Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Layman
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Correct me if I'm wrong Richard, but out of all of the canon's you provided none of them have 66 books.
Some of which only provide the new testament books which is fine but I was asking about the complete Old and New Testament canon.
 

·
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
Joined
·
20,307 Posts
I have to say I am fascinated about learning how the EOC (77), RCC (73) and Protestant (66) Bibles came into being. Great topic Sloth!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,745 Posts
The discussion on this board has largely settled around the NT and Apocryphal books. The prologoumena and the antilogoumena. I was not at all aware that the OT canon was still being debated. At any rate, Sloth was asking about if anyone was using a 66 book canon prior to Luther. I don't believe the OT canon was debated at all during the Reformation period. Correct me if I am wrong on this but I've never read of it.

I do find it more than interesting that Athanasius had an identical NT canon to Luther, so yes, I suspect that's where Luther, at least in part, came up with his canon. Not too bad a source to draw on if you ask me.
 

·
Layman
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
The discussion on this board has largely settled around the NT and Apocryphal books. The prologoumena and the antilogoumena. I was not at all aware that the OT canon was still being debated. At any rate, Sloth was asking about if anyone was using a 66 book canon prior to Luther. I don't believe the OT canon was debated at all during the Reformation period. Correct me if I am wrong on this but I've never read of it.

I do find it more than interesting that Athanasius had an identical NT canon to Luther, so yes, I suspect that's where Luther, at least in part, came up with his canon. Not too bad a source to draw on if you ask me.
if I recall correctly Luther called one of the Books of Maccabees non-canonical during the Leipzig Debate.


The Canon of Trent is the list of books officially considered canonical at the Council of Trent. A decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council's fourth session (of 4 April 1546), issued an anathema on dissenters of the books affirmed in Trent.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Trent)

So I guess Luther gets another anathema :rolleyes:


___________________________________________

I am primarily concerned with why Luther chose the books he did and his justifications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,219 Posts
Is there anything missing from the 66 book canon that the Catholic and Orthodox base their religions on, or is anything missing that impacts salvation or our walk with God? If so bring them out and start a thread to discuss them, or do it here.
 

·
Layman
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Is there anything missing from the 66 book canon that the Catholic and Orthodox base their religions on, or is anything missing that impacts salvation or our walk with God? If so bring them out and start a thread to discuss them, or do it here.
Well, I'll put it this way. If I made a canon that excluded just one book from the bible, lets say the book of Genesis. Would you use my bible canon?
Wouldn't you want to know why I decided to exclude Genesis?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,219 Posts
Well, I'll put it this way. If I made a canon that excluded just one book from the bible, lets say the book of Genesis. Would you use my bible canon?
Wouldn't you want to know why I decided to exclude Genesis?
Yep, especially Genesis as that is the book that pulled me into the fold.

That' s why I wonder on the books left out, were they of any particular importance to the faith? I don't trust Luther either and I am not a protestant.

That's why I keep harping about the Catholics excluding the Jews since they play such an end time role. That causes me to mistrust any Catholic interpretation, if they got that wrong what else is wrong? How can they justify building a new religion that excluded the Jews?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,745 Posts
For Rome, the inclusion of II Maccabees is critical as it is the sedes doctrina (the seat of doctrine) for Purgatory.

Again, permit me to clarify that Lutherans do not consider the books of the Apocrypha to be bad and indeed we consider them worth reading and study, however with Athanasius we do not consider them to be among the prologoumena (the accepted books of the entire Church over the ages). The inclusion of the antilogoumena (the books disputed by the entire Church over the ages) would have placed them as equal to the others.

On a historical note, it was the decree at the Council of Trent that for the very first time listed the books of the Roman Canon as we now have them and cursed all who didn’t agree with them. To my knowledge none of the canons of the early Fathers ever did that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,641 Posts
Richard, agree with you. The Old Testament canon has not been discussed hardly at all on the forum. The Hebrew Old Testament was completed about 400 years before Christ with the book of Malachi. These 24 "books" are the same as the 39 "books" common to Christian Old Testaments. The difference being Samuel divided into 1st and 2nd Samuel and such. This is known as the Hebrew canon.

The additional books sometimes discussed and referenced as removed by Luther were added by Jerome during the early 400s with his translating of the Greek Septuagint into Latin. He found additional writings in the Septuagint that were not included in the original Hebrew canon of 24 books. These were called the Apocrypha. Note that there are no quotations from the Apocrypha in the New Testament. (this is true for 10 of the Hebrew Canonized books as well). The Apocrypha books were written between the years of 400 BC and the birth of Christ.

Luther did not remove any books from the Old testament. He just recognized the Hebrew canon and not the Septuagint canon or the one from the council of Hippo in 393AD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,831 Posts
The Hebrew Old Testament was completed about 400 years before Christ with the book of Malachi. These 24 "books" are the same as the 39 "books" common to Christian Old Testaments. The difference being Samuel divided into 1st and 2nd Samuel and such. This is known as the Hebrew canon.
How have you made this determination?
 

·
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
Joined
·
20,307 Posts
For Rome, the inclusion of II Maccabees is critical as it is the sedes doctrina (the seat of doctrine) for Purgatory.
I didn’t know that and never read Maccabees.

Not sure why it is deemed the sedes doctrina (the seat of doctrine) for Purgatory but Father Mike explained the Scriptural support not relying at all on Maccabees.

As a universalist, I reject the notion of eternal hell but embrace Purgatory. So, I find this fascinating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,745 Posts
What is your basis for this assertion?
II Maccabees is the only place where there is any mention of an implication of purgatory:

Purgatory and 2 Maccabees 12:39-45
by Luke Wayne
1/30/17

The Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory teaches that people who die while in God's grace but who are not sufficiently purified of their sinfulness to enter God's presence must undergo a time of purification through temporary suffering in the torments of purgatory. Unlike hell, purgatory is not a final judgment on the wicked but rather a finite period of purging for the insufficiently righteous. It is a place where one suffers for one's own remaining sin before entering into heavenly bliss. Such a doctrine would seem to imply that Christ's sufferings were insufficient to sanctify the believer, and so the issue is no small matter. Roman Catholics will often claim that purgatory is affirmed even before the time of the New Testament in the Jewish Apocryphal book of 2 Maccabees. Contrary to Roman Catholic dogma, the Apocrypha should not be considered authentic Scripture, so finding the doctrine of purgatory there would not grant it biblical authority. If the claim that 2 Maccabees teaches purgatory were correct, however, this would at least demonstrate the idea of Purgatory to be an ancient tradition rather than a late innovation developed centuries after the time of the New Testament, as it otherwise appears to be. Unfortunately for the Roman Catholic apologist, however, the passage in 2 Maccabees doesn't say anything about purgatory, nor does it in any way imply the Roman Catholic dogma.

In the passage, the Jewish leader Judas Maccabeus leads his army into battle. God grants them victory, though some of Judas' men were struck down by the enemy. When during the preparation for burial, they discover that each of the dead was secretly an idolater who was wearing amulets of devotion to pagan gods under their clothes:

"Then under the tunic of each one of the dead, they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was the reason these men had fallen. So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out," (2 Maccabees 12:40-42a).

The relevance of this passage to our discussion begins here, as the Jews pray to God to blot out the sins of men who have already died. To someone reading with Roman Catholic assumptions already in place, the mention of people praying about the sins of the unrepentant dead can only be a reference to the doctrine of purgatory. Already, however, we have details here that do not fit the Roman Catholic doctrine. Purgatory is only for those who have died in God's grace. If someone dies while guilty of a mortal sin for which they have made no absolution, they die outside of God's grace and under His wrath. They will not receive purification in purgatory. They will be justly punished in hell. Roman Catholic teaching regards willful idolatry committed in full knowledge of God's moral law to be a mortal sin. The passage is clear that these were not ignorant pagans. They were Jews who knew that what they were doing was forbidden by God's law. These men died in unrepentant, willful idolatry and active devotion to false gods. Therefore, on Roman Catholic teaching, they died outside of God's grace. That they were under God's wrath is further exemplified by the repeated emphasis on the death of these men as a direct judgment from God on them for their sin.

"The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of those who had fallen," (2 Maccabees 12:42b).

So, even in the situation presented in the narrative, we see that this story does not quite fit in the context of the Roman Catholic teaching of purgatory. Further, the mere act of praying that God would forgive a dead person's sins does not imply that there is a place in which that person temporarily suffers to pay for their sins before being allowed into heavenly bliss. The passage goes on to explain itself more fully:

"He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin."

Judas Maccabeus collects money from all the men in his army. They send the money to Jerusalem to buy the appropriate sacrificial animals to make offerings for the atonement of the sin of these fallen soldiers. Why? According to the text, it is because of the expectation of a future resurrection. It is not because these men were presently confined to the sufferings of purgatory and hoping for release. Not only is there no indication that any such consideration ever entered the mind of either Judas or the author of the book, but there is a clear statement of exactly what was in mind. Judas wanted these men to share in the reward of the righteous on the day of resurrection. He was not considering the present reality of their death and any suffering their souls might currently be enduring. His focus was the future hope of their physical life.

What's more, Judas' action doesn't imply that these men's sin would eventually be atoned for by their own sufferings in purgatory. Instead, Judas sought to atone for them through temple sacrifices. The text praises this as a noble act because it embodies Judas' faithful hope in the day of resurrection. It speaks of a splendid reward for "those who fall asleep in godliness." Judas desired for his men to share in this reward, and so he prayed and made offerings in hope that "they might be delivered from their sin." If they are not, then they will face judgment rather than reward when the resurrection comes.

Thus, this isn't talking about purgatory. It reports the act of a general who loved his men and believed in the resurrection of the dead, and so he offered atoning sacrifices at the temple in hopes that God might accept them, forgive these men, and grant them eternal life and reward instead of a future of suffering. His hope was not to shorten their stay in some form of purgatory but rather to mediate their release from sin, death, and hell. If this points to any New Testament teaching at all, it points forward to the true and ultimate atoning sacrifice of Jesus Himself, who offered His own life at Jerusalem for the sins of many, even many who had died before He came. This text preserves a Jewish tradition that God might accept a sacrifice from the righteous on behalf of the wicked rebel who can make no offering of his own. In as much as there is any truth to that hope, it is fulfilled in Christ. Christ was the only truly righteous person, and all who are in Adam are dead idolaters without any hope in ourselves for salvation or life to come. Judas wanted his offering to count for his men. He wanted to make atonement at the temple in their place. Thus, what we find in this old Jewish tradition is not a belief in purgatory. What we find instead is a belief in the possibility of vicarious, substitutionary atonement. Even the apocryphal 2 Maccabees doesn't teach that the dead can be purged of sin through their own purgatorial suffering. It does express a hope that maybe a righteous person can atone on the helpless sinner's behalf. What the true Scriptures show us, however, is that neither the nobility of a man like Judas Maccabeus, the value of his silver, nor the blood of the sacrificial animals he bought is truly enough to atone for sins. At best, they point as an imperfect parable to the only thing that really is enough: Jesus Christ and His all-sufficient offering of His own perfect self on the cross of Calvary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,745 Posts
Other than the passage from II Maccabees, there is not biblical source for the teaching of the existence of Purgatory. Rather, from Hebrews 9:26-28:

" But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."


After death comes the judgment. Purgatory implies that Christ's satisfaction for our sins was insufficient and that perhaps His final words from the cross should have been, "It is almost finished."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,831 Posts
Other than the passage from II Maccabees, there is not biblical source for the teaching of the existence of Purgatory.
You are mistaken. Catholic doctrine in this regard does not rest on this one Scripture passage. Furthermore, proof for the doctrine extends also to Church Tradition.
 

·
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
Joined
·
20,307 Posts
Other than the passage from II Maccabees, there is not biblical source for the teaching of the existence of Purgatory.
Not sure how you come up with this. Father Mike lists several places, especially 2 Corinthians 3:11-15. That’s good enough for me.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top