Protestant canon

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Montalban

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?


​

What was your point with those two Tobit quotes?

The division was law, prophets, writings. Like apostles---written during the time of, like Luke and Mark.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

22 And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls' reward. 23 For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him. 24 But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.
Did Jesus experience death?

 

[Montalban]

When a person's own evidence disagrees with them then there's a problem with their theory

 

[Standing Up]

1. Used? Since this canon was established within your required timeframe you have no leg to stand on. Uses? 5th of the world's population is Catholic. Nearly 3 times the number of who accepts the shorter canon. Very silly comment without any grain of truth.

Again, Melito provides a list the same as Josephus (less Esther). Jerome confirms that earlier scripture.

The more ancient the teaching, the more likely it aligns to apostolic teaching.

2. So you admit that you reading your theology into this passage? At least we are starting to make some progress.

3. No it isn't scripture. But that does not give you the right to misrepresent the teaching of this document, written by a man who at the bare minimum learned his Christianity at the feet of one or more Apostles.

You've quoted his example of Christ like the *real* phoenix who returns from the dead each 500 years. Believe scripture says that Christ is alive forevermore.

You're making a huge leap, assuming Clement is the same as the one in scripture.

" 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 "

He doesn't say this is myth, but a fact. It takes place.

Now, let's see, Clement learned about the phoenix at the feet of apostles or in his travels to Egypt, maybe to get an obelisk for Rome, maybe to study paganism.

Which do you think?

 

[Standing Up]

When a person's own evidence disagrees with them then there's a problem with their theory

How about you Montalban, do you believe Clement who Erose says learned at the feet of apostles about the phoenix?

 

[Montalban]

The Phoenix issue was already addressed.

However that still doesn't negate the fact that someone's repeatedly claimed Melito and Origen are witnesses to his case, but they aren't.

Apparently some are under the impression that if they're wrong on one thing, it's negated if they can show someone wrong on another

 

[Standing Up]

"No exact succession" may not even mean "no succession whatsoever" -snip-

To summarize to this point in the thread:

There are two points going on here.

1) The oldest canon of scripture was from (most likely) Ezra to Gamaliel to Paul. Then explicitely provided by Josephus c100. This was confirmed by Melito (less Esther) c175. Origen comments (as do others) about what was scripture and what was also read, but not considered scripture. And then the original canon of scripture that most likely only Jesus and the apostles used and handed down per Paul was reconfirmed by Jerome.

2) The reason for this was provided. From Malachi to John the baptist's conception, there were no "genuine prophets", no successive lineage of prophets.

(Folks have provided those deteros quoting other scripture as prophetical. In fact, one non-scriptural book witnesses to the same fact. There were no "genuine prophets" at the time it was written.)

These two points were tied with Jesus' comments about the blood of Abel to Zacharia.

Now, on the other side of this debate are the groups who c400ad decided that other books were scripture.

1) Those groups do not agree between themselves on what books to include. IOW, they picked and choose.

2) They provide no rhyme or reason for their contradictory canon decisions, except that they also believe they may teach contradiction to each other and support different traditions, yet think each other and theirself teaches truth!?

3) Their list of canons are obviously later to the earliest witness, which is to say the more ancient the teaching the more truthful.

Lastly, to what reason were the deteros declared scripture by certain groups? The deteros provide some support to contradictory doctrine (praying to the deceased, paying to get out of hell, works-based salvation, etc) that contradicts the NT to which they do subscribe.

 

[Erose]

Again, Melito provides a list the same as Josephus (less Esther). Jerome confirms that earlier scripture.

The more ancient the teaching, the more likely it aligns to apostolic teaching.

You almost accept Melito but do you accept Justin Martyr's comments that the Jews took books out of the Bible?

Dialogue with Trypho chapters 71 & 72.

Justin: But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.
Trypho: We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled.
Justin: I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: 'And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.' And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' Jeremiah 11:19 And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'
​

You've quoted his example of Christ like the *real* phoenix who returns from the dead each 500 years. Believe scripture says that Christ is alive forevermore.

You're making a huge leap, assuming Clement is the same as the one in scripture.

Oh I forgot that in Clement's time science was at the same level as it is today. I didn't realize that one must be completely accurate in their science before they are allowed to make analogies about Christ or any other teaching of Scripture. I guess we should disregard those passages in the bible that refer to a dragon or basilisk in Scripture.

" 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 "

He doesn't say this is myth, but a fact. It takes place.

Maybe he believed it did, but does it matter? All the Christians believed the earth was flat and life emerged spontaneously from inanimate matter. Should we completely disregard everything these early teachings taught?

Now, let's see, Clement learned about the phoenix at the feet of apostles or in his travels to Egypt, maybe to get an obelisk for Rome, maybe to study paganism. Which do you think?

Io can only call this stubborness and nothing more. Why don't you read the entire writing before making poor accustions of someone's orthodoxy. As I said Clement learned Christianity from the Apostles themselves. And I will admit that he didn't learn science and zoology from them.

 

[Erose]

To summarize to this point in the thread:

There are two points going on here.

1) The oldest canon of scripture was from (most likely) Ezra to Gamaliel to Paul. Then explicitely provided by Josephus c100. This was confirmed by Melito (less Esther) c175. Origen comments (as do others) about what was scripture and what was also read, but not considered scripture. And then the original canon of scripture that most likely only Jesus and the apostles used and handed down per Paul was reconfirmed by Jerome.

2) The reason for this was provided. From Malachi to John the baptist's conception, there were no "genuine prophets", no successive lineage of prophets.

(Folks have provided those deteros quoting other scripture as prophetical. In fact, one non-scriptural book witnesses to the same fact. There were no "genuine prophets" at the time it was written.)

These two points were tied with Jesus' comments about the blood of Abel to Zacharia.

Now, on the other side of this debate are the groups who c400ad decided that other books were scripture.

1) Those groups do not agree between themselves on what books to include. IOW, they picked and choose.

2) They provide no rhyme or reason for their contradictory canon decisions, except that they also believe they may teach contradiction to each other and support different traditions, yet think each other and theirself teaches truth!?

3) Their list of canons are obviously later to the earliest witness, which is to say the more ancient the teaching the more truthful.

Lastly, to what reason were the deteros declared scripture by certain groups? The deteros provide some support to contradictory doctrine (praying to the deceased, paying to get out of hell, works-based salvation, etc) that contradicts the NT to which they do subscribe.

Actually the true summary is that their seems to be an inability for Protestants to generate an answer to the original OP. This I truly find very interesting.

Besides you haven't answered the Psalm 21 question. Do you view Psalm 21 as a prophecy of Christ's passion or not?

 

[Montalban]

You almost accept Melito but do you accept Justin Martyr's comments that the Jews took books out of the Bible?

I personally went over Justin Martyr's testimony ages ago.

Other arguments that you and others bring up are just ignored

Ironically the phoenix argument's cropped up again!

 

[Ortho_Cat]

22 And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls' reward. 23 For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him. 24 But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.
Did Jesus experience death?

Is that a rhetorical question? If not, I don't see what it has to do with this quote...forgive me

 

[Montalban]

Is that a rhetorical question? If not, I don't see what it has to do with this quote...forgive me

And what happened to the evidence about Melito?

 

[Montalban]

To summarize to this point in the thread:

That's easy to do

Some few have suggested that it's right to reject certain books based on selective application of rules for no apparent reason other then they conform with the musing of a non-Christian - Josephus.

Into this is so-called evidence which is actually no more then a near endless repeating of particular statements, such as Melito, Origen and Josephus were in agreement. Which they weren't.

I'm only surprised that the 'change of Easter by the Pope', or the 'only two church positions existed' theories haven't also popped up more often.

 

[billybtennessee]

It was decided pretty early what should be used, and why, and has been since, for a long time, but and like everything else in christendom, it is debated at length. That defines the issue of Biblical 'canon'.

 

[Noxot]

Nice point. And good to see someone besides myself feels that way. I've gone round and round with some folks on this. OUSA merely sees it as Jesus quoting the Psalm. Contrarily, I believe David is prophetically quoting the Christ.

well justin martyr saw it as prophesy. and I will have to agree with him on that. in fact, a lot of the psalms are about Jesus. and justin martyr proves it.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Actually the true summary is that their seems to be an inability for Protestants to generate an answer to the original OP. This I truly find very interesting.

Besides you haven't answered the Psalm 21 question. Do you view Psalm 21 as a prophecy of Christ's passion or not?

22

 

[SummaScriptura]

It was decided pretty early what should be used, and why, and has been since, for a long time, but and like everything else in christendom, it is debated at length. That defines the issue of Biblical 'canon'.

Truism: At no time, present or past, has the entire Church agreed on what is to be included in the canonical list of the books of the Bible.

 

[Markus6]

So psalm 21 is not a prophecy of our Lord's passion?

There would certainly have been no reason to see it as a prophecy before its fulfillment. The genre of the Psalms is that of words from man to God (though certainly inspired words) and not words from God to man (what you see in the prophetic books). They are songs expressing the thoughts and emotions of the author to God. Sometimes those are praise and thanksgiving and sometimes those are pain and anguish.

The issue is not just confined to one Psalm though. Jesus fulfills Psalm 41: 9 during the last supper (which is problematic as the rest of the chapter is clearly not related to Jesus, as discussed here) and Jesus' anguish in the garden has parallels in other Psalms.

I don't think we need to see these Psalms as prophecy in a way that denies their origin in the mind of a Psalmist. The Psalms of anguish often don't end with resolution - they leave an unanswered question of the suffering of God's people. Jesus suffering, fulfilling these Psalms, answers that question. We have a deliverer who knows our sorrows and suffering (similar to Hebrews 4:15).

So the Psalms are both the real experiences and emotions of the author (the question of suffering) AND fulfilled by Jesus (as the answer to that suffering). They are certianly not prophecy in an identical way to the prophetic books.

 

[SummaScriptura]

There would certainly have been no reason to see it as a prophecy before its fulfillment. The genre of the Psalms is that of words from man to God (though certainly inspired words) and not words from God to man (what you see in the prophetic books). They are songs expressing the thoughts and emotions of the author to God. Sometimes those are praise and thanksgiving and sometimes those are pain and anguish.

The issue is not just confined to one Psalm though. Jesus fulfills Psalm 41: 9 during the last supper (which is problematic as the rest of the chapter is clearly not related to Jesus, as discussed here) and Jesus' anguish in the garden has parallels in other Psalms.

I don't think we need to see these Psalms as prophecy in a way that denies their origin in the mind of a Psalmist. The Psalms of anguish often don't end with resolution - they leave an unanswered question of the suffering of God's people. Jesus suffering, fulfilling these Psalms, answers that question. We have a deliverer who knows our sorrows and suffering (similar to Hebrews 4:15).

So the Psalms are both the real experiences and emotions of the author (the question of suffering) AND fulfilled by Jesus (as the answer to that suffering). They are certianly not prophecy in an identical way to the prophetic books.

I think you're trying to be too categorical.

"Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus." Acts 1:16

The Apostle points out that David indeed prophesies in the Psalms. The Scripture is clear about David; he is numbered among the prophets. I don't negate the prayerfulness of the Psalms. Rather, I negate they should not be seen as containing explicit prophesy.

 

[Standing Up]

You almost accept Melito but do you accept Justin Martyr's comments that the Jews took books out of the Bible?

Dialogue with Trypho chapters 71 & 72.

​

Not exactly. Justin alleges 4 'removals' of verses, not books. IIRC, all have been checked and found spurious notions of his. IOW, no surviving manuscripts have those verses.

You have to ask yourself whether you believe Apostle Paul or Justin? Rom. 3:2 the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Oh I forgot that in Clement's time science was at the same level as it is today. I didn't realize that one must be completely accurate in their science before they are allowed to make analogies about Christ or any other teaching of Scripture. I guess we should disregard those passages in the bible that refer to a dragon or basilisk in Scripture.

You alleged that Clement learned at the feet of apostles that the phoenix was real. Clement is not scripture for very plain reasons.

Maybe he believed it did, but does it matter? All the Christians believed the earth was flat and life emerged spontaneously from inanimate matter. Should we completely disregard everything these early teachings taught?

LDS again? Believe the Bible says God formed it out of nothing.