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

[Andrew]

Deception is unbecoming of a soul seeking purity.

If you are origjn and Josiah then be honest about your position.

.

 

[NathanH83]

Deception is unbecoming of a soul seeking purity.

If you are origjn and Josiah then be honest about your position.

What do you think?
Was Jesus celebrating Hanukkah or not?

When I was a kid, we always celebrated Christmas, me and my family. But my dad had these friends who were Messianic, meaning that even though they were Christians, they kept the Feasts and dietary laws.

They would always tell us that they refuse to celebrate Christmas, but instead celebrated Hannukah. One of the reasons they gave us, is because Jesus celebrated Hanukkah in John 10:22. I never really knew what they were talking about, since I didn’t know that dedication in Hebrew was Hanukkah. But after studying it, I now realize what they meant.

I never got the impression that they were being dishonest by saying Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. The text implies it. Jonathan Cahn, also a Messianic Jew, said on a TV show that Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. After looking into it, I never got the impression that he was being dishonest by saying that.

What do you think?

 

[Origen]

Well it was not my intention in anyway to mislead

Thank you very much and I believe you.

 

[Origen]

@Origen
Remember back in thr 2nd and 3rd century when YOU yourself claimed that the churches back then USED the so called apocrypha?
That's right, I found some of your old posts online from a conversation you had with some dude with the user name "Africanus".


Origen to Africanus par 1 (185-240ad)
Your letter, from which I learn what you think of the Susanna in the Book of Daniel, which is used in the Churches

Origen to Africanus par 2 (185-240ad)
In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours. For in Daniel itself I found the word "bound" followed in our versions by very many verses which are not in the Hebrew at all, beginning (according to one of the copies which circulate in the Churches)

Origen to Africanus par 13 (185-240ad)
However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do.

Yes I have made myself very clear on this subject many times. The evidence shows some people did believe them to be part of the canon and others did not.

 

[Origen]

Do you even have a point?

Yes I do and it is a point you cannot refute. Here they are again.

John 10:22 NEVER states "Jesus celebrated" anything.
John 10:22 NEVER states "Jesus attended"anything.
The text NEVER states "Jesus made sure he was in Jerusalem during Hanukkah."

At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon.

There’s no evidence that Jesus refused to celebrate.

First, I never said he refused. Second, there is also no evidence he did not refused. Third, the N.T. never claims he celebrated anything in John 10 and I follow the N.T.

But the evidence does show:
John 10:22 NEVER states "Jesus celebrated" anything.
John 10:22 NEVER states "Jesus attended"anything.
The text NEVER states "Jesus made sure he was in Jerusalem during Hanukkah."

I mean, you’re literally arguing about nothing.

I would not called the following nothing.

John 10:22 NEVER states "Jesus celebrated" anything.
John 10:22 NEVER states "Jesus attended"anything.
The text NEVER states "Jesus made sure he was in Jerusalem during Hanukkah."

It’s like you’re just arguing for arguing’s sake.

Not at all. I am justing pointing out what the N.T. does not claim.

SEE:
John 10:22 NEVER states "Jesus celebrated" anything.
John 10:22 NEVER states "Jesus attended"anything.
The text NEVER states "Jesus made sure he was in Jerusalem during Hanukkah."

 

[Origen]

ADDMIT IT!!! YOU ARE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

 

[Josiah]

Again, to celebrate in religious terms could be to perform a congregational duty during an observance of a religious holiday, which he did as High Priest, he did this especially to reach the Jewish congregation and Jewish community as a whole

"Could" does not equal "did." Could there be life on Venus? Sure! Does that mean ERGO there are little flying purple people eaters flying around that planet? Well. You get my point. And I remind you: Nathan (and at times you) aren't saying "COULD."

AGAIN, no one would have a problem with you and our brother saying what COULD be the case. But that's not the issue, is it? The issue is the very persistent claim that John 10:22 states what He DID. You and our friend insist (over and over and over) that the verse states that...

+ The REASON Jesus went to Jerusalem in the Winter, at the time of the Feast was specifically to celebrate the Feast. But as all who can read KNOW, the verse does NOT say that.

+ That Jesus attended the religious festivities. But as all who can read KNOW, the verse does not say that.

+ That Jesus LEAD these religious festivities. But as all who can read KNOW, that verse does not say that.

+ That Jesus PREACHED about the Feast. But as all who can read KNOW, the verse does not say that.

And the entire point of all this (as you reminded us) is to prove that ERGO all CHRISTIANITY has officially/formally declared all the books Nathan won't identify to be The inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (canonical Scripture). But as all who can read KNOW, this verse by no means indicates that.



.

 

[Josiah]

Yes I have made myself very clear on this subject many times. The evidence shows some people did believe them to be part of the canon and others did not.

Origin and Andrew -



Thanks, Origin, for bringing us back to the point of all these (crazy) threads of Nathan.....


YES, for some 1500 years, there were some writings that some Christians considered to be "Scripture" of one type or another, of one level of canonicity or another. There were books that were at times INCLUDED in tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover, and at times not. None of this was fixed. EVEN TODAY, there is no single Christian corpus regarded as "Scripture" and until after the Reformation, books that were considered Scripture were not necessarily regarded as EQUALLY canonical; the belief that all Scripture is EQUAL in every sense is a very modern one.

There were books SPECIALLY LABELED "Scripture" by some very famous men that Nathan doesn't accept as such, books like the Didache, The Shepherd of Hermes, The Epistle of Barnabus and many more. OT examples include Psalm 151-154, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees. And there were books that our brother seems to like that were specifically REJECTED by some famous early Christians - The Revelation of John, Hebrews, 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude. There were books INCLUDED in Bibles for over 1000 years that Nathan doesn't accept, the Epistle to the Leodiceans.

And there NEVER, EVER was ANY Pan-Christian "declaration" about this. IT NEVER HAS HAPPENED. Not yet! Nathan likes to note 3 LOCAL, non-authoritative, Roman Catholic meetings of a single diocese (they were "lost" until the RCC found them in the late 16th Century and used them to show THAT SINGLE DENOMINATION had not changed it's own mind, it did NOT claim these meetings were ecumenical). But since Nathan doesn't abide by all decisions of all meetings of the RCC, his point seems moot (why should we do what he does not?). Some DENOMINATIONS have made decisions about this (the LDS did in 1840) but CHRISTIANITY has not.

Nathan's assumption that ALL Christianity has ALWAYS had the exact same collection of books regarded as "SCRIPTURE" and all were regarded as equally canonical is simply false. But obviously, no one can tell Nathan anything. Obviously, he is not interested in truth. I realize (I do) that he is revealing a common myth found in modern American "Evangelicalism" but it is a MYTH. Nathan, however, seems not interested in whether something he found on the internet is myth or truth. He just keeps making more and more false, absurd claims....and when it's made obvious it is false, rather than considering that, he just makes the claim even more false, even more absurd, even MORE obviously wrong. And that seems irrelevant to him.


It is of credit to this community that people are actually TRYING to help him, rather than just hitting the ignore icon (which perhaps is what's happened elsewhere). I'm STUNNED by the amazing patience of Origin, the patience of a saint. He has SO graciously TRIED - over and over and over - to help our brother see the reality but always to no avail (in fact, Nathan's reaction always seems to make things more false and absurd), and yet Origin does not give up. I've TRIED too. It speaks well of this site that we TRY to help our brothers. Of course, at some point, it becomes a stewardship issue.... we have to ask ourselves if we are wasting God's time.




.




.

 

[Andrew]

Origin and Andrew -



Thanks, Origin, for bringing us back to the point of all these (crazy) threads of Nathan.....


YES, for some 1500 years, there were some writings that some Christians considered to be "Scripture" of one type or another, of one level of canonicity or another. There were books that were at times INCLUDED in tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover, and at times not. None of this was fixed. EVEN TODAY, there is no single Christian corpus regarded as "Scripture" and until after the Reformation, books that were considered Scripture were not necessarily regarded as EQUALLY canonical; the belief that all Scripture is EQUAL in every sense is a very modern one.

There were books SPECIALLY LABELED "Scripture" by some very famous men that Nathan doesn't accept as such, books like the Didache, The Shepherd of Hermes, The Epistle of Barnabus and many more. OT examples include Psalm 151-154, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees. And there were books that our brother seems to like that were specifically REJECTED by some famous early Christians - The Revelation of John, Hebrews, 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude. There were books INCLUDED in Bibles for over 1000 years that Nathan doesn't accept, the Epistle to the Leodiceans.

And there NEVER, EVER was ANY Pan-Christian "declaration" about this. IT NEVER HAS HAPPENED. Not yet! Nathan likes to note 3 LOCAL, non-authoritative, Roman Catholic meetings of a single diocese (they were "lost" until the RCC found them in the late 16th Century and used them to show THAT SINGLE DENOMINATION had not changed it's own mind, it did NOT claim these meetings were ecumenical). But since Nathan doesn't abide by all decisions of all meetings of the RCC, his point seems moot (why should we do what he does not?). Some DENOMINATIONS have made decisions about this (the LDS did in 1840) but CHRISTIANITY has not.

Nathan's assumption that ALL Christianity has ALWAYS had the exact same collection of books regarded as "SCRIPTURE" and all were regarded as equally canonical is simply false. But obviously, no one can tell Nathan anything. Obviously, he is not interested in truth. I realize (I do) that he is revealing a common myth found in modern American "Evangelicalism" but it is a MYTH. Nathan, however, seems not interested in whether something he found on the internet is myth or truth. He just keeps making more and more false, absurd claims....and when it's made obvious it is false, rather than considering that, he just makes the claim even more false, even more absurd, even MORE obviously wrong. And that seems irrelevant to him.


It is of credit to this community that people are actually TRYING to help him, rather than just hitting the ignore icon (which perhaps is what's happened elsewhere). I'm STUNNED by the amazing patience of Origin, the patience of a saint. He has SO graciously TRIED - over and over and over - to help our brother see the reality but always to no avail (in fact, Nathan's reaction always seems to make things more false and absurd), and yet Origin does not give up. I've TRIED too. It speaks well of this site that we TRY to help our brothers. Of course, at some point, it becomes a stewardship issue.... we have to ask ourselves if we are wasting God's time.




.




.

@Origen (this is also in response to your last post to me)

I provided writings from many early church fathers who claim they are Holy Scripture used in the Church, so for each one of these church fathers there are multiple churches they oversee, everyone in the church uses them.as scripture, in fact some letters are sent across many lands and claim the Church uses them, this implies the whole university of Churches (hence catholic) and in one letter I posted, this Bishop draws out the canon based on popularity in the churches which include the apocrypha books. They also use these books in their teaches and over and over again call it Scripture. Don't believe me? View the link that I posted twice already, everyone of those quotes were written and read by Christians.
Please go to the link and come back and show me how none of the quotes prove that the majority of all Christians early on accepted "those" books as Holy inspired scripture. You will likewise find some of the same arguments regarding the Septuagint that Nathan and I make, with a few deniers as well (you might enjoy them)

Here is the link again to the 'cRaZy-Nathan-thread-type' writings of the early church fathers. Enjoy

Early Church Fathers on Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonical Books

The Early Church Fathers on various topics: This was a 3700 hour project which included going through 22896 pages of the 38 volume set call...

practicalapologetics.blogspot.com

 

[Origen]

@Origen (this is also in response to your last post to me)

I provided writings from many early church fathers who claim they are Holy Scripture used in the Church, so for each one of these church fathers there are multiple churches they oversee, everyone in the church uses them.as scripture, in fact some letters are sent across many lands and claim the Church uses them, this implies the whole university of Churches (hence catholic) and in one letter I posted, this Bishop draws out the canon based on popularity in the churches which include the apocrypha books. They also use these books in their teaches and over and over again call it Scripture. Don't believe me?

Again I have made myself very clear on this subject many many times. The evidence shows some people did believe them to be part of the canon and others did not.

 

[Andrew]

Again I have made myself very clear on this subject many many times. The evidence shows some people did believe them to be part of the canon and others did not.

It appears that the MAJORITY believed

 

[NathanH83]

Origin and Andrew -



Thanks, Origin, for bringing us back to the point of all these (crazy) threads of Nathan.....


YES, for some 1500 years, there were some writings that some Christians considered to be "Scripture" of one type or another, of one level of canonicity or another. There were books that were at times INCLUDED in tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover, and at times not. None of this was fixed. EVEN TODAY, there is no single Christian corpus regarded as "Scripture" and until after the Reformation, books that were considered Scripture were not necessarily regarded as EQUALLY canonical; the belief that all Scripture is EQUAL in every sense is a very modern one.

There were books SPECIALLY LABELED "Scripture" by some very famous men that Nathan doesn't accept as such, books like the Didache, The Shepherd of Hermes, The Epistle of Barnabus and many more. OT examples include Psalm 151-154, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees. And there were books that our brother seems to like that were specifically REJECTED by some famous early Christians - The Revelation of John, Hebrews, 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude. There were books INCLUDED in Bibles for over 1000 years that Nathan doesn't accept, the Epistle to the Leodiceans.

And there NEVER, EVER was ANY Pan-Christian "declaration" about this. IT NEVER HAS HAPPENED. Not yet! Nathan likes to note 3 LOCAL, non-authoritative, Roman Catholic meetings of a single diocese (they were "lost" until the RCC found them in the late 16th Century and used them to show THAT SINGLE DENOMINATION had not changed it's own mind, it did NOT claim these meetings were ecumenical). But since Nathan doesn't abide by all decisions of all meetings of the RCC, his point seems moot (why should we do what he does not?). Some DENOMINATIONS have made decisions about this (the LDS did in 1840) but CHRISTIANITY has not.

Nathan's assumption that ALL Christianity has ALWAYS had the exact same collection of books regarded as "SCRIPTURE" and all were regarded as equally canonical is simply false. But obviously, no one can tell Nathan anything. Obviously, he is not interested in truth. I realize (I do) that he is revealing a common myth found in modern American "Evangelicalism" but it is a MYTH. Nathan, however, seems not interested in whether something he found on the internet is myth or truth. He just keeps making more and more false, absurd claims....and when it's made obvious it is false, rather than considering that, he just makes the claim even more false, even more absurd, even MORE obviously wrong. And that seems irrelevant to him.


It is of credit to this community that people are actually TRYING to help him, rather than just hitting the ignore icon (which perhaps is what's happened elsewhere). I'm STUNNED by the amazing patience of Origin, the patience of a saint. He has SO graciously TRIED - over and over and over - to help our brother see the reality but always to no avail (in fact, Nathan's reaction always seems to make things more false and absurd), and yet Origin does not give up. I've TRIED too. It speaks well of this site that we TRY to help our brothers. Of course, at some point, it becomes a stewardship issue.... we have to ask ourselves if we are wasting God's time.




.




.

Oh, you’re helping me? How so? By ripping books out of the Bible and throwing them in the trash?

You know, Protestants are the minority here. The books of the Maccabees have been accepted by not just the Catholic Church, but also by Eastern Orthodoxy, which split away from Roman Catholicism quite some time ago. Maccabees is also accepted by Russian Orthodox, coptics, and Ethiopian Orthodox.

I’ve shown 3 early church councils that declared Maccabees to be scripture. You’ve shown ZERO early church councils that rejected them. You demand I show you an ecumenical council that accepted them, all while you are unable to show an ecumenical council that rejected them. That’s called a DOUBLE STANDARD.

Every Protestant Bible had these books in the apocryphal section until the 1800’s. When modern Bible societies decided they could save money by not printing it.

You’ve ignored the historic Christian Faith, while also ignoring the modern Christian faith of all these other Christians who are not Protestant.

You haven’t even considered the possibility that just as the Jews removed words, phrases, and numbers from the Hebrew text, which the Greek Septuagint so often preserves, so also the Jews removed whole books after the time of Christ, while the Christians still had those books in their Greek Septuagint copies. You haven’t even considered that, even though it’s the most plausible explanation as to why the early church accepted them while the Jews did not.

And because modern Protestantism has taken these books out, the average, every-day Christian in America is now unable to understand the prophesies in Daniel 8 & 11, unable to know what that holiday was that John 10 mentions, or who the tortured men are who are mentioned in Hebrews 11:35.

Christians today are being HINDERED from being able to understand these biblical passages in their own Bibles, due to the presumption of modern Bible societies that thought it was OK to take these books out since “they’re not scripture” -a belief that is not even held by the rest of Christianity, nor by the historic Christian faith.

 

[Origen]

Tyrannius Rufinus Apology book 2 par 33 (340-410 ad)

"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?"

Tyrannius Rufinus Apology book 2 par 32 (340-410 ad)

"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."

Tyrannius Rufinus Apology book 2 par 33 (340-410 ad)
"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"

The problem for you is Rufinus provides us with his canon list in Exposition of the Creed. And guess what is not there?

"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."


Here is the list he gives above.
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1-2 Samuel
1-2 Kings
1-2 Chronicles
1-2 Esdras
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Epistle of Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Daniel
12 Minor Prophets

 

[Origen]

It appears that the MAJORITY believed

First, the truth of a matter is not determined by a majority vote.

Second, your statement has zero credibility. You do not know how many Christians there were nor could you know what each individually believed.

 

[Josiah]

I provided writings from many early church fathers who claim they are Holy Scripture used in the Church

ANDREW


1. Noting 4 or 5 individuals with an opinion is not substantiation for your claim that MOST Christians for 1500 years accepted this "they" as fully and equally canonical.

2. I gave you the names of many early church fathers who considered books as "SCRIPTURE" that you don't. And that considered books NOT Scripture that you do. So, brother, IF the rubric is: They are fully canonical Scripture IF at least 3 major dudes said so" then this can be argued anyway you want. The simple truth is: There never has been an absolute, total consensus. Of course, Hathan's point is not one of "majority rules" or consensus but he claims these 3 little regional meetings of 3 Roman Catholic dioceses are BINDING and AUTHORITATIVE upon ALL Christians. It's just that that's false, not even the RCC claims that. And obviously history disproves it because NONE took notice of it or cared, which is why we have different collections even today.

everyone in the church uses them.as scripture,

Friend, you have ZERO evidence for this claim. For "them" or pretty much everything else. Your perspective, shared by a few Roman Catholic laity, that everything in all Christianity has been as it is on May 19, 2021, It's pure RCC myth.

And you two seem to confuse USING a book with Christianity proclaiming such to be The inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscrpturated words of God. It's not the same thing. Not in the 4th Century and not in the 21st. It's NEVER been true. And you seem to not realize that the word "scripture" means "writing" and not necessarily "canonical" (which also doesn't necessarily mean fully so - there was a range of canonicity).

Yes, of course, writings did circulate. Letters from Ignatius and dozens of other influential Christians, NONE of which you regard as inerrant, fully canonical Scripture. And ECF's used and quoted and called many things "SCRIPTURE" including The Gospel of Truth, First Clement, The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, The Gospel of Paul, the Acts of John, the Acts of Peter, the Epistle to the Leodiceans (which appeared in collections as early as 150 and continued to be so until about 1700). We have MANY ancient manscripts of the Didache, few of Hebrews and Jude, of 2-3 John... it seems the Didache was far more shared than those books, or at least the number and range of such suggests that. And realize the opposite; Cyprian of Carthage REJECTED 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Hebrews and notes these are not accepted among the people.




.

 

[Andrew]

The problem for you is Rufinus provides us with his canon list in Exposition of the Creed. And guess what is not there?

"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."


Here is the list he gives above.
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1-2 Samuel
1-2 Kings
1-2 Chronicles
1-2 Esdras
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Epistle of Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Daniel
12 Minor Prophets

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.

Pick someone else that was too easy

 

[Origen]

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.

Beside Jerome and Rufinus had a falling out and each one wrote a tome against the other (i.e. Rufinus' Against Jerome and Jerome's Against Rufinus).

Pick someone else that was too easy

Hardly! I see no reason to think you will be able to provide any primary sources this time any more than you have any other time I have asked.

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]

Here we go again. Another empty claim with no supporting evidence. Provide primary sources to support that claim. And I am not talking about their friendship.

Short summery: Unbelieving Jews gave Jerome the "correct" Hebrew scriptures and Jerome accepts them and uses them to "diligently correct" the traditional Christian OT (LXX).. I base this on the following quote by Jerome

"Certainly I will speak confidently and I will cite many witnesses of this work, knowing myself in this matter to have changed nothing of the truth of the Hebrew. Therefore, wherever my edition has differed from the old ones, ask any of the Hebrews, and you will clearly see me to be torn in pieces by those striving after error, who “prefer to be seen to condemn the brilliant rather than to learn,” most perverse men. For when they always desire new delicacies, and their gullets, like the seas, do not suffice, why in only study of the Scriptures are they content with an old flavor? I do not say this so that I might bite my predecessors, nor have I considered slandering any translation of those which I very diligently corrected, (and) formerly gave to men of my language; but that it is one thing to read the Psalms in the churches of those believing in Christ, another thing to answer the Jews who accuse every word"

Jerome and Rufinus are besties: (Wikipedia article on Rufinus)
"When Jerome came to Bethlehem in 386, the friendship (of Rufinus and Jerome) formed at Aquileia was renewed. Jerome, along with his patroness Paula, set up a similar community in Bethlehem a few years later. Another of the intimates of Rufinus was John II, Bishop of Jerusalem, and formerly a monk of the Natrun desert, by whom he was ordained to the priesthood in 390. In 394, as a result of the attacks by Epiphanius of Salamis upon the doctrines of Origen made during a visit to Jerusalem, a fierce quarrel broke out, which found Rufinus and Jerome on different sides. Although both Jerome and Rufinus had previously been great admirers of Origen's work, in the light of Epiphanius' criticism of Origen, Jerome felt that Rufinus was not fierce enough in attacking the works of Origen. Three years afterwards a formal reconciliation was brought about between Jerome and Bishop John, with whom Rufinus sided"

1+1=2

 

[Josiah]

You will not find any Ecumenical Council that listed the New Testament books

Nathan....

.... as I pointed out many times but you insist isn't true (now saying it is true). And that's also true for the OLD and the NEW Testament. And the Apocrypha (the DEUTEROcanonical books - do you even know what the word means?) too.

So, you have a problem, don't you. You can't discuss some book(s) being taken OUT by Christianity or Protestantism when as you admit none were ever put IN by Christianity or Protestantism. You want a DATE, a PLACE, a formal declaration for the OUT when you admit there never was a date, a place for the formal declaration for the IN. Thus, the point that has been raised to you over and over and over (but I honestly don't think you usually READ what is posted to you).

Brother, there NEVER WAS any official "taking out" of any book in canonical Scripture. Your whole question is silly.... it's premised on an error on your part. One you now (at LONG, LONG last) admit. You want a date/place/formal decision for the OUT when you admit there never was that for the IN. How absurd.



Sorry to burst your bubble, but....


What WE 2.2 billion Christians today HAVE is a product of a consensus.... of TRADITION.... not some meeting with a date and place and decision. putting something IN or taking something OUT. And that consensus has NEVER, not EVER, been absolute or universal... although more so with the NT than OT. It's pretty solid over (by our numbering) 66.... less so for an addition half to full dozen, less so for perhaps a dozen more.

AND EVEN WITHIN that imperfect consensus, there has been a RANGE in their acceptance, in how normative they were considered ( their "canonicity" (the word we use for this in theology) - not all "Scripture" was view EQUALLY until after the Reformation (and even then, only in some denominations). Christians often placed the NT over the OT, the NT books having higher canonicity, the 39 OT ones over any DEUTERO (look up the word!) ones.... some NT books were considered less canonical than others (Revelation, Hebrews for example - often not even included in lectionaries). Luther and Calvin both felt for a few years that Romans and James were in conflict (both eventually changed their minds) BUT Romans is more canonical than James, they both argued. A lot of this disappeared after the Reformation but the Anglican Church officially embraced it with the distinction it made for the pre-Christ books - the 39 Articles did NOT remove anything from the BIBLE (as you note) but they DO insist some are only DUETERO canonical while others are fully canonical.

Sorry my American Evangelical friend.... it's not as "neat" or "objective" as your Sunday School teacher taught you. And I know it hurts American Evangelicals to admit that floppy book with "BIBLE" on the cover is a product of TRADITION (and fairly loose one at that) NOT the result of God sending a memo or Scripture including a "Table of Contents" or even the Church speaking in some definitive, ecumenical way. Nope. Not even close. OVER TIME, over a period of more than 1500 years - ONE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED YEARS - a consensus developed, one that is NOT perfect, NOT universal. I know this disturbs 21st Century American "Evangelicals" who were told that Tradition is a bad thing.... who were taught God sent a memo in 33 AD with a list of what books are Scripture on it. But they were just taught wrong. Tradition COUNTS - even if it RARELY is perfect or universal.

Sorry to burst your bubble. There's a LOT of false concepts in modern American "Evangelicalism." You repeat some of them.




And much of what you claim is absolutely false or baseless....


+ Just because you can show that 5 people USED a book does NOT prove that ERGO all Christianity proclaimed that writing to be The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, inscripturated words of God. That was laughably absurd in the First Century and in the Twenty-First century. Just because Pastor Billy-Bob using a clip from the TV show MASH in his sermon does NOT mandate that ERGO all Christianity has proclaimed MASH to be The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Y0u don't accept your own apologetic, you don't do what you demand we do.


+ Sure, you can find a handful of dudes who call a book "Scripture" (the word means "a writing", it does not be normative or divinely inspirational). But you are absurd to argue THEREFORE all Christianity at some definitive meeting of ALL Christianity officially and formally declared that to be The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, inscripturated words of God. If that was the case, you'd have to argue FOR some law requiring all publishers to put in their tomes all the following: The Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, First Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas and many, many more (but you don't accept your own apologetic, do you?). And then we could quote Fathers such as Cyril of Jersalem in 350 AD who wrote, "The Apocalypse of John is pseudepigraph and harmful." Others agreed, but you accept it. So do you agree with your OWN insistence, if you can fine a few dudes who called something Scripture or denounced it as such, then it IS fully canonical Scripture not. You disagree with yourself since YOU don't accept books dudes DID proclaim as such, and you DON'T reject books some rejected. You reject your own argument, you don't do what you want us to do.


+ You claim that some meetings around the year 400 were ECUMENICAL, PAN-CHRISTIAN meetings (but admit your claim isn't true) to which all then and now must docilicly submit. But you don't. And you have not shown these 3 obscure (and "lost" meetings until the late 16th Century) were Ecumenical - that ALL Christian bishops attended (or at least were represented) and that the decision was BINDING on all Christians. You haven't tried to do that because you know it's not true, they were tiny meetings of one LATIN (western, Roman) meetings of a diocese, of importance only in that diocese, likely entirely unheard of elsewhere. You make the SILLY mistake of thinking that if a meeting is called "CHURCH COUNCIL" that ergo it is ECUMENICAL and BINDING. There are THOUSANDS of Church Council meetings every month, just in the USA. My parish has one every month on the First Thursday of the month. It's just ABSURD (and very unhistorical) to insist that if it's called a "CHURCH COUNCIL" meeting, ERGO it's Ecumenical, PAN-Christian, involving ALL Christianity - and that it's binding on all. And of course, are YOU submissive to every meeting of the Latin, Western, Roman church? Nope. So you don't do what you demand we do.


+ YOU make the claim that CHRISTIANITY at its Ruling Body on some date that made an authoritative, binding that mandated all accept the "them" that you do - but you have no need to quote this, instead, you insist, I have to PROVE there was some decision of the Ruling Body of All Christianity that declared "Maccabees is disallowed to be put in a tome called Bible." No. I never claimed CHRISTIANITY declared anything about your "them." YOU claimed the Ruling Body (to which you submit) DID do this. The "ball" is in your court.


+ You call books "Scripture" and "Canonical" and "Apocrypha" and "Deuterocanonical" in ways that prove you have NO CLUE what those words even mean... and how they have been used differently over the centuries and differently in the East and West. When you say "they" (you'll never define what "they" are) were regarded as APOCRYPHA or DEUTEROcanical, you are shooting yourself in the foot, because those very words MEAN not - n.o.t. - NOT fully canonical, NOT equal to others. Ironically, you are SUPPORTING a position you think you are rebuking. To be "apocrypha" or "deuterocanonical" is to NOT be fully canonical. You are just shooting yourself in the foot.


+ Perhaps your silliest point is that if something is ever put into a book by some publishing house, some book with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover, ERGO that's The inerrant, fully and equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Friend, anyone can put anything IN a tome or NOT put it in a tome. My book with "BIBLE" on the cover has some 2500 pages in it, MUCH of which is NOT regarded as canonical - just helpful.


+ You keep talking about CHRISTIANITY and PROTESTANT as if there's only one position - and it's been the same since 33 AD. How absurd! How silly! How very unhistorical. NOT every Protestant and every Protestant church or denomination has the identical teachings and practices as all others and as all in 33 AD. Your view is just absurd. When it comes to what is canonical and HOW MUCH canonical, even within Protestantism, there is no uniformity. The Anglican Church is different than the Orthodox Chruches and the post-Rent Catholic Church and the Methodist Church and the Lutheran Church and the Reformed Church - all of which disagree with each other on this. You speak of these as if they have ONE position - and that's just false.


+ You keep confusing what SOME Christians DO with some official, universal, binding, authoritative DECISION of some Ruling Body governing them all. When some Christians starting worshiping by viewing YouTubes on the 'net, that does NOT mean CHRISTIANITY did, it means SOME
Christian individuals did. And it certainly doesn't mean that ERGO there was some authoritative, pan-protestant decision of its Ruling Body commanding all Protestants to worship via the Intrnet. You make SO many absurd, unhistorical assumptions and leaps, TRYING to "connect dots" that don't exist. I'm pretty sure you didn't read more than 20 words of this post.



- Josiah

.

+

 

[Origen]

Short summery: Unbelieving Jews gave Jerome the "correct" Hebrew scriptures and Jerome accepts them and uses them to "diligently correct" the traditional Christian OT (LXX).. I base this on the following quote by Jerome

"Certainly I will speak confidently and I will cite many witnesses of this work, knowing myself in this matter to have changed nothing of the truth of the Hebrew. Therefore, wherever my edition has differed from the old ones, ask any of the Hebrews, and you will clearly see me to be torn in pieces by those striving after error, who “prefer to be seen to condemn the brilliant rather than to learn,” most perverse men. For when they always desire new delicacies, and their gullets, like the seas, do not suffice, why in only study of the Scriptures are they content with an old flavor? I do not say this so that I might bite my predecessors, nor have I considered slandering any translation of those which I very diligently corrected, (and) formerly gave to men of my language; but that it is one thing to read the Psalms in the churches of those believing in Christ, another thing to answer the Jews who accuse every word"

Jerome and Rufinus are besties: (Wikipedia article on Rufinus)
"When Jerome came to Bethlehem in 386, the friendship (of Rufinus and Jerome) formed at Aquileia was renewed. Jerome, along with his patroness Paula, set up a similar community in Bethlehem a few years later. Another of the intimates of Rufinus was John II, Bishop of Jerusalem, and formerly a monk of the Natrun desert, by whom he was ordained to the priesthood in 390. In 394, as a result of the attacks by Epiphanius of Salamis upon the doctrines of Origen made during a visit to Jerusalem, a fierce quarrel broke out, which found Rufinus and Jerome on different sides. Although both Jerome and Rufinus had previously been great admirers of Origen's work, in the light of Epiphanius' criticism of Origen, Jerome felt that Rufinus was not fierce enough in attacking the works of Origen. Three years afterwards a formal reconciliation was brought about between Jerome and Bishop John, with whom Rufinus sided"

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.

Jerome and Rufinus are besties: (Wikipedia article on Rufinus)

What a surprise! You did not read the whole thing. If you had read the whole Wikipedia article on Rufinus, instead of quote mining, you would have see that it clearly states:

"This allusion annoyed Jerome, who was exceedingly sensitive as to his reputation for orthodoxy, and the consequence was a bitter pamphlet war, with Rufinus' Against Jerome and Jerome's Against Rufinus."

Just as I said, they had a falling out and each one wrote a tome against the other.