Protestant canon

[Noxot]

and btw a prophesy does not have to have the 'thus saith the Lord' phrase in it.

for instance:

Luke 11:29-30 (ESV)
(11:29) When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. (11:30) For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation.

Matt 12:39-40 (ESV)
(12:39) But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. (12:40) For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Matt 16:4 (ESV)
(16:4) An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.

 

[Montalban]

and btw a prophesy does not have to have the 'thus saith the Lord' phrase in it.

According to the web-site CARM, and to StandingUp and some others a book has to show that it's inspired to be part of the canon. They argue that the books that they exclude don't have this phrase and therefore aren't inspired (or that they don't have some other indication that they are so inspired).

The problem with this rule in the first place is that other books that are accepted by them which don't claim to be prophetic. So the rule is only applied selectively.

Furthermore Baruch does have that phrase. Remarkably a sub-rule was then introduced to say that if it has the phrase it can't be a quote from someone else. I don't know why this sub-rule has to apply, apparently it just does. Again a rule is applied selectively.

Secondly although they don't use the phrase other books, such as Tobit (which I evidenced a few posts back) do suggest that they are inspired.

No matter how much these problems are glossed over they still exist. It's like saying that there's no prophets from one point up to John the Baptist, and then changing this to "no prophecy up to the time of John the Baptist"

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

This is another example of citing evidence that does not agree with the claim being made.

If one reads the 'notes' I shows EXACTLY what I noted about Melito earlier. A different OT canon.

Here's what it says
The peculiar thing about the list is the omission of the Twelve Minor Prophets and the insertion of the Epistle of Jeremiah.

NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Furthermore that same page also compelelty undercuts the use of Origen by saying

"Origen (in Eusebius, VI. 25) tells us that there were twenty-two books in the Hebrew canon; but his list differs somewhat from that of Josephus"
(Ibid.)

Thus we see repeated endlessly that Josephus, Melito and Origen all support one canon. They don't. The odd thing is that the claims are being made with evidence that doesn't support those claims!

However, in relation to the claim made in this particular post to which I now reply it's stated that there were no prophets in a particular time.

The words in the site DO NOT SAY THAT

This is what they say "From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been during this time an exact succession of prophets."
(emphasis added)

It doesn't say that there were NO PROPHETS. It says that their's not an exact succession of them.

Further, yet another error emerges. The question was asked where Origen claims that there were no prophets in that time.

The quote above is not of Origen, but of Josephus as recorded by Eusebius

So in summary.

The question is asked where does Origen talk of a time of no prophets.

The answer is to say what Josephus says, not Oriegen (Mistake 1)
That Josephus doesn't say that there were no prophets, but just no exact succession (Mistake 2)
On a page that notes that Origen and Melito don't agree with the canon despite persistant claims that they do (Mistake 3)

/Owned

 

[Erose]

You know, I actually understand your point. But you've moved the goalposts. It's not a prophecy, but simple opinion. Mt. isn't a prophecy, just insults from the bystanders, misunderstandings. They missed Abraham/Isaac on the Mt.

For it to be a prophecy, it needs to be couched like this, "the LORD says, the king of the Jews will be destroyed and will rise again."

But if you cling to the idea that it is a prophecy, like the bystanders, clearly it is a false prophecy. He didn't come down off the cross.

So psalm 21 is not a prophecy of our Lord's passion?

 

[Erose]

Careful, RC has a canon that no one used/uses.



You mean like the east gate was shut (Eze), therefore Mary is an ever-virgin.



Clement isn't scripture. It is not God-breathed. The Church rejected it, rightly. If, however, your group wants to nonetheless contradict apostolic teaching, then she will do so.

1. Used? Since this canon was established within your required timeframe you have no leg to stand on. Uses? 5th of the world's population is Catholic. Nearly 3 times the number of who accepts the shorter canon. Very silly comment without any grain of truth.

2. So you admit that you reading your theology into this passage? At least we are starting to make some progress.

3. No it isn't scripture. But that does not give you the right to misrepresent the teaching of this document, written by a man who at the bare minimum learned his Christianity at the feet of one or more Apostles.

 

[Erose]

Trent doesn't ring a bell for you? IIRC, no true RC would say it was closed before then.

Where's an EO voice when you need one, but their canon is different. Alas.

Trent, reaffirmed the Catholic canon against the challenges to it by the Protestants. The canon had been closed for over 1000 years in the West before then. Nice try, but the false assertions made by Protestants about Trent have been disproved over and over from historical fact, but I guess we shouldn't let history get in the way of making an accusation, should we.

 

[Montalban]

Clement isn't scripture. It is not God-breathed.

Something can be God-breathed but not Scripture. Adam, comes to mind.

Interestingly too, it has the 'magic words' for inclusion...

"saith the Lord: I will place him in safety; I will deal confidently with him"
Clement
Epistle to the Corinthians
Chapter XV
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The Church rejected it, rightly.

Did the church 'reject it', or not include it in Scripture? You may well know that 'the church' accepts the teachings of Church Fathers, whose writing is not in the Bible, so again these aren't exclusive of each other.

For instance other non-Biblical works have the 'magic words'...
"He says then to them again concerning these things, “Why do ye fast to Me as on this day, saith the Lord, that your voice should be heard with a cry? I have not chosen this fast, saith the Lord, that a man should humble his soul. Nor, though ye bend your neck like a ring, and put upon you sackcloth and ashes, will ye call it an acceptable fast.”
Barnabas
Chapter III
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

If, however, your group wants to nonetheless contradict apostolic teaching, then she will do so.

How'd the church contradict itself?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Trent, reaffirmed the Catholic canon against the challenges to it by the Protestants. The canon had been closed for over 1000 years in the West before then. Nice try, but the false assertions made by Protestants about Trent have been disproved over and over from historical fact, but I guess we shouldn't let history get in the way of making an accusation, should we.

Yep... the Council of Carthage in 397AD was binding, that the 7 disputed books of the Old Testament be included.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

According to the web-site CARM, and to StandingUp and some others a book has to show that it's inspired to be part of the canon. They argue that the books that they exclude don't have this phrase and therefore aren't inspired (or that they don't have some other indication that they are so inspired).

Someone correct me if I am wrong... but didn't some of the Gnostic writings have lines like that? If so, then it seems some will choose blatantly contradictory writings as inspired...

 

[Rick Otto]

The question is asked where does Origen talk of a time of no prophets.The answer is to say what Josephus says, not Oriegen (Mistake 1)That Josephus doesn't say that there were no prophets, but just no exact succession (Mistake 2)On a page that notes that Origen and Melito don't agree with the canon despite persistant claims that they do (Mistake 3)

It seems at least intellectualy dishonest to invest authority in apostolic succession, but deny it to prophets. If a bishop without apostolic succession isn't really a bishop, then a prophet w/out prophetic succession is by that standard, not really a prophet.

The question tries to poison the well by implying the whole canon hinges on this point when it was only being raised to identify the prophetic PART of the entire canon, as I understood him.

 

[ivebeenshown]

It seems at least intellectualy dishonest to invest authority in apostolic succession, but deny it to prophets. If a bishop without apostolic succession isn't really a bishop, then a prophet w/out prophetic succession is by that standard, not really a prophet.

"No exact succession" may not even mean "no succession whatsoever" but this is beside the point -- you were claiming that Origen made such statements when it was really Josephus who made such statements. There is no well poisoning here, just the seeking of proper evidence to support your claim.

Although I do not accept Origen's word as having the full authority of the Church, it is interesting to note that he does explicitly refer to Maccabees, Susanna, Sirach, Judith, and Tobit as Scripture. Baruch and Wisdom of Solomon are also referenced by him, though not so explicitly.

 

[Erose]

I would think that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to establish a line of succession for prophets as one can for the kings and maybe the position of high priest (which I do not think can be done by scripture alone but if possible through traditional sources). The prophets were more like the judges. They where called up to be God's mouth pieces. I can think of only two occurrences of a prophet succeeding another and that is Elijah / Elisha and Jeremiah / Baruch.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

"No exact succession" may not even mean "no succession whatsoever" but this is beside the point -- you were claiming that Origen made such statements when it was really Josephus who made such statements. There is no well poisoning here, just the seeking of proper evidence to support your claim.

Although I do not accept Origen's word as having the full authority of the Church, it is interesting to note that he does explicitly refer to Maccabees, Susanna, Sirach, Judith, and Tobit as Scripture. Baruch and Wisdom of Solomon are also referenced by him, though not so explicitly.

and "no exact succession" in this sense may mean that there was in fact exact succession, but the written record of such is not precise enough for him to confidently say there was one.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

It seems at least intellectualy dishonest to invest authority in apostolic succession, but deny it to prophets. If a bishop without apostolic succession isn't really a bishop, then a prophet w/out prophetic succession is by that standard, not really a prophet.

The question tries to poison the well by implying the whole canon hinges on this point when it was only being raised to identify the prophetic PART of the entire canon, as I understood him.

well, what about granting succession to the prophets, but denying it to the apostles?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

It seems at least intellectualy dishonest to invest authority in apostolic succession, but deny it to prophets. If a bishop without apostolic succession isn't really a bishop, then a prophet w/out prophetic succession is by that standard, not really a prophet.

The question tries to poison the well by implying the whole canon hinges on this point when it was only being raised to identify the prophetic PART of the entire canon, as I understood him.

No, that's a false analogy. The purpose of apostolic succession is to preserve the faith that has been handed down to the apostles; i.e. that which has already been revealed. God chose his prophets, and revealed to them new information, based upon his choosing and timing. One prophet does not require a previous one to validate his prophecy. We are no longer in an era of prophets, we know this for certain. We have the truth which has already been handed down to us; we were commanded to "hold fast to it."

 

[SummaScriptura]

So psalm 21 is not a prophecy of our Lord's passion?

Nice point. And good to see someone besides myself feels that way. I've gone round and round with some folks on this. OUSA merely sees it as Jesus quoting the Psalm. Contrarily, I believe David is prophetically quoting the Christ.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I would think that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to establish a line of succession for prophets as one can for the kings and maybe the position of high priest (which I do not think can be done by scripture alone but if possible through traditional sources). The prophets were more like the judges. They where called up to be God's mouth pieces. I can think of only two occurrences of a prophet succeeding another and that is Elijah / Elisha and Jeremiah / Baruch.

Another good point. In fact, I would argue it seems Paul makes the claim THERE OFTEN WASN'T a line of succession of the prophets...

1God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, 2hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. (Heb 1:1-2 ASV)

 

[SummaScriptura]

well, what about granting succession to the prophets, but denying it to the apostles?

Touche!

Well, I guess I'm the odd-bird-out on this thread then: I don't consider unbroken succession important for either the Church or for the books of the prophets.

That's why I reject Augustine's rationale for the exclusion of 1 Enoch:

Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain so many false statements, that they have no canonical authority. We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission. So that the writings which are produced under his name, and which contain these fables about the giants, saying that their fathers were not men; are properly judged by prudent men to be not genuine; just as many writings are produced by heretics under the names both of other prophets, and more recently, under the names of the apostles, all of which, after careful examination, have been set apart from canonical authority under the title of Apocrypha.

His argument is the Jews could not verify the authenticity of books of Enoch because their great age prevented a verifiable succession in transmission!?. (In truth, however, the second sentence above reveals his real reason, what he really says is, I don't like what the book says, therefore I exclude it.)

An odd argument: they're so old we cannot verify if they came from Enoch, so let's toss them. Seems to me that logic should've resulted in a heckuva lot more tossage.

I rejoice they didn't get Augustine's memo down Ethiopia way, or else it would have completely disappeared, and I wouldn't be able to read it today. ---or perhaps the Ethiopians actually got Augustine's memo but they didn't find its succession verifiable!

 

[Montalban]

It seems at least intellectualy dishonest to invest authority in apostolic succession, but deny it to prophets. If a bishop without apostolic succession isn't really a bishop, then a prophet w/out prophetic succession is by that standard, not really a prophet.

A clear line would mean that one recognised prophet annoints his/her successor.

This didn't always happen. Therefore it wasn't the norm for prophets to always annoint other prophets. Unless of course you can show that a prophet has to be annointed by his/her predecessor.

John the Baptist was not annointed by another 'recognised' prophet. He annointed Jesus, so that line is 'regular' but to John it is not, in fact it is StandingUp's contention that there were NO prophets at all in order to do that annointing.

You cannot have both arguments. Either you must now declare John the Baptist a non-prophet (due to the fact that there was no clear line to him), or accept that not all were annointed by their successor.

It is however the way of bishops that they are so annointed 'regularly'

The question tries to poison the well by implying the whole canon hinges on this point when it was only being raised to identify the prophetic PART of the entire canon, as I understood him.

No. As noted a question was asked regarding what Origen thought.

Evidence was cited that didn't point to what Origen thought, but what Josephus thought.

Further the notes in that site show evidence disagreeing with several other points StandingUp has made, notably that certain persons have agreement in the canon.

Not only has he presented evidence that doesn't answer the question, but he's presented evidence that undermines his own claims!

 

[Montalban]

and "no exact succession" in this sense may mean that there was in fact exact succession, but the written record of such is not precise enough for him to confidently say there was one.

I take clear succession to mean that one recognised prophet ordains/annoints their successor.

It can be frustrating for some when their own evidence doesn't back their claims