Protestant canon

[Ortho_Cat]

Hey Check out this prophecy from the book of Enoch:

1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.

Kinda cool, eh?

Remember, Jude quotes a passage from this book, word for word.

So why is this book rejected?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Regarding the above book, at least Tertullian had some flattering things to say about it:

Chapter III. ----Concerning the Genuineness of "The Prophecy of Enoch."22

[1] I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch,23 which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself;24 and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown25 and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather's "grace in the sight of God,"26 and concerning all his preachings;27 since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.

[2] If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant28 our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit's inspiration,29 after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document30 of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.

[3] But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that "every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.31 By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.

 

[Erose]

Yes, other books were written, but none were accepted as on the same level as God-breathed scripture. You don't like Josephus? See Jerome, Melito, Origen, even Augustine at times.

I have already covered this in a previous post and have shown where you have no leg to stand on. The only one of the above who expressed that he preferred the Hebrew canon was Jerome and yet he still obeyed his pope to interpret all the writings established as canon by his pope at the synod of Rome. Melito, Origen and Augustine's canons do not completely mirror yours so you really don't have a true leg to stand on here. Besides Augustine's canon is identical to pope Damasus' canon, which is identical to the current Catholic canon.

Even in the Dark Ages God was present, but we don't accept those Traditions or Writings (some of us) as on par with God-breathed scripture.

No the church decided before this time what was acceptable to be used in the liturgy and as such closed the canon forevermore. This is historical fact.

So you're going to the next LDS meeting? No? How about the next EO meeting?

So you have no other answer except to insult? I forgive you.

The issue is what is Scripture and how do we know? The earliest claims from numerous sources, indeed, from one of the books itself (Macc) was that no genuine prophet existed at the time of its writing. I'll say again, that is the same delineation that many use when it comes to the NT.

But this criteria that you use is not what the ancients used. You may want to claim that it is the case but you don't have proof but only personal spectulation. If you had proof you would have already used it.

THe diffference is we all agree on the NT, but not to additions as Tradition, Councils, Popes, etc. That is what has been done to the OT.

Why do we all agree on the NT? The NT canon went through the exact same vetting process as the Christain OT that you reject.

I haven't a clue whether anyone from 500 years ago ever said what I'm saying. My witnesses go back to c400bc through c400ad. That witness consistenly says the same thing.

But you are witnessing only what you want to witness and that is where the problem is. There was three synods (Rome, Carthrage, and Hippo) in the 4th century that defined the Christian canon as we know it today as the Catholic canon. So you may want to shrink your timeframe.

Again, feel free to quote Macc saying, thus sayeth the LORD. Feel free to quote the Gospel of Thomas saying, Judith is equivalent to Psalms or Daniel. Feel free to quote Clement of Rome saying, Tobit was a prophet of God.

Feel free to quote Ezra, Nehemiah, Ruth, Esther, Proverbs, Eccesiastes, and Song of Songs. Should we eliminate these books out of the Bible? Oh and you would have to add Baruch to your trimmed down Bible as well.

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).

I wouldn't be so bad if you were. But you are not no matter how many time you say you are still doesn't make it true.

The fact of the matter is that what is God-Scripture is not for you to decide or me but those that God has given the wisdom and authority to do what He wants them to do. God's church determined what was Sacred Scripture and what isn't Sacred Scripture in the 4th century to combat certain heresies that where claiming other heretical books as canonical. This was corrected and affirmed in the synods of Rome, Carthrage, and Hippo and in latter reaffirmed in latter ecumenical councils as well.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Hey Check out this prophecy from the book of Enoch:

1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.

Kinda cool, eh?

Remember, Jude quotes a passage from this book, word for word.

So why is this book rejected?

Book of Enoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good stuff, ain't it?

There's a whole lot more in that book I can assure you.

Among the books of the Old Testament which do not have universal acceptance in the Church, 1 Enoch stands out among them as monumental by comparison. And believe me, I love my complete O.T. so I'm not attempting to belittle any of the books. You can take The Prayer of Manasseh from me when you pry it from my stiff, cold hand.

 

[Montalban]

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

I gave a link.

I have no problem with the concept that he changed his mind.

 

[Montalban]

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

Like a patch-work quilt of theories! It's a shame that Melito is just thrust forward all the time as a 'witness'.

Origen, who later became a heretic had included, at some stages, books that we don't accept - so bringing forward him as a witness is also not appropriate.

 

[Standing Up]

Here's Baruch:
The Book of Baruch 2:21 Thus saith the Lord, Bow down your shoulders to serve the king of Babylon: so shall ye remain in the land that I gave unto your fathers.

It clearly has the great words some say are needed to be included

Again, do you read the things you cite? See v20 to whom Baruch is pointing, which is to say, not to himself.

Try again.

The claim is that the genuine prophet ended between Malachi and John the Baptist. Folks brought up Anna, Elizabeth, and others. But, we found out that all of that prophecy was after John's conception. This confirms the point.

So, let's put it to the test. Find a Detero that speaks of itself, thus sayeth the LORD, which is to say, it speaks to itself as a prophet of God.

We've seen the confirmation that Macc says there were no valid prophets at that time.

Try again.

 

[Standing Up]

It helps to explain the prophecy in Wisdom better with scripture correlary:


"Let us look at the final passages of this section, Wisdom 2:17-20. They are best seen together.

17: Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18: for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19: Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20: Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."
​

Now, let us compare that with the gospel. Now, in Matthew 27:41-43, we see the following:

41 So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, 42 "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"
​

Wisdom 2:17 says that they will see if his words are true, at the end of his life. Jesus opponents got the idea, if he was true, he would come down from the cross and Mt. 27:42 says, “we will believe him if he comes down from the cross”.

Wisdom 2:18 says if he really is God’s Son, God will deliver him. Mt. 27:43 says if he is God’s Son, he will deliver him. Now, in this passage, one will see in a Protestant Bible, a cross-reference from Mt. 27:43 to Psalm 22:8. That is because there is a mention of ‘well, if God is with him, he will deliver him’ (Ps. 22:8). There is no doubt a cross reference to that, however, it is not a complete reference. Only in Wisdom 2:18, do we see where, it specifically said that ‘If he were God’s Son, let him deliver him’. That is a much more completer reference.

Wisdom 2:19 says that he will be insulted. They mock him already in Mt. 27:43, and in a similar verse in Luke 23:35-37:

35 And the people stood by, watching; but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, "He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!" 36 The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him vinegar, 37 and saying, "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!"
​

Wisdom 2:12-20: Prophecy Fulfilled in Jesus Christ...by Matt1618

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.

 

[Standing Up]

It seems you are having difficulty with vs. 17 in particular. It reads:

"Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."

Notice that it does not say, "for he says he will be protected", rather it says, "for according to what he says (i.e. claiming to be Son of God) he will be protected.

They assumed he would be protected if he was really the son of God. After all, this is what they interpreted the prophecies regarding the messiah to mean. This is no different than how the mockers/scoffers address Jesus in the Gospels when he is hung upon the cross, as you can see by my previous post.

You know, I enjoy speaking to you folks. I really do. But this takes the cake. Seriously, you folks just don't see it do you?

2:20 Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected.
The Book of Wisdom or The Wisdom of Solomon

20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." USCCB - NAB - Wisdom 2

Where, which scripture, does it say that God will protect, take care of, Jesus from the cross?

 

[Standing Up]

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.

Sure they do. They each believe themselves apostolic, yet each teaches different doctrine, hold to different traditions, accept varying councils, and determine different God-breathed books.

 

[Montalban]

Again, do you read the things you cite? See v20 to whom Baruch is pointing, which is to say, not to himself.

I wasn't aware that this was yet another rule. It says "Thus saith the Lord", now it has to say it in another context based on yet another rule

Got it! That just leaves out responding to my verses from Tobit (again)

 

[Standing Up]

What about those that 'witness the appearence of John the Baptist'?
(re: Luke 1:67ff)

Again, read the things you cite within the context of our conversation, else please drop on out. You have nothing. You're wasting my time.

As mentioned many times, no prophets till after conception of John the Baptist. Like David says, called from the womb. Lk. 1:67 is even after John was born.

 

[Standing Up]

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...

Not at all.

They each believe themselves apostolic, yet each teaches different doctrine, hold to different traditions, accept varying councils, and determine different God-breathed books.

Feel free to try to explain why different "apostolic" groups can teach contradiction, accept different books, councils, and traditions.

Start a thread.

 

[Montalban]

For those interested

Baruch is rejected by a select few Protestants based on a claim that the book itself never uses the phrase "Thus saith the Lord"

It does, in Chapter 2:21

The Book of Baruch 2:21 Thus saith the Lord, Bow down your shoulders to serve the king of Babylon: so shall ye remain in the land that I gave unto your fathers.
.: The Book of Baruch, Chapter 2 - Searchable Online King James Bible :. Biblical Proportions: A Bible-Based Online Community

The context is about what the Lord has said to Israel.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

read also the notes and links to the other books

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

have fun

 

[Montalban]

Again, read the things you cite within the context of our conversation, else please drop on out. You have nothing. You're wasting my time.

As mentioned many times, no prophets till after conception of John the Baptist. Like David says, called from the womb. Lk. 1:67 is even after John was born.

The original claim was no prophets UNTIL John the Baptist himself.

Now it's no prophets UNTIL the time of John the Baptist. However the angel foretold the conception of John the Baptist, before he was conceived, as I pointed out.

Like with the 'thus saith the Lord' example (in Baruch), once that rule has been shown to be flawed, it suddenly gets changed with a tweaked for no apparent reason.

Where these rules can't be tweaked, they're simply ignored. Thus when I cite that Tobit has verses in it claiming inspiration, they're not dealt with at all.

Others, such as Melito's canon which doesn't agree with the claimants, nor does Origen, they're not ignored... but worse. It's just endlessly repeated that they support the claims being made.

It's one of the most sinuously selective uses of evidence I've ever seen.

 

[mark46]

And so how is the Book Of Esther in the canon? God is not even mentioned. And besides, it is the only book of the Tanakh not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

For those interested

Baruch is rejected by a select few Protestants based on a claim that the book itself never uses the phrase "Thus saith the Lord"

It does, in Chapter 2:21

The Book of Baruch 2:21 Thus saith the Lord, Bow down your shoulders to serve the king of Babylon: so shall ye remain in the land that I gave unto your fathers.
.: The Book of Baruch, Chapter 2 - Searchable Online King James Bible :. Biblical Proportions: A Bible-Based Online Community

The context is about what the Lord has said to Israel.

 

[Standing Up]

"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.

The talmud link provided earlier speaks to this.

Did you see the other link that cites Jewish thinking on the silence (no genuine prophets) between Malachi and John the Baptist?

 

[Standing Up]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[Standing Up]

Hey Check out this prophecy from the book of Enoch:

1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.

Kinda cool, eh?

Remember, Jude quotes a passage from this book, word for word.

So why is this book rejected?

Book of Enoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously, you just don't see it do you? You gave the answer.