Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: emory!dragon!cms@gatech.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The canons Message-ID: Date: 25 Mar 91 09:34:06 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Computer Projects Unlimited Lines: 52 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , poc@cathedral.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Pedro Oscar Cubillos) writes: > I have a question for this group. How did each of the Christian > religions got to adopt their canon of the OT and NT or whatever they call > the books of the Bible. OFM comments on the deuterocanonicals: > In the 16th Cent. Catholics definitively > accepted them in the Council of Trent, and Protestants definitively > rejected them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was of the understanding that Protestants reject the deuterocanonicals as a matter of tradition, however, there is no definitive or authoritative statement that "these are the books of the Bible and there are no others." It is a strong tradition, I'll admit, however, Protestants base their belief that the Bible is the Word of God on the traditions of men, whereas Catholics base their belief that the Bible is the Word of God on the Tradition of God given through the Church. > Protestants tended to have doubts because the texts > for some doctrines they didn't like tended to come from these books, > and because Protestant revival of Biblical scholarship based its OT > ideas to some extent on Jewish scholarship, and by the 16th Cent. > the Jews accepted only the Hebrew OT. Don't forget the Councils of Alexandria and Jamnia. -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia [Characterizing the Catholic tradition as the tradition of God and Protestant tradition as the tradition of men seems to me one of the more inflammatory positions I've seen recently. I suppose we'll get responses talking about the Whore of Babylon. Can't we avoid this sort of thing?? Deciding what is definitive for Protestants is sort of difficult, since all the Protestants that I know subject all creeds and other doctrinal standards to Scripture. Thus no doctrinal standard can ever be totally final. But the major Reformers rejected the authority of the deuterocanonicals, and all the Protestant creeds and confessions that I know of do not include them in the list of books. So from a practical point of view I believe this was a definitive decision. --clh]