Protestant canon

[Montalban]

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

This is another example of citing evidence that does not agree with the claims being made.

If one reads the 'notes' on that site it shows EXACTLY what I noted about Melito earlier. A different OT canon.

Here's what it says
"The peculiar thing about the list is the omission of the Twelve Minor Prophets and the insertion of the Epistle of Jeremiah."

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

Furthermore that same page also compelelty undercuts the use of Origen by saying

"Origen (in Eusebius, VI. 25) tells us that there were twenty-two books in the Hebrew canon; but his list differs somewhat from that of Josephus"
(Ibid.)

We've seen repeated endlessly that Josephus, Melito and Origen all support one canon. They don't. The odd thing is that the claims are being made with evidence presented now that doesn't support those claims!

Furthermore, let's look at the claim made in this particular post - that there were no prophets in a particular time.

The words in the site DO NOT SAY THAT

This is what they say "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."
(emphasis added)

It doesn't say that there were NO PROPHETS. It says that their's not an exact succession of them.

As well yet another error emerges. The question was asked where Origen claims that there were no prophets in that time.

The quote above is not of Origen, but of Josephus as recorded by Eusebius.

So in summary.

The question is asked where does Origen talk of a time of no prophets?

The answer given shows what Josephus says, not Oriegen (Mistake 1)
Josephus doesn't say that there were no prophets, but just no exact succession (Mistake 2)
As well, on that site in the 'notes' it says that that Origen and Melito don't agree with the canon despite persistant claims that they do (Mistake 3)

 

[Standing Up]

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.

Trent doesn't ring a bell for you? IIRC, no true RC would say it was closed before then.

Where's an EO voice when you need one, but their canon is different. Alas.

 

[Montalban]

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.

That's a good question.

It's been put forward in a rather selective way by some as a rule that one must exclude certian books, in part, on the basis that they don't have a phrase in them saying "Thus saith the Lord" or an indication within them that they claim to be inspired by God.

However note that the rule is selective. It's only applied against those books already excluded for some other, as yet unknown reason.

 

[Standing Up]

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)

Feel free to repost them (again).

 

[Montalban]

Trent doesn't ring a bell for you? IIRC, no true RC would say it was closed before then.

Where's an EO voice when you need one, but their canon is different. Alas.

One suspects you know already that Trent merely confirmed those books.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

When? If you quote Isaiah, thus sayeth the LORD, that makes you scripture?

Wasting my time.

Post your Tobit verses and we'll be done.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

It's attributed to Ezra.

 

[Montalban]

Feel free to repost them (again).

Feel free to state why an extra rule is brought in in this particular case (Baruch)

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?

 

[Montalban]

When? If you quote Isaiah, thus sayeth the LORD, that makes you scripture?

Why is that a sub-rule? Simply changing rules without stating why doesn't help a case.

Rule 1: It's got to have these words

It does

Oh, then there's Rule 2 we've just added...

 

[Montalban]

It's attributed to Ezra.

And in comes Rule 3

I posted Baruch having the 'magic words' of authenticity.

But it's objected to because those words are quoted from another source.

However Ezra is inspired even though it itself never claims to be because it's attributed somewhere else to Ezra.

So when a book cites something from without, it's not inspired. But if it doesn't at all, but another book refers to it, it is inspired.

It's a theory made on the go.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Among the books of the deuterocanon, the following books lay claim to having been written by prophets: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Letter of Jeremiah, Daniel, 3 of the 5 additional Pslams are of David. There is also Baruch, whom we are told was a prophet.

Now, if I say those books are invalid, I can lay claim to there being no prophecy in the deuteros. So the line of reasoning becomes circular. The reason there is no prophecy in the deuteros is those books are not valid. The reason those books are not valid is we believe there is no prophecy in the deuteros.

Bear in mind the following truisms:
1. Not all of the books in the Hebrew Scriptures are written by prophets
2. Some of the books in the Hebrew Scriptures contain no prophecy.
3. There are huge portions of Scripture written by prophets which contain no prophecy.

 

[Montalban]

Among the books of the deuterocanon, the following books lay claim to having been written by prophets: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Letter of Jeremiah, Daniel, 3 of the 5 additional Pslams are of David. There is also Baruch, whom we are told was a prophet.

Now, if I say those books are invalid, I can lay claim to there being no prophecy in the deuteros. So the line of reasoning becomes circular. The reason there is no prophecy in the deuteros is those books are not valid. The reason those books are not valid is we believe there is no prophecy in the deuteros.

Bear in mind the following truisms:
1. Not all of the books in the Hebrew Scriptures are written by prophets
2. Some of the books in the Hebrew Scriptures contain no prophecy.
3. There are huge portions of Scripture written by prophets which contain no prophecy.

It's what happens when people set store on someone who rejected Jesus as Christ.

I don't follow Josephus

 

[Montalban]

At the end of the day certain books are rejected and then the rules are applied to them to confirm that they are rejected and these rules don't apply to other books because they're not rejected.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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?

Can you not understand that by him claiming to be the Son of God, the Jews understood that this meant he would be protected (as the verses in Matthew also implied)? Also, you need to read the rest of the prophecy:

21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls; 23 for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, 24 but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.

This is a prophecy regarding the people who would mock and insult Jesus, and the ultimate purpose of God regarding the plan of salvation.

 

[Montalban]

Can you not understand that by him claiming to be the Son of God, the Jews understood that this meant he would be protected (as the verses in Matthew also implied)? Also, you need to read the rest of the prophecy:

21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls; 23 for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, 24 but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.

This is a prophecy regarding the people who would mock and insult Jesus, and the ultimate purpose of God regarding the crucifixion.

Good stuff!

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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

Enlighten me...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Can you not understand that by him claiming to be the Son of God, the Jews understood that this meant he would be protected (as the verses in Matthew also implied)? Also, you need to read the rest of the prophecy:

21 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls; 23 for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, 24 but through the devil's envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.

This is a prophecy regarding the people who would mock and insult Jesus, and the ultimate purpose of God regarding the plan of salvation.

Again, the verses in Mt. which I was referring to specifically above were these:

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.'"
​

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!"
​

So you see, the people who sat by and hurled insults automatically assumed that if he was truly the Christ, the Son of God (which he claimed to be) then he will be delivered by God. Where would they get this idea? Well, from scripture of course:

Psalms 22:8: He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him."

(also see Psalms 91, http://niv.scripturetext.com/psalms/91.htm)

So this was a natural thing for them to think. "By what he says, he will be delivered" That is, if he is the King of the Jews, the Son of God, the Chosen One, as he claims to be "by his own words", then God will deliver/protect him. The crowd in Matthew is saying the exact same thing as the prophecy in Wisdom (and this is what the Jews believed regarding their prophesies of the messiah, and they still believe to this day that he will be favored and protected by God to lead his people; in fact this is one of the principle reasons why they reject Christ as the Messiah.) Yet, as we know from the prophecy in Wisdom, this was not to be so, because "they did not know the secret purposes of God".

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Ok, I was told there are several criteria in the bible for recognizing a prophet. This is what I was able to find. If anyone is aware of any other's, please let me know.

"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you" (Deuteronomy 13:1–5 NIV).

So basically, (1) what he says has to come true, and (2) he cannot say "let us follow other gods".

Now, let's look at the prophecy candidate in Wisdom. We know what he said came true (and in great detail). He didn't tell us to follow other foreign gods. So why is this not considered a true prophecy?

I don't see any criteria here which specifies valid lines of prophets or high priests, "full" temples (as opposed to "empty" ones), or any of that. Am I missing something here?

 

[Montalban]

I don't see any criteria here which specifies valid lines of prophets or high priests, "full" temples (as opposed to "empty" ones), or any of that. Am I missing something here?

There's plenty more un-written rules, I'm sure that will soon come to light and then be applied. It's like a game of catch-up