catholic canon which was formalized in the 1500 if my memory serves me. Prior to that there were some rites using some books and others using others, and that still holds true to day to a lesser extent.

Protestants evidently accepted the authority of the Roman Catholic Church when it came to the New Testament, so why not the Old Testament?

Xeno.of.athens · Nov 5, 2022

Erose said:
Protestants evidently accepted the authority of the Roman Catholic Church when it came to the New Testament, so why not the Old Testament?

It was a struggle for the early Protestants to agree with the Catholic New Testament canon. Martin Luther was not so impressed with James, Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, and Esther in the Old Testament. It took time and some debates to finally agree with there are 27 New Testament books. Perhaps with time Protestants will eventually agree that there are 46 Old Testament books.

PsaltiChrysostom · Nov 5, 2022

Xeno.of.athens said:
It was a struggle for the early Protestants to agree with the Catholic New Testament canon. Martin Luther was not so impressed with James, Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, and Esther in the Old Testament. It took time and some debates to finally agree with there are 27 New Testament books. Perhaps with time Protestants will eventually agree that there are 46 Old Testament books.

Those books had been disputed early on. And FYI, in the EO, Revelation wasn't really accepted until the 6th century and never has been included in our lectionary with some notable exceptions such as the church on Patmos. There is a ranking of the books as to importance such as the Gospels, then the letters of the Apostles, and so on. The deuteros are categorized as Ἀναγιγνωσκόμενα, "readable, worthy to be read". According to the 1672 Council of Jerusalem, "And if, perhaps, it seems that not always have all of these been considered on the same level as the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, both by Synods and by many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Universal Church. All of these we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture."

Xeno.of.athens · Nov 5, 2022

PsaltiChrysostom said:
Those books had been disputed early on. And FYI, in the EO, Revelation wasn't really accepted until the 6th century and never has been included in our lectionary with some notable exceptions such as the church on Patmos. There is a ranking of the books as to importance such as the Gospels, then the letters of the Apostles, and so on. The deuteros are categorized as Ἀναγιγνωσκόμενα, "readable, worthy to be read". According to the 1672 Council of Jerusalem, "And if, perhaps, it seems that not always have all of these been considered on the same level as the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, both by Synods and by many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Universal Church. All of these we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture."

There have been some who doubted the books I mentioned yet the Church always received them, and in the West the Apocalypse of Saint John the Divine (theologian) is read at times in the church year.

The Liturgist · Nov 6, 2022

disciple Clint said:
I believe that Oriental Orthodox churches also include other books so my point that not all Catholic Churches agree seems to be correct.

Actually the Coptic canon is basically the same as the Greek canon, only the Ethiopians, who used to be a part of the Coptic church, have and always have had a larger canon, even when they were part of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. The Greek and Russian canons furthermore are sufficiently close to the Roman Catholic and Anglican canons that the differences are immaterial. For example, they involve different naming conventions for the books of Kingdoms, Chronicles, Ezra, and in the case of the Ethiopians, the Maccabees. Also Sirach is known as the Wisdom of Sirach and Ecclesiasticus, just as many people call Revelations the Apocalypse or the Apocalypse of St. John (a more useful title, since Daniel is also an Apocalypse, and there are apocryphal Apocalypses).

disciple Clint · Nov 7, 2022

Xeno.of.athens said:
No, whatever the Sadducees, Pharisees, or other first century Jewish sect defined as canonical is irrelevant to what the Catholic Church defines as canonical.

Imagine for a moment The Catholic Church rejecting tradition, How would they then justify all of the tradition the Catholic Church follows and defends endlessly

disciple Clint · Nov 7, 2022

Xeno.of.athens said:
I see, so, your post is using an insult coined in the sixteenth century by Protestant Englishmen as the name for the Catholic Church.

Not at all do you not accept that there other rites of the Catholic Church other than Roman?

disciple Clint · Nov 7, 2022

Erose said:
Protestants evidently accepted the authority of the Roman Catholic Church when it came to the New Testament, so why not the Old Testament?

Well not initially Luther for example wanted to remove several book of the N.T. not doubt there are still some churches who have exceptions.

Missing pages from one's bible

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency