P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Tomster,
I used the assumption only as an illustration of there being a doctrine that can’t be traced back to the apostles. I have no desire to debate the doctrine. Sorry.
- Status
I used the assumption only as an illustration of there being a doctrine that can’t be traced back to the apostles. I have no desire to debate the doctrine. Sorry.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
papal infallibility, denying justification by faith alone, …
J
jmcrae
Guest
Not all of them did. Different groups of Jews used different groups of books in their Synagogue services; they didn’t all use the same ones. Jesus and his 12 Apostles used the 46-book canon of the Old Testament as we see from their quotations of it in the New Testament. This was also the same one used by the Pharisees, and so of course must have also been the one used by St. Paul.
Other Jews (most notably the Sadducees) made use only of the five Books of Moses (aka, the Torah), and considered the remaining books to be apocryphal and indeed downright heretical, since they didn’t believe in life after death, or in a coming Messiah, or any of the other things mentioned in those other books.
T
Tomster
Guest
At the beginning of this thread, I believe, answers were called for by Catholics. Now that answers are being provided you do not want to hear them. Telling to say the least.
J
Jlcastagna
Guest
Oh so you are RC because no other Church has survived intact from the time of the Apostles.
By the way were is the name of your protestant church mentioned in the NT or any of the ECF’s?
T
Tomster
Guest
“Rock” solid biblical ANSWERS can be given for these also.
T
Tomster
Guest
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
I have read several works that say that the Alexandrian canon is a myth. Notably Bruce, MacDonald, and Roger Beckwith are of this opinion. There is more to their reasoning than this but one of the factors they consider is that we have no way of knowing what the supposed Alexandrian canon consisted of.
If you can answer the below questions please do so:
a.) What manuscripts exist for us to know which books were included in the OT that Jesus and the apostles used?
b.) What year do these manuscripts date to?
c.) Which Jewish author lists for us the books of the Jewish OT that Jesus and the apostles used?
It is a fact that none of the deutero’s are quoted in such a way as to indicate that any of the NT writers thought they were inspired. In other words, there is no “thus sayeth the Lord” or any other indicator of their being considered inspired.
Simple quotation does not equal canonocity as the NT quotes books that are pagan in origen and not considered inspired by either your church or mine.
Are there allusions to the deutero’s in the NT? Yes there are, but as I have shown above, an allusion or even a quote does not indicate anything about the canonical status of the book in question.
Also, we know from Josephus that the books laid up in the temple didn’t include the deutero’s. If the deutero’s weren’t laid up in the temple, what does that say about Jewish opinion regarding the books?
Yup…some Jews didn’t accept certain books but that is immaterial to my post.
Jesus clearly expected the Jews to know what scripture was and what scripture meant, afterall, they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
T
Tomster
Guest
JIc,
It is obvious that Catholics and Protestants understand “Church” differently.
Catholics are members of Christ’s Mystical Body. Protestants are . . . ? Maybe we can get an ANSWER from a Protestant. But then again . . .
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Ooops…your arogance is showing.
I think you are just trying to pick a fight. What questions have I not answered?
T
Tomster
Guest
Post # 52 is an illustration?
T
Tomster
Guest
I am prepared to prove it. You asked for it. And, now, you do not want to discuss it. All of a sudden post # 52 was just an illustration. Gimme a break!
J
jmcrae
Guest
How does that follow? The “oracles of God” is a reference to their God-given traditions; not to the Scriptures. An “oracle” is an oral prophecy; the words “oral” and “oracle” actually stem from the same root.
Jesus didn’t expect them to have a canon of Scripture; He Himself knew that there were many different factions of Jewish thought; He dealt with their leadership on an ongoing basis.
D
DarkMark
Guest
If the Jews was expected to have canon and know what is Scripture and what is not then they will certainty have included the NT books in their “Scripture” status. They weren’t expected to have a canon of Scripture.
Which Jews was entrusted with the oracles of God?
J
jmcrae
Guest
My personal basis for accepting it is not that it was called “Alexandrian,” but because it comes down to us from Apostolic times. My reason for accepting this particular canon is not that the Alexandrians used it, but that the Apostles used it, and passed it on to the Church.
These go back to the second century AD; I refer you to The Faith of the Early Fathers, ed. by William Jurgens, index search term “Scripture” - there is tons of stuff in there.
The Apostles themselves, I should think, although that comes down to us orally. I am not sure that later Christian writers really considered themselves “Jewish” - and someone who had remained Jewish certainly wouldn’t concern himself with the reading material of the Apostles, any more than I care what’s on the reading list at my local Mormon Temple - havng dismissed them as heretics, he wouldn’t think any more about them.
There are also books in the Proto-canon that they don’t mention at all, let alone refer to with the words “thus saith the Lord.” Therefore, being mentioned in the New Testament with the preface, “Thus saith the Lord,” while certainly valuable, is not the sole criteria for inclusion in our Christian Old Testament.
It’s important to keep in mind that this doesn’t reflect the whole of Jewish opinion; it reflects the priorities of those who ran the Temple at that time. There were also a great many synagogues, and they had different collections of books than what the Temple had. Also keep in mind, the Jews at that time had no concept of a “canon of Scripture” - they read from what they considered to be useful for instruction and convenient for prayer, and they had a hazy notion of “God-breathed writings” but it wouldn’t have occurred to them that you have to have a definitive list; after all, they were still being written.
Later Jews rejected works that they could only find in Greek translation, merely because they were apparently written in Greek (and thus, tainted with a certain air of non-kosherness). These same Jews also rejected the New Testament for the same reason; it is not possible for them to be infallible in the one instance, while being completely wrong in the other, so although we take their opinion into consideration, we don’t consider it the final word on the matter.
You might be asking “Shouldn’t the Jews know what constitutes the Christian Old Testament? After all, it’s their book.” And the answer to that is: Not necessarily - not if they don’t recognize Jesus as their Messiah, and not if they aren’t looking for books that accurately prophesy His incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and life in the world to come.
What the Jews are looking for are books that affirm Moses, Aaron, and David as the prototypes of prophet, priest, and king, and that affirm the Ten Commandments and the Law; this is an entirely different goal, and although it certainly has features in common with Christianity, will inevitably result in at least a somewhat different set of books.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Okay…if you can trace the belief in the assumption back to the apostles do so.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
I see no reason to assume that “oracles” only means God-given traditions and not scripture. I am assuming by “traditions” we are talking about unwritten traditions that didn’t find there way into the scriptures.
I could see how you could argue that “oracles” included more than just scripture but to exclude scripture entirely is without warrant.
Paul at the beginning of Romans says:
Romans 1:1-2 ESV Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant(1 )of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures
Paul begins Romans off with a reference to the scriptures and repeatedly refers to the Jewish Scriptures throughout Romans. Paul does not make any reference to unwritten prophetical utterances in Romans, not a single one.
You say an oracle is an oral prophecy and then conclude that by oracle Paul means only unwritten traditions. Where did you get that definition of an “oracle” from (ie. what lexicon)? I don’t see any such limitation in any of the lexicons that I have. I think your definition is faulty or at a minimum way to restrictive and w/out the limits you put on the definition of “oracle” I see no reason to exclude the scriptures from the scope of “oracles”.
In Gary Michuta’s books he says the following:
"It should be remembered that Paul did not literally say that the Jews were entrusted with the inspired books **(though that is certainly included in what he meant): **what the Apostle actually said was entrusted with the oracles of God- and this category included much more than just the Old Testament writings. (p. 12-13).
RIght now, I see no reason to limit oracles in the way you do.
Here is what Thayer’s has to say:
[Thayer] lo,gion
lo,gion, logiou, to, (diminutive of lo,goj (so Bleek (on Heb. 5:12), et al.; others, neuter of lo,gioj (Meyer on Rom. 3:2))), properly, “a little word (so Schol. ad Aristophanes ran. 969 (973)), a brief utterance, in secular authors a divine oracle” (doubtless because oracles were generally brief); Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristophanes, Euripides; Polybius 3, 112, 8; 8, 30, 6; Diodorus 2, 14; Aelian v. h. 2, 41; of the Sibylline oracles, Diodorus, p. 602 (from 50:34); Plutarch, Fab. 4; in the Septuagint for !v,xo the breast-plate of the high priest, which he wore when he consulted Jehovah, Exo. 28:15; 29:5, etc.; (once for rm,ao, of the words of a man, Ps. 18:15 (Ps. 19:15)); but chiefly for hr’m.ai of any utterance of God, whether precept or promise; (cf. Philo de congr. erud. grat. sec. 24; de profug. sec. 11 under the end); of the prophecies of God in the O. T., Josephus, b. j. 6, 5, 4; no,mouj kai, lo,gia qespisqenta dia, profhtw/n kai, umnouj, Philo vit. contempl. sec. 3; to, lo,gion tou/ profh,tou (Moses), vit. Moys. 3:35, cf. (23, and) de praem. et poen. sec. 1 at the beginning; ta, de,ka lo,gia, the Ten Commandments of God or the Decalogue, in Philo, who wrote a special treatise concerning them (Works edition Mang. ii., p. 180ff (edited by Richter iv., p. 246ff)); (Apostolic Constitutions 2, 36 (p. 63, 7 edition Lagarde)); Eusebius, h. e. 2, 18. In the N. T. spoken of the words or utterances of God: of the contents of the Mosaic law, Acts 7:38; with tou/ Qeou/ or Qeou/ added, of his commands in the Mosaic law and his Messianic promises, Rom. 3:2, cf. Philippi and Umbreit at the passage; of the substance of the Christian religion, Heb. 5:12; of the utterances of God through Christian teachers, 1 Pet. 4:11. (In ecclesiastical writings lo,gia tou/ kuri,ou is used of Christ’s precepts, by Polycarp, ad Philipp. 7, 1; kuriaka lo,gia of the sayings and discourses of Christ which are recorded in the Gospels, by Papias in Eusebius, h. e. 3, 39; Photius c. 228, p. 248 (18 edition, Bekker); (ta, lo,gia tou/ Qeou/) of the words and admonitions of God in the sacred Scriptures, Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 53, 1 (where parallel with ai
ierai grafai,), cf. 62, 9; (and ta, lo,gia simply, like ai` grafai, of the New T. in the interpolated Epistle of Ignatius ad Smyrn. 3). Cf. Schwegler ((also Heinichen)), Index 4 ad Eusebius, h. e. under the word lo,gion; (especially Sophocles’ Lexicon, under the word and Lightfoot in the Contemp. Rev. for Aug. 1875, p. 399ff On the general use of the word cf. Bleek, Br. a. d. Hebrew iii., pp. 114-117).)*
J
jmcrae
Guest
I understand an “oracle” to be an old woman who, when drugged with medicines that are thought to be “mind expanding,” tells fortunes. I don’t know what word is being translated as “oracle” from the original Greek, but I’m pretty sure it’s not a word that means “Scriptures,” or else that is certainly what they would have said.
I am also sure that when St. Paul says “Scriptures” he is including all holy writings; not only those that later ended up in the Bible.
I am also sure that when St. Paul says “Scriptures” he is including all holy writings; not only those that later ended up in the Bible.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Not everything the apostles knew or believed in was committed to writing. Paul, for instance, never mentions the Virgin Birth, but I’m sure he heard about it and believed in it. Scripture is not the sole medium of revelation. Scripture stands alongside Tradition which was also handed down to us from the apostles. Revelation - all that is contained in Scripture - may be made explicit by the apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church conferred by Christ as promised with the help of the Holy Spirit. This truth is revealed to us in Scripture.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
- Status