What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
None of that even begins to address what I posted. I asked:

Where does Rufinus claim he is following Jerome? No where!
Where does Jerome claim Rufinus is following him? No where!
Cite any contemporary source which claims Rufinus was only following Jerome. It doesn't.
Cite any contemporary source which claims Jerome or Rufinus were following unbelieving rabbis. It doesn't.

That is a very nice job of you finding absolutely nothing relevant.

Dude seriously, Jerome moved to Bethlehem to study under the Rabbis whom according to his preface of his 3rd psalmster he agrees with that the Jews are right and that the bible of the church needed correction. Rufinus moves to Jerusalem and reunites with Jerome who is converting the Septuagint usage of Christian tradition to the Judaic tradition (since Christianity), Origin does not reject the so called "apocrypha" books, Jerome does, Rufinus is mutual to the debate and Jerome eventually gets Rufinus to side with him.

They are all dead so don't take my word for it, they wrote, wikipedia has citations you can research, im done posting contents of my citations. I showed you that the majority of churches and their leaders proudly declare "apocrypha" books as HOLY INSPIRED and all you say is "well the majority is always right" or something like that, Josiah says "that doesn't mean ergo ALL accepted it ergo its canon"...

Looks like more proclaim than proclaim otherwise. Oh but more is less right? The majority of the church was wrong right? But your "1816 American Bible Society Canon" is right
 

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Dude seriously, Jerome moved to Bethlehem to study under the Rabbis whom according to his preface of his 3rd psalmster he agrees with that the Jews are right and that the bible of the church needed correction. Rufinus moves to Jerusalem and reunites with Jerome who is converting the Septuagint usage of Christian tradition to the Judaic tradition (since Christianity),
Dude seriously:

Where does Rufinus claim he is following Jerome?
Where does Jerome claim Rufinus is following him?
Cite any contemporary source which claims Rufinus was only following Jerome.
Cite any contemporary source which claims Jerome or Rufinus were following unbelieving rabbis.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Dude seriously:

Where does Rufinus claim he is following Jerome?
Where does Jerome claim Rufinus is following him?
Cite any contemporary source which claims Rufinus was only following Jerome.
Cite any contemporary source which claims Jerome or Rufinus were following unbelieving rabbis.

Where do I claim what you claim I claimed that any of these characters claimed this and that?

In my mind I think "are these Jews that Jerome studied under -believers in Jesus or unbelievers in Jesus?"
and then in my mind I say "they reject Jesus so they are unbelievers"

Then I wonder "why didn't the apostles, who were so concerned with order in the church allow the flood of faulty scriptures mixed with non scriptures into the hands of Christians so quickly"? "Why didnt the newly Jewish converts to Christianity protest against the flawed scriptures and correct them then?" "Why did only the unbelieving Jews reject them?"

Then I say to myself "why would the Jews help out Jerome anyway? Unless it was to get him to convince the church that they had always held faulty scriptures in need correction... and if it was the case then why would the Jews care if some messianic cult did not have the correct version?"

To witness against Christians that's why, the same reason we witness to Muslims and Mormons, to convert them.

How does Jerome benefit? Well he became a venerated Saint, some called him a prophet, but I can't speak for him obviously, however his writings document his slow and steady sway to the unbelieving Jews as shown in his 1rst 2nd and 3rd psalmters.

As for his friend, when Jerome who was once well versed in Origens writings turned against him he slowly grafted Rufinus to his side against Origen, Rufinus was also a greek translator as was Origen, how appropriate that the canon of Rufinus is exactly the same canon as the Jews and the same as his friend Jerome whom he lived with in Jerusalem where Jerome and his Jewish tudors (in Bethlehem/Jerusalem) "corrected" the Christian bible .. Birds of a feather.

My claims, not claims of these people, so stop it with the "where does so and so claim such in such"
 
Last edited:

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Where do I claim what you claim I claimed that any of these characters claimed this and that?
I did not say you claimed any of it. It would be evidence for your claim that is if you had any which you don't.


How soon you forget what you have said. You did claim this.
Why is Rufinus a problem? He was best buddies with Jerome in Jerusalem, being besties of course he would side with Jerome and the unbelieving rabbis.
Here we go again. Another empty claim with no supporting evidence. Provide primary sources to support that claim.

Where does Rufinus claim he is following Jerome?
Where does Jerome claim Rufinus is following him?
Cite any contemporary source which claims Rufinus was only following Jerome.
Cite any contemporary source which claims Jerome or Rufinus were following unbelieving rabbis.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I did not say you claimed any of it. It would be evidence for your claim that is if you had any which you don't.


How soon you forget what you have said. You did claim this.

Here we go again. Another empty claim with no supporting evidence. Provide primary sources to support that claim.

Where does Rufinus claim he is following Jerome?
Where does Jerome claim Rufinus is following him?
Cite any contemporary source which claims Rufinus was only following Jerome.
Cite any contemporary source which claims Jerome or Rufinus were following unbelieving rabbis.

Good news!! I found some claims! Turns out Rufinus retracted his list of canon! Turns out he and Jerome had a falling out and Rufinus spilt a bucket of beans on him lol
So here is Rufinus destroying Jerome AND joining Nathan and I in agreement!

Thanks for introducing me to this fellow!


By Rufinus:
Jerome's translation of the Scriptures impugned

32. Perhaps it was a greater piece of audacity to alter the books of the divine Scriptures which had been delivered to the Churches of Christ by the Apostles to be a complete record of their faith by making a new translation under the influence of the Jews. Which of these two things appears to you to be the less legitimate? As to the sayings of Origen, if we agree with them, we agree with them as the sayings of a man; if we disagree, we can easily disregard them as those of a mere man. But how are we to regard those translations of yours which you are now sending about everywhere, through our churches and monasteries, through all our cities and walled towns? Are they to be treated as human or divine? And what are we to do when we are told that the books which bear the names of the Hebrew Prophets and lawgivers are to be had from you in a truer form than that which was approved by the Apostles? How, I ask, is this mistake to be set right, or rather, how is this crime to be expiated? We hold it a thing worthy of condemnation that a man should have put forth some strange opinions in the interpretation of the law of God; but to pervert the law itself and make it different from that which the Apostles handed down to us,—how many times over must this be pronounced worthy of condemnation? To the daring temerity of this act we may much more justly apply your words: Which of all the wise and holy men who have gone before you has dared to put his hand to that work? Which of them would have presumed thus to profane the book of God, and the sacred words of the Holy Spirit? Who but you would have laid hands upon the divine gift and the inheritance of the Apostles?

Authority of the LXX

33. There has been from the first in the churches of God, and especially in that of Jerusalem, a plentiful supply of men who being born Jews have become Christians; and their perfect acquaintance with both languages and their sufficient knowledge of the law is shown by their administration of the pontifical office. In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of the three children, which is regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has wholly erased from the place where it stood. But why should I enumerate these cases one by one, when their number cannot be estimated? This, however, cannot be passed over. The seventy translators, each in their separate cells, produced a version couched in consonant and identical words, under the inspiration, as we cannot doubt, of the Holy Spirit; and this version must certainly be of more authority with us than a translation made by a single man under the inspiration of Barabbas. But, putting this aside, I beg you to listen, for example, to this as an instance of what we mean. Peter was for twenty-four years Bishop of the Church of Rome. We cannot doubt that, amongst other things necessary for the instruction of the church, he himself delivered to them the treasury of the sacred books, which, no doubt, had even then begun to be read under his presidency and teaching. What are we to say then? Did Peter the Apostle of Christ deceive the church and deliver to them books which were false and contained nothing of truth? Are we to believe that he knew that the Jews possessed what was true, and yet determined that the Christians should have what was false? But perhaps the answer will be made that Peter was illiterate, and that, though he knew that the books of the Jews were truer than those which existed in the church, yet he could not translate them into Latin because of his linguistic incapacity. What then! Was the tongue of fire given by the Holy Spirit from heaven of no avail to him? Did not the Apostles speak in all languages?

Has the Church had spurious Scriptures?

34. But let us grant that the Apostle Peter was unable to do what our friend has lately done. Was Paul illiterate? We ask; He who was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, touching the law a Pharisee, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel? Could not he, when he was at Rome, have supplied any deficiencies of Peter? Is it conceivable that they, who prescribed to their disciples that they should give attention to reading, did not give them correct and true reading? These men who bid us not attend to Jewish fables and genealogies, which minister questioning rather than edification; and who, again, bid us beware of, and specially watch, those of the circumcision; is it conceivable that they could not foresee through the Spirit that a time would come, after nearly four hundred years, when the church would find out that the Apostles had not delivered to them the truth of the old Testament, and would send an embassy to those whom the apostles spoke of as the circumcision, begging and beseeching them to dole out to them some small portion of the truth which was in their possession: and that the Church would through this embassy confess that she had been for all those four hundred years in error; that she had indeed been called by the Apostles from among the Gentiles to be the bride of Christ, but that they had not decked her with a necklace of genuine jewels; that she had fondly thought that they were precious stones, but now had found out that those were not true gems which the Apostles had put upon her, so that she felt ashamed to go forth in public decked in false instead of true jewels, and that she therefore begged that they would send her Barabbas, even him whom she had once rejected to be married to Christ, so that in conjunction with one man chosen from among her own people, he might restore to her the true ornaments with which the Apostles had failed to furnish her.

Danger of altering the Versions of Scripture

35. What wonder is there then that he should tear me to pieces, being as I am of no account; or that he should wound Ambrose, or find fault with Hilary, Lactantius and Didymus? I must not greatly grieve over any injury of my own in the fact that he has attempted to do my work of translating over again, when he is only treating me with the same contempt with which he has treated the Seventy translators. But this emendation of the Seventy, what are we to think of it? Is it not evident, how greatly the grounds for the heathens' unbelief have been increased by this proceeding? For they take notice of what is going on amongst us. They know that our law has been amended, or at least changed; and do you suppose they do not say among themselves, These people are wandering at random, they have no fixed truth among them, for you see how they make amendments and corrections in their laws whenever they please, and indeed it is evident that there must have been previous error where amendment has supervened, and that things which undergo change at the hand of man cannot possibly be divine. This has been the present which you have made us with your excess of wisdom, that we are all judged even by the heathen as lacking in wisdom. I reject the wisdom which Peter and Paul did not teach. I will have nothing to do with a truth which the Apostles have not approved. These are your own words: The ears of simple men among the Latins ought not after four hundred years to be molested by the sound of new doctrines. Now you are yourself saying: Every one has been under a mistake who thought that Susanna had afforded an example of chastity to both the married and the unmarried. It is not true. And every one who thought that the boy Daniel was filled with the Holy Spirit and convicted the adulterous old men, was under a mistake. That also was not true. And every congregation throughout the universe, whether of those who are in the body or of those who have departed to be with the Lord, even though they were holy martyrs or confessors, all who have sung the Hymn of the three children have been in error, and have sung what is false. Now therefore after four hundred years the truth of the law comes forth for us, it has been bought with money from the Synagogue. When the world has grown old and all things are hastening to their end, let us change the inscriptions upon the tombs of the ancients, so that it may be known by those who had read the story otherwise, that it was not a gourd but an ivy plant under whose shade Jonah rested; and that, when our legislator pleases, it will no longer be the shade of ivy but of some other plant.
 
Last edited:

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
About their friendship


In order to understand the controversy between Jerome and Rufinus it is necessary to look back over their earlier relations. They had been close friends in early youth (Jerome, Ep. iii, 3, v, 2.) and had together formed part of a society of young Christian ascetics at Aquileia in the years 370–3. Jerome’s letter (3) to Rufinus in 374 is full of affection; in 381 he was placed in Jerome’s Chronicle (year 378) as “a monk of great renown,” and when after some years, they were neighbours in Palestine, Rufinus with Melania on the Mt. of Olives, Jerome with Paula at Bethlehem, they remained friends. (Ruf. Apol. ii. 8 (2).) In the disputes about Origenism which arose from the visits of Aterbius (Jer. Apol. iii, 33) and Epiphanius (Jerome Against John of Jerusalem, 11), they became estranged, Jerome siding with Epiphanius and Rufinus with John (Jer Letter li, 6. Against John of Jerusalem II). They were reconciled before Rufinus left Palestine in 397 (Jer. Apol. i, 1, iii, 33). But when Rufinus came to Italy and at the request of Macarius 2815 translated Origen’s Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, the Preface which he prefixed to this work was the occasion for a fresh and final outbreak of dissension. The friends of Jerome of whom Pammachius, Oceanus and Marcella were the most prominent, were scandalized at some of the statements of the book, and still more at the assumption made by Rufinus that Jerome, by his previous translations of some of Origen’s works, had proved himself his admirer. They also suspected that Rufinus’ translation had made Origen speak in an orthodox sense which was not genuine and that heterodox statements had been suppressed. They therefore wrote to Jerome at Bethlehem a letter (translated among Jerome’s letters in this Series No. lxxxiii) begging for information on all these points. Jerome in reply made a literal translation of the Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, and sent it accompanied by a letter (lxxxiv) in which he declared that he had never been a partisan of Origen’s dogmatic system, though he admired him as a commentator. He fastened on some of the most questionable of Origen’s speculations, his doctrine of the resurrection, of the previous existence of souls and their fall into human bodies, and the ultimate restoration of all spiritual beings; his permission, in agreement with Plato, of the use of falsehood in certain cases; and some expressions about the relation of the Persons of the Godhead which, at least to Western ears, seemed a denial of their equality. He appealed to his own commentaries on Ecclesiastes and on the Ephesians to show that he rejected these doctrines; and he urged that, even if he had once had too indiscriminate an admiration of Origen, he had in later years judged more clearly.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Andrew,

Brother, neither Rufinus or Jerome are "MOST CHRISTIANS BEFORE 1500." Your claim is that at least 51% of all Christians from 33-1500 AD held that all the (yet unnamed) books that Nathan calls "apocrypha" were embraced as fully canonical until 1500. While I read your debate with Origen with interest, here's where you loose me my friend: How are 2 people "MOST Christians?" How many Christians lived from 33-1500 AD, while I don't know, it must have been more than 3.

Now, Nathan disagrees with you. He claims that there was some authoritative meeting of some PAN-Christian, ALL-Christianity, ECUMENCIAL meeting (all of which he is in full docilic submission) that on some date and at some place DECLARED all the books he won't identify as fully and equally canonical (it's just that no one agrees with what it declared) - but he can't name that definitive meeting of some grand Ruling Body of Every Christian, of All Christianity.

Your position however is one of popularity: 51% held that all Nathan's books were accepted as fully canonical, not some decision but 51% holding to that position. However, while PERHAPS you have some 4 or 5 (maybe 6?) to have held to some books (maybe not Nathan's), I just don't follow how that shows at least 50,000,000 did (assuming 100 million believers during thos3 15 centuries, I really have no idea how many there were). Were is your proof of that?


Now, it seems you found a person who agrees with you on a book. Great. And your point NOW is that if you can find say 2 or 3 or 4 or maybe even 10 people (not 50,000,000) who agree with you on some book, ERGO it's among The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. And I'm sure you can do that with some books! But here's where you loose me.... you can do that for lots of books you don't accept, books like the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement (some of which are quoted and manscripts existing far more than say Hebrews). And conversely, you can find very prominent Christians listing books as Scripture that DON'T include books you accept, books like Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude. So if a book is "IN" if 3 prominent Christians have the opinion that it is, why 2 Maccabees but not The Epistle of Barnabas? And if a book is "OUT" because 3 prominent Christians left it out, why do you accept Hebrews? And earlier seemed to share that if a book is found in a tome along with others you accept, ergo it too must be fully canonical - yet LOTS of biblical tomes included Psalm 151, 3-4 Maccabees and the Epistle of the Leodiceans - yet you don't accept those. But here's my question: Why does the opinion of someone matter SO much - but only if they seem to agree with you (on one book, anyway)? What happened to your "gotta be at least 51% agreement of all Christians" point? IMO, consensus DOES matter.... but it is NOT perfect, even among prominent persons.... especially in the Early Church but even today. Did First, Second, Third and Fourth Maccabees have SOME support by SOME people for SOME THING (maybe not fully, equal canonicity)? Yup! Without question! No debate! Does that mean Nathan is right and ALL CHRISTIANITY by declaration of some supreme Ruling Body of All Christianity at some meeting declared it so? Well, he has nothing to indicate that. OR because at least 50.0001% of every Christian who lived between 33 - 1500 AD accepted them? Well, you've presented nothing to show that. But now... it's "if I can find 3 or 4 prominent people who agree with me." But if just as many prominent Christians at the time disagree with me, that's irrelevant."


And brother, if 1 (or 2, 3, 4) prominent Christian man can put a book IN (and all Christians must submit to them), why can't 1 (or 2, 3, 4) prominent Christian man take a book out? Personally, I liked your "majority rules" argument better (it's just impossible to substantiate).



A blessed Pentecost to you and yours.


- Josiah



.
 
Last edited:

NathanH83

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
2,278
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Andrew,

Brother, neither Rufinus or Jerome are "MOST CHRISTIANS BEFORE 1500." Your claim is that at least 51% of all Christians from 33-1500 AD held that all the (yet unnamed) books that Nathan calls "apocrypha" were embraced as fully canonical until 1500. While I read your debate with Origen with interest, here's where you loose me my friend: How are 2 people "MOST Christians?" How many Christians lived from 33-1500 AD, while I don't know, it must have been more than 3.

Now, Nathan disagrees with you. He claims that there was some authoritative meeting of some PAN-Christian, ALL-Christianity, ECUMENCIAL meeting (all of which he is in full docilic submission) that on some date and at some place DECLARED all the books he won't identify as fully and equally canonical (it's just that no one agrees with what it declared) - but he can't name that definitive meeting of some grand Ruling Body of Every Christian, of All Christianity.

Your position however is one of popularity: 51% held that all Nathan's books were accepted as fully canonical, not some decision but 51% holding to that position. However, while PERHAPS you have some 4 or 5 (maybe 6?) to have held to some books (maybe not Nathan's), I just don't follow how that shows at least 50,000,000 did (assuming 100 million believers during thos3 15 centuries, I really have no idea how many there were). Were is your proof of that?


Now, it seems you found a person who agrees with you on a book. Great. And your point NOW is that if you can find say 2 or 3 or 4 or maybe even 10 people (not 50,000,000) who agree with you on some book, ERGO it's among The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. And I'm sure you can do that with some books! But here's where you loose me.... you can do that for lots of books you don't accept, books like the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement (some of which are quoted and manscripts existing far more than say Hebrews). And conversely, you can find very prominent Christians listing books as Scripture that DON'T include books you accept, books like Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude. So if a book is "IN" if 3 prominent Christians have the opinion that it is, why 2 Maccabees but not The Epistle of Barnabas? And if a book is "OUT" because 3 prominent Christians left it out, why do you accept Hebrews? And earlier seemed to share that if a book is found in a tome along with others you accept, ergo it too must be fully canonical - yet LOTS of biblical tomes included Psalm 151, 3-4 Maccabees and the Epistle of the Leodiceans - yet you don't accept those. But here's my question: Why does the opinion of someone matter SO much - but only if they seem to agree with you (on one book, anyway)? What happened to your "gotta be at least 51% agreement of all Christians" point? IMO, consensus DOES matter.... but it is NOT perfect, even among prominent persons.... especially in the Early Church but even today. Did First, Second, Third and Fourth Maccabees have SOME support by SOME people for SOME THING (maybe not fully, equal canonicity)? Yup! Without question! No debate! Does that mean Nathan is right and ALL CHRISTIANITY by declaration of some supreme Ruling Body of All Christianity at some meeting declared it so? Well, he has nothing to indicate that. OR because at least 50.0001% of every Christian who lived between 33 - 1500 AD accepted them? Well, you've presented nothing to show that. But now... it's "if I can find 3 or 4 prominent people who agree with me." But if just as many prominent Christians at the time disagree with me, that's irrelevant."


And brother, if 1 (or 2, 3, 4) prominent Christian man can put a book IN (and all Christians must submit to them), why can't 1 (or 2, 3, 4) prominent Christian man take a book out? Personally, I liked your "majority rules" argument better (it's just impossible to substantiate).



A blessed Pentecost to you and yours.


- Josiah



.


What in the world are you talking about?
51%? Huh?
You never make any sense. It’s like nonsensical rambling.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Andrew,

Brother, neither Rufinus or Jerome are "MOST CHRISTIANS BEFORE 1500." Your claim is that at least 51% of all Christians from 33-1500 AD held that all the (yet unnamed) books that Nathan calls "apocrypha" were embraced as fully canonical until 1500. While I read your debate with Origen with interest, here's where you loose me my friend: How are 2 people "MOST Christians?" How many Christians lived from 33-1500 AD, while I don't know, it must have been more than 3.

Now, Nathan disagrees with you. He claims that there was some authoritative meeting of some PAN-Christian, ALL-Christianity, ECUMENCIAL meeting (all of which he is in full docilic submission) that on some date and at some place DECLARED all the books he won't identify as fully and equally canonical (it's just that no one agrees with what it declared) - but he can't name that definitive meeting of some grand Ruling Body of Every Christian, of All Christianity.

Your position however is one of popularity: 51% held that all Nathan's books were accepted as fully canonical, not some decision but 51% holding to that position. However, while PERHAPS you have some 4 or 5 (maybe 6?) to have held to some books (maybe not Nathan's), I just don't follow how that shows at least 50,000,000 did (assuming 100 million believers during thos3 15 centuries, I really have no idea how many there were). Were is your proof of that?


Now, it seems you found a person who agrees with you on a book. Great. And your point NOW is that if you can find say 2 or 3 or 4 or maybe even 10 people (not 50,000,000) who agree with you on some book, ERGO it's among The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. And I'm sure you can do that with some books! But here's where you loose me.... you can do that for lots of books you don't accept, books like the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement (some of which are quoted and manscripts existing far more than say Hebrews). And conversely, you can find very prominent Christians listing books as Scripture that DON'T include books you accept, books like Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude. So if a book is "IN" if 3 prominent Christians have the opinion that it is, why 2 Maccabees but not The Epistle of Barnabas? And if a book is "OUT" because 3 prominent Christians left it out, why do you accept Hebrews? And earlier seemed to share that if a book is found in a tome along with others you accept, ergo it too must be fully canonical - yet LOTS of biblical tomes included Psalm 151, 3-4 Maccabees and the Epistle of the Leodiceans - yet you don't accept those. But here's my question: Why does the opinion of someone matter SO much - but only if they seem to agree with you (on one book, anyway)? What happened to your "gotta be at least 51% agreement of all Christians" point? IMO, consensus DOES matter.... but it is NOT perfect, even among prominent persons.... especially in the Early Church but even today. Did First, Second, Third and Fourth Maccabees have SOME support by SOME people for SOME THING (maybe not fully, equal canonicity)? Yup! Without question! No debate! Does that mean Nathan is right and ALL CHRISTIANITY by declaration of some supreme Ruling Body of All Christianity at some meeting declared it so? Well, he has nothing to indicate that. OR because at least 50.0001% of every Christian who lived between 33 - 1500 AD accepted them? Well, you've presented nothing to show that. But now... it's "if I can find 3 or 4 prominent people who agree with me." But if just as many prominent Christians at the time disagree with me, that's irrelevant."


And brother, if 1 (or 2, 3, 4) prominent Christian man can put a book IN (and all Christians must submit to them), why can't 1 (or 2, 3, 4) prominent Christian man take a book out? Personally, I liked your "majority rules" argument better (it's just impossible to substantiate).



A blessed Pentecost to you and yours.


- Josiah



.

I don't disagree with Nathan, popularity + canon based on councils is further validation.

Now, as from a quote from an early Bishop I had posted earlier, the list of books accepted was based on the popularity of the books read in the churches. In other words, the popular books become the traditional list for the churches and stem from generations of church tradition since the beginning.

The word Tenakh was not used until medieval times, those three parts were once undivided, in "writings" the 5 scrolls were the latest additions in which 2 of them possibly dated around the 2nd century BC (during those "silent 400 years").
Before the title Tanakh was ever used the books were called "Mikra" meaning "reading/that which is read", they were the popular books passed down through tradition from generations and accompanied by an oral tradition as well, called the Oral Law.

Thus the Mikra that eventually became the Tanakh was canonized based on tradition, so what were the traditional books that Christians passed down up until Jerome? You guessed it, the books of the LXX that Jerome "corrected" including the books he named "Apocrypha"...

I list of quotes I shared are from the early church fathers, who each oversee regional churches, each church consisting of many Christians, who according to the fathers accepted the so called "apocrypha" as HOLY SCRIPTURE.

As for the lists that differ give or take a few books, they were based on the most read in the churches according to the quote I provided earlier (can't think of the fellows name hut it's there somewhere). Some suggest that it's possible that the early missionaries who established churches in far regions brought only a limited number of books with them, 1 or 2 books of Maccabees instead of 4 (im using the word book for the sake of argument) ALSO the additions to Jeremiah and Daniel etc were considered by some fathers as one book.

Regardless, you have bishops who have regions who have congregations of Christians who read the books in churches and for sermons and who's church fathers declare HOLY SCRIPTURE, perhaps a few Jewish converts to Christianity had accepted the 2nd century ad septuagint translation by aquila who cut out certain books and replaced the original version of the septuagint in the synagogues.

Josiah, you claim that the protestant canon comes from protestant tradition, that has been the case for Judaism and Christianity as well, Judaism however were the first to declare canon in response to Christianity to rid them from the synagogues (as they now held to non canon books and were expelled).

"Writings" include "poetic writings", the "5 scrolls", and "other writings", a total of 11 books all together a few dating possibly as recent as the 2nd century BC..

The so called "apocrypha" are often considered "other writings"..

Btw, modern Orthodox Jews only observe the Torah and the Talmud, in my opinion these unbelievers never really cared about the rest of the Tanakh, they are not of Israel
 
Last edited:

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Good news!!
LOL

I found some claims! Turns out Rufinus retracted his list of canon!
First, wrong again. You have a very bad habit of claim something is in a text when it is not.

No where in the text does Rufinus claim to reject his own canon list.
No where does Rufinus claim to accept the books of the apocrypha.
No where does Rufinus even mention the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Baruch etc.

Highlight in the text where he does any of the above. Show us!
 
Last edited:

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
LOL


First, wrong again. You have a very bad habit of claim something is in a text when it is not.

No where in the text does Rufinus claim to reject his canon list.
No where does Rufinus claim to accept the book of the apocrypha.
No where does even Rufinus mention the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Baruch etc.

Highlight in the text where he does any of the above. Show us!
You
Did
Not
Read
The
Whole
Thing
Did
You?
 

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You
Did
Not
Read
The
Whole
Thing
Did
You?
Then prove me wrong by highlighting.

No where in the text does Rufinus claim to reject his own canon list.
No where does Rufinus claim to accept the books of the apocrypha.
No where does Rufinus even mention the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Baruch etc.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Then prove me wrong by highlighting.

No where in the text does Rufinus claim to reject his own canon list.
No where does Rufinus claim to accept the books of the apocrypha.
No where does Rufinus even mention the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Baruch etc.
Susanna?
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Did Peter the Apostle of Christ deceive the church and deliver to them books which were false and contained nothing of truth?

What books is he talking about?
 

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Did Peter the Apostle of Christ deceive the church and deliver to them books which were false and contained nothing of truth?
We have no canon list from Peter and no one can provide one.

What books is he talking about?
Give the canon list Rufinus provides in Exposition of the Creed, and given the FACT that Rufinus:

No where in the text does Rufinus claim to reject his own canon list.
No where does Rufinus claim to accept the books of the apocrypha.
No where does Rufinus even mention the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Baruch etc.

The following is what Rufinus believed.

"Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Joshua the son of Nun; the book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings, which the Hebrews reckon two; Paralipomenon, which is called the book of Days [Chronicles], and two books of Ezra, which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. These comprise the books of the Old Testament."
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
We have no canon list from Peter and no one can provide one.


Give the canon list Rufinus provides in Exposition of the Creed, and given the FACT that Rufinus:

No where in the text does Rufinus claim to reject his own canon list.
No where does Rufinus claim to accept the books of the apocrypha.
No where does Rufinus even mention the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Baruch etc.

The following is what Rufinus believed.

"Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Joshua the son of Nun; the book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings, which the Hebrews reckon two; Paralipomenon, which is called the book of Days [Chronicles], and two books of Ezra, which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. These comprise the books of the Old Testament."
Yeah that was decades before he realized that Jerome was wrong on MANY MANY levels. He later defends the LXX that the Church used, gives us Susanna as an example, goes on about books that were said to be false which are the ones he first rejected in his list, what other books is he talking about?

Origen 1 + 1 = 2
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I don't disagree with Nathan


How so?



Now, as from a quote from an early Bishop I had posted earlier, the list of books accepted was based on the popularity of the books read in the churches.


Perhaps (although you didn't substantiate that).

But again, my brother, by that rubric, we can ACCEPT or REJECT a bunch of books. Your rubric seems to be that if 1 or 2 or 3 men in the Early Church accepted or rejected a book, ERGO it is or is not Scripture. Brother, this is a rubric that can be used to support books you reject and denounce books you accept. It can be used pretty much anyone anyone wants depending on WHICH 1 or 2 or 3 men are noted. It seems you just focus on the 1, 2 or 3 men who agree with you and totally ignore those who don't.


Friend, here's where you loose me.... you can easily find prominent men in the early centuries of Christianity that affirm as Scripture a lot of books you don't accept, books like the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement (some of which are quoted and manscripts existing far more than say Hebrews). And conversely, you can find very prominent Christians listing books as Scripture that DON'T include books you accept, books like Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude. So if a book is "IN" if 3 prominent Christians have the opinion that it is, why 2 Maccabees but not The Epistle of Barnabas? Why does this ONLY apply when you happen to agree with some early Christian but the whole rubric does a 180 when you don't?


Here's my question: Why does the opinion of someone matter SO much if they seem to agree with you (on one book, anyway) but not at all if they seem to disagree with you? Are the opinions of a few individual prominent Christians normative or not?


Did First, Second, Third and Fourth Maccabees have SOME support by SOME people for SOME THING (maybe not fully, equal canonicity)? Yup! Without question! No debate! But then that's also true for the Didache, First Clement, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, and a lot of other books you reject, so why does your apologetic ONLY apply when you agree but is completely invalid when you don't? And why do you accept Hebrews, for example, when it was NOT supported by so many, it did NOT appear in a lot of lists and tomes? And also 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude? I understand we have FAR more ancient manscripts for the Didache, far more quotes from the Didache, than we do for Hebrews, Revelation, 2-3 John and Jude.


Josiah, you claim that the protestant canon comes from protestant tradition


Not exactly. I stated that what we 2.2 billion Christians today embrace as "SCRIPTURE" is a matter of tradition. The Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church both teach this. Now, the Catholic Church insists that IT (just the Latin Church) eventually did what Nathan suggests - officially, formally, declared what is The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God but IT (alone, uniquely, individually, just itself) didn't do that until the 15th Century (Council of Florance) or 16th Century (Council of Trent) because it didn't need to before that, it had its TRADTION. A tradition DIFFERENT than the several other, different ones found in the East. It's a myth of modern American "Evangelicalism" that God sent out a mass email in 33 AD listing all the books of the Bible - it's just none paid any attention to it until Calvin came along in the 16th Century. History shows that "Evangelical" teaching to be pure myth.



Judaism however were the first to declare canon


Well, JUDAISM may have done what CHRISTIANITY never has. Some hold that its Council of Jamnia did that, and that it was the Authoritative Ruling Body for all Judaism, a Council of all Judaism, and its decision was definitive. It may not have been so absolutely, but it sure comes close. But nothing like that has happened in ALL CHRISTIANITY. Some individual persons have declared their opinions (including you, Joseph Smith, John Calvin, etc. And some individual denominations have done that for itself (the RCC in the 15th or 16th Century), the Reformed community and the Anglican Church in the 16th Century, the LDS in the 19th Century, but nothing like that has happened for the entire religion, for all of Christianity. Sorry, it's just the reality;. I know this REALLY bothers American "Evangelicals" who are taught to hate and reject Tradition and that God sent out that mass Email (that no one read until Calvin).

Frankly, what JUDAISM may or may not have done seems irrelevant to our discussion; you and our good brother are insisting that all CHRISTIANS accept some unidentified group of books as The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. CHRISTIANS. There are no Jews at this website. And this thread is not in a forum about Judaism.



A blessed Pentecost to you and yours....


- Josiah




.


 

Origen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
817
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yeah that was decades before he realized that Jerome was wrong on MANY MANY levels.
Wrong again. It was not decades before but after. Jerome wrote his tome Against Rufinus ca. 402. Rufinus penned Exposition of the Creed ca. 404.

"It is usual to date the Commentarius round about the year 404."

Rufinus. (1955). Rufinus: A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed (Ancient Christian Writers). (J. Quasten & J. C. Plumpe, Eds., J. N. D. Kelly, Trans.) (Vol. 20, p. 9). New York; Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press.

No where in the text does Rufinus claim to reject his own canon list.
No where does Rufinus claim to accept the books of the apocrypha.
No where does Rufinus even mention the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Baruch etc.
 

NathanH83

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
2,278
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
How so?






Perhaps (although you didn't substantiate that).

But again, my brother, by that rubric, we can ACCEPT or REJECT a bunch of books. Your rubric seems to be that if 1 or 2 or 3 men in the Early Church accepted or rejected a book, ERGO it is or is not Scripture. Brother, this is a rubric that can be used to support books you reject and denounce books you accept. It can be used pretty much anyone anyone wants depending on WHICH 1 or 2 or 3 men are noted. It seems you just focus on the 1, 2 or 3 men who agree with you and totally ignore those who don't.


Friend, here's where you loose me.... you can easily find prominent men in the early centuries of Christianity that affirm as Scripture a lot of books you don't accept, books like the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement (some of which are quoted and manscripts existing far more than say Hebrews). And conversely, you can find very prominent Christians listing books as Scripture that DON'T include books you accept, books like Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude. So if a book is "IN" if 3 prominent Christians have the opinion that it is, why 2 Maccabees but not The Epistle of Barnabas? Why does this ONLY apply when you happen to agree with some early Christian but the whole rubric does a 180 when you don't?


Here's my question: Why does the opinion of someone matter SO much if they seem to agree with you (on one book, anyway) but not at all if they seem to disagree with you? Are the opinions of a few individual prominent Christians normative or not?


Did First, Second, Third and Fourth Maccabees have SOME support by SOME people for SOME THING (maybe not fully, equal canonicity)? Yup! Without question! No debate! But then that's also true for the Didache, First Clement, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, and a lot of other books you reject, so why does your apologetic ONLY apply when you agree but is completely invalid when you don't? And why do you accept Hebrews, for example, when it was NOT supported by so many, it did NOT appear in a lot of lists and tomes? And also 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude? I understand we have FAR more ancient manscripts for the Didache, far more quotes from the Didache, than we do for Hebrews, Revelation, 2-3 John and Jude.





Not exactly. I stated that what we 2.2 billion Christians today embrace as "SCRIPTURE" is a matter of tradition. The Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church both teach this. Now, the Catholic Church insists that IT (just the Latin Church) eventually did what Nathan suggests - officially, formally, declared what is The inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God but IT (alone, uniquely, individually, just itself) didn't do that until the 15th Century (Council of Florance) or 16th Century (Council of Trent) because it didn't need to before that, it had its TRADTION. A tradition DIFFERENT than the several other, different ones found in the East. It's a myth of modern American "Evangelicalism" that God sent out a mass email in 33 AD listing all the books of the Bible - it's just none paid any attention to it until Calvin came along in the 16th Century. History shows that "Evangelical" teaching to be pure myth.






Well, JUDAISM may have done what CHRISTIANITY never has. Some hold that its Council of Jamnia did that, and that it was the Authoritative Ruling Body for all Judaism, a Council of all Judaism, and its decision was definitive. It may not have been so absolutely, but it sure comes close. But nothing like that has happened in ALL CHRISTIANITY. Some individual persons have declared their opinions (including you, Joseph Smith, John Calvin, etc. And some individual denominations have done that for itself (the RCC in the 15th or 16th Century), the Reformed community and the Anglican Church in the 16th Century, the LDS in the 19th Century, but nothing like that has happened for the entire religion, for all of Christianity. Sorry, it's just the reality;. I know this REALLY bothers American "Evangelicals" who are taught to hate and reject Tradition and that God sent out that mass Email (that no one read until Calvin).

Frankly, what JUDAISM may or may not have done seems irrelevant to our discussion; you and our good brother are insisting that all CHRISTIANS accept some unidentified group of books as The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. CHRISTIANS. There are no Jews at this website. And this thread is not in a forum about Judaism.



A blessed Pentecost to you and yours....


- Josiah




.

Did you seriously just compare Andrew to Joseph Smith? Really?

I’m not saying that I expect everyone in the world to accept the Apocryphal books. I’m saying that I don’t appreciate people demanding me to reject the Apocryphal books as scripture when so many early church councils declared these books to be scripture, which causes me to think that the Jews who lived before the time of Christ accepted these books as scripture. You don’t want me demanding you put them in? Well, stop demanding that I take them out!

It really is annoying that even though I started reading the Bible in Junior high, and have read it all the way through during high school and in my 20’s, it’s not until NOW in my mid-30’s, that I’m just now finding out what these prophecies in Daniel 8 and 11 are talking about. I’m just now learning what Hebrews 11:35 is referencing. And I’m just now learning what that holiday is that Jesus celebrated in John 10. And I’m just now learning what Hebrews 13:2 meant about people who entertained angels unaware.

You don’t want people demanding that you add books to your Bible. Well, I don’t want people demanding that I take books out of my Bible! But they took these books out of the Bible before I was even handed a Bible! Which is why I was so confused about these various passages…UNTIL NOW.

NOW I finally know who those tortured men are in Hebrews 11:35! Finally! If they had not taken these books out of my Bible, I’d have never been confused about that to begin with!

And then I find that these early church councils declared them to be scripture in the 4th century, not the 15th. Thus, Catholics didn’t “add” them like I’ve been told. Catholics didn’t author them, and they’re not about Catholic Church fathers like I was led to believe. No, they’re about JEWISH history, and they had JEWISH authors, and they were added to the Septuagint, which was originally a JEWISH translation during the years BEFORE the time of Christ. This completely goes against what I was led to believe.

And honestly, I think that the stories of Tobit and Judith are incredibly inspiring. They’re absolutely amazing stories. They’d make excellent movies. And so many early church authorities demanded that they be included in the Bible, and declared them to be divine, canonical scripture.

And when people say that they have historical mistakes, I keep finding that there’s perfectly reasonable answers to those “mistakes” just like there’s answers to supposed Biblical mistakes that atheists constantly bring up.

It makes absolutely no sense to me why God would have Daniel devote so many chapters to prophesies about the events in Maccabees, and then not to have that history in our Bibles so that we can understand those prophecies. Most of the people I know from church have not read Maccabees, even ONCE!!!
What? God just had Daniel prophesy about those events just for us to ignore it and not read about it? Huh???? That makes no sense!

Most people from my church DON’T read about it. Why? Because it’s not in their Bibles!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom