-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Baptists: When did your denomination decide the canon?
- Thread starter NoWelch'sPlease
- Start date
Those who rebelled against the crown were hung drawn and quartered, whether they were Catholics or not.
Nothing at all. Luther's musings have not been followed even by the Lutheran churches.
Nothing can be, but that has not stopped the Church of Rome.
The Lord Jesus and the Apostles never quote from the Apocrypha, though they certainly has access to it.
Josephus and the Talmud are clear that The Apocrypha was never part of the Jewish Scriptures.
Philo, the Jewish philosopher, quotes from all but five O.T. books; never from the Apocrypha.
None of the writers of the Apocrypha claims divine inspiration or origin.
Some parts of the Apocrypha contain blatant errors of historical fact; other parts contradict the O.T.
In AD 170, Melito, leader of the church at Sardis, travelled to Jerusalem to ascertain the true O.T. canon, He came back without the Apocrypha.
Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, wanted to exclude the Apocrypha. The O.T. that Protestants use today is identical to that upheld by Jerome.
Cardinal Ximines excluded the Apocrypha shortly before the Council of Trent when it was formally adopted.
The name 'Apocrypha' means 'hidden things, because it was not read out in early church services because it was not regarded as true Scripture by the early Church.
Jewish Palesinian Canon did not include the apocrypha.
It was also not until Trent 1546 that the RCC ever made a formal and official declaration on the canon and the apocrypha.
Not a single council you listed is Universal Church Concil per Roman reckoning.
Early church fathers who only accepted the Jewish Canon and not the apocrypha, Melito of Sardis, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem , Epiphanius, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory of Nazianzus, Rufinus and Jerome.
Josephus doesn't even acknowledge its existence.
Not to mention Jesus and the apostles didn't use it.
* In addtion Jesus endorses the Jewish Canon as Scripture (Luke 24:44). The apocrypha is not mentioned by Jesus. If Jesus didn't recognize it as canon, I would say the protestants are in a good postion by agreeing with Him
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
The New Testament books where received by the repective church or individuals or individual to which they where written. Those books were Holy Scripture when they where written.
NoWelch'sPlease
New Member
Jesus FULFILLED the prophecy in Wisdom 2:12-22. Which was written between 60 and 100 years before the birth of Jesus. Check it out, if you dare! (Close the blinds so your Baptist neighbors can't see).
Rome identified canon in 382, after that it was a general consistency which was upheld. This is one of the things we Catholics have upheld for a long time. Tried and true.
In the middle part of the third century in a letter to Africanus, Origen said that unlike the Jews, "the Churches use Tobias as scripture..."
Matthew 7:12, Jesus' Golden Rule, "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15, "What you hate, do not do to others."
Matthew 24:16, "flee to the mountains" is from 1 Maccabees 2:28.
Mark 9:48, the description of hell where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
Matthew 6:19-20, Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11, "lay up your treasure."
Mark 4:5,16,17, Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Matthew 22:25, Mark 12:20, Luke 20:29, the Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Are you referring to Judith and Nebuchadnezzar?
Baptists were the reformers of the reformers. Luther & Co. didn't go far enough away from orthodox belief and suddenly John Smythe thinks he has it all figured out!
The pagan philosopher Socrates said that if ever there was a perfect man, people would put him to death.Jesus FULFILLED the prophecy in Wisdom 2:12-22. Which was written between 60 and 100 years before the birth of Jesus. Check it out, if you dare! (Close the blinds so your Baptist neighbors can't see).
Does that mean that Socrates was divinely inspired?
He was acknowledging the Justin Africanus was using it and the churches in his area. Orgin did not and cautioned against it that same letter.
"Where you get your “lost and won at play,” and “thrown out unburied on the streets,” I know not, unless it is from Tobias; and Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves"
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
It was not an RCC council. It was a regional north African council. Jerome who was in Rome at the time and was the protege of Pope Damascus, was against recognizing the apocrypha as scripture. If the Pope was his mentor, one could assume the Pope was against it as well.
The apocrypha was not recognized by the RCC as Scripture until after Luther's rise at Trent.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Thank you for agreeing that the Lord Jesus never quotes from the Apocrypha.
When He is quoting Scripture, He says, "It is written......." (e.g. Matthew 4:4); "Have you never read......" (e.g. Matthew 21:42); "Well did Isaiah prophesy......" (Mark 7:6); "It is written in the Prophets......" (John 6:45); "Is it not written in your law?" (John 10:34) or some such thing. He never quotes from the Apocrypha. That He may well have known of the Apocrypha is undoubtedly true, but that fact does not mean that He thought it was Scripture. I mentioned some lines from Simon and Garfunkel in a sermon yesterday; that doesn't mean I thought they were inspired.
Jesus FULFILLED the prophecy in Wisdom 2:12-22. Which was written between 60 and 100 years before the birth of Jesus. Check it out, if you dare! (Close the blinds so your Baptist neighbors can't see).
Jesus never recognized that he filled that literature.
"Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
He did however say he fulfilled OT Jewish Scripture. Since Wisdom was out before Jesus' earthly ministry, why didn't he claim he fulfilled it as well? The answer is because it is not Scripture.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
NoWelch'sPlease
New Member
I think you mean Julius Africanus. So if this is true, then why in his Hexapla edition of the Old Testament are all of the apocryphal, (deuterocanonical) books present? He even cites 2 Maccabees 7:28 and Wisdom 18:24 as, "holy Scripture".
Why do you require this of Jesus? Often, what I see among Protestants is this demand, or want of a clear picture, as if to erase the doubt. For example, in order to understand the perpetual virginity of Mary, you require a book to exist in the New Testament, written by Jesus, called, The Book of Mary.
According to whom?
Are you saying Jerome, or the Pope thought it was their job to decide canon? They would have known that only the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, will decide canon.
Nonsense, the main objective of Trent was to make clear Catholic doctrine and answer the heresies of the Protestants.
Did he quote from Song of Songs? And yet, isn't that scripture?
Our Lord quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures, of which the Song of Songs is part, and clearly regards them as the word of God.
He does not quote from any book of the Apocrypha.
Yes...."Julius"...my cellphone auto corrected me.
From Origen:
"It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down....
And outside of these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel" Has quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History.
He was very clear in his rejection of Maccabees as Scripture. I cannot find the Orgien quote you refer to, but he has likely been taken out of context like you did with his letter to Julius Africanus
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Why would Jesus not mention it? He mentioned the Jewish scripture as a whole, which he fulfilled.
Jesus would not be able to write such a book, nor thr apostles since Mary had other children.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
I am saying Rome did not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture at Hippo. That was not a Universal RCC council. It was not until Trent that the RCC accepted it. History shows this clearly. Read up on Trent and Hippo
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
NoWelch'sPlease
New Member
In whose opinion? According to you? What bothers me is this, oh, and first, I will admit I really walked into it with the whole, "He never quoted the apocrypha" ordeal. Which, I am willing to let go even though I see a huge, and undeniable link, (which, for some reason, you are willing to ignore, or are not willing to recognize because a Catholic is pointing it out) between the verses I showed you from the apocrypha and the New Testament.
That being said, I still do not understand why Baptists seem to think their Bible is not the direct product of a rogue, and at the very least, schismatic, man who arrogantly decided for himself, when he had time between self flagellation, (while clearly not being guided by the Holy Spirit) which books make up the canon.
For example, the reply I received in post #41 was, "Yes." This was from an "administrator", no less, whatever that means on this forum. This answer tells me nothing.
Last edited:
NoWelch'sPlease
New Member
Don't even get me started about this. It is wholly irreverent to assume Mary had another child, or children, besides Jesus. The level of ignorance on your part, sir, is unconscionable.
Imagine, if you will, for example, Joseph, a man who understands without a doubt that Mary is a consecrated virgin; he knows she is the mother of Jesus. Imagine, as the man you are, and I am a decent man as well, imagine Joseph being in a one room house late at night with young, beautiful Mary and Jesus, the savior of all humanity sleeping nearby.
Do you really think he would try to "get busy" with her? He was her protector.
Last edited:
She was his wife. Sex is in no way sinful or shameful within the confines of a heterosexual marriage. It is beautiful gift from God. Your claim she is a perpetual virgin is is unfounded and contradicted by scripture.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk