Why Does the RCC have extra Books In their canon?

[DHK]

Same comment to you as to DaChaser; I'd rather rely on the early Christians to tell me what the Canon is than a bunch of anti-Christian Jews.

From what you say, my conclusion would be that you consider Jesus one of those "anti-Christian" Jews. He also said "Salvation is of the Jews." He used the same OT Scriptures that the Jews used at that time, the book that the Jews themselves considered complete, inspired and their final authority. It was their canon of Scripture. Jesus used it, and never disputed it as Scripture. It is odd that you would stand against Christ and infer that He was one of a bunch of "anti-Christian Jews."

 

[DHK]

Also it is clear that the New Testiment writers used LXX translation (except for matthew) when quoting OT texts. Also the writer of Hebrews refers to 2 Macc. 7 in his "hall of faith" discourse.

This is not obvious. It is bogus. The two passages are hardly even similar. They are historical in content and that is as far as one can take it. There is absolutely no proof that one came from the other. You have no solid proof.

 

[DHK]

So why did Martin Luther et al. kick out the Deuterocanonicals? Books like 2 Maccabees contain scriptural evidence for hated RC doctrines (in 2 Macc: prayers for the dead to free them from sin, merits of the martyrs, intercession of the saints). That's rather annoying if you are also propagating sola scriptura as a way of getting rid of the RC magisterium. So you construct some odd reason why against all history these books should be ignored (by adopting the Masoretic canon), and if that throws out old favorites like Ecclesiasticus, well, too bad.

Why blame Luther. Hundreds of years before that Jerome vehemently opposed putting the same books into the Latin Vulgate. He stood against them as being part of the inspired Scripture.

 

[DaChaser1]

There are several area's problematic in this article by Dr. Phil Stinger.

The first and most obvious is that he admits that the view of NT writers used the LXX in quoting scriptures is conventional wisdom. In other words the majority of academics have concluded that yes NT writers used the LXX for quotations. Which means a small minority of people decent from this view.

His first oposition to this view is strangely Which is ridiculous. Because Jesus rarely says where is is quoting from like in Luke 4:1-4 when he shows down the devil Most of Jesus quotes are without preamble of book and verse. Next when you do read Jesus quote such as in Mark 7:6-8 Jesus recites out of Isaiah this passage (Isaiah 29:13) when compared between the Massoritic text and the LXX it turns out this passage as read in Luke is more in agreement with the LXX than the Massoretic text.

His next problematic statement is . This is also not true since the dead sea scrolls find. We have found the hebrew text for books of Judith and Tobit and others as well. Therefore it can be determined that the LXX translations of these books came from a Hebrew sourse. Note the Hebrew OT was not even finalized until Jamnia after Christianity had begun. And certain anti-christian verses were purposefuly made to lessen the messianic prophesies such as a Virgin will conceive to young woman. This was to stem the flow of Jews becoming Christian in the early days and note the Massorite texts were not completed until 500 years after Jesus Christ thus the LXX were translated from earlier texts.

Next problem with this article is The author acts as if there is only one version of the LXX when there are several recensions. Some of the recenscions come after Jesus Christ so the very loose translation" can be attributed to a latter recension. Also note that there are several instances where the Hebrew more closely relates to the LXX though overall the MT are in agreement with the older text indicating there were certain things that were left out in the MT maintained in the LXX because of its earlier version. Also note, the MT are in Hebrew and LXX is in greek; where translation becomes an understandable issue unlike the MT which are just hebrew copies that do not deal with translation. It is significant that there are agreements with the LXX in the qumran find.

There are more issues I have with this article but I must make several post to list them all

Another good response, see especially section which books in canon?
christianknight.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/apologetics-lesson-4-do...

 

[The Biblicist]

There is no doubt that the meaning of episkopos by the time of the Pastorals had changed to regional superintendency.

There is no chance of such a change. Most scholars agree that 1 Timothy was written after Paul was released from his two year imprisonment recorded in Acts 28 and before 2 Timothy was written in his second imprisonment. Most date 1 Timothy in 63-64 A.D. Philippians was written while in the first imprisonment about 61 and he still addresses the Philippian leaders as "bishops and deacons."

There is no possible way that in one or two years such a transition could have been made or was made.

In addition Titus was written within the same time frame between the first and second imprisonment in Rome and "elders" are still being ordained in every city in Crete (Tit. 1:5).

To argue such an idea is simply to ignore the contrary evidence and presume on the basis of pure silence.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well, looks like I may not be able to post here as often. I'm going to be helping with my mother; I'll take her for a biopsy next Tuesday.

I request everyone's prayers.

Take care, everyone, and if your beliefs give you comfort and do not lead to apostasy, I wish you peace. I wish we could stay away from condemnation of each other, even though we may have strong disagreements. We should try to treat each other with love and compassion as we journey through this veil of tears. Life is brief, and there is enough strife and suffering without us inflicting same on each other.

God bless!

 

[Walter]

Well, looks like I may not be able to post here as often. I'm going to be helping with my mother; I'll take her for a biopsy next Tuesday.

I request everyone's prayers.

Take care, everyone, and if your beliefs give you comfort and do not lead to apostasy, I wish you peace. I wish we could stay away from condemnation of each other, even though we may have strong disagreements. We should try to treat each other with love and compassion as we journey through this veil of tears. Life is brief, and there is enough strife and suffering without us inflicting same on each other.

God bless!

Prayers ascending for your mother. Thanks for such a thoughtful and sincere post! God bless you too!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Prayers ascending for your mother. Thanks for such a thoughtful and sincere post! God bless you too!

Thanks, friend. I greatly appreciate your prayers.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Well, looks like I may not be able to post here as often. I'm going to be helping with my mother; I'll take her for a biopsy next Tuesday.

I request everyone's prayers.

Take care, everyone, and if your beliefs give you comfort and do not lead to apostasy, I wish you peace. I wish we could stay away from condemnation of each other, even though we may have strong disagreements. We should try to treat each other with love and compassion as we journey through this veil of tears. Life is brief, and there is enough strife and suffering without us inflicting same on each other.

God bless!

I will pray for you and your mother. May God continue to bless you.

WM

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I will pray for you and your mother. May God continue to bless you.

WM

Thank you very much. And may God bless you, too.

I need all the prayers I can get, in every area. I am still a long way from entire sanctification.

May God bless, strengthen, and encourage us all as we go through the inevitable ordeals and trials of this life.

 

[preachinjesus]

Because they wanted to use smart bombs.

One of the funniest things I've read on here lately. Kudos!:thumbs:

 

[preachinjesus]

think the point is that canon of the OT blooks was fixed by the Jews before time of Christ, same books we have in protestant bibles!

Where do you come up with these conclusions? Just curious. Because this isn't true. The OT was in flux since Jamnia (or Yavneh) hadn't happened yet (of course Jamnia isn't necessarily authoritative either.) Present scholarship doubts the Israelites had a final canon in place before AD 70.

NT books agreed uon as inspired same as our bible, not RCC ones!

Please check your grammatically challenged posts before putting them up. This is confusing. I think you're saying that the NT canon (as we have it) is the inspired canon and not the Apocryphal texts. This is accurate. However, the Apocrypha was added sometime after the official acceptation of the canon in AD 397 at the Synod of Carthage. While the Catholic Apocrypha was made official at the Council Trent in 1546.

 

[Matt Black]

Well, looks like I may not be able to post here as often. I'm going to be helping with my mother; I'll take her for a biopsy next Tuesday.

I request everyone's prayers.

Take care, everyone, and if your beliefs give you comfort and do not lead to apostasy, I wish you peace. I wish we could stay away from condemnation of each other, even though we may have strong disagreements. We should try to treat each other with love and compassion as we journey through this veil of tears. Life is brief, and there is enough strife and suffering without us inflicting same on each other.

God bless!

Wise words:thumbsup: Prayers being said here for you and your mother; she is blessed to have such a son.

 

[Matt Black]

There is no chance of such a change. Most scholars agree that 1 Timothy was written after Paul was released from his two year imprisonment recorded in Acts 28 and before 2 Timothy was written in his second imprisonment. Most date 1 Timothy in 63-64 A.D. Philippians was written while in the first imprisonment about 61 and he still addresses the Philippian leaders as "bishops and deacons."

There is no possible way that in one or two years such a transition could have been made or was made.

In addition Titus was written within the same time frame between the first and second imprisonment in Rome and "elders" are still being ordained in every city in Crete (Tit. 1:5).

To argue such an idea is simply to ignore the contrary evidence and presume on the basis of pure silence.

If this is so, then why is Titus responsible for 'appointing elders in every city' (kai katasteses kata polin presbyterous hos ego soi dietaxamen) - Titus 1:5b. Clearly Titus' role was regional (the whole island of Crete) rather than congregational. No silence here!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm still (after 55 years) trying to figure out their errors on baptism, Annunciation, Mortal & Venial sins, Transubstantiation, Their Claims to being the one true church, The pope, the red caps, Justification by Works, Limbo & Purgatory, the Mass and I can endlessly go on..... now you want to know about books of the bible? (rolls eyes)

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Wise words:thumbsup: Prayers being said here for you and your mother; she is blessed to have such a son.

Thanks, Matt!

 

[DHK]

Be that as it may, whatever Jamnia decided can in no way be considered binding on Christians. Jesus had passed His authority to the apostles, not to the Jewish priests and scribes. And it seems quite likely that however the Masoretic canon actually was arrived at, its final form may well have been influenced by the Jewish desire to combat that new sect Christianity. Why would Christians let their canon be dictated by those who oppose them?

So why did Martin Luther et al. kick out the Deuterocanonicals? Books like 2 Maccabees contain scriptural evidence for hated RC doctrines (in 2 Macc: prayers for the dead to free them from sin, merits of the martyrs, intercession of the saints). That's rather annoying if you are also propagating sola scriptura as a way of getting rid of the RC magisterium. So you construct some odd reason why against all history these books should be ignored (by adopting the Masoretic canon), and if that throws out old favorites like Ecclesiasticus, well, too bad.

Again, Martin Luther's influence is a moot point. Jerome discarded the Apocrypha long before that, greatly protesting against it in his time.

As far as Jamnia is concerned, far too much emphasis is put on it then should be.

A basic feature of most liberal theories of the Old Testament canon is an alleged council held at Jamnia about AD 90 which is supposed to have canonized or at least finalized the Writings or Hagiographa, the third division of the Hebrew Old Testament. In this paper--a reprint of the article appearing in the Westminster Theological Journal 38 (Spring, 1976)--the Talmudic evidence for such a council is surveyed. It is concluded that there is no real evidence for such a council nor for any binding canonical decisions at that time. Instead there appears to have existed a consensus on the content of the Old Testament in the first century AD which was already ancient at that time..

[SIZE=+1]The Council of Jamnia and the Old Testament Canon[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]1[/SIZE]
Among those who believe the Old Testament to be a revelation from the Creator, it has traditionally been maintained that the books composing this collection were in themselves sacred writings from the moment of their completion, that they were quickly recognized as such, and that the latest of these were written several centuries before the beginning of our era. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus appears to be the earliest extant witness to this view. Answering the charges of an anti-semite Apion at the end of the first century of our era, he says:

We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. This period falls only a little short of three thousand years. From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life. From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.2​

On the basis of later Christian testimony, the twenty-two books mentioned here are usually thought to be the same as our thirty-nine,3 each double book (e.g., 1 and 2 Kings) being counted as one, the twelve Minor Prophets being considered a unit, and Judges-Ruth, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Jeremiah-Lamentations each being taken as one book. This agrees with the impression conveyed by the Gospel accounts, where Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Palestinian Jewish community in general seem to understand by the term “Scripture” some definite body of sacred writings.

http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR013/13jamnia.html

This is a very good article and the entire article has a lot of good information in it. The OT Canon was complete long before Christ was born. It had no Apocrypha in it. They are not inspired books, and never were.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

If this is so, then why is Titus responsible for 'appointing elders in every city' (kai katasteses kata polin presbyterous hos ego soi dietaxamen) - Titus 1:5b. Clearly Titus' role was regional (the whole island of Crete) rather than congregational. No silence here!

Matt, since no one has replied to this yet, I wanted to ask you a question: Since you believe that this and other scripture points to a "bishop" as being distinguished from a presbyter/elder in some instances, why do you further distinguish that this "bishop" was a third order of ministry, as taught by Catholics and Anglicans, rather than just an "office", as taught by Wesley/Methodism?

I'd be interested in getting your take on this.

 

[Matt Black]

Hi Michael

For Anglicans, it is tied up with the concept of Apostolic Succession - that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, continued the pattern of Apostolic teaching after the last of the Apostles had departed. Therefore a bishop is much more than a mere 'office' but there is a charism of leadership attached to his ministry.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Hi Michael

For Anglicans, it is tied up with the concept of Apostolic Succession - that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, continued the pattern of Apostolic teaching after the last of the Apostles had departed. Therefore a bishop is much more than a mere 'office' but there is a charism of leadership attached to his ministry.

Yes, I knew that it was tied to apostolic succession, but I wondered if there was any other reason to see it as a third order of ministry. But I appreciate your answering my post.