Jump to content
IGNORED

The Truth About the Christian Canon


SavedOnebyGrace

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  17
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  388
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   207
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/30/2016
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  08/03/2003

On 12/7/2016 at 11:35 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

The Apocrypha and Pseudo Apocrypha from a Jewish perspective is available at the below hyperlinked website. 

Source: Apocrypha and Pseudo Apocrypha

The website itself appears to be a great website for someone learning about Jewish history and the Holocaust.  For example, I didn't know that the Japanese and Italians refused to take part in Hitler's final solution (to wipe out all Jews). 

Related to this subject, Alfred Hitchcock's Documentary on the Holocaust is a must see.  "The British Army Film Unit cameramen who shot the liberation of Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in 1945 used to joke about the reaction of Alfred Hitchcock to the horrific footage they filmed.  When Hitchcock first saw the footage, the legendary British director was reportedly so traumatised that he stayed away from Pinewood Studios for a week.  Hitchcock may have been the king of horror movies but he was utterly appalled by "the real thing"."

 

Thank you for this link. I do enjoy reading other early books that aren't in the Bible. My dad had a book that I still read sometimes called The NAG Hammadi Scriptures. Some of it is really quite silly but some of it is very edifying. I just find it interesting to read other books that were written in the same era. Dad used to have The Lost Books of The Bible but I don't know where it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  625
  • Content Per Day:  0.23
  • Reputation:   503
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/28/2016
  • Status:  Offline

22 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

Again yet another one who gives glory to fallible sinful men over God. GOD ALONE gave us the canon, don't know how many times I can repeat that, using men to do His will. This was not the will of men but God alone.

And if you tried to read real history instead of the rewritten Catholic nonsense (1984 sound familiar to you?) You would understand why those books that were deleted were left out.

The portion of "Daniel" and "Esther" that got deleted couldn't be proven to be part of the original texts!!

You said

****Had it not been for the fact that some Protestant Fathers fought against this - YOUR Bible woul;d have been a LOT smaller.****

WRONG. Had it not been for GOD knocking some sense into these men, then our bible would have been smaller.

 

NONSENSE.

Do you think that God started dropping Bible on people's heads during the 16th century??
Is that what you really believe??

I have asked the following question on THREE threads now and NOBODY has been able to answer it.  As a matter of fact - on one of the threads, the original poster asked the Moderators to close the thread because they didn't want to deal with the question that I kept asking.
Here goes:
Where did you Protestants get your canon of Scripture?

When you can answer this question honestly - we can have a productive dialog. 
Until then - you simply don't know what you're talking about . . .
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  56
  • Topic Count:  1,664
  • Topics Per Day:  0.20
  • Content Count:  19,763
  • Content Per Day:  2.39
  • Reputation:   12,160
  • Days Won:  28
  • Joined:  08/22/2001
  • Status:  Offline

47 minutes ago, RealPresence said:

NONSENSE.

Do you think that God started dropping Bible on people's heads during the 16th century??
Is that what you really believe??

I have asked the following question on THREE threads now and NOBODY has been able to answer it.  As a matter of fact - on one of the threads, the original poster asked the Moderators to close the thread because they didn't want to deal with the question that I kept asking.
Here goes:
Where did you Protestants get your canon of Scripture?

When you can answer this question honestly - we can have a productive dialog. 
Until then - you simply don't know what you're talking about . . .
 

 
 

Hello RP,

I will give you my answer but I'm not up for an argument , you either agree or disagree.

I'm not going to discuss or argue about it, we all should be able to talk and discuss the Bible without getting upset or personal.

We do need to respect other people's opinions ,  we don't want to compromise what we believe, we're living in the last days,the enemy is trying to steal as many as he can can from believing the truth ~~

Quote

 

Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible

by Ryan Turner
10/13/2009

Catholics and Protestants disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the Old Testament Scriptures.  The dispute between them is over seven books, part of what is known as the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther.1  However, there are a number of reasons why the Old Testament Apocrypha should not be part of the Canon or standard writings of Scripture.

Rejection by Jesus and the Apostles

1.  There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles.  While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say."  There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics.  In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God.

2.  Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”

Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles.  In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles.  They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently.  For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book.  This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today.  By Jesus' referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today.  Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Rejection by the Jewish Community

3.  The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation.  Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2

4.  The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books.  This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.

5.  Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.  Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture.  Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.

Rejection by many in the Catholic Church

6.  The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha.  The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent.  This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

7.  Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes.  For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it.  In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.  Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

8.  The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority.  The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.

False Teachings

9.  The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha).  (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.)

The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7).

Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11; 12:9).

Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

Not Prophetic

10.  The Apocryphal books do not share many of the characteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

 

https://carm.org/reasons-why-apocrypha-does-not-belong-bible


 

2

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  96
  • Topic Count:  304
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  18,094
  • Content Per Day:  4.65
  • Reputation:   27,773
  • Days Won:  327
  • Joined:  08/03/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Seems the question has been answered on several occasions,over & over & over......

Quote

There has been much discussion about the differences between the Christian Canon of Scripture, and the Roman Catholic Canon of Scripture.  The article hyperlinked should clear some of the confusion.

Source: The Canon of Scripture and How Did We Get It

The Roman Catholic Canon contains extra books.  The ten "books interpreted in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) were rejected because of the strict guidelines for canon: books must have conformed to the Torah, and had to have been written in Palestine, in Hebrew, and not after the time of Ezra (about 400 BC). Although the Catholic Bible today includes the Apocrypha, the vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered them to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947, have a few minor differences, but they are remarkably similar to the accepted Hebrew Scriptures we have today."

So,.considering the OP......that is correct

Among confessions of faith drawn up by Protestants, several identify by name the 27-books of the New Testament canon, including the French Confession of Faith (1559), the Belgic Confession (1561), and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) during the English Civil War. The Thirty-Nine Articles, issued by the Church of England in 1563, names the books of the Old Testament, but not the New Testament. None of the Confessional statements issued by any Lutheran church includes an explicit list of canonical books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

It would seem there are few discrepancies,the problem is not even so much with the Word of God (what is considered canon & what is not) ,.,,,.,,it is the Missiles,the catechisms,the traditions & customs that are added that present a problem,a very big problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  625
  • Content Per Day:  0.23
  • Reputation:   503
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/28/2016
  • Status:  Offline

42 minutes ago, angels4u said:

Hello RP,

I will give you my answer but I'm not up for an argument , you either agree or disagree.

I'm not going to discuss or argue about it, we all should be able to talk and discuss the Bible without getting upset or personal.

We do need to respect other people's opinions ,  we don't want to compromise what we believe, we're living in the last days,the enemy is trying to steal as many as he can can from believing the truth ~~

Thank you for responding.  However, this does not tell us where you got your Canon of Scripture.
It is also extremely inaccurate.  Coming from Matt Slick and CARM.org, I'm not surprised.

First of all - the Jewish canon of Scripture during the life of Jesus was an open Canon.  They didn't close the canon until long after He ascended into Heaven and after the destruction of the Temple because of the influence it was having on Hellenized Jews - that isGreek-influenced Jews.  they blamed these books for causing many to convert to Christianity.  

As a matter of fact, in the NT, we see over 150 direct references and allusions to the Deuterocanonical Books that were thrown outby this non-authoritative POST-Christ, POST-Temple rabbinical school.

As to the Catholic Church having "not always" accepted these Books until the Council of Trent - that is a 100% manufacturedLIE.

During a period of 37 years at the turn of the 5th century, the Canon of Scripture was formally declared and confirmed FIVE times. It is the same canon of Scripture that was around during the Reformation and that is STILL in use today by the Catholic Church. 

-  The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified. 

-  It was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo eleven years later (393).  

-  At the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed.  The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon".
  There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document. 

-  7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.  

-  14 years later, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

At the Council of Trent in the 16th century - the Canon was formally CLOSED.
The Deuterocanonical books had ALWAYS been part of the Christian Canon.

It was during the Reformation and subsequent periods that Protestant men had problems with the canon and decided that some of the books were uninspired.  As I stated earlier, Luther wanted to remove several books including Hebrews, James, Jude andRevelation. Calvin and Zwingli did not believe Revelation to be inspired and wanted to remove it as well.  Had it not been for the pleading of their contemporaries - YOUR Bible would be a lot smaller.

ALL of what I just stated can be proven by history.
Matt Slick's version cannot.

Now - I will ask again:

WHERE did the Protestant Canon of Scripture come from - if NOT from the Canon declared by the Catholic church in the 4th century?



PS - I fully expect this thread to be closed like the last one was - or somebody to report me to the Mods and have me banned from the thread.

 

Edited by RealPresence
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  625
  • Content Per Day:  0.23
  • Reputation:   503
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/28/2016
  • Status:  Offline

38 minutes ago, kwikphilly said:

Seems the question has been answered on several occasions,over & over & over......

So,.considering the OP......that is correct

Among confessions of faith drawn up by Protestants, several identify by name the 27-books of the New Testament canon, including the French Confession of Faith (1559), the Belgic Confession (1561), and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) during the English Civil War. The Thirty-Nine Articles, issued by the Church of England in 1563, names the books of the Old Testament, but not the New Testament. None of the Confessional statements issued by any Lutheran church includes an explicit list of canonical books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

It would seem there are few discrepancies,the problem is not even so much with the Word of God (what is considered canon & what is not) ,.,,,.,,it is the Missiles,the catechisms,the traditions & customs that are added that present a problem,a very big problem

No - this doesn't answer the question.
you're simply dancing around the issue again.

Tell me - in your own words and not by links - WHERE the Protestant Canon of Scripture came from if it was NOT from the Catholic Church.
WHEN was it declared?
WHO declared it?  
WHO had the Authority to do so?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  21
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,573
  • Content Per Day:  0.52
  • Reputation:   723
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/10/2015
  • Status:  Offline

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 1:41 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I am specifically talking about books already in existence, written about and quoted from in both the Old and New Testaments.  That's a fact you cannot deny unless you believe in a revisionist history.  Revelation was written about 94 AD.  The earlier date you quote is so people can support the false doctrines being preached regarding the End Times.

You are misunderstanding me yet again. I know Revelation was written about AD 90 or thereabouts. I am saying that one proof of the FACT that all the others were written before AD 70 was the fact that none of them speak of the destruction of Jerusalem. And its well known that all the other apostles, Luke and Mark too, all save John were dead by AD 69 at the latest.

YOU are talking about books that were either written CENTURIES or longer after the fact, like Enoch, or books that were available in their originals in OT times, like the Book of Jasher, but have long since decayed to nothing. So though they might have been reliable then (if unnecessary) you cant trust that anything we have NOW is reliable since those that have published such books are not relying on the originals or anything even close to them.

WHY would you be interested in such books anyway when we have all we need in the Holy Bible and don't need anything else.

How many times so I have to explain myself over a perfectly simple matter?

And I would like to know what you mean by End Time false doctrines. I don't believe in revisionist history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  96
  • Topic Count:  304
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  18,094
  • Content Per Day:  4.65
  • Reputation:   27,773
  • Days Won:  327
  • Joined:  08/03/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Quote

No - this doesn't answer the question.
you're simply dancing around the issue again.

Tell me - in your own words and not by links - WHERE the Protestant Canon of Scripture came from if it was NOT from the Catholic Church.
WHEN was it declared?
WHO declared it?  
WHO had the Authority to do so?

There you go again getting personal,I'm not "dancing" around anything,I simply am not motivated to entertain you or debate,i....I don't feel compelled to answer questions when anyone orders me to do so ,that is not the kind of conversation that is inviting to me......what,may I ask is your point? Actually,never mind,I really don't care to know what your point is.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  34
  • Topic Count:  1,989
  • Topics Per Day:  0.49
  • Content Count:  48,687
  • Content Per Day:  11.89
  • Reputation:   30,342
  • Days Won:  226
  • Joined:  01/11/2013
  • Status:  Offline

On 12/7/2016 at 7:55 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

There has been much discussion about the differences between the Christian Canon of Scripture, and the Roman Catholic Canon of Scripture.  The article hyperlinked should clear some of the confusion.

Source: The Canon of Scripture and How Did We Get It

The Roman Catholic Canon contains extra books.  The ten "books interpreted in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) were rejected because of the strict guidelines for canon: books must have conformed to the Torah, and had to have been written in Palestine, in Hebrew, and not after the time of Ezra (about 400 BC). Although the Catholic Bible today includes the Apocrypha, the vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered them to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947, have a few minor differences, but they are remarkably similar to the accepted Hebrew Scriptures we have today."
 

Looks like another Catholic bashing thread to me. Let's keep it peaceful it is Christmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  134
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,142
  • Content Per Day:  2.37
  • Reputation:   6,612
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  11/02/2014
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, missmuffet said:

Looks like another Catholic bashing thread to me. Let's keep it peaceful it is Christmas.

You are using "Catholic bashing" too freely, just like the MSM talking about "fake news". What was posted was perfectly accurate and in keeping with the conservative Jewish and Christian view regarding the Apocrypha.  

A Catholic who is searching for the truth should be delighted to hear that only canonical books belong in Scripture.  Even the Catholic scholar Jerome had the honesty to accept that, but was overruled when the Latin Vulgate was published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...