Sola Scriptura

[WWJDKID]

Just wondering.

I recently joined the BB and I believe someone wrongly sent me a PM. They must have been trying to send it to someone else. Anyways, the context of this letter to sum it up said. Dr. Walter made a another fake account recently under “Walker77”.

Not that it matters to me but I didn’t want to say nothing and don’t know who is in charge or to talk to about it. So I figured I would just let Dr. Walter know so he can easily admit or deny this silly accusation .

So, Dr. Walter is it true? Did you recently make another account as Walker77? Are you posting as Dr. Walter and Walker77?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I recently joined the BB and I believe someone wrongly sent me a PM. They must have been trying to send it to someone else. Anyways, the context of this letter to sum it up said. Dr. Walter made a another fake account recently under “Walker77”.

Not that it matters to me but I didn’t want to say nothing and don’t know who is in charge or to talk to about it. So I figured I would just let Dr. Walter know so he can easily admit or deny this silly accusation .

So, Dr. Walter is it true? Did you recently make another account as Walker77? Are you posting as Dr. Walter and Walker77?

This is news to me. No, I have no idea who Walker77 may be but it is certainly not I. I have never made "another fake account." Thank you for allowing me to clear my name.

 

[WWJDKID]

No problem, I guess that it is not you. They said in the Pm that they know you have more then one e-mail account associated with the BB and Walker77 was your newest one.

So, you only have one e-mail account on the BB?

They did send me all the e-mails that they say are associated with you & the BB and I looked them up and they did work as possible e-mails. I will not post your e-mails publicly but I will just leave it in the hands of whoever is in charge to take care of it.

I don't know if your a truthful person but I don't like being a middle man. I will just tell the pmer to stop.


Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 2 Timothy 2:23

 

[Matt Black]

As I said, your whole denial rests squarely upon rejection of one or more of the 27 books as apostolic in origin.

I don't reject any of them! But I'm asking you how you know that the 27 you have are the correct ones.

My position is the common sense logical conclusion of recognition of all 27 book as apostolic in origin as none of the congregations of Christ would reject any of them at the time of their writing and reception.

Except that the facts show that some at least didn't - many areas were very wary for example of accepting Revelation and James.

In addition, previous prophetic scriptures demand that the whole Biblical canon would be completed by or under the apostles of Christ (Isa. 8:16-18; Heb. 2:3-4,12; Jn. 17:17-20) and the apostles recognized this was their mission and that they were completing it (1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-17; Rev. 1:3; 22:18-20).

But none of these give a table of contents for the NT - I'm asking you again how you know that the 27 books in your NT are the correct ones and how you know that, to repeat my question at the top of the last page, James and Revelation are in and Didache and Barnabas are not. So far, you seem at best to be tending towards a circular argument.

I think you better get new glasses or learn to read properly. I am claiming that Tertullian claims that the "whole volume" of "Christian scriptures" were extent prior to the rise of Marcion's canon

Containing which books? I've told you the ones he never mentions and he seems to cite Barnabas with approval on occasions

and it is on this basis that Tertullian can claim that Marcion SUBTRACTED and perverted scriptures in his canon. Furthermore, Tertullian explicitly stated that no one could subtract OR ADD to that "volume" which he claimed existed prior to Marcion. Whether or not you can find actual copies of this "volume" does not disprove it existed or that Tertullian lied any more than Tertullians failure to list every book in this "whole volume" means that such books did not exist in that volume UNLESS you can prove that Tertullian was attempting to list every book and one is missing in his intentional listing for that purpose.

Nowhere does he list all 27 books, period. Your argument fails.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No problem, I guess that it is not you. They said in the Pm that they know you have more then one e-mail account associated with the BB and Walker77 was your newest one.

So, you only have one e-mail account on the BB?

They did send me all the e-mails that they say are associated with you & the BB and I looked them up and they did work as possible e-mails. I will not post your e-mails publicly but I will just leave it in the hands of whoever is in charge to take care of it.

I don't know if your a truthful person but I don't like being a middle man. I will just tell the pmer to stop.


Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 2 Timothy 2:23

Please report this to our moderator and please send him all the e-mails that reportedly originate with my e-mail address.

I have NEVER had a "fake" account. When I originally came on the BB I came under a different handle and most likely a different email address. However, I left the BB and when I came back I could not get back on by that account because frankly I forgot my PIN and had to reestablish a new account and I did so with my present handle and email address.

I don't know who this Walker77 is and I assure you that it has nothing to do with me. If this Walker77 is using an old e-mail address of mine than I know exactly who he is and he has been banned from the BB at least three different times under three different handles. This person does know my previous email address and is the only person that could be using it.

Again, please inform DHK our moderator about this and give him any purported e-mails that are being attributed to me or my e-mail accounts. I will also contact him and ask him to look into this.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I don't reject any of them! But I'm asking you how you know that the 27 you have are the correct ones.

I understand your response above to be asking me how do I know that only 27 in number are the correct number and not 28 or more? Is that correct. You are not doubting the 27 we have but only challenging why I limit it to 27??

Except that the facts show that some at least didn't - many areas were very wary for example of accepting Revelation and James.

Are you not assuming this from post-first century traditions, thus second generational persons rather than first century and first generational members of New Testament congregations? The fact that both were written and delivered within the lifespan of first generational congregational members would have no bearing on what second generational congregational members believed.

But none of these give a table of contents for the NT - I'm asking you again how you know that the 27 books in your NT are the correct ones and how you know that, to repeat my question at the top of the last page, James and Revelation are in and Didache and Barnabas are not. So far, you seem at best to be tending towards a circular argument.

My argument is not circular but has three different legs to it.

1. Prophetic predictions of biblical canon completed by apostles - Isa. 8:16, etc.

2. All 27 were written and delivered during the life span of the apostles

3. Tertullian describes the pre-140 "Christian scriptures" as "the complete volume" which could not be added unto BY HIMSELF or others and thus condemns all like Marcion that SUBTRACTED from that volume. His whole condemnation of Marcion SUBTRACTING from 'the whole volume" of "Christian scriptures" and his denial that it could be ADDED unto proves it was finished prior to 140 A.D. or else he could not make that argument or call it "the WHOLE volume."

Containing which books? I've told you the ones he never mentions and he seems to cite Barnabas with approval on occasions Nowhere does he list all 27 books, period. Your argument fails.

Paul cited pagan authors without approval of their whole writings or inferring they were scriptures. Hence, the mere citation of Barnabas and other writings cannot possibly be interpreted he received them as scriptures.

Unless, he was actually and purposefully and intentionally listing every book of the "Christian scriptures" then you cannot argue that the absence of one or more books in his writings are proof they did not exist in that "whole volume." Hence, it is not my argument that fails but yours. My argument stands on three different legs.

 

[DHK]

Using your numbering:
1. Acknowledged by whom?

2. Confirmed by whom?

3. Who are the 'caretakers of God's Word'?

4. Not all Scripture claims this.

5. As assessed by whom?

The fact that both you and Thinkingstuff are unaware of these guidelines shows a deficiency in your knowledge on NT and OT Introduction. (The same basic guidelines were used for the OT as well, and on that basis the apocryphal books were discarded).

For example the additions to the Book of Daniel are hilarious. To seriously consider them as Scripture is to seriously question one's intelligence. The story of how Daniel gets into the Lion's Den a second time? When Daniel refuses to go, an angry angel takes him by the tuft of his hair, carries him through the air and plucks him down in the midst of the lion's den with a basket of food! This is Scripture??

Does it sound like Scripture?
Is it written like Scripture? Authoritatively?
Was it accepted as Scripture, by the Jews?
Is it inspired?
Is it accurate as to historical events?
Was it confirmed by the Jews as part of their canon?

The answers to all of these are NO.
It has always been discarded as Scripture. It is the product of some man's vain imagination. It doesn't sound like Scripture. And, of course, it isn't. No Jew has ever accepted it, and yet it is added to the Book of Daniel.

 

[Matt Black]

To DHK: so you're setting yourself up as the custodian of God's Word? Wow! The LXX translators accepted them BTW...

To Walter: None of which defines the Canon. I'm still not sure that you understand the nature of my question. Following your numbering agains:

1.The Isaiah prophecy is all well and good in that it promises that the Canon will be complete but doesn't list the 27 NT books so doesn't define the Canon itself.

2. You simply can't assert that all 27 books were circulated and accepted by all congregations prior to the death of the Apostles. There is no evidence for this. Nor can you assert that the Didache and Barnabas were not extant at that time.

3. Tertullian doesn't list what those 'Christian Scriptures' were so again as with #1, we have no way of knowing whether he meant the same books as we now have.

Is your argument now able to still walk without any of its legs?

 

[DHK]

To DHK: so you're setting yourself up as the custodian of God's Word? Wow! The LXX translators accepted them BTW...

The LXX is simply a translation, and a poor one at that. It doesn't matter to me what they did. What matters is how the canon of Scripture was determined by the Jews for the OT and how the canon of the NT was determined. They followed a general set of guidelines. I didn't set them up. Why would you allege that I am the custodian. It is God that preserves his word. He is the custodian of his own Word. Those are just some of the ways he has worked through history.

 

[Matt Black]

The Jewish OT Canon was not determined until after 80 AD at Jamnia/ Yavneh, well into the Apostolic Period; up until then the LXX was in common circulation and would have been used by Jesus, the apostles and, come to that, the Bereans of Acts 17. Strange, is it not, that not a single NT writer rejected it? Indeed, the Jews only rejected it as part of the reaction, after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, against everything goyim: since the LXX was written in a Gentile language and, to boot, used by those horrid minim sectaries (Christians), it had to be ditched....None of which is a convincing argument for Christians to reject it; indeed, quite the opposite...

Re the NT Canon - I pose the same question to you as to Walter: how do you know that James and Revelation are 'in', but Didache and Barnabas are 'out'?

 

[DHK]

The Jewish OT Canon was not determined until after 80 AD at Jamnia/ Yavneh, well into the Apostolic Period; up until then the LXX was in common circulation and would have been used by Jesus, the apostles and, come to that, the Bereans of Acts 17. Strange, is it not, that not a single NT writer rejected it? Indeed, the Jews only rejected it as part of the reaction, after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, against everything goyim: since the LXX was written in a Gentile language and, to boot, used by those horrid minim sectaries (Christians), it had to be ditched....None of which is a convincing argument for Christians to reject it; indeed, quite the opposite...

Re the NT Canon - I pose the same question to you as to Walter: how do you know that James and Revelation are 'in', but Didache and Barnabas are 'out'?

The Council of Jamnia did nothing but affirm that which was already known. The Jews would not accept into their canon any book written after 400 B.C. Thus, for all practical purposes it was already canonized by that date. No silly council like Jamnia could have canonized what they already had as their Scriptures. Do you mean to suggest what Jesus referred to as Scripture wasn't Scripture? Surely you jest? Jesus had the inspired Word of God and referred to it as Scripture. There wasn't a book missing or added in the time of Christ. And He had left long before 80 A.D.

 

[Matt Black]

What's so magical about the date 400BC?

 

[targus]

I recall reading that Jesus quoted Sirach and Tobit.

 

[Matt Black]

...and indeed where the NT quotes the OT, more often than not it is the LXX version quoted.

 

[Dr. Walter]

To Walter: None of which defines the Canon. I'm still not sure that you understand the nature of my question. Following your numbering agains:

1.The Isaiah prophecy is all well and good in that it promises that the Canon will be complete but doesn't list the 27 NT books so doesn't define the Canon itself.

You are correct that the prophecy does not list what the books would be or the total number. However, the prophecy does demand that the canon would be finished "among my disciples" which the New Testament scriptures apply directly to the apostles (Heb. 2:3-4,13). John was the last living apostle and he sealed the canon with the last book he wrote (Rev. 1:3; 22:18-20).

2. You simply can't assert that all 27 books were circulated and accepted by all congregations prior to the death of the Apostles. There is no evidence for this. .

I can assert that all 27 books were extent before the close of the first century simply because all were written and sent and thus received before the close of the first century.

Technically, I think all you can argue is that SECOND GENERATION members among SOME of these congregations may have questioned the canonicity of James and Revelation.

Nor can you assert that the Didache and Barnabas were not extant at that time

I think the best you can argue about these two books is that they were read for edification like so many others. Not even Rome accepts them into their canon. They fail the common sense tests that both Jews and Christians applied in determining prophetic authenticity. In regard to their dating, it is still a matter of conjecture whether they were written in the latter half of the first century or in the first half of the second century.

3. Tertullian doesn't list what those 'Christian Scriptures' were so again as with #1, we have no way of knowing whether he meant the same books as we now have.

You are avoiding the evidence here. It does not matter if he lists some or all. His testimony is that the "whole volume" of "Christian Scriptures" was determined prior to 140 AD (Marcion) because he uses it as a basis to condemn Marcion for SUBTRACTING from that "whole volume" and clearly and explicitly states that he, as well as, no one else can "add" or "substract" from that "whole volume." His argument is meaningless if the canon was not established before 140 AD. It would be silly to argue that the congregations of Christ already possessed a standard ["whole volume"] to judge whether or not other canons of scripture (Marcion's) were subtracted versions or added to it unless you did in fact have a "WHOLE" volume to judge such canons by.

Is your argument now able to still walk without any of its legs?

Well, it limps a little but all three legs are doing fine. Thanks for asking:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

...and indeed where the NT quotes the OT, more often than not it is the LXX version quoted.

That actually can't be proved. For one, it is most likely if Jesus was quoting he would have used that which would have been used in the Temple--the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the sacred text of the Jews.
Secondly, He, being God in the flesh, really didn't have to "quote." He knew the word more accurately than anyone else there. We find at the age of 12 that it was the doctors and teachers of the law asking him the difficult questions!!

 

[DHK]

What's so magical about the date 400BC?

The approximate date of the last book of the OT canon was 450 B.C. The last book of the OT is not Malachi, but Zechariah. He also was contemporary with Nehemiah and Ezra. These were the last books written. It was the time when the Jews were going back to rebuild Jerusalem. But many remained in captivity. God was silent and did not speak to any prophet for over 400 years, until John the Baptist appeared on the scene--the forerunner of Christ.

What did Christ say about this:
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. (Luke 11:50-51)

That encompasses all the Old Testament: From Abel of Genesis to Zechariah, the last book of the Hebrew OT canon. Jesus refers to it all right here. Nothing more was ever added.

 

[DHK]

I recall reading that Jesus quoted Sirach and Tobit.

Do you? Chapter and verse please?

 

[Matt Black]

You are correct that the prophecy does not list what the books would be or the total number. However, the prophecy does demand that the canon would be finished "among my disciples" which the New Testament scriptures apply directly to the apostles (Heb. 2:3-4,13). John was the last living apostle and he sealed the canon with the last book he wrote (Rev. 1:3; 22:18-20).

Except that we don't know that the Didache and Barnabas don't also meet the bill there.

I can assert that all 27 books were extent before the close of the first century simply because all were written and sent and thus received before the close of the first century.

But all accepted by all the NT congregations? I think not.

You are avoiding the evidence here. It does not matter if he lists some or all. His testimony is that the "whole volume" of "Christian Scriptures" was determined prior to 140 AD (Marcion) because he uses it as a basis to condemn Marcion for SUBTRACTING from that "whole volume" and clearly and explicitly states that he, as well as, no one else can "add" or "substract" from that "whole volume."

Yes, but this presupposes that Tertullian's "whole volume" was the same as ours. We don't have the evidence that it was.

 

[Matt Black]

That actually can't be proved. For one, it is most likely if Jesus was quoting he would have used that which would have been used in the Temple--the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the sacred text of the Jews.
Secondly, He, being God in the flesh, really didn't have to "quote." He knew the word more accurately than anyone else there. We find at the age of 12 that it was the doctors and teachers of the law asking him the difficult questions!!

I wasn't talking specifically about Jesus (Targus brought him up) but the NT, which can be proved.