Posted on 11/20/2024 3:01:56 PM PST by SunkenCiv
A rare fifth-century amulet depicting a Biblical demon slayer may corroborate missing scripture that claimed King Solomon had power over evil.
The 1,600-year-old bronze pendant, found in Turkey, featured imagery of Solomon defeating the devil with the ancient Greek inscription, 'Our Lord defeated the devil.'
Solomon, the son of King David, was the focus of a chapter written between the 1st and 5th centuries AD, but it was not accepted into the canonical Bible due to its emphasis on magic and demonology.
Titled 'Testament of Solomon,' the book begins with the Archangel Michael gifting Solomon a magical ring to summon, interrogate and control demons.
Now, archaeologists working at the ancient city of Hadrianopolis have uncovered the amulet among the ruins of a military structure that suggested a soldier wore it knowing Solomon could cast away the powers of evil.
There were also names of four holy angels, Azrail, Gabriel, Michael and Israfil, on the back of the amulet, which supported the notion the amulet was used as a symbol of protection.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
>> Didn’t a bunch of individuals get together and just agree on what books to add, or not add? If so, then there was no ‘original text’. Not like the book just fell out of the sky complete. <<
I meant the original text of the Book of Kings, which is several centuries older than the chapter known as the Testament of Solomon.
If you’re curious about “a bunch of individuals,” the Orthodox Old Testament consists of those books which had been translated from Hebrew to Greek about two centuries before Christ. The Jewish bible consists of those selected by the Council of Jamnia, a few decades after Christ. The Protestant bible follows the Council of Jamnia. The Catholic bible follows those that the Council of Trent must be defended, which is very similar to the Orthodox bible, but excludes a shorter version (called Greek Esdras or 3 Esdras) of Ezra (1 Esdras) and Nehemiah (2 Esdras), which was allowed to fall into disuse because it contained no new information.
If a work didn’t fit the Church’s desperate need to control the narrative, they thru it out.
Stretch is older than we thought... ;-P
Well, she turned me into a newt!
It’s early Hebrew fan fiction.
/////
I think they concluded the same thing about the Book of Enoch and the book of Jubilee. Similar things were concluded by christian scholars as to the Gnostic texts.
Logically, if she weighs as much as a duck, then she’s made of wood...
Actually, you should to read more research about the so-called "Council of Jamnia." as well as the LXX.
No. Both men of God (such as prophets like Isaiah and John the baptizer) as well as writings of God were established as being so essentially due to their uniquely heavenly qualities and attestation. While councils are to ratify this overall "best sellers list" of the Godly, that is not what the establishment of these was due to.
Thus the NT church began actually began in from those who were the supreme judges of what it of God, who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the covenantal promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lev. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; 2 Samuel 7:15,16; 2 Samuel 23:5; Psalms 11:4,9; Psalms 89:20-37; Psalms 111:5,9; Is. 41:10,; Isaiah 54:10; Jer. 7:23; Jer. 33:20,21) </p><p>
Instead of implicitly affirming their judgment, Truth-loving souls people held John the baptizer to "be a prophet indeed," (Mark 11:32) a they did in following an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium also rejected. For the Messiah reproved the latter from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
To God be the glory, and of such testimony we (and I) need to show more of.
For an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.) And which provided the prophetic and doctrinal epistemological foundation for the church.
And which canon is what the 39 OT Prot. canon conforms to. The establishment of NT writings followed the same pattern.
Of course only discarding and “forbidding” lol , after they had the pleasure of reading them; and they are worth reading.
If your point is to argue that there was a Jewish canon set long before Jamnia, the proliferation of both non-canonical and incomplete Bible texts should immediately rebut that, as well as Jesus referring to texts not accepted by Jamnia more than a dozen times as “scripture.”
In fact, there are three canons referenced by Jesus, “the law,” “the prophets and the law” and “scripture” and none of these three is at all similar to the canon that was known after Jamnia as the Jewish bible. Today, “the law,” “the prophets” and “the scripture” give their names to the initialization “the TaNaKh,” but we know that the “K” part of the Tanakh, the “Ketuvim” is not the same canon as “the scripture” because of the many times Jesus cites scriptures which are not in the Ketuvim. To those whom Jesus appeals to “the law,” Jesus reports that they deny the prophets.
Not sure your points, but neither unlike the Gnostic texts, neither Jubilees nor Enoch were condemned by the Church Fathers; they were simply not included in canons of books which must be defended. In fact, you happen to have chosen two of the books Jesus references as scripture.
Wrong and wrong. The fact that there was no universally settled canon does not refute the manifest fact that, as said, an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings,
In fact, there are three canons referenced by Jesus, “the law,” “the prophets and the law” and “scripture” and none of these three is at all similar to the canon that was known after Jamnia as the Jewish bible. Today, “the law,” “the prophets” and “the scripture” give their names to the initialization “the TaNaKh,” but we know that the “K” part of the Tanakh, the “Ketuvim” is not the same canon as “the scripture” because of the many times Jesus cites scriptures which are not in the Ketuvim. To those whom Jesus appeals to “the law,” Jesus reports that they deny the prophets.
That is not 3 canons, but 3 divisions, all referred to as "Scripture," (Lk. 24:27,44,45) while alluding or referencing some writings that were not part of the Palestinian canon nor even that of the Orthodox simply does not make them scripture proper. To argue that what the Lord referred to as Scripture was not Scripture, is to impose your chosen sources over the Holy Spirit.
The Palestinian canon from before the earliest (late century) conciliar lists [that] Roman Catholics point to is held by many as being identical to the Protestant Old Testament, differing only in the arrangement and number of the books, while the Alexandrian canon, referred to as the Septuagint is seen as identical to the Catholic Old Testament. Ancient evidence as well as the Lord's affirmation of a tripartite canon in Lk. 24:44 weighs in favor of the Palestinian canon — if indeed there was a strict separation — being what He held to. Note that the so-called “Council” of Jamnia, and see below, is considered to be theoretical, and with some scholars arguing that the Jewish canon was fixed during the Hasmonean dynasty (140 and c. 116 B.C.), - though not universally (nor is it today). — (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon)“the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)
In 1871, H.H. Graetz (a Jewish writer) propounded the theory that the Jewish canon closed at Jamnia in AD 90.[1] After the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, Jewish religious leaders relocated to a town on the Judean coast called Jamnia (a.k.a. Yavneh). Some critical scholars claim that the OT was finally canonized in AD 100 at the Council of Jamnia.Even though the story about a council at Jamnia is widely repeated in college textbooks about the Bible, the truth is, there is no evidence to support that a council was ever convened! The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church explains,
The suggestion that a particular synod of Jamnia, held c. 100 AD, finally settled the limits of the OT Canon, was made by H.E. Ryle; though it has had wide currency, there is no evidence to support it.[2]
Scholars did gather at Jamnia over a long period of time to discuss many things, but to call this a “council” is really a misnomer. Critical scholars read a “religious council” into this meeting. However, many meetings were held at Jamnia, and these were certainly not a “council” in the sense people think of church councils. The concept of a Jamnia Council has suffered from a “complete refutation” from scholars like J.P. Lewis and S.Z. Leiman.[3]
Furthermore, the rabbis at Jamnia never discussed adding books to the canon, but whether or not they should remove certain books: namely, Song of Songs, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel, and Esther. Geisler and Nix write, “The discussion was confined to the question whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (or possibly Ecclesiastes alone) make the hands unclean. i.e. are divinely inspired… The decision reached was not regarded as authoritative, since contrary opinions continued to be expressed throughout the second century.”[4] = https://www.evidenceunseen.com/world-religions/roman-catholicism/the-apocrypha/wasnt-the-ot-canon-determined-at-the-council-of-jamnia-in-ad-90/
Note that even some RC sources state: "Dr. Pitre shows not only is there zero evidence for any such Council at Jamnia in 90 AD." - The Myth of the Council of Jamnia and the Origin of the Bible (https://catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/the-myth-of-the-council-of-jamnia-and-the-origin-of-the-bible
"In all likelihood Josephus' twenty-two-book canon was the Pharisaic canon, but it is to be doubted that it was also the canon of all Jews in the way that he has intended." (Timothy H. Lim: The Formation of the Jewish Canon; Yale University Press, Oct 22, 2013. P. 49) By the first century, it is clear that the Pharisees held to the twenty-two or twenty-four book canon, and it was this canon that eventually became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who founded the Jewish faith after the destruction of Jerusalem were Pharisees. The Jewish canon was not directed from above but developed from the "bottom-up." (Timothy H. Lim, University of Edinburgh: Understanding the Emergence of the Jewish Canon, ANCIENT JEW REVIEW, December 2, 2015)
Most scholars agree that by the time of the destruction of the second Temple in 70 C.E. most Jews accepted the final three-part canon of the Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim.... This was a twenty-four-book canon that came to be attested widely in Jewish writings of the time; eventually the canon was reconceptualized and renumbered an that it became the thirty-nine books of the Christian Old Testament. But they are the same books, all part of the canon of Scripture. (Ehrman, The Bible, 377)
The evidence clearly supports the theory that the Hebrew canon was established well before the late first century AD, more than likely as early as the fourth century BC and certainly no later than 150 BC. A major reason for this conclusion comes from the Jews themselves, who from the fourth century BC onward were convinced that "the voice of God had ceased to speak directly." (Ewert, FATMT, 69) In other words, the prophetic voices had been stilled. No word from God meant no new Word of God. Without proph-ets, there can be no scriptural revelation. Concerning the Intertestamental Period (approximately four hundred years between the close of the Old Testament and the events of the New Testament)
Many refer to a Council of Jamnia as authoritatively setting the Hebrew canon around 100 A.D., but modern research research no longer considers that to be the case, or that there even was a council, while some scholars argue that the Jewish canon was fixed earlier by the Hasmonean dynasty (140 and c. 116 B.C.). — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
Robert C. Newman writes,
Among those who believe the Old Testament to be a revelation from the Creator, it has traditionally been maintained that the books composing this collection were in themselves sacred writings from the moment of their completion, that they were quickly recognized as such, and that the latest of these were written several centuries before the beginning of our era.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus appears to be the earliest extant witness to this view. Answering the charges of an anti- Semite Apion at the end of the first century of our era, he says:
“We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time....” — Josephus, Against Apion, 1,8 (38-41)
On the basis of later Christian testimony, the twenty-two books mentioned here are usually thought to be the same as our thirty-nine,2 each double book (e.g., 1 and 2 Kings) being counted as one, the twelve Minor Prophets being considered a unit, and Judges-Ruth, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Jeremiah-Lamentations each being taken as one book. This agrees with the impression conveyed by the Gospel accounts, where Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Palestinian Jewish community in general seem to understand by the term "Scripture" some definite body of sacred writings."
"...the pseudepigraphical work 4 Ezra (probably written about A.D. 1208)...admits that only twenty-four Scriptures have circulated publicly since Ezra's time."
Newman concludes,
"In this paper we have attempted to study the rabbinical activity at Jamnia in view of liberal theories regarding its importance in the formation of the Old Testament canon. I believe the following conclusions are defensible in the light of this study.
The city of Jamnia had both a rabbinical school (Beth ha- Midrash) and court (Beth Din, Sanhedrin) during the period A.D. 70-135, if not earlier. There is no conclusive evidence for any other rabbinical convocations there. The extent of the sacred Scriptures was one of many topics discussed at Jamnia, probably both in the school and in the court, and probably more than once. However, this subject was also discussed by the rabbis at least once a generation earlier and also several times long after the Jamnia period. No books are mentioned in these discussions except those now considered canonical. None of these are treated as candidates for admission to the canon, but rather the rabbis seem to be testing a status quo which has existed beyond memory. None of the discussions hint at recent vintage of the works under consideration or deny them traditional authorship. Instead it appears that the rabbis are troubled by purely internal problems, such as theology, apparent contradictions, or seemingly unsuitable content...
But no text of any specific decision has come down to us (nor, apparently, even to Akiba and his students). Rather, it appears that a general consensus already existed regarding the extent of the category called Scripture, so that even the author of 4 Ezra, though desiring to add one of his own, was obliged to recognize this consensus in his distinction between public and hidden Scripture." — Robert C. Newman, "THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON," Westminster Theological Journal 38.4 (Spr. 1976) 319-348. ^
Christ's Witness to the Old Testament Canon
Luke 24:44: In the Upper Room Jesus told the disciples "that all things most needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me" (Asv). With these words Jesus indicated "a threefold categorization of the sacred Scriptures [the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings), the third part of which is identified by its longest and presumably most important book, the Psalms." (Ehrman, The Bible, 377)
John 10:31-36; Luke 24:44: Jesus disagreed with the oral traditions of the Pharisees (Mark 7, Matt. 15), but not with their concept of the Hebrew canon.
Luke 11:51 (also Matt. 23:35): "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah." With these words Jesus confirms his witness to the extent of the Old Testament canon. Abel was the first martyr recorded in Scripture (Gen. 4:8) and Zechariah the last mar-tyr to be named in the Hebrew Old Testament order, having been stoned while prophesying to the people "in the court of the house of the LORD." (2 Chr. 24:21). Genesis was the first book in the Hebrew canon and Chronicles the last. Jesus, then, was basically saying, "from Genesis to Chronicles," or, according to our order, "from Genesis to Malachi," thereby confirming the divine authority and inspiration of the entire Hebrew canon. (Bruce, BP, 88)
Philo "Around the time of Christ, the Jewish philosopher Philo made a three-fold distinction in the Old Testament speaking of the '[1] laws and [2) oracles delivered through the mouth of prophets, and [3) psalms and anything else which fosters and perfects knowledge and piety (De Vita Contemplativa 3.25)." (Geisler and Nix, BFGU, 103) (Last 10 excerpts above transcribed from "Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World," By Josh McDowell, Sean McDowell, pp. 34-36)
"The term "apocrypha" refers to those books which are found in the Hellenistic Jewish Bible canon of Alexandria, Egypt, but not in the Palestinian Jewish canon . The Hellenistic canon was preserved by the Christian church in the Septuagint and Vulgate Bibles, and the Palestinian canon was handed down in the form of the traditional Hebrew Bible..."
"The desire to supplement Scripture was part of a general tendency in the Greco-Roman period toward 'rewritten Bible.' In such works the authors, out of reverence for the Bible, sought to extend the biblical tradition and often applied it to the issues of their own day. ..." (From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 12-,121, 123,125, 126, Lawrence H Schiffman, PH D, Sol Scharfstein, Ethel and Irvine Edelman Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies; KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1991) )
Yep. That’s pretty dumb too.
Your clobbering me with tons of sources, appealing to various authorities, but none who speak any more authoritatively than those who deny that Abraham ever existed, for instance. Scholars can debate endlessly whether Jamnia fixed the canon, but there is no reasonable debate from anyone who believes in the historicity of the gospels that there was no single, fixed canon at the time of Jesus.
Not only does traditional (non-anti-Christian) history say this, but YOU claim that the law, the prophets and the scriptures are one canon, but Jesus doesn’t use them as such: when he speaks to the Sadducees, he doesn’t cite the prophets, because the Sadducees don’t believe in the prophets. The Pharisees accept the resurrection because the prophets attest to it; the Sadducees don’t because they don’t accept the canon of the prophets.
We can go down a rabbit hole as to whether the Sadducees consider the prophets to have been the Word of God, but we know that the Sadducees refuse any doctrine which does not exist within the Talmud, so their approach to the prophets may be seen as akin to the Anglican approach to the deueterocanonicals, or the broader Protestant approach to the ancient Church fathers: they attest that the products are products of a true faith, but they will not accept them as theologically authoritative. That satisfies my concept of whether or not they considered them canonical: Not.
Meaning versus calling them "scripture," or citing them as authoritative, "written," 'the Lord/God said," the Law, the prophet, or similar, like as in
Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24; 3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33; 10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19
I’ve glossed over them. They generally take the low view of Christ. ie that he is fully man but not fully God. nor do the texts sound all that God inspired —meaning inspired by the spirit of truth— rather they sound like fables.
The arian heresy (that is that Jesus was just a man—though a righteous man) was first banned by the council of Nicea in 325 AD. In recent centuries it goes back to Servitus who was burned at the stake by Calvin in switzeraland. The heresy was popularized in the 19th century in the USA because of its elite status at the major universities—because Issac Newton was a unitarian and took the low view of Christ. The attitude of many educated Anglo-Saxons was that if Issac Newton —the master—took the low view—then hey, the low view must be true...—that might be why Herman Melville began his novel Moby Dick with the words “ Call Me Ishmael.” After he finished the novel he began attending a unitarian church. In upstate New York at nearly the same time, Joseph Smith began his journey west. Mormonism also took a low view of Christ—but they put him in the status of an angel.
Some of the stories in gnostic gospels look like they were adopted by Muhhamed and used in the Koran.
False. Not just skeptics,. but as showed, and can be, sources include "Bible Christians" as https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/four-myths-related-bibles-origins/) as well as Catholics, even the sophist Catholic Answers: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-council-that-wasnt
Scholars can debate endlessly whether Jamnia fixed the canon, but there is no reasonable debate from anyone who believes in the historicity of the gospels that there was no single, fixed canon at the time of Jesus.
Stop misrepresenting my argument, which as stated, was not that there was single, fixed canon at the time of Jesus, but that as said,
an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.) And which provided the prophetic and doctrinal epistemological foundation for the church. Not only does traditional (non-anti-Christian) history say this, but YOU claim that the law, the prophets and the scriptures are one canon, but Jesus doesn’t use them as such:
Actually, as also showed, He does indeed:
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44)
We also have divisions within what we call Scripture.
when he speaks to the Sadducees, he doesn’t cite the prophets, because the Sadducees don’t believe in the prophets.
Illogical, as this is simply accommodation, as with Paul in stating, "to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law' (1 Corinthians 9:20) but which did not logically mean Paul was denying the New Covenant!
the broader Protestant approach to the ancient Church fathers: they attest that the products are products of a true faith, but they will not accept them as theologically authoritative
Rather, citing them is also an accommodation to Catholics who think of them "above that which is written" (1 Co. 4:6) in holy writ, while the fact that the Prot canon is correspondent to the Palestinian one also does not translate into accepting them as theologically authoritative. Concurrence with someone does not necessary logically denote affirmation of all else they hold to.
Remember vaguely reading one of those letters from the Smithsonian, laughed ‘til was exhausted.
Would enjoy seeing and reading it again, if available.
Smithsonian Institute, Paleoanthropology Letter of Rejection
I believe it turned out to be a hoax but there is a real one that asked the Smithsonian how to prepare a habitat, trap and the long term care and feeding of “them”.
Sadly the person who wrote the letter failed utterly to explain what creature he was referring to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.