Protestant canon

[Montalban]

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:



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!

Apparently the Jews didn't know that Josephus thought that they shouldn't be going to the Temple - it all hinges on Josephus, this man on whom we should also base our canon. Obviously one of the most under-rated people in history.

How joyous that after 2,000 years of neglect he can be set on the pedestal he's so long been denied.

 

[Noxot]

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.

wait let me quote that passage again for you:

clement of rome Chap. XXV. — The Phoenix an Emblem of Our Resurrection.

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.

it appears that this is a historical record. it is not hard at all to believe an animal could reproduce in such a way as described, many different animals reproduce in different ways. notice how clement called it a sign, and he has been talking about signs of the resurrection.

In fact this can even be an ancient fairy tale and still be a sign of Christ, because God has given many things to many peoples. that is not to say that the ones that had the best signs in the past were not jews, because they were chosen by God and so of course would have the oracles of God. but I would like to remind you that there was even a time before the jews existed and the Lord still gave things to other peoples and in all times.

so then I could say that you seem to have tunnel vision, when you say that clement is teaching reincarnation, because he is simply calling it a sign. paul does the same thing as clement did:

Acts 17:22-23 (ESV)
(17:22) So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. (17:23) For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

so you see how paul used something from another culture? it is by the grace of God, who loves all humans on this earth.

never has clement taught anyone to go and do any kind of pagan thing, no! he was simply showing what great signs the Lord has done for the people of the earth. the entire thing having to do with the phoenix is simply to be read in a spiritual manner. the only belief clement promotes is the God of the Christians.

Phil 4:8-9 (ESV)
(4:8) Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (4:9) What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me-practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.

wash your heart out so that all things that the Lord gives will be pure to you. clement is an elder of the church, all of us should listen to him.

 

[Erose]

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

To start off with Jude was an Apostle. He was the brother of James the Less and cousin to Jesus Christ.

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 again you are going off the authority of a Hellenized Jew, who was writing the history of his people for a civil authority that had just wiped out Jerusalem? Interesting. Also if you read down into paragraph 6 you will find that the very same writer is pointed out by Eusebius to have written other books based upon the books of Maccabees. Very odd that you missed that and very odd that you missed the point that Eusebius made here.

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

No there wasn't an "official" prophet during that time as there was not a king nor a true high priest even though the title high priest was given to the leader of the Jews during this time. The reason for this is obviously pointing with anticipation to the coming of the Messiah who is the true King, High Priest, and Prophet. But I do not see where this would keep God from giving inspiration to an Author. This you haven't addressed nor anyone else has either. Or are you making such a bold claim that God completely left the Isrealites during this period. I know from reading 2 Macc that this was not believed by the Jews to be the case, since God helped the Maccabean brothers in their campaigns against the Greek oppressors.

History shows one of two things about the Maccabean brothers. Either the were an absolutely incredible group of warriors that would make Seal Team Six wet their pants or they where given supernatural aid by God against the Greeks. I lean toward the latter since that is what Scripture tells us.

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

.Scripture is sacred Tradition. It is part of it and is not separate from it. As is obvious by the failed experiment of Protestantism that without Sacred Tradition guiding the readers of the Scriptures all sorts of false doctrines come out of it. Sacred Tradition is man making themselves into the image of God, where pure personal interpretation of Scripture is making God into the image of man.

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.

We do not agree in any shape or form that the two books of Maccabees are not inspired. They are inspired and they tell a time of God's direct help to His people in need. If anyone thinks that God would not want that written down so that future generations would remember they do not understand the OT at all. Everytime God has directly stepped into the History of the Jews it has been recorded. What would make the Maccabean age different? As stated above there is no doubt from history that God directly helped the Jews during this time, so why wouldn't want it recorded as he wanted the other instances of His Divine Help recorded through inspired writers? It truly makes no sense.

Also who is anyone who would make such a bold claim that God cannot inspire anyone He wanted to write what He wanted whether that person was a prophet or not? The problem with your theory is twofold.

1) For it to truly work then only Prophets and Apostles could write an inspired work. Because a Prophet living during the time of the writing but not influencing the writing would entail that either every writing during that time was inspired or no writings during that time were inspired unless written by the Prophet himself.

2) You have failed to show that your theory was the theory used by the early Protestants. Does your favorite website CCEL have any information that you can offer to display that this was the criteria used by them?

 

[hedrick]

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

As I'm sure you know, "son of God" applies in OT language to any godly man. And claiming to have knowledge of God is something that would be true of any righteous man.

There's nothing wrong with applying this passage to Jesus, but there's no reason to think that the author had a special vision of him in advance.

Furthermore, a prophet is not someone who predicts, but someone who is commissioned by God to be his official spokesman. So an end of prophecy doesn't mean that God never reveals something to anyone, but just an end to the people who are called to this special role.

 

[Erose]

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.

Remember that the reason why we know what happened to the Ark is that 2Macc Chapter 2 tells us that Jeremiah took the Ark and hid it in a cave that was hidden until God gathers His people together. Here is the text: 2Mac 2:

[1] Now it is found in the descriptions of Jeremias the prophet, that he commanded them that went into captivity, to take the fire, as it hath been signified, and how he gave charge to them that were carried away into captivity. [2] And how he gave them the law that they should not forget the commandments of the Lord, and that they should not err in their minds, seeing the idols of gold, and silver, and the ornaments of them. [3] And with other such like speeches, he exhorted them that they would not remove the law from their heart. [4] It was also contained in the same writing, how the prophet, being warned by God, commanded that the tabernacle and the ark should accompany him, till he came forth to the mountain where Moses went up, and saw the inheritance of God. [5] And when Jeremias came thither he found a hollow cave: and he carried in thither the tabernacle, and the ark, and the altar of incense, and so stopped the door. [6] Then some of them that followed him, came up to mark the place: but they could not find it. [7] And when Jeremias perceived it, he blamed them, saying: The place shall be unknown, till God gather together the congregation of the people, and receive them to mercy.

So where was the Ark of the Covenant found? In a cave by shepherds giving birth to our Lord. Where was it seen? At the end of Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 of the book of Revelations. Mary is that Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[Erose]

As I'm sure you know, "son of God" applies in OT language to any godly man. And claiming to have knowledge of God is something that would be true of any righteous man.

There's nothing wrong with applying this passage to Jesus, but there's no reason to think that the author had a special vision of him in advance.

Furthermore, a prophet is not someone who predicts, but someone who is commissioned by God to be his official spokesman. So an end of prophecy doesn't mean that God never reveals something to anyone, but just an end to the people who are called to this special role.

Hedrick, thanks for answering my questions earlier.

 

[SummaScriptura]

As I'm sure you know, "son of God" applies in OT language to any godly man. And claiming to have knowledge of God is something that would be true of any righteous man. <snip>

Not right.

Though corporate Israel was indeed referred to by God in Scripture as the "sons of God", no Jew was allowed to abrogate to themself the appellation; if one were to say "I am the son of God", or even "I am a son of God", it would be seen as a kind of blasphemy.

 

[mark46]

I agree. Christian revelations include God as Father, the Son of God, and followers as adoption children of God.

Jews and Muslims (and Zoroastrians) do not believe in the "close" relationship between God and mankind.

For Jesus or anyone to be the son of God is blasphemy for both Jews and Muslims. After all, for them, it was their pagan enemies that often prayed to gods who had children.

Not right.

Though corporate Israel was indeed referred to by God in Scripture as the "sons of God", no Jew was allowed to abrogate to themself the appellation; if one were to say "I am the son of God", or even "I am a son of God", it would be seen as a kind of blasphemy.

 

[Noxot]

Not right.

Though corporate Israel was indeed referred to by God in Scripture as the "sons of God", no Jew was allowed to abrogate to themself the appellation; if one were to say "I am the son of God", or even "I am a son of God", it would be seen as a kind of blasphemy.

would this be based off the belief of the pharisees or the prophets of God? what exactly do you mean when you say "corporate Israel"?

 

[SummaScriptura]

would this be based off the belief of the pharisees or the prophets of God? what exactly do you mean when you say "corporate Israel"?

Ultimately, does it matter? If you asked a Baptist, is your belief based off of Baptist beliefs or the word of God? Wouldn't you expect him to say something like Baptist beliefs are based on the word of God!

Suffice it to say, an individual Jew did not have the right to call himself that, but the nation as a whole could be referred to that way. Corporate Israel, that is the nation as a whole, were "God's sons".

Note this...

John 5:17-18, Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

However, on balance, I would say this seems to be commentary by the Apostle, which might indicate this was more than simply a Pharisaism.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Ultimately, does it matter? If you asked a Baptist, is your belief based off of Baptist beliefs or the word of God? Wouldn't you expect him to say something like Baptist beliefs are based on the word of God!

Suffice it to say, an individual Jew did not have the right to call himself that, but the nation as a whole could be referred to that way. Corporate Israel, that is the nation as a whole, were "God's sons".

Note this...

John 5:17-18, Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Compare that part of the verse with this:

13: He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 14: He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15: the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16: We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Compare that part of the verse with this:

13: He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 14: He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15: the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16: We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father.

I agree. It is clearly prophetic. There are other indications of truthful prophecy in the disputed books as well.

 

[hedrick]

Not right.

Though corporate Israel was indeed referred to by God in Scripture as the "sons of God", no Jew was allowed to abrogate to themself the appellation; if one were to say "I am the son of God", or even "I am a son of God", it would be seen as a kind of blasphemy.

See Psalm 2, particularly ps 2:7. Although this is correctly used in the NT of Jesus, it was originally referring to the King of Israel. Cf 2 Sam 7:14. For Wisdom, you need to look at where the argument is going. As you follow it into Chap 3, it's pretty clearly talking about righteous people more broadly.

In any case, even if it was messianic, I don't think we'd want to say that any Jewish literature referring to the messiah is automatically canonical.

But I note yet again, that this whole argument is irrelevant. The Catholic Church didn't canonize books like Wis because they though the author was a prophet. I'm pretty sure that the discussions we're having are rationalizations on both sides, after the fact, and do not represent the actual reasons the decisions were made.

The early Church used the Greek canon because they used the LXX, and they did that because the Church largely grew up in the diaspora, and that's the OT that was used there. There are some signs, although inconsistent, the the later books were seen as less central to the OT, much as Jews considered the Torah the core, and later books as less central. But given the way the Catholic tradition uses Scripture, that's not a problem.

Similarly, the Reformers used the Hebrew canon because they used the Hebrew OT, feeling that they were safer to use the original language and its tighter canon.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Not right.

Though corporate Israel was indeed referred to by God in Scripture as the "sons of God", no Jew was allowed to abrogate to themself the appellation; if one were to say "I am the son of God", or even "I am a son of God", it would be seen as a kind of blasphemy.

Yeah......I can kinda see why they would be confused

John 10:33 Answered Him, the Judeans saying "about a good work not we are stoning Thee, but about blasphemy, and that Thou, being a man, are making Thyself a god".
[Romans 2:23/Reve 16:11,21]

Reve 16:11 And they blaspheme the God of the heaven out of the miseries of them, and out of the sores of them, and not they reform out of the works of them

 

[Montalban]

wait let me quote that passage again for you:

This is not new. Anti-biblical people point to 'talking animals' (viz. Numbers 22:30) in the OT as a sign that the Bible is full of holes.

 

[Standing Up]

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.”

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)

Folks, until John. From Malachi until John is the prophecy of Elijah.

John the Baptist introduced Jesus Christ, annointed Him, baptized Him.

Elizabeth, Simeon, Anna, Mary, Zachria all prophesied, but only after the conception of John the Baptist.

No genuine prophets from Malachi to John. And indeed that is the witness of Scripture. No prophesying by those folks until after John's conception. You remember, David said, called from the womb.

 

[Montalban]

Elizabeth prophecised before John. Funny that. Unless one thinks John the Baptist, in uetero uttered his words through Elizabeth. Maybe she got some special charism from John we've not heard about. I wonder if St. Josephus had anything to say on this?



The angel foretold to Zechariah of John before John was conceived.

Zechariah headed off to the 'empty' temple

A lot's going on in this period of prophetic void

 

[Standing Up]

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.

We both know that Nebuchanezer (sic) sacked the temple and carted off the contents. Regardless of certain traditions, the fact is the Holy of Holies was empty.

Even 2 Macc 2:4 attests to it.

 

[Standing Up]

My shampoo says "And repeat" also

Elizabeth prophecised before John. Funny that. Unless one thinks John the Baptist, in uetero uttered his words through Elizabeth

From conception.

I know you disagree, but please quit responding to a point that isn't made.

Elizabeth (and Mary, Zachraih, Simeon, Anna) only prophesied AFTER John's conception.

You remember what David said, called from the womb. In fact the angel of the LORD said the same about John.

Disagree all you want, but please quit pretending.

 

[Montalban]

I wonder what this special charism is that an un-born John can allow prophecies to happen before him?

What's St.Josephus have to say on this?