Protestant canon

[Erose]

There is no official Protestant canon. There is an informal pragmatic one. It is the typical 66-book Bible of the West. There never was an official council canonizing that 66-book list of books.

The KJV "contians" more books than the Protestant canon. Though many printed versions of the KJV do not contain those books, still, the KJV included them from day one and labels them the books of the "Apocrypha", (inaccurately so-called).

Protestants originally viewed the books of the "Apocrypha" as beneficial and helpful but not inspired. Today, many Protestants, adding prejudice to ignorance assume the books of the Apocrypha contain heresy.

Like to see you try to take one of the existing books from the Palestine Canon or add a writing to them and see what happens. Yes I agree there has not been an official declaration on what books the Bible suppose to have, but through Protestant tradition it has become what you got now.

I find it so interesting that so many Protestant churches accuse us of adding books to the Bible and how unChristian we are for doing it, but they have no clue why the Protestant traditions have sacredized (if that is a word) the current Palestine canon.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You're right, a lot of Catholics don't. This doesn't change the fact that most of them do. Are you a moderator? Can I say that in this forum?

He is not, but I am; and no you can not.

Christian Forums recognizes all Christians and denominations that accept CF's Statement of faith (the Nicene Creed) as Christian.

Likewise, it is also against the rules to derail a thread; so let's stay on topic.

 

[Erose]

Last time i checked the first Christians didn't pray to mary.

Because Mary was still with them at that time and there is many early writings discussing the validity of praying to saints. Besides Jesus spoke to the saints, why shouldn't we?

And Peter didn't have armed Guards and a bullet proof car, he was martyred.

There were no cars at that time and Peter isn't the only pope that has been martyred for the faith. In fact for the first 400 years it was an anomaly for a bishop of Rome to die of anything but by way of martyrdom.

Also if you remember why a bullet proof car was supplied for protecting the pope was for the very fact that a muslim terrorist tried to kill Pope John Paul II.

They also sold everything they owned and shared it, they were not capitalists or communists, or socialists.

Why don't you check out the activity of the monastaries and convents, where these Christians live a life dedicated completely to doing God's will. I really don't see comparable Protestant communities.

They didn't go on armed Holy Crusades

So it is evil to protect the weak and the defenseless. The purpose of the Crusades was to try and save the Christians in the East from the onslaught of the Turks as well as to save Europe. If it wasn't for the Crusades you would be speaking Arabic and praying 5 times a day to Allah right now instead of enjoying your Christianity.

and probably wouldn't have a problem with printing the written word in book format for people to read.

One of those myths that you guys keep on giving that is total falsehood. As someone else on the thread has pointed out already the first translations of parts of the Bible in English was done by monks of the Catholic faith. The first complete Bible in English was the Wycliffe yes but it wasn't the first attempt at it. Also it should be pointed out the reason why St. Jerome was commissioned to translate the Bible into Latin was for the sake of providing the common people a Bible in their common or "Vulgar" tongue.

So if they were called catholic, they don't exactly resemble Catholics since then. I'm not condemning, Just saying so false impressions wont be left.

How do you know? Have you done an indepth study of the historical records and books to compare? Most probably no you haven't. If you did I think you would be surprised to see just how Catholic the early Christians were.

 

[Erose]

He is not, but I am; and no you can not.

Christian Forums recognizes all Christians and denominations that accept CF's Statement of faith (the Nicene Creed) as Christian.

Likewise, it is also against the rules to derail a thread; so let's stay on topic.

Mark,

I apologize for adding to the derailment of the thread but I felt like his false accusations needed to be responded to. Again I do apologize.

 

[sensational]

Nicea didn't have anything to do with the biblical canon, actually. It wasn't discussed at the council at all.

-CryptoLutheran

Hello CryptoLutheran,

What motivated Luther on his view of the DCs?

Was there specific doctrinal issues he thought they could be used to support that he disagreed with?

In Christ,
JMS

 

[Polycarp1]

As I understand it, nobody official came out with a Bible canon prior to the Reformation. Indsividuals and regional councils made up lists, some of tghem quite influential, but no Pope, Patriarch, or Ecumenical Council enumerated which books were to be recognized as Scripture.

Rather, they regarded the contents of their standard-translation collections as normative: in the West the Vulgate, in the East the Septuagint, both inclusive of the 'standard' New Testament.

For the Orthodox, this continues to the present. There is no official list, just the question of whether it is found in the Septuagint-plus-New-Testament. For the Catholics, a formal definition was emplaced at Trent to counteract the Reformers' omissions. For reasons best known to them, they omitted I and II Esdras, III Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151. The 'First Wave' Reformers -- Lutheran and Anglican -- TTBOMK relegated the deuterocanon to a 'second-class' status as Apocrypha, omitting III Maccabees and Psalm 151. The Methodists later accepted this view. I am not clear on what the early stages of the Reformed tradition did. As time went by, the more extreme Protestants insisted on the 66-book 'Protestant Canon'.

 

[Erose]

So, is it odd that the LXX (septuagent) was first translated c300bc, yet the deteros were all written after that?


As the work of translation progressed gradually, and new books were added to the collection, the compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite. The Pentateuch always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon; but the prophetic collection (out of which the Nevi'im were selected) changed its aspect by having various hagiographa incorporated into it. Some of the newer works, those called anagignoskomena in Greek, are not included in the Jewish canon. Among these books are Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also, the Septuagint version of some works, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Masoretic Text.[10] Some of the later books (Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees, and others) apparently were not translated, but composed in Greek.
wiki-

Not necessarily true. Interesting that most if not all Deuteros are believed to be written before Daniel if you can believe the Bible historians which normally I do not so you can take it however you want.

I usually stick with the historical claims of authorship and dating myself which would make 1st and 2nd Macc as well as the book of Sirach as the latest writings in the OT.

 

[11822]

Because Mary was still with them at that time and there is many early writings discussing the validity of praying to saints. Besides Jesus spoke to the saints, why shouldn't we?

There were no cars at that time and Peter isn't the only pope that has been martyred for the faith. In fact for the first 400 years it was an anomaly for a bishop of Rome to die of anything but by way of martyrdom.

Also if you remember why a bullet proof car was supplied for protecting the pope was for the very fact that a muslim terrorist tried to kill Pope John Paul II.

Why don't you check out the activity of the monastaries and convents, where these Christians live a life dedicated completely to doing God's will. I really don't see comparable Protestant communities.

So it is evil to protect the weak and the defenseless. The purpose of the Crusades was to try and save the Christians in the East from the onslaught of the Turks as well as to save Europe. If it wasn't for the Crusades you would be speaking Arabic and praying 5 times a day to Allah right now instead of enjoying your Christianity.

One of those myths that you guys keep on giving that is total falsehood. As someone else on the thread has pointed out already the first translations of parts of the Bible in English was done by monks of the Catholic faith. The first complete Bible in English was the Wycliffe yes but it wasn't the first attempt at it. Also it should be pointed out the reason why St. Jerome was commissioned to translate the Bible into Latin was for the sake of providing the common people a Bible in their common or "Vulgar" tongue.

How do you know? Have you done an indepth study of the historical records and books to compare? Most probably no you haven't. If you did I think you would be surprised to see just how Catholic the early Christians were.

As long as you don't push the mary prayer or the popes supreme authority im cool. There is only one body of Christ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You know who the fisheaters are? Cool!

I am rather partial to the large stellar's sea eagle

NKJV) Matthew 24:28 "For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.
[Luke 17:37]

Reve 19:17 And I perceived one Messenger standing in the sun, and He cries-out in a great voice, saying to all the birds, the ones flying in mid-heaven, "hither! be ye being gathered! into the Supper of the Great God.
18 That ye may be eating fleshes of kings......
[Deut 28:26/Ezekiel 39:118]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7509498/#post56000793
Birds of a feather flock together

Steller's Sea Eagle. Mainly fish eating bird and biggest eagle in the world

 

[Erose]

As I understand it, nobody official came out with a Bible canon prior to the Reformation. Indsividuals and regional councils made up lists, some of tghem quite influential, but no Pope, Patriarch, or Ecumenical Council enumerated which books were to be recognized as Scripture.

Rather, they regarded the contents of their standard-translation collections as normative: in the West the Vulgate, in the East the Septuagint, both inclusive of the 'standard' New Testament.

For the Orthodox, this continues to the present. There is no official list, just the question of whether it is found in the Septuagint-plus-New-Testament. For the Catholics, a formal definition was emplaced at Trent to counteract the Reformers' omissions. For reasons best known to them, they omitted I and II Esdras, III Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151. The 'First Wave' Reformers -- Lutheran and Anglican -- TTBOMK relegated the deuterocanon to a 'second-class' status as Apocrypha, omitting III Maccabees and Psalm 151. The Methodists later accepted this view. I am not clear on what the early stages of the Reformed tradition did. As time went by, the more extreme Protestants insisted on the 66-book 'Protestant Canon'.

The establishment of what books are suppose to be in the OT Canon is based upon three things: orthodoxy, use in liturgy, and traditional usage. In the west the existing Catholic Canon was established at the Council of Rome in the 4th Century under Pope St. Damasus I for liturgical usage and acceptance. This canon was reaffirmed at several local councils as well as some eccumenical councils where the canons of these local councils where confirmed.

Anyway the primary function of the canon has always been liturgical or worship based. That is the reason why the eastern churches possess a few more writings in their Bibles that the western church. The eastern churches (I believe both Catholic and Orthodox, tell me if I am wrong) use additional writings in their liturgies and that is why they have the extra writings beyond the ones in the Catholic bibles.

The early Latin bibles possessed the additional books, used by the eastern churches, in them in an appendix but modern bibles do not have them which I regret. I really do love the Prayer of Manasseh. Everytime I read it tears come to my eyes.

As you said before at the council of Trent the canon was confirmed against the Protestant attacks upon it. One has to understand why the Catholic church dogmatically defines. To be honest she doesn't like to and only does so when she absolutely has to.

The Catholic canon has been used in the West since the 4th century without any major debate against it until the Protestant Revolt and as such did not need to be dogmatically defined until then.

Anyway this is a brief summary of a very detailed subject but hopefully some light has been given.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

When was the Protestant canon form/formalised? And, by whom?

Some points to keep in mind....


1. There has NEVER been an ecumenical council or decision on this - ever.


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....


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.


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'm moving on There are about 10,000 threads at CF of much greater importance and consequence.



.

 

[Erose]

As long as you don't push the mary prayer or the popes supreme authority im cool. There is only one body of Christ.

Depends upon the thread. If someone attacks my church with myths and misconceptions I will try to clarify our beliefs as best I can. There are many other Catholics on this forum who will do the same thing. Just to let you know.

As I believe Archbishop Fulten Sheen once said to paraphrase: There are maybe 400 people out there that hates the Catholic church for what it is and there are millions of people out there that hates the Catholic church for what they think it is.

 

[11822]

Depends upon the thread. If someone attacks my church with myths and misconceptions I will try to clarify our beliefs as best I can. There are many other Catholics on this forum who will do the same thing. Just to let you know.

As I believe Archbishop Fulten Sheen once said to paraphrase: There are maybe 400 people out there that hates the Catholic church for what it is and there are millions of people out there that hates the Catholic church for what they think it is.

I dislike some things the Catholic church has done along with other Churches. But i see Jesus in the Catholic church and therefore they are my brothers and sisters.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Some points to keep in mind....

1. There has NEVER been an ecumenical council or decision on this - ever.

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....

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.

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'm moving on There are about 10,000 threads at CF of much greater importance and consequence.

.

I think I will join ya and good post btw

YouTube - Eddie Kendricks - Keep on Truckin

 

[Dylan Michael]

Mormonism is non-Christian, just like the Catholic Church and Mary worship. Don't even bring up Mormonism in this forum, please!

Oh no you didn't.

Catholicism is christian and we don't worship Mary.

 

[11822]

Oh no you didn't.

Catholicism is christian and we don't worship Mary.

Oh know you didn't.

 

[Dylan Michael]

Last time i checked the first Christians didn't pray to mary. And Peter didn't have armed Guards and a bullet proof car, he was martyred. They also sold everything they owned and shared it, they were not capitalists or communists, or socialists. They didn't go on armed Holy Crusades and probably wouldn't have a problem with printing the written word in book format for people to read. So if they were called catholic, they don't exactly resemble Catholics since then. I'm not condemning, Just saying so false impressions wont be left.

Sigh.
She was still alive, so it wouldn't work like that.
There were no bullets nor cars.
Nobody had problems printing the bible. They had a problem with bad translations. The reason the bibles were chained to the altar was they were extremely expensive and could take up to eight years to hand copy a book. Even after the invention of the printing press, bibles were still extremely expensive. It seems we're not the ones with the false impressions.

 

[11822]

Sigh.
She was still alive, so it wouldn't work like that.
There were no bullets nor cars.
Nobody had problems printing the bible. They had a problem with bad translations. The reason the bibles were chained to the altar was they were extremely expensive and could take up to eight years to hand copy a book. Even after the invention of the printing press, bibles were still extremely expensive. It seems we're not the ones with the false impressions.

I hear ya brother. Im not making issue. I just liked the "oh no you didn't" part

 

[mark46]

If Scripture is the only source of Truth, as many Protestants believe, then what is included and what should be critical to Protestants.

How often have we heard fundies using a single verse as the source of Truth? If Maccabees or Wisdom are Scriptrure, then there would be consequence for doctrines. In the end, when you are a literalist, every word and every book are very important indeed.

Some points to keep in mind....


1. There has NEVER been an ecumenical council or decision on this - ever.


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....


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.


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'm moving on There are about 10,000 threads at CF of much greater importance and consequence.



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If Maccabees or Wisdom are Scriptrure, then there would be consequence for doctrines.

I suspect you have a point. If it's not of consequence, perhaps it's not to be regarded as Scripture (and yet that DOES make me wonder about a few books we all DO regard as Scripture)...

Perhaps that's a point to consider in rejecting these disputed DEUTERO books; perhaps they don't seem to have even enough consequence for anyone to give them an ounce of consideration or maybe to care if they are Scripture or not?

But, I think the approach has often been the opposite: more what IS embraced as such rather than what is NOT. The two denominations known to me that HAVE officially declared what IS Scripture (the RCC and Anglican) - both in the 16th century - didn't say what as NOT (although perhaps in a FEW cases, the lack of mention has some significance).

What seems evident to ME is this is a matter of consensus (in this case, absolutely stunning consensus). It exists around 66, not so much otherwise. But even the commonly disputed books (such as Psalm 151) seem to be of so little consequence that it's just not been an issue anyone has cared to pursue: it's never been an issue of much controversy and no Ecumenical Council has even entertained the question - much less ruled on it. For a VERY long time before 1054, East and West didn't agree - and it just never came up. They split over "and the Son" in the Creed, not Pslam 151.





.