Other Books?

[Mysteryman]

Hi M-Paul

I was wondering if you have had the pleasure of reading this book -- The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart D. Ehrman ?

I have not. However, I just now found a complete copy of it on line. I quickly looked at some pages. This appears to be written from a liberal view point that does not admit to divine inspiration. In other words, liberals use a completely different method of interpretation based on certain assumptions that are completely contrary to what conservative Christians believe. From the conservative view point, liberal explanations of religion are merely rationalistic positions on what a belief in Christ means, so that he really is not the son of God but an event in history. Conservatives defend that Scripture is divine according to the test that Scripture sets out -- prophecy. This test does create a problem for liberals. I have a link to an article I wrote on how prophecy confirms Scripture on my web site, but again, I keep these articles short for the sake of people who do not have a lot of time to read.

However, perhaps, you are a liberal. Well, then you disagree with the conservative position. Of course, you have that right. But this is all another topic really, and not something I really want to get into just now. I started in this thread by trying to answer a question, but one thing led to another.

At any rate, do you recommend I read this book? If so, why? I'll think about it.

Hi

Actually, the book is more of a histroy book than any type of interpretation of scripture. The author does not interpret scritpure within this book. All he does, is to define the history of the so called orthodox of scripture. The references within the book allows the reader of this book , to see how within the second and third and fourth century, how Christiainity was in a type of chaos , and which groups during this time period established the different canons, as well as how throughout time the scriptures were influenced by certain groups during these critical times in Christian history.

I do not believe that my expression of what this book has to offer, does not do it justice without me explaining in such detail that might take me 5,000 words in order to do this book more justice. However, I find the information valuable , in that it is not just his view, but a whole host of views all comprised into one book. He quotes others who were influential during , not only the second and third and fourth centuries. But also throughout the history of Christendom. Throughout this book and the history of christendom, that have been many instances of corruption of the scriptures. There is just enough information about the canons , of which this topic is being discussed, that should at least be of some interest to you as well as others. This is why I asked.

Thanks - MM

 

[dadof10]

Could you please answer ONE question before you get banned? The Christian Church was founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit. What gives the "Jews" the authority to set the canon of Scripture after Pentecost? Don't you think that the canon the CHRISTIAN CHURCH sets is more relevant and important than the canon the "Jews" set?

OK, that's two. Take your pick, but, for the love of God, at least answer one.

I have posted repeatedly, that the significance of the Jewish position is lexicographical, not conciliar, that the authority is Scripture not the Jews.

Here is what your position is:

But how do we know lexicographically what is meant... from the council of Jamnia, and I noted it may not have been a council, and it had no counciliar significance, only significance for determining a dictionary definition. However, you respond as if I set it out as having conciliar significance. The only significance it has is lexicographical -- that is lexicographical tradition.

Since you would rather play word games that actually make headway in a discussion, I'll rephrase my questions.

The Christian Church was founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit. What gives the "Jews" at the "council of Jamnia" the authority to set the lexicographical dictionary definition of the canon of Scripture after Pentecost? Don't you think that the lexicographical dictionary definition of the canon the CHRISTIAN CHURCH sets is more relevant and important than the canon the "Jews" set?

Whatever way you want to phrase it, you are giving the decision made at "the council of Jamnia" authority which rightfully belongs to the Christian Church.

 

[francisdesales]

I have posted repeatedly, that the significance of the Jewish position is lexicographical

Which has been repeatedly shown to be of no significance. Jesus or no writing that we have describes the FUTURE division called "the Writings". Jesus never even mentions it. Merely ignoring this makes your position pointless. When confronted with this, you just ignore it, providing no further evidence. Have you ONCE cited this evidence of "lexicographical" position?

...the significance of the Jewish position...is not conciliar, that the authority is Scripture not the Jews.

This has two problems. First, it is just not true. You said that the Sanhedrin had the authority to determine (AND DID) determine the full contents of the canon! That's conciliar decree, not based upon some scholarly lexicon study. I showed this was a false presumption and you just responded with more Catholic polemics, rather than address the issue.

Second, the Scriptures do not tell us the contents of Scriptures, so that is a huge circular argument.

You respond as if I never stated what I already have.

You are not responding to the attack on your position. Thus, it can be said that this is a one-sided conversation, since you refuse to respond to much of it.

Now that I have essentially stopped posting, as it is only game playing on your part and that of Francis, you guys are still just trying to manipulate the thread for the sake of appearances.

Manipulate?

Dude, I'm just pointing out that you are wrong. You are the one not addressing it, calling me names and trying to invoke some "unity in error" argument by telling Protestants they should believe you because all Catholics are so and so - without even considering your argument is worthless on the five points I already laid out and you STILL refuse to confront.

Says volumes about your motivations...

 

[francisdesales]

Whatever way you want to phrase it, you are giving the decision made at "the council of Jamnia" authority which rightfully belongs to the Christian Church.

You think he cares about that? The only thing important to him is being SEEN as right, not whether it IS right or whether Christianity is thrown under the bus... Thus, the crying and whining, rather than rolling his sleeves up and addressing the issues.

Regards

 

[M-Paul]

MM,

Even though I have not read the book you reference, I am familiar with the theory it sets out in general. I do not agree with how advocates of this theory determine facts of history. For instance, in the dating of documents -- too much is based on too little evidence. However, this is another very long topic.

 

[M-Paul]

Since you would rather play word games that actually make headway in a discussion, I'll rephrase my questions.

The Christian Church was founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit. What gives the "Jews" at the "council of Jamnia" the authority to set the lexicographical dictionary definition of the canon of Scripture after Pentecost? Don't you think that the lexicographical dictionary definition of the canon the CHRISTIAN CHURCH sets is more relevant and important than the canon the "Jews" set?

Whatever way you want to phrase it, you are giving the decision made at "the council of Jamnia" authority which rightfully belongs to the Christian Church.

Your response is another straw man argument, except this time you truly have gone even further into the realm of the absolutely ridiculous. It is not the Jews who establish the lexicographical definition. How the Jews used words and phrases and what meaning they gave to them are determined by lexicographers. Then, the question is, what did Christ say about the words and phrases they used? He has the authority to establish the canon. What he says carries all the weight -- not the RCC and not a Jewish council. You are trying to use a very twisted logic to change the issue and the appearance of what is being said. It is a completely dishonest representation of my position. You are trying to make the Jamnia decision conciliar -- it is not. Christ has the authority, not the Jews. The Jews only make it evident by definition what he was talking about.

Again, and again, and again, you and Francis make a dishonest representation of what I have said to make an answer. You are not here for honest discussion, but merely to harass and derail the conversation. Then, why should I want to degenerate to this level and continue? No matter what I say, you will change it---

 

[M-Paul]

For anyone else that is interested -- the question arises, how do we know that the phrases Christ or the NT uses confirming Scripture refer to the OT completely. Again, this is a question in lexicography. Zondervan Encyclopedia (which I have close at hand now) has eight pages of tiny print to review the evidence on this question. It might be nice if we went over it, but how can we, with the discussion having degenerated to the level it has.

The thing to keep in mind is -- that in the time of Christ, the words "Bible" or "canon" did not exist. So how did the Jews refer to the OT as a collection of books? In fact, at that time, the three fold division of the OT did not really exist. The Protestant position is, that the phrases referencing the law and the prophets, or the law of Moses and the prophets etc., were common expressions for the OT canon.

 

[francisdesales]

For anyone else that is interested -- the question arises, how do we know that the phrases Christ or the NT uses confirming Scripture refer to the OT completely.

Please provide the evidence where the NT completely confirms the OT completely... EVERY BOOK. You said COMPLETELY. I expect to see a direct NT reference to Canticles and Esther...

Again, this is a question in lexicography. Zondervan Encyclopedia (which I have close at hand now) has eight pages of tiny print to review the evidence on this question. It might be nice if we went over it, but how can we, with the discussion having degenerated to the level it has.

Yea, maybe if you would have cracked that book last week, you wouldn't have had to whine and could have just posted something as actual evidence, rather than just asserting your incorrect position over and over...

The thing to keep in mind is -- that in the time of Christ, the words "Bible" or "canon" did not exist. So how did the Jews refer to the OT as a collection of books? In fact, at that time, the three fold division of the OT did not really exist.

Well, first, you say "Christ confirmed the Writings", and now, there was not such distinction...

Congratulations, you are reading posts now... Could have saved us a lot of time if you would have done that a few days ago.

The Protestant position is, that the phrases referencing the law and the prophets, or the law of Moses and the prophets etc., were common expressions for the OT canon.

I think it could be argued otherwise, but for the sake of brevity, I will accept this argument. Now, define the CONTENTS of the Writings prior to Jamnia... And don't forget about:

Kaige Recension (and other Hebrew recensions from earlier that point to a variety of Hebrew translations of the "Law" and the "Prophets" - not one and one alone translation.)

Variety of Jewish sects with a different "canon".

Dead Sea Scrolls

No authority within Judaism to set a canon before the Fall of Jerusalem.

Existence and utilization of the LXX in Palestine.


You got a big hill to climb, my friend...

 

[francisdesales]

Again, and again, and again, you and Francis make a dishonest representation of what I have said to make an answer. You are not here for honest discussion, but merely to harass and derail the conversation. Then, why should I want to degenerate to this level and continue? No matter what I say, you will change it---

Constantly complaining about how your changing point of view is being misrepresented is not "conversation". You have been asked on numerous occasions to provide answers or evidence, but all you do is whine and complain.

You mention that only Jesus has authority to set the canon? Praytell, where does He list canonical books in the Gospels? Does Jesus list the NT books, also??? What does Jesus do regarding the canon? As it turns out, He appears to accept whatever canon that group that He speaks with believes is the canon. To the Pharisees, He speaks of the Prophets, to the Saduccees, He only mentions the Pentateuch.

Again, where is the evidence that Jesus, the "only one empowered to set the canon" actually did just that? Seems He gave power to other men to do that...

 

[westtexas]

Then, the question is, what did Christ say about the words and phrases they used? He has the authority to establish the canon. What he says carries all the weight -- not the RCC and not a Jewish council.

M-Paul, I'm sure you have answered the question but this thread is long and I can't find it. According to my little bit of research, at the Council of Jamnia, many of the Writings were still in dispute if they belonged in canon or not. With your above statement, where does our Lord say which books belong in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Writings?
http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR013/13jamnia.html

Westtexas

 

[francisdesales]

Then, the question is, what did Christ say about the words and phrases they used? He has the authority to establish the canon. What he says carries all the weight -- not the RCC and not a Jewish council.

M-Paul, I'm sure you have answered the question but this thread is long and I can't find it. According to my little bit of research, at the Council of Jamnia, many of the Writings were still in dispute if they belonged in canon or not. With your above statement, where does our Lord say which books belong in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Writings?
http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR013/13jamnia.html

Westtexas

Westtexas,

Unfortunately, Paul just asserts things, he doesn't actually cite or prove anything. That includes the idea that Jesus laid out the Canon. It's like me saying "I laid out ALL the Articles of the Constitution" while making a discussion and noting "It's in the Bill of Rights" and saying nothing more. Such a side comment is supposedly a laying out of the entire Constitution??? He says the same thing regarding Jesus. Sadly, Jesus doesn't even mention the Writings by name, much less, by individual books.

This argument cannot stand, and he knows it, so he just accuses everyone who dares confront him as a liar, a false poster and a strawman arguer...

If his argument had any backing from external sources, rather than his imagination, he'd have brought it up long ago.

Regards

 

[M-Paul]

Then, the question is, what did Christ say about the words and phrases they used? He has the authority to establish the canon. What he says carries all the weight -- not the RCC and not a Jewish council.

M-Paul, I'm sure you have answered the question but this thread is long and I can't find it. According to my little bit of research, at the Council of Jamnia, many of the Writings were still in dispute if they belonged in canon or not. With your above statement, where does our Lord say which books belong in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Writings?
http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR013/13jamnia.html

Westtexas

Wextexas,

OK, the Jamnia decision reviewed the canon and only decided that no changes should be made. What the Jews hold today as the Hebrew bible reflects the canon at the time of Christ and also establishes the lexicographical meaning of Christ's words. I have reviewed before that the writings of Josephus also establishes this definition, but this is disputed by some scholars, on the basis of the idiom used to reference the works. Again with Josephus, his words have to be defined according to how language was used in his time. Also, no official Jewish authority has ever defined the canon as being anything else but what it is today, and none has ever included the Apocrypha. No other definition is possible for the Jamnia decision but the books of the Hebrew Bible as we know them now.

However, there are other problems with including the Apocrypha, as I have reviewed. These books actually violate the principles of canonicity set out in Scripture -- I have set out in what manner repeatedly. Is it any coincidence that the books which the Jews define as their Bible do not? The fact that including the Apocrypha violates the Scriptural principles of canonicity also is evidence that they were not intended as being meant by the NT references to the OT collection of books.

However, the fact that the Apocrypha violates the principles of canoncity, yet the RCC includes them as canon, also disqualifies the RCC as an authority to speak on behalf of God. I had noted earlier, that the RCC did not qualify as having the authority of an inspired prophet according to the tests set out by Scripture. However, when I set out those points, I did not reference that one of them is, that the message of a person speaking for God must be consistent with all prior messages. The fact that the RCC would uphold a message on the canon that violates the Scriptural principles of canonicity indicates they are speaking for God according to what the Bible designates as presumption only.

 

[M-Paul]

Francis,

You have demonstrated again and again and again, that you are not capable of honest discussion on this issue.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis,

You have demonstrated again and again and again, that you are not capable of honest discussion on this issue.

I warned you three times. Now, I have reported you to the Moderators, I have had enough of your personal attacks.

 

[francisdesales]

M-Paul, I'm sure you have answered the question but this thread is long and I can't find it. According to my little bit of research, at the Council of Jamnia, many of the Writings were still in dispute if they belonged in canon or not. With your above statement, where does our Lord say which books belong in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Writings?
http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR013/13jamnia.html

Wextexas,

OK, the Jamnia decision reviewed the canon and only decided that no changes should be made. What the Jews hold today as the Hebrew bible reflects the canon at the time of Christ and also establishes the lexicographical meaning of Christ's words. I have reviewed before that the writings of Josephus also establishes this definition, but this is disputed by some scholars, on the basis of the idiom used to reference the works. Again with Josephus, his words have to be defined according to how language was used in his time. Also, no official Jewish authority has ever defined the canon as being anything else but what it is today, and none has ever included the Apocrypha. No other definition is possible for the Jamnia decision but the books of the Hebrew Bible as we know them now.

You still cannot answer a simple question, even from a non-Catholic Christian, can you... :bigfrown

Westtexas is not looking for smoke and mirrors or attacks on Catholics, but a citation from M-Paul that proves that Jesus "proved" the Writings.

Where does the Lord speak of the division of the OT that we now call "the Writings"???? Where do you actually post evidence of this?

 

[westtexas]

Wextexas,

OK, the Jamnia decision reviewed the canon and only decided that no changes should be made. What the Jews hold today as the Hebrew bible reflects the canon at the time of Christ and also establishes the lexicographical meaning of Christ's words. I have reviewed before that the writings of Josephus also establishes this definition, but this is disputed by some scholars, on the basis of the idiom used to reference the works. Again with Josephus, his words have to be defined according to how language was used in his time. Also, no official Jewish authority has ever defined the canon as being anything else but what it is today, and none has ever included the Apocrypha. No other definition is possible for the Jamnia decision but the books of the Hebrew Bible as we know them now.

M-Paul, the article quoted above disagrees with you. I'll supply others if you care to see them. As I said, I find this thread quite interesting how the Bible I know came to be. The Jamnia decision DID NOT "review canon and decide that no changes should be made" as you state. The purpose of Jamnia was to SETTLE the disputes. Danish scholar Aage Bentzen speaks of the "Synod of Jamnia" as "IMPORTANT FOR THE DEFINITE FIXING OF THE CANON OF THE SEMITIC SPEAKING JEWS". The books of Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes and Esther were very much debated as to their canonicity. Many scholars even argue the books of Ezekiel and Daniel, leaving doubt going into Jamnia whether the books of the Prophets was even closed. Thus, the canon was very much debated from the time of our Lord UNTIL Jamnia. At Jamnia, our canon (Protestant with no apocrypha) was closed and no other changes have been made since.
I would like to investigate a link to "The Canon of our Lord" if you would provide it.
Thanks, Westtexas

P.S. edited to add-- this is not intended to be an argument, simply looking at history as to how our Bible came to be-I hope I'm not to far off of Pard's OP

 

[Rick W]

Reminder:

Terms of Service

5 - Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

We all have opinions concerning our beliefs and that's what this board is for, to discuss those beliefs. We are not here to discuss or post opinions about other members. Please keep discussion on topic and within the bounds of the Terms of Service.

 

[faithtransforms]

Are there other books to the Bible that are gone and lost now? Or are all the books currently in the Bible the only Words of God?

MA keeps saying that there is a Book of Jesus or something and that it is lost because we Christians are evil, or something... Is this true?

I know there is the Apocrypha, those are other books, but they are not the divine Word of God, they are just books of wisdom that we may read, but should not heed the way we heed the books of the Bible, right?

I don't believe there are any lost books. Although we know Paul wrote some letters that we don't have. And you're absolutely correct, the apocrypha CAN be helpful...they don't have to be TOTALLY disgarded, but they are NOT divine. : )

 

[dadof10]

Since you would rather play word games that actually make headway in a discussion, I'll rephrase my questions.

The Christian Church was founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit. What gives the "Jews" at the "council of Jamnia" the authority to set the lexicographical dictionary definition of the canon of Scripture after Pentecost? Don't you think that the lexicographical dictionary definition of the canon the CHRISTIAN CHURCH sets is more relevant and important than the canon the "Jews" set?

Whatever way you want to phrase it, you are giving the decision made at "the council of Jamnia" authority which rightfully belongs to the Christian Church.

Your response is another straw man argument, except this time you truly have gone even further into the realm of the absolutely ridiculous. It is not the Jews who establish the lexicographical definition. How the Jews used words and phrases and what meaning they gave to them are determined by lexicographers.

What are you talking about? I can't decide if you are purposely being vague because your arguments are so weak, or you are trying to figure this out as you go along and making mistakes.

If "It is not the Jews who establish the lexicographical definition", then what does this mean?

But how do we know lexicographically what is meant... from the council of Jamnia, and I noted it may not have been a council, and it had no counciliar significance, only significance for determining a dictionary definition. However, you respond as if I set it out as having conciliar significance. The only significance it has is lexicographical -- that is lexicographical tradition.

Make up your mind, and quit accusing me of straw men arguments you, yourself, are creating.

Then, the question is, what did Christ say about the words and phrases they used? He has the authority to establish the canon. What he says carries all the weight -- not the RCC and not a Jewish council.

What "words and phrases"? The ones lexicographers used? You are talking in circles.

You are trying to use a very twisted logic to change the issue and the appearance of what is being said. It is a completely dishonest representation of my position. You are trying to make the Jamnia decision conciliar -- it is not. Christ has the authority, not the Jews. The Jews only make it evident by definition what he was talking about.

WHAT??? You contradict yourself in your own post. You said above "It is not the Jews who establish the lexicographical definition."

I use "twisted logic", huh? My logic is simply following your twisted arguments.

 

[dadof10]

OK, the Jamnia decision reviewed the canon and only decided that no changes should be made.

If "changes" were possible, doesn't that prove Francis' point that the canon was not closed up to that point?

What the Jews hold today as the Hebrew bible reflects the canon at the time of Christ and also establishes the lexicographical meaning of Christ's words.

No, it doesn't. If all the OT references in the NT were taken exclusively from the Hebrew Scriptures, you might have a point. Following your logic, the FACT that the majority of citations were from the LXX proves, at least, that the canon was not set during Jesus' life, and at most that Jesus and the NT writers established the LXX instead of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Also, no official Jewish authority has ever defined the canon as being anything else but what it is today, and none has ever included the Apocrypha. No other definition is possible for the Jamnia decision but the books of the Hebrew Bible as we know them now.

And again, I'll ask the question you keep ignoring. WHO CARES WHAT CANON THE "JEWISH AUTHORITY" DEFINED?