JFJ Forums

Already answer Now answer this


Why did they  not make the jewish canon?


why did the collects who were jews not include them?



since they were written between 100-200 bc

Why did they Not make the jewish cannon?



Did not chafterDS  say they already have one by 5 Bc and the Deuterocanonical books alone date hundred plus years before that?


why did they not make it?



You forget WS textual criticism  plays a big part of what consider inspire or Not.

Hi Wkirsher. This is a rebuttle and refutation of your previous post made earlier to me in the thread. I noticed many false statements and facts of history changed to match up with the claimes of the RCC. At several points in them you resorted to outright misrepresentation and strawmen argumentation againist Protestants in it and of me at several points. I am dealing only with the main points  of issue.

1 ) You repeatly bring up the Council of Jamnia. Your using this on me is totally false due to the fact I never claimed Protestants or myself as a basis for the Protestant following of the Hebrew Canon. That is strawmen you erected . That is you misleading people on this thread on the exact point of argument I am making. The reason this is a strawmen argument is because you specifically claimed I place authority in that Jewish council when I do not. That is dishonest of you and that you should know better than to do that.

2 ) Neither the Jewish Council nor Church Councils have authority  to declare what is Scripture. God alone determined what Scripture is . All the people of God did in the OT and NT was merely collect them because they were Scripture.  As each book in Scripture was written it was at that point in time it became part of the Canon. Church councils are not infallible nor equal in authority to Scripture. I am bound by the infallible Scriptures and I can only agree with a church council only when it agrees with what is taught in Scripture and to reject error of teaching in it. That is the principle of Sola Scriptura and what Scripture affirms we do with all teachings.

1 Thes. 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

3 ) You claimed Scripture does not set forth the Canon in the OT when in fact it does. It shows in it that Jesus followed the Hebrew Canon.

Luke 24:44-45 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
The threefold division there of the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms is the Hebrew OT Canon / Masorertic Text which matches up with the Protestant OT Canon listing . Basically the 24 in the Masoretic text  equals to the 39 listing of Protestants. see THE NEW UNGER'S BIBLE DICTIONARY , CANON OF SCRIPTURE, THE OLD TESTAMENT, pg. 205-209. This is likewise confirmed by Josepus when he said " For we have not an unnumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [ as the Greeks have , ] but only twenty-two books, which are justly believed to be divine; and of them, five belong to Moses, which contrained his law, and the  traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of the time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artamerxes king of Persia, who reigned at Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their thirteen books. The remaining four books contain the hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. "  see Josephus, Antiquities, Againist Apoion 1.8  .

4 ) You incorrectly used the fact that the early church read the Apocryphyal books. The problem is you failed to make qualification of the fact some rejected it as being part of the canon and that some did hold it was part of the Canon. It was an unsettled . Jerome stated " as therefore the church reads the books of Judith, Tobit, and Maccabeees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so it also reads these two volumes ( Wisdom of Solomon, and Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach ) for the edification of the people, but not for authority to prove doctrines of religion . " ( cited in Survey of the Bible, pg . 21, by Dr. William Hendriksen ) .

5 ) You claimed that Trent did not change the canon meaning it was already a settled issue when it was not.  The RCC itself concedes the fact it was settled at Trent . It says " The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546. " ( Catholic Encylopedia , Canon of the Old Testament )  In short, what you stated was incorrect.

6 ) For the Council of Nicea you listed threes things that in which not one of them is found in the Nicene Creed at all. They are not an article of the faith.Therefore is not evidence againist Protestants. One may be free to reject that since it is not part of the Creed. It nowhere affirms the distinctive dogmas of the RCC made post 1054ad.

Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.  On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

7 )  You claimed on Council of Constantinope on 3 issues. 1 : The term one holy catholic, and apostolic church. That refers to the universal church . All those who are born again are part of the universal church. Here you are guilty of reading present day RCC back to the term catholic and apostolic church. The RCC can't hijack for itself those terms used. The true catholic church consist of all those who have been born again since Pentecost ( Acts 2 ) and baptized by the Holy Spirit into Christ body ( 1 Cor, 12:13; Acts 1:5; 11:15 ) and completed at the premillennial pretribulational rapture ( 1 Thes, 4:13-18, Rev. 3:10, 1 Thes. 1:10; 5:9 ; Rev 6:16-17 ) regardless of their denomination or sect ( 1 Cor. 1:11-17 ) .  2 : The words one baptism for the remission of sins you claim is rejected. That is false. The issue would be over it's interpretation of it. The issue would be over the proper meaning of the term baptism used there and to make it biblical. I would view this as referring to baptism as a representation of one's repentence and embracing of Jesus Christ by faith which results in the forgiveness of sins. Baptism being an outward representation of the inward reality. Baptism is a public showing to others that they have repented and embraced Jesus.  3: As far as the decree mentioned by you we are free to reject the so called honor after the bishop of Rome as this itself was not added to the Creed.

8 ) With respect to the Council of Ephesus.  Your statement implies that Evangelical Protestants embrace what is termed " Nestorianism " which we presently call Modalism. That is a false accusation you made and totally dishonest. All Evangelical protestants affirm that two distinct natures of Jesus Christ in one person and born of the virgin Mary. To even make this claim clearly shows you never really were a Protestant in the past or never really embraced and understood what they teach. All standard Protestant systematic theology writings and Creeds contradict your false charge of them departing from the Council of Ephesus. You were dishonest on this point and you should be ashamed of yourself for that. If you asked them if they believed if Jesus is fully God and fully human two natures in one person and born of the virgin Mary they would all agree. Please don't resort to this type of lies with me. I take this very serious because it amounts to slander and a painting of people as being heretical when they are not.

9 ) I stand by what I said. The Creeds of the early church present nothing againist Protestants. Remember it is the Creeds itself of whats written is the exact point of issue.

10 ) You attempted to bring up the issue on baptismal regeneration. We already went over that issue on another thread. You demanded I present evidence for claims I never made. I never claimed my specific view on regeneration was held or taught in the early church. So what your doing is creating a whole strawman and misrepresentation of my actual arguments on that issue. Totally dishonest of you. This is like asking me to prove that you went to the bathroom 10 minutes ago when you never told me that you did or not. Less than 11 held to this in the church father writings prior to 300ad as I said. That is not a unanimous consent. 11 people do not represent an entire church when we hardly have any of the writings of many christians during that period of time. And then you try to hide behind silence when you record exist of baptismal regernation was held by all Christians at all times. It is my claim that the form of Baptismal regeneration held by the early church fathers is not the same exact position as defined at the Council of Trent. Though I believe that those men errored in what they taught on that. And that the correct teaching on regeneration is found in the infallible Scriptures. I claimed my position was based on Scripture alone . So you did not deal with my argument on that. I am very able to offer up rebuttle exegetically based interpretations of all the passages on this issue. But this is a thread on the issue of Scripture and not baptismal regeneration.

Also to add


The LXX was not designed to have the purpose of the Hebrew text, as it would be primarily used publicly in the synagogues, while the latter would be used for more scholarly purposes. (Geisler, Norman L. Introduction to the Bible. Moody Press., Chicago. 1973., p. 308)


http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00809.html

-emphasis mine-

EXACTLY!

According to you, wk, the church (various communities) did not know the writings of the NT were scripture until a council ruled on them. I say that is false. They KNEW they were from the Apostles/disciples, KNEW they were authentic, and KNEW they were the word of God, and copied and widely circulated as authoritative scripture...long before any councils were assembled.

Just as the prophets were considered to be prophets DURING THEIR TIME, not after everything came to pass, because some of their prophecies had not, and have not, come to pass. Yet, they are prophets, none the less, and we have all faith that God spoke through them and He will bring to fruition all that He foretold.

I find it ineresting that you reject what Jans said on the topic of Hebrew scripture.

And should I make a parallel of your canon to that of the Jews in Ethiopia? Did you get your canon from them since they pre-date RCC?