OP, because Peter was wrong. Next.

Jesus also rebuked him...Doesn't mean he wasn't the first Pope...

Peter was hindered by legalism because he originated from the church of Christ in Jerusalem. When the Jews, as a whole in Jerusalem, rejected the gospel of Christ God raised up Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles and to the whole world. Peter eventually adhered to Paul's gospel as indicted in 2 Pet 3 where Peter recommended Paul's gospel but warned it was hard to understand. The gospel Paul preached remains today the authentic gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world. The church was not even called "Christian" until Paul arrived on the scene. Acts 11:26.

Bryanisbest said:

---

Peter was hindered by legalism because he originated from the church of Christ in Jerusalem. When the Jews, as a whole in Jerusalem, rejected the gospel of Christ God raised up Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles and to the whole world. Peter eventually adhered to Paul's gospel as indicted in 2 Pet 3 where Peter recommended Paul's gospel but warned it was hard to understand. The gospel Paul preached remains today the authentic gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world. The church was not even called "Christian" until Paul arrived on the scene. Acts 11:26.

---

That's certainly one interpretation

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I go the joke.

I'm just trying to understand if yall are claiming that Rome is the one who determined what books were in the OT?

---

My question is not claiming anything, but rather seeking to drill down on some basic presumptions made by M1 in assuming agreement where it has not been established.

M1 has repeatedly attacked, castigated, denigrated, and insulted Catholics personally and the Catholic faith as a whole. To support his position he repeatedly throws out proof-text scripture verses, provides his interpretation of the selected verse along with some completely bogus claim about Catholic doctrine. He then hides behind Scripture and "God's Word" as his defense and tells us we don't follow Scripture.

When asked the simple question of WHAT IS SCRIPTURE, what is it that WE are being accused of rejecting in deference to the Church, M1 won't tell us. He claims to have been Catholic for 50 years - does he hold the Deuterocanonical books as inspired scripture or does he now reject them as inspired scripture as most (if not all) Protestants do?

The question of WHAT IS Scripture is not a trivial matter, or secondary question. It is a foundational question, especially for someone arguing from a Scripture only viewpoint. The issue Protestants have that cannot be reconciled is the contradiction between their "Sola Scriptura" theology while at the same time rejecting Scripture.

---

I apologize, I didn't notice this response until today.

I won't defend M1 (or whatever name he goes by). It's not clear whether he's trolling or other.

My question was whether you believe that Rome alone determined the OT canon. The Scripture that Jesus quoted during his life? Did we have to wait for Rome to confirm these were valid Scripture?

It's been a long, long time since the Pope killed anyone for questioning his authority. I think at this point "if they aren't against us, they're for us" applies.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I go the joke.

I'm just trying to understand if yall are claiming that Rome is the one who determined what books were in the OT?

---

My question is not claiming anything, but rather seeking to drill down on some basic presumptions made by M1 in assuming agreement where it has not been established.

M1 has repeatedly attacked, castigated, denigrated, and insulted Catholics personally and the Catholic faith as a whole. To support his position he repeatedly throws out proof-text scripture verses, provides his interpretation of the selected verse along with some completely bogus claim about Catholic doctrine. He then hides behind Scripture and "God's Word" as his defense and tells us we don't follow Scripture.

When asked the simple question of WHAT IS SCRIPTURE, what is it that WE are being accused of rejecting in deference to the Church, M1 won't tell us. He claims to have been Catholic for 50 years - does he hold the Deuterocanonical books as inspired scripture or does he now reject them as inspired scripture as most (if not all) Protestants do?

The question of WHAT IS Scripture is not a trivial matter, or secondary question. It is a foundational question, especially for someone arguing from a Scripture only viewpoint. The issue Protestants have that cannot be reconciled is the contradiction between their "Sola Scriptura" theology while at the same time rejecting Scripture.

---

I apologize, I didn't notice this response until today.

I won't defend M1 (or whatever name he goes by). It's not clear whether he's trolling or other.

My question was whether you believe that Rome alone determined the OT canon. The Scripture that Jesus quoted during his life? Did we have to wait for Rome to confirm these were valid Scripture?

---

Jesus also quoted non-canonical works as well

Faithful Ag. The word "apocrypha" originates from the Greek and Latin words for "secret" or "non-canonical". It is commonly used to refer to ancient works that are "outside" of the Jewish Bible. These books are not considered Divinely inspired. In fact, some of these contain stories or ideas that contradict Scripture. The Protestant reasoning for omitting these from the Bible was probably "if the Jews don't consider them Divinely inspired, why include them?". If they were omitted from the Catholic Bible, you would lose the concept of "purgatory" from 2 Maccabees, and mentioned nowhere else.

just to provide some clarity the entire concept of canoncity presented here is a little bit anachronistic, and for sure comes post-schism of 1054.

canon meaning "table of context of infallible books that are divinely inspired" isn't how the East understands the scriptures. strictly speaking, the East has no such canon at all to this day. we don't even really have a bible, per se - we have multiple books used in various liturgical settings like the Apostolos and Evangelion.

we have three groups or classes of books.

first are the scriptures, which are things that are read aloud in church. this is a descriptive group - the stuff we read as scripture in church is authoritative in our communities because we use it authoritatively. technically this may not include the Revelation of St John, as it is not in our lectionary or cycle of readings (though it is read aloud on Patmos for obvious reasons). this means that for some churches in the past certain books may have been functioning as scripture which are no longer - for example, Eusebius tells us that 1 Clement was read as scripture by some churches in the past.

a subset of these books is the antilegomena, "things spoken against". these are books which at least for a time did not enjoy universal place as scripture. meaning, some communities used them as scripture and some did not. Revelation falls into this category, as does Hebrews.

second are what are usually called the apocrypha, things hidden, or private things. this is contrasted with the public teaching, read in church as above. these are things which are beneficial to be read in the home, but do not function as scripture. this group includes the typical apocrypha, but also Shepherd of Hermas, some of the Enochic literature, Testament of the Patriarchs, and so on. these carry some limited authority and can also help illuminate the scriptures themselves. allusions to and some direct quotations of these books are all over the NT.

third are things not to be read period - the broad, "everything else". these books have no doctrinal or liturgical use, and do not have any authority or standing in the community.

given the above, and the fact that various judaisms of the second temple period had different collections of works functioning as scripture (and therefore authoritative) in their communities - e.g., sadduccees recognized only Torah versus pharisees recognizing the larger OT including prophets and psalms - it is no surprise then that various orthodox regions have different OT scriptures. the judaism that became christianity in that region had a different canon, and that canon remained. so the line between old testament apocrypha and old testament scripture is fuzzy between churches.

this also explains why the vast, vast, vast majority of our manuscript evidence comes from lectionaries. for the majority of the life of the church, scriptures functioned as such in the form they continue in the Eastern church today - those things which are read aloud in church.

and, this also explains why so many early canon lists describe the books the way they do... for example the famous list of the Council of Carthage says " these are the things that we have received from our fathers to be read in church." or the letter from St Cyril advising "whatever books are not read in the churches, do not read these even by yourself." or the Canon of Laodicea "Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in the church" and so on.

Why accept only the 66 books of Luther when the other 7 books are quoted from so much in the NT?

And the book of Enoch is referenced in Luke, Hebrews, and Jude, but the RCC omitted it from the Bible.

Kinda like your definition of apocrypha this view is kind of muddled. Enoch wasn't used as scripture in most churches at all. I think the only major group that ever did was the Ethiopian church. They didn't omit it, it was never authoritative in their tradition.

People have this idea of bishops sitting around sorting through books like yes no yes no or using some kind of criteria - you hear things like written by an apostle or first generation and so on. That never happened anywhere.

Quote:

---

Faithful Ag. The word "apocrypha" originates from the Greek and Latin words for "secret" or "non-canonical". It is commonly used to refer to ancient works that are "outside" of the Jewish Bible.

---

I only used the word "apocrypha" because that is how protestants generally refer to them and that is who I am responding to. Catholics refer to the books as Deuterocanonical because we have always included them as scripture.

Quote:

---

These books are not considered Divinely inspired.

---

According to who, exactly? When was this decided and by whom?

Quote:

---

In fact, some of these contain stories or ideas that contradict Scripture.

---

Again, according to who's interpretation? Jesus and the Apostles quoted from and used the Septuagint which included these writings. There are specific references in the NT that come directly from these writings. Who are we to reject them?

Quote:

---

The Protestant reasoning for omitting these from the Bible was probably "if the Jews don't consider them Divinely inspired, why include them?".

---

Jesus and his Apostles were Jews and they used these writings as Scripture. The Jewish canon consisted of a wide variance of accepted books. It was not until well after the Resurrection that the Jews decided to exclude these books. Why would we look to post-Crucifixion Jews to determine what we should consider Scripture?

Quote:

---

If they were omitted from the Catholic Bible, you would lose the concept of "purgatory" from 2 Maccabees, and mentioned nowhere else.

---

Yes, 2 Maccabees does support the concept of purgatory. However, Jesus also provides and teaches the concept of purgatory in his own teachings (Luke 12 for example).

However, I do find your last point interesting because you are highlighting what would happen if someone decided to reject scriptures that seem to contradict their theology. We do not get to pick and choose what is scripture. The fact that the Deuterocanonical books were quoted and referenced by the Apostles, and used by the church throughout our history is something we cannot reject just because some of the concepts taught in them might not be to our liking.

The historical fact that cannot be avoided by Protestants is that the Deuterocanonical books were printed in Bibles (including the original KJV) and began to be excluded only in the past 200 years. That is a major problem for the "Sola Scriptura" Protestant.

Faithful Ag said:

---

I guess it depends on what you mean by "valid". Is what you have valid? Is what you have complete? Is your Bible 100% accurate with nothing extra and nothing missing? How do you know with certainty?

If one is going to hold to a Bible Only tradition and philosophy it is imperative that they get the Bible perfectly correct.

The Apostles referenced and drew inspiration from the Septuagint and the Deuterocanon (Apocrypha) in their NT writings. They considered them to be Scripture. Do you hold these "Apocryphal" books as inspired scripture? Are they printed in your Bibles today? Is your Bible complete and lacking nothing?

It's not necessarily about "Rome" determining or confirming anything. It's about the question of WHAT is and is not scripture. How do you know? How can we know? By what authority? Do we agree? - and what are the consequences if we do NOT agree? It is a fundamental question that should be simple to answer.

Anyone advocating for scripture alone to be their only and ultimate authority needs to be able to define what the Bible consists of and why. They need to be willing and able to show their work - All of it. If their Bible is different than that of the first 1,500-1,800+ years of Christianity they need to be able to defend why they are right and everyone else is/was wrong.

The answer to the question of Scripture is found in the Apostolic Church - both East and West. The Orthodox and Catholics hold the so-called Apocryphal books as scripture because the Church has always recognized and treated them as scripture. The Church testifies to the Scripture and Scripture testifies to the Church. Without the testimony of the church we cannot know what is Scripture. We share an Apostolic tradition and faith, and it is only through Apostolic tradition that we are able to receive what is scripture.

I think one of the greatest scandals in the history of Christianity was the rejection and then removal of inspired scripture by Protestants. The error is not the fault of the modern day Protestant, however many are completely unaware of the issue or scandal at all. Most have accepted the "66 book Bible" as the complete Word of God because that was the tradition passed down and received by them. It is simply what they were taught and they have accepted it- often without critical thought or investigation. I am not blaming them as they trusted and accepted what was being taught to them (including many Protestants who were taught that Catholics don't read the Bible and added spurious books to the Bible to support their "false" teachings).

As if the Protestant scandal of rejecting scripture wasn't enough though, they double down on the scandal by teaching that their incomplete version of the Bible (66 books) is the only infallible authority binding on a Christian. Sola Scriptura is not historical and is not workable, and is especially dubious when the Scriptura is rejecting books that are Scripture.

The Bible did not drop from Heaven. It was not delivered to us by Angels. It was and is the fruit of the Church, OT and NT alike.

---

This is a lot of words trying to avoid/ignore/change the subject.

My question is pretty simple, so let me rephase:

Did Rome create the OT canon?

------------

BTW...this paragraph is the height of arrogance of Rome:

" think one of the greatest scandals in the history of Christianity was the rejection and then removal of inspired scripture by Protestants. The error is not the fault of the modern day Protestant, however many are completely unaware of the issue or scandal at all. Most have accepted the "66 book Bible" as the complete Word of God because that was the tradition passed down and received by them. It is simply what they were taught and they have accepted it- often without critical thought or investigation. I am not blaming them as they trusted and accepted what was being taught to them (including many Protestants who were taught that Catholics don't read the Bible and added spurious books to the Bible to support their "false" teachings). "

For most every Protestant on this forum, for sure, they don't hold to 66 books because of ignorance or lack of understanding. In fact, it is because we understand tradition, that we cannot take Rome's view that it somehow defined a canon at Trent that was not done prior. Rome itself went against tradition by determining that it alone could define a canon.

As evidence? Augustine writes

"Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain so many false statements, that they have no canonical authority. We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission. So that the writings which are produced under his name, and which contain these fables about the giants, saying that their fathers were not men, are properly judged by prudent men to be not genuine; just as many writings are produced by heretics under the names both of other prophets, and more recently, under the names of the apostles, all of which, after careful examination, have been set apart from canonical authority under the title of Apocrypha."

https://ccel.org/ccel/s/schaff/npnf102/cache/npnf102.pdf page 690 or 738 depending on whether you use the page number at the bottom (690) or the PDF page (738).

So I would argue it's not ignorance, but actually following tradition that calls us to reject Trent's declaration of the canon and instead hold the Apocrypha in it's rightful place as useful, but not on par with the rest of the OT.

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I go the joke.

I'm just trying to understand if yall are claiming that Rome is the one who determined what books were in the OT?

---

My question is not claiming anything, but rather seeking to drill down on some basic presumptions made by M1 in assuming agreement where it has not been established.

M1 has repeatedly attacked, castigated, denigrated, and insulted Catholics personally and the Catholic faith as a whole. To support his position he repeatedly throws out proof-text scripture verses, provides his interpretation of the selected verse along with some completely bogus claim about Catholic doctrine. He then hides behind Scripture and "God's Word" as his defense and tells us we don't follow Scripture.

When asked the simple question of WHAT IS SCRIPTURE, what is it that WE are being accused of rejecting in deference to the Church, M1 won't tell us. He claims to have been Catholic for 50 years - does he hold the Deuterocanonical books as inspired scripture or does he now reject them as inspired scripture as most (if not all) Protestants do?

The question of WHAT IS Scripture is not a trivial matter, or secondary question. It is a foundational question, especially for someone arguing from a Scripture only viewpoint. The issue Protestants have that cannot be reconciled is the contradiction between their "Sola Scriptura" theology while at the same time rejecting Scripture.

---

I apologize, I didn't notice this response until today.

I won't defend M1 (or whatever name he goes by). It's not clear whether he's trolling or other.

My question was whether you believe that Rome alone determined the OT canon. The Scripture that Jesus quoted during his life? Did we have to wait for Rome to confirm these were valid Scripture?

---

Jesus also quoted non-canonical works as well

---

and?

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Why accept only the 66 books of Luther when the other 7 books are quoted from so much in the NT?

---

Sigh...you're smart enough to know what you wrote here is a lie.

I accept your apology...

Quote:

---

Sigh...you're smart enough to know what you wrote here is a lie.

---

https://jimmyakin.com/deuterocanonical-references-in-the-new-testament

Thaddeus73 said:

---

I accept your apology...

Quote:

---

Sigh...you're smart enough to know what you wrote here is a lie.

---

https://jimmyakin.com/deuterocanonical-references-in-the-new-testament

---

Apology?

You're statement was "Why accept only the 66 books of Luther when the other 7 books are quoted from so much in the NT?"

Per wikipedia,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible#Publication_of_the_complete_Bible_translation

"Luther chose to place the books he considered Biblical apocrypha between the Old and New testaments. These books and addenda to Bibilical canon of the Old Testament are found in teh ancient Greek Septuagin but not in the Hebrew Masoretic text."

Your accusation, once again, was that Luther removed them. Are you willing to admit you were wrong in that accusation and apologize?

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I go the joke.

I'm just trying to understand if yall are claiming that Rome is the one who determined what books were in the OT?

---

My question is not claiming anything, but rather seeking to drill down on some basic presumptions made by M1 in assuming agreement where it has not been established.

M1 has repeatedly attacked, castigated, denigrated, and insulted Catholics personally and the Catholic faith as a whole. To support his position he repeatedly throws out proof-text scripture verses, provides his interpretation of the selected verse along with some completely bogus claim about Catholic doctrine. He then hides behind Scripture and "God's Word" as his defense and tells us we don't follow Scripture.

When asked the simple question of WHAT IS SCRIPTURE, what is it that WE are being accused of rejecting in deference to the Church, M1 won't tell us. He claims to have been Catholic for 50 years - does he hold the Deuterocanonical books as inspired scripture or does he now reject them as inspired scripture as most (if not all) Protestants do?

The question of WHAT IS Scripture is not a trivial matter, or secondary question. It is a foundational question, especially for someone arguing from a Scripture only viewpoint. The issue Protestants have that cannot be reconciled is the contradiction between their "Sola Scriptura" theology while at the same time rejecting Scripture.

---

I apologize, I didn't notice this response until today.

I won't defend M1 (or whatever name he goes by). It's not clear whether he's trolling or other.

My question was whether you believe that Rome alone determined the OT canon. The Scripture that Jesus quoted during his life? Did we have to wait for Rome to confirm these were valid Scripture?

---

Jesus also quoted non-canonical works as well

---

and?

---

Just that Jesus quoted alot of things and some didn't make it into canon. Using the phrase 'Rome determining canon' isn't really an accurate statement as much as the early fathers determined in via guidance by the Holy Spirit.

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I go the joke.

I'm just trying to understand if yall are claiming that Rome is the one who determined what books were in the OT?

---

My question is not claiming anything, but rather seeking to drill down on some basic presumptions made by M1 in assuming agreement where it has not been established.

M1 has repeatedly attacked, castigated, denigrated, and insulted Catholics personally and the Catholic faith as a whole. To support his position he repeatedly throws out proof-text scripture verses, provides his interpretation of the selected verse along with some completely bogus claim about Catholic doctrine. He then hides behind Scripture and "God's Word" as his defense and tells us we don't follow Scripture.

When asked the simple question of WHAT IS SCRIPTURE, what is it that WE are being accused of rejecting in deference to the Church, M1 won't tell us. He claims to have been Catholic for 50 years - does he hold the Deuterocanonical books as inspired scripture or does he now reject them as inspired scripture as most (if not all) Protestants do?

The question of WHAT IS Scripture is not a trivial matter, or secondary question. It is a foundational question, especially for someone arguing from a Scripture only viewpoint. The issue Protestants have that cannot be reconciled is the contradiction between their "Sola Scriptura" theology while at the same time rejecting Scripture.

---

I apologize, I didn't notice this response until today.

I won't defend M1 (or whatever name he goes by). It's not clear whether he's trolling or other.

My question was whether you believe that Rome alone determined the OT canon. The Scripture that Jesus quoted during his life? Did we have to wait for Rome to confirm these were valid Scripture?

---

Jesus also quoted non-canonical works as well

---

and?

---

Just that Jesus quoted alot of things and some didn't make it into canon. Using the phrase 'Rome determining canon' isn't really an accurate statement as much as the early fathers determined in via guidance by the Holy Spirit.

---

But we are really down in the weeds vs the basic question.

From Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, etc...Did Rome decide those were the canon, on their own, at Trent?

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I go the joke.

I'm just trying to understand if yall are claiming that Rome is the one who determined what books were in the OT?

---

My question is not claiming anything, but rather seeking to drill down on some basic presumptions made by M1 in assuming agreement where it has not been established.

M1 has repeatedly attacked, castigated, denigrated, and insulted Catholics personally and the Catholic faith as a whole. To support his position he repeatedly throws out proof-text scripture verses, provides his interpretation of the selected verse along with some completely bogus claim about Catholic doctrine. He then hides behind Scripture and "God's Word" as his defense and tells us we don't follow Scripture.

When asked the simple question of WHAT IS SCRIPTURE, what is it that WE are being accused of rejecting in deference to the Church, M1 won't tell us. He claims to have been Catholic for 50 years - does he hold the Deuterocanonical books as inspired scripture or does he now reject them as inspired scripture as most (if not all) Protestants do?

The question of WHAT IS Scripture is not a trivial matter, or secondary question. It is a foundational question, especially for someone arguing from a Scripture only viewpoint. The issue Protestants have that cannot be reconciled is the contradiction between their "Sola Scriptura" theology while at the same time rejecting Scripture.

---

I apologize, I didn't notice this response until today.

I won't defend M1 (or whatever name he goes by). It's not clear whether he's trolling or other.

My question was whether you believe that Rome alone determined the OT canon. The Scripture that Jesus quoted during his life? Did we have to wait for Rome to confirm these were valid Scripture?

---

Jesus also quoted non-canonical works as well

---

and?

---

Just that Jesus quoted alot of things and some didn't make it into canon. Using the phrase 'Rome determining canon' isn't really an accurate statement as much as the early fathers determined in via guidance by the Holy Spirit.

---

But we are really down in the weeds vs the basic question.

From Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, etc...Did Rome decide those were the canon, on their own, at Trent?

---

I believe the process, which happened over time, culminated at the Council of Rome in 382 then reaffirmed at Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397

Luther moved them to the back of the bible as the first step in eliminating them completely....He also wanted to get rid of James and Revelation as well...

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Luther moved them to the back of the bible as the first step in eliminating them completely....He also wanted to get rid of James and Revelation as well...

---

This doesn't look like an apology?

Your initial claim was "Why accept only the 66 books of Luther."

Yet, now that it's been shown this was incorrect, which you've been shown many times, your new argument is

"He had this grand plan to remove it." He just apparently never got around to it.

And to this day, the Apocrypha sit in the same place.

In terms of why he moved it...Zobel did a fine job of explaining exactly why Luther moved them to the place he did:

"second are what are usually called the apocrypha, things hidden, or private things. this is contrasted with the public teaching, read in church as above. these are things which are beneficial to be read in the home, but do not function as scripture. this group includes the typical apocrypha, but also Shepherd of Hermas, some of the Enochic literature, Testament of the Patriarchs, and so on. these carry some limited authority and can also help illuminate the scriptures themselves. allusions to and some direct quotations of these books are all over the NT."

So again, I'll ask...are you going to apologize for the false claim you made against Luther?

But we read publicly some of the things you don't consider scripture… like Baruch..

Zobel said:

---

But we read publicly some of the things you don't consider scripture… like Baruch..

---

And if I remember right, you don't publicly read Revelation right?

Faithful Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Your initial claim was "Why accept only the 66 books of Luther."

Yet, now that it's been shown this was incorrect, which you've been shown many times, your new argument is

---

What claim above was shown to be incorrect?

Quote:

---

"He had this grand plan to remove it." He just apparently never got around to it.

And to this day, the Apocrypha sit in the same place.

In terms of why he moved it...Zobel did a fine job of explaining exactly why Luther moved them to the place he did

---

I'm having difficulty following what you are saying here because the apocryphal books DON'T sit in the same place to this day AFTER Martin Luther moved them. He moved them. Sometime later they are gone.

This obviously begs the question of by what authority did Martin Luther make these changes to divine revelation? The Apocryphal books were never a section together but were inter-mixed throughout the OT. He made the decision to remove them from where they were historically placed, group them together, and then place them outside the OT and NT. He added the disclaimer before the Apocrypha stating "the end of the OT".

So I don't understand what victory you are claiming above. Luther - for all intents and purposes - did change the status of these books to not scripture. He just minimized the scandal by translating the books and continuing to print them in his Bible in a novel way with the intention of influencing people negatively toward them.

Protestant's can claim they view the apocrypha as useful and good or profitable for reading or whatever, but that is really just lip service based on how they have been treated historically by Protestants. It was a slow and gradual process but the apocryphal books are generally rejected by Protestants precisely BECAUSE they fear the theology those writings support.

The books were there. Now they are gone.
Who? When? What Authority?

---

What claim(s) were incorrect. It's now multiple after Thaddeus last round of incorrect claims.

First false claim: Luther's bible only had 66 books.
Truth: This had been definitively shown to be false.

Second false claim: Luther had a multi-step plan to remove not only them, but James and Revelation.
Truth: Lutherans have certainly categorized books based off historical understanding of the books, but Luther, nor any other Lutheran "removed books."

Again, I go back to your previous attempts to portray protestants as ignorant people who just don't know history. When claims like these are made by Thaddeus, it shows the exact same thing that you accuse protestants of. Being ignorant of history in favor of pushing false claims. He/she only hurts their credibility when they do it because "learned protestants" have actual facts on our side.

Edit: Just so it is crystal clear, Thaddeus and now your argument has devolved from:

Luther only had 66 books (removing the apocrypha) -> Luther didn't actually remove any books, but had a plan to (never happened) -> Luther didn't remove any books, but he did change the order.

And you somehow want to claim the initial claims were correct?

Quote:

---

I'm having difficulty following what you are saying here because the apocryphal books DON'T sit in the same place to this day AFTER Martin Luther moved them. He moved them. Sometime later they are gone.

This obviously begs the question of by what authority did Martin Luther make these changes to divine revelation? The Apocryphal books were never a section together but were inter-mixed throughout the OT. He made the decision to remove them from where they were historically placed, group them together, and then place them outside the OT and NT. He added the disclaimer before the Apocrypha stating "the end of the OT".

---

By what authority? It's your claim that there's a council that lays out the explicit order that the bible needs to be in (Trent hadn't happened so irrelevant here). Luther translated a Bible into his native language, something Rome did not want to happen, and he laid it out the way he thought made the most sense for his people. To try and claim this is on par with removing books is just silly and shows a lack of strength on your part. Rome loves to try and claim the canon is not found in Scripture, but now wants to assert that the order of the canon is some divine right. It's silly.

Quote:

---

So I don't understand what victory you are claiming above. Luther - for all intents and purposes - did change the status of these books to not scripture. He just minimized the scandal by translating the books and continuing to print them in his Bible in a novel way with the intention of influencing people negatively toward them.

---

Minimized? Are the minor prophets less than Genesis because they are at the back of the OT? Is Revelation less than Matthew because it's at the end of the OT? You've created some arbitrary standard that nobody has agreed to and want to accuse Luther of not holding to it. That's not how it works.

Luther used an order that made sense to him, and best aligned with the historical view of the books themselves. It's a completely defensible decision on his part.

OT
Apocrypha
Homolegomena
Antilegomena

None of that changes the fact that Thaddeus has still made incorrect claims that he/she is hiding from apologizing for.

Yeah Revelation is kind of weird. It got a bad wrap due to association with Chiliasm / Montanism, but was "redeemed" a lot earlier in the West than in the East. Ended up being accepted in the East broadly, but isn't in our lectionary.

I think this would be a much more fruitful discussion if you focused on making your OWN points instead of constantly reframing our positions in an attempt to tell us what we think and why, and then where our ideas come from. If you don't like a point I've made I would welcome a counterpoint.

For example:

Quote:

---

Just so it is crystal clear, Thaddeus and now your argument has devolved from:

Luther only had 66 books (removing the apocrypha) -> Luther didn't actually remove any books, but had a plan to (never happened) -> Luther didn't remove any books, but he did change the order.

And you somehow want to claim the initial claims were correct?

---

I would suggest to you that the confusion in what Luther may or may not have done comes from Luther and the Protestant view, not from me or Thaddeus.

I think my post here explains the issue pretty plainly:

Faithful Ag said:

---

This obviously begs the question of by what authority did Martin Luther make these changes to divine revelation? The Apocryphal books were never in a section together but were inter-mixed throughout the OT. He made the decision to remove them from where they were historically placed, group them together, and then place them outside the OT and NT. He added the disclaimer before the Apocrypha stating "the end of the OT".

So I don't understand what victory you are claiming above. Luther - for all intents and purposes - did change the status of these books to not scripture. He just minimized the scandal by translating the books and continuing to print them in his Bible in a novel way with the intention of influencing people negatively toward them.

---

Would you care to address my points here and tell me where I am wrong?

I think the actual disclaimer Luther included immediately before the newly created "Apocryphal Section" was:
"Apocrypha: These books are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading."

So the books are still printed in a new section, but are no longer to be treated as Scripture so they don't count anymore reducing the number of books to 66, and have since been removed completely.

Now I cannot speak for what anyone else (Thaddeus or other) has said - but your characterization of my argument is simply inaccurate which makes it anything but crystal clear.

Quote:

---

By what authority? It's your claim that there's a council that lays out the explicit order that the bible needs to be in(Trent hadn't happened so irrelevant here). Luther translated a Bible into his native language, something Rome did not want to happen, and he laid it out the way he thought made the most sense for his people. To try and claim this is on par with removing books is just silly and shows a lack of strength on your part. Rome loves to try and claim the canon is not found in Scripture, but now wants to assert that the order of the canon is some divine right. It's silly.

---

Case in point. This is another example of you telling me I have claimed something I have not claimed. Now we can talk about how our views may differ, but you have again already tried to tell me what I think, why, and what I would use as support for the argument you are making for me. Instead of spending so much time on telling me what I believe and why I am wrong just make your case and provide support for your own case.

Quote:

---

Minimized? Are the minor prophets less than Genesis because they are at the back of the OT? Is Revelation less than Matthew because it's at the end of the OT? You've created some arbitrary standard that nobody has agreed to and want to accuse Luther of not holding to it. That's not how it works.

---

Again, you are not answering the issue at hand but creating another straw-man. I was never saying the books are placed in order of importance from front to back. You are making up stuff to attack here.

Quote:

---

Luther used an order that made sense to him, and best aligned with the historical view of the books themselves. It's a completely defensible decision on his part.

---

Okay, now this is the first statement in this entire post that you are giving me something to work with so I will try to address this point.

My position is that no single individual has the right or authority to change, alter, restructure, or reorder what is Scripture. Martin Luther had no authority to individually make these unilateral changes 1,500+ years removed from the Apostles, regardless of what made more sense to Luther. He, alone, is not wiser or more capable than the Church collectively over the previous 1,500 years to make such decisions.


The books were there. Now they are gone.
WHO DECIDED?
WHEN?
WHAT AUTHORITY?

Quote:

---

The books were there. Now they are gone.
WHO DECIDED?
WHEN?
WHAT AUTHORITY?

---

That last one is the one to which you will never get an intellectually honest answer, or if you do, it will be quickly followed by the claim that the Church decided on the canon under the guidance of the Holy Spirit but then apostatized shortly thereafter, or something to that effect.

I know it's been beaten to a dialectical pulp around here, but it is worth mentioning yet again since I have never read anything close to a convincing rebuttal to what amounts to an existential threat to Protestantism. There are three ironies that fatally undermine sola scriptura as the foundational idea of all Protestant denominations:

1. Sola Scriptura as a doctrine absolutely requires a divinely protected authority to determine the canon of scripture;
2. If we assume that we have a definitive biblical canon produced by a divinely protected authority, nowhere in that definitive canon does it say that the content of the Bible or scripture alone is the sole rule of what constitutes binding Christian dogmas or doctrine; and
3. Even if we assume a definitive canon produced by a divinely protected authority, the contents of such a canon does not and cannot interpret itself.

In the absence of (1) a divinely protected authority, or (2) an unambiguous declaration made by the same authority or contained in the definitive canon declared by that same authority that the contents of the canon so declared is the sole rule of faith, or (3) a divinely protected interpretation guide for the contents of such canon (which necessarily implicates all of the same ironies that befuddle the canon), then the validity, usefulness and reliability of the Bible as anything other than a hyper subjective self-help book is very much in doubt to say nothing of the authoritative incoherence of the principle of sola scriptura.

I see that as insurmountable incoherence and irony. I suppose others see it as a paradox.

Quote:

---

I think this would be a much more fruitful discussion if you focused on making your OWN points instead of constantly reframing our positions in an attempt to tell us what we think and why, and then where our ideas come from. If you don't like a point I've made I would welcome a counterpoint.

---

Here's the thing. This entire discussion started because Thaddeus made a false claim. I copied his exact claim and then he changed it to another false claim. Then you stepped in with another attempt to change the claim.

So I don't have to make my own point. I'm simply correct the errors in your points. If I have a point, it's that. Thaddeus made an incorrect statement and has so far refused to admit that and correct it. That's all.

Quote:

---

I would suggest to you that the confusion in what Luther may or may not have done comes from Luther and the Protestant view, not from me or Thaddeus.

---

No. I provided fact. That's the difference. Even Thaddeus admitted it when he changed his argument from "Luther had 66 books, to "he moved the books as step 1 to removing them." That is a material change in the argument from one that claims the books are not there, to claiming they are there.

Quote:

---

Would you care to address my points here and tell me where I am wrong?

---

I already did address that. Luther did not "change divine revelation." Nowhere is the exact order of Scripture divinely enumerated. We know, for example, that the East and the West use different book names, and of course, we know historically that books were grouped together. So your claim itself isn't relevant.

Quote:

---

I think the actual disclaimer Luther included immediately before the newly created "Apocryphal Section" was:

"Apocrypha: These books are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading."

---

First, as I pointed out, Apocrypha was not a term created during the reformation, but a historical term.
Second, Rome, in defining it's canon at Trent, actually went away from the norm that is the understanding of the place of these books.

Quote:

---

So the books are still printed in a new section, but are no longer to be treated as Scripture so they don't count anymore reducing the number of books to 66, and have since been removed completely.

---

That they were removed is not due to Luther, which was the entire point from the start. That they were moved does not correlate to them being removed. Lutherans can and do still see usefulness in the Apocrypha, but only when understood in their rightful historical place.

Quote:

---

Case in point. This is another example of you telling me I have claimed something I have not claimed.

---

Your accusation is around who has the authority to change the order of divine revelation. My point is that you can't actually point to anything divine or even with authority that set the Scripture in a divine order. So your claim itself doesn't hold.

Quote:

---

The books were there. Now they are gone.
WHO DECIDED?
WHEN?

---

I don't know. Maybe you should research it and let us all know? It's not my area of study. If I had to guess it was probably Calvin or Zwengli who always accused Luther of not going far enough, but that's just a guess.

What is important, for this discussion, is that Thaddeus made a claim that Luther only had 66 books. As has been shown, This was a false statement. Thaddeus acknowledged this when he changed his argument from them being removed to being moved.

Quote:

---

My position is that no single individual has the right or authority to change, alter, restructure, or reorder what is Scripture. Martin Luther had no authority to individually make these unilateral changes 1,500+ years removed from the Apostles, regardless of what made more sense to Luther. He, alone, is not wiser or more capable than the Church collectively over the previous 1,500 years to make such decisions.

---

Lets start with facts.

First, we know that even within the Jewish community the Apocrypha was disputed. So straight away, we know that the Jews themselves didn't always include it. So you have a problem here.

Second, the best you can do for dating a potential canon would be to point to Jerome and the Vulgate. But that would be a Western Bible and not an Eastern or universal Bible. So you have a problem here too.

Third, your argument is that by reordering the Scriptures, but not removing anything, Luther somehow materially changed the Word of God. You've not shown evidence for this. The Apocrypha was known for centuries, so not a valid argument. This is another problem for you.

Fourth, Noone had to follow Luther's version. Rome doesn't and the EOdox don't. You need to prove this is a problem.

Fifth, and maybe most important, for Rome it always comes down to authority and that's always been problematic. Either in this thread or another, we talked about Sola Scriptura vs alternatives, and I made a claim that the problem with Scripture + "XYZ" is that "XYZ" becomes the actual norming source and that's no different here. You're conditioned to look for a source superior to Scripture to define it for you, ala the Pope. So it's not really a surprise for you to demand an authority. But you need to prove actual harm by what Luther did, and appealing to "someone who did something is causation without correlation. Luther's Bible retained all of the books. Prove the harm done?

Double post…