Thread 17979631

If Luther hated the jews so much why did he use their canon?

>>17979631 (OP)
The reason why Christians generally use the Old Testament is because they are the only successors to that tradition. This is true before Luther as well.

Also, the people who claim to be Jews today have no connection to the ancient or biblical Jews. They don't even follow the Old Testament at all, nor are they related to those who wrote it. Everything they do is based on the Babylonian Talmud, which was written in the 3rd to 5th century AD and has long since been demonstrated to be an offshoot of gnostic heresies of the time.

>>17979631 (OP)
he only started seething at jews when his theory that the church was doing it wrong and he would be able to finally convert them ended up with them telling him to fuck off

>>17979631 (OP)
He hated them because he knew they were right.

>>17979631 (OP)
He thought the masoretic was much older than it actually is.

Stockholm syndrome

He knows deep down that Christianity is a psyop but can't let go lmao. Poor retard forced to worship Jews just as intended

>>17979676
I meant why use their old testament canon and not the the septuigent?

>>17979676
>offshoot of gnostic heresies of the time
>citation needed

>>17979676
>Also, the people who claim to be Jews today have no connection to the ancient or biblical Jews
>btw I blame them for killing Jesus

He wrote a book titled On the Jews and Their Lies, so I think it's safe to say he hated the Jews. He only chose the Hebrew cannon because he considered the Tanakh to be more authentic than, say, the Apocrypha.

He probably knew the truth deep down but didnt have access to much information to be able to explain why.

>>17979631 (OP)
he was hoping if he used the masoretic text instead of the septuagent he could convert the german jews to christianity
they refused but only after he got himself excommunicated
so after that he was backed into a corner and wrote On the Jews and Their Lies

>>17979819
Because the Jews at the time of Christ did and the belief that the apocrypha was inspired was historically correlated with ignorance. The apocrypha was included in the Septuagint for largely the same reason it was included in Protestant bibles until the 1800s, and in ignorance many in the ancient and medieval Church assumed anything in what they had received as "the bible" was inspired (which, incidentally, has produced multiple different "Cathodox" canons). Educated men tended to know better, and this was true of both sides in the Reformation (Cardinal Cajetan being a prominent example) until Trent, in part simply to contradict the consensus of the reformers, in part because they broadly represented that trend of ignorance, declared the apocrypha to be canon scripture as dogma.

>>17979819
>>17980107
Also papists will accuse them of removing books they didn't like because they taught purgatory or something which is absurd because the reformers did not broadly dislike them and there's about as much about purgatory in the apocrypha as there is in the canon scriptures, which is nothing.

>16th century Europe
>knowing anything besides Christianity
Probably not

>>17979631 (OP)
Have fun burning.

>>17980316
Not sure if bot or severely autistic

>>17979790
>"You resent the Jew not because, as some of you seem to think, he crucified Jesus but because he gave him birth." -Marcus Eli Ravage

Christian Antisemitism is a mix of confusion and shame, accusations of other offenses and grievances of Jewish meddling are merely cover for such humiliation.

>>17979676
>because they are the only successors to that tradition

That's self proclaimed

>>17980412
Antisemitism is caused by what jews do and what jews believe. There is no other cause, and that fact will never change.

>>17980107
>>17980110
This notion of intellectually superior men on both sides of the Reformation adhering to the Protestant canon is largely a fantasy on your part. The larger canon of the historic and visible Church was formulated and re-affirmed at the councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), and Trullo (692). The fact that Cajetan was later of the opinion that Jerome's view somehow trumped the authority of these councils is incidental. Individual saints do not outrank the decisions of ancient and accepted synods in terms of authority.

Members of the Jewish diaspora had already regarded many of the books of the so-called apocrypha as inspired for centuries prior to these councils, so your assertion that theologians *obviously* regarded them as a secondary inclusion in the Septuagint is tenuous. The Pharisees may have held a council to determine the canon as the Protestants now see it, but this council, if it did occur, occurred after the veil was rent and the Pharisees had lost their seat of authority, so I see no reason why Christians of any ilk should look to them for guidance. At any rate, the rabbinic tradition of 22 books solidified after the destruction of the temple so, again, I see no reason why Christians should look to them.

Every Anti-Semite is a narcissist or sadist

>>17980331
Neither, in fact.

>>17980660
>Individual saints do not outrank the decisions of ancient and accepted synods in terms of authority.
The reason why I believe the Bible is not because of any of those people, I believe the Bible because it is self-evidently true. It is self-evidently from God, our Creator.

Jesus Christ Himself said the following: "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (John 8:47)

If you don't hear God's words when presented to you, then some group saying it is or isn't isn't going to somehow make a difference. Some council of men, who had nothing to do with actually writing the Bible, is not who the actual Bible-believer is believing in. Their opinion one way or another doesn't matter in this regard, it's just their opinion. The only thing that matters, or should matter, is that the Bible is self-evidently inspired by God. That is the real basis for why it is believed. That's why many in the crowds believed Jesus of Nazareth upon hearing Him preach. Believers at the time weren't waiting for a council to convene to decide, for them, whether what they heard was true. That's not how God's prophecies work - that's how manmade false religions work, and Catholicism is one of them. The word of Jesus Christ in John 8:47 confirms it. See what Christ said to the scribes and Pharisees in John chapter 8 again: "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

Our Lord and Savior said similar things in John 10:1-5 and John 18:37b, which you can also look up as they make the exact same point. (1/2)

>>17980660
>>17981433
>Members of the Jewish diaspora had already regarded many of the books of the so-called apocrypha as inspired for centuries
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you proved that somehow. Couldn't those members of the diaspora simply be mistaken? There were unbelievers among the diaspora, last I checked.
>so your assertion that theologians *obviously* regarded them as a secondary inclusion in the Septuagint is tenuous.
It is easy to tell they are a secondary inclusion because none of them exist in the original Hebrew. Whereas the Old Testament itself is still in its original Hebrew and Syriac-Aramaic that it was originally inspired as. God specifically preserved His inspired word (see: 1 Peter 1:23-25, 2 Peter 1:20-21), but not manmade words such as the apocrypha.
>I see no reason why Christians of any ilk should look to them for guidance.
Reading the Old Testament is enough evidence in itself, or should be, that God authored it.

Other peoples' opinions should be irrelevant. In the face of directly reading and hearing it for yourself, a believer will recognize the voice of the Creator from the Bible itself. Therefore, they won't be misled by apocryphal writings, which are manmade and not specifically inspired by God (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17), in the sense stated by Paul and Peter in the New Testament.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
(2 Timothy 3:16-17)

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
(2 Peter 1:20-21)

Guy was a piece of shit with some good ideas

dead sea scrolls prove not only that the septuagent is a valid tanahk but also that jews do not care one half shit about scripture and will throw shit out whole cloth whenever they feel like
because there’s some scrolls that match the masoretic, some that match the septuagent and some that are totally new

It's really a million dollar question as to why any antisemite would be a Christian. The authors of the gospels did put in effort to distance Jesus away from his clear Jewish roots, but the fact still remains that he was a Jewish itinerate preacher and his followers were Jews.

>>17981514
>It's really a million dollar question as to why any antisemite would be a Christian. The authors of the gospels did put in effort to distance Jesus away from his clear Jewish roots, but the fact still remains that he was a Jewish itinerate preacher and his followers were Jews.
I oppose the synagogue of satan. And I think the modern-day people who claim to be Jews actually have no real connection to the Biblical Jews or Israel at all.

>>17981527
Forgot pic.

>>17981527
>And I think the modern-day people who claim to be Jews actually have no real connection to the Biblical Jews or Israel at all.
If you keep repeating that, maybe someday it will become true.

>>17981556
The Talmud mentions stuff that was previously written in the heretical gnostic work 3 Enoch. I'm not just saying it, you can see the proof for yourself.

>>17981560
>Muh Talmud
I don't care.

>>17981563
The Babylonian Talmud and derivative literature is the only thing these people follow. They certainly do not follow any part of the Bible, including the Old Testament, or even try to.

>>17981433
>>17981435
Why should I believe in your canon list ahead of the canon list of another Christian who likewise claims to earnestly trust in Jesus as his Lord and saviour and acts accordingly?

Your argument is essentially: I know which books are canon because I just know. This isn't an effective position to take, and it's not how the Church or even the apostles handled such matters. The apostles themselves held a council at Jerusalem to discuss and proclaim fundamental aspects of the faith, so your antipathy towards councils makes little to no sense biblically.
>because none of them exist in the original Hebrew
Enoch, Jubilees, and sectarian writings like the Community Rule and the War Scroll were all found within the dead sea scrolls. Do you count these as canon? The Septuagint is also older than the Masoretic text.

>>17981646
>so your antipathy towards councils makes little to no sense biblically.
It's not just councils, it's people who aren't inspired by God in generally proclaiming their opinions as fact that are the issue. If it's the apostles, that's different because they were inspired by God.
>The apostles themselves held a council at Jerusalem
The apostles were inspired by God. And the first time people believed the teachings of Christ happened before Acts 15 when they held their council. So I don't see what point this is trying to make with regards to councils of people not inspired by God who, we are to suppose, told people what they can believe, since they can't simply hear the word and believe that way.

>Enoch, Jubilees, and sectarian writings like the Community Rule and the War Scroll were all found within the dead sea scrolls.
Two points here. Firstly, the dead sea scrolls are not exclusively in Hebrew. Secondly, if they were it wouldn't matter because they were lost until being discovered in the 20th century, so they weren't preserved by God anyway. This second point applies to any artifact that is discovered today that we didn't already know about. Whatever is found tomorrow isn't going to change the received text of the Bible.

>>17981668
>it's people who aren't inspired by God in generally proclaiming their opinions as fact that are the issue
What right do you have to claim that these saints of the ancient and visible Church were not inspired? I am sorry, but this just seems like imense hubris on your part.
>so they weren't preserved by God anyway
Which original Hebrew text are you referring to then? The Masoretic text? That's younger than the Septuagint.

>>17981681
*immense

>>17981681
>What right do you have to claim that these saints of the ancient and visible Church were not inspired?
Did these people write Scripture?

>Which original Hebrew text are you referring to then?
The received text of both the Old Testament and the New Testament was preserved through history in manuscript form. In the 16th century, these manuscripts were copied over into printed texts which had the advantage of being less error prone. There were textual critics who amassed the manuscripts of their day. They used these manuscripts to put together the printed texts, which we still have plenty of copies of today.

For the New Testament, this process occurred from roughly 1516, which is the year when Erasmus' first printed text of the entire New Testament appeared, until around 1604, although Aldus Manutius had printed the first six chapters of John as early as 1505.

For the Old Testament, this process began slightly earlier with the "incunabula." Here there were partial editions printed first, starting with a version of the Psalms in 1477. Eventually the Soncino edition of 1494 was made, and later procured by Martin Luther as a source in his German translation. Later, a man named Daniel Bomberg who operated a printing press in Venice put together a more carefully edited edition of the original-language Old Testament, first in 1517, and then a second edition in 1525 which was later used by William Tyndale. The second Bomberg edition was edited by a man who formerly professed Judaism but then converted to Christianity later in life. The 1525 edition was an important reference for other Old Testament scholars such as Elias Hutter, who put together his own edition of the Hebrew Old Testament later in the 16th century (in 1587).

That edition also varies in its text from the Ben Asher Masoretic text, which is represented by the third edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica (1937), and later editions, which were based on the newly discovered Codex Leningradensis.

>>17981749
Having looked at the texts that formed the incunabula, they all appear to date from around the 15th century. Why would you trust in them ahead of something much earlier like the Septuagint? Also, the texts of the incunabula vary vastly in terms of quality. Given the fact that you are taking them as your base, how can you be so sure that no errors crept in? Which parts of the incunabula are you claiming are the perfectly preserved text?

>>17981803
>Given the fact that you are taking them as your base, how can you be so sure that no errors crept in?
I'm not. The 1525 Bomberg text was printed later than the Incunabula and is a better quality text in terms of accuracy, although not the only one.
>Which parts of the incunabula are you claiming are the perfectly preserved text?
None, they are just early attempts to copy some manuscripts into printed form without much in the way of scholarship. There's a reason why the 1611 translators used the sources they did and not these early printed sources.

>Why would you trust in them ahead of something much earlier like the Septuagint?
The editions of Bomberg and others were based on manuscripts. It's not like they came from nowhere. What we call the Septuagint came from them too by the way.

>>17981814
What manuscripts are you referring to precisely and what is their provenance?

>>17981827
The ones that the Septuagint is based on? You can find various editions of the Septuagint that are based on different manuscripts, but they all point back to Origen in the 3rd century AD as the source. Anything before that is fragmentary.

What likely happened is that in the 3rd century BC, some Jews made a translation of the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. Afterward, others translated different parts of the Old Testament into Greek.

But it wasn't until Origen, in the 3rd century AD, that a standardized and complete form of the entire Old Testament was edited. Before that, there wasn't really a unified "Septuagint text," and it didn't exist when the New Testament was written. People get Origen's version confused with the legend of the BC-era translation of the Pentateuch, and other translations that Origen may have borrowed from.

And of course, after Origen we see multiple versions of Origen's Hexateuch emerge through manuscript variation. This has resulted in the fact that today, it isn't entirely clear exactly what his version said either. At least not in every place. But it definitely didn't exist in the 1st century AD when the apostles wrote the New Testament. He seems to have borrowed some language from it, in fact, in making his translation of the Old.

>>17981836
No. I am asking you about the editions of Bomberg and whichever ever version of the OT you use currently. What denomination do you belong to by the way?

>>17981843
>No. I am asking you about the editions of Bomberg and whichever ever version of the OT you use currently.
Whatever manuscripts Bomberg's sources were based on, they predate Origen at least.

You can show that not only by pointing to the existence of the Isaiah scroll (from the DSS), which matches the received version of Isaiah very well, but more importantly because God's word will never pass away, per the words of the Lord in Scripture.

As it says in Scripture, "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160).

And in Isaiah it also says this: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." (Isaiah 40:8)

>What denomination do you belong to by the way?
I am a member of an independent church that has no political or denominational ties to other churches. The body of Christ answers to Jesus Christ as head of the church. As it says in Colossians 1:18, "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

>>17981854
Which translation of the Old Testament does your church currently use, and why, if it is younger than the Septuagint, should I accept it as more authoritative? The Bomberg editions are based on the Masoretic text, which many regard as inferior in some respects to the earlier Septuagint. If your answer is "I know because I know," then I'll refer you back to my earlier post >>17981646

None of the biblical quotes you have posted appear to presuppose that there must be a specific text, in a specific language, that must survive via an unbroken line of transmission, by the way. This seems to be something you're assuming.

>>17981870
>None of the biblical quotes you have posted appear to presuppose that there must be a specific text, in a specific language, that must survive via an unbroken line of transmission, by the way.
See the following:

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."
(Isaiah 59:21)

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever"
(Psalm 12:6-7)

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
(Luke 16:17)

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
(Matthew 24:35)

According to the Bible, God's word hasn't been lost. And that this is true for every book of the Bible as well. That is the biblical claim regardless of another person's opinion.

"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."
(1 John 5:9-10)

>This seems to be something you're assuming.
I didn't author the Bible quotes above.
>Which translation of the Old Testament does your church currently use, and why, if it is younger than the Septuagint, should I accept it as more authoritative?
I would only use accurate translations of the original source text as originally inspired, and that is also what I recommend. The Septuagint was a later translation.

>The Bomberg editions are based on the Masoretic text,
As I said (>>17981749) it actually differs from the Masoretic text. You can't confuse the two like that.

>>17981888
>According to the Bible, God's word hasn't been lost.
Yes, but as I said, this doesn't necessarily mean that a specific translation must be used or that only a certain language counts in terms of transmission.
>I would only use accurate translations of the original source text as originally inspired
So the Bomberg second edition?
>it actually differs from the Masoretic text
Everything I am reading is saying that the Bomberg editions are editions of the Masoretic text. For example:

>Daniel Bomberg's edition, on which the KJV is based, was the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text...
>Bomberg printed a second edition Masoretic text prepared by Jacob ben Chayim in 1526...

At any rate, these all seem to link back to older texts from 9th and 11th centuries. Still younger than the Septuagint, in other words.

>>17981899
>So the Bomberg second edition?
As far as I know, that was the main source used by the KJV translators, but based on my knowledge, they likely consulted other editions to verify things rather than just trusting one source. It is possible they verified many of their readings with another critically edited text like that of Elias Hutter (1587), which would have helped them avoid any typos in Bomberg's edition(s), since those still cropped up here and there in the printed editions, especially the early ones. These men may have also used other manuscripts that were available at that time in the 16th century as well, some of which may no longer be available to us. If that is the case, the various printed editions (of the original language Hebrew text) might be the primary surviving example of some readings. This could also be true for certain readings of the New Testament as well. If true, this would mean that God used these copies to continue preserving the word. This doesn't contradict Scripture.

The shorter version of my answer is that the Bomberg's second edition is very accurate, although it may have contained minor unintentional errors. Fortunately, other people besides Bomberg also worked with manuscripts at the time, and put out very similar source texts that are virtually identical to his second edition, barring the occasional misprint. So we are not reliant on one guy, or one team, for our printed source.

>At any rate, these all seem to link back to older texts from 9th and 11th centuries.
I don't believe that they do. If you look at the modern form of the actual Masoretic text, you find differences in a number of places.

Also, if you place any value on the dead sea scrolls, it should be pointed out that the Isaiah Scroll found there matches the Bomberg text very closely. This undermines the notion that this Hebrew text originates with the Masoretes, since the DSS predates them. The two texts may be largely similar, but are not the same thing.

>>17981917
>I don't believe that they do. If you look at the modern form of the actual Masoretic text, you find differences in a number of places.
You're entitled to your opinion, but every source I've encountered thus far treats the Bomberg editions as 16th century versions of the Masoretic.

>>17981927
Most modern translations used the (Ben Asher) Masoretic text nowadays, but the 1611 translation used a different Hebrew source. You can see the difference show up in the translation in several places.

One of the differences occurs in 1 Kings 20:38 and 41. Two times, the word for "ashes" was changed to "bandage" in the Masoretic text. You will find modern translations say "bandage" but the King James version says "ashes" in both verses. This is based on an actual textual difference in the source text. It is not a difference in opinion on how to translate the same word, such as you see with disputed translations in key places like Psalm 22:16, Isaiah 7:14 or Psalm 2:12.

Another example of a difference between the KJV and the Masoretic text is found in Zephaniah 3:15. Here the KJV reads, "thou shalt not see evil any more." Most of the modern translations change one word in this phrase to say, "you will not FEAR evil anymore." The actual Hebrew word itself is different in the Masoretic text in this verse. The modern translations are getting the word "fear" from Kittel's Biblia Hebraica (1937) or from later revisions of that text. The received text word in this verse is "see" rather than "fear."

Many people have overlooked these kinds of differences, but I make note of the differences and thus do not go along with the idea that these are of Masoretic origin, although they apparently kept a form of the text that was similar in most places. That doesn't mean we should get our text from them, and based on my investigation of some of the textual differences, I believe my Bible and the source text it used is of ancient origin. If the DSS are taken as evidence, they also seem to confirm this. See the Isaiah Scroll, designated 1QIsa because the scroll was one of the original discoveries. Compared to most of the other scrolls, it was remarkably intact and preserved well. Of course, I would still believe in the Bible regardless of whether it was discovered.

>>17981963
>I believe my Bible and the source text it used is of ancient origin
Which Bible? The KJV 1611?

>>17981977
>Which Bible? The KJV 1611?
When I quote the Bible, I have always used the 1900 format of the 1611 translation. This is a minor update to the 1611 text that brings standard spelling and punctuation to the original translation. Some occasional trivial typos have also been corrected.

The KJV 1611, in turn, was an accurate translation of the original language text, based on original-language received text sources for every book of the Bible. Investigation of the 1611 translation shows that the translators certainly used several of these printed texts, and it is further possible that they likewise consulted manuscripts as well.

The received text sources themselves were compiled from manuscripts available at the time. This situation shows that the sources used to make the received text, in its printed form, were in continuous use. Therefore, the text they reflected was not "lost" at any time. These manuscripts would have been the result of copying through history by many different people, from the moment the first manuscripts were first written, until the time they were printed. Normally you would expect this process of hand copying over centuries would typically result in some parts of the book being potentially lost or damaged. Since this is God's word, however, it was preserved through this process, and was available intact in the manuscripts that were available in the 16th century. From then until now the same text has been preserved in printed form, in editions made by multiple different scholars. These scholars, through inspection of manuscripts, independently produced nearly identical texts, barring the occasional misprint here or there in individual printed copies - the error rate is lower than manuscripts but not zero.

The printed copies had two big advantages over manuscripts, since 1) their error or misprint rate was far less, and 2) many identical copies could be made without variation. This has helped preserve the received text since that time.

>>17980660
>This notion of intellectually superior men on both sides of the Reformation adhering to the Protestant canon is largely a fantasy on your part
This is firstly a strawman, since I said nothing of superior intellect but superior education, and by context it is obvious I was referring specifically to education concerning the history of the Jews. Secondly, you are far from establishing this assertion, as citing councils which were held many centuries before the Reformation and which by nobody's interpretation are authoritative is rather irrelevant.
>Individual saints do not outrank the decisions of ancient and accepted synods in terms of authority.
There are multiple considerations here, 1. As noted above, the councils which you cited are reckoned as ecumenical by no Christian tradition including Rome, so that we can grant your narrative of what their decrees were en toto and yet it be irrelevant 2. Jerome lived after all but one of these, meaning if Cajetan can simply dismissed as "defying authority", so can that great scholar of the ancient Church 3. The authority of men is not a standard under which a Protestant conducts theology on any question, but is wholly unacceptable as a metric to determine the canon of scripture, since i. they are the words of God and not men, which He is free to reveal to His covenant people without the intervention of any men, and ii. nobody save God does or could have the authority to bind the conscience of men, much less the bishop of Rome, however this is what such an authoritative definition of canon necessarily claims

(cont.)

>>17980660
>Members of the Jewish diaspora had already regarded many of the books of the so-called apocrypha as inspired
There is no evidence of this
>I see no reason why Christians of any ilk should look to them for guidance
The Lord Jesus Christ held them accountable to the scriptures, which proves both that the canon was known without your councils, and that the Jews possessed it. Likewise, Paul declares "to them were entrusted the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2). Never did our Lord hold anyone accountable to the apocrypha.
>the rabbinic tradition of 22 books solidified after the destruction of the temple
This is false, Josephus related those books and them only were laid up in the temple.

>>17979631 (OP)
It's the classic jew worshippers paradox: The more a jew worshipper tries to emulate the original jews who founded his religion, the more they must performatively hate jews to distance themselves from modern "fake" jews

>>17982186
Reminder also that the first person who we know of that ever tried to declare a canon – and by such action, implying that he thought this was necessary and warranted – was a cult leader by the name of Marcion in the 2nd century AD. And, of course, his canon list was incorrect.

>>17982246
And also his canon drew condemnation from the orthodox Church, which reflects the fact that those saints knew what the bible was without someone in a funny hat telling them what to believe.

>>17981563
Then shut the fuck up and exit the conversation.

>>17982186
>>17982191
You've done nothing to actually refute what I said. The councils I listed have been regarded as authoritative for centuries, which is why we have the canon lists we do. A council does not need to be ecumenical in order to be seen as authoritative. Christ not mentioning certain scriptures does not disprove their authority; Jesus did not touch upon and quote every part of the Torah - that hardly renders parts of it false. And, yes, saints, even Jerome, can make mistakes. That's why we have synods. The canon list of Jerome differs from the canon lists of other saints, which themselves show discrepancies, and so on. Josephus, a Jewish historian, does not exclipse the Christian councils of Rome, Hippo, Trullo etc. in terms of understanding. The fact that the Jewish people received the prophets in no way proves a 22 book canon in and of itself.

Again, you've done nothing to actually undermine my central point. You've simply argued around the issue with more assertions and dressed up your evasion in pompous, high-handed language.

>>17979676
>they are the only successors to that tradition.
What is Islam?

>>17982007
The KJV 1611 was in part based upon the Masoretic text. The Masoretic text is younger than the Septuagint and is seen as inferior in some respects by many knowledgeable Christians. You keep trying to argue around this point by producing more and more walls of text, but this cannot be ignored.

>>17982904
KJV onlyism is the funniest thing for US Americans to engage in. Some British limey KING's version is the 100% accurate translation despite not being based on the oldest manuscripts because it uses thee and thou.

>>17982895
>You've done nothing to actually refute what I said
Being mad is not an argument
>The councils I listed have been regarded as authoritative for centuries
They have never been regarded as authoritative by anybody, as, again, they do not belong to the list of ecumenical councils. You are attempting to inflate their authority because you consider it to be convenient to the present dispute, however this is not what your own church teaches about them.
>A council does not need to be ecumenical in order to be seen as authoritative
Under Romish dogma it does need to be ecumenical in order to represent the ordinary magisterium and bind the conscience.
>Christ not mentioning certain scriptures does not disprove their authority
That He should fail to do so when holding the same audience accountable to scripture which denied the canonicity of those books may, however.
>Jerome, can make mistakes
Was he mistaken to not defer to your councils? Why did he not consider them to be authoritative, if they did indeed define the canon as you claim?
>Josephus, a Jewish historian, does not exclipse the Christian councils
Firstly, he may not eclipse them, but Romans 3:2 does, and he can be very relevant in providing historical context. We are to believe the Old Testament comprises exactly those same books which were believed by the Jews under the old law, being partakers of the very same covenant. Second, if these councils made a claim about the history of the Jews he is very capable of eclipsing them on that issue.
>Again, you've done nothing to actually undermine my central point
I have obliterated it, which you ignored, namely the premise that a council of men can conclusively determine the canon of scripture, so that even if we conceded everything else you claimed we could conclude only these councils presumed authority they did not have, as the heretical robber synod of Trent did.

>>17983364
>Being mad is not an argument
Take your own advice.
>They have never been regarded as authoritative by anybody, as, again, they do not belong to the list of ecumenical councils.
This is an absurd claim on your part. The Church regards certain councils as authoritative even when they are not ecumenical. Christian writers, and the Church itself, constantly refer to these councils for this reason.
>Under Romish dogma it does need to be ecumenical in order to represent the ordinary magisterium and bind the conscience.
You have totally misunderstood the ordinary magisterium if you think it only refers to ecumeical councils and ex cathedra statements.
>the same audience accountable to scripture which denied the canonicity of those books may, however.
Where is your evidence that all Jews everywhere in the time of the first century denied the authority of the deuterocanon?
>Was he mistaken to not defer to your councils?
"The broader fact is that the testimony of the Fathers was not unanimous on the Old Testament canon. Even Jerome, the great biblical scholar, early in his career favored the Hebrew canon but then changed his mind and submitted his opinion to the wisdom of the Church, accepting the deuterocanonicals as Scripture (ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xii.ii.xxvii.html)."
>but Romans 3:2 does
Romans 3:2 is affirming the fact that the oracles of God appeared to the Jews. It is not providing a canon list.
>We are to believe the Old Testament comprises exactly those same books which were believed by the Jews under the old law
According to Gerald A. Larue, there is evidence to suggest that the canon was still being debated at the time of Josephus. This is to say nothing of the fact that, because he lists 22 rather than 24 books, Josephus may well have regarded Song of Songs and/or Ecclesiastes as non canonical, which would mean his list also differed from that of the Protestants.

1/2?

>>17983364
But even if we concede that Josephus was correct in his account of the books contained within the temple, this would only demonstrate that the Deuterocanon was not at that time regarded as scripture. It does not demonstrate that these books could never be regarded as such. If your argument is that scripture must be complete, then you're going to have to contend with the fact that there was a time on earth when the Torah was yet the Prophets were not; and there was a time on earth when the Torah and the Prophets were, but the later Prophets were not, and so on.
>I have obliterated it
Your priggish and uncharitable attitude only reveals the relative insecurity of your position.
>the premise that a council of men can conclusively determine the canon of scripture
This was never my premise. These men in attending the councils affirmed that they were guided by the Holy Spirit. You claim to have superior knowledge to them. How shall we know who is true - them or you? You will say, "if you know, you know." But such an answer surely lacks charity and was not the response of either Jesus or His apostles, at any rate. They testified to their knowledge through miracles and through living lives of superlative compassion and virtue in the face of adversity. Where is your compassion? Where are your miracles? You claim these men of the ancient Church are villains. On what basis? When Christ spoke against the Pharisees, He was careful to reveal their hypocrisy. Where is your evidence for the fact that these men who likewise professed Christ were in fact liars? If you have no real evidence, is some part of you not ashamed?

>>17983413
*regarded as scripture by the Jews

>>17983396
>Take your own advice.
Projection
>You have totally misunderstood the ordinary magisterium if you think it only refers to ecumeical councils and ex cathedra statements.
It seems I made a mistake in using the term "ordinary", since the church of Rome apparently refers to such authoritative pronouncements as "solemn" rather than ordinary. This changed nothing, because ecumenical councils are still defined as the only ones holding such authority, which is a truth by definition since this is functionally how Rome defines the term 'ecumenical', and other such pronouncements do not have such binding authority and papists are free to disagree with them, which is the excuse frequently used to justify the many heretical and apostate acts of Pope Francis
>Where is your evidence that all Jews everywhere in the time of the first century denied the authority of the deuterocanon?
Are we to suppose now that there was widespread secret dissent on this point of which there is no evidence? I think we have already established what the established Jewish opinion of the canon was, which never note any dissent, most notably there is none from the New Testament. The apostle Paul furthermore was a pharisee of the pharisees and an expert in their religion, so that when he speaks of the Jews being entrusted with the oracles of God we should not interpret him as referring to anything else than the pharisaical sect, certainly not as excluding them, whom you have already conceded held a canon which is identical to our own.

(1/5)

>>17983396
>"The broader fact is that the testimony of the Fathers was not unanimous on the Old Testament canon. Even Jerome, the great biblical scholar, early in his career favored the Hebrew canon but then changed his mind and submitted his opinion to the wisdom of the Church, accepting the deuterocanonicals as Scripture (ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xii.ii.xxvii.html)."
This reinforces my general apprehension that papist armchair apologists are broadly ignorant of church history and simply swallow whole what their propagandists feed them. This entire quotation, including the link, is taken verbatim not from a church historian but from a Catholic Answers article. I also infer you did not even bother to read the link since it contains absolutely nothing to that effect. The citation is from Jerome's defense against Rufinus, wherein he is defending the Hebrew text and his translation thereof. There is not a single word to be found here of submitting "his opinion to the wisdom of the Church, accepting the deuterocanonicals as Scripture". Jerome actually quotes his prefaces to the Old Testament, wherein he explicitly rejects the apocrypha, and that he does not here recant.
Perhaps Mr. Rose meant to cite Jerome's preface to Judith, wherein (after those councils) he says he acquiesced to the request for a translation after he was informed that Nicaea reckoned it as canonical (which, I note, is not actually true). However this would also be erroneous because in that preface Jerome begins by noting the Jews reject it as apocryphal and he never states that it is canon scripture.

(2/5)

>>17983396
>Romans 3:2 is affirming the fact that the oracles of God appeared to the Jews. It is not providing a canon list.
It obviously is not a canon list. What purpose is there in putting words in my mouth? The verse does not merely say they received the oracles, but were entrusted with them. The word in Greek has the same meaning as believe, it could be rendered as "[God] put His faith in them". The meaning of the verse is that the Jews were given the role of being the caretakers of God's word. Therefore what they did not receive, He did not speak.
>According to Gerald A. Larue, there is evidence to suggest that the canon was still being debated at the time of Josephus
There is a broad historical consensus today that this is not true, and I personally deny it.
>This is to say nothing of the fact that, because he lists 22 rather than 24 books, Josephus may well have regarded Song of Songs and/or Ecclesiastes as non canonical
During the second temple period the Jews reckoned Judges and Ruth as one book and Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. When this is accounted for there is no discrepancy.

(3/5)

>>17983413
>It does not demonstrate that these books could never be regarded as such.
A book is scripture if and only if it was written under the inspiration of God. Such a book is not the word of mere men, but the very word of God. If a book is not the word of God, it should not ever be regarded as scripture. If a book is the word of God, then it always was. Of course, we might suppose that, despite being entrusted with the oracles of God, the people of God were really ignorant of the nature of these books for many centuries, but then who is the one rejecting tradition? Should we suppose that the old fathers did not have the Spirit as we do, as to recognize His words? And why did neither the Lord nor His apostles correct this misapprehension?
>Your priggish and uncharitable attitude
Matthew 5:11-12
>These men in attending the councils affirmed that they were guided by the Holy Spirit
1. They did no such thing, as men were not yet foolish enough to pretend councils were infallible 2. As we have now well established, the church of Rome does not affirm this of them 3. You deny your premise is that men can define the word of God, and then you say this. Are you now contradicting yourself, or am I supposed to believe your councils are divine revelation?

(4/5)

>>17983413
>How shall we know who is true - them or you?
The Lord God created us in His image with faculties of reason by which we are enabled to distinguish truth from falsehood. Likewise He blessed us with the scripture from which we are able to derive those first principles necessary to a coherent worldview. We should not dismiss the divine blessing of rationality for the sake of a false system.
>Where is your compassion?
I display it right now in calling you to repent from the heresy of Romanism unto eternal life through faith in Christ, who alone is head over the Church. But we must not suppose that one's beliefs are to be proven by external compassion, as if a muslim by showing outward kindness to the poor and sick thereby proved Islam.
>Where are your miracles?
The miracles by which our faith is confirmed were preformed by the apostles, the Lord Jesus, and the prophets many thousands of years ago; the revelation of God which was given through them is the rock of our entire religion.
>You claim these men of the ancient Church are villains.
I did no such thing, it is a calumny invented in your brain. The fathers of Trent, they were liars and villains, and it is proven by their defense of so many religious abuses, by their presumptuous arrogation of divine authority, and by their condemnation with the anathema of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

>>17983684
You continue to misunderstand the magisterium. Even if we concede that the Councils were of the ordinary magisterium, this is still binding upon all faithful.
>Are we to suppose now that there was widespread secret dissent on this point of which there is no evidence?
Again, where is your evidence that all Jews everywhere held to the same canon? The book of Enoch was found among the dead sea scrolls and there is a broad consensus that the Hebrew canon was something that developed over time.
>I think we have already established what the established Jewish opinion of the canon was, which never note any dissent, most notably there is none from the New Testament
You have established nothing beyond your own suppositions. Certain books not being quoted in the NT is hardly evidence of a lack of canonicity, since, by this same metric, certain books which the Protestants regard as canonical would also need to be removed.
>when he speaks of the Jews being entrusted with the oracles of God we should not interpret him as referring to anything else than the pharisaical sect
An assumption on your part.
>The meaning of the verse is that the Jews were given the role of being the caretakers of God's word. Therefore what they did not receive, He did not speak.
You have yet to show that the whole of the Jewish population adhered to one canon throughout history.
>During the second temple period the Jews reckoned Judges and Ruth as one book and Ezra and Nehemiah as one book.
This is one possiblity. The other is that he did not regard Songs or Ecclesiastes as canonical.
>the people of God were really ignorant of the nature of these books for many centuries
Again, you have yet to show that every Jewish community adhered to the same canon.
>Matthew 5:11-12
Your tone and manner of writing are clearly arrogant. That is on you.
>As we have now well established, the church of Rome does not affirm this of them
Again, you've misunderstood the nature of the magisterium.

1/2

>>17983693
>>17983719
(con.) Dogma and doctrine do not simply consist of the ecumeical councils and papal ex cathedra statements. There is also the constant tradition of the Church, of which the councils mentioned are certainly a part, since each subsequent council referred to reaffirms the ones before it; and all are in turn held to be true to this day by the Church.
>>17983695
>We should not dismiss the divine blessing of rationality for the sake of a false system.
I am glad we agree. Now use that reason instead of relying on your presumptions.
>I display it right now in calling you to repent from the heresy of Romanism
I am a non denominational Christian currently discerning the faith. Your assumption that I am Roman Catholic is faulty.
>as if a muslim by showing outward kindness to the poor and sick thereby proved Islam.
Christians behave charitably towards all regardless of their faith or creed. That "outward kindness" is essentially unique, and a significant part of what distinguishes us. Do not get so caught up in petty intellectualism that you forget that.
>The miracles by which our faith is confirmed were preformed by the apostles, the Lord Jesus, and the prophets many thousands of years ago
I fail to see how cessationism is biblical.
>I did no such thing, it is a calumny invented in your brain.
At the very least, you are saying that these holy men were wrong, and that your knoweldge of the faith is somehow superior.

2/2

>>17983685
>"Jerome shows deference to the judgment of the Church. In the prologue to Judith, he tells his patron that “because this book is found by the Nicene Council [of A.D. 325] to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request” to translate it." This is interesting because we have only partial records of First Nicaea, and we don’t otherwise know what this ecumenical council said concerning the canon.
>"Jerome’s deference to Church authority was also illustrated when he later defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, writing: “What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the church- es?” (Against Rufinus 2:33). In the same place he stated that what he said concerning Daniel in his prologues was what non-Christian Jews said but was not his own view. This may indicate Jerome changed his mind or that his reporting of Jewish views may not indicate his own view."

>antisemitic Christians:
>Pepsi? Do you have any idea how bad that shit is for your health?
>Why not turn your life away from that unhealthy shit, and all unhealthy garbage like that?
>You can do this by drinking Coca Cola instead

>>17979751
>>17979796
>>17979846
trvke

>>17979676
The old testament is referenced in the New Testament proving Jesus’ miracles and fulfilling the prophecies of the messiah that’s why it’s there over 66,000 cross references proving Jesus is the messiah and the covenant with Jesus. That’s why it’s in there. No other book does this wild when you think about it.

>>17983734
>There is also the constant tradition of the Church, of which the councils mentioned are certainly a part
Now one wonders why the people of God under the old law or those ancient and medieval churchmen which rejected these books are excluded from this supposed tradition, or by what standard you determine what does and does not represent the mythical unbroken apostolic tradition? I think the answer to the latter also explains the former- it is the magisterium of Rome particularly as represented in the council of Trent which determines what you are to believe about tradition and about church history, whereby it appears the papist has no authority in which he believes save the compulsive tyranny of the pope and his cronies.
>I am a non denominational Christian currently discerning the faith. Your assumption that I am Roman Catholic is faulty.
Now, you started this discussion by objecting to historical facts about the canon, substituting the mythology of an authoritative tradition and magisterium settling the question long before, you have quoted directly from Catholic Answers, and defended the papist doctrines of the magisterium, and all ultimately in defense of the canonicity of the apocrypha. But you aren't a Romanist, and you aren't defending Romanism. I am amazed by your flagrant and shameless lying. Exactly how stupid do you think everyone reading this is? Perhaps you have been reading some 16th century jesuits for the motivation and justification of this sin, but you will be judged for it, and it has no bearing on what I've said at all.

>>17983765
I thought you were quoting Catholic Answers again, and sure enough I was right. This exposes all the more transparently the shameless lie that you are not a papist. The quote from Against Rufinus is a prime example of abusing history. In context Jerome is talking about his rejection of the Septuagint version of Daniel and pointing out the churches do the same thing, not reading from it but from Theodotion's version. He is essentially saying "how can you condemn me for doing the very same thing the churches do?" and absolutely nothing like "I believe the apocrypha is scripture now because the pope says so!"
>I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?

>>17984125
>Now one wonders why the people of God under the old law
Again, you have yet to show that all Jews everywhere adhered to the same canon, so why are you assuming they're excluded?
> those ancient and medieval churchmen which rejected these books
They're not excluded. It's simply a fact that different saints adhered to different canon lists, and this was even prior to any "medieval churchmen." That's why synods are necessary - to settle a matter where there is a difference or dispute.
>what does and does not represent the mythical unbroken apostolic tradition?
I gave you the standard; please be more honest in your approach. If it is consistently affirmed and reaffirmed; if it has the agreement of the vast majority of the faithful; if the Church itself refers to it in its pronouncements and in other parts of its doctrine, then it may be regarded as a constant tradition.
>save the compulsive tyranny of the pope and his cronies
Looking to the presbyters and Bishops to reconcile conflicts and to clarify doctrine is an ancient and established norm within the ancient Church. I am saddened to see you defame it.
>Now, you started this discussion by objecting to historical facts about the canon
I objected to no facts. I simply refuted much of what you presumed was factual.
>you have quoted directly from Catholic Answers
So what? That doesn't make me a Roman Catholic. It makes me an inquirer.
>defended the papist doctrines of the magisterium
No. I explicated how the magisterium functioned when you made false claims.
>But you aren't a Romanist, and you aren't defending Romanism.
I am simply pointing out where I feel you have fallen into error with reference to my own journey in the faith. I am sorry this fact has unseated you to the extent that it has. That I am willing to deal with the Catholics and their dogma in terms of faith, hope, and charity does not in itself make me a Roman Catholic.

>>17979631 (OP)
Checkmate protestants

>>17984129
See >>17984170

Also, the quote you have posted confirms the fact that Jerome follows the judgements of the Church in terms of scripture. He is essentially saying: "Don't accuse me of anything. I do as the Church does. And it is sufficient merely to point out what the Church does because theirs is the final authority." This presupposes that he views the Church as having a higher authority than himself.