BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Something to think about. If you are going to try to prove a theological point you need to post Bible scripture. If you cannot back up your theology with scripture then you have a weak argument.

---

Something to think about. Scripture is not the only authoritative rule. That is the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

---

This is one of the central components of your incorrect thinking.

Scripture HAS to be the only basis for authoritative rule, because it is the only thing the church has in its possession that we know is the divine revelation of God.

I ask again - by what standard are we to measure the authority of a tradition, if not the Tanakh + the original apostolic tradition (i.e Scripture)?? How were the earliest Christians to know that Gnosticism was to be rightfully rejected?

---

But the Church predates the bible. Someone had to determine what was supposed to be in the bible. Some authority had to make that decision. That authority was the Catholic Church.

How do you know that Matthew is inspired? How do you know that 2 Peter is inspired?

---

The Church did not predate Jesus and his apostles. Matthew and Peter are original apostles. JESUS gave them original apostolic authority, not the Church. You're putting the cart in front of the horse.

Neither did the Church give the authority of divine inspiration to the Tanakh. JESUS himself authorized every "jot and tittle" of it.

So you're claim is just flat wrong.

---

I can go a step further and say that the Grace Age Church didn't even start until the Apostle Paul. Although popular opinion is that the Church began at Pentecost It could have officially began at the House of Cornelius. Pentecost was Jews, The House of Cornelius was Gentiles. Yes both Jew and Gentile are called to be saved by Grace, but it's overwhelmingly Gentiles who are saved under Grace.

Acts 15:14

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"To me, the Bible screams in favor of the Church's 2000 year interpretation of them, but you don't agree. No amount of explanation will change your mind" - I wouldn't call Scripture "screaming in favor" of the Catholic view if you're having to use subjective "context clues" in a verse to get to the interpretation you want. No, my mind usually doesn't change on such weak and biased Scriptural evidence.

---

I was referring to salvific baptism and the Eucharist here. No context clues needed when Jesus commanded these.

Last request on the previous, to discuss the miracles attributed to intercession or the fact that NO Council has ever rejected intercession.

---

It's telling that you want to move away from your original argument about praying to saints and angels. Again, I think it's because you know you don't have good scriptural evidence. Would I be right?

And I'll be glad to address the topic of miracles attributed to intercession and the Councils, but before we move on to another point we need to close out the first point - do you concede that Revelation 8:3-6:
1) does NOT necessarily indicate that either angels or saints have the ability to receive our prayers, that this has to be READ INTO it, and
2) does NOT indicate that we can pray to them, that this also has to be read into it.


Do you finally agree with these, regarding this particular verse?

---

No. I do not agree. It is my interpretation that they have the ability to receive and know our prayers.

We disagree on the interpretation of these verses. You can keep asking. My answer will be the same.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Something to think about. If you are going to try to prove a theological point you need to post Bible scripture. If you cannot back up your theology with scripture then you have a weak argument.

---

Something to think about. Scripture is not the only authoritative rule. That is the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

---

This is one of the central components of your incorrect thinking.

Scripture HAS to be the only basis for authoritative rule, because it is the only thing the church has in its possession that we know is the divine revelation of God.

I ask again - by what standard are we to measure the authority of a tradition, if not the Tanakh + the original apostolic tradition (i.e Scripture)?? How were the earliest Christians to know that Gnosticism was to be rightfully rejected?

---

But the Church predates the bible. Someone had to determine what was supposed to be in the bible. Some authority had to make that decision. That authority was the Catholic Church.

How do you know that Matthew is inspired? How do you know that 2 Peter is inspired?

---

The Church did not predate Jesus and his apostles. Matthew and Peter are original apostles. JESUS gave them original apostolic authority, not the Church. You're putting the cart in front of the horse.

Neither did the Church give the authority of divine inspiration to the Tanakh. JESUS himself authorized every "jot and tittle" of it.

So you're claim is just flat wrong.

---

Where did the bible come from?

Jesus CREATED the Church. It's first leader was Peter. Through apostolic succession, it has been handed down threw 266 men that have lead the Church as it is today.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Ok start there, at least for now.

---

Actually, in Jesus's time, there was no ONE canon for the Hebrews. The Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Essenes all had different canons.

The most common canon in the region was the Septuagint. It was commissioned by Ptolemy II, in the early to mid 3rd century BC, who had established a valuable library in Alexandria, commissioned the translation to include the Hebrew scriptures in his collection. Seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars were brought to Alexandria to complete this task, hence the name "Septuagint," which means "seventy" in Latin.

"According to Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno, the New Testament cites the Septuagint in 340 places, compared to only 33 citations from the Masoretic Text."

This indicates that approximately 91% of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are from the Septuagint.

This is why the Catholic Church chose to use the Septuagint and the 46 books that included seven books of the Deutrocanon.

These books remained in the Bible until Martin Luther move them to the back of the Bible in the 16th century, and later protestants ultimately removed them.

---

Those books were rightfully removed, given that the Jews did not consider them canon. Josephus wrote in the first century about the Jewish canon, and he said it only included the 39 books, which are the same ones that are in the Old Testament today. He did NOT include the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books. In the New Testament, neither Jesus nor his disciples/apostles ever quoted the deuterocanonical books. Those books also contain historical errors, so they can not be divinely inspired.

---

Rightfully removed by the same Pharisees that wanted Jesus crucified?

Josephus, who was part those same Pharisaical group mentioned above, wrote during the time when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. They distanced themselves from the Christians who were using the Septuagint, which was written in Greek, which was the common language at that time.

If you are going to throw out the deuterocanonical books because they are not quoted in the NT, the please rip out books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther from your KJB.

Please note this small list of similar quotes between the deuterocanon and the NT:


Sirach 28:2: "Forgive your neighbor's injustice, then when you pray your own sins will be forgiven."

Matthew 6:14-15: "If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you."

Tobit 4:16 (15): "See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another" (Douay).

Matthew 7:12: "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you."

Wisdom 7:26: "For [wisdom] is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of his goodness."

Hebrews 1:3: "[The Son] is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word."

Wisdom 9:13: "For what man knows God's counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?"

Romans 11:34: "For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?"


The Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicaea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

Finally, there are NO errors in the Word of God, unless you believed that the muster seed is the smallest of all seeds even though it isn't. The "errors" that you mention in the deuterocanon are of the same type in the rest of the bible. Using this argument is the same one that atheists use against Christians about the bible being inerrant.

BUDOS said:

---

Obviously I don't have near the knowledge ya'll do on this topic. When reading your response, I thought a lot about that last sentence. I agree that the Holy Spirit inspires and guides us. However, as this group set up its criteria and then decided which books would be excluded, did they utilize free will, or were they directed only by the Holy Spirit? Sorry if my question lacks the depth to contribute to the conversation.

I just have difficulty understanding how Catholicism may have biased that selection. ( and I hope I don't insult anyone)

---

This is a great question. We ALL have free will. We each make our own decisions as to what we do.

Having said that, the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit as to which books to choose for the bible. That may sound vague; however, they had some criteria to help guide them in that selection.

First, he writings needed to date back to the apostolic era. They had to be "authored by the apostles or their close associates."

i.e. Mark got his Gospel from Peter and Luke, most likely got his from Mark.

Second, they would have had to be used in the liturgy. This means that they would have has to been read or proclaimed regularly at mass.

As I mentioned earlier, the Council of Rome in 382 was the first official listing of the full 73 book canon. It took some time for them to decide.

Time is short the Rapture is near. Please read this first post if you haven't yet.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Time is short the Rapture is near. Please read this first post if you haven't yet.

---

God Bless you. I know you are trying.

The rapture is NOT biblical and was made up in the 19th century with your Dispensationalism.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"To me, the Bible screams in favor of the Church's 2000 year interpretation of them, but you don't agree. No amount of explanation will change your mind" - I wouldn't call Scripture "screaming in favor" of the Catholic view if you're having to use subjective "context clues" in a verse to get to the interpretation you want. No, my mind usually doesn't change on such weak and biased Scriptural evidence.

---

I was referring to salvific baptism and the Eucharist here. No context clues needed when Jesus commanded these.

Last request on the previous, to discuss the miracles attributed to intercession or the fact that NO Council has ever rejected intercession.

---

It's telling that you want to move away from your original argument about praying to saints and angels. Again, I think it's because you know you don't have good scriptural evidence. Would I be right?

And I'll be glad to address the topic of miracles attributed to intercession and the Councils, but before we move on to another point we need to close out the first point - do you concede that Revelation 8:3-6:
1) does NOT necessarily indicate that either angels or saints have the ability to receive our prayers, that this has to be READ INTO it, and
2) does NOT indicate that we can pray to them, that this also has to be read into it.


Do you finally agree with these, regarding this particular verse?

---

No. I do not agree. It is my interpretation that they have the ability to receive and know our prayers.

We disagree on the interpretation of these verses. You can keep asking. My answer will be the same.

---

I'm not asking what your interpretation IS. I'm asking if you agree that your interpretation involves reading into the verse something that is not in the text itself.

If you are saying it ISN'T reading into the verse, then logically prove to me that the verse NECESSARILY indicates that the angel 1) has the ability to know the prayers, and 2) the prayers were directed to the angel. You can't. The mere act of an angel holding or offering up the prayers of the saints to God does not make it logically necessary that the angel perceived the prayers himself or that the prayers were offered up to the angel, not God. This is just basic logic.

For example, why isn't it possible that the angel was "given" the prayers (which is what the verse says), by someone or something else, and was NOT the personal recipient of those prayers? And why isn't it possible that the angel, consequently, does NOT know the contents of the prayers? How does the verse necessarily preclude this possibility, or render it logically impossible? If it doesn't, then that proves that you have to read your assumptions into the verse in order to arrive at your interpretation.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Something to think about. If you are going to try to prove a theological point you need to post Bible scripture. If you cannot back up your theology with scripture then you have a weak argument.

---

Something to think about. Scripture is not the only authoritative rule. That is the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

---

This is one of the central components of your incorrect thinking.

Scripture HAS to be the only basis for authoritative rule, because it is the only thing the church has in its possession that we know is the divine revelation of God.

I ask again - by what standard are we to measure the authority of a tradition, if not the Tanakh + the original apostolic tradition (i.e Scripture)?? How were the earliest Christians to know that Gnosticism was to be rightfully rejected?

---

But the Church predates the bible. Someone had to determine what was supposed to be in the bible. Some authority had to make that decision. That authority was the Catholic Church.

How do you know that Matthew is inspired? How do you know that 2 Peter is inspired?

---

The Church did not predate Jesus and his apostles. Matthew and Peter are original apostles. JESUS gave them original apostolic authority, not the Church. You're putting the cart in front of the horse.

Neither did the Church give the authority of divine inspiration to the Tanakh. JESUS himself authorized every "jot and tittle" of it.

So you're claim is just flat wrong.

---

Where did the bible come from?

Jesus CREATED the Church. It's first leader was Peter. Through apostolic succession, it has been handed down threw 266 men that have lead the Church as it is today.

---

You're answering your own question. The bible came from God speaking through His chosen men. The Church's job was to recognize it as God's word and hand it down, just as it was Judaism's job to recognize God's word through His prophets, and preserve it. Judaism did not give us the Tanakh - rather, God gave it to Judaism. The same goes for the Church. You have it backwards.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Ok start there, at least for now.

---

Actually, in Jesus's time, there was no ONE canon for the Hebrews. The Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Essenes all had different canons.

The most common canon in the region was the Septuagint. It was commissioned by Ptolemy II, in the early to mid 3rd century BC, who had established a valuable library in Alexandria, commissioned the translation to include the Hebrew scriptures in his collection. Seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars were brought to Alexandria to complete this task, hence the name "Septuagint," which means "seventy" in Latin.

"According to Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno, the New Testament cites the Septuagint in 340 places, compared to only 33 citations from the Masoretic Text."

This indicates that approximately 91% of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are from the Septuagint.

This is why the Catholic Church chose to use the Septuagint and the 46 books that included seven books of the Deutrocanon.

These books remained in the Bible until Martin Luther move them to the back of the Bible in the 16th century, and later protestants ultimately removed them.

---

Those books were rightfully removed, given that the Jews did not consider them canon. Josephus wrote in the first century about the Jewish canon, and he said it only included the 39 books, which are the same ones that are in the Old Testament today. He did NOT include the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books. In the New Testament, neither Jesus nor his disciples/apostles ever quoted the deuterocanonical books. Those books also contain historical errors, so they can not be divinely inspired.

---

Rightfully removed by the same Pharisees that wanted Jesus crucified?

Josephus, who was part those same Pharisaical group mentioned above, wrote during the time when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. They distanced themselves from the Christians who were using the Septuagint, which was written in Greek, which was the common language at that time.

If you are going to throw out the deuterocanonical books because they are not quoted in the NT, the please rip out books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther from your KJB.

Please note this small list of similar quotes between the deuterocanon and the NT:


Sirach 28:2: "Forgive your neighbor's injustice, then when you pray your own sins will be forgiven."

Matthew 6:14-15: "If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you."

Tobit 4:16 (15): "See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another" (Douay).

Matthew 7:12: "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you."

Wisdom 7:26: "For [wisdom] is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of his goodness."

Hebrews 1:3: "[The Son] is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word."

Wisdom 9:13: "For what man knows God's counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?"

Romans 11:34: "For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?"


The Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicaea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

Finally, there are NO errors in the Word of God, unless you believed that the muster seed is the smallest of all seeds even though it isn't. The "errors" that you mention in the deuterocanon are of the same type in the rest of the bible. Using this argument is the same one that atheists use against Christians about the bible being inerrant.

---

- "Removed by the Pharisees - the Pharisees didn't have to remove anything. It was never considered part of canon. And just because the Pharisees didn't understand the canon, or applied it poorly, it doesn't mean they didn't have their canon right. Jesus never told the Pharisees their canon was incorrect. And think about the argument you're making - if the Jews couldn't correctly determine what was supposed to be in their canon and what wasn't, then how we can trust the Tanakh at all? Wouldn't it mean it is fallible?

- Your point about Josephus is inconsequential; the fact remains that he reported what was considered canon by the Jews, and it did not include the deuterocanonicals. Please note that the original Septuagint did NOT contain the deuterocanon, and that the Septuagint gradually include books that were considered "useful" and didn't pay attention to what was necessarily "canonical" by the Jews. Thus, being in the Septuagint didn't necessarily make it part of canon.

- Even though those books weren't quoted, they were still validated as God's word by Jesus when he referred to the whole of the "Law and Prophets" (the Tanakh) in the New Testament.

- Similarity with certain verses in the Gospels doesn't really make your point. I'm not sure what you're even arguing here. Something isn't God's word just because it has similar phrases to the bible.

- arguing that the Roman Catholic Church is correct to include the apocrypha, because the Roman Catholic Church said so in its councils, is quite a circular argument.

- "smallest of all the seeds" could be referring to it being the smallest of all seeds available to a Jewish farmer that he might sow, or that is commonly sowed. Jesus does not necessarily mean that it's the smallest in the world. It's an expression, not a statement of fact. On the other hand, the apocrypha contain many historical errors in its statements of fact, such as Nebuchadnezzar being the king of the Assyrians. He was king of Babylon, not Assyria.

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Time is short the Rapture is near. Please read this first post if you haven't yet.

---

God Bless you. I know you are trying.

The rapture is NOT biblical and was made up in the 19th century with your Dispensationalism.

---

The early Church believed in the Rapture and it IS Biblical. Dispensationalism is the correct way to interpret Scripture. Reformed Theology didn't come about until the 16th Century and it's better than Catholic Theology, but not as advanced as Dispensationalism, which unlocks end time prophecy.

Coke Bear said:

---

Jesus CREATED the Church.

---

Correct,

Quote:

---

It's first leader was Peter.

---

Incorrect.

Galatians 2:11. Acts 15 (Peter's name isn't even mentioned in the record of this first council of the church).

Quote:

---

But the Church predates the bible. Someone had to determine what was supposed to be in the bible. Some authority had to make that decision. That authority was the Catholic Church.

---

Yes, but it wasn't the Roman Catholic Church. Because we live in the west, we think of Christianity in terms of Catholic and Protestant. But when you look at the big picture of Church history, you see that what exists as the Roman Catholic Church today is itself a protestant church, the one that fractured and broke off from the Church Christ had originally founded.

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jesus CREATED the Church.

---

Correct,

Quote:

---

It's first leader was Peter.

---

Incorrect.

Galatians 2:11. Acts 15 (Peter's name isn't even mentioned in the record of this first council of the church).

Quote:

---

But the Church predates the bible. Someone had to determine what was supposed to be in the bible. Some authority had to make that decision. That authority was the Catholic Church.

---

Yes, but it wasn't the Roman Catholic Church. Because we live in the west, we think of Christianity in terms of Catholic and Protestant. But when you look at the big picture of Church history, you see that what exists as the Roman Catholic Church today is itself a protestant church, the one that fractured and broke off from the Church Christ had originally founded.

---

IF you want to believe that the Church was started by Christ through the 12, THEN you have to admit that the Church may predate the written Word, BUT the Church was founded through those who wrote the Bible, so....

I believe that the Grace age Church was started by Paul and that the Believers before him were believing Israel, NOT the Church.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Jesus CREATED the Church.

---

Correct,

Quote:

---

It's first leader was Peter.

---

Incorrect.

Galatians 2:11. Acts 15 (Peter's name isn't even mentioned in the record of this first council of the church).

Quote:

---

But the Church predates the bible. Someone had to determine what was supposed to be in the bible. Some authority had to make that decision. That authority was the Catholic Church.

---

Yes, but it wasn't the Roman Catholic Church. Because we live in the west, we think of Christianity in terms of Catholic and Protestant. But when you look at the big picture of Church history, you see that what exists as the Roman Catholic Church today is itself a protestant church, the one that fractured and broke off from the Church Christ had originally founded.

---

IF you want to believe that the Church was started by Christ through the 12, THEN you have to admit that the Church may predate the written Word, BUT the Church was founded through those who wrote the Bible, so....

I believe that the Grace age Church was started by Paul and that the Believers before him were believing Israel, NOT the Church.

---

I believe Paul answered the leadership question effectively in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13:

"One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[b]"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? "

If he were here, Peter would also condemn anyone trying to make a deal about his rank.

Popes and Big-Church Pastors are often an affront to Christ, when they dwell on title and position instead of simply seeking to serve Christ. That way went Caiaphas.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

]IF you want to believe that the Church was started by Christ through the 12, THEN you have to admit that the Church may predate the written Word, BUT the Church was founded through those who wrote the Bible, so....

I believe that the Grace age Church was started by Paul and that the Believers before him were believing Israel, NOT the Church.

---

Jesus plainly said that on the rock of Peter's confession of faith that He would FOUND His Church. In other words, it didn't exist before he did.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're answering your own question. The bible came from God speaking through His chosen men. The Church's job was to recognize it as God's word and hand it down, just as it was Judaism's job to recognize God's word through His prophets, and preserve it. Judaism did not give us the Tanakh - rather, God gave it to Judaism. The same goes for the Church. You have it backwards.

---

Of course it was God's Word handed on to men, but it was the Church that determined which books to include and exclude.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Time is short the Rapture is near. Please read this first post if you haven't yet.

---

God Bless you. I know you are trying.

The rapture is NOT biblical and was made up in the 19th century with your Dispensationalism.

---

The early Church believed in the Rapture and it IS Biblical. Dispensationalism is the correct way to interpret Scripture. Reformed Theology didn't come about until the 16th Century and it's better than Catholic Theology, but not as advanced as Dispensationalism, which unlocks end time prophecy.

---

No the Rapture was made up in the 19th century. It was only popularized again in the 1970's.

Which apostles preached dispensationalism? At which council was Dispensationalism confirmed.

Why should anyone believe in Reformed theology when it didn't exist for 1500 years?

How did the Church that Jesus start get it wrong for 16 centuries? That would be in direct conflict with Matthew 16:18-19.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Removed by the Pharisees - the Pharisees didn't have to remove anything. It was never considered part of canon. And just because the Pharisees didn't understand the canon, or applied it poorly, it doesn't mean they didn't have their canon right. Jesus never told the Pharisees their canon was incorrect. And think about the argument you're making - if the Jews couldn't correctly determine what was supposed to be in their canon and what wasn't, then how we can trust the Tanakh at all? Wouldn't it mean it is fallible?

---

There was no ONE Hebrew canon. There were several Jewish canons. The Church chose the Septuagint because it is what Jesus and the apostles used and is it what is quoted from the most. The Septuagint contained the 7 deuterocanonical books.

When Jesus was speaking to the Sadducees, he only quoted scripture from the Torah. It would make sense that he would use the Tanakh when speaking to the Pharisees.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Your point about Josephus is inconsequential; the fact remains that he reported what was considered canon by the Jews, and it did not include the deuterocanonicals. Please note that the original Septuagint did NOT contain the deuterocanon, and that the Septuagint gradually include books that were considered "useful" and didn't pay attention to what was necessarily "canonical" by the Jews. Thus, being in the Septuagint didn't necessarily make it part of canon.

---

Please site a Jewish source that stated that the deuterocanon was NOT part of the original deuterocanon. I would like to learn when that was. IF, (big IF here, they were added, when? Would that have been during the time of Jesus or 100+ years before his birth.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Even though those books weren't quoted, they were still validated as God's word by Jesus when he referred to the whole of the "Law and Prophets" (the Tanakh) in the New Testament.

---

I can easily argue that because the NT quotes the Septuagint 300+ times by Jesus and the apostles that He accepted the whole of the Septuagint.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Similarity with certain verses in the Gospels doesn't really make your point. I'm not sure what you're even arguing here. Something isn't God's word just because it has similar phrases to the bible.

---

The parallel structure demonstrates that Jesus and the apostles pulled from the 7 deuterocanonical books. 1 John speaks of the Feast of Dedication of the new Temple. This is Hanukkah which is described in 1 Maccabees 4.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- arguing that the Roman Catholic Church is correct to include the apocrypha, because the Roman Catholic Church said so in its councils, is quite a circular argument.

---

Your phrasing in that manner makes it a circular argument. This, again, is similar to an atheist stating that we Christians believe the bible is inspired by God because the bible says it's inspired.

I am not making this argument.

I am simply saying that the Church is the organization that complied the bible. It was lead by the Holy Spirit to choose the books. It followed a set of criteria to choose those books. The full canon of 73 books was affirmed in councils from 382 onward. It ONLY changed in the 16th century when Martin Luther moved them to the back of the bible.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- "smallest of all the seeds" could be referring to it being the smallest of all seeds available to a Jewish farmer that he might sow, or that is commonly sowed. Jesus does not necessarily mean that it's the smallest in the world. It's an expression, not a statement of fact. On the other hand, the apocrypha contain many historical errors in its statements of fact, such as Nebuchadnezzar being the king of the Assyrians. He was king of Babylon, not Assyria.

---

Do you believe that the Book of Job literally and historically happened? No, most don't is a wisdom book that teaches us about pain and suffering.

Just like Judith (which means "Lady Jew" - that should clue there to the reader alone) - that this is a story with a moralizing purpose, emphasizing faithfulness to God. The fact that the author states that "Nebuchadnezzar being the king of the Assyrians" is a BIG clue to EVERY Jewish reader (listener) that this is not an historical book. It is teaching us a lesson.

Same with Tobit, which is one of my most favorite non-Jesus stories.

The Didache (70 AD), Letter of Barnabas (74 AD), Clement of Rome (80 AD), Polycarp of Smyrna (135 AD), who was a disciple of John, Irenaeus (189 AD) all quoted from the deuterocanon. This doesn't conclude that it was scripture, but it does show that they did treat them and the protocanon as the same.

Even noted Protestant scholar JND Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books"

Please make me understand how the Church for 16 centuries got the bible "wrong". The books were always in the bible.

They were removed by Protestants. Heck Luther wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. Why should we trust him or any other Protestant that came along millennia later?

History is not on your side.

Quote:

---

It's first leader was Peter.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Incorrect.

Galatians 2:11. Acts 15 (Peter's name isn't even mentioned in the record of this first council of the church).

---

Quite frankly, I'm confused by your point here. To which verse are you referring? Acts 15:7 states -

After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.

Quote:

---

But the Church predates the bible. Someone had to determine what was supposed to be in the bible. Some authority had to make that decision. That authority was the Catholic Church.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Yes, but it wasn't the Roman Catholic Church. Because we live in the west, we think of Christianity in terms of Catholic and Protestant. But when you look at the big picture of Church history, you see that what exists as the Roman Catholic Church today is itself a protestant church, the one that fractured and broke off from the Church Christ had originally founded.

---

Please explain to me how the Orthodox Church started and who the first leader of the Church was. I have some confusion on your version of history.

We should trust a Protestant to the same degree we should trust a Roman Catholic. That is, by whether and how they are true to Christ. Scriptures help confirm or disprove their claims, and are far more objective than relying on any human opinion.

Thank you. After reading your post I was in Bible study and my eyes caught these verses on the opposite page: in 2 Peter 1:

20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things.

21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're answering your own question. The bible came from God speaking through His chosen men. The Church's job was to recognize it as God's word and hand it down, just as it was Judaism's job to recognize God's word through His prophets, and preserve it. Judaism did not give us the Tanakh - rather, God gave it to Judaism. The same goes for the Church. You have it backwards.

---

Of course it was God's Word handed on to men, but it was the Church that determined which books to include and exclude.

---

Right, so the bible came from God, not the Church. The Church only recognized and preserved what was given by God.

Ask yourself this question: when did a book of the New Testament become the divinely inspired word of God? Was it right when it was being written? Or only after the Church decided it was?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Removed by the Pharisees - the Pharisees didn't have to remove anything. It was never considered part of canon. And just because the Pharisees didn't understand the canon, or applied it poorly, it doesn't mean they didn't have their canon right. Jesus never told the Pharisees their canon was incorrect. And think about the argument you're making - if the Jews couldn't correctly determine what was supposed to be in their canon and what wasn't, then how we can trust the Tanakh at all? Wouldn't it mean it is fallible?

---

There was no ONE Hebrew canon. There were several Jewish canons. The Church chose the Septuagint because it is what Jesus and the apostles used and is it what is quoted from the most. The Septuagint contained the 7 deuterocanonical books.

When Jesus was speaking to the Sadducees, he only quoted scripture from the Torah. It would make sense that he would use the Tanakh when speaking to the Pharisees.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Your point about Josephus is inconsequential; the fact remains that he reported what was considered canon by the Jews, and it did not include the deuterocanonicals. Please note that the original Septuagint did NOT contain the deuterocanon, and that the Septuagint gradually include books that were considered "useful" and didn't pay attention to what was necessarily "canonical" by the Jews. Thus, being in the Septuagint didn't necessarily make it part of canon.

---

Please site a Jewish source that stated that the deuterocanon was NOT part of the original deuterocanon. I would like to learn when that was. IF, (big IF here, they were added, when? Would that have been during the time of Jesus or 100+ years before his birth.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Even though those books weren't quoted, they were still validated as God's word by Jesus when he referred to the whole of the "Law and Prophets" (the Tanakh) in the New Testament.

---

I can easily argue that because the NT quotes the Septuagint 300+ times by Jesus and the apostles that He accepted the whole of the Septuagint.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Similarity with certain verses in the Gospels doesn't really make your point. I'm not sure what you're even arguing here. Something isn't God's word just because it has similar phrases to the bible.

---

The parallel structure demonstrates that Jesus and the apostles pulled from the 7 deuterocanonical books. 1 John speaks of the Feast of Dedication of the new Temple. This is Hanukkah which is described in 1 Maccabees 4.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- arguing that the Roman Catholic Church is correct to include the apocrypha, because the Roman Catholic Church said so in its councils, is quite a circular argument.

---

Your phrasing in that manner makes it a circular argument. This, again, is similar to an atheist stating that we Christians believe the bible is inspired by God because the bible says it's inspired.

I am not making this argument.

I am simply saying that the Church is the organization that complied the bible. It was lead by the Holy Spirit to choose the books. It followed a set of criteria to choose those books. The full canon of 73 books was affirmed in councils from 382 onward. It ONLY changed in the 16th century when Martin Luther moved them to the back of the bible.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- "smallest of all the seeds" could be referring to it being the smallest of all seeds available to a Jewish farmer that he might sow, or that is commonly sowed. Jesus does not necessarily mean that it's the smallest in the world. It's an expression, not a statement of fact. On the other hand, the apocrypha contain many historical errors in its statements of fact, such as Nebuchadnezzar being the king of the Assyrians. He was king of Babylon, not Assyria.

---

Do you believe that the Book of Job literally and historically happened? No, most don't is a wisdom book that teaches us about pain and suffering.

Just like Judith (which means "Lady Jew" - that should clue there to the reader alone) - that this is a story with a moralizing purpose, emphasizing faithfulness to God. The fact that the author states that "Nebuchadnezzar being the king of the Assyrians" is a BIG clue to EVERY Jewish reader (listener) that this is not an historical book. It is teaching us a lesson.

Same with Tobit, which is one of my most favorite non-Jesus stories.

The Didache (70 AD), Letter of Barnabas (74 AD), Clement of Rome (80 AD), Polycarp of Smyrna (135 AD), who was a disciple of John, Irenaeus (189 AD) all quoted from the deuterocanon. This doesn't conclude that it was scripture, but it does show that they did treat them and the protocanon as the same.

Even noted Protestant scholar JND Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books"

Please make me understand how the Church for 16 centuries got the bible "wrong". The books were always in the bible.

They were removed by Protestants. Heck Luther wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. Why should we trust him or any other Protestant that came along millennia later?

History is not on your side.

---

Very thorough treatment of the topic.

If someone wants a decent article about Bible Translations, this is a good one.

Coke Bear said:

---

Please explain to me how the Orthodox Church started and who the first leader of the Church was. I have some confusion on your version of history.

---

I'm not sure what you mean about how it started. It is what exists of the Church that Christ founded on Peter's confession. Its leader was Christ, and it was guided by the Holy Spirit as its local churches met in council in the first millenium of Christianity. It never has had a single supreme human leader.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Removed by the Pharisees - the Pharisees didn't have to remove anything. It was never considered part of canon. And just because the Pharisees didn't understand the canon, or applied it poorly, it doesn't mean they didn't have their canon right. Jesus never told the Pharisees their canon was incorrect. And think about the argument you're making - if the Jews couldn't correctly determine what was supposed to be in their canon and what wasn't, then how we can trust the Tanakh at all? Wouldn't it mean it is fallible?

---

There was no ONE Hebrew canon. There were several Jewish canons. The Church chose the Septuagint because it is what Jesus and the apostles used and is it what is quoted from the most. The Septuagint contained the 7 deuterocanonical books.

When Jesus was speaking to the Sadducees, he only quoted scripture from the Torah. It would make sense that he would use the Tanakh when speaking to the Pharisees.

---

You're just repeating your assertion. The evidence points to there only being one recognized Jewish canon. Cite your evidence to the contrary. As I already explained, even if the Sadducees did not recognize anything outside of the 5 books of Moses (Torah) as canon as some church fathers argued, their view of canon was proven wrong by Jesus himself, especially in verses like Luke 24:44 and others.

And again, the Septuagint was a collection of both Jewish canon AND non-canon. Therefore, Jesus and his apostles quoting the canonical parts of the Septuagint can not be taken as an endorsement by them of the Septuagint as a whole as being canonical. This is a faulty "canon by association" argument.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Your point about Josephus is inconsequential; the fact remains that he reported what was considered canon by the Jews, and it did not include the deuterocanonicals. Please note that the original Septuagint did NOT contain the deuterocanon, and that the Septuagint gradually include books that were considered "useful" and didn't pay attention to what was necessarily "canonical" by the Jews. Thus, being in the Septuagint didn't necessarily make it part of canon.

---

Please site a Jewish source that stated that the deuterocanon was NOT part of the original deuterocanon. I would like to learn when that was. IF, (big IF here, they were added, when? Would that have been during the time of Jesus or 100+ years before his birth.

---

Is Josephus not Jewish enough for you?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Even though those books weren't quoted, they were still validated as God's word by Jesus when he referred to the whole of the "Law and Prophets" (the Tanakh) in the New Testament.

---

I can easily argue that because the NT quotes the Septuagint 300+ times by Jesus and the apostles that He accepted the whole of the Septuagint.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Similarity with certain verses in the Gospels doesn't really make your point. I'm not sure what you're even arguing here. Something isn't God's word just because it has similar phrases to the bible.

---

The parallel structure demonstrates that Jesus and the apostles pulled from the 7 deuterocanonical books. 1 John speaks of the Feast of Dedication of the new Temple. This is Hanukkah which is described in 1 Maccabees 4.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- arguing that the Roman Catholic Church is correct to include the apocrypha, because the Roman Catholic Church said so in its councils, is quite a circular argument.

---

Your phrasing in that manner makes it a circular argument. This, again, is similar to an atheist stating that we Christians believe the bible is inspired by God because the bible says it's inspired.

I am not making this argument.

I am simply saying that the Church is the organization that complied the bible. It was lead by the Holy Spirit to choose the books. It followed a set of criteria to choose those books. The full canon of 73 books was affirmed in councils from 382 onward. It ONLY changed in the 16th century when Martin Luther moved them to the back of the bible.

---

"I can easily argue that because the NT quotes the Septuagint 300+ times by Jesus and the apostles that He accepted the whole of the Septuagint."

- No, because Jesus never referenced the "Septuagint" as a whole, as he did the "Law, Prophets, and the Psalms (Writings)". And as mentioned in the previous post, this is an errant "canon by association" form of reasoning. Think about it - suppose there was a Pygmy Bible translation in the Pygmy language, but is also happened to include some other Pygmy writings that weren't biblical. If you were trying to quote the Bible to the Pygmy peoples, you'd cite their Pygmy Bible - but doing so would NOT be saying that you accepted as divinely inspired Scripture the whole of their Pygmy Bible.


"The parallel structure demonstrates that Jesus and the apostles pulled from the 7 deuterocanonical books. 1 John speaks of the Feast of Dedication of the new Temple. This is Hanukkah which is described in 1 Maccabees 4."

- This still does not mean they are canonical. Since Jude references the book of Enoch, does that mean Enoch should be part of canon?


"Your phrasing in that manner makes it a circular argument. This, again, is similar to an atheist stating that we Christians believe the bible is inspired by God because the bible says it's inspired."

- Maybe it sounds like the atheist argument, because that's exactly how you're arguing. The Roman Catholic decision in its councils to canonize the apocrypha is what's being contested - however, you're using the very thing that's being contested.... as evidence of it's correctness. That's about as circular as it gets. My phrasing was accurate.

A word about it changing in the 1600's only because of Martin Luther - you do realize the countless Roman Catholics throughout history, even popes, that strongly opposed the apocrypha as canon?

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Your point about Josephus is inconsequential; the fact remains that he reported what was considered canon by the Jews, and it did not include the deuterocanonicals. Please note that the original Septuagint did NOT contain the deuterocanon, and that the Septuagint gradually include books that were considered "useful" and didn't pay attention to what was necessarily "canonical" by the Jews. Thus, being in the Septuagint didn't necessarily make it part of canon.

---

Please site a Jewish source that stated that the deuterocanon was NOT part of the original deuterocanon. I would like to learn when that was. IF, (big IF here, they were added, when? Would that have been during the time of Jesus or 100+ years before his birth.

---

Is Josephus not Jewish enough for you?

---

What is a deuterocan?

Some books considered deuterocanonical by Catholics are:
The Book of Tobit.
The Book of Judith.
The First Book of Maccabees, also called 1 Maccabees.
The Second Book of Maccabees, also called 2 Maccabees.
The Wisdom of Solomon, also called The Book of Wisdom.
The Book of Sirach, also called Ecclesiasticus.

Thank you Dr. Hilburn

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Some books considered deuterocanonical by Catholics are:
The Book of Tobit.
The Book of Judith.
The First Book of Maccabees, also called 1 Maccabees.
The Second Book of Maccabees, also called 2 Maccabees.
The Wisdom of Solomon, also called The Book of Wisdom.
The Book of Sirach, also called Ecclesiasticus.

Thank you Dr. Hilburn

---

Those are call Apocryphal books and yes you could say Deuterocanonical, but you said deutero and that confused me...

"Apocrypha" is a somewhat pejorative term.

The term actually means "hidden writings". The deuterocanon was never hidden.

They've been in the Bible since it was complied.

Coke Bear said:

---

"Apocrypha" is a somewhat pejorative term.

The term actually means "hidden writings". The deuterocanon was never hidden.

They've been in the Bible since it was complied.

---

Even the Catholic who put them in with the inspired Bible said that they weren't inspired. The Catholics decided to say that they were, even though they contradict the rest of Scripture.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Your point about Josephus is inconsequential; the fact remains that he reported what was considered canon by the Jews, and it did not include the deuterocanonicals. Please note that the original Septuagint did NOT contain the deuterocanon, and that the Septuagint gradually include books that were considered "useful" and didn't pay attention to what was necessarily "canonical" by the Jews. Thus, being in the Septuagint didn't necessarily make it part of canon.

---

Please site a Jewish source that stated that the deuterocanon was NOT part of the original deuterocanon. I would like to learn when that was. IF, (big IF here, they were added, when? Would that have been during the time of Jesus or 100+ years before his birth.

---

Is Josephus not Jewish enough for you?

---

Philo, who wrote in the first century, never made mention of the three-part division and also quotes from Sirach and Wisdom.

As mentioned earlier, Josephus was part of the same Pharisee group that rejected Jesus.

Do you want to hang your hat with that group?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

"Apocrypha" is a somewhat pejorative term.

The term actually means "hidden writings". The deuterocanon was never hidden.

They've been in the Bible since it was complied.

---

Even the Catholic who put them in with the inspired Bible said that they weren't inspired. The Catholics decided to say that they were, even though they contradict the rest of Scripture.

---

Please elaborate on where they "contradict the rest of scripture".

St Jerome, who translated the bible in the the Latin Vulgate, initially did not accept them as scripture because he could find no Hebrew copies of the texts.

He deferred to the Church's wisdom and included the books and later defended portions of the deuterocanon.

As we now know, we have found copies of some of the Hebrew copies of the deuterocanon in the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 that were most likely preserved by the Essenes.