How can the Council of trent be the one who made the 73 book canon When earlier councils affirmed it?

Question

The Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D.,and later, Carthage 419 A.D,Council of Rome AD 382 all Affirmed it.

Council of Rome



"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).


Council of Hippo



"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).


Council of Carthage III



"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

Pope Innocent I



"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).

Look at the dates,way over 1000+ yrs from the council of trent.Even a Pope (Pope Innocent 1) affirmed it.

What support does the Protestant church have for 66 book canon?

Well,BTW Unless your somehow a Marcionist,I have nothing to add about the Blessed New covenant (NT). It has always been the same (Offically).

Again Q" What Support does the Protestant churches have for the 66 book canon?"

And another Question "Are you atleast willing to admit the 73 book canon was not formed at the council of trent?"

Answer 1

1] The authorized christian bible at that time is the Septuagint [contain the 46 books], which was translated from hebrew to Greek in about 240BC. Jesus was using said LXII at His time.

2] The protestants adopted the 39 OT books from the Jewish suppose council of Jamnia in 90 AD. Supposedly, this questionable council was to counteract the Christians, as they were becoming stronger and threatening the Jews. The jewish at that time is the arch enemy of the Church, prosecuted and very anti-christian and even crucified Jesus as anti-Messiah.

3] So question: How on earth why the protestants are using the Jewish books that denied and rejected Jesus as messiah?

Txs for the above information.



edit 1: Glenn S: you did not answer the question. How could the prots adopt an anti-christian Jewish books? The Jews, being arch-enemies of the christians at that time, they killed Jesus and rest of christians. How could they?

Edit 2: Glenn S: The protestants used the Hebrew text [as all knew Jews had supposedly cannonized in 90 AD thru council of Jamnia and all knows that it is very Anti-christian] when it translated it to NIV. Back to my query: how could you believed the NIV books based on an anti-christian authors.

Answer 2

You're getting a bit mixed up there, Pastor Art The Catholic Church uses the Septuagint to determine the Canon of the Old Testament, which I'm sure you must remember predates Luther by a good 15 centuries, if not more. Most scholars agree that the Septuagint was complete by the 1st century BCE. Luther removed books from this canon and relabeled them the Apocrypha, which he first published in 1534, well before his death in 1546. Those are the books the Catholics refer to. The Council of Trent did not ratify a Canon, but *defined* it in 1546, as a response to the so-called "Reformation."

Answer 3

Very well done. History and reason mixed with religious piety, a wonderful combination.



Although I wouldn't attact protestants, the sad truth is, Biblical scholarship, Christian history, and theology are poorly understood by most people, both Catholic and Protestant.



The overarching problem I have which pertains to your question is how public schools teach the Protestant Reformation. First of all, they present it in a anti-Catholic tone. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Henry VIII are "heroes" who rescued all Europe from the iron grip of Catholicism. This simply isn't true. The lower classes were vertually unaffected by the change. More often than not, their local rulers would choose the religion of his state and all people who rejected were guilty of treason. In truth, the Reformation helped minor nobility and in some cases royalty. Suddenly, they didn't have to give a portion of their income to Rome, and the threat of Excommunication was meaningless.



Second, the Reformation is often tought as a quick, simple, and peaceful change. Also, very incorrect. It was a long and bloody change which hurt innocent people more than anything else.



Finally, the Catholic counter-Reformation is even more poorly taught. I mean, often it is ignored that 16th century Catholic thinkers were often against slavery and anti-semitism while Protestant theologians often justified such enterprises.



My point is, yes, most Protestants dont understand the history of their movement, but the same can be said about Catholics. Sadly, our educational institutions are very relucant to update our history, thus reenforcing these false notions about the Protestant Reformation. Its sad, but it is up to the individual to educate him/her self.

Answer 4

Catholics insist that the New Testament canon is an example of a "doctrine" not found in the pages of Scripture, and that Evangelicals who subscribe to the 27 book canon of the NT defined at Hippo and Cathage are inconsistent in their principle of sola Scriptura. However, the issue of the canon is not properly part of the apostolic deposit since according to Jude 3, 1 Tim 6:20 and 2 Tim 1:14 the deposit of faith was "entrusted" and "delivered" (past tense) to the church hundreds of years before Hippo and Carthage met. The canon, therefor, is to be seen as a salvation-historical work of God....not as a doctrine.



There was no official Old Testament canon, but at the time of Jesus, all of Jesus' statements in this regard reflect the belief that a canon was generally recognized and accepted. The Hebrew canon recognized by Jesus was identical in content to the Evangelical OT canon. Many statements in the NT (John 10:35, "the Scripture cannot be broken"...by which Jesus means that one can't do away with the verse cited in v. 34 since it belongs to the Scriptures as a whole) makes so sense at all if the limits of the OT canon were not well known and accepted.



baseball....your comments are worthless and have nothing whatsoever to do with the question. Just a meaningless diatribe.



St Thecia....there wasn't a Protestant until the 1500+AD so it would have been rather difficult for them to adopt anything in 90 AD.



"So question: How on earth why the protestants are using the Jewish books that denied and rejected Jesus as messiah?"



Genius it was the Jewish religion (God's chosen people and Abraham who God revealed himself to and set up the covenant with) that is the very foundation of Christianity and it was the Jewish people that wrote the OT. At least 500 to 1500 years prior to the birth of Christ.



The OT is not anti-Christian....As I said prior, the Hebrew scriptures is what Jesus taught from. The OT foreshadowed the NT and is constantly quoted in the OT.....the Jewish Scriptures. Anyone that tries to separate the Old and New Testaments is a biblical ignoramus. The so-called Jewish books that you speak of never denied that Jesus was the Messiah, just the opposite they confirmed who Christ really was. It was the Hebrew leaders that chose to ignore the prophecies laid out in the OT that pointed out who Christ was.



Thecia....Enlighten us were anything written in the OT scriptures that denied who Christ is or that is anti-Christian. AGAIN, GIVE US A SINGLE EXAMPLE, CHAPTER AND VERSE, OF YOUR ALLEGATIONS.



The vast majority of bible scholars find no evidence of a a Council of Jamnia.



Roman Catholics leaders deliberately try to misrepresent history misrepresent history when they make claims that the Canon of the Old Testament was not fixed until the council of Jamnia in 90 AD. They desperately don't want to be bound to following the Bible. Roman Catholics leaders feel that re-writing history to suggest the canon of the Jews was not fixed until after the Jewish system was abolished in 70 AD, is absurd . Think about it, only after God destroys the Jewish religion, do the Jews get a fixed canon.

Answer 5

There is No Support.

It's called the Reformation.

They didn't just PROTEST issues of doctrine they CHANGED the INSPIRED WORD. Deleting whole books and altering verses.

All totally Historically preserved.

Inexcusable really.



God Bless

Answer 6

there were still sects who were leaning toward other apocryphal literature a big controversy over john the revelatory Apocalypse and other books deemed suspicious that could have created more gnostic christians.

it was equivalently decided and at once canonized .

Answer 7

They did not make it so, they simply reaffirmed it in the face of the reformers tearing entire books out of the bible in order to make it conform to their new religion. Pax Christi

Answer 8

God has done what God has done. And Man has Done what Man has done. Which is why God's bible has 66 books.



I don't care what the RCC has done.