-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Protestant canon
- Thread starter Montalban
- Start date
- Status
Rick Otto
The Dude Abides
- Nov 19, 2002
- 34,112
- 7,406
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I'm looking for a copy of his church history thinking it might be in there.
Did you see this at the CCEL site?:
"Jerome and Eusebius were of opinion, that Josephus was the author of the books of the Maccabees; but it has never been supposed by any, that he was an inspired man; therefore, if this opinion be correct, these books are no more canonical, than the Antiquities, or Wars of the Jews, by the same author."
Upvote
0
Rick Otto
The Dude Abides
- Nov 19, 2002
- 34,112
- 7,406
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Check this out, guys:
"The author of the second book of the Maccabees professes to have reduced a work of Jason of Cyrene, consisting of five volumes, into one volume. Concerning which work, he says, “therefore to us that have taken upon us this painful labour of abridging, it was 77not easy, but a matter of sweat and watching.” Again, “leaving to the author the exact handling of every particular, and labouring to follow the rules of an abridgment—to stand upon every point, and go over things at large, and to be curious in particulars, belongeth to the first author of the story; but to use brevity, and avoid much labouring of the work, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgment.” Is any thing more needed to prove that this writer did not profess to be inspired? If there was any inspiration in the case, it must be attributed to Jason of Cyrene, the original writer of the history;—but his work is long since lost, and we now possess only the abridgment which cost the writer so much labour and pains. Thus, I think it sufficiently appears, that the authors of these disputed books were not prophets; and that, as far as we can ascertain the circumstances in which they wrote, they did not lay claim to inspiration, but expressed themselves in such a way, as no man under the influence of inspiration ever did."CCEL
"The author of the second book of the Maccabees professes to have reduced a work of Jason of Cyrene, consisting of five volumes, into one volume. Concerning which work, he says, “therefore to us that have taken upon us this painful labour of abridging, it was 77not easy, but a matter of sweat and watching.” Again, “leaving to the author the exact handling of every particular, and labouring to follow the rules of an abridgment—to stand upon every point, and go over things at large, and to be curious in particulars, belongeth to the first author of the story; but to use brevity, and avoid much labouring of the work, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgment.” Is any thing more needed to prove that this writer did not profess to be inspired? If there was any inspiration in the case, it must be attributed to Jason of Cyrene, the original writer of the history;—but his work is long since lost, and we now possess only the abridgment which cost the writer so much labour and pains. Thus, I think it sufficiently appears, that the authors of these disputed books were not prophets; and that, as far as we can ascertain the circumstances in which they wrote, they did not lay claim to inspiration, but expressed themselves in such a way, as no man under the influence of inspiration ever did."CCEL
Upvote
0
SummaScriptura
Forever Newbie
- May 30, 2007
- 6,986
- 1,051
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
"And if this opinion be incorrect, it goes a long way toward explaining those men's misled and negative attitudes toward those books."
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
That's what I thought; it isn't a prophecy. Even Ortho showed the definition from Deut, which we agreed on. But it seems they keep telling me it is a prophecy?!
So, fabulous, it is not a prophesy. Shutting 'er down, Luke.
Upvote
0
That's not the quote he's asking about! This is another non-sequitur.
StandingUp asks everyone where a quote might come from. You offer a number of guesses, then show a totally different quote.
Upvote
0
That can happen if one interprets Christianity through Judaism or Islam
It's a dangerous means of trying to discern the truth.
Upvote
0
One can see the theory falling apart when someone freely admits its not a 'prophetic' book and another says that this means it contains no prophecy.
It's a theory that just doesn't fly
Upvote
0
In summary it seems that the novel rejection of certain books is based on
a) claims certain ECFs agree on the canon, based on evidence cited that actually disagrees with this.
and
b) claiming that only books in the 'prophetic' section contain prophecy - and that if someone freely admits certain books aren't in that section then it's an admission that they don't contain prophecy.
and
c) reworking the prophecy in Wisdom to say that it claims Jesus wouldn't die, and ignoring the similar passages (to Wisdom) found in Psalms.
a) claims certain ECFs agree on the canon, based on evidence cited that actually disagrees with this.
and
b) claiming that only books in the 'prophetic' section contain prophecy - and that if someone freely admits certain books aren't in that section then it's an admission that they don't contain prophecy.
and
c) reworking the prophecy in Wisdom to say that it claims Jesus wouldn't die, and ignoring the similar passages (to Wisdom) found in Psalms.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
SummaScriptura
Forever Newbie
- May 30, 2007
- 6,986
- 1,051
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
These you have outlined along with the other rules of interpretation concernning canon and prophecy that have been spelled out in these first 92 pages presents quite a dizzying array of contradictory hermeneutics ---the mind boggles. It would be quite stupendous to behold the complete catalog of rules of interpretation as they touch on genre, the nature of prophecy and canonicity. The problem is, as far as I can tell, many of these hermeneutics did not exist prior to this thread. I am confident even Martin Luther would blush.
Upvote
0
It comes from, I think, having a proposition and then working back to find evidence.
I was amazed at the use of Justin Martyr as a witness totally out of context.
But this paled compared to the near endless repeating that Melito, Origen and Josephus were in agreement and they weren't.
Upvote
0
ah, but if only Martin Luther had ccel.org...
And Martin Luther wasn't even going to include Hebrews!
Upvote
0
That's right. He started off with the 'faith alone' idea and then set about to have only those parts of the Bible that agreed with his novel idea
Upvote
0
A
Anoetos
Guest
This is not completely fair.
Luther included James, Hebrews, and in fact the whole canon of the Vulgate in his translation of the bible.
His opinions about certain books as a doctor of sacred scripture notwithstanding.
Luther included James, Hebrews, and in fact the whole canon of the Vulgate in his translation of the bible.
His opinions about certain books as a doctor of sacred scripture notwithstanding.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
