Protestant canon

[Montalban]

What were all those Jews doing for several hundred years in an empty Temple?

 

[Standing Up]

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!

I understand what you pointed out; that is, between blood of Zachariah to Malachi was 400 more years when prophecy continued. It is both to this period of intermitentness and the silence for the next 400 years that I was addressing.

After that blood was shed, we can read their history. The north was conquered. The south was conquered. The temple destroyed. Jerusalem was destroyed. Yes, Ezra and others rebuilt. Men prophecied. But the fact is the Spirit never indewelt that rebuilt temple. It's not recorded in scripture, like it was done at the tabernacle of moses or temple of solomon or, even, believers as the temple.

So, again, the witness from Josephus and Maccabees (and did you read that Jewish link I provided?) was there were no genuine prophets, even if it unfolded over 400 years to Malachi and then another 400 years of silence to John the Baptist. Once he is conceived, prophets appear throughout the gospels witnessing to Messiah.

Look, find some sources from c200bc to c200ad who say there were genuine prophets. Quote them, like the "prophecy" in Wisdom about the man who would escape death (as the Muslims say), rather than embrace it (as Chrisians say).

 

[Standing Up]

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.

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

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.

God-breathed, nope, it's all the same.

 

[Rick Otto]

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

Before him conceived or just only merely before him born?

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

Or maybe even one of those other guys, the early church pretenders who re-invented a levitical style priesthood & turned our memorial into a sacrifice.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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.

I'm sorry, but the claims you are making regarding the criteria for canonicity simply aren't found in scripture. I've given you examples of prophecies in the deutero's. I've shown you that the temple was active and there were high priests ministering throughout the period. You have also clearly shifted the goalposts here from "John being the first to prophesy after Malachi" to John being present in womb while his mother, father, aunt, etc. all prophesied before him.

Luke says that God was present in the temple, worshippers were found outside the temple, and the angel presented himself in the temple and prophesied therein. This all happened before John was conceived. Whether the holy of holies was "empty" or not is irrelevant. God found the temple fit to dwell within. As I mentioned before, the ark was gone way before the hebrew scriptures were all finished anyways.

All these criteria for canonicity seem to be popping up everywhere. First, there must be a valid prophet. Then, there must be a high priest. If the high priest was appointed by rome or herod, then he is not valid. Then, the holy of holies must not be "empty". Then, john the baptist must be present in some way or form for a prophecy to be valid. Again, I fail to see how all these strange criteria are in any way relevant to the canonicity (or non-canonicity) of scripture, as they certainly aren't mentioned in scripture as such.

 

[Standing Up]

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

Yes, I mispoke. Sorry.

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

Again, we agree. That's all that was said. No genuine prophet.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

 

[Standing Up]

I'm sorry, but the claims you are making regarding the criteria for canonicity simply aren't found in scripture. I've given you examples of prophecies in the deutero's.

IIRC one example and we went through it. It was a false prophesy about a man who would be delivered from death. Jesus wasn't. Obviously Jesus was resurrected, but that's not what the prophecy said.

I've shown you that the temple was active and there were high priests ministering throughout the period. You have also clearly shifted the goalposts here from "John being the first to prophesy after Malachi" to John being present in womb while his mother, father, aunt, etc. all prophesied before him.

Refined it. That's why we're discussing it. Thankyouverymuch. It is IMO even stronger. As we've seen, all of Luke's prophecies come after John's conception. Not before. You haven't found Luke saying, 10 years before John came Joe Priest who prophesied XYZ. You have found that false prophesy however.

 

[Montalban]

Before him conceived or just only merely before he him born?

David Bowie writes songs by cutting up pieces of sentences and randomly stringing them together. You're not David Bowie!

Before him conceived

would better be written as "Before he was conceived"

just only merely

Look up 'redundancies'

before he him born?

too many personal pronouns.

 

[Montalban]

I'm sorry, but the claims you are making regarding the criteria for canonicity simply aren't found in scripture. I've given you examples of prophecies in the deutero's. I've shown you that the temple was active and there were high priests ministering throughout the period. You have also clearly shifted the goalposts here from "John being the first to prophesy after Malachi" to John being present in womb while his mother, father, aunt, etc. all prophesied before him.

Luke says that God was present in the temple, worshippers were found outside the temple, and the angel presented himself in the temple and prophesied therein. This all happened before John was conceived. Whether the holy of holies was "empty" or not is irrelevant. God found the temple fit to dwell within. As I mentioned before, the ark was gone way before the hebrew scriptures were all finished anyways.

All these criteria for canonicity seem to be popping up everywhere. First, there must be a valid prophet. Then, there must be a high priest. If the high priest was appointed by rome or herod, then he is not valid. Then, the holy of holies must not be "empty". Then, john the baptist must be present in some way or form for a prophecy to be valid. Again, I fail to see how all these strange criteria are in any way relevant to the canonicity (or non-canonicity) of scripture, as they certainly aren't mentioned in scripture as such.

None of this has been addressed. All I've seen is a repeat of the claims. And there's no reason yet stated for believing why a 'time of no prophecy' is important, anyway.

We've seen outright mistakes, such as regarding Jude being an Apostle. Or, that Tobit has no claims of being inspired within it. None of these things are addressed.

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

 

[Ortho_Cat]

IIRC one example and we went through it. It was a false prophesy about a man who would be delivered from death. Jesus wasn't. Obviously Jesus was resurrected, but that's not what the prophecy said.

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

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Thanks for identifying the poster but not identifying the point he makes, a la montalban. let's hope that isn't catching on.

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.

 

[Montalban]

Again, we agree. That's all that was said. No genuine prophet.

I don't believe that's what he said. He said no "official" prophet.

Yes, other books were written, but none were accepted as on the same level as God-breathed scripture. You don't like Josephus?

Josephus is a Romanised Jew who rejected Christ. Hardly the best witness.

See Jerome, Melito, Origen, even Augustine at times.

Unfortunately to keep citing evidence that doesn't agree with the position doesn't help with dialogue. Melito has been shown to have a different 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.

What does this mean? Saying "Oh yes, we all agree on books of one era, or at least some of us" undercuts the very use of the evidence.

The issue is what is Scripture and how do we know?

Yes, it is.

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.

This is another example of simply repeating a claim.

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.

That's also been addressed. The 'why' we accept the NT is important. I accept it because of my church. If someone else, a Protestant wants to claim that they accept the same canon for the same reason that would be very interesting.

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.

No one has. The theory is modern and unique. It borrows some stuff that sites like CARM uses - such as claiming those 'rejected' books don't claim to be (within themselves) inspired. I've already cited Tobit and Baruch undermining this. No response so far

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.

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).

And a repeat

 

[Montalban]

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.

Apparently you missed the meeting where the RCC, EO and LDS met and decided to try and hoodwink Protestants

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Apparently you missed the meeting where the RCC, EO and LDS met and decided to try and hoodwink Protestants

Apparently it wasn't done secretively enough, looks like the cat's outta the bag!

 

[Montalban]

Apparently it wasn't done secretively enough, looks like the cat's outta the bag!

What have I done! I thought this was just between you and I!

However, this thread is enjoyable. I like the switch from "no official prophets" to "no genuine prophets" earlier.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

What is the criteria for determing a genuine prophet or a true prophet, (or more generally, a true prophecy) and who decides this?

 

[Montalban]

What is the criteria for determing a genuine prophet or a true prophet, (or more generally, a true prophecy) and who decides this?

St. Josephus?

 

[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?

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.

God-breathed, nope, it's all the same.

So you have nothing by way of answers?

 

[Montalban]

So, again, the witness from Josephus and Maccabees (and did you read that Jewish link I provided?) was there were no genuine prophets, even if it unfolded over 400 years to Malachi and then another 400 years of silence to John the Baptist.

It seems like a switch has taken place. It seems that the theory was that there was no prophets up till John the Baptist but now it's up to John the Baptist was conceived. So it's gone from up till John the Baptist, the person to up until the time of John the Baptist (thus including people around at the time he was conceived who's prophecies pre-date those of John the Baptist).

Once he is conceived, prophets appear throughout the gospels witnessing to Messiah.

This ignores the very many prophecies given by myself and others from the books you reject that point to Jesus.

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

Has John the Baptist got some special pre-natal charism he's bestowing on others around him?