John 1:1

[LionHeart777]

It is not my argument, it is Jimmy Akin’s found in the “Bible Answer Man” debate w/ James White.

 

[LionHeart777]

This doesn’t get you any closer to the source of the info, but here:

“The Sadducees thought of themselves as ‘conservatives,’ as the Old Believers. This is because they accepted only the written Law of Moses as authoritative and rejected subsequent revelation. As a result, the Sadducees denied many of the doctrines held by the Pharisees and by Jesus, including the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels and spirits, and the meting out of rewards and punishment after death. These beliefs were thought by the Sadducees to be Zoroastrian corruptions of the authentic faith of Israel.”

(Accessed 9/ 06/ 09) (catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=612) (Emphasis mine.)

 

[Dan_Parker]

This doesn’t get you any closer to the source of the info, but here:

“The Sadducees thought of themselves as ‘conservatives,’ as the Old Believers. This is because they accepted only the written Law of Moses as authoritative and rejected subsequent revelation. As a result, the Sadducees denied many of the doctrines held by the Pharisees and by Jesus, including the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels and spirits, and the meting out of rewards and punishment after death. These beliefs were thought by the Sadducees to be Zoroastrian corruptions of the authentic faith of Israel.”

(Accessed 9/ 06/ 09) (catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=612) (Emphasis mine.)

If Jesus did not like them, neither do I Jesus quoted from the law, prophets and psalms and so do I.

 

[LionHeart777]

…Jesus quoted from the law, prophets and psalms and so do I.

This is just one of those cases where we will have to; agree to agree

 

[teachccd]

You asked about the book of John and you now agree that the council merely acknowledge and did not establish its canonicity. That was my point. Thanks for confirming it.

What is your definition of canonicity? Again you use your marvelous rhetorical dance to twist nuances into nowhereland…

As for Revelation, it had been accepted more widely until some like Caius and Dionysius
denied its authenticity in order to argue against Millenniaism. Since there are catalogs which include Revelation before the Council of Carthage (397*C.E.) that council could at best only acknowledge the canon, not establish it.

Accepted by who?? Again you mention who is NOT doing the establishing but you continue to fail in mentioning WHO established the canon of the New Testaments. Who decided that there was to be 27 books and which books they were to be. PLEASE answer this question directly and do away with the assertions that it “Just is”. In the book entitiled “Reasoning from the Scriptures” ,Pages 60-68, there is no evidence of WHO decided that there was to be 27 books in the NT. It states that the evidence of inspiration (page 60) comes merely from prophecy. Who decided which prophets to believe? How and why does Judaism accept different canons depending on which sect you follow?

As for the Apocrypha, the internal evidence disqualifies them. See below how some scholars express this.

1. 
   *]“There is no question of any one’s having excluded them from the New Testament: they have done that for themselves.”—M.*R.*James, The Apocryphal New Testament, pages xi, xii.
   *]“We have only to compare our New Testament books as a whole with other literature of the kind to realize how wide is the gulf which separates them from it. The uncanonical gospels, it is often said, are in reality the best evidence for the canonical.”—G.Milligan, The New Testament Documents, page228.
   *]“It cannot be said of a single writing preserved to us from the early period of the Church outside the New Testament that it could properly be added to-day to the Canon.”—K.Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon, page24.

1. 
   This is all hearsay. Your resources do not allow me to know the qualifications of these authors. I can list a ton of scholars who disagree.The only difference is that we can note that before the Protestant reformation (which JW’s somehow attach themselves to) the deuterocanonical books were included as they were in the Septuagint. Historically these books were not accepted by the Jews who noted this in the Council of Jamnia around 90AD. Martin Luther adapted his new concepts to include the Palestinian canon that was never the Christian canon prior to the 16th century.

 

[teachccd]

If Jesus did not like them, neither do I Jesus quoted from the law, prophets and psalms and so do I.

Again you reply without discerning the context of the noted quote. The quote states that there is **more than **what is written down. Yes, Catholics also quote from the law, prophets and the psalms. You do well in doing so…

 

[teachccd]

I don’t see much here that remains an issue except your point about a Pharisee Canon and a Sadducee canon. While that interests me and I would like to see the lists to see how they differ, I don’t believe Paul was speaking specifically about the wicked religious leaders who persecuted Jesus. In addition, the Hebrew canon was closed some 400 years earlier. Once I see the substance of your reference I can proceed to dismantle your argument

In the JW book entitled “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial” Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, pages 302-303 states that “The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalogue of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit- the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place…” I continue to read the entire text and I still find no answer. On page 303, I find a list of the Catholic Early Church Fathers and what canon they accepted but nothing conclusive.

Please help me here as I cannot find how the 27 books were codified. Page 304 gives the quote that you noted referring to the Apocryphal writings. Again, there is nothing to back that up,…

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

Dogface Soldier:
I think you forget that the phrase “ego eimi” was adapted to function as a title, not the other way around; so your grammatically seamless substitution argument is somewhat inapposite. For example, let’s apply your argument to the referent text, Exodus 3: 14: God could not have meant “I AM” to function as a title, because “God said to Moses ‘I AM that IAM’” would become “God said to Moses ‘Jehovah that Jehovah’”, or “Fred” that “Fred” after substitution, which is not grammatically correct.

Dan:
No, you evidently don’t understand the syntax here. In the Greek Septuagint the phrase is EGW EIMI hO WN which is literally “I am the being.” The EIMI (I am) verb is being as a copulative which is a common usage for the verb. If you don’t know what this means and cannot interact with the Greek google some English grammars, for this also applies to English. The words hO WN have the meaning. So the phrase I am the being is the Greek in the Septuagint.

My point was that EGW EIMI is not being used as a title in John 8:58 or Ex 3:14. The title in Exodus is hO WN (the Being) and the EGW EIMI is used grammatically in a very common way.

In John 8:58 the EGW EIMI is not being used as a copulative like in Ex 3:14, but it is being used grammatically in Greek and EIMI there is the main verb of that sentence. So to interpret the main verb of the sentence to a title robs that sentence of its main verb and makes it unintelligible.

The problem with your attempt to use the Fred argument is that you are not using it with the English rendering of the Greek Septuagint for EGW EIMI hO WN. The Brenton Septuagint renders this as I am the Being, so actually the substitution would be for “the Being” and this would be I am Fred.

Dogface Soldier:
One of the flaws of your argument is that proves too much; it renders “I AM” incapable of ever referring to Jehovah, by any theology. So one of the flaws in your argument from grammar is that it proves too much, i.e., “I AM” never functioned as a title for God.

Dan:
Those who argue for EGW EIMI in John 8:58 to compare to Exodus 3:14 do so on the basis of the Greek Septuagint and an inaccurate understanding of that translation. Of course you have not made an argument from the original language yet, so if what I have written does not apply to you, please do.

However, also be aware that there is no comparison to the Hebrew of Ex 3:14 either.

Dogface Soldier:
The very reason that “I AM” functions as a title is that it conveys the sense that God is pure essence or pure being. Even when used as a noun representing God, “I AM” retains its superficial sense.

Furthermore, if Jesus were simply attempting to indicate that he was eternal, or pre-existent, then “i am” doesn’t make any sense at all. If we remove from “I AM” any connotation of indicating identity with the Father, then the sentence doesn’t make any sense. The sentence, as it would read, neither indicates a pre-existence or eternal existence, nor (by your argument) an identity with the Father; so why was the crowd so upset?

Dan:
If you read my link on the context, it answers that.

Dogface Soldier:
Moving on, have you yet responded to John 10:24-33

Dan:
I have never seen an attempt to use John 10:24-33 as a proof that God is a Trinity. Can you show me your reasoning?

Dan,

I still disagree with your analysis, but in the interest of moving forward, what is the best explanation of Jesus’ statement and Jews’ reaction?

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

I still disagree with your analysis, but in the interest of moving forward, what is the best explanation of Jesus’ statement and Jews’ reaction?

You tell me why you disagree and prove it with sound exegesis and then we will talk about moving forward.

 

[Dan_Parker]

In the JW book entitled “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial” Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, pages 302-303 states that “The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalogue of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit- the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place…” I continue to read the entire text and I still find no answer. On page 303, I find a list of the Catholic Early Church Fathers and what canon they accepted but nothing conclusive.

Please help me here as I cannot find how the 27 books were codified. Page 304 gives the quote that you noted referring to the Apocryphal writings. Again, there is nothing to back that up,…

Are you telling me that you are not aware of catalogs that predate Carthage? Here is a link to get you started:
The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books. It was discovered by Ludovico Antonio Muratori in a manuscript in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and published by him in 1740. * It is called a fragment because the beginning of it is missing. Although the manuscript in which it appears was copied during the seventh century, the list itself is dated to about 170 …

This includes Revelation.

 

[teachccd]

Are you telling me that you are not aware of catalogs that predate Carthage? Here is a link to get you started:
The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books. It was discovered by Ludovico Antonio Muratori in a manuscript in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and published by him in 1740. * It is called a fragment because the beginning of it is missing. Although the manuscript in which it appears was copied during the seventh century, the list itself is dated to about 170 …
This includes Revelation.

You need not patronize me with idle references and please just answer my question. It is what I expected, however. since most of the Jehovah’s Witnesses dance around that same question and is yet to be answered for me. Again, I ask: WHO esablished the canon of the New Testament that you recognize today as inspired Scripture? How did we finally end up with the 27 books? In your own words would be nice and not some pasted book notes or links.The Muratorian Fragment is not the canon that we use today. You do well at mirroring your given resources as I see. (cf. “All Scripture Is Inspiried of God and Beneficial” page 303). There you will notice that five of the listed ECF’s did not accept Revelation. It really strikes me as interesting that the entire list includes all of the Catholic Church fathers. They all wrote on trinitarian beliefs and you resource to them for scripture canonicity. Anyway, my answer please?

 

[teachccd]

Are you telling me that you are not aware of catalogs that predate Carthage? Here is a link to get you started:
The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books. It was discovered by Ludovico Antonio Muratori in a manuscript in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and published by him in 1740. * It is called a fragment because the beginning of it is missing. Although the manuscript in which it appears was copied during the seventh century, the list itself is dated to about 170 …
This includes Revelation.

Here is a copy of my previous post:

In the JW book entitled “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial” Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, pages 302-303 states that “The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalogue of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit- the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place…” I continue to read the entire text and I still find no answer. On page 303, I find a list of the Catholic Early Church Fathers and what canon they accepted but nothing conclusive.

Please help me here as I cannot find how the 27 books were codified. Page 304 gives the quote that you noted referring to the Apocryphal writings. Again, there is nothing to back that up,…

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

You tell me why you disagree and prove it with sound exegesis and then we will talk about moving forward.

The Jews frequently used “I AM” as a title for God. This title does not need to be found in Scripture to be the prevailing convention of the Jewish people (although it quite clearly is based on Exodus 3:14). Jesus would have been addressing the crowd in either Hebrew or Aramaic; thus your argument that EGW EIMI in John 8 does not refer to the LXX Exodus 3:14 is unavailing. Jesus would have used “ehyeh”, which refers to the Masoretic Ex 3:14.

This exegesis is amply supported by the events of John 8. Hence my question, what do you think is the best explanation of Jesus’ statement and the Jews’ reaction?

As for Revelation, it had been accepted more widely until some like Caius and Dionysius
denied its authenticity in order to argue against Millenniaism. Since there are catalogs which include Revelation before the Council of Carthage (397*C.E.) that council could at best only acknowledge the canon, not establish it.

that doesn’t even make logical sense. There are catalogs that enumerate the Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Clement, the Gospel of Mary, etc. It does not follow that these books are canonical. Nor does it follow that simply because some writer or church leader posits a list of authoritative books that there is a divine intent for any list to exist. In other words, why do you believe that there should be a canon of scripture at all?

 

[teachccd]

that doesn’t even make logical sense. There are catalogs that enumerate the Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Clement, the Gospel of Mary, etc. It does not follow that these books are canonical. Nor does it follow that simply because some writer or church leader posits a list of authoritative books that there is a divine intent for any list to exist. In other words, why do you believe that there should be a canon of scripture at all?

Dogface Soldier,

I have had this same conversation with a JW at work and we discussed this for 2 1/2 years to no avail. It seems that they are taught “by the book” which is the literature given to them by their organization. If you move away from their method of monologue then they either do not answer you or desparately try to resume their course of action. They are taught that all of “Christendom” is of satan and their goal is not to reason with you but to advance their pre-scripted ideals. If a JW would even question a concept written in the Watchtower they could be disciplined. This happened to this gentleman that I mentioned above.

You may be familiar with this already but I thought that I would just add my two cents. This should have been a PM since my intent was not to derail the thread but I wanted others to be aware of this as well. A Jehovah’s Witness will NEVER come to a Catholic forum thread with any idea other than to proselytize. They are taught to reject any literature or thoughts that you may have. It is truly a one way street and it is very difficult, if not next to impossible to convert a JW.

I speak with authority here since I have listened in on their meetings, read much of their literature and had numerous conversations with them. It was indeed a learning experience but I became a better Catholic because of it… teachccd

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dogface Soldier:
The Jews frequently used “I AM” as a title for God. This title does not need to be found in Scripture to be the prevailing convention of the Jewish people (although it quite clearly is based on Exodus 3:14). Jesus would have been addressing the crowd in either Hebrew or Aramaic; thus your argument that EGW EIMI in John 8 does not refer to the LXX Exodus 3:14 is unavailing. Jesus would have used “ehyeh”, which refers to the Masoretic Ex 3:14.

Dan:
What we have is the Greek of John 8:58 which bears no resemblance to Exodus 3:14 in the Greek Septuagint or the Hebrew of Ex 3:14. You have an interesting theory that Jesus spoke Aramaic and used the word ehyeh, but that is not even the start of an explanation, yet alone proof. Ehyeh is a common work in Hebrew just as is EINAI. What is the Aramaic sentence that Jesus spoke that John rendered into Greek at John 8:58 which would also compare to the Hebrew of Ex 3:14?

Dogface Soldier
This exegesis is amply supported by the events of John 8. Hence my question, what do you think is the best explanation of Jesus’ statement and the Jews’ reaction?

Dan:
Its a good start but not even near a reasonable explanation let alone exegesis. Also, are you aware that most who make the claim that Jesus was claiming to be God here point to the phrase Ani Hu (literally I [am] he)?

At Exodus 3:14 Ehyeh is grammatically used as a title in a grammatical sentence. In John 8:58 EGW EIMI is not used as a title but is used grammatically in an entirely different way than in Ex 3:14.

To say that using a single and very common Hebrew word is enough to make a claim to be God is a very fantastic claim.

Dogface Soldier
that doesn’t even make logical sense. There are catalogs that enumerate the Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Clement, the Gospel of Mary, etc. It does not follow that these books are canonical. Nor does it follow that simply because some writer or church leader posits a list of authoritative books that there is a divine intent for any list to exist. In other words, why do you believe that there should be a canon of scripture at all?

Dan:
The claim was made that the list of NT books was established at Carthage. However lists that precede it by hundreds of years have the same list.

 

[teachccd]

**Dogface Soldier
**that doesn’t even make logical sense. There are catalogs that enumerate the Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Clement, the Gospel of Mary, etc. It does not follow that these books are canonical. Nor does it follow that simply because some writer or church leader posits a list of authoritative books that there is a divine intent for any list to exist. In other words, why do you believe that there should be a canon of scripture at all?

Dan:
The claim was made that the list of NT books was established at Carthage. However lists that precede it by hundreds of years have the same list.

---

Dan

Again we see Dan avoiding your question.

Dan,

Did I stump you? Just come out and tell me that you do not have the answer. I’m o.k. with that since your avoidance speaks volumes anyway…teachccd

 

[LionHeart777]

Dan,

The Canon was not even established by the time of Eusebius’ “History of the Church”, for in it we read:

“1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament…First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles.

1. After this…the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter… After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings.
2. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.
3. Among the rejected writings…the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter…the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.
4. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews…
5. …we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.”
   (Accessed 9/ 06/ 09 from: newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm)

I chopped it up a little to fit under 300 words (I think covered under “reasonable usage” of Copyright law.) In any event, the link is there for everyone to see the entire original text. I encourage it!

 

[LionHeart777]

Also, to here is a chronology of the Catholic Canon passed on to me by Randy Carson:

"The Canon and the Councils - Improved

Council of Rome (382 A.D.)

Convoked by Pope Damasus, this council produced the Roman Code. The Roman Code identified a list of scriptural books identical to the Council of Trent’s formally defined canon. Pope Damasus I approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, accepting St. Athanasius’ list as divinely inspired, and indicated that if any bishop used a list of books inconsistent with the Roman canon he would need a convincing explanation.

Council of Hippo (393 A.D.)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.

First Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome and also affirmed the Decree of Damasus issued in 382 A.D… Carthage, unlike Hippo, sent its decisions to Rome for ratification.

Pope Innocent I (405 A.D.)

In a letter to Exsuperius, the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent listed the same books established by the Council of Rome.

Pope Boniface (ca. 420 A.D.)

Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision of the first Council of Carthage and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. Boniface also sent the decision to the Eastern patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. At that point, the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture was informally accepted worldwide.

Second Council of Carthage (419 A.D.)

This council reiterated the list of books established by the Council of Rome.

Second Council of Nicaea (787 A.D.)

This council formally ratified the African Code which contained the same list of books that Trent would name “canonical”.

Council of Florence (1441 A.D.)

This council defined a list of inspired books identical to those defined by the African Code and the Second Council of Nicaea.

Council of Trent (1546 A.D.)

On April 8, 1546, this council produced a decree, Sacrosancta, which was the first, formal canonical definition of Old and New Testament scripture. This was the third formal affirmation of the list by an ecumenical council and at least the eighth overall."

 

[LionHeart777]

I believe that there are lists of the 27 books in the NT going back further (like the one you cited), however the NT Canon was by no means settled in a universal sense in the Church as we clearly see from Eusebius.

 

[Dan_Parker]

**Dogface Soldier
**that doesn’t even make logical sense. There are catalogs that enumerate the Shepherd of Hermas, the letters of Clement, the Gospel of Mary, etc. It does not follow that these books are canonical. Nor does it follow that simply because some writer or church leader posits a list of authoritative books that there is a divine intent for any list to exist. In other words, why do you believe that there should be a canon of scripture at all?

Dan:
The claim was made that the list of NT books was established at Carthage. However lists that precede it by hundreds of years have the same list.

---

Dan

Again we see Dan avoiding your question.

Dan,

Did I stump you? Just come out and tell me that you do not have the answer. I’m o.k. with that since your avoidance speaks volumes anyway…teachccd

Perhaps you should rephrase the question. At first I was asked why I should accept the gospel of John as inspired. After I responded with the facts that the councils merely acknowledged (not established) that John was inspired the question was switched to the book of Revelation.

The fact remains that Revelation was considered inspired until some cast doubt on it because they were anti-millennialist. The doubts were cast well after Revelation was included in the lists of books considered inspired, such as the Muratonian Fragment. As far as I am concerned if someone wants to prove a council canonized the book of Revelation they need to do more than make that claim. Let’s see the proof.

I have already proven early acceptance of the book.