Protestant canon

[Rdr Iakovos]

EO, RC, etc. have no more in common with LDS than mainline protestants do. Really, I don't see what the relevance of the LDS regarding this thread is, but it is continually brought up, seemingly for nothing more than shock value.

It's called poisoning the well, and it is a logical fallacy. It is an intentional distortion of an argument, employed by those unconcerned with objective truth, but committed to winning points with the unlearned through unfavorable/undesirable comparisons. Generally speaking, the person instigating this type of attack knows that they grossly misrepresenting their opponent, and do not care if they become bottom-feeding unscrupulous liars that would sell their own mother for a strategic edge. Or a politician...

 

[Montalban]

It's called poisoning the well, and it is a logical fallacy. It is an intentional distortion of an argument, employed by those unconcerned with objective truth, but committed to winning points with the unlearned through unfavorable/undesirable comparisons. Generally speaking, the person instigating this type of attack knows that they grossly misrepresenting their opponent, and do not care if they become bottom-feeding unscrupulous liars that would sell their own mother for a strategic edge. Or a politician...

I would find it a suspect theory if someone were using a great many logical fallacies.

 

[Rick Otto]

I didn't think he was trying to win any points with any of you guys.

Generally speaking, the person instigating this type of attack knows that they grossly misrepresenting their opponent, and do not care if they become bottom-feeding unscrupulous liars that would sell their own mother for a strategic edge. Or a politician...

POisonong the well calls for an ad-hom response? Very scrupulous!

 

[Montalban]

What about this special power of an un-born John the Baptist to ussher in a new "Time of "Genuine" Prophets"?

I've never heard of this before reading this thread.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I didn't think he was trying to win any points with any of you guys.

Not "with." AGAINST.

POisonong the well calls for an ad-hom response? Very scrupulous!

It's not ad hominem if it is factual.

 

[Noxot]

<snip>
Apart from that, I'll go with what Macc does say, which is what Josephus says, and Melito, Jerome, Origen, And how Jesus delineates it, blood of Abel to Zachariah (OT) and James to John (NT). <snip>

could you link me to where origen talks about a time with no prophets? I am having a hard time recalling if he did say such a thing or not.

no doubt his canon was different from the protestant and EO churches

but i am still interested in what he has to say about the matter.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

EO, RC, etc. have no more in common with LDS than mainline protestants do. Really, I don't see what the relevance of the LDS regarding this thread is, but it is continually brought up, seemingly for nothing more than shock value.

Interstingly enough I read a little about the man that is the founder of LDS and his influences were the second great awakening that had to do with theology started by a protestant by the name of william miller whose theology was used with the start of the adventists. So, LDS is as related to the RCC as any protestant church I suppose...

More on the founder of the LDS: Joseph Smith, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

[Montalban]

Interstingly enough I read a little about the man that is the founder of LDS and his influences were the second great awakening that had to do with theology started by a protestant by the name of william miller whose theology was used with the start of the adventists. So, LDS is as related to the RCC as any protestant church I suppose...

More on the founder of the LDS: Joseph Smith, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Also, like Protestants they believe in some form of 'great apostasy'.

For Protestants this happened with 'the church' (they mean the RCC) was corrupted by Constantine the Great.

 

[Montalban]

could you link me to where origen talks about a time with no prophets? I am having a hard time recalling if he did say such a thing or not.

no doubt his canon was different from the protestant and EO churches

but i am still interested in what he has to say about the matter.

Origen, of course as many know, was a heretic. However it's interesting to note what books he accepted in the NEW TESTAMENT, given that he's being presented here as a witness for a theory held by someone who says that we ALL agree on the NT.

"At other times Origen, accepts as Christian evidence any material he finds convincing or appealing, even designating on occasion these writings as 'divinely inspired':
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of the Hebrews
Acts of Paul
I Clement
Epistle of Barnabas
Didache
Shepherd of Hermas"
The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Origen

Origen's 'witness' is misrepresented because he doesn't agree with the case being presented.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Also, like Protestants they believe in some form of 'great apostasy'.

For Protestants this happened with 'the church' (they mean the RCC) was corrupted by Constantine the Great.

Well... interestingly enough Arius did have some hold with Constantine and was able to have his heresy take root.

I was reading a letter about this and found the beginning of the letter to be similiar to charges today.

Alexander of Alexandria and the deposition of Arius:

The ambitious and avaricious will of wicked men is always wont to lay snares against those churches which seem greater, by various pretexts attacking the ecclesiastical piety of such. For incited by the devil who works in them, to the lust of that which is set before them, and throwing away all religious scruples, they trample under foot the fear of the judgment of God. Concerning which things, I who suffer, have thought it necessary to show to your piety, in order that you may be aware of such men, lest any of them presume to set foot in your dioceses, whether by themselves or by others; for these sorcerers know how to use hypocrisy to carry out their fraud; and to employ letters composed and dressed out with lies, which are able to deceive a man who is intent upon a simple and sincere faith.

More: CHURCH FATHERS: Epistles on Arianism (Alexander of Alexandria)

So, maybe some of these that argue against the RCC simply have their facts mixed with the real heresies such as Arius?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Origen, of course as many know, was a heretic. However it's interesting to note what books he accepted in the NEW TESTAMENT, given that he's being presented here as a witness for a theory held by someone who says that we ALL agree on the NT.

"At other times Origen, accepts as Christian evidence any material he finds convincing or appealing, even designating on occasion these writings as 'divinely inspired':
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of the Hebrews
Acts of Paul
I Clement
Epistle of Barnabas
Didache
Shepherd of Hermas"
The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Origen

Origen's 'witness' is misrepresented because he doesn't agree with the case being presented.

I like some of those books too. I Clement for instance even though it was decided not to use this excellent writing for the use of the Divine Liturgy.

 

[Montalban]

I like some of those books too. I Clement for instance even though it was decided not to use this excellent writing for the use of the Divine Liturgy.

I would have guessed this. Catholics use it all the time to back up Papal Power claims - to the Corinthians.

I come up against this one all the time

Have a look through the Didache. It's why I fast Wednesdays and Fridays.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I would have guessed this. Catholics use it all the time to back up Papal Power claims - to the Corinthians.

I come up against this one all the time

Have a look through the Didache. It's why I fast Wednesdays and Fridays.

Yes, Pope Clement...

I like the Didache as well and think it still holds true today. Especially the part on abortion.

 

[MrPolo]

Speaking of the Didache and the Protestant canon, I was at a Lutheran wedding recently where they prayed the Our Father and they add "for Thine is the kingdom....etc" part as part of the prayer at the end. The origin of that part as Scripture, seems to be due to the King James Bible translators utilizing a late manuscript of Matthew which includes the line unlike earlier manuscripts. The text actually appears in the Didache. So without realizing it, a lot of Protestants recite a line from non-Scriptural Tradition as Scripture.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Origen, of course as many know, was a heretic. However it's interesting to note what books he accepted in the NEW TESTAMENT, given that he's being presented here as a witness for a theory held by someone who says that we ALL agree on the NT.

"At other times Origen, accepts as Christian evidence any material he finds convincing or appealing, even designating on occasion these writings as 'divinely inspired':
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of the Hebrews
Acts of Paul
I Clement
Epistle of Barnabas
Didache
Shepherd of Hermas"
The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Origen

Origen's 'witness' is misrepresented because he doesn't agree with the case being presented.

Not at all surprising- StandingUp picks from both the pantry and the refuse bin, and excerpts capriciously and with great license.

His case thus far has the appearance of a letter assembled by a serial killer or a beast stitched together in Ingolstadt, Bavaria.

There is a practice among some to proof text, to pick and chose among the scriptures, excerpting and quoting out of context, with the express purpose of defending or creating unique and/or perverse doctrines.

And then there is the issue of canon. We cannot arrive at it by (excuse a third metaphor) reading the tea leaves of history. To say that Christ or Paul did not mention thus and such, therefore they are null and void is a laughable fallacy (argument from silence). To insist on maintaining the veracity of such a claim after it has been shown to be fallacious is a worse offense, and is a violation of one of the Ten.

We know that Saint Jerome did not care for certain books. That's cool, he's one of the people on the panel, as it were. How is it that SU cites him, but dismisses the remainder of the panel? What gives him the right- did StandingUp have a seat at this lauded table? Yet he will say that the opinions of others are null and void because they support doctrines he, Rev StandingUp, rejects. 1000 blessings to the first one to identify THAT logical fallacy.

Canon is a difficult subject. It TRULY is an issue of continuity within the faith community, which is a bit dicey. Clearly there are some subtle differences between OO, EO, and RC. I understand the impetus to throw out that which is not consensus, but I'm not certain that the Reformers earned a right to sit at that panel.

Among Protestants, I find SummaScriptura's position (that which has been consistently employed) to be the most sensible and logically consistent.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Speaking of the Didache and the Protestant canon, I was at a Lutheran wedding recently where they prayed the Our Father and they add "for Thine is the kingdom....etc" part as part of the prayer at the end. The origin of that part as Scripture, seems to be due to the King James Bible translators utilizing a late manuscript of Matthew which includes the line unlike earlier manuscripts. The text actually appears in the Didache. So without realizing it, a lot of Protestants recite a line from non-Scriptural Tradition as Scripture.

That is a cool tidbit of knowledge. Thanks

 

[Noxot]

Origen, of course as many know, was a heretic. However it's interesting to note what books he accepted in the NEW TESTAMENT, given that he's being presented here as a witness for a theory held by someone who says that we ALL agree on the NT.

"At other times Origen, accepts as Christian evidence any material he finds convincing or appealing, even designating on occasion these writings as 'divinely inspired':
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of the Hebrews
Acts of Paul
I Clement
Epistle of Barnabas
Didache
Shepherd of Hermas"
The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Origen

Origen's 'witness' is misrepresented because he doesn't agree with the case being presented.

who said that? and why does everyone misinterpret origen? he never believed the gospel of peter to be of God.

ORIGEN&#8217;S COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. book 10
17. The Brethren of Jesus.
...And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) &#8220;is not this the carpenter&#8217;s son?&#8221; And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, &#8220;Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?&#8221; They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or &#8220;The Book of James,&#8221; that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, &#8220;The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee,&#8221; might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her....

where in that did he say that it was inspired? he was only noting on what some people believe and where they based it off of. origen never said those books were inspired, only that some people based a belief off of certain books. on the other hand he honored mary as a very blessed woman later on in that chapter. but if origen thinks that the virgin mary was a virgin until her death, I would not be surprised, and I tend to lean towards agreeing with the RCC on that matter. but that does not mean that origen thinks that those books were inspired. but there is good proof that he did regard barnabas and hermas as inspired. the arguing could go on and on about origen, but this is not the thread for it I suppose.

anyways I was not wondering about what origen thought was inspired by God (and he would tend to sway in the EO and RCC opinions more so than the protestant), but rather, what origen said concerning there being prophets (or not) in that certain time period which was about 400-300 b.c. to when john the baptist was born.

 

[SummaScriptura]

"In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple." (Isaiah 6:1)

This comes about 60 years after the slaying of Zechariah in the temple. So much for God abandoning the temple, I guess.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

"In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple." (Isaiah 6:1)

This comes about 60 years after the slaying of Zechariah in the temple. So much for God abandoning the temple, I guess.

Oops- according to StandingUp, you just contradicted Jesus and Paul!
Shame on you!

 

[Erose]

And you folks have trouble accepting the testimony of Josephus, Melito, Jerome, Origen, Maccabees, and Jesus who skip from Malachi to John the Baptist?

The problem here is that you have trouble accepting the testimony of these people.

Melito and Origen have canons that are not exactly like yours, so you cannot use them.

Jerome explicitly talks about his "opinion" and nothing more. Yes he like the Hebrew scriptures which is obvious because he used them when possible for his Vulgate translation. But he was not an authority that could decide. No his pope who he was the scribe for Pope Damasus I decided and that is what Jerome had to provide.

Josephus was a hellenized jew, who wrote from a hellenized jew, and not Christian, perspective.

And you abuse of a passage that has absolutely nothing to do with the biblical canon is a perfect example of trying to read your beliefs into a passage of scripture. As you have probably noticed by now no one but you is buying.

But no, not a stretch. After all folks also believe in the reincarnated phoenix going to the temple of the sun on the altar as pagan priests inspect each 500 years.

Have you ever really set down and read I Clement? If you have you would realized that Clement is using a story that was generally known and probably accepted as truth by his audience and tied it to the resurrection in an attempt to clarify to them and belittle their doubt that it can happen. What Clement point in this passage was you believe a bird can come back from the dead, but yet you doubt that Jesus the Son of God can? He also uses the analogy of the sun rising and setting as well in the previous chapter.