Replies

B wrote : So, we have someone besides Jerome again that doesn't include the "Deuts." The compilers of the Peshitta Syriac.

And this takes me back to square one.

The Peshitta Syriac ALSO does not contain 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation - commonly known as the NEW TESTAMENT Deuterocanonicals. Origen also does not make a clear statement about any of these books. Yet you accept them? Your argument reeks of special pleading...

Your view desperately seeks ANYTHING that might show that the OT Deuts were not Scripture. You even side with the Jews, called by John 'anti-christ'. In your attempt to smear the Church, you are willing to side with those people who denied the Christ and the inspired Words of the Gospel???

Then, you AGAIN throw the baby out with the bath water by your hypocritical and selective choices of the Church Father's opinions on the inspired Word of God - but ignoring these same people who DENY part of the Bible that you today claim are inspired by God???

After some thought, I have concluded that on this very subject, the topic of the Deuterocanonicals, that the "Protestant apologist" shows his true colors - a manipulator who stands on illogical points of view, even desperately destroying the ground HE stands on, with the mere goal of wounding the Church. Thus, by your fruits, they are known. While in every other subject, the problem is one of interpretation - here, we have solid and iron clad logic that is denied and ignored, all with the goal of leading the sheep astray. These "Protestant apologists" will even side with the anti-christ to achieve their goals. It is plain. On this subject, the "Protestant apologist" shows him/herself to be a wolf among the sheep.

I for one have made my point and will not discuss this issue again. It should be painfully obvious the "Protestant apologist" stands on sand -

1. Relying on the Jews to determine the Word of God, even if it means they side with those men of 2000 years ago who discount the entire New Testament and the person of our Saviour.

2. Denying the OT Deuts based on the exact same men who questioned the NT Deuts - which these "apologists" accept unabashedly. Why the two-faced attitude?

I will probably ruffle some feathers with this post, but if one reads the hypocritical and nonsensical view taken by these charecters, I hope one will understand my ire regarding those who are obviously not concerned with bringing souls to the truth, but with leading people astray.

Regards

I find this all highly hypocritical and ridiculous. You deny that OT Deuts based on the interpretation of a few Fathers and the Peshitta Syriac bible, but when these SAME sources either deny or do not verify the NT Deuts, this you sweep under the carpet? This logic stands upon sand.

First, I have to correct an assumption of yours. You are assuming that I am basing my belief in what is in my Bible as canonical based upon what some men said it was. This is an incorrect assumption. I could care less what some council set in stone some 1500 years after Christ in their collective hissy fit against Luther. Rather, my acceptance of the Canon of Scripture as found in the Protestant Bible is based on my faith in the Lord to preserve His Word and the logic that He has given His children to determine the truth from the counterfeit. This Word does not contain the apocrypha because the apocrypha does not bear the marks of divine inspiration. Yet, ultimately, I rest in the faith in my Lord to lead me and that faith is bolstered by the harmony I see within the pages of my Bible. Same story throughout. Same God throughout. Same salvation throughout. It is God's Word.

Now. If this is the case, why would I appeal to Jerome et al in discussing the Canon? I was speaking to you from a list of authorities I thought you would recognize (a technic Paul perfected at Mars Hill). After I did this you made certain claims that I rebutted in a rather lengthy post which followed.

These authorities did not settle the Canon. These authorities had no say in what was truly Canonical. Only God did. I believe that the Canon was settled when John wrote the last letter in the book of Revelation. By faith I believe God has preserved for me what He wishes for me to receive. Again, this doesn't mean that there is blind faith or no logic in all of this process. Logically, I have received a theological education and have been schooled enough in the GENUINE Word of God that I recognize the counterfeit when I see it. I know true doctrine and I know with a teaching contradicts it. But still, I accept the Canon as found in my Bible as being the true Canon by faith - not because some council somewhere said it was so.

As one interested in and schooled in history (by secular and religious authorities), I am also keenly aware of the distortion of history through the years and am adamant that it be recorded correctly . I pointed out the historical fact (in answer to your truth claim about Jerome) that various fathers didn't believe the apocrypha was Scripture. Pointing this out was not "a smear on the church". It was a statement of historical fact backed up by relevant quotes and explanations. Valuable, but not Scripture. That was their stance.

And lest we forget what brought up the subject to begin with - namely, the latent, and I would now say BLATANT anti-semitism in this thread - in spite of my explicit and repeated statements regarding non-support of the council of Jamnia's views and explanation of how the Jews were led of God in the Old Testament Canon PRIOR TO CHRIST I am attacked for supporting people John called "anti-Christ." So, I guess, since I was explicit that I wasn't talking about the Council of Jamnia, you must mean ALL JEWS are people John would call anti-Christ and shouldn't be considered even in the determination of what was considered Scripture by Jesus Christ, Himself a Jew. Jew-Hatred and selective Jew-bashing using specific Scripture out of context is anti-Scriptural and anti-Christ. Paul wished he himself were accursed for the Jews- such was his love for them and desire for them to be saved. Paul also said that those same Jews would one day come to know their messiah as Savior and Lord and warned the Gentiles to not be so arrogant. The Jews were the original chosen of God. We have been grafted in. There will be a day when the age of the Gentiles will end. And then all of that remnant of Israel that God speaks of in Romans WILL BE SAVED.

Facts are, God chose a people. They were the physical offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were beloved by Him and still are. Christ wept over them. Paul would go to Hell for them. Your selective comments concerning them show a complete lack of love towards these people and your rejection of God's leadership of them in the establishment of a Canon prior to Christ is Roman-Centric Anti-semitism. Jesus referred to something as "the Scriptures." It isn't reading into anything to say that that meant that there were books that were solidly considered Canonical during that day. Still, it appears a group wants to claim that there was no Scripture until the church called it Scripture. That is a ludicrous assertion. The formation of Scripture was divinely inspired. Even when it was written by those pesky Jews. But wait! ALL OF IT was written by the Jews except for Luke and Acts. Again, bless them, Jo Kus. Do not curse them. God is not through with them yet.

jo kus to Blogger: The Peshitta Syriac ALSO does not contain 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation - commonly known as the NEW TESTAMENT Deuterocanonicals

Good points, Jo, just as the rest of your reply. I think your conclusions are right on the money. It's a desperate attempt to smear the Church.

Another 'apologist' recently linked to an article of a famous Septuagint editor who wrote a lengthy and very educated, even objective commentary on the subject considering whe it was written.

The problem is, his conclusions were based on the mid-19th century knowledge, which was proven wrong with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yet, this doesn't stop these 'apologists' from presenting an outdated article as 'objective' evidence of their view.

Their assumption, which is often presented as fact, even if silent, is that the early Church, save for a handful of individuals, really didn't know anything about the canon it painstakingly put together, and 'distorted' the faith because it couldn't or didn't want to read the Scripture aright, or — worse — because the hierarchy is inherently 'corrupt.'

But what really amazes me with all such speudo-intellectual arguments is that they miss the obvious, something one doesn't need a PhD to understand and see. They will dig up some obscure line or even an article, out of context, because — just like the random verses they use to prove their notions — they ignore the next sentence or pragraph (perhaps even hoping that the other side will not check) that completely invalidates their 'argument.'

How does one ignore that the Peshitta Syriac denies the NT deuterocanonical books, but accepts its denial of the OT deuterocanonicals? It must be either the effect of 'text-proofing' only the buzz words and forgetting the context, or it must be deliberate distortion. In either case, the conclusions can't be right because the method is wrong.

Thus, if one can find one of the 'fathers,' such as Origen who expresses doubt about the 'canon' (interpreted out of context of course, using modern-day or un-orthodox definition), then he must be right and the rest of the Church must be wrong.

They triumph when they find, besides a heretic, a genuine father of the Church (+Athanasius, +Jerome, +Augustine), who express similar opinions (out of context, of course), because — as you point aptly — no matter what these fathers thought, they always deferred to the Church in the end, which shows that their egos did not constitute a church in itself, as is the case with our Protestant friends.

But, even if there are a half a dozen of those who doubted the Septuagint (in part), and I don't believe half-a-dozen can be found (since only three are mentioned), what does that mean with respect to hundreds of others who had no doubts? That the half-a-dozen are right?

It is also not true that +Athanasius considered all the OT deuterocanonical books as 'apocrypha,' nor did he favor the (Pharisaical) Hebrew canon.

The plainest of these arguments are the facts we find in the NT: the holy Apostles quote the Septuagint as Scripture. If those who, we believe were given the spiritual truth by divine inspiration, are use something as Scripture, would they do so if they were not 'valid?' If what they say is true by the very fact that they are believed to have been inspired, isn't then their choice of Scripture equally valid?

At no time did the Jewish religious authorities of Palestine object to, deny or reject the Septuagint the Greek-speaking Jews used for centuries until it became obvious in the latter part of the 1st century (when the Gospels were written), that the Apostles used the LXX in their witness.

It was only shortly afterwords (c. 90 AD) that the rabbis of Jamnia threw out the NT and LXX along with it, because the two are intimately connected.

As is the case with all issues regarding Scripture: the originals are sadly missing. As you noted earlier in the thread, the Essens and the Sadducees had different 'canons' from the Palestinians (Pharisees), or Samaritans, or Ethiopians. Just as there are three Talmuds, out of which the Pharisaical rabbis use only the most recent version, there are different segments of the OT which do not match our artificial standard: the Palestinian Hebrew text.

The 'apologists' also ignore the fact that only the Pharisees survived and that ti is natural that their version of the Jewish canon is the norm. If only the EOC survived, its practices and teachings would become the surviving norm. That in and of itself is no proof that ti is actually the most authentic 'norm' there is.

You have done a terrific job exposing the truth on this subject.