M-Paul said:
Francis,
You answers are nothing but a run around. And, you still try to attribute to me verses you brought up as a basis of my position, to call me desperate -- that is desperation on your part.
I made a nice list of 5 questions for you. Twice. The most recent is in red. You have not answered them. And you have the gall to tell me I am running around? It is quite obvious who is "desperate" and "running around" here. I provide citations, you provide whining and accusations.
M-Paul said:
I just looked at the Zondervan Encyclopedia on "Sanhedren." Do you think these scholars are ignorant and don't know anything?
Oh, I'm sure they know something, but I wouldn't rely on them too much more than a wikipedia article, just as you wouldn't rely too much on a Catholic Encyclopedia article. Scholarship there is sketchy and biased, but for now, I'll accept them as having some basic knowledge.
M-Paul said:
They note the Sanhedrin was the highest authority in Palestine, deciding all religious affairs and even civil matters. It had members from the Pharisees, Sadducees, and included priests, nobility. By Rabbinic tradition its authority goes back to Numbers 11:16 at the time of Moses. This view is consistent with Jewish scholars, or do you hold they are ignorant too??
No, although I presume you are speaking of the GRAND Sanhedrin in this and future discussions... Correct me if I am wrong, as every town had a "Sanhedrin".
M-Paul said:
Thus, no book was getting into the canon without Sanhedren approval.
Now, could you cite me where Zondervan ACTUALLY SAYS THAT??? Or is that YOUR PRESUMPTION based upon a lack of knowledge of ancient Judaism again?
You are making a big conclusion based on absolutely no evidence.
You yourself admit that the Sanhedrin consists of Pharisees and mostly Sadducees. Well done. Now, did this group agree on theological doctrines? Did the various schools agree on the canon? The Bible clearly tells us that they did not. Both Jesus and Paul used this disagreement between these two groups to set them apart from each other. We can see that this Sanhedrin had a very limited power to secure such declarations that you seem to think that they had done.
THERE WAS NO "COUNCIL", as in ancient Christianity.
The Sanhedrin did NOT force one theological doctrine over the other. Thus, ALL of Judaism was not required to believe in resurrection after death. The Sadducees did not, and COULD NOT force this upon the Pharisees or the people of the Land. Same with their idea on angels. Same with the extent of the canon. A knowledgeable person who has read the Gospels and Acts will readily see that there was no such "overruling counciliar power", like an infallible ecumenical Catholic Council, such as at Nicea. Thus, your entire point fails - that a canon was actually SET! The fact that the Sadducees did NOT AGREE with the Pharisees makes it clear that Judaism was NOT monolithic. And we have not even included the canon of the Essenes at Qumran.
M-Paul said:
After the destruction of the temple, the Sanhedrin was moved to Jamnia, although then, it was of diminished authority
No, it was RECONSTITUTED. You are again mistaken and trying to say something that is incorrect to push your agenda.
ONLY PHARISEES were part of this new and very truncated "authority". ALL PHARISEES. Thus, obviously, there was no input from MAJORITY JUDAISM. Pharisees were a small minority during the time of Christ. Because of the war with Rome and their relative independence on the Temple (unlike the Sadducees who utterly depended upon it and kept it as custodians), relying more on synagogues, they were able to survive and became virtually the SOLE VOICE of Judaism. Thus, when we read Josephus, or what took place at Jamnia, we see only one voice of Judaism from Christ's time. We don't see a monolithic JEWISH CANON that Jamnia merely "waved through". It represented only ONE PART of Judaism, which would become rabbinical Judaism.
M-Paul said:
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.
Wrong answer, see above. Jamnia decided very little in the way of "canon". Justin the Martyr, writing over 50 years AFTER Jamnia, admits that the JEWISH use of Qoheleth, Canticles, and Esther continue to be objects of dispute. He personally does not cite from these books. Lamentations continued to be a problem with the Pharisee community. Remember, we are dealing with a multiple-branched canon. A variety of branches, Sadducees, Pharisee, Essene, Gnostic Jews; all had their own branches. Thus, your error is forgeting about these branches, presuming that Judaism was only ONE branch, before and after the fall of Jerusalem. This leads you to believe that Judaism at the time of Christ was the same as 90 AD on the question of the canon. That is a huge mistake.
The only thing 'set' at Jamnia was to verify MOST of the PHARISEE canon (not inspired works), not JEWISH canon.
M-Paul said:
This decision has never changed. 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.
Where does Christ tell us exactly what the Writings are? Thus, you cannot say this. In other works, like Esdras 4, the "WRITINGS" refer to 70 other books considered inspired by God. They cite the 24 + the 70, the 70 being partially what was called the Writings MUCH later, and SOME being Jewish Apocrypha or LXX writings. Hebrew rescissions verify this. I have already cited this above, but I fear you are not reading what I write. Very well, I am sure that some are reading and learning, even if you are not..
Yet again, you refuse to address my concern I brought up so long ago. By being anachronistic, you apply a term "Writings" to Jesus as if HE had in mind ONLY the Writings list that came down 200 years later!!! Ridiculous...
The "other writings" refers to ALL the inspired works not yet in the Torah or the Prophets, to include Sirach and Wisdom and Macabbees, which the Gospel writers were aware of and allude to.
M-Paul said:
To hold that the Apocrypha should be included in the NT reference is made ridiculous also by the fact, that the Hebrew texts do not exist -- no Jews thought it was important enough to preserve them.
What sort of foolish statement is this??? You are clueless on the contents of the the Dead Sea Scrolls. You are clueless on the fact that the LXX existed in Palestine. Hebrew rescissions also prove otherwise!
In addition, we don't even have very much of the PROTOCANONICAL works. YOUR Bible is based upon the Masoretic text, not the original Hebrew...!!!
Paul, I would seriously do some reading outside of Protestant apologetics. There is a lot of good books on the subject, books that are not sect-biased (written by a Catholic or Protestant with an agenda). Clearly, you read only Protestant books and have no clue on recent (last 50 years) scholarship.
M-Paul said:
Further, the Apocrypha itself by internal evidence notes the cessation of prophecy.
A book does not have to be "prophetic" to be considered inspired by God. And secondly, this eliminates the New Testament. Typical "throw the baby out with the bathwater" mentality on the subject from Protestant apologists who don't care about logic or truth.
M-Paul said:
And by Jewish tradition in Alexandria, these books were considered inspired due to 70 translators coming up with 70 identical translations in separate rooms -- it became to be considered inspired by mythological legend, but that was good enough for the RCC.
Another silly lack of logic. The idea about this MIGHT be legend came about in the 19th century. To the men and women of Palestine in the first century, it was GOOD ENOUGH for the APOSTLES! THEY (men you call prophets) cite it 3:1 over the Hebrew versions of Scriptures. As usual, in your effort to attack Catholics, you must resort to attacking the apostles, as well.
M-Paul said:
However, this criterion is not a principle of canonicity found in Scripture. Further, the the significance of the document the RCC has on the LXX is highly questionable on what it represents -- as we do not know what really was involved in the translation, what Hebrew texts were involved, how many translations were made, or the number of revisions. And denying Josephus confirms the canon from prior centuries is an argument based on refusing to recognize his use of idiom from his own time.
Continue, explain what you mean by "idiom"...?!
Furthermore, I have already cited one of a number of scholars who disagree with Josephus' CLAIM of a pre-existent canon. First, it ignores the rest of Judaism, as I relate above. Second, it ignores the Hebrew texts that we DO have, which include what YOU would call "apocrypha".
Here is an interesting theory, that makes much more sense and is IN CONTEXT to what he actually says. It is found in "Canon Debate", and the essay is entitled "Josephus and his 22 book Canon", by Professor Steve Mason".
The POINT Josephus is trying to make is NOT religion or canon, but on the reliability and stability of the historians of Judaism. If you read the context of the citation taken from "Against Apion", (1.37-43), Josephus is arguing AGAINST the unstable and unreliable Greek historians. He denies that Greek sources should not be considered the final authority. He notes the Greek competitiveness of rhetoric among their historians. THEN, Josephus notes that there is a stability of JEWISH HISTORIANS, who are ALSO inspired by God.
Thus, the point of Josephus apparent "canon" statement is a polemic against Greek historians, NOT to set down in stone all of the books INSPIRED BY GOD. (There IS a difference between "inspired work" and "canon", which we can delve into later).
M-Paul said:
Francis, what you are doing is called a run around.
[/quote]
Rant ignored...
I only address attempts to prove me wrong, or new information that is worthwhile to reconsider your point. You are just wasting your time, otherwise. As of now, the five questions still remain unanswered, several are STILL not addressed...
I think the unbiased reader will see quite clearly what is happening here...
