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.
Luther didn't, true. And honestly, I don't teach, as a teacher, anything at all about Luther, unless I'm teaching a history class. As for Jerome, he was an orthodox Catholic and obeyed those he was supposed to obey, whether he agreed with them or not. We call the Deuterocanon that for a reason...
You might add to that Lutherans. Luther did not reject the deutercanonical books, as many Roman Catholics are taught. What he, as well as the vast majority of Protestants, did was to agree with Jerome's assessment that these books are not in the same category as those protocanonical books. I think everyone agrees on this point, although the Council of Trent really tried its best to blend them together.
2 Thessalonians 2: 13-15 But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. To this end he has [also] called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
What gospel is Paul talking about? Oral. What tradition is Paul talking about? Oral. Only his written letters are actually written.
Hence our insistence on the "Sola Scriptura" testing model of the NT saints.
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the Apostle Paul) were SO"
Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
1. The Holy Spirit did not say that the apocrypha is scripturel
2. The Holy Spirit did not say that Josephus' statement about the canon was wrong.
3. I did not say that the Holy Spirit makes mistaks. Rather I said that Christ tells the truth.
so then ... sola scriptura testing it is.
The Holy Spirit also did not say the so called "apocrypha" was not Scripture. .
Nor did the Holy Spirit mention the Bhagavad Gita by name.
Fortunately Jerome stated explicitly that we should reject the apocryphal books thus agreeing with the Jews on their OWN OT - who also point out that it is not part of the approved Hebrew text and the Catholics came along too late to have any say at all in the matter.
And of course Paul in Rom 3:1-4 point out that the Jews own the OT
If it was PREACHED it was SPOKEN.Gal 3:7 "the Gospel was preached to Abraham"
Gal 1:6-9 "There is only ONE gospel. if WE (Apostles) or an Angel from heaven should bring to you a different gospel let him be accursed"
Heb 4:2 "The Gospel was preached to US just as it was to THEM also"
The Holy Spirit did not say that the Deuterocanon is not Scriptural, either. He did tell the Councils of Rome and Carthage that they belonged in our Canon.Hence our insistence on the "Sola Scriptura" testing model of the NT saints.
Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the Apostle Paul) were SO"
Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
1. The Holy Spirit did not say that the apocrypha is scripturel
Nor did He say Josephus was right.2. The Holy Spirit did not say that Josephus' statement about the canon was wrong.
There is no conflict, in my mind, between Christ and the Holy Spirit. Apparently you believe otherwise.3. I did not say that the Holy Spirit makes mistaks. Rather I said that Christ tells the truth.
Yeah, we go with the entire Word of God...so then ... sola scriptura testing it is.
If SAINT Jerome actually believed that and dissented from his hierarchy, he wouldn't be a saint and Doctor of the Church. So your one little snippet of SAINT Jerome's opinion, which he never acted out, is not consequential. And there you go misinterpreting Scripture again... Paul stresses that Jews have remained the vehicle of God’s revelation despite their sins, though this depends on the fidelity of God.Nor did the Holy Spirit mention the Bhagavad Gita by name.
Fortunately Jerome stated explicitly that we should reject the apocryphal books thus agreeing with the Jews on their OWN OT - who also point out that it is not part of the approved Hebrew text and the Catholics came along too late to have any say at all in the matter.
And of course Paul in Rom 3:1-4 point out that the Jews own the OT
The Holy Spirit also did not say the so called "apocrypha" was not Scripture.
You need to quote where 1 Maccabbees affirms itself as uninspired. I've never seen you do that.On the contrary, this is that to which was said in 1 Maccabee's and to which Josephus refers and about which Paul refers in Romans 3 is the "valid prophetic line". The inspired books of the OT were written during a valid prophet's time from Moses to Malachi. That's the "oracles of God" to which Paul refers, Josephus declares, and 1 Maccabee's affirms was missing during its writing.
1 Mac9:27] Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.You need to quote where 1 Maccabbees affirms itself as uninspired. I've never seen you do that.
1 Mac9:27] Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.
1 Mac 14:41] "And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise,
No valid prophetic line existed at the time of its writing (uninspired). This is to what Paul alludes in Roman 3 (oracles of God), Christ says (law and prophets), and Josephus say (no prophets).
This does not mean Maccabees is uninspired, or rather, if it does, you would be obliged to reject Esther on the same grounds. Which some did, by the way, but I regard this as a poor way of understanding the OT.
I couldn't have said this better myself. Job, too. Judith, too. Many books not written by prophets, but seen as inspired. The ball is still in their court...This does not mean Maccabees is uninspired, or rather, if it does, you would be obliged to reject Esther on the same grounds. Which some did, by the way, but I regard this as a poor way of understanding the OT.
But who was the prophet when Esther was written? But where does it say that there must be a prophet in Israel when an inspired book is written, or that the prophet must be the author? I'm pretty sure several prophets didn't write their books themselves...The significant difference between Esther and Maccabees is that the writer of Maccabees stated clearly that there was no prophet in Israel at that time. Hence, he did not think he was a prophet (i.e. that his writing was inspired by God). The writer of Esther makes no such statement.
Time of prophets, though not necessarily written by a prophet. That's the criteria.But who was the prophet when Esther was written? But where does it say that there must be a prophet in Israel when an inspired book is written, or that the prophet must be the author? I'm pretty sure several prophets didn't write their books themselves...
It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines,I couldn't have said this better myself. Job, too. Judith, too. Many books not written by prophets, but seen as inspired. The ball is still in their court...
Who set that criteria?Time of prophets, though not necessarily written by a prophet. That's the criteria.
Josephus is hardly an authority on anything but general history of the time. His opinion, which is what it is, is noted, but not authoritative.As to Esther, traditional dating puts its writing in the time of Xerxes or Ezra/Nehemiah.
Josephus defines Esther as part of Hebrew Scripture (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.xii.vi.html (about Esther) with: 2. Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks2828 That is, all the Gentiles, both Greeks and Romans. worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.i.html
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?