Other Books?

[M-Paul]

Dad,

The games go on. If you say quoting the LXX in the NT establishes canon, then you have just made the canon immense, as both the NT and OT reference a large number of secular works. This has already been pointed out, but it is ignored again and again. Further, it is very difficult to establish what Greek quotes from the NT are the LXX, and which are from other sources.

Further, the translators of the LXX were not inspired prophets according to Scriptural principles. The LXX even notes prophecy had ceased when it was written. These point have been made again and again, along with others on the problems with this position. But the tactic is to create an appearance of a response by posting and posting and posting, making out like answers have been made.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis,

Your answers are all entirely disingenuous. My responses have answered the points you raised --

Respectfully, which point did you actually answer? Based upon your replies, you merely repeated your original incorrect statements without considering that the data on hand makes your answers fallacious.

Let's look at my concerns again. I will summarize my understanding of your attempted "response" (without discussing the incessant whining about Catholicism, etc...). I am certain you will again complain about my responses, but I think others can think for themselves and will see through your smoke screens...

1.The Writings were not canonized before Josephus wrote. Jesus did not identify any "Writing. We don't know what consisted of the Writings, and your argument is purely anachronistic.

This remains unanswered. Jesus never mentions "The Writings" as a specific class or section of canonized Writings. He mentions "the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms" in Luke's Gospel, and that is about as close as we get. This statement does not make mention of an entire closed canon. Even the words of Josephus cannot unequivocally be used as a canon statement in the religious realm, since in context, he is speaking about history.

2. I have provided supporting evidence of a multitude of different Jews who had their own extensive "canons", all differing in some way. This questions the so-called "set canon" idea.

Judaism was NOT monolithic, something you STILL ignore. Thus, we have a number of "canons", which includes a variety of writings that are considered inspired. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide ample evidence of this. So does the existence of the LXX in Palestine.

3. Not a single peep out of you regarding how we know the Gospels are Scriptures. THE PINNACLE of Christian writing, and you cannot prove it in any manner that it is from God (without a Church to witness to it)

Your answer here is entirely circular, so it is not worthy of even repeating here...

4. Jewish sources that you rely on utterly reject the Christian writings. You don't even recognize that this damages your position and makes it untenable.

No comment here from you. You still do not recognize that your argument tosses out the NT.

5. Christians who did not have an axe to grind with future Protestants select works that they thought came from an inspired source, the LXX. They used it and cite "apocrypha" just as if they were Isaiah or Jeremiah. They cite it because they were readily available IN PALESTINE and most were written in Greek AND Hebrew at some point.

Not addressed. I have provided citations, you have ignored it entirely.

Thus, I think it becomes clear who has resorted to name calling and has still not provided an ample answer to ANY of my concerns. You cannot even answer ONE of them, much less five. If you think you can, then let's discuss just one. Paul, I think it might do you well to put down the Protesatnt apologetics books and actually read more scholarly works on the Canon. You have much to learn from them.


Regards

 

[dadof10]

Dad,

The games go on. If you say quoting the LXX in the NT establishes canon, then you have just made the canon immense, as both the NT and OT reference a large number of secular works. This has already been pointed out, but it is ignored again and again. Further, it is very difficult to establish what Greek quotes from the NT are the LXX, and which are from other sources.

I'm simply following your own logic.

"Thus, lexicographically, Christ's reference to OT writings are those of the Hebrew Bible even as it now exists. Thus, Jesus Christ himself established the canon of the OT."

Does this mean that Jesus references the "OT writings [that] are those of the Hebrew Bible even as it now exists ", therefore He "established the canon of the OT" and this established canon is the Hebrew Bible "as it now exists"?

if Jesus use of the "Hebrew Bible even as it now exists" proves that Jesus "established the canon of the OT", then Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's, Paul's, etc. use of the SEPTUAGINT would establish the Septuagint as "the canon of the OT", correct? How am I not following your logic?

Further, the translators of the LXX were not inspired prophets according to Scriptural principles.

Huh? Neither are ANY Biblical translators, including the translators of the KJV, NIV or the HEBREW BIBLE you claim Jesus "established". If it were necessary for the TRANSLATORS to be "inspired prophets", we wouldn't have ANY Scripture at all.

The LXX even notes prophecy had ceased when it was written.

In what context? Can you point me to what you are referencing?

These point have been made again and again, along with others on the problems with this position. But the tactic is to create an appearance of a response by posting and posting and posting, making out like answers have been made.

The only "tactic" I'm employing is an attempt to get answers. Lighten up. On that note, could I please have your input on this, which I'll repost here? Thanks.

Thus, no book was getting into the canon without Sanhedren approval. After the destruction of the temple, the Sanhedrin was moved to Jamnia, although then, it was of diminished authority -- the temple was gone, and Romans ruled the state entirely. The Jamnia decision did not establish the canon in 90 A.D., but it decided what was already established previously as canon should remain as the official books of the Bible. This decision has never changed.

Who cares? The setting of the canon by the Jews obviously happened after 2 Peter was written. 2 Peter was written AFTER PENTECOST, so Jesus had already established His Church, who He GAVE AUTHORITY to "loose and bind". Whatever the "Jews" did alongside the infant Church is irrelevant to Christianity. THEY DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SET THE CANON.

 

[M-Paul]

Francis,

The bulk of my participation in this thread has been on the issue of the NT establishing the canon of the OT through the words of Jesus Christ. I noted the importance of a dictionary definition for his references to the OT, which in essence constitutes a list of the books. In my last post with support for this position and what the definition was, you responded that Christ does not establish the canon as he does not list the books. This reduces the discussion to being totally irrational. It ignores the train of thought thoroughly and completely, to just assert the Catholic position – while ignoring that the method of doing so distorts and confuses completely the line of reasoning in the thread.

But isn't that the main game going on – create confusion over what is being said, while asserting positively what the Catholics say is true. (And in the response by you I noted above, you complement me for noting the Sanhedrin was mainly Sadducees-- giving yourself credit for being proved right on something. But I never made that admission – I only noted they were included, and I had never commented on the Sadducees as having any significance to my position or in any manner. So part of the game of creating confusion is to create more ways to degrade me, to continue pretending my position is something it is not, to have a way of asserting your position outside of the true context.of the thread).

Francis, I answered you again and again, on why it must be held there is a set canon. But you will only say I did not. I've answered how the Gospels are included, how Christian writings are set in the canon after Christ was rejected by the Jews, how some Christians used a non-Scriptural basis to rely on the Apocrapha, why an official Judaism establishes the dictionary definition of the canon. You continue to make posts just as if I never did – I mean it's like you are posting alone in some kind of fantasy world. Even the article I wrote answers these questions.

I think, maybe, it is too hard for you to accept what the words in my posts and in the article mean, so you just assign some other meaning to them, and pretend I haven't answered you or set out a viable position. So now, I could start referencing the posts I made that answered these questions, or the article, but if you were not capable of having the desire to understand what my posts meant before in the thread or the article, what will we accomplish by my continuing to repeat myself.... unless, of course, your true objective is just to create confusion as a context for repeating what you believe is the truth, and giving you further opportunity to throw out insults and degrading comments about me personally for my having a non-Catholic position.

Francis, we have reached the point where we are not discussing the true issues. That is not possible, for you will only play games. I could go on pointing out more examples of your stunts and tricks. However, it is not mature conversation, which you have made plain is no longer your true objective.

 

[M-Paul]

Dad,

You just are not reading the thread. Jesus upholds the OT as the inspired writings of God, or as canon. The question is what books was he referring to. This is established by lexicography, or what is the dictionary definition. The Jamnia decision indicates clearly what books these were. However, there are other factors as well which can be considered relevant, such as no official representation of Judaism ever using a canon other than that indicated by Jamnia, or no Hebrew texts of other books being preserved and used in the future for Jewish communities (and finding some with the DSS that are about 2,000 years old is not preserving them. It only indicates that they at one time existed), or the writings of Josephus indicating a the same canon, (which some scholars dispute on the basis of ignoring the idiom of his time), or the historical basis of considering the LXX as inspired not being biblical but essentially mythological, or their internal content indicating that prophetic inspiration had ceased, etc.

PS -- I notice now your comment on translators. Translations are not canon -- except to Catholics. That is because only a prophet is inspired, which must be verified by prophetic prediction and miracles. Translators do not have the authority to be a spokesman of God, but a prophet can translate, and apostles may have in some the the NT quotations of the OT. Translation are representations of Scripture. The use of Greek quotations in the NT verifies it is proper to translate, but it does create the principle that translations are the same as the originals.

 

[dadof10]

Dad,

You just are not reading the thread. Jesus upholds the OT as the inspired writings of God, or as canon.

When? Jesus saying "it is written" does not establish the need, or even the desire for a formalized canon. You are reaching.

The question is what books was he referring to. This is established by lexicography, or what is the dictionary definition.

Walk me through this, M-Paul. How does the use of lexicography get us to Jesus verifying the Hebrew canon?

The Jamnia decision indicates clearly what books these were. However, there are other factors as well which can be considered relevant, such as no official representation of Judaism ever using a canon other than that indicated by Jamnia,

Again, WHO CARES? Why does the "Jamnia decision" or any other decision made by JEWS, rank so highly with you? Jesus established a Church and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it to "all truth". Why are you giving such credence to the Jews establishment of a closed canon which OMITS ALL OF THE NT?

or no Hebrew texts of other books being preserved and used in the future for Jewish communities (and finding some with the DSS that are about 2,000 years old is not preserving them. It only indicates that they at one time existed),

Again, who cares what the "Jewish communities" used when we have a Christian Church existing ALONGSIDE Judaism? Don't you think it's more relevant to Christianity to research what the CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES used?

or the writings of Josephus indicating a the same canon, (which some scholars dispute on the basis of ignoring the idiom of his time), or the historical basis of considering the LXX as inspired not being biblical but essentially mythological, or their internal content indicating that prophetic inspiration had ceased, etc.

I asked before, what "internal content indicating that prophetic inspiration had ceased"? Could you show me where this is written?

PS -- I notice now your comment on translators. Translations are not canon -- except to Catholics.

What is this little jab supposed to mean? At least try to make sense when you are insulting another group of Christians.

That is because only a prophet is inspired, which must be verified by prophetic prediction and miracles.

You're the one complaining that "the translators of the LXX were not inspired prophets according to Scriptural principles", thereby assuming the translators of the Hebrew texts were.

Translators do not have the authority to be a spokesman of God, but a prophet can translate, and apostles may have in some the the NT quotations of the OT.

Really? Were they translating from the Hebrew text or the LXX? If the latter, it kinda blows your complaint above, doesn't it?

Translation are representations of Scripture.

The use of Greek quotations in the NT verifies it is proper to translate, but it does create the principle that translations are the same as the originals.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis,

The bulk of my participation in this thread has been on the issue of the NT establishing the canon of the OT through the words of Jesus Christ.

I will grant you that Jesus verifies the "Law and the Prophets" as a reference to the PHARISEES' idea of what was holy. He also verifies that the Psalms are holy and Scriptures. However, nowhere does He speak of writings beyond this. In addition, Jesus is speaking from the Pharisee's view, not all of Judaism's view. How many times must I say this and how many times will you ignore it???

Unfortunately for your point of view, the contents of the Kéthubim, or Hagiographa, remain unknown in 30 CE. Jesus does not list it, and even writers 100 years later cannot totally agree on it - and that is from the PHARISEE'S point of view. The writings of the Essenes, the Jewish Gnostics, the Hellenist Jews all had different ideas of what these "additional writings" would be... So on two counts, the "bulk of your participation" is based upon inaccurate assumptions of ancient Judaism prior to the fall of Jerusalem. Isn't that clear? Protestant READERS, help me out here, explain to Paul.

Judaism of 30 CE was not just "Pharisees". I have made it perfectly clear that the Sanhedrin had no counciliar power to dictate theological or canonical decisions. This is obvious from a reading of the Gospels and Acts. Any Protestant bible readers out there, please verify this...

I noted the importance of a dictionary definition for his references to the OT, which in essence constitutes a list of the books. In my last post with support for this position and what the definition was, you responded that Christ does not establish the canon as he does not list the books. This reduces the discussion to being totally irrational.

Not at all. Christ's idea of "Writings" may include Sirach, Wisdom, Enoch, and Jubilees, for all you know. What is irrational is your inability to realize that this is a KEY to the question of the contents of the Canon!!! What is the matter with you, I have said this over and over again?

It ignores the train of thought thoroughly and completely, to just assert the Catholic position – while ignoring that the method of doing so distorts and confuses completely the line of reasoning in the thread.

More whining. I have yet to mention the 'Catholic position", just another of your smoke screens.. Your "position" is easily derailed with common sense and a bit of knowledge about ancient Judaism.

I would like to make something clear to the readers. When I speak in disdain of "Protestant apologists", it is because of my experience with them, which transcends this forum. Note carefully how they act when they are proven wrong... I am not refering to Protestants in general, but those self-proclaimed experts who cannot and will not realize that they are inaccurate. They must hold to irrational positions. Thus, when they are taken to task, they will do whatever it takes to erect a mighty smoke screen to hide their pititful argument from scrutiny.

I ask my separated brothers to notice the way this discussion has gone with Paul... Have I made this into a Protestant v Catholic discussion? No, that's Paul trying to poison the well. He HOPES that by making this a Catholic V Protestant argument, the Protestant readers will automaticaally gravitate towards the Prot. position, even if it makes no sense.

Thus, his appeal to unity in error. An appeal to the blind leading the blind.

Have I not presented reasoning behind why I disagree with Paul? Has Paul answered my concerns? That is for the reader to decide, but I think it is clear...

Francis, I answered you again and again, on why it must be held there is a set canon.

WHERE??? You have not overcome my concerns, so merely STATING something is meaningless, if you don't address the concerns. You have answered by emiting smoke screens and not answering the questions, and then crying that Catholics do this and that..., providing a mighty red herring. I have posted five main points. Please take one of them and tell me how you answer it... Try to stick to the subject, rather than taking us for another of your wild rants, please. Please address the critique I make of your fallacious and historically inaccurate article.

If you can, provide me with an answer to one question. Begin with the first one.

If you cannot, then you should just retire from this discussion..

 

[JamesG]

.
Francisdesales

““I don't know what "Ruckmanism" is, but as you describe it, I would disagree, he appears to accept that the LXX was written and considered inspired before the NT was written. Maybe you could point out where he implies this?â€â€

Perhaps I misunderstood what he has said. If so, my apologies. If not, it will come out in a more overt form eventually.

““I am not sure if that is a compliment or not, but so far, I have not even brought the "heavy hammer of Catholic apologetics" to bear on this subject.â€â€

I merely pointed out that you are generalizing all Protestants together. That is not a logical way to proceed. Protestants are diverse by nature and each individual must be dealt with on an individual basis. You may be dealing with this person individually, but you made a blanket statement that made it appear that Protestant diversity does not exist. Such a mistake will only result in some very bad misinterpretations and inappropriate responses.

A fact is not complimentary. It is merely a fact. You have ability and dignity. Neither should be wasted.

““While you may think I am generalizing, which may be true, I have yet to hear a reasonable response to even that one "case in point" I speak of.â€â€

I doubt that you will find many Protestants who have researched the history of the Biblical canon to the extent that you have. Especially on a forum such as this. How much can you expect from them? They see no reason to do such research since they already have an alternative understanding of the canon than that it was historically developed and determined to be valid by humans. They believe that God did it and that is all that they need to know. And any arguments that they might present for that perspective appear reasonable to them, no matter how unreasonable their arguments appear to you.

Protestants believe in the Bible alone and that it comes from God alone. How do you think that you are going to convince a Protestant any different no matter how much ammunition you think that you have to the contrary? Better Catholic apologists than you, no offense intended, have been arguing against the Protestant perspective for half a millennium with no result whatsoever. And vice versa. Catholics and Protestants still believe what they believe. Discussion has been and continues to be futile. Your research applies to you and anyone who asks you a reason for the faith that is within you. Those who argue against you are not those who have asked. Some people argue simply to argue. The rest ignore you. There are a lot of people on this forum. What percentage has responded to you? The most that you can accomplish is to present a case for the validity of the authority of the Catholic Church. On a Protestant forum? I should include laughter here as is your habit simply because that is humorous to me. But that is just a personal emotion. Disrespect without any more reason than emotion is illogical.

The Protestant perspective is as much a bias as is the Catholic perspective. Without understanding that simple fact, one just spins their wheels. And that is a waste of time and energy. People are converting in both directions all the time, albeit very few considering percentages, and they always continue to be just as biased as before, only in a different direction. That too should be understood.

““Perhaps someday, we can revisit that. I agree with much of what you say, but I have a caveat for this inner voice, and that it must also conform to the community's voice that they hear, as well. Otherwise, how do we know if we are hearing the inner voice of God? I think that the Church validates our inner voice, for the greater part. Schism is the natural result from listening only to that "voice".â€â€

It is not my intention to stop conversing altogether. And at least you are still responding. Though I fail to understand why. Since you think that I am not a believer, you must think that I am still an Atheist. Perhaps we can converse on that level. I will ask questions, and I may point out where I think you are not responding according to reason as I understand it. But I won’t discuss. That is illogical under the circumstances. I have already told you some of the reasons why I believe that Atheism is more logical than your chosen religion from the perspective of my human reasoning alone. But as a Catholic you can’t agree with any of that either. Nor do I wish you to. Revisit? I don’t think so.

I don’t remember that you agreed with anything that I had to say, except, of course, where it agreed with your Catholicism. You are much more dogmatically inclined than you realize. And dogmatism is not conducive to open minded reasoning. I perceive you left that long ago, probably when you decided that the Roman Catholic Church is the true authority for knowing reality. And I continue to be interested in knowing from whence you came to that conclusion and how you came to that conclusion.

The reason that I have no use for this community that you speak of is because it has been divided since prior to 325AD, and it understands everything by human interpretation. Both shows the humanness of the community. And that you think that it is men who make the determinations makes it all the more human. A humanness that belies its claim to be related in any way to anything supernatural. That is my caveat. And that doesn’t even count the fact that it does NOT see in the Bible what is plain to me. That alone should be enough to make me an Atheist. If I don’t believe what Christians believe, then what else am I from the perspective of the Christians of Christianity? I would rather go it alone as either a follower of the inner witness or as an Atheist, than pretend to believe in something that I don’t. No matter how illogical others consider that attitude to be.

As I said, there is only one human that I trust implicitly, and that one human is me. If something isn’t true for me, then why should I believe that it is true just because someone else believes it to be true? Especially, if they then claim that their truth is objective truth? Objective truth is only truth seen from one’s own perspective and believed dogmatically. And believing something dogmatically does not leave any room for human reasoning on the part of anyone except the one who is declaring the objective truth. The reasoning presented by a dogmatic person is biased reasoning. If pre-modern scientists thought in that way, as do modern scientists, so called modern science would not exist. And sorry to say, tomorrow’s science is not going to be modern in a developmental sense either. Technology may continue to develop as it has in the last sixty years, but science itself will not, as it has not in the last sixty years. And when humanity discovers that it has no real money, there will be no advancement, either scientifically or technologically. Even the Creationists who speak of these pre-modern scientists constantly, in their desire to show how “Christian†they are, have no clue as to what they actually accomplished or how they did it.

““Whether Jews or Christians, it always relies on men making the determination of what is from God, based upon the prophetic and inspired word of the author AND AND AND the recognition of the audience that "yes, this is from God"...â€â€

Since it is men making the determination, why should anyone believe that a Deity is involved at all? Why should anyone believe that Christianity is anything more than a religion the content of which is determined by men alone? Why should anyone believe that Christianity is anything more special than Islam or Buddhism? The perspective that you present is only for those who agree with you on the quote above. And neither Atheists nor Protestants find that statement a compelling reason to believe in the supernatural. It is evidence that religion is in fact no different than opium to those who are the believing audience.

““Like I said, one takes the primary source that includes the Scripture citings. The Early Church Fathers has an index that you can find much of this at.â€â€

And like I said, I don’t have the time to do that kind of research. And I don’t have the resources that you speak of. I am not trying to be persnickety or unreasonable when I say that since you made the claim that these later writers quoted the Deuterocanonicals, you must back it up with the real quotes. To just claim that these writers quote the Deuterocanonicals is merely hearsay and your own opinion. However, it is of no matter. The references to the Bible that you gave me is quite sufficient. I have that resource.

JamesG

 

[M-Paul]

Francis, you are responding from lulu land!!! I noted I had constantly posted on defining a list of what are the writings Christ referenced, to explain the comment of one of my prior posts for setting out what that list is, and to explain how your ignoring what I said to merely say we do not know what the list is constitutes being irrational -- and you say it is rational because we do not know what the list is. LULU LAND! LULU LAND! LULU LAND! This response is just as irrational. You are here just to play games. You refuse legitimate and honest discussion.

Now for everyone else.

Let's take a minute to compare what alternative there is to establish the canon, if we do not use the Protestant position of determination by Biblical principles. I have noted that if Christ upheld books as canon, then they have to be accepted as canon, for Christ is divine authority: (and Christ's reference to the “law and the prophets†was idiom of his time for the Bible, as ancients used a different manner of expression). I have noted in my article that Peter upholding the writings of Paul as canon is evidence of canon, for Peter has the authority of an apostle, the equivalent of a prophet. Thus, a spokesman for God can establish canon. But I noted in my article, according to Scripture a spokesman for God must be verified, as determined by his ability to perform miracles and predict the future, while having a message consistent with prior prophets – and he must be a Jew, as Romans notes at 3:2. This is the test set out by God in Scripture on who has the authority to speak for him, and Scripture notes anyone speaking presumptively should die, and we do not have to listen to anyone who is not verified. (And no – I never based this provision on death on Deuteronomy 4:2 or Revelation 22:18, 19, but that was attempted to be forced on me as a straw man, but I based the provision on Deuteronomy 18:20-22).

Who has the Scriptural authority of a prophet, after the last apostle died? The RCC??? Is the Pope Jewish? Does he perform miracles and predict the future? No. All we have now for the message of God's spokesmen is the Bible. And we must determine what the Bible is. We do that using biblical principles on what is Scripture compared to the best available evidence that exists in the world on the writings of the Word of God. Is canon established because the RCC gets to say what it is – that is presumption only, as if we could presume the RCC could as well have added the Pope's recipe for chicken soup. Does the RCC have a criteria to establish the canon? Then, is that based on principles from Scripture? If so, Scripture itself is the ultimate authority, not the church. If the RCC decision is not based on the principles of Scripture for determining Scripture, then either they have adopted a basis outside of Scripture, which does not have the authority of Scripture, or they have delegated authority to themselves that goes beyond how authority is determined by Scripture. In fact, only the Protestant position on canon is based on Scripture, and the Catholic position on canon violates the principles of Scripture, such as holding that a translator has the inspiration of a prophet, or that a community's reliance on writings as inspired is proper evidence, even when that reliance was based on mythology.

 

[M-Paul]

Dad, you are not reading the thread. The answers to your questions have been answered repeatedly. I think you cannot understand my meaning as you do not want to. I have set it out again and again.

 

[francisdesales]

““I am not sure if that is a compliment or not, but so far, I have not even brought the "heavy hammer of Catholic apologetics" to bear on this subject.â€â€

I merely pointed out that you are generalizing all Protestants together. That is not a logical way to proceed. Protestants are diverse by nature and each individual must be dealt with on an individual basis. You may be dealing with this person individually, but you made a blanket statement that made it appear that Protestant diversity does not exist. Such a mistake will only result in some very bad misinterpretations and inappropriate responses.

Thank you for pointing this out. However, so far my argument has been purely on an historical level that is distant from Catholic particulars. I have not brought up anything on the authority of the Church and her power to bind and loosen - until now, that is... :nag We can put those big guns away for now and just focus on the issues without making this a Protestant v Catholic issue.

A fact is not complimentary. It is merely a fact. You have ability and dignity. Neither should be wasted.

I thought you were providing an opinion.

I doubt that you will find many Protestants who have researched the history of the Biblical canon to the extent that you have. Especially on a forum such as this. How much can you expect from them? They see no reason to do such research since they already have an alternative understanding of the canon than that it was historically developed and determined to be valid by humans. They believe that God did it and that is all that they need to know. And any arguments that they might present for that perspective appear reasonable to them, no matter how unreasonable their arguments appear to you.

Probably so. There is nothing wrong with understanding the historical aspects of how the Canon was formed, rather than relying on circular arguments and irrational lines of thinking. My contention was against Paul's article, which I skimmed and found glaring problems. I brought them up, and others reading this thread find it interesting. Perhaps because I am not attacking Protestantism per sec, and in today's day and age, it is not "heretical" for a Protestant to think that maybe Luther et al got it wrong and that some of those writings were there for a reason and this realization does not force one to convert to Catholicism.

Protestants believe in the Bible alone and that it comes from God alone. How do you think that you are going to convince a Protestant any different no matter how much ammunition you think that you have to the contrary?

The convincing is not away from sola scriptura, in this thread, but on the contents of what IS "sola". For example, if a Protestant was informed that 2 Macc is part of their heritage and BELONGS in the Holy Scriptures, removed by some naughty and misinformed men, then they might be more amendable to the argument of "purgatory", since the idea is most strongly argued for in 2 Macc. Not that it is ONLY found there, but one is hard-pressed to deny an existence of such a "place" after death.

Better Catholic apologists than you, no offense intended, have been arguing against the Protestant perspective for half a millennium with no result whatsoever. And vice versa.

what is your point, James? That because Thomas Aquinas was a better teacher than I, I am wasting my time in the 21st century on this forum???

Catholics and Protestants still believe what they believe. Discussion has been and continues to be futile.

Now, you are generalizing. You think that because Catholics IN GENERAL disagree with Protestants IN GENERAL on particular topics, that NO Protestants will ever come closer in agreement on any subject. That is poor thinking and totally disregards the process the Church has made on reconciling through the ecumenical movement. Catholics and Lutherans, for example, have come to a greater agreement on faith and works in the salvation formula.

And not only at that level, James, but at the personal level. I get PM from people who are not Catholic and appreciate my input. They tell me I am helping them to solidify their own understandings of either a common dogma, like Trinity, or one we disagree on, the Eucharist. Misunderstandings are a large part of our separation, James, and my goal here is to clear this away as much as possible. If people can appreciate that Catholics are Christian, their attitude outside of this forum changes. Thus, this is NOT futile!!! I am doing the work of Jesus in helping to bring Christians together or better understand their faith. That is not futile, James.

Your research applies to you and anyone who asks you a reason for the faith that is within you. Those who argue against you are not those who have asked. Some people argue simply to argue. The rest ignore you. There are a lot of people on this forum. What percentage has responded to you?

This logic is not very good logic, either. Unless everyone responds to me, NO ONE is interested. James, have you read the posts of this thread? There are at least THREE Protestants, besides yourself, who say they are interested and find the conversation interesting. I am not trying to convert them, I am providing information to better understand our common history. It is not necessary that my posts go out to the entire Protestant world. In addition, there are a number of lurkers who do not respond, but are indeed reading these posts. It is hard to figure that number, but it is safe to say that the number is more than those who DO respond.

The Protestant perspective is as much a bias as is the Catholic perspective.

Not on this subject, it's not... The majority of my comments do not bring this up.

It is not my intention to stop conversing altogether. And at least you are still responding. Though I fail to understand why. Since you think that I am not a believer, you must think that I am still an Atheist.

Why are you making such silly comments? By pointing out the biblical notion of authority does not make you an atheist, what a tremendous leap of illogic...

But as a Catholic you can’t agree with any of that either. Nor do I wish you to. Revisit? I don’t think so.

More generalizations. You gave up too soon without explaining your point from the Bible's perspective. Basically, you asked me to condone your way of thinking with precious little Bible support, just your personal philosophy. And because I disagree with you IN PART, I am branded a "Catholic apologist" who slavishly follows Catholic thinking and would never think of you even as another Christian, oh, no, just an atheist... Thus, with you, it is either all or nothing. It's no wonder, since you think that any sort of ecumenical activity is a waste of time...

I don’t remember that you agreed with anything that I had to say, except, of course, where it agreed with your Catholicism.

And I can make the same argument for you, James. You claim to respect other people's thoughts and ideas, but do you really? When they disagree with yours, a person is branded a "person of religion" who has little hope of finding Christ, as opposed to your "enlightened status" as a "true thinker". You need to consistently apply your criticisms to yourself.

You are much more dogmatically inclined than you realize.

Perhaps, but ironically, so are you. Look how I am treated by you because I do not subscribe to your theories... I am not even worthy of prayers...

And dogmatism is not conducive to open minded reasoning.

You are confusing "open minded reasoning" to your theological stance, James. Thus, to YOU, James point of view = open minded reasoning. Those who do not agree with James are hearby dubbed "close minded" and are relegated to the dustbin of "religion", oh, I can barely type that word!

Yes, it is sarcasm. When I see such overt hypocrisy, that's usually my reaction, forgive me. But maybe the sarcasm will help you to see that religious hypocrisy is a very difficult thing to self-accuse.

I perceive you left that long ago, probably when you decided that the Roman Catholic Church is the true authority for knowing reality.

What a self-serving statement... Do I need to further comment on it?

And I continue to be interested in knowing from whence you came to that conclusion and how you came to that conclusion.

Is there a point in me relating that to you now? It is unlikely to happen, now. So you can continue to tell me how I have left reason as I entered the world of dogmatism???

I hope you feel better about yourself, James.

The reason that I have no use for this community that you speak of is because it has been divided since prior to 325AD, and it understands everything by human interpretation.

As do you.

I don’t have the time to do that kind of research. And I don’t have the resources that you speak of. I am not trying to be persnickety or unreasonable when I say that since you made the claim that these later writers quoted the Deuterocanonicals, you must back it up with the real quotes. To just claim that these writers quote the Deuterocanonicals is merely hearsay and your own opinion.

I have provided some quotes as an example. You are being unreasonable if you think I am supposed to cite every single passage. I am not about to post thousands of words just for you, a person who thinks that such conversations are pointless and futile anyways. It's your responsibility to do the research and prove my assertions wrong, if you judge my intentions as "opinions".. If you can't or won't, that's you just being argumentative and persnickety.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, you are responding from lulu land!!! I noted I had constantly posted on defining a list of what are the writings Christ referenced, to explain the comment of one of my prior posts for setting out what that list is, and to explain how your ignoring what I said to merely say we do not know what the list is constitutes being irrational -- and you say it is rational because we do not know what the list is. LULU LAND! LULU LAND! LULU LAND! This response is just as irrational. You are here just to play games. You refuse legitimate and honest discussion.

Have you lost your mind? LULU LAND??? :help

where have you provided any evidence that Christ has "proven the OT" beyond the "Law, Prophets, and the Psalms"??? Where does Jesus make any reference to a then-current list of Writings? WHERE??? Perhaps His list includes Wisdom and Sirach. You do not know. This so-called list doesn't exist, since the Jews of 100 years later cannot seem to find it, either...!

I am trying to engage in honest discussion, really, I am. If you mentioned proof of Christ telling us what the "other writings" means, by all means, point me to them.

 

[JamesG]

.
Francisdesales

““And not only at that level, James, but at the personal level. I get PM from people who are not Catholic and appreciate my input. They tell me I am helping them to solidify their own understandings of either a common dogma, like Trinity, or one we disagree on, the Eucharist. Misunderstandings are a large part of our separation, James, and my goal here is to clear this away as much as possible. If people can appreciate that Catholics are Christian, their attitude outside of this forum changes. Thus, this is NOT futile!!! I am doing the work of Jesus in helping to bring Christians together or better understand their faith. That is not futile, James… There are at least THREE Protestants, besides yourself… Why are you making such silly comments?â€â€


OK good buddy. Sorry for interrupting. Do what you have to do.

JamesG

 

[M-Paul]

Francis,

I had noted early in the thread, that I have never known a Catholic who actually knows about the Protestant position on canon **even among those for whom it has been explained in detail.**

I think one of two things are going on –

1. You (and Dad also for that matter) cannot understand what is being said, because the consequences of understanding are too difficult for you – (however, that much actually resembles not being able to understand what the mind is not programmed on).

2. You are deliberately twisting everything I say, because of the significance of what I am representing and you have no other defense – and then, you degrade. For instance, it is not a matter of responding by saying, you want to reference another point of view, but because I do not advocate your point of view, I am ignorant, such as on my point of the Sanhedren being the final authority of Jewish religious affairs and representing control of the temple.

But really, why should I or how can I keep saying anything – no matter what I post, you are going to deny I ever said it, change it to mean something else, degrade me.

Still, I'm glad I had this conversation with you. I cannot tell you how many times I have prayed to God to let me know what he thinks about the RCC and what I should think about them. But I understand so many things now that I was not able to understand before with Catholics, (and I have had a number of experiences with them – including being a spiritual advisor to some who needed one due to a shortage of priests, and I even had a Catholic priest as my own advisor in school – basically because he knew where I grew up, and I knew he would understand my ways as others would not).

Never preview a post first -- that makes posting impossible.

 

[Oats]

This type of argument isn't good...

Galatians 5:25-26
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Titus 3:1-11
1 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, 2 to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. 3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people. 9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis,

I think one of two things are going on –

1. You (and Dad also for that matter) cannot understand what is being said, because the consequences of understanding are too difficult for you.

Nothing you have said is difficult to understand, despite the incredible errors and presumptions going on. My concern is "Where have you actually responded to the following comment?

Where have you provided any evidence that Christ has "proven the OT" beyond the "Law, Prophets, and the Psalms"??? Where does Jesus make any reference to a then-current list of Writings? WHERE??? Perhaps His list includes Wisdom and Sirach. You do not know. This so-called list doesn't exist, since the Jews of 100 years later cannot seem to find it, either.

It seems you live in a fantasy world, because you continue to ignore this call, and tell us all that you are responding to EVERYTHING! Where is this, then? Could you please direct me to that post?

2. You are deliberately twisting everything I say, because of the significance of what I am representing and you have no other defense – and then, you degrade.

Smoke and mirrors, and attempt to direct the attention off the fact that you cannot provide a valid answer to ANY of my concerns. Now, I would like a citation, please.

For instance, it is not a matter of responding by saying, you want to reference another point of view, but because I do not advocate your point of view, I am ignorant, such as on my point of the Sanhedren being the final authority of Jewish religious affairs and representing control of the temple.

It is not just "my opinion". It is readily available material on the internet. Would you like some more citations? Have you consulted with your treasured encyclopedia yet? The Saduccees were the keepers of the Temple, not the Pharisees. In addition, your effort to speak about the Sanhedrin's "authority" is a worthless argument, since Scriptures themselves do not relate such a situatino during the time of Christ. Only in your imagination do we have this going on.

But really, why should I or how can I keep saying anything – no matter what I post, you are going to deny I ever said it, change it to mean something else, degrade me.

I am not saying you never said anything about this argument, since I responded to it directly. It is an invalid argument because it is based upon false presumptions. It does not even take into account the Scriptures. WHERE is this "authority to make theological rules and canonical decisions" in the Bible? The existence of at LEAST TWO parties that disagee on the contents of canon makes your logic untenable. I have provided other reasons, but you never address them, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and scrolls that we have in Hebrew that INCLUDE some of the Apocrypha. The reason you ignore it is either - 1. you are ignorant of this information and prefer your dream world 2. You are just in denial.

But I understand so many things now that I was not able to understand before with Catholics, (and I have had a number of experiences with them – including being a spiritual advisor to some who needed one due to a shortage of priests, and I even had a Catholic priest as my own advisor in school – basically because he knew where I grew up, and I knew he would understand my ways as others would not).

Never preview a post first -- that makes posting impossible.

It is a shame that you have no intentions on editing your article. I initially thought you were open to re-wording some of that silliness. Oh well, I tried to help and I have given you constructive criticism... It's not like I just ignored what you said and just repeated the same old fallacies, like you have been.

 

[Oats]

Francis,

I think one of two things are going on –

1. You (and Dad also for that matter) cannot understand what is being said, because the consequences of understanding are too difficult for you.

Nothing you have said is difficult to understand, despite the incredible errors and presumptions going on. My concern is "Where have you actually responded to the following comment?

Where have you provided any evidence that Christ has "proven the OT" beyond the "Law, Prophets, and the Psalms"??? Where does Jesus make any reference to a then-current list of Writings? WHERE??? Perhaps His list includes Wisdom and Sirach. You do not know. This so-called list doesn't exist, since the Jews of 100 years later cannot seem to find it, either.

It seems you live in a fantasy world, because you continue to ignore this call, and tell us all that you are responding to EVERYTHING! Where is this, then? Could you please direct me to that post?

2. You are deliberately twisting everything I say, because of the significance of what I am representing and you have no other defense – and then, you degrade.

Smoke and mirrors, and attempt to direct the attention off the fact that you cannot provide a valid answer to ANY of my concerns. Now, I would like a citation, please.

For instance, it is not a matter of responding by saying, you want to reference another point of view, but because I do not advocate your point of view, I am ignorant, such as on my point of the Sanhedren being the final authority of Jewish religious affairs and representing control of the temple.

It is not just "my opinion". It is readily available material on the internet. Would you like some more citations? Have you consulted with your treasured encyclopedia yet? The Saduccees were the keepers of the Temple, not the Pharisees. In addition, your effort to speak about the Sanhedrin's "authority" is a worthless argument, since Scriptures themselves do not relate such a situatino during the time of Christ. Only in your imagination do we have this going on.

But really, why should I or how can I keep saying anything – no matter what I post, you are going to deny I ever said it, change it to mean something else, degrade me.

I am not saying you never said anything about this argument, since I responded to it directly. It is an invalid argument because it is based upon false presumptions. It does not even take into account the Scriptures. WHERE is this "authority to make theological rules and canonical decisions" in the Bible? The existence of at LEAST TWO parties that disagee on the contents of canon makes your logic untenable. I have provided other reasons, but you never address them, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and scrolls that we have in Hebrew that INCLUDE some of the Apocrypha. The reason you ignore it is either - 1. you are ignorant of this information and prefer your dream world 2. You are just in denial.

But I understand so many things now that I was not able to understand before with Catholics, (and I have had a number of experiences with them – including being a spiritual advisor to some who needed one due to a shortage of priests, and I even had a Catholic priest as my own advisor in school – basically because he knew where I grew up, and I knew he would understand my ways as others would not).

Never preview a post first -- that makes posting impossible.

It is a shame that you have no intentions on editing your article. I initially thought you were open to re-wording some of that silliness. Oh well, I tried to help and I have given you constructive criticism... It's not like I just ignored what you said and just repeated the same old fallacies, like you have been.

Why do you want to be convinced of his truth if you know he's lying....

Where have you provided any evidence that Christ has "proven the OT" beyond the "Law, Prophets, and the Psalms"??? Where does Jesus make any reference to a then-current list of Writings? WHERE??? Perhaps His list includes Wisdom and Sirach. You do not know. This so-called list doesn't exist, since the Jews of 100 years later cannot seem to find it, either.

 

[Oats]

Francis,

I think one of two things are going on –

1. You (and Dad also for that matter) cannot understand what is being said, because the consequences of understanding are too difficult for you.

Nothing you have said is difficult to understand, despite the incredible errors and presumptions going on. My concern is "Where have you actually responded to the following comment?

Where have you provided any evidence that Christ has "proven the OT" beyond the "Law, Prophets, and the Psalms"??? Where does Jesus make any reference to a then-current list of Writings? WHERE??? Perhaps His list includes Wisdom and Sirach. You do not know. This so-called list doesn't exist, since the Jews of 100 years later cannot seem to find it, either.

It seems you live in a fantasy world, because you continue to ignore this call, and tell us all that you are responding to EVERYTHING! Where is this, then? Could you please direct me to that post?

[quote="M-Paul":8olw6ocf]

2. You are deliberately twisting everything I say, because of the significance of what I am representing and you have no other defense – and then, you degrade.

Smoke and mirrors, and attempt to direct the attention off the fact that you cannot provide a valid answer to ANY of my concerns. Now, I would like a citation, please.

For instance, it is not a matter of responding by saying, you want to reference another point of view, but because I do not advocate your point of view, I am ignorant, such as on my point of the Sanhedren being the final authority of Jewish religious affairs and representing control of the temple.

It is not just "my opinion". It is readily available material on the internet. Would you like some more citations? Have you consulted with your treasured encyclopedia yet? The Saduccees were the keepers of the Temple, not the Pharisees. In addition, your effort to speak about the Sanhedrin's "authority" is a worthless argument, since Scriptures themselves do not relate such a situatino during the time of Christ. Only in your imagination do we have this going on.

But really, why should I or how can I keep saying anything – no matter what I post, you are going to deny I ever said it, change it to mean something else, degrade me.

I am not saying you never said anything about this argument, since I responded to it directly. It is an invalid argument because it is based upon false presumptions. It does not even take into account the Scriptures. WHERE is this "authority to make theological rules and canonical decisions" in the Bible? The existence of at LEAST TWO parties that disagee on the contents of canon makes your logic untenable. I have provided other reasons, but you never address them, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and scrolls that we have in Hebrew that INCLUDE some of the Apocrypha. The reason you ignore it is either - 1. you are ignorant of this information and prefer your dream world 2. You are just in denial.

But I understand so many things now that I was not able to understand before with Catholics, (and I have had a number of experiences with them – including being a spiritual advisor to some who needed one due to a shortage of priests, and I even had a Catholic priest as my own advisor in school – basically because he knew where I grew up, and I knew he would understand my ways as others would not).

Never preview a post first -- that makes posting impossible.

It is a shame that you have no intentions on editing your article. I initially thought you were open to re-wording some of that silliness. Oh well, I tried to help and I have given you constructive criticism... It's not like I just ignored what you said and just repeated the same old fallacies, like you have been.

Why do you want to be convinced of his truth if you know he's lying....

Where have you provided any evidence that Christ has "proven the OT" beyond the "Law, Prophets, and the Psalms"??? Where does Jesus make any reference to a then-current list of Writings? WHERE??? Perhaps His list includes Wisdom and Sirach. You do not know. This so-called list doesn't exist, since the Jews of 100 years later cannot seem to find it, either.

[/quote:8olw6ocf]


You ask for proof of something you think can't be proven...you shouldn't try to outwit him

 

[francisdesales]

Now for everyone else.

Let's take a minute to compare what alternative there is to establish the canon, if we do not use the Protestant position of determination by Biblical principles. I have noted that if Christ upheld books as canon, then they have to be accepted as canon, for Christ is divine authority:

Too bad He doesn't give us a list of books, nor does He even MENTION "The Writings"...

What is ironic is that your own article makes the following statement:

However, it is not even known what constitutes the original text of the LXX,

Unfortunately, the logic somehow got lost when speaking of the idea of a Pharisaical canon given to us by Jesus, since "it is not known what constitutes the contents of the Kéthubim in 30 AD".

Jesus never mentions the Kethubim.

(and Christ's reference to the “law and the prophets†was idiom of his time for the Bible, as ancients used a different manner of expression).

So what about the Kethubim?
Who verified it and what did it consist of?
If you say "the Jews did", then I suppose you should also consider they reject the NT...

I have noted in my article that Peter upholding the writings of Paul as canon is evidence of canon, for Peter has the authority of an apostle, the equivalent of a prophet.

The Gospels are not verified by another writing of Scriptures. As such, your "principles of determining the caonn" fall short.

Who has the Scriptural authority of a prophet, after the last apostle died? The RCC??? Is the Pope Jewish?

This is called attempting to "turn the tables" upon someone when they cannot answer questions that they think they know. Thus, they change the subject and redirect. The problem is that Paul's article has major issues and he doesn't want to confront them.

 

[Oats]

Now for everyone else.

Let's take a minute to compare what alternative there is to establish the canon, if we do not use the Protestant position of determination by Biblical principles. I have noted that if Christ upheld books as canon, then they have to be accepted as canon, for Christ is divine authority:

Too bad He doesn't give us a list of books, nor does He even MENTION "The Writings"...

What is ironic is that your own article makes the following statement:

However, it is not even known what constitutes the original text of the LXX,

Unfortunately, the logic somehow got lost when speaking of the idea of a Pharisaical canon given to us by Jesus, since "it is not known what constitutes the contents of the Kéthubim in 30 AD".

Jesus never mentions the Kethubim.

[quote="M-Paul":1mb4t700]

(and Christ's reference to the “law and the prophets†was idiom of his time for the Bible, as ancients used a different manner of expression).

So what about the Kethubim?
Who verified it and what did it consist of?
If you say "the Jews did", then I suppose you should also consider they reject the NT...

I have noted in my article that Peter upholding the writings of Paul as canon is evidence of canon, for Peter has the authority of an apostle, the equivalent of a prophet.

The Gospels are not verified by another writing of Scriptures. As such, your "principles of determining the caonn" fall short.

Who has the Scriptural authority of a prophet, after the last apostle died? The RCC??? Is the Pope Jewish?

This is called attempting to "turn the tables" upon someone when they cannot answer questions that they think they know. Thus, they change the subject and redirect. The problem is that Paul's article has major issues and he doesn't want to confront them.[/quote:1mb4t700]

Are you gonna answer my question