Protestant canon

[Montalban]

hah I went to that site and the first thing I see them do is try to quote jude who quotes enoch. and they tried to say that jude did not quote it as scripture, even though he says:

Jude 1:14 (ESV)
(1:14) It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

The CARM before the storm!

 

[Montalban]

hmm I see no proof that a saint lied. no doubt that the jews were entrusted with the oracles of God and no doubt that the jews often killed Gods own prophets. the jews were entrusted and paul, barnabas, peter, and john are all jews. yeah I said that they were jews, true story bro.

You are right. This is another case of someone putting forth evidence that's been addressed.

It had been claimed by another poster that a proof against these books was that Justin Martyr doesn't quote from them. He doesn't but he says he doesn't because the Jew he's arguing with doesn't accept them. Justin Martyr notes this.

Althought I addressed this, it's not itself addressed. And so you'll see throughout these threads Justin Martyr being brought up time and time again as 'evidence'.

It's a case of presenting a stance over and over again.

 

[heymikey80]

hah I went to that site and the first thing I see them do is try to quote jude who quotes enoch. and they tried to say that jude did not quote it as scripture, even though he says:

Jude 1:14 (ESV)
(1:14) It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

Well, there's a nice, tidy demonstration that the Orthodox have omitted a prophet -- thus fallible in the declaration of the canon.

So d'you think that no saint lies?

 

[Noxot]

Well, there's a nice, tidy demonstration that the Orthodox have omitted a prophet -- thus fallible in the declaration of the canon.

So d'you think that no saint lies?

I believe that things like this happen to saints from time to time:

Gal 2:11-14 (ESV)
(2:11) But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. (2:12) For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. (2:13) And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. (2:14) But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

however I do not believe that in their writings, that anything is in error. I have as of yet to find a lie in a writing of a person that I consider a saint. I suppose that saints can lie on accident but I happen to believe that justin martyr was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I have not read all of His writing yet though.

FYI i do not even call augustine, jerome or tertullian a saint, because I do not yet trust them and I find them to have certain things that make warning bells go off in my mind. I suppose I should refer to the saints that I call saints as "ultra-saints". i call irenaeus, polycarp, ignatius, and hermas ultra-saints, because I believe their writings to be immaculate, just as the writings of paul, john and peter are.

what I see a lot of people doing is falsely accusing saints. I was told to never accuse a saint so quickly. sometimes I misunderstand what a saint has to say but the Lord makes peace between what the saint said and my mind. another thing is that, sometimes there could be confusion and error with certain copies of the manuscripts of the ultra-saints as we can see with ignatius. sometimes there are terrible translations of their works and that can cause problems too. other times people do this to the ultra-saints:

2Pet 3:15-17 (ESV)
(3:15) And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, (3:16) as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (3:17) You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

I also do not consider myself to be better/wiser than the saints that I read. I consider them to be stones in the building that forms the church, and so I trust them. i do love them and I hope that their spirit will dwell with me even as the Lord does.

and that is how noxot decides his canon.

 

[Standing Up]

And the response is to re-state that passage again!

I'll repost with surrounding verses even again until you get the point.

40 He had indeed heard that the Romans had addressed the Jews as friends, allies, and brothers and that they had received Simon's envoys with honor. 41 "'The Jewish people and their priest have, therefore, made the following decisions. Simon shall be their permanent leader and high priest until a true prophet arises. 42 He shall act as governor general over them, and shall have charge of the temple, to make regulations concerning its functions and concerning the country, its weapons and strongholds, 43 he shall be obeyed by all. All contracts made in the country shall be dated by his name. He shall have the right to wear royal purple and gold ornaments. 44 It shall not be lawful for any of the people or priests to nullify any of these decisions, or to contradict the orders given by him, or to convene an assembly in the country without his consent, to be clothed in royal purple or wear an official gold brooch. 45 Whoever acts otherwise or violates any of these prescriptions shall be liable to punishment. 46 "'All the people approved of granting Simon the right to act in accord with these decisions, 47 5 and Simon accepted and agreed to act as high priest, governor general, and ethnarch of the Jewish people and priests and to exercise supreme authority over all.'"
The point is the genuine prophets would appoint/annoint the king and/or high priest. But because there were no genuine prophets as Macc itself says, the people decided. Is this clear enough yet?

 

[Standing Up]

I was not aware that a criteria for canonicity is that the book should include these phrases... Does every book of the bible mention one of these phrases or something like it?

Remember that the claim is that the valid line of prophets ended w/ Malachi/Ezra. But RC and EO say that the books after that ending were nonetheless God-breathed scripture; that is, thus sayeth the LORD.

So, where does Macc, Tobit, Judith, etc say that for itself?

 

[Standing Up]

Hmm I guess I don't see the significance then. What relevance does the c30bc temple have with the discussion of the canon?

You never addressed my point about Joshua being the high priest, so I assumed that you were doing so here.

It wasn't relevant to the point, which was declination over the 400 years from Zechariah to Malachi. Loss of the north, loss of the south, loss of the temple, loss of prophets. It's sorta interesting that in Macc the alternative arose. I won't spell it out.

 

[Standing Up]

Try something new- prove this assertion, rather than say it then QFT.

How is it a "dead-end" to speak of the Gnostic writings which are contemporary with the early canonized fragments, and which also purport to be a scripture?

Except for Clement of Rome's letter, all the others appear to be dated c90 - c150ad. Too late to be considered apostolic.

Again, like Clement that speaks to apparent reincarnation, sun worship, altars, priests, and such, which is not Christian btw, those other books are fairly easy to discern as not God-breathed. Oh, and guess what, they weren't handed down as divine.

PS. They weren't fragments when they wrote, but were copied and copied. We have those direct copies. This instruction to copy is given back in the OT (Deut?). Paul and the others didn't "make it up", but used type/shadow.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-


yes I propose both, every word is how it is for a reason. there are differences between the gospels to teach us more than just repeating the same thing exactly twice could do, for example we can view part of this parable and see the differences:

Luke 6:49 (ESV)
(6:49) But the one who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the stream broke against it, immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.”

Matt 7:26-27 (ESV)
(7:26) And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. (7:27) And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

but people who are babies in the faith will give an earthly excuse, like the one that goes this way:

"the words are different simply because luke had a much better vocabulary."

but I know that the Holy Spirit wrote those things down.

FYI, the reference to the Talmud from Lightfoot mentions a connection in Isaiah to Zechariah, saying the prophecy of one was fulfilled at the other. This takes it out further to the end of the valid line of prophets.

As to Anna and Simeon, it doesn't say when they prophesied, but the inference is only after John the Baptist. IOW, Luke doesn't say, Anna prophesied in the year 10bc about Messiah. What we do have is Jesus tying the last valid prophecy about Elijah from Malachi, skipping 400 years, to Elijah/John the Baptist. And then we hear of Anna and Simeon.

PS. Nothing from CARM.

 

[Noxot]

Except for Clement of Rome's letter, all the others appear to be dated c90 - c150ad. Too late to be considered apostolic.

Again, like Clement that speaks to apparent reincarnation, sun worship, altars, priests, and such, which is not Christian btw, those other books are fairly easy to discern as not God-breathed. Oh, and guess what, they weren't handed down as divine.

PS. They weren't fragments when they wrote, but were copied and copied. We have those direct copies. This instruction to copy is given back in the OT (Deut?). Paul and the others didn't "make it up", but used type/shadow.

hmm i found no fault with clement of romes letter, are you sure that you are just not falsly acusing him? how did he teach about reincarnation? you only seem to misinterpret what he said.

does this confuse you?:

clement of rome-

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

what would be so hard to believe about that? do you not think God could create such a thing, just because it is one of a kind or how it reproduces?

do you believe this?:

Exod 14:21-22 (ESV)
(14:21) Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. (14:22) And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.

what makes you believe one miracle and not another?

 

[heymikey80]

however I do not believe that in their writings, that anything is in error. I have as of yet to find a lie in a writing of a person that I consider a saint. I suppose that saints can lie on accident but I happen to believe that justin martyr was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I have not read all of His writing yet though.

So from your view the Orthodox are wrong about Justin, or that Justin's inspiration didn't extend to his writings?

Justin's a product of his time, making certain defenses that I'm sure he sincerely believes -- but that aren't true.

FYI i do not even call augustine, jerome or tertullian a saint, because I do not yet trust them and I find them to have certain things that make warning bells go off in my mind. I suppose I should refer to the saints that I call saints as "ultra-saints". i call irenaeus, polycarp, ignatius, and hermas ultra-saints, because I believe their writings to be immaculate, just as the writings of paul, john and peter are.

supersaints and superapostles don't exist. There're just those being sanctified, and those who are not. Romans 14:13 says it simply. There are stronger and weaker, differences in measure -- but there is no quality difference.

The early writings are not immaculate.

what I see a lot of people doing is falsely accusing saints. I was told to never accuse a saint so quickly. sometimes I misunderstand what a saint has to say but the Lord makes peace between what the saint said and my mind. another thing is that, sometimes there could be confusion and error with certain copies of the manuscripts of the ultra-saints as we can see with ignatius. sometimes there are terrible translations of their works and that can cause problems too.

Accusing? Y'think appealing to people to acknowledge the human nature of saints is an accusation? No, it's not. No more than the accusation of Paul's immaculate writings at Romans 3.

And again, Paul identifies every believer as a saint, in his immaculate writings.

other times people do this to the ultra-saints:

2Pet 3:15-17 (ESV)
(3:15) And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, (3:16) as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (3:17) You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

I also do not consider myself to be better/wiser than the saints that I read. I consider them to be stones in the building that forms the church, and so I trust them. i do love them and I hope that their spirit will dwell with me even as the Lord does.

and that is how noxot decides his canon.

I'm not interested in another human spirit dwelling in me. There's the Spirit of God, that's what empowers human spirits for righteousness, and the immaculate writing of Paul says so. in Romans 8. The rest are brothers and witnesses. They are not more indwellers.

 

[Philothei]

and the immaculate writing of Paul says so. in Romans 8.

Funny you call it immaculate... How can words spoken by a man immaculate? The scripture being holy I agree but immaculate? I think the immaculate would be better discribing the birth of Christ. Fallable men wrote infallable stories... Hmm that somehow does not sound good in my ears...BTW reading a bit John (whose words must be as immaculate) would help to balance out both writings

Esp. John 3:16

 

[Erose]

hah I went to that site and the first thing I see them do is try to quote jude who quotes enoch. and they tried to say that jude did not quote it as scripture, even though he says:

Jude 1:14 (ESV)
(1:14) It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

Thats CARM. The apologetic site so bad that it can't argue against what they are trying to argue against except through using half truths and outright lies.

 

[heymikey80]

Funny you call it immaculate... How can words spoken by a man immaculate? The scripture being holy I agree but immaculate? I think the immaculate would be better discribing the birth of Christ. Fallable men wrote infallable stories... Hmm that somehow does not sound good in my ears...BTW reading a bit John (whose words must be as immaculate) would help to balance out both writings

Esp. John 3:16

Is it just that you didn't notice Noxot's statement? Your conflict is with his assertion. I'm projecting the assertion.

As for the paradox of an infallible Spirit speaking through fallible men, it might be useful to check on James' description of such things.

This would also contradict the idea that councils and tradition are similarly infallible. Only there, there's no writer of Scripture asserting the infallibility of such organizations.

Do you hold to your church's or council's infallibilty?

 

[Erose]

I'll repost with surrounding verses even again until you get the point.

The point is the genuine prophets would appoint/annoint the king and/or high priest. But because there were no genuine prophets as Macc itself says, the people decided. Is this clear enough yet?

SU I think that here is where you are getting confused. The only high priest called by a prophet was Aaron, afterwards it was his sons that took over that mantle. The only kings anointed by a prophet where Saul and after God rejected Saul then David. Afterwards it was the son of the king that took over the office of king.

After the diaspora of the Jews there seems to be an inability to determine who the rightful heirs of the throne and the high priesthood where due most probably from the inability to keep records while in bondage. Remember the king and his get where taken to Babylon.

They did not make Simon or any of his brothers kings. They felt that they had not that authority and they didn't. Thus in their belief system only a prophet on the level of Samuel could anoint a king and also there was at this time more of a anticipation for the Messiah than previously. Thus in their mind the next true king of Isreal was going to be the Messiah and that turns out to be true. You will probably say what about king Herod. Well king Herod was not jewish and he was appointed by Rome and not by God so he was not a true king of the Jews in the minds of the Jews.

Anyway if you want a link between Daniel and Zechariah it is in Maccabees. Many of Daniel's prophecies are prophecies of the time of the Maccabees and to fully understand Daniel you need to have Maccabees. To fully understand what the Jews believed in regard of the resurrection you need Maccabees. To properly bridge the two Testaments you need Maccabees and the other writing for much of the theology during the time of Jesus is in the DCs where they are not in the PCs.

Also read the 2Macc and you will find instances of incredible miracles as well, which explains how the Maccabees with so few warriors could overcome the great armys of the Greeks. 2Macc outlines those miracles and shows the work of God in this period of history as was promised in Daniel.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Except for Clement of Rome's letter, all the others appear to be dated c90 - c150ad. Too late to be considered apostolic.

Again, like Clement that speaks to apparent reincarnation, sun worship, altars, priests, and such, which is not Christian btw, those other books are fairly easy to discern as not God-breathed. Oh, and guess what, they weren't handed down as divine.

PS. They weren't fragments when they wrote, but were copied and copied. We have those direct copies. This instruction to copy is given back in the OT (Deut?). Paul and the others didn't "make it up", but used type/shadow.

Eh? John's Gospel is dated 90-120 according to that site. Surely some of those fall in between that range, no? You can't be sure, so you would have to assume all of them do in evaluating their canonicity.

There are also several that are 50- and 70- as well. Obviously those would have to be considered.

They weren't handed down as divine? How do you know that other than by the witness of the Church?

 

[hedrick]

What about the verified prophecy in the book of wisdom? This is one of the most descriptive prophecies of Christ's passion we have in writing. If it is indeed valid, what does that say about the supposed absence of prophets? Can God not prophesy anywhere and through anyone he chooses? Or does there have to be a valid lineage for him to work through?

If this is wis 2:12ff, Jesus certainly fits the model, but so does any righteous man who is persecuted. And the context in the book better fits a general portrait of the righteous. Of course Jesus matches; he's the prototype of the righteous man dying for his faith.

Incidentally I don't want to devalue Wis. As far as I can tell it's a fine book.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

FYI, the reference to the Talmud from Lightfoot mentions a connection in Isaiah to Zechariah, saying the prophecy of one was fulfilled at the other. This takes it out further to the end of the valid line of prophets.

As to Anna and Simeon, it doesn't say when they prophesied, but the inference is only after John the Baptist. IOW, Luke doesn't say, Anna prophesied in the year 10bc about Messiah. What we do have is Jesus tying the last valid prophecy about Elijah from Malachi, skipping 400 years, to Elijah/John the Baptist. And then we hear of Anna and Simeon.

PS. Nothing from CARM.

Mary and Elizabeth prophesied before John was born.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

If this is wis 2:12ff, Jesus certainly fits the model, but so does any righteous man who is persecuted. And the context in the book better fits a general portrait of the righteous. Of course Jesus matches; he's the prototype of the righteous man dying for his faith.

Incidentally I don't want to devalue Wis. As far as I can tell it's a fine book.

Any righteous man claims to have the knowledge of God and to be the son of God?

 

[Noxot]

Funny you call it immaculate... How can words spoken by a man immaculate? The scripture being holy I agree but immaculate? I think the immaculate would be better discribing the birth of Christ. Fallable men wrote infallable stories... Hmm that somehow does not sound good in my ears...BTW reading a bit John (whose words must be as immaculate) would help to balance out both writings

Esp. John 3:16

I call them immaculate because the Holy Spirit is immaculate. or does the weakness of men make the Spirit of God corrupt?