Protestant canon

[Montalban]

1Mac 14:41And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet:

This was addressed quite some time ago by another poster.

The response to date is to simply re-state ther 'evidence', then, when questions re-state it again. Now it's been re-stated yet again.

 

[Montalban]

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?

That's never yet been addressed.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Not that I know of.

But, there is this:

5. In this the death of Christ agrees exactly with the death of Zechariah; that, although the city and nation of the Jews did not perish till about forty years after the death of Christ, yet they gave themselves their death's wound in wounding Christ. So it was also in the case of Zechariah: Jerusalem and the people of the Jews stood indeed many years after the death of Zechariah, but from that time began to sink, and draw towards ruin. Consult the story narrowly, and you will plainly find, that all the affairs of the Jews began to decline and grow worse and worse, from that time when "blood touched blood," (the blood of the sacrificer mingled with the blood of the sacrifice), and when "the people became contentious and rebellious against the priest."
From the Talmud and Hebraica | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I'll have to look up that reference from Summascriptura, but that's the unfolding of the close of the OT, not over 40 years, but 400 from Zecharia to Malachi, the cap end of the prophets.

I don't understand the point or relevancy of this citation at all. You're going to have to spell it out...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

1Mac 14:41And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet:

They appointed Simon, but had there been a genuine prophet, they might have appointed someone else. IOW, the prophet was to annoint the king and high priest, not the people.

But again, flip it around. I have witnesses to the 400 years of silence. Where does Tobit say, thus sayeth the LORD? Where does Macc say, the LORD spoke?

Instead, all the witnesses that we have are to the contrary; that is, Malachi was the cap.

Take a look at this for Jewish thought: The End of Prophecy: Malachi's Position in the Spiritual Development of Israel | Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals

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?

 

[Standing Up]

SUp-1Mac 14:41And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet:

They appointed Simon, but had there been a genuine prophet, they might have appointed someone else. IOW, the prophet was to annoint the king and high priest, not the people.

This was addressed quite some time ago by another poster.

The response to date is to simply re-state ther 'evidence', then, when questions re-state it again. Now it's been re-stated yet again.

Dude, it must be an EO thing. You're not reading the response, but jumping past the point just to reiterate your conclusion, while accusing me of doing that .

You snipped the explanation. The prophet annointed the king (think Samuel and David). In Maccs case, the people did it, chose the priest and prince, because there was no genuine prophet.

 

[Montalban]

Dude, it must be an EO thing. You're not reading the response, but jumping past the point just to reiterate your conclusion, while accusing me of doing that

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

 

[Montalban]

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?

It reminds me of Islam; learning by rote. Just repeated over and over

 

[Montalban]

I don't understand the point or relevancy of this citation at all. You're going to have to spell it out...

It's like the snip from Maccabees that was addressed earlier showing that the claim about 'no prophet' misses because it doesn't include verses just following it.

But it's repeated again and again and again.

 

[Incariol]

It's like the snip from Maccabees that was addressed earlier showing that the claim about 'no prophet' misses because it doesn't include verses just following it.

But it's repeated again and again and again.

Its ok, I've noticed that when you don't give verse numbers, or quote verses in the context of a quote, people will pretend that they don't see it. Its very immature, but this is the internet.

 

[Montalban]

Its ok, I've noticed that when you don't give verse numbers, or quote verses in the context of a quote, people will pretend that they don't see it. Its very immature, but this is the internet.

What verses am I meant to give?

 

[Incariol]

What verses am I meant to give?

I don't know, I was commiserating with you, I think.

 

[Montalban]

I don't know, I was commiserating with you, I think.

I thought 'you' referred to me

 

[Montalban]

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?

It's an argument he may have got from CARM

 

[Ortho_Cat]

If so, then they have had to be with John on the Isle of Patmos so he could "edit" them.

It's a dead end to assert that the gospel of thomas for example should have been handed down as divine, and was, except for church tradition.

Who says he had to be there? And why John? Why couldn't the people who wrote those letters have been associates of other apostles (or even learned it from John before he went to Patmos?)

It's easy to say that it should have been discarded now, because hindsight is 20/20. Back then though i'm willing to guess fishing through all of these documents without a set canon and having to determine authentic scripture from the others was not as easy as it might seem (especially without any formal doctrines to guide us). Could you imagine trying to discern right scripture from wrong if you weren't an apostle or affiliated with one? It would have been nearly impossible. The apostles preserved the true teachings from Jesus, and the apostles passed down those teachings. That is how the good scripture was distinguished from the bad; by corroborating it against oral tradition.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

The context of Paul's usage of the term "prophets" in the Epistle to the Ephesians points to living prophets who were operating at the time in the first century Church, not to the canon of the Old Testament.

Ephesians 2:19-21
19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.

Ephesians 3:4-5
4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.

Ephesians 4:11-13
11And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,

Great catch. It is abundantly clear to me from the context of these verses that the latter two (Ephesians 3&4) are referring solely to new covenant prophets. It appears to me that only Ephesians 2 could be used to include the prophets of old, which could very easily be a reference to both old/new covenant prophets, or only new covenant ones. It is also interesting to note how the apostles are mentioned first before the prophets.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Dude, you're skipping over what I'm saying and jumping in with preconceived notions. C30bc Rome began appointing the high priest. The "finally" part of my sentence.

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.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

If so, then they have had to be with John on the Isle of Patmos so he could "edit" them.

It's a dead end to assert that the gospel of thomas for example should have been handed down as divine, and was, except for church tradition.

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?

 

[Montalban]

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

This would be cool!

 

[Noxot]

Justin Martyr makes the same claim against the Jews 4 times, but each assertion was shown later in history to be false.

Paul wrote that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Josephus wrote they didn't change anything. I doubt they altered things and it seems a poor explanation.

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.

<snip>
But again, flip it around. I have witnesses to the 400 years of silence. Where does Tobit say, thus sayeth the LORD? Where does Macc say, the LORD spoke? <snip>

When an archangel speaks, it is very much "thus saith the Lord".

36 Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity; 37 and this woman was a widow of about eighty-four years,[i] who did not depart from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38 And coming in that instant she gave thanks to the Lord,[j] and spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

Luke 2

I must quote this again because it plainly shows that there were prophets before john the baptist and Jesus Christ were even born, as it said, " She was of a great age," and simon also seemed to be of old age. as it says:

Luke 2:26 (ESV)
(2:26) And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

It's questionable whether He does or not. Maybe there are allusions, but to my knowledge, there are no direct quotes like He does Isaiah, for example.

And again, Paul quotes the poet, but no one is so dense to think the poem should be part of scripture.

open your eyes and see that Judas directly quotes 2 books that are not in the EO or protestant canon. and as the quote from origen said in my last post, that it appears that Jesus Christ quoted other scriptures not found in the EO or protestant canons. however doubt and skepticism will make people reject that. but what have they to say of the enoch quote? verily they harden their heart and say "surely the book of 1 enoch that we have today is distorted and is not to be trusted" because they have not faith in God, that he would preserve for the church what belongs to her and give those good gifts unto her.

Matt 7:11 (ESV)
(7:11) If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

So, you propose both? Sorta like Jesus riding both foal and colt per Matthew?

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.&#8221;

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.&#8221;

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.

 

[Noxot]

It's an argument he may have got from CARM

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,