|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| evilsorcerer1 | |||||||
|
| Announcements: | Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member  Posts: 15948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
Sure, Protestants have been mean to one another for centuries. I'm afraid they're still Protestants, though.
All the books under consideration for membership of the canon have been preserved. The idea of counting manuscripts seems an odd one. One would have to draw the line somewhere: "The Epistle of X just scrapes into the canon with 5 early copies still extant, whereas the Prophetic Book of Y barely misses being the Word of God with only 4."
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jzyehoshua Inactive Member |
Rats.
True. Still, the top 16 mentioned appear to include the typical OT canon, plus 1 Enoch and Jubilees: http://en.wikipedia.org/...ead_Sea_Scrolls_.28books_found.29 Psalms 39 It's tough to tell what books rank next and how many manuscripts they have. It would also depend on the condition of those manuscripts. Still, just as a general rule, you'd think the preservation in general, both age and quality, would give some indication of which ones should be considered canon. So just right there, that looks to me like the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate a clear canon for the Old Testament at least with 1 Enoch and Jubilees as two other considerations.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member  Posts: 29190 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 2.7
|
A Canon is a list compiled by a recognized Committee of Canon of what books should be included in a Bible. That is what is NOT found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. There have been many such Committees of Canon and each one has drawn up a different list. In fact, the only books that are common to ALL of the various Canons are the first five books of the Old Testament. There are several possible way to determine which Canon is superior. One could be commonality. The Superior Canon is the one that contains ONLY Books found in all Canons. By that criteria the Samaritan Orthodox Canon is Superior to all others and everything except the first five books of the Old Testament is non-canonical. Another could be inclusiveness. The Canon that includes the most books is Superior and so the Ethiopian Long Canon with its 80 plus books is superior. The criteria could be based on acceptance by a major chapter of Club Christian and there the Roman Catholic Canon is far superior. It could be based on documented age and there the superior Canon would be the one drawn up by the Nicean Committee of Canon. Or it could be the most recent Canon and thus the Mormon Canon which is open and continually growing is far superior. So what is the justification argument that might show the Protestant Canon as superior? Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Theodoric Member  Posts: 5765 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined:
|
What a bunch of utter crap.
Many of these manuscripts you fundies like to claim are nothing more than a single scrap. Only about fifty manuscripts contain the entire New Testament, and of these only one, the Codex Sinaiticus is a Uncial manuscript. Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephremi are missing significant portions. There are less than sixty complete manuscripts including the three above. All others are miniscule manuscripts that date form the 9th century and later.
The writers of the KJV used flawed manuscripts. Parts of the KJV are based translations by Erasmus that were know was based upon a 12th century manuscript that is one of the worst manuscripts there are. Here are some sources for you. You can see that all of these books use references and footnotes to show you where they got their evidence from. They are not pulling it out of their ass as AIG and fundies tend to do. How does it feel, as a Christian, to be filling creationwiki full of lies?
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 1729 days)  Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined:
|
It doesn’t really address anything. How do the Protestants share lineage or beliefs with the long list of heretics that you have listed. All you did was list some groups targeted by the RCC and then the rest of the essay simply just anti-Roman Catholic. It doesn’t say anything about how Protestants are related to the Cathari (for example). Do protestants use any of the extra new testament works (no)? Are all the protestants nontrinitarian (no)? Does Protestantism reflect the Cathari’s concern of not eating meat (no)? I don’t see anything that ties or supports the myth that protestants existed before the reformation. All these listed groups of heretics (and you missed some important ones, which makes me think you just copied this from someone else). The idea that this is anything about how the heretics of the dark and middle ages are the real protestants quickly fades after the early part of the essay with all the links. Real protestants came from the Reformation, they are a direct product of Johannes Gutenberg and his printing press. Allowing the Bible to be translated and “written” and then printed out numerous times so that people could read the bible in their own language. This caused people to reform against the RCC by reading things in the book that contrasted with the Church’s doctrine. As I said Earlier, Catholics = Church of the Apostles; Protestants = Church of the Bible.
Oh please show how the heretics are the Real Christians, and how they are the real protestants. Your Ideas are so Euro-centric that it is amusing. How did the Rome Eliminate the Coptic Christians, How did Rome Eliminate the Greek Orthodox, the Assyrian (the oldest church), The Russian Orthodox, The Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (St. Thomas Christians), The Tewahedo Church (Ethiopia), Syriac Christians, The Armenian Church, the Maronites (Lebanon). If indeed non-roman = real Christian, then you have to consider the above. Or did you just mean non-roman-European churches are the Real protestants and the real Christians? Out of pure curiosity are you a Chalcedonian or Miaphysite Christian?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 15948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
But if it was God's plan to show us which books are canon by arranging the preservation of this or that ancient manuscript, then God's plan has been a total failure, insofar as there is no-one at all whose canon consists of, and only of, the core books of the OT + Enoch + Jubilees + the NT.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Artemis Entreri Suspended Member (Idle past 1729 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined:
|
Lulz.
Interesting, especially because back in the early church there was a pentarchy (rule of five); 5 holy sees (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem). Catholicism was already all across the Empire, something that was helped by Pax Romana and because the Romans built roads all over the place. The flow of goods and ideas was encouraged.
I am not sure where you get your history of the western world from but ok. The Edict of Milan in 313ce (AD313) proclaimed religious freedom throughout the Roman Empire. The Romans were more practical than they are credited with, using syncretism to ally their faith with those of new peoples. Christianity became the state religion after most of the people became Christian, not before hand.
Seriously!?! Remember the topic here about Canon? The Canon was not established until 397 at the council of Carthage. So attributing Colossians and Revelation as evidence cannot be used. Mainly because the Arians were determinded to be heretics in 325 (1st Council of Nicaea) 72 years before the bible. You really can’t bring up the bible before it was “the bible” and use that. Also note that the 1st council of Nicaea is accepted by Anglicans, the Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Protestants, and Roman Catholics. This makes it more than a little ridiculous sounding that it was ALL the Roman Catholics who labeled the Arians as heretics, when in factual reality 4th century Christendom made the declaration. It is also rather odd that protestants today side with the rest of the Christians on Nicaea, and thus against the Arians, yet somehow you are trying to argue that the Arians were the orginial protestants. Please explain in case I have you confused or have missed your point.
Real Christians!?! Like say the Arians, who were called heretics by all the other Christians? I also like how you bring up Novatians and Donatists without mentioning why they were heretical. You try to blame it on re-baptism, but that was not the reason. The reason was that Novatian (the Antipope), held a strict view that refused to accept lapsed Christians, and refused to forgive them, because under duress and persecution some of the Christians (the Lapsi) renounced Christianity. This attitude would have denied Peter for denying Christ. The Donatists were very similar, but in north Africa (Tunisia and Libya), they said that anyone who gave into the persecution were not a part of the church, so in 313 when the Diocletianic Persecution (303ce-313ce) ended, and Christianity was “legal” many people came out of the shadows to renew their faith and the Donatists said they could not. Since my Christianity is about conversion and forgiveness I have to agree that the views of the hardline Donatists were in error. I know that Protestants today have nothing in common with the Novatians or the Donatists, but perhaps you could explain to me how they are? A great example is my friend who is a Baptist youth minister, he was raised in that denomination, born again in that denomination, and in college turned to a live of drugs and sex, renouncing his Christian faith (I was there it was a blast). As a more mature adult, he was born again, again (for the 2nd time) and welcomed back into the flock with open arms. This is not something either the Novatians or the Donatists would allow, it is something that the Catholics (and I guess Baptists) would definitely allow. I don’t want to dogpile you with tons of posts so I’ll refrain from questioning your logic, reasoning, and source information until you answer the questions I have posted here and in post #35. I look forward to your response.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 1690 days)  Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Theodoric Member Posts: 5765 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
No defense of this
Or how about a defense of the manuscripts used for the KJV. You have heard of Ersamus haven't you? You do know what Greek manuscripts were used for the KJV don't you?
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 15948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Artemis Entreri Suspended Member (Idle past 1729 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : protestants never show up when Catholics defend themselves.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
infoleather Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 1735 days) Posts: 1 From: I just want to stay at this place to make friends and enjoy part time Joined: |
Do not have this level of evidence of other ancient historical documents. The closest is the "Iliad" and 643 manuscripts. Edited by infoleather, : No reason given. Edited by infoleather, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
foreveryoung Member Posts: 880 Joined: |
The true canon must first have the true new testament canon. Whatever the orthodox church was using is the new testament canon. That just so happens to be the same as the protestant new testament canon. To determine what makes up the old testament canon, it must be referenced in the true new testament canon. The protestant old testament canon is the only one that has all the books referenced by the true new testament canon and the books that are not referenced are also in the majority of all the other known old testament canons. This is what makes the protestant canon superior to all others.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 12989 Joined: Member Rating: 3.0 |
quote: Seems a bit arbitrary, and what is the "orthodox church" ? And what time period. Should we bring back books like The Shepherd of Hermas ? quote: Why have a different rule for Old and New Testaments ? Why, for instance is it not sufficient to be referenced by a canonical work, regardless of whether it is in Old or New Testament ? And, it is well known that Jude references 1 Enoch. So presumably you have to add 1 Enoch to your canon. Good luck with that. There's also the question of whether Jude references the Assumption of Moses - and before you point out that that's uncertain, how do you handle uncertain cases ? Include a work "just in case" ? quote: As we know, that isn't true. But even if it was, why would that make the Protestant canon superior ? Following arbitrary rules isn't enough - the rules need to be justified. Edited by PaulK, : Restored lost text
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 15948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Er, no. The canon of every other Christian tradition includes everything in the Protestant canon plus some books. So if the Protestant OT canon has "all the books referenced by the true new testament canon", then so do all the others. Besides which, as has been pointed out, the Protestant OT canon doesn't contain the Book of Enoch, which is referenced in the book of Jude. And the book of Jude is in the Protestant NT canon. So if it was true that "the protestant old testament canon is the only one that has all the books referenced by the true new testament canon", then the Protestants have the wrong NT canon, since the book of Jude is in the Protestant NT canon but the book of Enoch isn't.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017
(1)
