Rdr Iakovos
Well-Known Member
Yes, except you referred to our cousins as our fathers- and you stand by it.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, except you referred to our cousins as our fathers- and you stand by it.Regardless, if it were not for the Jews, we would not have these texts to argue about now. I stand by what I posted.
Actually there was it is called Trent. Also it should be pointed out that there were other ecumenical councils that legitimized the canons of local synods.1. There has NEVER been an ecumenical council or decision on this - ever.
Catholic church formalized their canon in the 4th century at the council of Rome under Pope St. Damasus I. The canon was "dogmatically" defined at the council of Trent in response to the Protestant attack on the Christian Bible.2. Several individual denominations have - in some formal and official manner - at least determined what IS Scripture (but rarely ruling on what is NOT), but this has ONLY been for that specific denomination. I know the RCC did this (at Trent in the 16th Century), the Anglican Church did so (also in the 16th Century). I don't think the Orthodox Church has, I know the Lutheran Church has not. I can't speak for any of the others....
It should be pointed out the over 2/3 of the Christian people believe that the Deuterocanonicals are inspired. It should also be pointed out that the Deuterocanonicals of the Catholic church are found in all the ancient churches.3. God tends to work through His people. The consensus around 66 books was and STILL IS absolutely stunning and remarkable! Now, yes - about 7 of the NT books were of lesser standing or somewhat debated (Revelation STILL seems to have some issues among some) - but that debate calmed to a whisper by the end of the 4th Century. Yes - there are some still debated books that LACK consensus related to before Christ (although possibly written after Him); there is no consensus here: The OO has one set (well, several - it doens't even agree with itself on this), the EO another, the RC another. Those that embrace these can't seem to agree with ANY but SELF exclusively on this (and often, not even self). So, we have 66 with a stunning, absolutely stunning, common and historic consensus (and have for a very, very, very long time). A few extra DEUTERO books are floating around - with no consensus beyond 4 denominations or so, and not among them.
I don't think that the OP is trying to start a fight. He asked a simple question that for some interesting reason Protestants on this forum cannot answer. You may not consider this as important which is fine. But it tells alot the problem that most Protestants have with the historical record. They cannot support the claims they make.4. I realize, a FEW Orthodox and Catholics seem to be VERY concerned, even deeply troubled in their soul, over the reality that not a single one on the planet agrees with their denomination on what is and is not Scripture. I understand and sympathize. But the grief they feel over this is simply not necessary. These books are incredibly moot - the reality is, no one really cares - one way or the other. Lutherans including the unique Catholic set in our tomes (EVEN BEFORE the RCC chose them, officially!) well into the 20th century. So what? There's just nothing in them of any doctrinal consquence. Have you read Psalm 151? Do we REALLY need to FIGHT over it? Don't we have MUCH bigger fish in the sea? READ IT! Hey, if our Greek Orthodox friends want to include in in their tomes and read from it in their Sunday lectionary - I'm 100% fine with that. But, PERSONALLY, I'd rather focus on the 66 the whole church has always embraced - where no debate and controversy exists. But again, if my Greek friend wants to embrace Psalm 151 as Scripture: God bless him. It reminds me of the ABSURD fight over "...and the Son" in the Creed. Okay - may not be ecumenical but it's just not an issue. Buy an KJV with the RCC's unique books it - or a Lutheran one with those, or get yourself a new English Standard Bible but out by some Protestant publisher without them. Doesn't make a bit of difference (I know - unlike nearly every Catholic known to me, I've actually READ them - word for word).
I disagree. The Jews had everything revealed to them that God desired them to know. They all believed in the promise of a Messiah; some lacked in faith when Christ was incarnated, just as the Jews of today are still waiting for that incarnation. Many Gentiles also then as now, lack faith, and are unable to recognize Christ Jesus as Savior of Mankind. For the most part, it is now as it was then.
I disagree whole heartedly with you on this. The book of Wisdom is by far the deepest book in the OT and I would even make the claim that the book of Wisdom is for the OT what the gospel of John is for the NT.However much wisdom we think might be present in the later books (and if you ignore Maccabees, I'm willing to admit that there is some), they don't have the quality of direct inspiration of the Hebrew canon. They aren't prophetic speech, and they aren't accounts of the key events where God acted in Israel's history.
I don't think so and here is why. Jesus established the new Isreal, His Church which He promised would be guided by the Holy Spirit always until the end of the world. It was the bishops/leaders of the new Isreal (church) who established the Christian canon while it was the Pharisee Rabbis who established the Palestine canon. It was these same bishops/leader who established the NT canon. Now does it make sense to anybody that when it comes to the NT canon, the Protestants accepted the authority of the early church, but when it came to the OT they rejected the authority of the early church?I think it's misleading, and possibly anti-Semtic, to set it up as an issue of Christian judgement vs Jewish judgement. The parts of the OT that most directly point to Christ are the prophets, who are in the Hebrew canon. It's pretty clear what actually happened: The early Christian Church used primarily the Greek OT, and they quite naturally ended up with the Greek canon.
Yes but they used the Masoretic text which was finish in the 10th century. So they used a Hebrew text that was "cleaned up" and "corrected" by the Rabbis.The Reformers, in obedience to the general Renaissance approach of "ad fontes" (for which they had ample motivation), felt safest using the Hebrew, and thus quite naturally ended up with the Hebrew canon. Nobody had any improper intentions.
But there are a ton of Protestants who go around asking Catholics why we added books to the Bible isn't there? So there is some importance with this issue no doubt.I've never considered the exact canon a big issue. What we need are the instances of direct inspiration, which I think are the prophets and Jesus' teachings, and enough other things to understand how God worked with his people in the events that I would call the public revelation.
Interesting. What happens to the OT if we did away with lets say the book of Isaiah? Just one book. How much difference would it make?Frankly, a few books more or less is probably not a big deal as long as we have a good picture of God's revelation.
Hebrew was only one part of the criteria. The decision to use Hebrew as a criteria was to minimize the importance of the Septuigint among the Jews for the Septuigint was being used by the early Christians successfully to prove that Jesus was the Messiah and since there were not that many early Jews that could read Hebrew the Rabbis would have more control over interpretation of what the scriptures actually mean ala the Talmud.IIRC one of the reason the Apocrypha was removed from the Jewish canon is because their were no original copies found in Hebrew only Greek.
So from the Jewish perspective the Torah could not be in Greek since it was for the Jews.
Edit: From the Jewish perspective God was writing to His people (the Jews) in their language (Hebrew). From the Jewish perspective at the time of the OT the gentiles were not God's people.
The lion's share of the canonical differences among Christians are in the O.T. THe criteria you spell out above is not a help in those cases.If the writing can be proved without doubt to be that of Christ or His apostles i agree its sound doctrine. If it come from any other man and says anything different i agree its wrong or at the very least unnecessary as scripture, and also a stumbling block. Not to say other writings are necessarily wrong, just that they can never trump that of Christ and His apostles because Jesus commanded them to teach us.
I really enjoyed reading the Lamentations of Jeremiah. Had me in tears, it was so moving.Hello Hedrick.
I disagree whole heartedly with you on this. The book of Wisdom is by far the deepest book in the OT and I would even make the claim that the book of Wisdom is for the OT what the gospel of John is for the NT.
In the 2nd Book of Maccabees are found wonderful example of faithful Jews willing and did give up their lives for their Faith. The woman and her seven sons is a wonder example that you will not find anywhere else in Scripture. I can easily assume that the early Catholics who were tortured and killed for their belief took consolation from 2nd Maccabees. Also with 2nd Maccabees you will not find another book of the Bible that discusses resurrection in the last day as frequently as this book.
The book of Tobit is a wonderful story of God's Divine Providence and people's faith in that Providence.
In the additions of Daniel you will find the best litany prayer in Scripture.
The Book of Sirach provides much wisdom to follow and goes in much more detail than the Book of Proverbs as well as there is a section that provides a deeper understanding of the historical occurances found in the other OT books. In fact you will find in this book the doctrine of loving one's enemies.
I recommend reading them and you will see that there as much prophecy in them. Reading the 2nd chapter of Wisdom will put you in the minds of the jews who where at the death of our Lord.
I could go on and on but like I said read them with an open mind yourself.
Regardless, if it were not for the Jews, we would not have these texts to argue about now. I stand by what I posted.
Justin, as we have seen963963Above, p. 424. , charges his Jewish contemporaries with the deliberate excision of numerous passages in the LXX. which were favourable to their Christian antagonists (dial. 71 πολλὰς γραφὰς τέλεον περιεῖλον ἀπὸ τῶν ἐξηγήσεων τῶν γεγενημένων ὑπὸ τῶν παρὰ Πτολεμαίῳ γεγενημένων πρεσβυτέρω�Cf. dial. 120; Iren. iii. 21. 1, 5; Eus. dem. ev. vi. p. 257 c, d. . But of the four passages produced in proof of his assertion three are mere glosses, probably of Christian origin; while the fourth, a genuine part of the book of Jeremiah (xi. 19), is now found in all MSS. of the LXX. The charge, though made in good faith, seems to have rested on no better foundation than a natural distrust of the Jews, who in Justin's time were active and bitter opponents of the Church.
An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Additional Notes. | Christian Classics Ethereal LibraryPHP:
However much wisdom we think might be present in the later books (and if you ignore Maccabees, I'm willing to admit that there is some), they don't have the quality of direct inspiration of the Hebrew canon. They aren't prophetic speech, and they aren't accounts of the key events where God acted in Israel's history.
Sure ya do. Hyperdulia worship. Be informed, not embarrassed.
BTW, Irenaeus and Tertullian also accepted the book of Enoch as canonical, not sure if ths had been mentioned or not.
Yeah, even our own NT says as much. The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom 3).
Amen- and still do.You claimed that they had what they needed from God, but by the time they had a canon they'd already rejected what they needed most - Jesus
Amen- and still do.
To this day the Jewish people are the most fascinating, brilliant amazing people-at the top of their field in everything. Truly the gifts and calling of God are without revocation.
But gifts are one thing, calling another. God calls, we must answer. Because they failed to heed, we had a spot.I anxiously await their answer, waiting for, oddly enough, the older brother to come home.
I am shocked at the carelessness with which their salvation is handled by the Replacement Theology crowd on one hand and the "Jews are God's chosen no matter what they do" crowd.
Great post Rdr!
Since the incarnation of Christ, and His death (He died for all), I believe that we are also now God's chosen people, just as the Jews were, and still are. Among us all, gentile and Jew alike, there are still many who reject Jesus Christ. All mankind are now chosen, yet through original sin, and the way it taints our will, many still reject/deny our Lord Jesus Christ. Being chosen, does not mean that one who is chosen can not rebel and turn away.
Like a child who is the child of their mother and father, we are all children of God, Jew and gentile both. We all can turn from God the same way we can turn from our parents; the same way the prodigal son did.
Therefore, that the Jews rejected particular books AFTER the time of Jesus - doesn't matter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?