A
Anna_Scott
Guest
You are just too much; but a least you made me laugh.
Anna
P.S. You still haven’t responded to post 89.
- Status
You are just too much; but a least you made me laugh.
Anna
P.S. You still haven’t responded to post 89.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
I am very sensitive. I cry when offended sometimes. I am touch with my right brain. I am in touch with my X Chromosome. I agree that it is difficult to assess a manner of speech. I do see that perhaps since Anna has complained that it is worth noting. My complaint is that you have not anwered the following…
So, do you agree or disagree that the DC are Scripture?
Do you agree that the DC should be in the Bible?
If you continue to dodge this question then I may cry.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Well maybe the DC have no value. Maybe you have gotten to the point where all I can say is the DC were not quoted by Jesus. The DC are alluded to by the Gospel writers…I am so confused…but here since you are a Methodist and you have some insights and you have been on the journey of the DC…lets look at this for a second another way…
John Wesley (17 June] 1703 – 2 March 1791) was a Church of England cleric and Christian theologian. He is the founder of Methodism. Correct?
He was a member of the Church of England. Correct?
Question. What Bible did John Wesley use when he was with the Church of England?
Next…The Moravian Church, also known as the Bohemian Brethren is a Protestant denomination. Its religious heritage began in 1457. Wesley had an experience with the Moravian bretheren that moved him to break with the Church of England.
Sunday, January 25, 1736
Wesley is on board a ship bound for America and observes the Moravians in the midst of life-threatening storms.
Question what Bible did the Moravian Bretheren use in their formation?
The first group to produce a Bible without the Scriptures of the Apocrypha (as far as anyone knows) were the Puritans in the 1590s. (Source: HarperCollins Bible Dictionary). The Puritans, unlike other Protestant sects of the day, believed that those Scriptures should not be included in The Bible.
Shortly after, a law was enacted in England prohibiting the production of Bibles without the Apocrypha. So, the Puritan doctrine was suppressed - but not eradicated, and many other Protestant sects in both English and in foreign languages gradually adopted the Puritan view.
About 1700, Bibles without the Apocrypha begin to appear again.in England (apparently the previous law either was repealed or was no longer enforced). Around 1800, English Bibles without the Apocrypha had become at least as common as those with - and the trend has continued so that now by far most English Bibles exclude the Apocrypha.
We know that the 1611 King James bible had the DC and many other English Bibles. We know that Protestants took them out and Catholics did not add them.
Outline for me the beliefs of the Moravians as it concerns from which Bible they drew their beliefs from and answer if this Bible had the DC. Then explain which Bible was being used by Wesley when he was with the Church of England and if they had the DC. Then explain which Bible was being used by the Moravians when Wesley had his experience.
Then tell me under whose authority the DC were removed by Protestants and why?
I have my emotions in control now and expect an answer from you so I can clarify my confusion.
O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
That’s a pretty uncharitable and smug response I BELIEVE. Prove that it wasn’t the Psalms that Jesus was quoting. Simple as that.I believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows. I believe that somewhere in the darkest night, a candle glows. I believe for everyone who goes astray, someone will come to show the way…I believe, I believe…
I believe that you have negelected to answer many of my postings…
C
CopticChristian
Guest
“I Believe” was commissioned and introduced by Jane Froman on her television show, and became the first hit song ever introduced on TV. Froman, troubled by the uprising of the Korean War in 1952 so soon after World War II, asked Drake, Graham, Shirl and Stillman to compose a song that would offer hope and faith to the populace.
Do you not like hope and faith…are you opposed to the lyrics or the authors or the singer that performed the song.
You have yet to answer any of my questions. I have no need to prove anything…you believe that Jesus was quoting the Psalms and if you recall Jimmy Akin says there is no way to know what Jesus quoted because he spoke aramaic…so this is a dead end…unless you were there…I believe we are at an impasse.
youtube.com/watch?v=cvupAr3XQWY
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
As I said before, if you want an exact word for word quote of the DC in the N.T., then you are not going to be satisfied with the lists posted.
Consider James Akin’s connection of John 7:38 with Sirach 24:40, 43[30s]
Link: cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm#2%20maccabees:
(emphasis is mine throughout)
John 7: 37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Sirach 24 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
40 I, wisdom, have poured out rivers. 41 I, like a brook out of a river of a mighty water; I, like a channel of a river. and like an aqueduct, came out of paradise. 42 I said: I will water my garden of plants, and I will water abundantly the fruits of my meadow. 43 And behold my brook became a great river, and my river came near to a sea:
This is obviously not an exact quote from Sirach. So, if Christ is quoting “Scripture,” and He is not referring to the DC; does that mean we will find anything close to an exact quote in the Protocanonical Books? The answer is, of course, no.
Isaiah 12:3; Proverbs 18:4; Ezekiel 47:1; Proverbs 20:5; Ezekiel 47:1 allude to this, but none of these passages say, regarding those who believe in Christ [God], “Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”
**Isaiah 12: **1 You will say in that day:
“I will give thanks to you, O LORD,
for though you were angry with me,
your anger turned away,
that you might comfort me.
2 “Behold, God is my salvation;
I will trust, and will not be afraid;
for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song,
and he has become my salvation.”
3 With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation. 4 And you will say in that day:
“Give thanks to the LORD,
call upon his name,
make known his deeds among the peoples,
proclaim that his name is exalted.
5 “Sing praises to the LORD, for he has done gloriously;
let this be made known in all the earth.
6 Shout, and sing for joy, O inhabitant of Zion,
for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel.”
Proverbs 18: 4 The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters; the fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.
Ezekiel 47: 1 Then he brought me back to the door of the temple, and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east). The water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple, south of the altar.
Proverbs 20: 5 The purpose in a man’s heart is like deep water, but a man of understanding will draw it out.
If there is nothing close to an exact quote of John 7:38 in the DC and nothing close to an exact quote in the Protocanonical Books, what “Scripture” is Jesus quoting? If you can produce this quote, I am certainly open to correction (I could be wrong and often am.
)My point is that you are insisting upon a standard regarding what constitutes a quote that, in some cases, we can’t even apply to the Protocanonical Books.
Peace,
Anna
B
BrianH
Guest
When did I say what my standard was? How do you know what I “insist” on? What an extremely presumptious and faulty presupposition!As I said before, if you want an exact word for word quote of the DC in the N.T., then you are not going to be satisfied with the lists posted.
Consider James Akin’s connection of John 7:38 with Sirach 24:40, 43[30s]
Link: cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm#2%20maccabees:
(emphasis is mine throughout)
John 7: 37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Sirach 24 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
40 I, wisdom, have poured out rivers. 41 I, like a brook out of a river of a mighty water; I, like a channel of a river. and like an aqueduct, came out of paradise. 42 I said: I will water my garden of plants, and I will water abundantly the fruits of my meadow. 43 And behold my brook became a great river, and my river came near to a sea:
This is obviously not an exact quote from Sirach. So, if Christ is quoting “Scripture,” and He is not referring to the DC; does that mean we will find anything close to an exact quote in the Protocanonical Books? The answer is, of course, no.
Isaiah 12:3; Proverbs 18:4; Ezekiel 47:1; Proverbs 20:5; Ezekiel 47:1 allude to this, but none of these passages say, regarding those who believe in Christ [God], “Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”
**Isaiah 12: **1 You will say in that day:
“I will give thanks to you, O LORD,
for though you were angry with me,
your anger turned away,
that you might comfort me.
2 “Behold, God is my salvation;
I will trust, and will not be afraid;
for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song,
and he has become my salvation.”
3 With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation. 4 And you will say in that day:
“Give thanks to the LORD,
call upon his name,
make known his deeds among the peoples,
proclaim that his name is exalted.
5 “Sing praises to the LORD, for he has done gloriously;
let this be made known in all the earth.
6 Shout, and sing for joy, O inhabitant of Zion,
for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel.”
Proverbs 18: 4 The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters; the fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.
Ezekiel 47: 1 Then he brought me back to the door of the temple, and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east). The water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple, south of the altar.
Proverbs 20: 5 The purpose in a man’s heart is like deep water, but a man of understanding will draw it out.
If there is nothing close to an exact quote of John 7:38 in the DC and nothing close to an exact quote in the Protocanonical Books, what “Scripture” is Jesus quoting? If you can produce this quote, I am certainly open to correction (I could be wrong and often am.
My point is that you are insisting upon a standard regarding what constitutes a quote that, in some cases, we can’t even apply to the Protocanonical Books.
Peace,
Anna
John 7:38 has several plausible verses as well as an entirely different rendering and interpretation. Look at the following verses:
John 2:22
John 7:42
John’s use of the term scripture in multifacted. In this particular passage John’s reference to scripture could be a reference to the aforementioned belief.
Regardless, no exact verse matches what John says if it is read in the manner you are alluding to. No argument there. Of course, if you have already established in your mind that I have some unstated standard based upon your presuppositions…carry on I suppose.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
We are frail humans with all sorts of weaknesses in thinking and understanding…may I ask…When did I say what my standard was? How do you know what I “insist” on? What an extremely presumptious and faulty presupposition!
John 7:38 has several plausible verses as well as an entirely different rendering and interpretation. Look at the following verses:
John 2:22
John 7:42
John’s use of the term scripture in multifacted. In this particular passage John’s reference to scripture could be a reference to the aforementioned belief.
Regardless, no exact verse matches what John says if it is read in the manner you are alluding to. No argument there. Of course, if you have already established in your mind that I have some unstated standard based upon your presuppositions…carry on I suppose.
Do you have a standard?
Do you insist on anything?
What is your position on the DC? Are they Scripture in your opinion? Yes or no.
What is your position on the DC? Do they belong in the bible? Yes or no.
Thank you for your consideration…please provide the information on Wesley, Moravians and the Bible that they used for my clarity.
B
BrianH
Guest
We are frail humans with all sorts of weaknesses in thinking and understanding…may I ask…
Do you have a standard?
Do you insist on anything?
What is your position on the DC? Are they Scripture in your opinion? Yes or no.
What is your position on the DC? Do they belong in the bible? Yes or no.
Thank you for your consideration…please provide the information on Wesley, Moravians and the Bible that they used for my clarity.
- Standard. There are direct quotes. They can allude to it or reword it. I do not think there is any difference between how Catholic and Protestant scholars determine and categorize quotes. Any Catholic or Protestant text on the subject goes into exacting length. Suffice to say, I have a very mainstream view and have never read or heard anything or had a professor tell me my views were anything but. There is no discernable difference in my view and any Catholic textbook on the subject.
- Argumentative and ignored.
- The DC are considered canonical by the Catholic Church. Additional books are considered canonical by Eastern Orthodox and even more books by the Oriental Orthodox. What is considered canonical is a result of geography and historical circumstances. Different groups have different canons and I would think it absurd for a Protestant to argue against the use of books by groups who for centuries have used them. However, I also think that the rejection of the Deuterocanonical books by various parts of the Reformation, English, Radical, and German, was understandable and not at all problematic. These large groups left the Catholic Church and are in no way bound or held to her perceived authority in regards to a canon based upon theological and historical circumstances. The Catholic canon was and will remain the canon of a segment of Christianity. Long before the Reformation other Christians used a larger canon. The role of local regional synods is overstated in apologetics. Trent was dogmatic for the Catholic Church. The Oriental and Eastern Orthodox are not bound to her decrees.
- I think I have explained. On a personal level, I prefer the Orthodox Study Bible with its larger canon as opposed to the Catholic Bible. Although I also have several Catholic Bibles as well.
I find the issue of the Deuterocanonical to be important to Fundamentalists and Catholic apologists who do not understand how little it would impact
Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and other mainline groups. The vast majority of Protestants do not read the 66 already in their Bible. I think the books should be in the Bible in the manner they are in the KJV for Protestants. I think their exclusion entirely from the Bible is anti-historical. - I do not care a lick about John Wesley. I have been a United Methodist since my marriage many years ago and do not have a reason to change. While it is true that I am probably more Anglican than Methodist, it is not enough to change. I abhor the fluidity of changing churches like linen. I also find the emphasis on one person, Wesley, to be largely relegated to those in the offices of the denomination. Rank and file have little to no interest. United Methodist doctrine and practice are similiar to any of the other mainline groups. Certainly not enough difference to change anything.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
O.K. fair enough. I stand corrected: you have not insisted upon a standard regarding the N.T. quoting the DC.When did I say what my standard was? How do you know what I “insist” on? What an extremely presumptious and faulty presupposition! . . . .Of course, if you have already established in your mind that I have some unstated standard based upon your presuppositions…carry on I suppose.
So far, the only clear position you have taken is that no one in the New Testament quoted the Deuterocanonical Books; that there are allusions to the DC, arguable 5-7; and that posted links to NT/DC contain lists that are deceptive.
:shrug:
So, you are not sure what your motivation would be for participating in a “large topic” that includes questions such as, “Do you agree or disagree that the DC are Scripture?” or “Do you agree that the DC should be in the Bible?”
Then why are you posting on this thread?
Regardless of what you believe regarding N.T. quotes vs. allusions found in the DC; there is still the question of the OP quoted below:
OP:
If you don’t want to answer the OP’s question, then why are you posting on this thread?
Peace,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
BrianH,
After I posted #110, I found your post #109.
You said the Protestant exclusion of the DC entirely from the Bible is anti-historical? So, you agree that the DC should be in the Protestant Canon? Just want to make sure I understand what you are saying.
Peace,
Anna
After I posted #110, I found your post #109.
To which KJV are you referring? Do you mean a KJV that includes the DC or a KJV that excludes the DC?
You said the Protestant exclusion of the DC entirely from the Bible is anti-historical? So, you agree that the DC should be in the Protestant Canon? Just want to make sure I understand what you are saying.
Peace,
Anna
B
BrianH
Guest
I mean the KJV “with”.
Of course it is not part of the Protestant canon.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
BrianH,
Now, I’m really confused. Regarding your “standard” for a quote, you said, “1. Standard. There are direct quotes. They can allude to it or reword it.”
So, now alluding to or rewording a quote can be considered a direct quote?
Please clarify,
Anna
B
BrianH
Guest
There are direct quotes. Period. End of thought.
They can allude to a quote or reword it.
Those are the criteria or standard by which quotes are categorized.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
By your stated “standard”: direct quote = allude to a quote or reword a quote.
BrianH,
Regarding the NT and DC: your above statement contradicts your previous statement that one would find “no direct quotes, but a few allusions.”
If “alluding to” or “rewording” can be considered a “direct quote”; then how can you claim there are no direct quotes in the N.T. of the D.C., but a few allusions. This doesn’t make sense—at least not to me.
Again, please clarify.
Peace,
Anna
B
BrianH
Guest
No. You are not understanding me. That is why it does not make sense.
- Direct quotes.
- Quotes that are alluded to or reworded.
Two different things. I am sorry for the confusion. I should have made it clearer because I realize now some of this could be new information to people.
So, at the risk of insulting your intelligence, here it goes:
A direct quote can be established when the wording matches one of the existing LXX or MT quotes or is in substantial agreement with a known stream of a text.
An allusion or rewording occurs when the author is using a previously unknown textual variant but it appears they are not rewording the text/quote/verse for theological purposes. The final one is of coure the rewording of a verse for theological or argumentative purposes. I am sure you know all that but this is such an odd thing to explain I thought it better to overexplain.
I tend to type as a speak and I understand without proper background knowledge that can cause confusion. I will overexplain more until I am told it is unneeded.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
BrianH,No. You are not understanding me. That is why it does not make sense.
- Direct quotes.
- Quotes that are alluded to or reworded.
Two different things. I am sorry for the confusion. I should have made it clearer because I realize now some of this could be new information to people.
So, at the risk of insulting your intelligence, here it goes:
A direct quote can be established when the wording matches one of the existing LXX or MT quotes or is in substantial agreement with a known stream of a text.
An allusion or rewording occurs when the author is using a previously unknown textual variant but it appears they are not rewording the text/quote/verse for theological purposes. The final one is of coure the rewording of a verse for theological or argumentative purposes. I am sure you know all that but this is such an odd thing to explain I thought it better to overexplain.
I tend to type as a speak and I understand without proper background knowledge that can cause confusion. I will overexplain more until I am told it is unneeded.
We can’t read your mind, Brian.
My lack of understanding was not due to a lack of knowledge or being exposed to new information; and you don’t need to “over-explain.”
Your posts were confusing, because you made contradictory statements. It’s that simple.
I know it must be difficult for one so highly educated to post clarifications without insulting someone’s intelligence;
but I do appreciate the effort. Peace,
Anna
B
BrianH
Guest
So why even ask? Did you think I was out of the mainstream on quotes?BrianH,
We can’t read your mind, Brian.
My lack of understanding was not due to a lack of knowledge or being exposed to new information; and you don’t need to “over-explain.”
Your posts were confusing, because you made contradictory statements. It’s that simple.
I know it must be difficult for one so highly educated to post clarifications without insulting someone’s intelligence;
Peace,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Because, we can’t read your mind, Brian.
Regarding the NT and DC: you said that one would find “no direct quotes, but a few allusions.”
After arguing against any NT direct quotes of the DC, you defined your standard for a direct quotes as “There are direct quotes. They can allude to it or reword it.” I might add that you did not define your standard, until pressed by CopticChristian. Otherwise, we’d still be in the dark.
Prior to clarification regarding your standard, how could anyone possibly know what criteria you were using to determine what constitutes a direct-quote allusion, and what constitutes an allusion that is not considered to be part of the direct quote standard? :banghead:
Peace,
Anna
B
BrianH
Guest
They would know because this is not a controversial area Anna. Scholars may differ on the textual stream being quoted but what constitutes a direct quote or an allusion is pretty standard stuff. People just really do not argue that much about something like that. I simply follow the experts in matters like this. Not everything is contentious…
- Status