I wouldn’t say that. In my OT class, the (admittedly awful) textbook we used asserted the Council Of Jamnia, which of course, my professor made sure to tell us that it is a myth. I just wanted to let you know that some people do believe in that and use it as a defense for editing the Canon.You will never hear me make the Jamnia claim. I actually went to school and know that no one has believed that for 30 years. Of course web scholarship is about that far behind sadly.
The Jews canon being closed does not reflect on the Christian NT canon. It never has. Nice theory but tell me how the Jewish canon has had ANY implications on the NT canon. Its a scare tactic. It has no teeth.
IMAGINE the horror if the Jews closed their canon and its possible implications on the NT canon!!
Imagine…uh…oh yeah…nothing bad has come from that.
True, some people do.I wouldn’t say that. In my OT class, the (admittedly awful) textbook we used asserted the Council Of Jamnia, which of course, my professor made sure to tell us that it is a myth. I just wanted to let you know that some people do believe in that and use it as a defense for editing the Canon.
Actually, the seven books that you wrongly assert are not canonical were considered canonical by the Essenes at Qumran. They were definitely at the time of Christ, as they are tangentially mentioned in the Scriptures.Lets talk about the Greek translation of the OT. Did you know that the earliest existing copies of this from several centuries after Christ show the gradual growth of this translation as it added books contrary to its earlier use? There is no historical evidence that the Greek translation contained extra books at the time of Christ. None. Now go prove me wrong and be ready for a surprise.
If they were considered “canonical” by the Essenese at Qumran, why were all of them not present or found at Qumran? Don’t you find that odd?Actually, the seven books that you wrongly assert are not canonical were considered canonical by the Essenes at Qumran. They were definitely at the time of Christ, as they are tangentially mentioned in the Scriptures.
This does not really makes sense to me. Could you elaborate what you believe please?Well out of the seven books, I believe if my mind serves me correctly that 40% was from the Apocryphal and 30% actually came from the Hebrew Bible. The Seven Books are reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls?
The remaining 30% were rules, no?
Despite the snark and sarcasm apparent in this reply let me attempt an answer. So you are telling me it’s okay to unquestioningly accept the determination of the Jews regarding the completeness of the OT, when in the exact same breath they would tell you the NT is false and that Christ was an ordinary man? If that helps you sleep at night then so be it.You will never hear me make the Jamnia claim. I actually went to school and know that no one has believed that for 30 years. Of course web scholarship is about that far behind sadly.
The Jews canon being closed does not reflect on the Christian NT canon. It never has. Nice theory but tell me how the Jewish canon has had ANY implications on the NT canon. Its a scare tactic. It has no teeth.
IMAGINE the horror if the Jews closed their canon and its possible implications on the NT canon!!
Imagine…uh…oh yeah…nothing bad has come from that.
Theological implications…lets hear what has ACTUALLY happened that has had any impact on the New Testament church.
Yes I accept the completeness of the OT because that is what God did.Despite the snark and sarcasm apparent in this reply let me attempt an answer. So you are telling me it’s okay to unquestioningly accept the determination of the Jews regarding the completeness of the OT, when in the exact same breath they would tell you the NT is false and that Christ was an ordinary man? If that helps you sleep at night then so be it.
Okay, actual implications then … there are things in the Deuterocanonical books that point to Catholic truth especially regarding prayers for the dead. By accepting a lesser, incomplete Old Testament you are missing out on truth accepted by the earliest Christians. Books have been rejected that give you a less than complete view into Christianity leading to a rejection of the Catholic Church.
How is that for theological implications?
ChadS
Just I thought,more redundant rhetoric. We have the locations and dates of when and where the NT canonization took place,but all you tell me is the OT was fixed by God? WEAK!The OT canon was fixed by God. It was recognized by the Jews over the course of a thousand plus years. A council or such was not used. The evidence was not erased. There are NT clues, patristic sources and Jewish writers who attest to the canon as they recognized it.
God did not erase any form of evidence. Would you agree for example that Irenaeus refers to certain books of the NT as being scripture prior to any council?
Thanks
One more time. The canon was fixed the minute the last book was penned. It was recognized over time by the Jews by all existing primary sources I have read and was not fluid at the time of Christ.
Where you going to also address the Catholic link supporting what I said about noncanonical sources in the Bible? It proved what I said and I thought you might want to address that.Just I thought,more redundant rhetoric. We have the locations and dates of when and where the NT canonization took place,but all you tell me is the OT was fixed by God? WEAK!
No location(s) where it took place? And no idea who was responsible for the canonization?
When you are done making 5th grade rebuttals,I’ll continue.
They did not set the Canon for those groups only insofar as they did not exist yet. The Great Schism would not occur for another 600 years, and the Protestants would not come into being for more than a millennium. Your own Baptist denomination did not exist for nearly another century after that, and Biblical Fundamentalism (which you proudly and loudly proclaim) was an odd American innovation of the md 19th century. You need to get off of this line of argumentation, it is weak, at best.Where you going to also address the Catholic link supporting what I said about noncanonical sources in the Bible? It proved what I said and I thought you might want to address that.
Local regional synods, sure took a lot of them, set the OT canon for the Catholic Church. They did not set the canon for the Eastern Orthodox. They did not set the canon for the Oriental Orthodox. They did not set the canon for Protestants.
As far as the 5th grade remark, I will once again choose to endure your personal attacks.
BAPTIST!!!They did not set the Canon for those groups only insofar as they did not exist yet. The Great Schism would not occur for another 600 years, and the Protestants would not come into being for more than a millennium. Your own Baptist denomination did not exist for nearly another century after that, and Biblical Fundamentalism (which you proudly and loudly proclaim) was an odd American innovation of the md 19th century. You need to get off of this line of argumentation, it is weak, at best.
Seven Books, Essenes Qumran, Dead Sea Scrolls is what I was referring to from CW post about them.This does not really makes sense to me. Could you elaborate what you believe please?
Ok, I think I am following you.Seven Books, Essenes Qumran, Dead Sea Scrolls is what I was referring to from CW post about them.
ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes
The Dead Sea Scrolls are traditionally divided into three groups: “Biblical” manuscripts (copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 40% of the identified scrolls; “Apocryphal” or “Pseudepigraphical” manuscripts (known documents from the Second Temple Period like Enoch, Jubilees, Tobit, Sirach, non-canonical psalms, etc., that were not ultimately canonized in the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls; and “Sectarian” manuscripts (previously unknown documents that speak to the rules and beliefs of a particular group or groups within greater Judaism) like the Community Rule, War Scroll, Pesher (Hebrew pesher פשר = “Commentary”) on Habakkuk, and the Rule of the Blessing, which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls.
God Bless GT
Even if all seven were not to be found at Qumran, in the ancient world it is to be expected. It isn’t like John the Baptist could make a run to Borders or B&N and pick one up. Back in the day books were hard to come by and prohibitively expensive. If The books are to be found at Qumran, it is positive. If it is not at Qumran, it isn’t necessarily a negative.BAPTIST!!!
I am not a Baptist. Goodness gracious.
Your history is off CWBetts. The Oriental Orthodox stem from the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.
The East/West split I believe is also underplayed in your response. If the Catholic Church set the canon for the Eastern Orthodox, are you contending the East added books post 1054 AD?
There is nothing odd about Fundamentalists although you went to Hyles Anderson and I can understand your experience was not…how shall we say…normal. Its rather like saying I went to China and ate at McDonalds and thus I have a good idea of what Chinese food is like. Do not take that personally but even fundamentalists do not claim HAC!
Next, did we drop Qumran? I keep bringing up historical facts and when people see I am right they drop them. Not that you did yet.
JL: Then why do orthodox Jews pray for the dead even today? If God closed the WRITTEN INSPIRED WORD with the OT canon wouldn’t that mean NOTHING could be added as SCRIPTURE? Wouldn’t that mean the NT could only be accepted as oral Tradition and NOT the INSPIRED written Word of God?Yes I accept the completeness of the OT because that is what God did.
One of the reasons the Jews did not accept Maccabees is exactly the reason you stated.
The closing of the canon saved the doctrinal truth of Christianity from this belief. Well for us it did thankfully.
CWEven if all seven were not to be found at Qumran, in the ancient world it is to be expected. It isn’t like John the Baptist could make a run to Borders or B&N and pick one up. Back in the day books were hard to come by and prohibitively expensive. If The books are to be found at Qumran, it is positive. If it is not at Qumran, it isn’t necessarily a negative.
My history is correct. THere was no official split at Chalcedon. There was a difference of opinion, but the sect that was putting their support behind Nestorius capitulated.
You know, I don’t know, but is was not from Chaclcedon.CW
From whence come the Oriental Orthodox?
The Jews did eventually adopt this practice. It was a doctrine that sprung up in the Deuterocanonical era and slowly gained acceptance in both Jews and eventually Christians.JL: Then why do orthodox Jews pray for the dead even today? If God closed the WRITTEN INSPIRED WORD with the OT canon wouldn’t that mean NOTHING could be added as SCRIPTURE? Wouldn’t that mean the NT could only be accepted as oral Tradition and NOT the INSPIRED written Word of God?
If a lost letter of Paul was found today, it could not be inspired as the inspired Word of God has been set by God thru His Church.