Christianity and how the bible was put together

[DHK]

Sure. The point is the same. The 39 Books of the OT that we have is a Jewish convention after Jesus Christ death and resurection not before. The early church used and arguably treated the books that are DC as authoritative. It seems that you have to work hard at taking them out rather than at their inclusion.

Where did you get this from and can you document any source that would even attempt to suggest such a liberal suggestion?

First, all the books of the OT were written before 450 B.C.
Second, as the canon of the OT was being put together, no book written after 400 A.D. was even considered. The book had to be extant in 400 B.C.
There were other criteria that they went be as well, that I have not taken the time to look up.
But the canon of the OT was completed shortly after 400 B.C. It was in order and accepted by all the Jews. It was there for Hellenized Jews to translate into the LXX in 250 B.C. Yes, that is the date of the translation of the Septuagint. If there was no canon of the OT, then how would it have been possible for a translation of the OT to be made? To say that the canon of the OT was completed much later defeats historical facts.
This fact alone proves that the DC books were not in the original LXX, as they were written long after that time. None of them were written at that early date. In fact some of them were written after the birth of Christ! They were complete forgeries.

The Hebrew Canon had 22 books because the Hebrews arranged their Bible differently than we do. The minor prophets, for example, were considered to be one book, called "The Twelve." We have them as twelve individual books. Other books were also combined together so that the number of the books of their canon was much smaller though the books were exactly the same. The Apocryphal books never made it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Where did you get this from and can you document any source that would even attempt to suggest such a liberal suggestion?

First, all the books of the OT were written before 450 B.C.
Second, as the canon of the OT was being put together, no book written after 400 A.D. was even considered. The book had to be extant in 400 B.C.
There were other criteria that they went be as well, that I have not taken the time to look up.
But the canon of the OT was completed shortly after 400 B.C. It was in order and accepted by all the Jews. It was there for Hellenized Jews to translate into the LXX in 250 B.C. Yes, that is the date of the translation of the Septuagint. If there was no canon of the OT, then how would it have been possible for a translation of the OT to be made? To say that the canon of the OT was completed much later defeats historical facts.
This fact alone proves that the DC books were not in the original LXX, as they were written long after that time. None of them were written at that early date. In fact some of them were written after the birth of Christ! They were complete forgeries.

The Hebrew Canon had 22 books because the Hebrews arranged their Bible differently than we do. The minor prophets, for example, were considered to be one book, called "The Twelve." We have them as twelve individual books. Other books were also combined together so that the number of the books of their canon was much smaller though the books were exactly the same. The Apocryphal books never made it.

I've indicated my sources and reasoning on this thread as to how I came to that conclusion. What are your sources for your above statement? Who established the OT canon? And when?

As a side note since the DC were used by the ECF as well as the NT writers to exclude them would be the liberal perspective rather than the conservative one.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In fact some of them were written after the birth of Christ! They were complete forgeries

BTW in order to have a forgery you have to have an original. So what were they forging?

 

[DHK]

As a side note since the DC were used by the ECF as well as the NT writers to exclude them would be the liberal perspective rather than the conservative one.

This proves nothing.
In the Book of Jude, Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch, but that doesn't mean that the entire Book of Enoch is inspired.
In the Book of Titus, Paul quotes from a Cretian philosopher, but that doesn't mean that that philosopher or all Cretian philosophers are inspired.
On Mars Hill, Paul quotes from a Greek poet, but that doesn't mean that that poet or all Greek poets are inspired.

In ECF literature, the ECF may have quoted from Apocryphal literature, but that doesn't mean that they considered any one of them to be inspired of God. You have not made any case for inspiration or canonicity.

 

[DHK]

BTW in order to have a forgery you have to have an original. So what were they forging?

All of them are classified as "spurious books."
Some are forgeries.
Some are made-up stories like fairy-tales.
A couple of them are historical.
None of them demonstrate the quality that inspired Scripture ought to have.

The Book of Daniel has 12 chapters. Daniel and his three friends was taken into captivity in 605 B.C. during one of the three deportations of Judah, the last one being in 586 B.C. He lived in Babylon during that time until his death, at about 80 years of age. When he went into Babylon he was a teen-ager--maybe about 16. Then the date of his death would have been about 541 give or take a couple of years. Do any of the DC books date anywhere back near to 500 B.C.? The answer is a resounding NO!

Yet there are two more chapters added onto Daniel to make it 14 chapters. These would be forgeries. A book written near the time of Christ, claiming to be either by Daniel or a witness of Daniel is a forgery, a farce, a fake, and not to be taken seriously on any account.

Have you ever read them? They don't read like Scripture. They read like "Little Red Riding Hood."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This proves nothing.
In the Book of Jude, Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch, but that doesn't mean that the entire Book of Enoch is inspired.
In the Book of Titus, Paul quotes from a Cretian philosopher, but that doesn't mean that that philosopher or all Cretian philosophers are inspired.
On Mars Hill, Paul quotes from a Greek poet, but that doesn't mean that that poet or all Greek poets are inspired.

In ECF literature, the ECF may have quoted from Apocryphal literature, but that doesn't mean that they considered any one of them to be inspired of God. You have not made any case for inspiration or canonicity.

You still haven't established your sources or evidence for your statement that the OT was closed by the time of Christ. Who established the canon for the OT and when? And I've already dealt with the quote from the greek poet in this thread. context context context. It is kind of like location location location. And as far as the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses yes I am questioning that which was the point of the post you initially quoted.

what are your sources? I've shown mine.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

All of them are classified as "spurious books."
Some are forgeries.
Some are made-up stories like fairy-tales.
A couple of them are historical.
None of them demonstrate the quality that inspired Scripture ought to have.

The Book of Daniel has 12 chapters. Daniel and his three friends was taken into captivity in 605 B.C. during one of the three deportations of Judah, the last one being in 586 B.C. He lived in Babylon during that time until his death, at about 80 years of age. When he went into Babylon he was a teen-ager--maybe about 16. Then the date of his death would have been about 541 give or take a couple of years. Do any of the DC books date anywhere back near to 500 B.C.? The answer is a resounding NO!

Yet there are two more chapters added onto Daniel to make it 14 chapters. These would be forgeries. A book written near the time of Christ, claiming to be either by Daniel or a witness of Daniel is a forgery, a farce, a fake, and not to be taken seriously on any account.

Have you ever read them? They don't read like Scripture. They read like "Little Red Riding Hood."

Ok you state that Daniel was forged. And if following your thoughts you can say that at least Bel and the Dragon and the 3 young men were forged. However, what evidence to you have that it was. the LXX translators were working with text no longer exant. There are two books that seem fantastical in the DC the book of Tobit and the book of Judith. But there is an idea that even though they are fictional does it mean they are not inspired. Are the allegory Jesus tells inspired? Convey truth? Or since they didn't actually happen we should throw them out of the NT?

Again what are your sources? What evidence do you have?

 

[Darron Steele]

Written as a reply to DHK:

Ok you state that Daniel was forged. ....

He did not say that.

He said that additions to Daniel are forged.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Written as a reply to DHK:He did not say that.

He said that additions to Daniel are forged.

sorry I wasn't clear on that your right the additions he said are forged.

 

[DHK]

Ok you state that Daniel was forged.

Not the Book of Daniel, but the Additions to Daniel--chapters 13,14.
The Book of Daniel was written ca. 530 B.C.
Bel and the Dragon was written ca. 150-100 B.C.

The obvious discrepancy in the dates proves that the additional books are forgeries. Daniel did not live from 600 to 100 B.C., a period of 500 years. Nor was there anyone around in the second century B.C. to witness the accounts of Daniel. It was a forgery.

And if following your thoughts you can say that at least Bel and the Dragon and the 3 young men were forged. However, what evidence to you have that it was. the LXX translators were working with text no longer exant.

No apocryphal books came into existence until at least 150 B.C.
The latest date of the OT canon was 450 B.C.
It is obvious that the DC could not have been included in the OT canon.
Neither could they have been included in the LXX translated in 250 B.C.
History tells its own story. You do the math.
The Jews worked only with extant Scripture. Christ quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogues. When Paul wanted to get the attention of the people he spoke in their sacred language of Hebrew (Acts 22:2).

There are two books that seem fantastical in the DC the book of Tobit and the book of Judith. But there is an idea that even though they are fictional does it mean they are not inspired.

They are not the least bit credible.
Are you really going to try and convince me that this is Scripture?

This book tells the story of a righteous Israelite of the Tribe of Naphtali named Tobit living in Nineveh after the deportation of the northern tribes of Israel to Assyria in 721 BC under Sargon II. (The first two and a half chapters are written in the first person.) He was particularly noted for his diligence in attempting to provide proper burials for fallen Israelites who had been slain by Sennacherib, for which the king seized all his property and exiled him. After Sennacherib's death, he was allowed to return to Nineveh, but again buried a dead man who had been murdered on the street. That night, he slept in the open and was blinded by bird droppings that fell in his eyes. This put a strain on his marriage, and ultimately, he prayed for death.
Meanwhile, in faraway Media, a young woman named Sarah prays for death in despair. She has lost seven husbands to the demon of lust -- Ashmodai (a demon later frequently associated with homosexuality) who abducts and kills every man she marries on their wedding night before the marriage can be consummated. God sends the angel Raphael, disguised as a human, to heal Tobit and to free Sarah from the demon.
The main narrative is dedicated to Tobit's son, Tobiah or Tobiyah (Greek: Tobias), who is sent by his father to collect a sum of money that the latter had deposited some time previously in the far off land of Media. Raphael represents himself as Tobit's kinsman Azariah, and offers to aid and protect Tobias on his journey. Under the guidance of Raphael, Tobias makes the journey to Media, accompanied by his dog. Along the way, he is attacked by a giant fish, whose heart, liver and gall bladder are removed to make medicines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit


Please humor me (this story already has), and tell me that you do not believe this is inspired Scripture.

Are the allegory Jesus tells inspired? Convey truth? Or since they didn't actually happen we should throw them out of the NT?

Are you speaking of parables where Jesus speaks of actual events?
Like a sower sowing seed in a farmer's field,
A wedding feast held for his son,
A woman looking for her lost coin,
A shepherd looking for his lost sheep,
A father rejoicing when his stray son comes home.


Does Tobit sound anything like the parables of Jesus--earthly stories used to convey heavenly truths? No. They are occultish. They sound like they are written from someone dabbling in the occult, knowing how to make "magical potions" that the Bible forbids about, and warns believers to stay away from such things.

Again what are your sources? What evidence do you have?

What evidence?
I believe in Christ; not fairy tales!

 

[Matt Black]

Now you're switching to criticism of the text itself. I guess similar 'fairy tale' points can be made about Jonah: man living for three days in the belly of a great fish etc. Does that mean that Jonah is discredited too?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Not the Book of Daniel, but the Additions to Daniel--chapters 13,14.
The Book of Daniel was written ca. 530 B.C.
Bel and the Dragon was written ca. 150-100 B.C.

The obvious discrepancy in the dates proves that the additional books are forgeries. Daniel did not live from 600 to 100 B.C., a period of 500 years. Nor was there anyone around in the second century B.C. to witness the accounts of Daniel. It was a forgery.

No apocryphal books came into existence until at least 150 B.C.
The latest date of the OT canon was 450 B.C.
It is obvious that the DC could not have been included in the OT canon.
Neither could they have been included in the LXX translated in 250 B.C.
History tells its own story. You do the math.
The Jews worked only with extant Scripture. Christ quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogues. When Paul wanted to get the attention of the people he spoke in their sacred language of Hebrew (Acts 22:2).

They are not the least bit credible.
Are you really going to try and convince me that this is Scripture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit


Please humor me (this story already has), and tell me that you do not believe this is inspired Scripture.


Are you speaking of parables where Jesus speaks of actual events?
Like a sower sowing seed in a farmer's field,
A wedding feast held for his son,
A woman looking for her lost coin,
A shepherd looking for his lost sheep,
A father rejoicing when his stray son comes home.


Does Tobit sound anything like the parables of Jesus--earthly stories used to convey heavenly truths? No. They are occultish. They sound like they are written from someone dabbling in the occult, knowing how to make "magical potions" that the Bible forbids about, and warns believers to stay away from such things.



What evidence?
I believe in Christ; not fairy tales!

How true does Jonah in the fish sound? If that is your mesurement. Many things don't sound right like the sun standing still. Or do you only believe fantastical stories that agree with your perspective? Of course its a rhetorical question.

First of all you still don't have sources. How do you know how much later bel and the dragon were written?

you still haven't shown how the OT was closed by 450 BC. There is evidence of use of LXX translations by the Hebrews and Paul spoke Hebrew no one argued the contrary. But just like today bible scholars study these languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, syriac, Latin, Greek, German, and French. Why would it be any different then? Your arguement sounds something like this:

Well the Torah was written 1400 BC so why would we read Chronicles that was written around 450 BC and not even during the time it relates to? Yet it still is in your bible. The bible should have been closed at 1400 BC. Of course it wasn't. My argument is based on the usage of the DC in the NT and by the Earliest Christian writings to show in the context of how they were used that they were used authoritatively. I can show you where and how. Can you show me your sources that the OT was closed by 450 BC? Or will you use a convention created by Jews after the resurection of Christ who were afraid of converts to christianity? And Keep in mind the NT was written well after 450 BC. Don't you think they would use all sources available to them. And by their writings we can see that they did.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What evidence?
I believe in Christ; not fairy tales!

Thats an interesting statement and is accusitory in a sence. By its implication Christians who hold to the DC as having been authoritative do not believe in Christ. Here you are wrong. There are very many Christians who hold this view. I can think of 5 Denominations off the top of my head that do. I believe in Christ. I believe in the Resurrection and I believe Jesus raised Lazerus from the dead. Now this story is incredible and doesn't "sound" real but I believe it and so do you.

The people who hold to the DC as included actually have a historical basis to do so. Your basis on the 39 books are based on a Jewish school of thought or a Jewish council working to discredit christianity (most likely) unless of course you can show diffinatively that the OT was closed around 450 BC. Source? Evidence? Or do you rely on someone telling you that it is true? If that is the case are you then reliant on your own oral tradition. What makes that better than the Jews and their Talmud?

Keep in mind the Alexandrian translators had text that are no longer Extant and some of them came from the Jews in Babylon like the story of Ester which is more detailed in the LXX THAN the Hebrew version. Which is more Accurate? I'm sure the babylonian text were more detailed than the hebrew since it was written in Babylon. The Alexandrians would have access to these no longer extant documents. This can also apply to Daniel though admittedly I'm speculating about Daniel. Also copies of books from the DC were also found at qumran indicating their use and access to Jerusalem at the time of Christ! Also an indication that the OT may not have been closed as cut and dry as you point out.

 

[DHK]

How true does Jonah in the fish sound? If that is your mesurement. Many things don't sound right like the sun standing still. Or do you only believe fantastical stories that agree with your perspective? Of course its a rhetorical question.

There is nothing in the Bible that sounds like this:

"Along the way, he is attacked by a giant fish, whose heart, liver and gall bladder are removed to make medicines."

It sounds like it is straight out of the occult, demonic, and has no place in Scripture. If you can't discern between Scripture and fairy-tale even by the way it is written, then God help you. In today's modern versions it would be like inserting Harry Potter into the Bible.

First of all you still don't have sources. How do you know how much later bel and the dragon were written?

I gave you dates. Do your own research if you don't trust me. I have been teaching this for years. Any reputable OT Introduction college textbook will give you the same information.

you still haven't shown how the OT was closed by 450 BC.

No one ever questioned until very recently.

There is evidence of use of LXX translations by the Hebrews and Paul spoke Hebrew no one argued the contrary. But just like today bible scholars study these languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, syriac, Latin, Greek, German, and French. Why would it be any different then? Your arguement sounds something like this:

Well the Torah was written 1400 BC so why would we read Chronicles that was written around 450 BC and not even during the time it relates to? Yet it still is in your bible. The bible should have been closed at 1400 BC. Of course it wasn't. My argument is based on the usage of the DC in the NT and by the Earliest Christian writings to show in the context of how they were used that they were used authoritatively. I can show you where and how. Can you show me your sources that the OT was closed by 450 BC? Or will you use a convention created by Jews after the resurection of Christ who were afraid of converts to christianity? And Keep in mind the NT was written well after 450 BC. Don't you think they would use all sources available to them. And by their writings we can see that they did.

1. I said nothing about when Chronicles was written.
2. Malachi, as well as Ezra and Nehemiah were some of the last books to be written.
3. The order of the books in the Hebrew canon are different than ours, but not necessarily because of chronology.
4. There is absolutely no usage of any DC book in the NT--none.
5. As I pointed out before the quotation of DC books by ECF writers has as much value as Paul quoting Greek poets and Cretian philosophers--none. It doesn't make them inspired. It simply means they referred to them as extra-biblical literature.
6. Conventions used after the Resurrection were RCC in nature. My theology is not dependent on the RCC. Is yours?
7. The NT being written after 450 B.C. has nothing to do with when the O.T. was writen. When Jesus went into the synagogue and read from the Scriptures, he picked up the Hebrew OT and read from it. It was complete.

Here is some information for you:

What the Saviour declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples...But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant...The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Saviour, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes...We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater..."(The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University, 1965), Volume 53, Saint Jerome, Against Rufinus, Book II.27, 33, pp. 151, 158-160).

I trust you are not just "a foolish syncophant" as Jerome puts it.


This is only one of many sources that could be cited. Jerome never believed in the Apocryphal Books. They did end up in the Latin Vulgate because he was forced to do so under pressure by ecclesiastical authorities.



Other evidence;
The Jews never included the Apocrypha in their writings or their canon.
The Apostles rejected the Apocrypha.
The early believers rejected the Apocrypha.
All Protestants rejected the Apocrypha.
The Apocrypha was never formally accepted by the RCC until 1532 at the Council of Trent. IOW, all before that date held them to be spurious books, not acceptable to be inspired books.

Why all of a sudden should any Christian accept them to be inspired books now?

 

[Darron Steele]

Now you're switching to criticism of the text itself. I guess similar 'fairy tale' points can be made about Jonah: man living for three days in the belly of a great fish etc. Does that mean that Jonah is discredited too?

Jonah is not a fairy tale.

The Bible teaches that Jonah lived three days in the belly of a giant sea creature. Therefore, it happened.

There is a key difference between Jonah and Tobit. Jonah has never been doubted by Bible-believing Jews and Bible-believers in the church. Tobit, on the other hand, was not accepted by the Jews and further has never been accepted by the entire church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You’re arguing this backwards ok lets look at your points:

Why all of a sudden should any Christian accept them to be inspired books now?

They are not just accepting them now. You quote Jerome here:

What the Saviour declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples...But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant...The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Saviour, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes...We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater..."(The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University, 1965), Volume 53, Saint Jerome, Against Rufinus, Book II.27, 33, pp. 151, 158-160).

However, lets look at his progression:

The following quote is taken from a letter written by Saint Jerome in A.D. 404.
Does not the Scripture say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power'?
- Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2, VI:207)
Here Saint Jerome quotes Sirach 13:2 ('Burden not thyself above thy power') as "Scripture".

and again

What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).

So it seems that he had a changed view with regards to canon. So I'm just not a "foolish Sychophant" :tear: Obviously Demaus had questions about not including the DC into canon and called Jerome up on it so not its not just now.

You also say:

The Jews never included the Apocrypha in their writings or their canon.
The Apostles rejected the Apocrypha.
The early believers rejected the Apocrypha.
All Protestants rejected the Apocrypha.The Apocrypha was never formally accepted by the RCC until 1532 at the Council of Trent. IOW, all before that date held them to be spurious books, not acceptable to be inspired books.

Each of the bold has been shown not to be true. Look at the qumran find. Jews using the DC.
You have no evidence what so ever (prove it to me) that the Apostles rejected the "hidden books" (which weren't) or Apocrypha or the DC
The early believers used the DC as evidence has shown by their writing.
All protestants do not reject the DC look at the Anglicans.
And never formally accepted by RCC? Well, you state that you have been teaching this stuff for years. Well, you should know that christians have commonly held believes and only when they come in question they are defined. This is proved throughout history. This is why they had Eccuminical Councils.

This is only one of many sources that could be cited. Jerome never believed in the Apocryphal Books. They did end up in the Latin Vulgate because he was forced to do so under pressure by ecclesiastical authorities

The only source you have quoted here is Jerome and we see from my quotes he changed his opinon to include the DC.

. I said nothing about when Chronicles was written

You missed the point. Chronicles was written after the events it relates had already occured and most likely in Babylon. So the point is that why stop with the DC? We can say that Chronicles is a forgery of Kings and an inperfect translation trying to emphasis Judea getting away from God's dealing with the Northern Kingdom. We should take that one out too. Why not take out all books Jesus does not directly refer to? But no christian does that.

There is absolutely no usage of any DC book in the NT--none.

I have already shown their use in the NT and the ECF.

Conventions used after the Resurrection were RCC in nature. My theology is not dependent on the RCC. Is yours?

When I ask questions based on findings I make which may have a different conclusion of yours then jump right in there and insinuate that I'm Catholic? In fact, You are begining to sound Catholic to me. "find the heretic and burn him because he doesn't agree with me!!! Wahahahahaha!" I'm kidding of course but I'm trying to find the truth by evidence not by a "reputable college text book". Because, of course, it depends on what you call reputable. And if reputable means has to agree with my theology no matter the facts then you are similar to the Catholics who imprissoned Galileo for pointing out the earth was not the center of the universe.

In any case the conventions were not entirely RCC. There were Jews of course. BTW the Orthodox would not claim it was all RCC either.

 

[DHK]

So it seems that he had a changed view with regards to canon. So I'm just not a "foolish Sychophant" :tear: Obviously Demaus had questions about not including the DC into canon and called Jerome up on it so not its not just now.

Jerome never changed his mind. He never, never considered these books as inspired. Just because he quoted from them does not mean he considered them inspired. You need to do more study on Jerome, and his Latin Vulgate.

Each of the bold has been shown not to be true. Look at the qumran find. Jews using the DC.

The DC eventually found its way into later editions of the LXX. It was possible that some of the Hellenistic Jews used them. That was the exception not the norm. It was never used in their synagogues, or in the Temple (when they had one). Only the Hebrew Scriptures were used (as was used by Christ). The Hebrew Scriptures never included the apocrypha. I have a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no apocrypha.

You have no evidence what so ever (prove it to me) that the Apostles rejected the "hidden books" (which weren't) or Apocrypha or the DC

The Bible is my evidence. These books are not included in the Bible, or the canon of Scripture that makes up the Bible. If they were used by the Apostles there would be evidence, but there isn't. The onus is not on me to prove that there is no evidence that they didn't use it. You come close to using an illogical form of debate called a universal negative--Prove to me that there is no God. How can I prove that the Apostles didn't use something that they never considered inspired nor Scripture. That responsibility is on you.

The early believers used the DC as evidence has shown by their writing.
All protestants do not reject the DC look at the Anglicans.

There is little difference between the Anglicans and Catholics. In the beginning it started out because Henry VIII wanted a divorce--the only difference--thus he didn't recognize the Pope's stand on it. Everything else remained the same.

And never formally accepted by RCC? Well, you state that you have been teaching this stuff for years. Well, you should know that christians have commonly held believes and only when they come in question they are defined.

Protestants throughout history have never accepted the Apocrypha. Check your history.

This is proved throughout history. This is why they had Eccuminical Councils.

Those ecumenical councils that you refer to, were hardly ecumenical in the true sense of the word, if they are the councils that I think that you are referring to.

The only source you have quoted here is Jerome and we see from my quotes he changed his opinon to include the DC.

Jerome never changed his opinion. You only think he did. You need to study more.

You missed the point. Chronicles was written after the events it relates had already occured and most likely in Babylon. So the point is that why stop with the DC?

Because Chronicles was inspired and the DC were not. There is the obvious reason. The DC all contain obvious errors: historical errors, theological errors, heresy, errors that prop up RCC teaching, errors that support the occult, dating errors, obvious forgeries, etc. They are fakes, and no serious student of the Bible would ever accept them as inspired Scripture.

We can say that Chronicles is a forgery of Kings and an inperfect translation trying to emphasis Judea getting away from God's dealing with the Northern Kingdom.

No we cannot. We can say that both Kings and Chronicles are inspired Scripture, written by the holy prophets, inspired by the Holy Spirit, testified by Jesus Christ.

We should take that one out too. Why not take out all books Jesus does not directly refer to? But no christian does that.

What makes you think that Christ didn't refer to it.

I have already shown their use in the NT and the ECF.

I am not going to read this entire thread to find out where you supposedly have shown it. But I guarantee you that the DC is not used in the NT. That is your imagination. Just like the Muslims can show us where Muhammed is used in the NT. Am I to believe that also?
Because the ECF quote the DC writings does not make them inspired any more than God inspired Greek poets! :BangHead:

When I ask questions based on findings I make which may have a different conclusion of yours then jump right in there and insinuate that I'm Catholic?

I never said that. Why the false accusation?

In fact, You are begining to sound Catholic to me. "find the heretic and burn him because he doesn't agree with me!!! Wahahahahaha!" I'm kidding of course but I'm trying to find the truth by evidence not by a "reputable college text book". Because, of course, it depends on what you call reputable. And if reputable means has to agree with my theology no matter the facts then you are similar to the Catholics who imprissoned Galileo for pointing out the earth was not the center of the universe.

A little extreme aren't you? I was serious. Find some reputable OT introduction college textbooks and do your own research. By that I don't mean Catholic or liberal (God-denying) books. Get a hold of some good books.

In any case the conventions were not entirely RCC. There were Jews of course. BTW the Orthodox would not claim it was all RCC either.

Why do you migrate toward Catholic sources.
Anglican, Orthodox, RCC, all come from the same roots.
The Jews also do not believe the NT to be accurate.
Why not get your information from those that believe the Bible to be true in every way.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Jerome never changed his mind. He never, never considered these books as inspired. Just because he quoted from them does not mean he considered them inspired. You need to do more study on Jerome, and his Latin Vulgate.

What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).

Interestingly, You left that part of the quote out of your quote. Gives a different light on it doesn’t it? The truth about Jerome regarding this issue is the following quote:

[He never either categorically acknowledged or rejected the deuterocanonical books as part of the Canon of Scripture, and he repeatedly made use of them.

I have a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no apocrypha.

Yes that is probably true. Do you also have the Midrash? The Talmud? I’m certain they don’t have the 27 books of the NT either. When was canon set for the OT you haven’t given any hard evidence you say its generally accepted but that isn’t the case. What convention or statement do we have before Jesus time that the OT was set? Generally accepted by protestants and not all of those. Sure they read Hebrew text. They also used Aramaic and Syriac and Greek. I’m certain they used Hebrew in the Synagogues in Judea however I’m not certain that was the case through out the Greek Speaking Synagogues outside of the area.

The Bible is my evidence. These books are not included in the Bible, or the canon of Scripture that makes up the Bible. If they were used by the Apostles there would be evidence, but there isn't.

Well, I beg to differ and here is why:

Hebrews 11:35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. 2 Mac 7: Filled with a noble spirit that stirred her womanly heart with manly courage, she exhorted each of them in the language of their forefathers with these words:
22
"I do not know how you came into existence in my womb; it was not I who gave you the breath of life, nor was it I who set in order the elements of which each of you is composed.
23
Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shapes each man's beginning, as he brings about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life, because you now disregard yourselves for the sake of his law." Martyrdom of Mother and Sons
24
Antiochus, suspecting insult in her words, thought he was being ridiculed

And Pseudographical works makes me wonder about closed bible by 450 BC

And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. (and later) But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

onus is not on me to prove that there is no evidence that they didn't use it. You come close to using an illogical form of debate called a universal negative
Actually the amount of use of the DC in the early church actually gives the onus to you. Even by Jerome

The early believers used the DC as evidence has shown by their writing.
All protestants do not reject the DC look at the Anglicans.

There is little difference between the Anglicans and Catholics. In the beginning it started out because Henry VIII wanted a divorce--the only difference--thus he didn't recognize the Pope's stand on it. Everything else remained the same

The point I was making was in response to your statement

Protestants throughout history have never accepted the Apocrypha. Check your history.

Which was not true. BTW It may be me but protestants jump on the history scene 500 years ago. So the Through out history argument is only limited to the past 500 years. Orthodox that split from the RCC or the other way around agree with the use of the DC as inspired.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Those ecumenical councils that you refer to, were hardly ecumenical in the true sense of the word, if they are the councils that I think that you are referring to.

Here you have a good point. However, you accept the results of at least three of those councils The Trinity primarily discussed at Nicea and further defined at Constantinople. You probably agree with the finding at the council at Ephasus as to the two natures (totally divine and totally human operating together) of Christ but still a distinct person in the trinity though you also probably disagree with the finding of Theotokos at the same council. Though I wonder why you believe anything at any of these three councils. Since these beliefs came out of a system beyond just scripture though you can say scripture alludes to them but it doesn’t specify it.

Because Chronicles was inspired and the DC were not. There is the obvious reason. The DC all contain obvious errors: historical errors, theological errors, heresy, errors that prop up RCC teaching, errors that support the occult, dating errors, obvious forgeries, etc. They are fakes, and no serious student of the Bible would ever accept them as inspired Scripture.

Just Chronicles inspired and the DC were not. Ok just take your word for it? Come on. I can point to divergences from 1 and 2 kings with 1 and 2 Chronicles. How inspired is that. Yes there were transcription errors.

No we cannot. We can say that both Kings and Chronicles are inspired Scripture, written by the holy prophets, inspired by the Holy Spirit, testified by Jesus Christ.

Which Holy Prophets? I’m curious. Can you name them? Can you show me where Jesus quotes from Chronicles? I really don't know. I haven't searched it out yet but I'll get the time. Actually its easier if you do the leg work.

What makes you think that Christ didn't refer to it

It? Really? I said Jesus did not directly refer or quote from all the text of the OT. Should we exclude those books Jesus didn’t quote from?

Anglican, Orthodox, RCC, all come from the same roots.
The Jews also do not believe the NT to be accurate.
Why not get your information from those that believe the Bible to be true in every way

So you’re saying they don’t believe the bible is true in every way? I’m trying to look faithfully at history and follow the evidence. The evidence may not always agree with my or your theology.

 

[DHK]

Interestingly, You left that part of the quote out of your quote. Gives a different light on it doesn’t it? The truth about Jerome regarding this issue is the following quote:

Your quote does not change anything. I believe that you are misreading it. Here is another that makes it more clear:

You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter...The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ... The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle - that to the Hebrews - is not generally counted in with the others) ... The Acts of the Apostles ... The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles ... The apocalypse of John ...I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

I thought that I had provided enough evidence already. Here is more. Believe me. Jerome had no use for the Apocryphal books. He did not believe that they were inspired Scripture.

Yes that is probably true. Do you also have the Midrash? The Talmud? I’m certain they don’t have the 27 books of the NT either.

A non sequitor.
I have a copy of the Bhagavad Gitahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita also; neither do they have the 27 books of the NT, so what is your point? The Islamic Hadiths don't have them either. Neither are they found in the works of Shakespeare. Anywhere else you want to look?
The point is, that the Apocrypha are supposedly OT books, but they are not found in the Hebrew Canon of Scripture because they were never accepted by the Hebrews, whose canon (the Masoretic Text) we still use today.

When was canon set for the OT you haven’t given any hard evidence you say its generally accepted but that isn’t the case. What convention or statement do we have before Jesus time that the OT was set? Generally accepted by protestants and not all of those. Sure they read Hebrew text. They also used Aramaic and Syriac and Greek. I’m certain they used Hebrew in the Synagogues in Judea however I’m not certain that was the case through out the Greek Speaking Synagogues outside of the area.

The synagogues came into existence during the intertestamental period when Judah went into exile, and the Temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. When the Temple was destroyed and the nation was dispersed, they could no longer sacrifice to Jehovah, as the Law requires that all sacrifices and feasts be held at the Temple in Jerusalem. To compensate the Jews built synagogues wherever they went, wherever they lived in communities. These functioned more like schools, but were also places of worship. Their primary purpose was to teach the customs, culture, heritage, language, history of their nation to their children. In this way every Jewish child would always know Hebrew, be well acquainted with their Scriptures, especially the Torah (the books of Moses), as well as the Talmudic literature. They were well-schooled and well educated. The synagogues were a good innovation by the Jews. It helped them to maintain their heritage in a time of adversity. Paul went on three different missionary journeys throughout Asian and Europe. He knew that he would be able to read the Hebrew Scriptures wherever there was a synagogue. Remember there were no printing presses then, and the Hebrew Scriptures were the ones that were commonly copied by scribes, not the Greek LXX.

Evidence for when the canon was set is fairly easy to find if you look for it:

CRITERIA FOR CANONICITY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

* Every extant book of an acknowledged messenger of God, who was commissioned by God to make His will known, was immediately accepted as the Word of God.

* The internal evidence of the books themselves bore witness to the genuineness of the books. See Deut. 31:24-26; Josh. 1:8; Judges 3:4; Neh. 8:1-8; Dan. 9:2,5,6; Zech. 7:12; Jer. 36.

* The law of cause and effect. The books are not called canonical because Israel recognized them as such, but because all evidence showed them to be from God. II Kings 22: 23:1,2.

The completion of the canon of the Old Testament took place after the Babylonian captivity. The writings were collected after the people moved back into the land under Ezra and Nehemiah, because the Scriptures were needed. By 425 B.C., all the books of the Old Testament were written and collected.

http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/topics/canon.html

As I have repeatedly said before, almost any good college textbook on OT Introduction will give you the same basic facts.

Well, I beg to differ and here is why:

Your quote meant nothing to me. It didn't prove anything.

And Pseudographical works makes me wonder about closed bible by 450 BC

"Pseudo" means false. They are called false for a reason.

"onus is not on me to prove that there is no evidence that they didn't use it. You come close to using an illogical form of debate called a universal negative"

Actually the amount of use of the DC in the early church actually gives the onus to you. Even by Jerome

You don't get it do you.
If you affirm something to be so, then you are the one that must provide the evidence.
For example, I was out witnessing to some people the other day.
I encountered one person who declared that no such person as Jesus Christ ever existed. My response was that Christ did exist, and here is the evidence...
I am not going to require him to foolishly provide evidence for something that he doesn't believe; but rather the onus is on me to provide evidence for something I believe to be true.
Which statement are you able to prove or disprove:
1. Dinasaurs do exist.
2. There is no such thing as a dinasaur.
--Statement #2 is a universal negative and impossible to prove. It is a logical fallacy.
I do not believe the Apostles ever quoted the DC writings. IF you do believe that they did, you must be able to provide the evidence and back up what you say.

Which was not true. BTW It may be me but protestants jump on the history scene 500 years ago. So the Through out history argument is only limited to the past 500 years. Orthodox that split from the RCC or the other way around agree with the use of the DC as inspired.

You don't seem to have much knowledge of church history.
Your eyes have been colored by the writings of Catholic historians.
The RCC is a world religion. It is not Christian, never was, and never will be. It falls outside the realm of true Christianity. It is a religion of works and preaches not the gospel. Its beginnings are to be found in the early part of the fourth century at the time of Constantine.
Ever since that time true believers have protested against the ungodly heresies of the Catholic Church. That has been going on for at least 1700 years now, not just 500. In fact all true believers from the time of Christ onward have always fought for the purity of the faith.
Jude admonished us to "contend for the faith."
Christ commanded us to "beware of false teachers."
Paul, Peter, and John gave the same command.
We are to "protest" against their heresies, and proclaim the truth of the Word of God at the same time.