Other Books?

[francisdesales]

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.

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

Oats,

He keeps telling me has proven his point, so I ask him "where"? Jesus never makes a reference to the so-called Writings, and He certainly doesn't list them. Even if He speaks of this third section, the Writings, it certainly could consist of Sirach and Enoch, for all we know... Jesus may have instructed His Apostles to look at the LXX when they teach from Scriptures and to use what was there. We just don't know what was the contents of "The Writings", and so, it is foolhardy to pretend that we do.

I was hoping my asking for evidence from an external location would prompt him to put his money where his mouth was, but we see him squirming around and trying to save face, rather than just admit "I was wrong, sorry"

I am not trying to be "convinced by his truth", I am trying to point out that he is in error and to reconsider.

Oh well, I tried. If anyone else would like to know more about this subject, please speak and we can talk about it.

Regards

 

[Oats]

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.

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

Oats,

He keeps telling me has proven his point, so I ask him "where"? Jesus never makes a reference to the so-called Writings, and He certainly doesn't list them. Even if He speaks of this third section, the Writings, it certainly could consist of Sirach and Enoch, for all we know... Jesus may have instructed His Apostles to look at the LXX when they teach from Scriptures and to use what was there. We just don't know what was the contents of "The Writings", and so, it is foolhardy to pretend that we do.

I was hoping my asking for evidence from an external location would prompt him to put his money where his mouth was, but we see him squirming around and trying to save face, rather than just admit "I was wrong, sorry"

I am not trying to be "convinced by his truth", I am trying to point out that he is in error and to reconsider.
Oh well, I tried. If anyone else would like to know more about this subject, please speak and we can talk about it.

Regards

So he says Jesus references books outside of canon

 

[dadof10]

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.

You must be kidding...Where? Simply cut and paste in your next post. You know how to do that, I'm sure. I know you claim the software "is fighting you", but you should be able to do a simple cut and paste job if you can.

Here are my questions again. They are in blue.

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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?

Just find the "answers", highlight the text, press and hold CTL+C, that will copy the text to the clipboard. When you hit "Reply" on the top of this post, simply choose an empty spot with your cursor then press and hold CTL+V. I'll be waiting...

 

[Oats]

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.

You must be kidding...Where? Simply cut and paste in your next post. You know how to do that, I'm sure. I know you claim the software "is fighting you", but you should be able to do a simple cut and paste job if you can.

Here are my questions again. They are in blue.

[quote="M-Paul":1g0yjy8o]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.

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

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?

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?

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

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?

Just find the "answers", highlight the text, press and hold CTL+C, that will copy the text to the clipboard. When you hit "Reply" on the top of this post, simply choose an empty spot with your cursor then press and hold CTL+V. I'll be waiting...[/quote:1g0yjy8o]

Is Francis denying the NT?

 

[westtexas]

Joe or Dad, let me ask y'all a question and if any of this is incorrect please correct me on the issue. I knew very little on this subject before this thread began (and it has been quite interesting and informative). Originally the Septuagint had the apocrypha dispursed throughout the book and not at the end of the OT. At some point in time the RCC decided that the books of the Apocrypha were canonical with the exception of 1&2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh which the Orthodox Church still accepts as canonical. During the Reformation, the Protestant Church decided that the 7 books which the RCC accepts were not canonical. What is the difference between the Orthodox Church and the RCC? Do you not feel that the RCC has done the same as the Protestant Church and accepted books from the Septuagint which prove their doctrine (purgatory, prayers for the dead, etc., ) and discarded the others?

Westtexas

 

[Oats]

Joe or Dad, let me ask y'all a question and if any of this is incorrect please correct me on the issue. I knew very little on this subject before this thread began (and it has been quite interesting and informative). Originally the Septuagint had the apocrypha dispursed throughout the book and not at the end of the OT. At some point in time the RCC decided that the books of the Apocrypha were canonical with the exception of 1&2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh which the Orthodox Church still accepts as canonical. During the Reformation, the Protestant Church decided that the 7 books which the RCC accepts were not canonical. What is the difference between the Orthodox Church and the RCC? Do you not feel that the RCC has done the same as the Protestant Church and accepted books from the Septuagint which prove their doctrine (purgatory, prayers for the dead, etc., ) and discarded the others?

Westtexas

Thanks I'm looking for the same answer...

 

[westtexas]

Is Francis denying the NT?

He doesn't need me to answer for him but I can assure you that he is NOT denying the NT.
Westtexas

 

[francisdesales]

So he says Jesus references books outside of canon

No, He claims that Jesus has verified the entire contents of the OT...

How, I do not know, Paul just says it without telling us any reference...

 

[francisdesales]

Is Francis denying the NT?

Of course not. I am saying that there is no "rules of thumb" or self-authenticating procedure where we can know the contents of the NT. We must rely on the witnesses of those first Christians. We trust that Peter and Paul really were witnesses to the Resurrected Christ. We trust that they followers accurately determined what was Scriptures based upon the Spirit leading them. To try to say that we can know the entire contents of the NT without these witnesses (and believing in those who continue to witness for them, our community of faith) just doesn't work.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Joe or Dad, let me ask y'all a question and if any of this is incorrect please correct me on the issue. I knew very little on this subject before this thread began (and it has been quite interesting and informative). Originally the Septuagint had the apocrypha dispursed throughout the book and not at the end of the OT.

Yes, but we do not know at what point the individual books were entered into the LXX. Scholars generally accept that the LXX as it is now existed as it did during the days of before Christ (except, obviously, books written after Christ!). The compilation seems to be gradual, just as the original Hebrew had a gradual canon formation. It appears that "canon" was very free flowing before the Fall of Jerusalem.

At some point in time the RCC decided that the books of the Apocrypha were canonical with the exception of 1&2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh which the Orthodox Church still accepts as canonical.

1 Esdras is Ezra in the Vulgate.
2 Esdras is Nehemiah in the Vulgate.
3 Esdras is made up almost entirely from canonical books of the Catholic Church, although IT is not "canonical. It just stops in mid-sentence and the book is actually incomplete...
4 Esdras is called 2 Esdras in Protestant Apocrypha (yea, its confusing!). The book is one of the most beautiful of ancient Jewish literature, some Fathers do quote from it, and some is used in Divine Liturgy (The second chapter has furnished the verse Requiem æternam to the Office of the Dead), but its origin is shrouded in mystery and parts of it appear to have been written in the third century.

Generally speaking, most religions "canonize" writings due to extended usage among its community. The Jews (all of their sects) came to agree what was sacred to them, as do the various Christians communities . Thus, the Western Catholics of the first few centuries saw inspiration and used those books - and the later generations continued that use and eventually came to officially accept them.

During the Reformation, the Protestant Church decided that the 7 books which the RCC accepts were not canonical. What is the difference between the Orthodox Church and the RCC?

The East and the West became culturally separate even before the Great Schism in the eleventh century. The Greeks used particular writings that the Latins did not, thus, there is a slight variation. In addition, the West sooner found the "need" to canonize.

Interestingly, the Orthodox still have a big problem with the Book of Revelation...

Do you not feel that the RCC has done the same as the Protestant Church and accepted books from the Septuagint which prove their doctrine (purgatory, prayers for the dead, etc., ) and discarded the others?

Yes.

Didn't expect that, did you?!! ;)

The primary difference, I suppose, is "what was being rejected" by each group above. What was the Catholic Church rejecting and what was the Lutheran community rejecting?

But that is exactly my point - that communities of faith determine what is inspired by God FOR THEM. Naturally, the Catholic Church claims that God's Spirit is involved in that process. Gnostics consider Thomas sacred, we do not, because of its theological content AS WELL as doubting whether the Apostle Thomas actually wrote it. Marking a canon is meant for people of that community. Martin Luther rejected Eck's proof of Purgatory because he claimed 2 Maccabees was not a canonical work. He was then forced to reject the Christian Vulgate and Tradition and take up the "Hebrew" Tradition, which, ironically, relies on a 1000 year tradition of remembering where the vowels go orally! I don't think Luther intended on going as far as he did with all of his rejection of so much ancient Tradition (remember, he WAS Catholic!). But the rest is history!

My main point here is to say that the Scriptures are not self-authenticating and that determining what they are absolutely relies on a church, a visible community that vouches for the original prophets and holy men who wrote those works.

The bible, at the end of the day, is a work of men inspired by God. There really is no "scientific" way of entirely figuring out what IS Scriptures without the Church - as we believe the Church is ALSO "inspired" by God to recognize the contents of Scriptures. Trying to prove otherwise, like Paul, is merely "begging the question". The hearers of Paul and James "knew" that these men were speaking for God.

Regards

 

[westtexas]

Joe, Thanks again for the time and the answers. I'll look into all that is posted. I have learned MUCH.

God bless, Ray

 

[Mysteryman]

Is Francis denying the NT?

Of course not. I am saying that there is no "rules of thumb" or self-authenticating procedure where we can know the contents of the NT. We must rely on the witnesses of those first Christians. We trust that Peter and Paul really were witnesses to the Resurrected Christ. We trust that they followers accurately determined what was Scriptures based upon the Spirit leading them. To try to say that we can know the entire contents of the NT without these witnesses (and believing in those who continue to witness for them, our community of faith) just doesn't work.

Regards

Paul was not a witness of the resurrected Christ.

 

[francisdesales]

Paul was not a witness of the resurrected Christ.

You are mistaken. According to Sacred Scriptures, Paul witnessed the resurrected Christ.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 1 Cor 15:3-8

 

[Mysteryman]

Paul was not a witness of the resurrected Christ.

You are mistaken. According to Sacred Scriptures, Paul witnessed the resurrected Christ.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 1 Cor 15:3-8

You are mistaken, because you interpret scripture unskillfully.

The disciples were witnesses of the resurrected Christ, as they were his followers and were eye witnesses of Christ being raised from the dead.

Paul, who was called Saul, was not a follower, and he was not an eye witness of the resurrected Christ.

Paul was given a spiritual revealing. An awareness revealed unto his understanding. Not an eye witness !

 

[Mysteryman]

There was a dissension among the other disciples and Apostles when Paul starting witnessing the death and resurrection of Christ. The reason for this, was becaue of two specific reasons. One being the persecution of Saul upon the church. The other reason was because of the fact that Saul , as far as they were concerned, was not one of the disciples of Jesus Christ, as he did not walk with them and Christ, while Christ was here upon this earth.

Many say that they trust what they read in the NT. However, trust in just the written translated bibles we possess, is not an accurate way in which one can know for sure, that which one reads, actually happened as we read about it.

We tend to accept what we read, but based upon what ?

 

[francisdesales]

Paul was not a witness of the resurrected Christ.

You are mistaken. According to Sacred Scriptures, Paul witnessed the resurrected Christ.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 1 Cor 15:3-8

You are mistaken, because you interpret scripture unskillfully.

Oh, brother. Go away and stop trolling. I am not interested in arguing with you just for the sake of arguing... Paul says the risen Lord appeared to him. He witnessed the risen Lord and is quite confident that he is a witness of the Christ.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the OP, so stop trying to highjack this thread.

 

[francisdesales]

Joe, Thanks again for the time and the answers. I'll look into all that is posted. I have learned MUCH.

God bless, Ray

Here is further evidence that there was no "fixed canon" in the first century. This time, the evidence is the Kaige Recension, which is a Pharisee effort to translate Hebrew into Greek. It is interesting to note that several so called apocrypha are part of this recension, which denies that there was a hard and fast canon in the first century CE.


We cannot press the date of the fixation of the Pharisaic canon earlier than the time of Hillel, as an occasional scholar has attempted to do. Our evidence comes from the so-called Kaige Recension. . . . The Kaige Recension, at the end of the first century B.C., revised the Greek Bible to accord with the protorabbinic text, not with the later fixed Rabbinic Recension. Similarly, the revision embodied in the Kaïge [sic.] Recension extended to the book of Baruch and the longer edition of Daniel, works excluded from the Rabbinic Recension. This effort to update Baruch and the longer edition of Daniel would be most difficult to explain if at the same time of the preparation of the Kaige Recension, the book of Baruch and the additions to Daniel had already been excluded from the Pharisaic canon. Since the recensional labors in the Kaige Recension can be dated to about the turn of the Common Era, and its Pharisaic bias is clear, it follows that as late as the end of the first century B.C., an authoritative, canonical list had not yet emerged, at least in its final form, even in Pharisaic circles.

Thus, the revisions to Baruch and the extended Daniel in the Kaige Recension in Alexandria provides another firm piece of evidence that the Writings were not yet, at the turn of the era, formed into a fixed collection either in fact, i.e., canonized, or de facto.

http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm

The Pharisees included the longer Daniel and Baruch in this particular resension... thus, there couldn't have been a set canon, even in the Pharisee ranks, before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

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).

You are not saying anything. I have posted questions three times now, and you continue to ignore them. I've lost track of how many times Fran has been ignored. If your position were as strong as you say, you would be falling all over yourself to prove us wrong. As it stands, you can't even put together a cogent thought on this subject, let alone actually answer a simple question.

 

[dadof10]

Paul was not a witness of the resurrected Christ.

You are mistaken. According to Sacred Scriptures, Paul witnessed the resurrected Christ.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 1 Cor 15:3-8

You are mistaken, because you interpret scripture unskillfully.

The disciples were witnesses of the resurrected Christ, as they were his followers and were eye witnesses of Christ being raised from the dead.

Paul, who was called Saul, was not a follower, and he was not an eye witness of the resurrected Christ.

Paul was given a spiritual revealing. An awareness revealed unto his understanding. Not an eye witness !

Is 1Cor. one of the "corrupted" parts of the Bible? Is that why you don't accept Paul's words as accurate?

 

[M-Paul]

Oats,

He keeps telling me has proven his point

Francis,

You never respond honestly to anything. I've never said I've proven my point. I said I set out the Protestant position, that I answered your questions. Everything you post is a straw man argument. And when I note a straw man on your part, and state my true position, you respond with a straw man to my answer to the straw man. You are not conversing with me in this thread, but to a fantasized conception of my posting. Even this post by me now is a waste of time, as you will never admit it says what I am saying.

Why haven't I said I've proven my point? Because we have not set out a standard for how points are proven. The issue of what is proven must be considered after an overall context is established for how we should accept reliance on proof. I'll admit, the Protestant position may only have the best evidence of all positions on canon, rather than positive proof -- but it just depends on what standard of proof should or must be established.

Now, I do not care a hoot how you respond to this post by me now -- as I know there is no way you will assess its meaning truly and honestly. Perhaps, this is my last post in the thread, as posting with you makes no sense.