Protestant canon

[Standing Up]

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?

Let's make sure we understand each other. You would argue that Clement of Rome's extant letter is also God-breathed Scripture?

Back to the letter. The Phoenix is a fable. It dies and is reincarnated each 500 years. It flies to the city of the sun. It promotes altars, priests, sun worship, and other non NT beliefs.

But hey, c450, Pope Leo was still battling that deceiving spirit, as some do today.

 

[Standing Up]

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.-snip-

Something weird when we say exactly the same thing and exactly what Macc says. But then you conclude there were genuine prophets anyway. Whereas I agree with the written testimony of Macc, scripture, Josephus, and to top it all off, you!

Do you not see that you have said exactly what I said and what Macc said?

 

[Erose]

Something weird when we say exactly the same thing and exactly what Macc says. But then you conclude there were genuine prophets anyway. Whereas I agree with the written testimony of Macc, scripture, Josephus, and to top it all off, you!

Do you not see that you have said exactly what I said and what Macc said?

Do you understand that not every book written in the OT was written by a prophet? If one used the criteria that a book must be written by a prophet one would have to eliminated every one of the historical books and the wisdom books except for those psalms written by David. Don't forget that we would have to eliminate the NT except for the writings of John.

 

[Montalban]

Do you understand that not every book written in the OT was written by a prophet? If one used the criteria that a book must be written by a prophet one would have to eliminated every one of the historical books and the wisdom books except for those psalms written by David. Don't forget that we would have to eliminate the NT except for the writings of John.

The point is, there's been an application of a rule regarding prophets with no explanation at all of why that rule is being applied.

And when asked for an explanation the rule is simply re-stated.

 

[Montalban]

Mary and Elizabeth prophesied before John was born.

So far you've said that at least twice. Responses to it ZERO

 

[Montalban]

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

The problem is in simply re-posting a position over and over again is it's not a discussion.

I look forward to you actually addressing the response given to you correcting your use of this passage.

"First of all, I see no mention, that "the inspiration of God had ceased" at this time. It doesn't say that at all. In fact, it was during this time that God created the oil miracle in the Temple, still commemorated today by Jews as the feast of Hanukkah.

But, secondly, ... Notice that both these quotes refer to the **leadership.***of the Jewish people; and both associate leadership with a "prophet." But, do you know why? It is because neither the Maccabees, nor any descendants of David himself, couldn't declare themselves to be kings because a **prophet** was needed to anoint a legitimate King of Israel (just as Samuel anointed Saul and David). So, there could be no successor to David without a prophet to choose him. Well, ... Guess who that prophet is eventually going to be? It's John the Baptist: the last prophet of the Old Testament, whose Baptism anoints Jesus as the Messiah (e.g. John 1:31-33). Therefore, 1 Maccabees looks an awful lot like Sacred Scripture to me, since it lays the foundation for the coming of St. John.

What's more, as Luke 1:41, Luke 1:46, Luke 1:67, Luke 1:25-27, and Luke 1:36 reveal to us, the prophetic charism existed in Israel **before** the coming of John the Baptist. Thus, when 1 Maccabees speaks of no prophet to anoint a legitimate King (the role that John the Baptist would eventually come to fulfill), it is not discounting the existence of minor prophets or Divine inspiration among the Chosen People of God.

So, the need for a prophet in the time of 1 Maccabees was because of a crisis in **legitimate** leadership, not because of Divine inspiration needed to write the books."
Did Inspiration Cease for 400 years?

 

[Montalban]

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?

He went with God, and God's angel went with him
Tobit 5:16: So they were well pleased. Then said he to Tobias, Prepare thyself for the journey, and God send you a good journey. And when his son had prepared all things far the journey, his father said, Go thou with this man, and God, which dwelleth in heaven, prosper your journey, and the angel of God keep you company. So they went forth both, and the young man's dog with them

Tobit 12:22: Then they confessed the great and wonderful works of God, and how the angel of the Lord had appeared unto them.

Where is Nehemiah, Ruth, 1 and 2 Chronicles, or Esther termed ‘prophetic’?
Did Inspiration Cease for 400 years?

 

[SummaScriptura]

Is this the timeline:

100 years and the northern kingdom is taken by Assyria.

Babylon takes the southern kingdom when?

70 years of captivity. Then some rebuilding, but no Spirit, no prophets. Until the time of Messiah.

400 years of downhill from Zechariah's martyrdom, until Ezra, Malachi's time, no?

I don't know how you could come up with this timeline, even from a 66-books Bible.

The dearthiness of prophecy in the house of the LORD is a judgment and description of the conditions in Solomon's temple after the martyrdom of Zechariah. That period came to an end when the temple was destroyed.

Nowhere can one find a tradition that it was "all downhill from there". Rather, it is the record of God's word that there were times of revival (Daniel-Ezra-Nehemiah-Haggai-Zechariah the minor prophet) and times of backsliding (Malachi) and times of apostasy.

Ezra 6:22, They kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days with joy, for the LORD had made them joyful and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.

Haggai 1:14, The LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people. And they came and worked on the house of the LORD of hosts, their God.

Haggai 2:3-4, 'Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? How do you see it now? Is it not as nothing in your eyes? Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, declares the LORD. Be strong, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Be strong, all you people of the land, declares the LORD. Work, for I am with you, declares the LORD of hosts.

I could list more verses I assure you.

In addition, the Jews have a rich tradition of the numerous times the 2nd-Temple was saved by God from Gentile defilement by means of divine intervention. However, after the apostasy recorded in Maccabees 1, Antiochus Epiphanes was able to enter it and defile it without any divine resitance.

The idea, that the Spirit of God left the temple and/or Israel after the time of Zechariah's martydom is a novel idea. In other words, a bad one.

 

[Standing Up]

Do you understand that not every book written in the OT was written by a prophet? If one used the criteria that a book must be written by a prophet one would have to eliminated every one of the historical books and the wisdom books except for those psalms written by David. Don't forget that we would have to eliminate the NT except for the writings of John.

Perhaps, but like the NT, a prophet, or an apostles, was "present". Jude was not an apostle, yet it was accepted as apostolic.

Anyway, perhaps you joined the conversation without the benefit of reading the context to which the point of Macc was brought up.

4. 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.
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

So, the point is Macc itself confirms this. I agree and you agree and apparently from the post 587 above, Montalban agrees.

But this is where we part and the reason is that EO and RC (and LDS) have no problem accepting Tradition, Councils, Popes, and other writings as equal to God-breathed scripture.

Folks I think we've gone round the Mulberry bush enough on Macc. We disagree on its inspiration, even as we agree it is not inspired.

 

[Standing Up]

I don't know how you could come up with this timeline, even from a 66-books Bible.-snip-

By the time of Jesus, the Romans were appointing the high priest. They had stored his "suit". The Holy of Holies was empty.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

What's more, as Luke 1:41, Luke 1:46, Luke 1:67, Luke 1:25-27, and Luke 1:36 reveal to us, the prophetic charism existed in Israel **before** the coming of John the Baptist.

Did you actually read those verses?

Lk. 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

He was shut up because no faith. But once John was born ...

Thus, when 1 Maccabees speaks of no prophet to anoint a legitimate King (the role that John the Baptist would eventually come to fulfill), it is not discounting the existence of minor prophets or Divine inspiration among the Chosen People of God.

So, the need for a prophet in the time of 1 Maccabees was because of a crisis in **legitimate** leadership, not because of Divine inspiration needed to write the books."
Did Inspiration Cease for 400 years?

You'll have to rethink your conclusion given what scripture actually says, rather than how you read it.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Did you actually read those verses?

Lk. 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

He was shut up because no faith. But once John was born ...




You'll have to rethink your conclusion given what scripture actually says, rather than how you read it.

Do you accept this as prophecy?

39At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!”
Mary’s Song
46And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
50His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
51He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
52He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
53He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
54He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
55to Abraham and his descendants forever,
even as he said to our fathers.”

 

[Ortho_Cat]

By the time of Jesus, the Romans were appointing the high priest. They had stored his "suit". The Holy of Holies was empty.

If the Holy of Holies was empty by the time of Jesus, then why was Zecharia still going into the temple to make offerings, etc.?

8 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.

Why were there priests offering incense before God, and people at the temple worshipping God if the Holy of Holies was empty?

 

[SummaScriptura]

Is this the timeline:

100 years and the northern kingdom is taken by Assyria.

Babylon takes the southern kingdom when?

70 years of captivity. Then some rebuilding, but no Spirit, no prophets. Until the time of Messiah.

400 years of downhill from Zechariah's martyrdom, until Ezra, Malachi's time, no?

I don't know how you could come up with this timeline, even from a 66-books Bible.

The dearthiness of prophecy in the house of the LORD is a judgment and description of the conditions in Solomon's temple after the martyrdom of Zechariah. That period came to an end when the temple was destroyed.

Nowhere can one find a tradition that it was "all downhill from there". Rather, it is the record of God's word that there were times of revival (Daniel-Ezra-Nehemiah-Haggai-Zechariah the minor prophet) and times of backsliding (Malachi) and times of apostasy.

Ezra 6:22, They kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days with joy, for the LORD had made them joyful and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them, so that he aided them in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.

Haggai 1:14, The LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people. And they came and worked on the house of the LORD of hosts, their God.

Haggai 2:3-4, 'Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? How do you see it now? Is it not as nothing in your eyes? Yet now be strong, O Zerubbabel, declares the LORD. Be strong, O Joshua, son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Be strong, all you people of the land, declares the LORD. Work, for I am with you, declares the LORD of hosts.

I could list more verses I assure you.

In addition, the Jews have a rich tradition of the numerous times the 2nd-Temple was saved by God from Gentile defilement by means of divine intervention. However, after the apostasy recorded in Maccabees 1, Antiochus Epiphanes was able to enter it and defile it without any divine resitance.

The idea, that the Spirit of God left the temple and/or Israel after the time of Zechariah's martydom is a novel idea. In other words, a bad one.

By the time of Jesus, the Romans were appointing the high priest. They had stored his "suit". The Holy of Holies was empty.

Very deft way to brush aside my entire post! I am unconvinced you are engaged in this discussion anymore.

BTW, if we're indeed going to agitate in favor of a 66-book Bible, we're going to actually have to read it!

 

[Montalban]

Did you actually read those verses?

Lk. 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

He was shut up because no faith. But once John was born ...

Yes, indeed. They were making predictions before Jesus was born. You said that the time of prophecy had ended.

That's the point. That's why they were cited.

What was your rebuttal? (other than to suggest yet again that I re-read soemthing)

 

[Montalban]

Very deft way to brush aside my entire post! I am unconvinced you are engaged in this discussion anymore.

Absolutely! It's just a matter of re-stating a position over and over again. I get 'Please re-read such and such' several times.

There is no discussion at all in what's presented by way of rebuttal.

The theory is so full of holes, but I guess when someone's invested so much into a theory that they can't let go.

 

[Montalban]

If the Holy of Holies was empty by the time of Jesus, then why was Zecharia still going into the temple to make offerings, etc.?

8 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.

Why were there priests offering incense before God, and people at the temple worshipping God if the Holy of Holies was empty?

Indeed. And Jesus spoke as a child in the temple. He was presented there.

What I'm reading is one of the worst theological theories I've ever seen, with so many holes, rules applied haphazzardly, and with exceptions for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Montalban]

By the time of Jesus, the Romans were appointing the high priest. They had stored his "suit". The Holy of Holies was empty.

Luke 1:23
When Zechariah’s week of service in the Temple was over, he returned home.

Not only was Zechariah working there, but Jesus was presented there too...

Luke 2:21
[Jesus Is Presented in the Temple] Eight days later, when the baby was circumcised, he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel even before he was conceived.

Perhaps the Jews weren't aware that they were living in a time of no prophets and empty temples?

 

[Montalban]

Perhaps, but like the NT, a prophet, or an apostles, was "present". Jude was not an apostle, yet it was accepted as apostolic.

Jude was an Apostle!


Acts 1:13 And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas (aka Jude) the son of James.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Indeed. And Jesus spoke as a child in the temple. He was presented there.

What I'm reading is one of the worst theological theories I've ever seen, with so many holes, rules applied haphazzardly, and with exceptions for no reason whatsoever.

I have to say, that 1st century temple seemed to be a rather bustling place! I mean, even Zechariah was working on a rotation, which meant there was more than one full time priest employed there:

5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah...
8 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God...
23 When his time of service was completed, he returned home.

But then again, why wouldn't it be? The Jewish temple was the center of Jewish worship. They have had high priests in position continuously from 515 BC to 70 AD (with a few years missed in between perhaps, but that's debatable).

List of High Priests of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, there was a mention of the Holy of Holies being "empty". Well, what was historically in the "Holy of Holies"? This was the Ark of the Covenant, of course. But this dissapeared from the temple before the Babylonian Captivity, in the 6th century BC. So If the ark of the covenant being absent is the definition of the HoH being "empty", then this is something that Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi had to contend with as well. Apparently this didn't appear to stop them from establishing a valid priesthood and writing canonical scripture, though.

So from 37 BC to 66 AD, the High Priest was either appointed by King Herod or the Romans. So what? This was after all the deutero's were already written anyways, so even if one were to make an argument that under Herod/Roman reign there was no valid scripture because a lack of valid prophets/high priests, it wouldn't matter (that is, unless the NT is in question). But then again, you have the prophecies of John the Baptist, Zecharia, Elizabeth, Mary, which fall into this time period as well...

Finally, returning to scripture (Luke 1):

"8 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God...

11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense...
19 The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news.

I don't care how "empty" the Holy of Holies may appear to be; if the temple is good enough for God's presence to dwell within, and for Him to Send down an angel to appear therein, i'd say that's "official" enough for me!