Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Christians who are familiar with the New Testament and Baptist theology do not share than persuasion.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Close of the Canon Holy Scripture.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
37818
Well-Known Member
They wouldn't be Baptist, would they?
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
Being prolific is no proof of legitimacy in Biblical scholarship.
Raymond Brown was criticized for suggesting that the birth stories of Jesus in Matthew and Luke might not be historical accounts but rather theological reflections, calling into question the strict historical reality of the virgin birth.
Therehave also been claims that his work was reducing scripture to mere myth-making.
Fr. Brown and many of those Catholic exegetes who followed him hold that it is "very uncertain" that angels appeared to Mary and Joseph; that there appeared a star interpreted by magi from the east as a sign of the birth of the King of the Jews, and that they followed it to Bethlehem; that angels appeared to the shepherds; and that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth.
Also on the Raymond Brown "doubtful list" was that Herod learned about Jesus' birth and then ordered the slaughter of children in Bethlehem, and that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus fled to Egypt to escape slaughter. And, as Marian scholar Gerard Morrissey, author of The Hardest Cross: Doctrine and Vatican Policy, pointed out recently, if anyone doubts all that, he must also doubt St. Luke's four canticles — the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Nunc Dimittis (Simeon's words at the Presentation), and the Gloria in Excelsis.
Brown, while believing that "it is likely that Matthew and Luke teach the Virgin Birth," also asserts that the Virgin Birth is only a "minority view in the New Testament." Why? Because other books of the New Testament, for example, the Gospel of Mark, make no mention of the Virgin Birth.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
When we compare the Bibles used by various Christian groups, we find the following writings that are not found in the Protestant Canon but which are found in the Bibles of other Christian groups:
Books and Additions to Esther and Daniel that are in the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles
Tobit
Judith
The Additions to the Book of Esther found in the Greek Version
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach
Baruch
The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch ch. 6)
The Additions to the Greek Book of Daniel
The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Books in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles; Not in the Roman Catholic Canon
1 Esdras (2 Esdras in the Slavonic Bible, 3 Esdras in Appendix to the Vulgate)
The Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
3 Maccabees
A composite book in the Slavonic Bible and in the Latin Vulgate Appendix
2 Esdras (3 Esdras in the Slavonic Bible, 4 Esdras in the Vulgate Appendix; “Esdras” is the Greek form of “Ezra”)
(Note: In the Latin Vulgate, Ezra- Nehemiah are 1 and 2 Esdras.)
A book in an Appendix to the Greek Bible
4 Maccabees (This book is included in two important Bibles from the fourth and fifth century.)
In my personal library, I have well over 100 bibles, and only two of them, an edition of the English Standard Version and an edition of the New Revised Standard Version, include all of the books and additions to Esther and Daniel that I have listed above.
However, there is also The Orthodox Tewahedo Canon (commonly known in the West as the Ethiopic Canon. It includes the following writings,
The Holy Books of the Old Testament
1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy
6. Joshua
7. Judges
8. Ruth
9. I and II Samuel
10. I and II Kings
11. I Chronicles
12. II Chronicles
13. Jublee
14. Enoch
15. Ezra and Nehemia
16. Ezra (2nd) and Ezra Sutuel
17. Tobit
18. Judith
19. Esther
20. I Maccabees
21. II and III Maccabees
22. Job
23. Psalms
24. Proverbs
25. Tegsats (Reproof)
26. Metsihafe Tibeb (the books of wisdom)
27. Ecclesiastes
28. The Song of Songs
29. Isaiah
30. Jeremiah
31. Ezekiel
32. Daniel
33. Hosea
34. Amos
35. Micah
36. Joel
37. Obadiah
38. Jonah
39. Nahum
40. Habakkuk
41. Zephaniah
42. Haggai
43. Zechariah
44. Malachi
45. Book of Joshua the son of Sirac
46. The Book of Josephas the Son of Bengorion
The holy books of the New Testament
1. Matthew
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. John
5. The Acts
6. Romans
7. I Corinthians
8. II Corinthians
9. Galatians
10. Ephesians
11. Philippians
12. Colossians
13. I Thessalonians
14. II Thessalonians
15. I Timothy
16. II Timothy
17. Titus
18. Philemon
19. Hebrews
20. I Peter
21. II Peter
22. I John
23. II John
24. III John
25. James
26. Jude
27. Revelation
28. Sirate Tsion (the book of order)
29. Tizaz (the book of Herald)
30. Gitsew
31. Abtilis
32. The I book of Dominos
33. The II book of Dominos
34. The book of Clement
35. Didascalia
The Greek and The Roman Church's accept the same 27 New Testament Books as Baptist.
I do not think any such discoveries will happen. But if they did it would have to be found in Egypt or the Dead Sea caves regions. Lets not hold our breaths.
It is true that I have not read the two commentaries that you recommend; nor have I ever heard of the authors. 'Of the making of many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh.' In fact, I venture the opinion that if you had read on beyond page 3 of the Hendriksen commentary rather than merely owning it, you might have come to the spot (page 33 of vol. 2 in my edition) where he spends much time discussing the only major place where scholars feel that there may be a question of redaction, namely 7:53-8:11 (though over 900 Greek MSS contain the verses).I have William Hendriksen's expositional commentary on John on my desk open to page 3 where he begins a 30-page discussion on the “Authorship, Date, and Place of John’s Gospel” which you recommend. I also have on my desk the first of the three volumes of the exegetical commentary on the Greek text of John by Rudolf Schnackenburg open to page 5 where we find the first page of his two-page table of contents for the first volume. This table of contents shows that Schnackenburg, on pages 44-119, covers the authorship and date, and that on pages 192-211 he covers “The Fourth Gospel in History” including “Patristic Exegesis.” However, as I have already written, both Brown and Schnackenburg expressly write that John was the primary author of the Fourth Gospel but this gospel shows substantial evidence of redactions. Hendriksen does not appear to know anything about this matter.
Is it not true that you have not read as much as one word of the commentaries on John by Brown and Schnackenburg? Is it not also true that in your post you have insinuated that at least Schnackenburg and probably Brown were liberals attacking the “Canon of Scriptures?” Raymond Brown was ultraconservative (he died from a heart attack on August 8, 1998). His commentary on John is one of the finest commentaries on John and is used by Christians representing a very wide spectrum of theological thought. Schnackenburg was slightly less conservative than Brown and his commentary is even more technical.
Best Commentaries on John | Best Commentaries
The best commentaries on John ranked by scholars and reviewers: (1) D. A. Carson in PNTC, (2) Craig S. Keener, (3) Leon Morris in NICNTbestcommentaries.com
Also, if you have read the book I recommended, you would know that John's Gospel is quoted by Ignatius of Antioch (martyred c. 115) and Justin Martyr (d. 165). John must therefore have written the book much earlier. Indeed, in John 5:2, we are told that 'there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate, a pool, which is called in Hebrew 'Bethesda, having five porches.' This is evidence that John was writing before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Finally, Augustine of Hippo, who was much nearer to events that we are, wrote that some scribes had removed vs. 7:53ff from their codices because they were concerned that women might use the text as an excuse for their adulteries.
With regard to the Pastoral epistles, they are referenced by Clement of Rome and Polycarp. They (and John's Gospel) are listed in the Muratorian Canon and in Tatian's Diatessaron. It is time to stop casting doubt on Holy Scripture, which can only have the effect, humanly speaking, of injuring the faith of those coming to Christ. Matthew 18:6-7 should be a warning to us.
Last edited:
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Since you chose to quote me in your post, I feel invited to respond …
Let’s discuss specifics:
Or should we embrace the Apostolic teaching on the subject and reject Maccabees as “not inspired” because it contradicts divine “Apostolic“ revalation?
Should we pray for the post-mortem salvation of the dead?
Have you actually read the apocryphal books? I have not read all of them, but those that I have read, I agree with the early church and Jerome and the Reformers that they are NOT “God breathed” like the 66 books that ALL CHURCHES agree are inspired.
Let’s discuss specifics:
Do you believe that we should still be following the formula given by the Angel and making the magic potion to heal blindness? Is that REALLY how God works?
Should we be embracing prayers for the dead and the theology that there is hope of restoration even after death (as Maccabees teaches) and reject the NT books that teach contrary as “not inspired” because they contradict prior divine revelation (the criteria to be Holy Scripture)?
Or should we embrace the Apostolic teaching on the subject and reject Maccabees as “not inspired” because it contradicts divine “Apostolic“ revalation?
Should we pray for the post-mortem salvation of the dead?
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
.
Not Holy Scripture but, the Hanukkah observance is explained.
John 10:22, And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
1 Maccabees 4:59.
Not Holy Scripture but, the Hanukkah observance is explained.
John 10:22, And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
Last edited:
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Granted, Maccabees is useful as a historic reference … so is Josephus’ Histories and the letters from the ECFs, but we don’t include them in the Bible either.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Thank you for responding to my post. I always welcome replies like yours that that have something significant to add to the threads.
I have read only some of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. I find it interesting, however, that Jude quotes from Enoch in the Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament.
Book of Enoch 1:9,
| 9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones |
| To execute judgement upon all, |
| And to destroy all the ungodly: |
| And to convict all flesh |
| Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, |
| And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. |
Jude 1:14-15.
14. It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, "See, the Lord is coming {Gk [came]} with ten thousands of his holy ones,
15. to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the 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."
Enoch is included in the Ethiopian Canon.
My general sentiment about the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament is that they are, for the most part, inferior to the Protestant Canon.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
If you had read the commentaries on John by Brown and by Schnackenburg, you would know the difference between textual criticism and redaction criticism. Had you read post #29 in this thread with reasonable care, you would know that I did not recommend either of the two commentaries. Indeed, you would also know that scholars of John’s gospel find evidence of multiple redactions in his gospel, and that this is especially true of Schnackenburg. Ancient quotes from John’s gospel as it existed prior to later redactions do not prove that the final form of the gospel was composed in the first century.
As for Hendriksen’s commentary on John 7:53-8:11 (on pages 33-35), I am happy enough with them—especially his last sentence, “On the other hand, all of the facts concerning the textual evidence should be made known.”
I studied classical languages at University many years ago so I am not unaware of textual criticism, or redactions. Unfortunately, you do not give examples of the redactions you and your pals claim to find. If you would do so, I might be able to comment with more accuracy.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
1 Cor. 13:9. For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part;
10. but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. (NRSV)
1 Cor. 13:9. For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect;
10. but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. (RSV)
1 Cor. 13:9. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. (KJV)
1 Cor. 13:9. ἐκ μέρους γὰρ γινώσκομεν καὶ ἐκ μέρους προφητεύομεν ·
1 Cor. 13:10. ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ τὸ τέλειον, τὸ ἐκ μέρους καταργηθήσεται
The Greek word τέλειος has various meanings in the New Testament and to learn what it means in 1 Cor. 13:10, we need the help of the BDAG Greek-English lexicon because it gives the meaning of τέλειος in each of the places where it is used in the New Testament. On page 995 it gives us the meaning used in 1 Cor. 13:10 and that meaning is “perfect”—not “complete,” but perfect.
On page 525 in the BDAG Greek-English lexicon, we learn that the Greek word καταργέω means to “cause something to come to an end or to be no longer in existence.”
1 Corinthians is a personal letter that Paul wrote to the church that was in Corinth, a major Roman port city in Greece. Very early in his letter, Paul writes.
1 Cor. 1:4. I give thanks to God always for you because of the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus,
5. that in every way you were enriched in him with all speech and all knowledge—
6. even as the testimony to Christ was confirmed among you—
7. so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ;
8. who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (RSV)
The content of these five introductory verses introduce us to what is to follow.
1 Cor. 13:9. For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect;
10. but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. (RSV)
The perfect thing is nothing less than the infinitely glorious revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Christians in Corinth were exceedingly proud of their gift of tongues so Paul presents them with a comparison—the imperfect gift of tongues vs. the infinitely perfect and glorious revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, the gift of tongues has never ceased. Indeed, we have a very well documented history of the gift of tongues being in use throughout the history of the church.
The belief of cessationists that the miraculous spiritual gifts—such as prophecy, healing, and tongues—ceased upon the completion of the biblical canon is not supported by these two verses because there is nothing at all said in these verses about the Bible or any Canons of the Bible.
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
I agree that there is nothing in scripture that proclaims that any spiritual gifts will cease upon the close of the canon or the death of the original apostles.
To say that healing and miracle working were given just to establish the early church seems ridiculous to me. Throughout history and in tribal lands, the church has still needed to be established, that need did not disappear in the first century.
People continue to need healing and other miracles today.
However, I have never heard anything that sounded like authentic speaking in tongues. It all sounds the same, like a version of Aramaic, which leads me to think charismatic tongues talkers are imitating each other and calling it the unknown language of angels. I have never heard real foreign languages spoken in charismatic churches,
God still does healings and do miracles even today, but not normative, and none gifted with Apostolic gifts to do such
atpollard
Well-Known Member
There really is a difference between God healing people in answer to prayer and lining up cripples so that an Apostles shadow can fall across them and heal them.
Spiritual Gifts are given to the CHURCH for the BODY as the Holy Spirit chooses and the body has NEED.
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
Perhaps these amazing miracles are still happening today without fanfare or publicity. Many wonders are being wrought in Africa, Islamic nations, South America.
The incredible miracles in the first century were in the context of amplified faith due to the recent ministry of Jesus who was healing entire towns and vast multitudes of sick, demon possessed, and disabled, never turning away anyone, never saying “if it be God’s will, be healed”.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
In today’s world of tech, is there any proof of Christians going around actually healing people?
Or are these charismatic stories that draw more monetary gifts from gullible people with means?
Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.