When were the books of your Bible canonized?

[William Putnam]

Who told me?

The leading of the Holy Spirit AND members of the universal Church.

I almost agree with you here, prefering to say that it is the authority of the "universal" (i.e., Catholic) church.

Next you'll ask, who is the Church?

The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
( Hebrews 12:23; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:10, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32 )

Please go back and note the chronology of "Pentecost, 10 years later, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60," etc, up and including the fact that St. Ignatius first called this Church "Catholic" about A.D. 110. Which may or may not lie within the "Eyewitness period" of the apostles. In those time slots I speak of, was there only one church, sir? If so, can you identify that church today? And as far as your scripture quotes above are concerned, those "assembly of the first born" or whatever they are called, are, of course, members of the church you will discover in those very same time slots!

Now, if you want to include the good people in those many non-Catholic communities that have exploded since the so called Protestant Reformation, then note what the Catholic Church herself teaches on this matter:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

And so yes, we include all Christians within the Christian community of the Catholic Church, but the fact remains that the Catholic Church is the only Church who can claim authenticity and authority from Christ Himself in Matthew 16:18-19. All other Christian communities have human "founders" that have revolted from the Catholic Church somewhere in history, and thus are not a part of the authority of the original Church. Saying all of this, this is not to say that you are condemned, not heaven bound or any of those statement often attributed to us Catholics, and indeed, I will acknowledge here and now that some of you good Protestant/Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians may in fact be in a greater favor of God then I, a practicing Catholic, am!

Come, sweet Jesus, and make me so!

Who belongs to the Church?

All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 )

If you note in the quote from that passage I quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I can pretty much agree with you here, albeit I must also add that there is an incomplete "at large" union with the true Church. God is a gracious and infinitely loving God, and those who disagree with and are not a part of the Catholic Church per se in her teachings and doctrines, yet follow Him, believe in Him in the best of their abilities, are most probably saved and in His grace. (That is not to say they have the complete truth of the gospel message, of course.)

Do we have unbelievers in the visable Church?

The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.
( 1 Corinthians 5; Revelation 2; Revelation 3; Revelation 18:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12; Matthew 16:18; Psalms 72:17; Psalm 102:28; Revelation 12:17 )

Therefore, do you believe that because there are sinners in the Church, then the church looses her teaching authority? Would you believe that the Church has within her authority to forgive the sins of her company that would commit sin, per John 20:22-23? Books have been written about those sinners in the Catholic Church, including the famous (but largely refuted and discounted in these times) Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and others that would insist that the entire church, her divine mission and all, are now all in error. But if that were so, then I would contend that Christ went against His promise of Matthew 16:18, that indeed, "the gates of hell has prevailed" against His Church.

Who is the head of the Church? (Not the pope.)

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
( Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 )

Jesus Christ is the founder of His Church, and is therefore the prime and only total and complete head of His own Church! Nothing changes if He made Peter His "second in command" and the visible head of His Church when He ascended to the Father in heaven. Don’t believe that? I refer you to the following:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_a ... Papacy.asp

Note the scripture references to the primacy of Peter, and his being the chief of the apostles, a job he must enter upon when Christ tells him thrice: "Feed my lambs; sheep," per John 21:15-17

Should I go on Bill? You know I can.

Be my guest! I’ll answer if I am not swamped in this and another forum I am busy in…

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven;
whatsoever you declare loosed on earth, shall be loosed in
heaven.
Matthew, chapter 16 verse 19

 

[William Putnam]

The Early Church accepted the scriptures we have today as Canon, along with at least 5 or 6 other books of the New Testament, and some of the Old - such as the Book od Macabee's. But it was in the 4th Century that the Councils decided which "the Church" would accept as Canon of scripture. Their decision was based on mostly on the authorship of each book, as well as the contents and other reasons that were debatable. 5 of the books of the NT were later questioned as acceptible as Canon; first in the 4th century, and then by Martin Luther - who want to remove 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, and James from the Canon of scripture. The 5 or 6 books that were rejected as Canon by the coucils were rejected based on fact that they were not written by one of the Apostles. You will notice that the books of our Bibles were written only by Apostles. But the contents of these othe 5 or 6 books were not rejected as holding truth. The Early Church Fathers quoted these books as scripture, which were later rejected. These are "The Epistle of Barnabas", "The Shepherd of Hermas", "1 Clement", and "the Apocalypse of Peter". Books that were discovered too later to be entered into the Canon were the "Didache" and "the Epistle of the Apostles". If a letter from an Apostle were to be found today that had never been discovered, it would never be accepted by the Church as an adition to scripture, even if it was inspired. But I think did give us what He wanted us to have. The other writings do hold truth and agree with the scriptures. They are not necessary for determining doctrine - but can be helpful as history of what the Church believed.

Pastor Lyndon, the last time I checked, the famous Council of Trent, which convened to address the Protestant Reformation, simply reaffirmed the same exact canon of scripture, both the Old and New Testaments, as was canonized by the early 4th century synods of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome.

Where did Luther get his authority to remove the deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament and assign them as "apocypha" in his and subsiquent bibles? And the same question is applicable to his contempories that agreed with him on this issue as well...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[JM]

The tares have taken over your Church Bill, too much junk food theology and not enough Bread of Life. If the Mass isn't pagan, nothing is. The turning of a waffer into the body of Christ (which is now sitting at the right hand of God)? It's simply not Biblical.

THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH

Founder: Jesus Christ circa AD 33

Present earthly caretaker: Holy Spirit

God bless,

Jason

 

[William Putnam]

The tares have taken over your Church Bill, too much junk food theology and not enough Bread of Life. If the Mass isn't pagan, nothing is. The turning of a waffer into the body of Christ (which is now sitting at the right hand of God)? It's simply not Biblical.

Let's see, "Junk food theology" huh?

In 1930, all of the non-Catholic Christian congregations to a person stood by the Catholic Church in condemning artificial birth control as a grave sin.

But then the Anglicans had the Lambreth Conference which, for the first time, allowed it. And since that time, I know of no non-Catholic congregation that stands with the Catholic Church in condemning the practice.

Why did Protestantism/Evangelism/Fundamentalism water-down the Seven Sacraments (often down to two) to utter insignificance, especially baptism and alas, the Eucharist in Holy Communion?


Methinks you have it backwards, Jason, no offense intended. It is YOU and others in the non-Catholic world, I think, who have "junk food" theology.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Blest be God.
Blest be his holy name.
Blest be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blest be the name of Jesus.
Blest be his most sacred heart.
Blest be his most precious blood.
Blest be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar.
Blest be the Holy Spirit, the Consoler.
Blest be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blest be her holy and immaculate conception.
Blest be her glorious assumption.
Blest be the name of Mary, virgin and mother.
Blest be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blest be God in his angels and in his saints.

- The Divine Praises -

 

[Adams son]

The Holy Spirit revealed the canon to the early Church.

One then wonders why the number of the books in the canon of the early church was not anywhere close to 39 books.

 

[Adams son]

The Early Church accepted the scriptures we have today as Canon, along with at least 5 or 6 other books of the New Testament, and some of the Old - such as the Book od Macabee's. But it was in the 4th Century that the Councils decided which "the Church" would accept as Canon of scripture. Their decision was based on mostly on the authorship of each book, as well as the contents and other reasons that were debatable. 5 of the books of the NT were later questioned as acceptible as Canon; first in the 4th century, and then by Martin Luther - who want to remove 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, and James from the Canon of scripture. The 5 or 6 books that were rejected as Canon by the coucils were rejected based on fact that they were not written by one of the Apostles. You will notice that the books of our Bibles were written only by Apostles. But the contents of these othe 5 or 6 books were not rejected as holding truth. The Early Church Fathers quoted these books as scripture, which were later rejected. These are "The Epistle of Barnabas", "The Shepherd of Hermas", "1 Clement", and "the Apocalypse of Peter". Books that were discovered too later to be entered into the Canon were the "Didache" and "the Epistle of the Apostles". If a letter from an Apostle were to be found today that had never been discovered, it would never be accepted by the Church as an adition to scripture, even if it was inspired. But I think did give us what He wanted us to have. The other writings do hold truth and agree with the scriptures. They are not necessary for determining doctrine - but can be helpful as history of what the Church believed.

PL, you are confusing the matter all over the place by discussing possible NT books like 1 Clement and the Shepher of Hermas etc. The New Testament boosk are not the critical question.

The Old Testament books are the critical question. The early Christians accepted 46 (give or take one or two) Old Testament books NOT 39 in the fourth century councils. These books were never disputed among Christians up to this point in time, at least to any appreciable degree. Would you care to explain why Protestants should ignore the opinion of the early councils and their canonization of 46 books, and decide the OT canon should be 39 books instead?

 

[xsearnold]

I note with interest the words "were never disputed" and "all non-Catholic Christian congregations to a person" in various posts. The plain fact is that no one has all the evidence that ever existed to make such absolute claims. I'm not a historian, however, noted historians, including Catholic Paul Johnson, have indicated that even claims to a verifiable succession (be it in the Orthodox or Roman Catholic church) are dubious.

I don't think anyone will truly know who was and who was not in "the Church" until Jesus returns and gathers his bride to himself. I expect there will be no shortage of surprises for us all in that day.

 

[Free]

How about everyone start providing some sources for all to see on how many books were "in the running" for canonization for both the OT and NT.

 

[bbas 64]

[quote="Pastor Lyndon":19782]The Early Church accepted the scriptures we have today as Canon, along with at least 5 or 6 other books of the New Testament, and some of the Old - such as the Book od Macabee's. But it was in the 4th Century that the Councils decided which "the Church" would accept as Canon of scripture. Their decision was based on mostly on the authorship of each book, as well as the contents and other reasons that were debatable. 5 of the books of the NT were later questioned as acceptible as Canon; first in the 4th century, and then by Martin Luther - who want to remove 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, and James from the Canon of scripture. The 5 or 6 books that were rejected as Canon by the coucils were rejected based on fact that they were not written by one of the Apostles. You will notice that the books of our Bibles were written only by Apostles. But the contents of these othe 5 or 6 books were not rejected as holding truth. The Early Church Fathers quoted these books as scripture, which were later rejected. These are "The Epistle of Barnabas", "The Shepherd of Hermas", "1 Clement", and "the Apocalypse of Peter". Books that were discovered too later to be entered into the Canon were the "Didache" and "the Epistle of the Apostles". If a letter from an Apostle were to be found today that had never been discovered, it would never be accepted by the Church as an adition to scripture, even if it was inspired. But I think did give us what He wanted us to have. The other writings do hold truth and agree with the scriptures. They are not necessary for determining doctrine - but can be helpful as history of what the Church believed.

Pastor Lyndon, the last time I checked, the famous Council of Trent, which convened to address the Protestant Reformation, simply reaffirmed the same exact canon of scripture, both the Old and New Testaments, as was canonized by the early 4th century synods of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome.

Where did Luther get his authority to remove the deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament and assign them as "apocypha" in his and subsiquent bibles? And the same question is applicable to his contempories that agreed with him on this issue as well...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)[/quote:19782]

Good Day, William

Have you read Luther's German Bible? I assure you they are in there, you may want to pick up a copy.

The word "deuterocanonicals" is some waht a new word coined in the 16 century and disreguards the historical useage of the term "apocypha" that was used from the 5 century by Jerome up until the 15th.

For those who take history in to accout the word used is apocoypha, and it is used because of it's accuracte historical use.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[William Putnam]

[quote="William Putnam":2c793][quote="Pastor Lyndon":2c793]The Early Church accepted the scriptures we have today as Canon, along with at least 5 or 6 other books of the New Testament, and some of the Old - such as the Book od Macabee's. But it was in the 4th Century that the Councils decided which "the Church" would accept as Canon of scripture. Their decision was based on mostly on the authorship of each book, as well as the contents and other reasons that were debatable. 5 of the books of the NT were later questioned as acceptible as Canon; first in the 4th century, and then by Martin Luther - who want to remove 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, and James from the Canon of scripture. The 5 or 6 books that were rejected as Canon by the coucils were rejected based on fact that they were not written by one of the Apostles. You will notice that the books of our Bibles were written only by Apostles. But the contents of these othe 5 or 6 books were not rejected as holding truth. The Early Church Fathers quoted these books as scripture, which were later rejected. These are "The Epistle of Barnabas", "The Shepherd of Hermas", "1 Clement", and "the Apocalypse of Peter". Books that were discovered too later to be entered into the Canon were the "Didache" and "the Epistle of the Apostles". If a letter from an Apostle were to be found today that had never been discovered, it would never be accepted by the Church as an adition to scripture, even if it was inspired. But I think did give us what He wanted us to have. The other writings do hold truth and agree with the scriptures. They are not necessary for determining doctrine - but can be helpful as history of what the Church believed.

Pastor Lyndon, the last time I checked, the famous Council of Trent, which convened to address the Protestant Reformation, simply reaffirmed the same exact canon of scripture, both the Old and New Testaments, as was canonized by the early 4th century synods of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome.

Where did Luther get his authority to remove the deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament and assign them as "apocypha" in his and subsiquent bibles? And the same question is applicable to his contempories that agreed with him on this issue as well...[/quote:2c793]

Good Day, William

Have you read Luther's German Bible? I assure you they are in there, you may want to pick up a copy.[/quote:2c793]

Why? I have enough bibles as it is, both on my desk on on my computer...

The word "deuterocanonicals" is some waht a new word coined in the 16 century and disreguards the historical useage of the term "apocypha" that was used from the 5 century by Jerome up until the 15th.

So what? I think it means "second canon," off the top of my head. As for the use of the term "apocypha," you do understand that there is a wider list of "apocypha" that is not acceptable to the Catholic Church in regards to the Old Testament? and of course, it also applies to the New testament as well.

For those who take history in to accout the word used is apocoypha, and it is used because of it's accuracte historical use.

Whatever. But be advised that the Catholic Church uses the term for questional documents that have vied for inclusion into the New Testament, such as the famous didache and the Gospel of Thomas and others. As for the criteria for an apostle being the actual author of a book of the New Testament, I don't think that is right. Please note that some of the books were not specifically written by an apostle, albeit it is believed that it was done by a companion-scribe who did it for an apostle. The canonicity of the didache was rejected, simply because it was not written within the "eyewitness period" by an apostle or by a companion that accompanied an apostle, but the evidence either way, I understand, was not available. Thus it remains outside of scripture. The didache, however, remains as an important witness to indicate what the Church taught in the very early times adjacient to thte end of the apostolic era, some experts dating it to as early as A.D. 70.

Did someone ask for a list of books that was considered yet rejected when the NT was canonized? I am not sure of the source or it's accuracy and I got this some years ago (and I must say, I have a little "tongue in cheek" over some of the titles, but recognizing others):

Paste-in here...

If you don't accept the authority of the Catholic Church, then shouldn't you reject her decision to leave these early christian writings 'out' of the Bible?

The Acts of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew
The Acts of Barnabas
The Epistle of Barnabas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The martyrdom of Bartholomew
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The First Apocalypse of James
The Second Apocalypse of James
The Gospel of James
The Apocryphon of James
The epistle of James (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The first epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The second epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The third epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The Revelation of John (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of John
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary
The Apocryphon of John
The Epistle to the Laodiceans
The Mystery of the Cross
The epistle of Jude (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Acts of the Apostles (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Mark.)
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Passing of Mary
The Apocalypse of the Virgin
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Matthew.)
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Martyrdom of Matthew
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Epistle of Paul to the Romans
The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Corinthians
The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians
The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians
The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians
The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Thessalonians
The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Epistle of Paul to Titus
The Epistle of Paul to Philemon l
The Epistle to the Hebrews (Thought to be by Paul, but non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Apocalypse of Paul
The Revelation of Paul
The Vision of Paul
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
The first epistle of Peter
The second epistle of Peter (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Revelation of Peter
The Gospel of Peter
The epistle of Peter to Philip
The Acts of Philip
The Gospel of Philip
The Revelation of Stephen
The Acts of Thomas
The Consummation of Thomas
The Apocalypse of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis
The Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Second Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Epistle of Ignatius to Hero, A deacon of Antioch
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians
The Second epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
The Reply of the Virgin Mary to Ignatius
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
Community Rule
Excerpts from Pistis Sophia
Fragments of Papias
Justin on the Resurrection
Justin on the sole government of God
Justin's Discourse to the Greeks-1
Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks
Other Fragments from the Lost Writing of Justin
The Acts of John the Theologian
The Acts of Thaddaeus
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Apocalypse of Sedrach
The Avenging of the Saviour
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar
The Death of Pilate
The Didache (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Adrian in behalf of the Christians
The Epistle of Antoninus
The Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
The Epistle of the Apostles
The First Apology of Justin
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Gospel of the Lord
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor
The Martydom of Polycarp
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
The Revelation of Esdras
The Revelation of John the Theologian
The Revelation of Moses
The Revelation of Stephen
The Second Apology of Justin
The Shepherd of Hermas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle
The Three Steles of Seth

End of paste-in...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[Pastor Lyndon]

PAX,

Pastor Lyndon, the last time I checked, the famous Council of Trent, which convened to address the Protestant Reformation, simply reaffirmed the same exact canon of scripture, both the Old and New Testaments, as was canonized by the early 4th century synods of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome.

What does this have to do with what I said? I agree with this. My point was that of the additional writings. But those which we have today have been canon since the 4th Century.

Where did Luther get his authority to remove the deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament and assign them as "apocypha" in his and subsiquent bibles? And the same question is applicable to his contempories that agreed with him on this issue as well...

My point exactly! But I think it is less about authority and more about inaccuracy. Even if Luther was correct he still would have no authority to change canon. Who has the authority to remove such books? The Catholic Church? I don't think so! Although they would'nt, nobody can nowadays change what we have as Canon. In history Jerome attempted the same with the same books as Luther.

 

[Pastor Lyndon]

Adams Son,

PL, you are confusing the matter all over the place by discussing possible NT books like 1 Clement and the Shepher of Hermas etc. The New Testament boosk are not the critical question.

The Old Testament books are the critical question. The early Christians accepted 46 (give or take one or two) Old Testament books NOT 39 in the fourth century councils. These books were never disputed among Christians up to this point in time, at least to any appreciable degree. Would you care to explain why Protestants should ignore the opinion of the early councils and their canonization of 46 books, and decide the OT canon should be 39 books instead?

I am not confusing anything! The topic has to do with canon of scripture, and these books were once acceptd as such - before all the books were actually "canonized" at a council. If the new textament books are not the critical question then why have councils to determine which were canon, and have men who attempted to remove some? The question was about the books of our bible - not just the OT.
We do not have any authority to trust in non-canonical books of the OT or the NT. But I do believe we can look at them as good historical and even wise writings. But anything that might contradict the Canon of scripture must be rejected. They can be very useful when they line up with scripture, as most do. Even many of the quotse of Jesus come from these non-canonical writings such as the Maccabee's. Unfortunately, our bibles were canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, which I believe in the fourth century was mixed with pagan beliefs. Although they do contain some truth, they did err in many ways, and even more so in later centuries. The same goes for our translations, which many are in error. For this reason we have so many disagreements today, different doctrines and beliefs, and error in teaching.

 

[Adams son]

Adams Son,

PL, you are confusing the matter all over the place by discussing possible NT books like 1 Clement and the Shepher of Hermas etc. The New Testament boosk are not the critical question.

The Old Testament books are the critical question. The early Christians accepted 46 (give or take one or two) Old Testament books NOT 39 in the fourth century councils. These books were never disputed among Christians up to this point in time, at least to any appreciable degree. Would you care to explain why Protestants should ignore the opinion of the early councils and their canonization of 46 books, and decide the OT canon should be 39 books instead?

I am not confusing anything! The topic has to do with canon of scripture, and these books were once acceptd as such - before all the books were actually "canonized" at a council.

First of all, this statement, "these books were once acceptd as such - before all the books were actually "canonized" at a council" is quite misleading. Many books in your NT were disputed well into the fourth century.


The TOPIC is WHEN the books in your Bible was canonized.

1. When were the Old Testament books in your Bible canonized?

2. When were the New Testament books in your Bible canonized?

 

[William Putnam]

PAX,

Pastor Lyndon, the last time I checked, the famous Council of Trent, which convened to address the Protestant Reformation, simply reaffirmed the same exact canon of scripture, both the Old and New Testaments, as was canonized by the early 4th century synods of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome.

What does this have to do with what I said? I agree with this. My point was that of the additional writings. But those which we have today have been canon since the 4th Century.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, so then I fail to see your point. You agree that the canon of scripture, as canonized in the 4th century, is as it is today (sans the OT deuterocanonicals for the Protestant bible, of course)? What "additional writings" are you talking about?

[quote:95159]Where did Luther get his authority to remove the deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament and assign them as "apocypha" in his and subsiquent bibles? And the same question is applicable to his contempories that agreed with him on this issue as well...

My point exactly! But I think it is less about authority and more about inaccuracy. Even if Luther was correct he still would have no authority to change canon. Who has the authority to remove such books? The Catholic Church? I don't think so! Although they would'nt, nobody can nowadays change what we have as Canon. In history Jerome attempted the same with the same books as Luther.[/quote:95159]

I'm confused now. If you deny the authority of the Catholic Church, which was the only church around in the early 4th century, then what, when and where was the authority of the church in the early 4th century to declare anything about the canon of scripture?

Either the only church around at that time had such authority or it didn't, so which is it? If it didn't, they how do you deternime the canon of the very bible you hold in your hands today?

As for St. Jerome, all he did was follow the instructions of the Church when he did his Latin Vulgate translation from then extant fragments of scripture in the original Hebrew (and perhaps some Aramaic, as some scholars are beginning to think was first and original autograph, quickly rewritten in the Koine Greek)

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[Pastor Lyndon]

PAX,

From what I have seen of your posts and what I detect of your character online, I like you and your approach; and I believe you love God and are a good Christian man. I believe that the Catholic Church does have many saved people in it. But I also believe that the Catholic Church was a corruption of the true Church in the 4th Century, as they taught differently than the early Church, and brought in Mary worship, praying to saints, and the use of many relics that are not scriptural. I do believe that the Catholic Church holds as much truth as many Churches today when it comes to bible doctrines. But the truth was mixed with paganism, in which the Catholic Church has the truth mixed with lies. Many will assume that because there is plenty of evidence to prove this that everything Catholic stand for it false doctrine. This is a false assumption, since "Truth" was mixed with the lies, showing us that much truth did remain in the Catholic Church thru the centuries. And many times righteous men rose above Catholic rule and were put to death or excommunicated. The Protestant reformation brought back much of what was lost by the rule of Roman Catholicism. But they went too far with doctrines of Calvinism.

I'm confused now. If you deny the authority of the Catholic Church, which was the only church around in the early 4th century, then what, when and where was the authority of the church in the early 4th century to declare anything about the canon of scripture?

Either the only church around at that time had such authority or it didn't, so which is it? If it didn't, they how do you deternime the canon of the very bible you hold in your hands today?

The Catholic Church in the early 4th century consisted of many who avoided presecution, as the faithful leaders had been put to death for their faith in Christ. Others avoided it, even denying their faith to avoid death, then later returned to their positions in the Church and under the influence of Constantine. Because of the many unfaithful confessors of Christ, paganism naturally became acceptibe since a pagan ruler had so much influence on the Church. Constantines so called vision and acceptance of the Church gained him alot of authority and influence in the Church.
Their were still faithful groups who did not accept the pagan ways, but they had little to no influence of the Roman Church. Roman Catholicism had ultimate power world wide. When they decided what would be Canon, they had all authority. This is not to say that they were necessarity wrong in their ultimate decision of what should be accepted as Canon. Neither were those of the Counil of Trent. Regardless of the ways of man, God can still have His way.

As for St. Jerome, all he did was follow the instructions of the Church when he did his Latin Vulgate translation from then extant fragments of scripture in the original Hebrew (and perhaps some Aramaic, as some scholars are beginning to think was first and original autograph, quickly rewritten in the Koine Greek)

Jerome wanted the 5 books removed. But he respected the leadership of the Pope and agreed to translate the Canon of scripture into Latin, regardless his personal feelings.

 

[Adams son]

Jerome wanted the 5 books removed. But he respected the leadership of the Pope and agreed to translate the Canon of scripture into Latin, regardless his personal feelings.

PL, do you agree with Jerome's submission to the church authority on this matter?

 

[Pastor Lyndon]

PL, do you agree with Jerome's submission to the church authority on this matter?

I believe submission to authority is good and necessary of any man. I do not agree with Jerome concerning these 5 books. And I also believe that Jeromes translation into the Latin carries with it his own preconceived ideas of theology - mainly that of predestination - which is one reason that our translations today seem to teach such. The doctrines of Jeromes and Augustine on predestination do not line up with the eariest Church; yet so many trust these men (who were a part of the Roman Catholic corruption of the Church) in their teachings over the early Church. Submission is good, but it does not make ones teachings correct. And I would rather be small amongst the few who stand for truth, than great amongst those who stand with the majority - in error.

 

[Adams son]

PL, do you agree with Jerome's submission to the church authority on this matter?

I believe submission to authority is good and necessary of any man. I do not agree with Jerome concerning these 5 books.

You do not agree with him in what sense?

1. That he submitted to the church's will and included them?

OR

2. That he thought they should not be included?

 

[William Putnam]

PAX,

Please call me Bill. "PAX" is the Latin for "Peace."

From what I have seen of your posts and what I detect of your character online, I like you and your approach; and I believe you love God and are a good Christian man. I believe that the Catholic Church does have many saved people in it. But I also believe that the Catholic Church was a corruption of the true Church in the 4th Century, as they taught differently than the early Church, and brought in Mary worship, praying to saints, and the use of many relics that are not scriptural.

First of all, thank you for the kind words. I don't receive them often in the many forums I post in.

Secondly, I would of course profoundly disagree with your belief that the Catholic Church "was a corruption of the true Church in the 4th Century, simply because it would deny the promise of Christ that "...the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" pee Matthew 16:18. Also, Paul would seem to disagree with you with my oft used "tagline," Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15) How Can the Church be the "pillar and foundaton of truth" if it falls into corruption? Keep in mind that only the Catholic Church can trace her roots (The Orthodox have a parallel argument) back to Paul and those words, or did the Church actually cease to be that "pillar and foundation"?

Finally, the last words of Christ in Matthew 28:20 - "...And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age" (Catholic NAB) reinforces in my mind, the evelasting protection Christ gives to His Church, even while thay are made up of popes, bishops and priests who have at times been less then the christians they should of been. Indeed, I often ponder the miracle of the Church never once pronouncing an erronious doctrine despite such chergy!

I do believe that the Catholic Church holds as much truth as many Churches today when it comes to bible doctrines. But the truth was mixed with paganism, in which the Catholic Church has the truth mixed with lies.

Have we not been discussing the fact that on the ruins of pagan ideas we find the glory of Christianity? The Pantheon in Rome was a pagan temple, converted to a Christian church! Baptism, a sacrament instituted by Christ harks back to the old pagan riturals of purification, and I could go on and on and on....

On December 25th, we celebrate the birth of Christ, not the original pagan holiday of Saturnalia! Christ triumphs over the sins of those who would be steeped in dubauchery on that day!

So, where are the "lies," sir?

Many will assume that because there is plenty of evidence to prove this that everything Catholic stand for it false doctrine. This is a false assumption, since "Truth" was mixed with the lies, showing us that much truth did remain in the Catholic Church thru the centuries. And many times righteous men rose above Catholic rule and were put to death or excommunicated. The Protestant reformation brought back much of what was lost by the rule of Roman Catholicism. But they went too far with doctrines of Calvinism.

What was "lost...in..."Roman" Catholicism? Actually, I think the opposite was true about the Protestant Reformation, much of the truth was lost, especially the watering-down of the Seven Sacraments, let along a reduction from seven to two, and thay are now only symbolic, thte Eucharist and baptism.

[quote:bd58a]I'm confused now. If you deny the authority of the Catholic Church, which was the only church around in the early 4th century, then what, when and where was the authority of the church in the early 4th century to declare anything about the canon of scripture?

Either the only church around at that time had such authority or it didn't, so which is it? If it didn't, they how do you deternime the canon of the very bible you hold in your hands today?

The Catholic Church in the early 4th century consisted of many who avoided presecution, as the faithful leaders had been put to death for their faith in Christ. Others avoided it, even denying their faith to avoid death, then later returned to their positions in the Church and under the influence of Constantine. Because of the many unfaithful confessors of Christ, paganism naturally became acceptibe since a pagan ruler had so much influence on the Church. Constantines so called vision and acceptance of the Church gained him alot of authority and influence in the Church.[/quote:bd58a]

And that same Church was now in error, the Church that first began the process of canonization of scriptures in the early part of the 4th century?

Who are these individuals who "avoided persecution" by denying the faith, and then return to the faith? I am not saying it did not occur, knowing full well the one Sacrament you do not have (and was on of those disposed of in the Protestant Reformation) that is applicable, per John 20:22-23 which today we call the Sacrament of Reconsiliation. The Church is a "Spiritual hospital for sinners," sir, and even while we have sinful clergy in her midst, the holy Spirit must prevail that she does not err in her teachings and dogmatic pronouncements, else indeed, the "...gates of hell have prevailed..."

Their were still faithful groups who did not accept the pagan ways, but they had little to no influence of the Roman Church. Roman Catholicism had ultimate power world wide. When they decided what would be Canon, they had all authority. This is not to say that they were necessarity wrong in their ultimate decision of what should be accepted as Canon. Neither were those of the Counil of Trent. Regardless of the ways of man, God can still have His way.

Where are you getting this information from? I see nothing of the sort in the writings of the early fathers, from the oldest ones who were born/draised at the very closing edge of the apostolic era, to about A.D. 400, the time when you think the Church fell into error, apparently.

[quote:bd58a]As for St. Jerome, all he did was follow the instructions of the Church when he did his Latin Vulgate translation from then extant fragments of scripture in the original Hebrew (and perhaps some Aramaic, as some scholars are beginning to think was first and original autograph, quickly rewritten in the Koine Greek)

Jerome wanted the 5 books removed. But he respected the leadership of the Pope and agreed to translate the Canon of scripture into Latin, regardless his personal feelings.[/quote:bd58a]

Please show me where Jerome wanted those "5 books removed."

Here is an interesting link of what a preponderance of the early church fathers believed, including an interesting statement from St. Jerome (not related to the OT, however.)

http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp


God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

[Pastor Lyndon]

You do not agree with him in what sense?

1. That he submitted to the church's will and included them?

OR

2. That he thought they should not be included?

Number 2. It was his opinion which he was entitled to. But I disagree with it, as did most other Church leaders before and after him. Submission however is only a good thing if one feels confident that they are not "disobeying" God in their obeying of men.