Protestant canon

[Rdr Iakovos]

Great post Rdr!

Since the incarnation of Christ, and His death (He died for all), I believe that we are also now God's chosen people, just as the Jews were, and still are. Among us all, gentile and Jew alike, there are still many who reject Jesus Christ. All mankind are now chosen, yet through original sin, and the way it taints our will, many still reject/deny our Lord Jesus Christ. Being chosen, does not mean that one who is chosen can not rebel and turn away.

Like a child who is the child of their mother and father, we are all children of God, Jew and gentile both. We all can turn from God the same way we can turn from our parents; the same way the prodigal son did.

Amen. As it is written, we can be cast off as branches also, and another grafted in.

I tend to see Paul primarily as a father and pastor, and not so much as a theologian, but that section of Romans, 9 through 11, is absolutely vital and instructive as to understanding our family.

 

[billybtennessee]

But it tells alot the problem that most Protestants have with the historical record. They cannot support the claims they make.

For some reason the Protestants rejected the Christian Canon for the Jewish one. I understand why it was done but it seems there is a mental block among Protestants on why their historical leaders did what they did. I do find this interesting.

So, are we saying the New Testament is NOT Canon? And are you saying the NT is Jewish Canon? All Christians consider the NT as Canon, that I know. Which means protestants have not rejected Christian Canon. Where did you possibly come up with this view? I see a lot of folks not understanding history.

 

[Rick Otto]

All mankind are now chosen

But not every man, just all kinds of man, as opposed to just Israel.

This one simple soteriological point causes blindness among the masses.

 

[Rick Otto]

You know better Rick Catholics do not worship Mary in the modern understanding of the word (The traditional understanding of the word meant to "give worth", more like venerate). Saying otherwise is denying what countless Catholics have clearly stated about their belief system. Also note, accusing someone of worshipping another person as a deity other than God is accusing them of polytheism; no small accusation by any means!

I posted Catholic information that can be found at the Catholic Encyclopedia, not that it bears an Imprimature, but it hasn't been sued into changing its name either.
Your claim of "modern understanding" I find to be a euhphemism for modern confusion.

 

[Erose]

You claimed that they had what they needed from God, but by the time they had a canon they'd already rejected what they needed most - Jesus

So, are we saying the New Testament is NOT Canon? And are you saying the NT is Jewish Canon? All Christians consider the NT as Canon, that I know. Which means protestants have not rejected Christian Canon. Where did you possibly come up with this view? I see a lot of folks not understanding history.

Hopefully you have figured out by now that we are discussing the OT and not the NT. But as I observed in another post, I also find it interesting that the Protestant churches accept the wisdom of the early church in establishing the canon of the NT but reject it's wisdom concerning the OT.

 

[Rick Otto]

Romans 9:6-12

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
​

Just as you cut books from the canon, you cut verses from your scripture so as to support your pet doctrines.

Do you love your doctrines more than you love the truth? Do you care for the full counsel of God as we do? Do you want your cousins to be your brothers, or would you give up their souls for fear of revising your errant doctrines.

Selecting a verse to quote is not cutting verses from scripture.
Do you love your traditions more than truth? Do you care for the full counsel of God more than the traditions of early usurpers as we do? Do you want Christians to be your brothers or would you anathematize them for fear of revising your errant traditions?

 

[Montalban]

Hopefully you have figured out by now that we are discussing the OT and not the NT. But as I observed in another post, I also find it interesting that the Protestant churches accept the wisdom of the early church in establishing the canon of the NT but reject it's wisdom concerning the OT.

Hopefully you have figured out so was I - when discussing this with MarkRohfrietsch

The OT wasn't canonised by the Jews till after the time of Christ.

 

[Montalban]

It matters regarding their salvation; but from a Christian perspective; no.

It matters regarding their choosing their canon.

 

[Montalban]

I posted Catholic information that can be found at the Catholic Encyclopedia, not that it bears an Imprimature, but it hasn't been sued into changing its name either.
Your claim of "modern understanding" I find to be a euhphemism for modern confusion.

Where did you post this? I've gone back from reply to reply till it gets to someone else (not you) claiming Catholics worship Mary. In that chain of posts there's only you saying "Sure you do", and then repeating yourself here.

 

[OpenDoor]

Therefore, that the Jews rejected particular books AFTER the time of Jesus - doesn't matter.

I think this is where we differ. I believe that the Jews were still capable of recognizing the Jewish canon.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I think this is where we differ. I believe that the Jews were still capable of recognizing the Jewish canon.

Yet incapable of recognizing their Jewish Messiah.
How unforunate.

I find the witness of the Christ-rejecting Jews to be suspect.

 

[Erose]

Hopefully you have figured out so was I - when discussing this with MarkRohfrietsch

The OT wasn't canonised by the Jews till after the time of Christ.

To be honest I wasn't responding to you. For some reason your quote got attached to my response to him and I didn't see it on my phone. I have no clue how that could have happened. I apologize for the confusion.

 

[Erose]

Most, however, are of opinion that nothing was added after the book of Malachi was written, except a few names and notes; and that all the books belonging to the Canon of the Old Testament, were collected and inserted in the sacred volume by Ezra himself. And this opinion seems to be the safest, and is not incredible in itself. It accords also with the uniform tradition of the Jews, that Ezra completed the Canon of the Old Testament; and that after Malachi there arose no prophet who added anything to the sacred volume.11
11The Jews are accustomed to call Malachi the “seal of the Prophets.” Jerome says: “Post Haggæum et Zachariam nullos alios Prophetas usque ad Johannem Baptistam videram.” That is, “After Haggai and Zacharias, even to the time of John the Baptist, I have found no other prophets.” In Esaiam xlix. 2. '
Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Most agree? Maybe in the Presbyterian church but not the majority of Biblical scholars. In fact I think it would be a reach to say that Ezra possessed the entire Torah which he read to the Jews much less the rest of what we would call the canon of today.

Also it should be pointed out that there was no "volume" of scripture during the time of Ezra and most probably not even during the time of Jesus since scrolls where the primary writing platform.

People heard scripture at that time. The common person did not have access to Bibles like we do today. Synagogues possessed scrolls of writings that were read by the Rabbi/Scribes during worship. These scrolls where written in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. The children where taught to memorize the sacred writings through repetition led by a scribe. So one can say that the majority of jews and early Christians never read one passage of Scripture in their lifetimes but rather heard it.

This is the problem with so many have is that they assume things that historically where impossible. There was no such thing as the Bible as we have it today during the time of Jesus or before Him.

Also I like how your sources take quotes from the early Fathers and provide no useful means of fact checking for those who read them. I have read some of Jerome's writings and even though I haven't read all of them I have never come across him ever saying something remotely like this.

 

[heymikey80]

People heard scripture at that time. The common person did not have access to Bibles like we do today. Synagogues possessed scrolls of writings that were read by the Rabbi/Scribes during worship. These scrolls where written in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. The children where taught to memorize the sacred writings through repetition led by a scribe. So one can say that the majority of jews and early Christians never read one passage of Scripture in their lifetimes but rather heard it.

Scrolls were expensive. But people could read. And lots of people did read, especially in the re-inculturating Greek period and the Roman period that followed. In the medieval period reading took a back seat.

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 03.03.07

This is the problem with so many have is that they assume things that historically where impossible.

Yes.

 

[11822]

Scrolls were expensive. But people could read. And lots of people did read, especially in the re-inculturating Greek period and the Roman period that followed. In the medieval period reading took a back seat.

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 03.03.07

Yes.

And in the midieval period huge mistakes were made. The written word is a valuable aid in guiding us in truth.

 

[Yarddog]

I think this is where we differ. I believe that the Jews were still capable of recognizing the Jewish canon.

Which Jews? The Jews which failed to recognize Jesus in Israel decided which writings were canon while Jews in other places were not given the opportunity to say. The Jews in Greek speaking areas, such as Alexandria, used the Septuagint which contained the writings which Israeli Jews did not include. The Septuagint was also used by Jesus, the Apostles, and other writers of the New Testament in some quotes from scripture.

We do not see any of the above rejecting the Septuagint or the books contained within it.

 

[SummaScriptura]

IIRC one of the reason the Apocrypha was removed from the Jewish canon is because their were no original copies found in Hebrew only Greek.
So from the Jewish perspective the Torah could not be in Greek since it was for the Jews.

Edit: From the Jewish perspective God was writing to His people (the Jews) in their language (Hebrew). From the Jewish perspective at the time of the OT the gentiles were not God's people.

And what was the Jewish perspective of those Jews who could only understand Greek?

What was the Jewish perspective of the NT writers? Do you think they rebelled against God by writing in Greek?

 

[SummaScriptura]

IIRC one of the reason the Apocrypha was removed from the Jewish canon is because their were no original copies found in Hebrew only Greek.<snip>

Tobit, Psalm 151, Sirach, 1 Maccabbees and probably others were readily available in Hebrew.

 

[heymikey80]

The Septuagint was also used by Jesus, the Apostles, and other writers of the New Testament in some quotes from scripture.

We do not see any of the above rejecting the Septuagint or the books contained within it.

We don't see any of the above citing the books in the OT Apocrypha as Scripture, either.

Would Jesus get all this acclaim using the Septuagint in Jerusalem? I'm sure he would understand and speak Greek, but who's going to listen to a native of Aramaic language citing the Septuagint, then going back to Aramaic ...? There's an indication in Matthew that they're lookin' at Aramaic or Hebrew and translating.

Which Jews? The Jews which failed to recognize Jesus in Israel decided which writings were canon while Jews in other places were not given the opportunity to say. The Jews in Greek speaking areas, such as Alexandria, used the Septuagint which contained the writings which Israeli Jews did not include.

Using the Septuagint doesn't imply that the entire Septuagint was considered of equal value. It'd be like considering a whole corpus of Judaica to be inspired because some of the Hebrews' books are inspired.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Selecting a verse to quote is not cutting verses from scripture.
Do you love your traditions more than truth? Do you care for the full counsel of God more than the traditions of early usurpers as we do? Do you want Christians to be your brothers or would you anathematize them for fear of revising your errant traditions?

You do know that Pee Wee Herman and "I Know You Are But What Am I" are both passe', right?