Where did we get The Bible? - A IN-DEPTH STUDY

[BreadOfLife]

Sure,
-1-2 Maccabees. (3 and 4 Macc were rescinded by later canonical lists prior to Trent)
-1-4 Esdras. (same deal here)
-Tobit
-Wisdom of Solomon
-Baruch
-Additions to Daniel (Song of the three children, Bel and the Dragon, Susanna)
-Ecclesiasticus
-Epistle of Jeremiah
-Judith
-Additions to Esther
-Prayer of Manasseh
-Psalm 151

At no point were these books ever considered canonical by the Jews. They were never included in the traditional 22 book listed by ancient Jewish writers and were never laid up in the Temple. Nor did they make one's hands unclean.

Roger Beckwith observes:

Accordingly, in chapter two the developing concept of Scripture, beginning in the Old Testament itself, was traced, attention being drawn to the importance of sacred collections at shrines, especially at the Jerusalem Temple. Then the evidence about particular books of Scripture was assembled, and it was found that, at least from the second century bc onwards, and down to the first century ad, there is a mass of remarkably uniform evidence for the scriptural status of most of the books belonging to the present Hebrew Bible.

Beckwith, R. T. (1985). The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (p. 435). SPCK.

Ahhhh – now we’re getting somewhere.
Time for a History Lesson . . .

The Seven Deuterocanonical Books that were ejected from the OT Canon by your Protestant Fathers WERE part of the open Jewish Canon of the first century. That is, up to and throughout the life of Jesus on earth. There are some 200 references, to these Books on the pages if the New Testament.
The Jewish Canon was not closed until the 2nd century.

After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Rabbis established a rabbinical school in the Jewish city of at Jabneh (or Jamnia). It became center for Jewish political and religious political thought. Because the Temple had been destroyed in 70 AD – this school led by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137) redefined certain aspects of Judaism until the Temple could be restored.

One of the things discussed was use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) by early Christians.

They decided to eject 7 Books (and portions of Esther and Daniel) that they felt were “uninspired”. They provided a new Greek translation because the early Christians were converting the Jews using the Septuagint, which was compiled about 200 years before the birth of Christ. According to historical sources, the rabbinical gathering at Jabneh was not even an "official" council with binding authority to make such a decision. It can be clearly shown that Jesus and the Apostles studied and quoted from these 7 Books. In the New Testament, we see almost 200 references to them.

The main advocate for removing the 7 Deuterocanonical Books was Rabbi Akiba, who was also known for proclaiming that a man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the “real” Messiah during the 2nd Jewish Revolt (circa 132 AD). It was during THIS time that the Jewish Canon had still been an OPEN Canon during the life of Christ was closed.

So, your Protestant Fathers chose to go with a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ” (Kokhba).

 

[BreadOfLife]

I agree. There is just the catholic church.
This is the Roman church. All are in submission to the Roman Pontiff are they not?

No – this is NOT the “Roman” Church.

They are the Liturgical Rites of the Catholic Church, whose differences are largely cultural, not doctrinal.

It is the catholic church but he is not a member of a church that won't appear for centuries (ca 700 to 1000 Ad) to come.

But since you brought up Ignatius of Antioch let's take a looksy;

First. lets talk about church offices. Lets start with what the Bible has to say about the matter.

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Tt 1:5–9). (2016). Crossway Bibles.

The words I have bolded are the Greek words πρεσβύτερος or presbyteros and ἐπίσκοπος or episkapos where we get the word for bishop. The two offices are interchangeable according to Paul. The idea of a monarchial bishop was unknown in the early church so reading the modern Roman idea back into this time is incredibly anachronistic. Historically, there are only two different offices listed that of διάκονος or diakonos where we get the word for Deacon, and ἐπίσκοπος sometimes referred to as πρεσβύτερος.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper20 Eucharist, which is [administered] either p 90 by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Ignatius of Antioch. (1885). The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, pp. 89–90). Christian Literature Company.

The word that your translation used for πρεσβυτερίῳ is clergy but the better translation would be presbytery or group of elders. You see, the bishop or episkapos is just one of the elders in church. I included the original Greek text if you would like to look it up for yourself.

Τοὺς δὲ μερισμοὺς φεύγετε, ὡς ἀρχὴν κακῶν. Πάντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖτε, ὡς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τῷ Πατρί· καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ, ὡς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις· τοὺς δὲ διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε, ὡς Θεοῦ ἐντολήν. Μηδεὶς χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου τὶ πρασσέτω τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Ἐκείνη βεβαία εὐχαριστία ἡγείσθω, ἡ ὑπὸ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον οὖσα, ἢ ᾧ ἂν αὐτὸς ἐπιτρέψῃ. Ὅπου ἂν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω, ὥσπερ ὅπου ἂν ᾖ Χριστὸς [Ἰησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία.] Οὐκ ἐξόν ἐστιν χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου οὔτε βαπτίζειν, οὔτε ἀγάπην ποιεῖν· ἀλλʼ ὃ ἂν ἐκεῖνος δοκιμάσῃ, τοῦτο καὶ τῷ Θεῷ εὐάρεστον, ἵνʼ ἀσφαλὲς ᾖ καὶ βέβαιον πᾶν ὃ πράσσεται.

Ignatius of Antioch. (1849). Corpus Ignatianum: Greek Text, Middle Recension (W. Cureton, Trans.; p. 109). Asher and Co.

So you see that text doesn't really help you as you could easily say "Pastor" instead of bishop. The bishop in this case is not in charge or a diocese as the Roman Empire had yet to experience the Diocletian reforms (fourth centuty AD). He's a pastor or elder or overseer (one of several) in the local church. That is why your use of Ignatius is improper and anachronistic.

A.

In the Letter of Clement of Rome (85AD), we see the Bishop of Rome (Pope) mediating in a despite in the Church at Corinth and giving orders to cease and desist. This was during the Apostolic Age while the Apostle John was still alive.

In Ignatius’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he states firmly, “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.”
He doesn’t say this about the rest of the Presbytery, drawing a clear hierarchical distinction.

Ignatius wrote 7 Epistles on the way to his martyrdom in Rome.
In his Letter to the Traillians, he wrote:
"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him" (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 110]).

Again, we see the hierarchical distinction of Bishop, Priest and Deacon.
This is the SAME “Catholic Church” that exists today under earthly leadership of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So you can't find it either. I didn't think you could even if I spotted you the text.



Thee NT books you are referring to were 2 peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. These were books that were spoken against in the early church or antilegomena. These books were in the ancient church not as well known or thought to be of unknown authorship. Eusebius tells us about these books:



Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews,9 saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place.



Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), & A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, pp. 134–135). Christian Literature Company.

Hebrews was spoken against by the church in Rome. Ironic isn't it?

There's more but here's a brief summary:

Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized8 by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude,10 also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John,12 whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.


4 Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul,14 and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter,16 and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles;18 and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.20



Eusebius of Caesaria. (1890). The Church History of Eusebius. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), & A. C. McGiffert (Trans.), Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine (Vol. 1, p. 156). Christian Literature Company

These disputes regarding these books continued right up to the sixteenth century. Furthermore, Luther wasn't the only person who had concerns about these books even some leading Romish scholars at the time expressed the same concerns. These concerns were in fact based on the historical record. Luther also did not "delete" the apocryphal books from his translation of the Bible. They were included and even read from in public worship though they were not to be considered inspired.

A.

I didn’t say Luther deleted the Deuterocanonical Books from his Bible.
I said he deleted them from the Canon.

Regardless of any Bishop later on who might have disagree with the Canon, it was too late – and completely irrelevant. The Canon had already been declared since 383AD – and reiterated some FIVE times. It was left OPEN until Trent, at which point it was closed.

As for Hebrews – it was the authorship that was disputed – NOT the content.
It is STILL to dispute to this day as to WHO wrote it.


PS – your use of the anti-Catholic pejorative, “Romish” is a good insight as to how narrow-minded you are . . .

 

[Grailhunter]

No – this is NOT the “Roman” Church.

They are the Liturgical Rites of the Catholic Church, whose differences are largely cultural, not doctrinal.

In the Letter of Clement of Rome (85AD), we see the Bishop of Rome (Pope) mediating in a despite in the Church at Corinth and giving orders to cease and desist. This was during the Apostolic Age while the Apostle John was still alive.

In Ignatius’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he states firmly, “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.”
He doesn’t say this about the rest of the Presbytery, drawing a clear hierarchical distinction.

Ignatius wrote 7 Epistles on the way to his martyrdom in Rome.
In his Letter to the Traillians, he wrote:
"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him" (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 110]).

Again, we see the hierarchical distinction of Bishop, Priest and Deacon.
This is the SAME “Catholic Church” that exists today under earthly leadership of the Bishop of Rome.

Did the Pope and the Vatican provide the Cadillacs for the Bishops?

Did they have any church buildings named after them?

Did they get special parking?

 

[Titus]

As I said before –

Without them – YOU wouldn’t even know who Jesus is.
You wouldn’t even have a Bible.

You dont know the things you say.
"Without these MEN we would not know Gods word."
As if God needs these men to fulfill His sovereign will.

God doesn't need anything from us!!!

God never used any of those men.
They are all heretics.
God used the apostles to bring His gospel to the world.
If those apostles turned against God it would not have stopped His word from being proclaimed to the whole world.
God would have used other men to do His will
If those men turned against Him it would not change Gods sovereign will from being accomplished
And so on and so on.

You have proven your faith is in men not God or His word

You serve a weak god!

My Gods will, will be done.
And nothing can stop His will from being done!

Acts 5:38-39
- And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone
for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing
but if it is of God, You cannot overthrow it- lest you even be found to fight against God

 

[Titus]

And WHO do you think God used to deliver the Gospel through the centuries of persecution, Einstein?

The Early Church Fathers - who were CATHOLIC.

They were called apostles.
Einstein?

 

[face2face]

They were called apostles.
Einstein?

What a cracker response!

They will always believe the body of Christ is built on Peter, rather than his confession of faith...it's divinely designed from very early days.

Daniel 4:15
Roman Catholicism remained as a band of brass and iron around the Babylonish stock and root.

 

[Titus]

What a cracker response!

I'm not familiar with this slang.
The only thing I know this means from where I'm from is a racial slur against whites.

 

[face2face]

I'm not familiar with this slang.
The only thing I know this means from where I'm from is a racial slur against whites.

"Down under" simply means "going off with a bang!" like a Christmas cracker. No racial slur against myself there.

 

[Titus]

Did you mean what a cracker(great) response

They were called apostles.
Einstein?

Did you mean what a cracker(great response) ?

 

[face2face]

face2face,
Only the apostles were inspired.

Correct

No men after them had miraculous knowledge of the entire revelation of God.

Correct.

It is GOD HIMSELF who preserves His word since it's been written in book form.

True.

The manuscripts have been preserved by God.

Yep.

No amount of persecution will destroy the word of God.
1Peter 1:25

Unless you think God needs help from man.

I don't...keep on keeping on!

 

[face2face]

Did you mean what a cracker(great) response

Did you mean what a cracker(great response) ?

Yes.

 

[Titus]

Yes.

I'm sorry I miss understood you. Thanks
Love your beautiful country. China has you guys in their crosshairs

 

[Athanasius377]

No – this is NOT the “Roman” Church.

They are the Liturgical Rites of the Catholic Church, whose differences are largely cultural, not doctrinal.

Yet they agree doctrinally with the "Vicar of Christ" that is is Rome, are they not? If the answer is yes, then that is the Roman church with as you say different liturgical rites and cultural differences. The catholic church believes in the faith once delivered to the saints but you cannot say that you believe said faith. Why is that? Because your church would declare every one of the council fathers present at Nicaea as anathematized heretics.

In Ignatius’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he states firmly, “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.”
He doesn’t say this about the rest of the Presbytery, drawing a clear hierarchical distinction.

Thats because they are the same office as I have demonstrated. Where in Ignatius's authentic letters (not the latter forgeries) does he give a clear hierarchy of the church?

Ignatius wrote 7 Epistles on the way to his martyrdom in Rome.
In his Letter to the Traillians, he wrote:
"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him" (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 110]).

Again, we see the hierarchical distinction of Bishop, Priest and Deacon.
This is the SAME “Catholic Church” that exists today under earthly leadership of the Bishop of Rome.

I see we are quoting Jurgens which tells me you haven't actually read the original source material. Jurgens is not dependable historically or textually. He references a lot of forgeries and shall we say, odd redactions and emendations. Above he is referencing a Latin emendation (forgery). Below is a translation of the original Greek text.


In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that ye are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestation5 of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are7 also pleased that I do not spare myself. But shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?


Ignatius of Antioch. (1885). The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 67). Christian Literature Company.

Again we see that presbyter and bishop are the same office.

 

[face2face]

I'm sorry I miss understood you. Thanks
Love your beautiful country. China has you guys in their crosshairs

Yes, not sure we are alone either.

 

[Athanasius377]

In the Letter of Clement of Rome (85AD), we see the Bishop of Rome (Pope) mediating in a despite in the Church at Corinth and giving orders to cease and desist. This was during the Apostolic Age while the Apostle John was still alive.

Let take a look at Clement of Rome and what he has to say about church offices:


The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments,5 then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops8 in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”10


Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 16). Christian Literature Company.

I guess the Clement forgot about presbyters or maybe priests at this time. He is mediating a dispute and in the section he forgets about the existence of a church office? Weird. I suppose this isn't an infallible statement because its just a personal letter, right? If that's the case why cite it? Or, perhaps the most logical reason is that presbyter and episkapos are in fact the same office as in Titus. But lets read on:


Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions,2 that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate4 those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.


Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 17). Christian Literature Company.

See, Clement believes they are the same office. You should read the whole letter. it is quite edifying.

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

 

[Augustin56]

You dont know the things you say.
"Without these MEN we would not know Gods word."
As if God needs these men to fulfill His sovereign will.

God doesn't need anything from us!!!

God never used any of those men.
They are all heretics.
God used the apostles to bring His gospel to the world.
If those apostles turned against God it would not have stopped His word from being proclaimed to the whole world.
God would have used other men to do His will
If those men turned against Him it would not change Gods sovereign will from being accomplished
And so on and so on.

You have proven your faith is in men not God or His word

You serve a weak god!

My Gods will, will be done.
And nothing can stop His will from being done!

Acts 5:38-39
- And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone
for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing
but if it is of God, You cannot overthrow it- lest you even be found to fight against God

While God didn't "need" these men, He indeed chose them. Even a casual reading of the Old and New Testaments will show you that God usually works through men. He doesn't come riding down on a flaming chariot do deliver His message.

Refer to Luke 10:16, which says,

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.

Jesus, Himself, is saying that if you don't listen to the mere men He selects, then you are not listening to Him. And if you reject the mere men He selects, you reject Him. And if you reject Him, you reject the One Who sent Him.

Here is the question I would pose for you. If Jesus gave the fullness of Divine Revelation to His Apostles (He did), and they passed it on to their successors, the bishops, who have done likewise, on and on, for 2000 years, how can you account for some belief that differs from the original deposit of faith? Are you claiming that you are a prophet, and Jesus appeared to you or sent an angel to make "corrections" to what was always taught?

The Catholic Church received the fulless of Divine Revelation from Christ, through His Apostles and their successors, the bishops. It has never, ever changed any of these teachings. The gates of hell (Matt. 16:18) has never prevailed over Christ's Church, as He promised.

 

[Athanasius377]

Ahhhh – now we’re getting somewhere.
Time for a History Lesson . . .

The Seven Deuterocanonical Books that were ejected from the OT Canon by your Protestant Fathers WERE part of the open Jewish Canon of the first century. That is, up to and throughout the life of Jesus on earth. There are some 200 references, to these Books on the pages if the New Testament.
The Jewish Canon was not closed until the 2nd century.

The Jewish canon was closed in at the latest second century BC. I contend before then. There are also references to books like Enoch and pagan writers but that doesn't establish them as canon. The Apocrypha is never quoted as scripture in the NT either.

After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Rabbis established a rabbinical school in the Jewish city of at Jabneh (or Jamnia). It became center for Jewish political and religious political thought. Because the Temple had been destroyed in 70 AD – this school led by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137) redefined certain aspects of Judaism until the Temple could be restored.

This is a theory that has since been discredited. Jabneh never discussed the apocrapha but rather focused on Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. Beckwith oberserves:


The theory that an open canon was closed at the Synod of Jamnia about ad 90 goes back to Heinrich Graetz in 1871, who proposed (rather more cautiously than has since been the custom) that the Synod of Jamnia led to the closing of the canon. Though others have lately expressed hesitations about the theory, its complete refutation has been the work of J. P. Lewis and S. Z. Leiman.6 The combined result of their investigations is as follows:


(a) The term ‘synod’ or ‘council’ is inappropriate. The academy at Jamnia, established by Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in ad 70, was both a college and a legislative body, and the occasion in question was a session of the elders there.


(b) The date of the session may have been as early as ad 75 or as late as ad 117.


(c) As regards the disputed books, the discussion was confined to the question whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (or possibly Ecclesiastes alone) make the hands unclean, i.e. are divinely inspired.


(d) The decision reached was not regarded as authoritative, since contrary opinions continued to be expressed throughout the second century.



Beckwith, R. T. (1985). The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (p. 276). SPCK.

With Romans 3.1-2 in mind lets explore what a contemporary of the time frame we are discussing has to say about it. Josephus actually gives us a list

(38) For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; (39) and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; (40) but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.

Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1987). The works of Josephus: complete and unabridged (p. 776). Hendrickson.

You will notice Josephus is using the traditional inspired books 22 books that is typically referred to in Jewish writing.

 

[Titus]

While God didn't "need" these men, He indeed chose them. Even a casual reading of the Old and New Testaments will show you that God usually works through men. He doesn't come riding down on a flaming chariot do deliver His message.

Give book, chapter and verse where God chose the "church fathers"

O, that's right, THEY ARE NOT FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE!!!!

God chose the apostles.
He could have chose other men and His will would have been accomplished just the same.

Refer to Luke 10:16, which says,

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me

You cannot understand scripture if you take it out of context.
Show me the "church fathers" in Luke 10:16,

In Luke 10:16 was Jesus speaking to you?
When you use scripture to try and prove your position, is it common for you to take verses out if context?

Luke 10:16-17
- He who hears you(the seventy disciples whom God has given miraculously power to)
hears Me, he who rejects you(again the seventy disciples that God has given miraculous power to)
rejects Me
and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me

Verse 19,
- Behold I give you(the seventy disciples whom God has given miraculous power to)
the authority(Jesus gave you no authority Augustine56 you are not there)
to trample on serpents and scorpions( I'd like to come over your place some time and see you do this)
and over all the power of the enemy,
and nothing by any means shall hurt you( I hope you realize Jesus did not chose you or the church fathers here Augustine56)

Verse 17,
- Then the seventy returned with joy saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us(not you Augustine56 nor the "church fathers")
even the demons are subject to us(the seventy not the "church fathers" who were never there nor you Augustine56)
in Your name.

Jesus, Himself, is saying that if you don't listen to the mere men He selects,

That would be the apostles.
You need to learn they are the only ones who wrote the books of the new testament with the exception of Luke and Mark who also were chosen directly by God thus Inspired.
We listen to them because they were under the direct operation of the Holy Spirit.

The "church fathers" were never chosen by Jesus directly.
They are not in the Bible!

Here is the question I would pose for you. If Jesus gave the fullness of Divine Revelation to His Apostles (He did), and they passed it on to their successors

Give book, chapter and verse where there was an apostolic succession?
You wont be able to, there was none!

Galatians 1:8,
- but even if we(apostles) or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we(apostles) have preached to you, let him be accursed.

I'll be waiting for those Bible verses where the apostles appointed successors?

1Corinthians 13,
- Love never fails but whether there are prophecies they will fail
Whether there are tongues they will cease
Whether there is knowledge(apostles had miraculous knowledge) it will vanish away
For we know in part and we prophesy in part
But that which is perfect(The full revelation of the gospel written down i.e. Holy Bible) has come then that which is in part(miraculous gifts) will be done away.


Impossible today for apostolic succession. No miracles occur today.

Simply give the scriptures where the apostles appoint other apostles.
You cannot do it!!!

Only Jesus directly chose His apostles not men!!!

Luke 24:49,
- Behold I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you(soon to be apostles) are endued with power from on high.

No man like the apostles ever chose other apostles if so give book, chapter and verse?

Are you claiming that you are a prophet, and Jesus appeared to you or sent an angel to make "corrections" to what was always taught?

I let the catholic church make false claims up about latter day revelations!
That's your churches business. True Bible believing christians know no more prophets, no more revelation from God will be given,

Jude 3,
- beloved while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation I found it nessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which WAS(past tense) ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS.

make "corrections" to what was always taught?

The catholic church is a sectarian division from the true church we read about in the new testament.
Catholics love to claim they are the true church.

The church of Christ has ONE Head over ALL the church!!!!
The catholic church claims the head is the pope!

This is heresy! It's an abomination!!!

The churches head is Christ.
The church is the body of Christ

Colossians 1:18,
- And Jesus is the  Head of the body(church) ...that Jesus may have the preeminence

True Bible teaching never says a man like the pope, . is the head of the church like the lying catholic church says.

That would usurp Jesus' ALL authority over His body/church

Matthew 28:18,
- And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying,
- ALL AUTHORITY has been given Me in heaven and on earth

Now the catholic church says the pope is the head of the body.

That makes the body have TWO heads Jesus and the pope!!!
A two headed monster!!!!

You ever seen a body with two heads? Pretty disgusting thought isn't it Agustin56.

The Catholic Church received the fulless of Divine Revelation from Christ, through His Apostles and their successors, the bishops.

You. are teaching fables!
2Timothy 4:4,
- and they will turn their ears away from the truth and be turned aside to  fables

 

[Augustin56]

The Jewish canon was closed in at the latest second century BC. I contend before then. There are also references to books like Enoch and pagan writers but that doesn't establish them as canon. The Apocrypha is never quoted as scripture in the NT either.


This is a theory that has since been discredited. Jabneh never discussed the apocrapha but rather focused on Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. Beckwith oberserves:


The theory that an open canon was closed at the Synod of Jamnia about ad 90 goes back to Heinrich Graetz in 1871, who proposed (rather more cautiously than has since been the custom) that the Synod of Jamnia led to the closing of the canon. Though others have lately expressed hesitations about the theory, its complete refutation has been the work of J. P. Lewis and S. Z. Leiman.6 The combined result of their investigations is as follows:


(a) The term ‘synod’ or ‘council’ is inappropriate. The academy at Jamnia, established by Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in ad 70, was both a college and a legislative body, and the occasion in question was a session of the elders there.


(b) The date of the session may have been as early as ad 75 or as late as ad 117.


(c) As regards the disputed books, the discussion was confined to the question whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (or possibly Ecclesiastes alone) make the hands unclean, i.e. are divinely inspired.


(d) The decision reached was not regarded as authoritative, since contrary opinions continued to be expressed throughout the second century.



Beckwith, R. T. (1985). The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (p. 276). SPCK.

With Romans 3.1-2 in mind lets explore what a contemporary of the time frame we are discussing has to say about it. Josephus actually gives us a list

(38) For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; (39) and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; (40) but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.

Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1987). The works of Josephus: complete and unabridged (p. 776). Hendrickson.

You will notice Josephus is using the traditional inspired books 22 books that is typically referred to in Jewish writing.

There were actually two versions of the Old Testament floating around when the Bible was compiled into one book in the late fourth century. One was Hebrew and one was Greek. Before Jesus was incarnated, there was a large contingent of Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt, as merchants. Alexandria was a large port city on the Mediterranean Sea. The common language of the Mediterranean countries with regard to commerce and literature, at that time, was Greek. The Jews, being good merchants, worked there for generations and more or less begin forgetting their Hebrew. But, they knew Greek. So, they contacted Israel and asked for a copy of the existing Scriptures to be translated into Greek, which they did. After Jesus came, and rose to heaven, the Apostles and new Christians begin converting Jews to Christianity, using the Old Testament Scriptures. This, of course, upset the Jewish leaders, who then decided to create an official canon (list of books) for their Old Testament. They purposely left out seven books that had previously been there. So, we now had two versions of Scripture. In the late fourth century, the Catholic Church held three councils to determine which of the 300+ books, documents, letters, etc., that were in circulation were worthy of being considered Scripture. Of all of those, they came up with the 27 that almost everyone agrees are the books of the New Testament. They then chose the Greek version of the Old Testament. Bible scholars have studied both versions of the Old Testament and have determined that 80-85% of the direct and indirect references in the New Testament to the Old Testament point to the Greek version. Therefore, we can conclude that the Greek version was the one Jesus and the Apostles used most often.