- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:56 am to FooManChoo
Foo, the matter is settled since 382 AD. The links concerning that Church conference in 382 establishing the Bible Canon are earlier in this thread.
Once they discovered Hebrew-written copies of some of the books left out of the Jewish bible in 1946 among the Dead Sea Scrolls, your position becomes untenably weak and unable to stand.
Take your "L" and move on.
Once they discovered Hebrew-written copies of some of the books left out of the Jewish bible in 1946 among the Dead Sea Scrolls, your position becomes untenably weak and unable to stand.
Take your "L" and move on.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 9:56 am
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:49 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Mental gymnastics
PS, explanations based on verifiable direct physical evidence are different than fabricated excuses which are used as “plausible” ways which can explain otherwise irreconcilable contradictions.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:20 pm to Champagne
quote:
Foo, the matter is settled since 382 AD. The links concerning that Church conference in 382 establishing the Bible Canon are earlier in this thread. Once they discovered Hebrew-written copies of some of the books left out of the Jewish bible in 1946 among the Dead Sea Scrolls, your position becomes untenably weak and unable to stand. Take your "L" and move on.
Foo is the ultimate example of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy on this forum. He writes this:
quote:
There are several reasons to reject the apocryphal books as authoritative and binding on the consciences of Christians
Then he fails to provide all but one of his reasons:
quote:
I thought the OT books were kept in the Temple prior to its destruction? Would not the books of Maccabees been included if the Jews believed them to be Scripture, especially considering they would likely have been the youngest or most recent books included in the canon from their perspective? I find it difficult to believe they would have excluded those writings simply for not being written in Hebrew or not having surviving copies if they were God’s word from only a century or two prior when they had copies of much older books.
Which is what you and I already explained to him - that they are being rejected because “the Jews” rejected them. And he continues his lies:
quote:
It wasn't until the Council of Trent in the 16th century that the canon was made final.
When he knows the canon was codified as you and I both mentioned at the Council of Rome in 382CE.
He continues to trash the Catholic tradition (such as authority to determine scripture), while not realizing that he is succumbing to the exact same type of tradition (Luther and handful of Protestants determining which books to be divinely inspired by fiat). His guys did exactly what he hates about what the Catholics did.
Furthermore, he continues to spew falsehoods, and he rejects the Bible of that Paul, the gospel writers, and the earliest Christians used:
quote:
God promised to preserve His word, and He did. We have the same Bible today as we had when the canon was complete. Protestants simply reject those non-inspired ecclesiastical texts as part of the canon.
Protestants today reject the very Bible (the Greek translation of the OT called the Septuagint) that the NT writers quoted in the NT in favor of a medieval copy of the Tanakh derived from a different sect of Judaism (than what the earliest Christians belonged to) that rejected Jesus and Christianity because it was incompatible with their theology.
He also fails to admit that all those books the medieval Jews rejected because they didn’t have ancient copies written in Hebrew were found in Hebrew in the pile of DSS.
But Champagne, I have to also say the Catholics are also in the same boat to an extent. They sort of rejected the book of Enoch on the same grounds. Barnabas, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Clement all discussed Enoch in their writings and rejected it because the Jews of the second century rejected it. They made the same mistake the Protestants would later make.
What the church and later Protestants didn’t realize was that there wasn’t one unified Jewish theology. The Jewish books they wanted to accept because the Jews accepted them were accepted by the descendants of the Pharisees. The other Jewish books were preserved by the Jewish sect called the Essenes (like the ones of Dead Sea Scrolls fame)… books like Enoch, Maccabees, Judith, etc. that whole time they should have been embracing Enoch and the Septuagint rather than embracing the books of the Jews that killed their savior.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 10:28 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
But Champagne, I have to also say the Catholics are also in the same boat to an extent. They sort of rejected the book of Enoch on the same grounds. Barnabas, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Clement all discussed Enoch in their writings and rejected it because the Jews of the second century rejected it. They made the same mistake the Protestants would later make.
What the church and later Protestants didn’t realize was that there wasn’t one unified Jewish theology. The Jewish books they wanted to accept because the Jews accepted them were accepted by the descendants of the Pharisees. The other Jewish books were preserved by the Jewish sect called the Essenes (like the ones of Dead Sea Scrolls fame)… books like Enoch, Maccabees, Judith, etc. that whole time they should have been embracing Enoch and the Septuagint rather than embracing the books of the Jews that killed their savior.
I'll have to read up on the Book of Enoch in order to gain more insight.
Foo and people like him can under no circumstances accept the Bible of the Church in 382 AD because to do so, Foo would have to adopt a host of Catholic Theology that Protestantism rejects.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 11:22 pm to Champagne
I was looking up on why Orthodox Jews rejected the Dead Sea Scrolls and I came upon this Jewish site.
Dead Sea Scrolls
It said during the Second Temple Period, there were different sects with different interpretations of Judaism. The descendants of the Pharisees wrote the Talmud, which defined Orthodox Judaism as it is known today.
Next came from Rabbi Shneur lecture on yutorah.org
The Dead Sea Scrolls belonged to a sect that was clearly not the Pharisees.
I found another article that is explained by professor Lawrence Schiffman who is the leading expert of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
What are the Dead Sea Scrolls?
The Dead Sea Scrolls include three types of documents: The earliest existing copies of books from the Hebrew Bible, known in Hebrew as the Tanach. Copies of other early works that are not part of the Tanaka and the works related to a specific sect that existed among the Jews at the Second Temple of ìn Jerusalem. There were also ancient tefilik Scrolls and archeological artifacts, such as Mikvahs, ritual baths.
Dead Sea Scrolls
It said during the Second Temple Period, there were different sects with different interpretations of Judaism. The descendants of the Pharisees wrote the Talmud, which defined Orthodox Judaism as it is known today.
Next came from Rabbi Shneur lecture on yutorah.org
The Dead Sea Scrolls belonged to a sect that was clearly not the Pharisees.
I found another article that is explained by professor Lawrence Schiffman who is the leading expert of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
What are the Dead Sea Scrolls?
The Dead Sea Scrolls include three types of documents: The earliest existing copies of books from the Hebrew Bible, known in Hebrew as the Tanach. Copies of other early works that are not part of the Tanaka and the works related to a specific sect that existed among the Jews at the Second Temple of ìn Jerusalem. There were also ancient tefilik Scrolls and archeological artifacts, such as Mikvahs, ritual baths.
This post was edited on 2/26/24 at 12:49 am
Posted on 2/26/24 at 5:17 am to Champagne
quote:
I'll have to read up on the Book of Enoch in order to gain more insight.
I'm not Orthodox, so I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they don't consider Enoch inspired or part of their canon. Rather, they deem it a highly important and treasured writing.
Personally, I wish the Prayer of Manasseh were a part of the canon. It's my favorite apocryphal work.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 5:23 am to Champagne
quote:
Foo and people like him can under no circumstances accept the Bible of the Church in 382 AD
The Protestant cannot logically explain how the faithful were given any deposit of Faith or authoritative instrument for instruction/Christian formation in the years between AD 33 and AD 382.
They have to either dismiss the period all together or invent a man-made "Scriptural Precursor" period which affords the early Church with a different version of Scripture.
No Protestant will honestly answer what Scripture means in 34 AD, just as they won't answer any serious questions concerning Apostolic Succession.
Surely Jesus/the Trinity provided the Christians of AD 40, 50, 60 with sufficient means to know, practice, and carry on the evangelism of the Faith without a closed, complete, bound, and common Bible.
In a time when universal hostility towards Christians was at its highest, doesn't it seem interesting that the Faith was sustained and grew without the Protestant's alleged "sole source" of Faith?
This post was edited on 2/26/24 at 6:16 am
Posted on 2/26/24 at 5:53 am to Foch
quote:
Surely Jesus/the Trinity provided the Christians of AD 40, 50, 60 with sufficient means to know, practice, and carry on the evangelism of the Faith without a closed, complete, bound, and common Bible.
Dr. James White sort of touched on this in a debate with Trent Horn last weekend.
During cross-examination, Dr. White admitted that sola scriptura couldn't have been true during the period of Apostolic Revelation, because not all of what would become scripture had been written.
(I would argue that if sola scriptura were true, the period of Divine Revelation is precisely when God would have made this known, yet he didn't)
He further admitted it was not able to be practiced prior to the late 4th century councils, because the canon wouldn't be defined until then.
Finally, he failed to show from scripture or any early church father when sola scriptura became the authority.
Instead, he stated that scripture was the sole authority for the Jews who lived after Malachi (even though there were several different groups of Jews, all with WILDLY different canons) but before Jesus, and so it necessarily followed that it was also true immediately following the death of the last apostles, totally contradicting himself in the process.
This post was edited on 2/26/24 at 5:56 am
Posted on 2/26/24 at 7:48 am to Champagne
quote:
I'll have to read up on the Book of Enoch in order to gain more insight.
Nice. I know my eyes were opened upon reading it and reading commentary. It bridges the gap between the Jewish religion of the first temple and Persian period with Christianity. If you’ve ever asked “Why did the Jews reject Jesus?” The answer lies in the fact that the Jews who ran the temple in Jerusalem already had rejected the book of Enoch but that Enoch flourished in the “wilderness”. It was the single most abundant book found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, so it logically must have been extremely important to them. The book of Enoch sets the stage for Jesus. It details why the Essenes rejected the “corrupt temple” (remember the story in Luke about how Jesus was educating the dummies that ran the temple? Remember Jesus threatened to destroy the temple and build it back in corrupted)? The book of Enoch explains how the Pharisees were practicing a corrupt form of Judaism, and of all things how the Pharisees and Sadducees were using the wrong calendar. Believe it or not, celebrating festivals was extremely important to the Jews because god commanded they celebrate them on specific days. The original Jewish calendar was a solar calendar that the Essenes preserved… the Pharisees used a Babylonian derived lunar calendar and the Essenes believed the Pharisees weren’t celebrating the day of atonement and the Passover and such on the correct days which would evict a cosmic disaster and destruction of the earth. There’s also a neat section referred to as the “animal apocalypse” which tells the whole Jewish history as an allegory using animals.
Another major interesting thing about Enoch is its complex angel theology. It explains where sin comes from (it’s not Adam and Eve)… for a hint see Genesis 6 and what was done by god to try to get rid of sin. It explains verses like Philippians 2:8-11. Jesus, as a pre-existent archangel, didn’t want to become like god taking gods powers, but made himself a slave to God by shedding his powers. The celestial pre-existent archangel didn’t do what the other angels did (introduce sin) but rather became a model of sinlessness and devoted himself and his life to God… therefore (meaning because Jesus did all that), God resurrected him and highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name Jesus (yes, he received the name Jesus after his death, not before, if you believe this verse and not the much later gospel allegory) and ever knee will bow to the name Jesus thereafter. If you understand Enoch, then a lot of Paul’s writings start to make sense as you now have the background and context of his theology. It really is fascinating, even for someone who doesn’t believe.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 8:20 am to GumboPot
quote:
quote:Mortal = you knowing did it Wrong. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
That is essentially what he said, weirdo
Posted on 2/26/24 at 8:28 am to Stitches
quote:
Dr. James White sort of touched on this in a debate with Trent Horn last weekend.
Trent went directly to it in his opening comments. White (and Protestantism) must accept that there was some "middle Truth" that existed to govern, instruct, and bind actions of believers AFTER Christ's resurrection but BEFORE Scripture was canonized. Two obvious questions would then follow:
-was the middle/interim Truth inferior to the Truth held by Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, and Pastor Bob (Bible only)?
-where is the period of "less-than Scripture" described as being "less optimum" for believers/the early Church?
Overall, I find Dr. James White to be tiresome and too willinging to fall into the no true Scotsman arguement. He comes off as petty and shallow. Ortlund is also false, but appears more reasoned in his approaches. I see a chance that Orltund will evolve and accept Rome. White on the other hand is a direct descendent of the peddlers of Black Legends. He is weak and inflammatory.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 8:54 am to Foch
Why does the Orthodox Church have 79 books and the Ethiopic Bible have 84 books?
Posted on 2/26/24 at 9:08 am to dchog
quote:
Why does the Orthodox Church have 79 books and the Ethiopic Bible have 84 books?
The tl;dr version is there has been no synod or council to determine a set list of books amongst the various Orthodox churches post-schism.
What they all share in common is their Creed, and so insofar as each individual Orthodox Church views a particular book to be "orthodox", it can be read in accordance with the faith of that church.
ETA: some individual books may have been more widely circulated in certain regions of the East than they were in others, and so the Orthodox churches in those areas may have a higher view of those books as a result.
This post was edited on 2/26/24 at 9:11 am
Posted on 2/26/24 at 11:24 am to Stitches
Sounds confusing with all these churches not all having the same books.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 11:52 am to dchog
quote:
Why does the Orthodox Church have 79 books and the Ethiopic Bible have 84 books?
The Ethiopian church was outside of the realm of control of Rome and Byzantium. They preserved many original Christian scriptures that the Catholic Church eventually weeded out. For instance, 1 Enoch was preserved as scripture in Ethiopia, whereas in the Roman influenced areas it was declared non-canonical and it was not preserved - either just because it wasn’t recopied over and over again due to low importance, or it may have been actively sought out for destruction “book burning”. The Ethiopic church also preserves original Christian scriptures such as Jubilees, 3 Ezra, and 4 Ezra. The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox seems to have totally lost Enoch and Jubilees, and though they preserved 3rd and 4th Ezra they declared them non canonical.
The Ethiopic church has a leg on which to stand. The New Testament writers heavily referred to and quoted from the books preserved in Ethiopia.
Jude (chapter 1) quotes 1 Enoch:
quote:
14It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
Doesn’t it seem funny that Christians like Foo can say that the book of Jude is divinely inspired scripture, but then reject the scripture that Jude quotes that Jude believed to be divinely-inspired scripture?
Now look at Matthew 7. The author is using an analogy that the entrance to salvation is a small gate and that it is hard to enter. Its easy to sin (and go through the big easy gate) but that leads to destruction.
quote:
13Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
And then look at 2 Esdras chapter 7:
quote:
3"Go ahead, sir," I said. He continued, "Picture in your mind a broad, immense sea spreading over a vast area, 4but with an entrance no wider than a river. 5No one who wishes to enter that sea, whether to visit it or control it, can reach its broad expanse of water without passing through the narrow entrance. 6Or take another example: Picture a city built on a plain. The city is full of all kinds of good things, 7but the entrance to it is narrow and steep, with fire on one side and deep water on the other. 8The one path between the fire and the water is so narrow that only one person at a time may walk on it. 9If anyone inherits this city, he cannot take possession of his inheritance without passing through this dangerous entrance."
Matthew is not directly quoting but definitely is using 2 Esdras as source material. 2 Esdras here is an analogy for salvation… giant ocean of salvation but a little river to enter it. Or if salvation was a city it would have a tiny gate that was difficult to enter.
The writer of Matthew obviously considered 2 Esdras to be scripture but later Christians influenced by Rome and Byzantium rejected it.
Bottom line is the Ethiopians preserved more original Christian scripture because there was much less pressure and influence from outside powers wishing to burn their books.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 12:11 pm to Squirrelmeister
Question for Squirrel, Champagne, etc.:
What is found in the Apocrypha, Enoch, etc. that is essential to saving the lost?
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
“I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;"
What is found in the Apocrypha, Enoch, etc. that is essential to saving the lost?
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
“I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;"
Posted on 2/26/24 at 12:27 pm to willeaux
quote:
I think it’s called abstaining. Not fasting.
Oh geez. What don't you do yourself a favor and look up "fasting". Posted on 2/26/24 at 12:35 pm to bizeagle
quote:
What is found in the Apocrypha, Enoch, etc. that is essential to saving the lost?
The lost were saved between 33AD and 49AD when not a single word of the New Testament was written. So I'm not sure what the point of the question is.
I'll say that in 1519, Luther was handily defeated in the Leipzig Debate against Johann Eck on the topic of Purgatory, and Eck appealed primarily to Maccabees and prayers for the dead.
So there are doctrines that protestants reject which are found in the Deuterocanonical books.
Posted on 2/26/24 at 12:45 pm to bizeagle
quote:
Question for Squirrel, Champagne, etc.: What is found in the Apocrypha, Enoch, etc. that is essential to saving the lost? “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;"
Just throw out all the scriptures except your book of John. That’s all you need.
Page 11 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News