|
Author
|
Topic: Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'?
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Well, thing with Luther is he supported persecuting Protestants like the Anabaptists in the same way the Catholic Church did. Calvinists and Lutherans were actually right there with Catholicism in warfaring persecution and martyring of Protestants like the Anabaptists. So I've never really liked Luther as a Protestant example myself. Sure, Protestants have been mean to one another for centuries. I'm afraid they're still Protestants, though.
Well, I figure if the Bible is God's Word, and God did want it preserved, then the strongest examples of that preservation should show what that Word is. 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."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 9:24 PM | | Jzyehoshua has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 32 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-29-2012 1:54 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 949 days) Posts: 153 Joined: 06-10-2010
|
Sure, Protestants have been mean to one another for centuries. I'm afraid they're still Protestants, though. Rats.
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." True. Still, the top 16 mentioned appear to include the typical OT canon, plus 1 Enoch and Jubilees: Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia Psalms 39 Deuteronomy 33 1 Enoch 25 Genesis 24 Isaiah 22 Jubilees 21 Exodus 18 Leviticus 17 Numbers 11 Minor Prophets 10 Daniel 8 Jeremiah 6 Ezekiel 6 Job 6 1 & 2 Samuel 4 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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2012 10:24 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by jar, posted 05-29-2012 11:05 AM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
|
jar
Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004 Member Rating: 5.0
|
What is a Canon?
But a collection of fragments of scrolls found in a variety of caves is NOT a Canon. 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!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-29-2012 1:54 AM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9456 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 4.7
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 34 of 154 (664146)
05-29-2012 11:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 4:42 AM
|
|
What a bunch of utter crap.
Concerning the New Testament, we have more than 24,000 manuscripts with 99.5% internal consistency showing the New Testament we have today is accurate with regard to the original autographs. No other ancient historical document has nearly this level of evidence. The closest is the Iliad with 643 manuscripts. Many documents like Caesar's Gallic Wars are considered accurately preserved with just 5-10 manuscripts dating 1,000 years or more after the originals. However, we have manuscripts for the New Testament dating less than a century after the original documents (autographs) like the John Rylands Papyrus (P52), P104, P90, P64+67, and P98. We have complete or nearly complete copies of the New Testament dating as early as 200-400 A.D. like the Sahidic Coptic Version, Sinaitic Curiac Version, and Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. 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.
Thus, we can look at these early documents to see whether later translations (like the King James Version) were reliable translations of the original Greek/Hebrew text seen in such early manuscripts.
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.
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible And WhyThe Rejection of Pascal's WagerThe Text of the New Testament 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 4:42 AM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 06-05-2012 11:13 AM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4417 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: 07-08-2008
|
orly?
Jzyehoshua writes: As for who the real Protestants were, Protestantism actually goes back about 1700 years. It's a common misconception that it began during the Reformation. There's a chart called the "Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll for example which purports to show a lineage of groups tracing the real Christian Church back, separate from Catholicism. I've written a lengthy post here addressing it, and my disagreements with Catholicism:
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.
Joshua David Zambrano writes: I believe Roman Catholicism was instituted in A.D. 380 by Roman Emperor Theodosius I as a way to destroy Christianity. Before that, Rome had tried unsuccessfully to stamp out Christianity in defense of government power over the people and to protect its pagan traditions by lining up crucified Christians all along its highways, feeding them to lions, seizing their property, and imprisoning them to work in underground mines for the rest of their lives. That wasn't working, people continued to become Christians. Therefore, Rome declared "Christianity" the state religion but only pardoned Christians who swore allegiance to Rome, and confessed belief in the newly-created doctrine of the Trinity under the Nicene Creed I believe Catholicism was in effect Satan's attempt to persecute real Christianity while removing popular appeal by creating a fake Christianity. This allowed Rome to continue persecuting the real Christians, giving itself justification for doing so (since now they were "heretics" rather than "Christians"), allowed it to preserve its pagan traditions under the guise of "Christianity", allowed it to attack all forms of real Christianity as heretical, eliminating them wherever they'd sprout, and allowed it to retain power over government and the people (confession could be considered a population control tactic, e.g.).
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?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 8:26 PM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Well, I figure if the Bible is God's Word, and God did want it preserved, then the strongest examples of that preservation should show what that Word is. The Dead Sea Scrolls against much probability have come down to us from over 2,000 years ago, providing an accurate record with which to cross-check the Old Testament. So it stands to reason what they best preserve might well be God's Word, and if that includes 1 Enoch and Jubilees, well, that's more reason for me to give those two books serious consideration in canonicity. The Dead Sea Scrolls otherwise preserve perfectly all the books of the Old Testament - the scrolls best preserved are the books of the Old Testament - along with those 2 books. 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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 9:24 PM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
|
Artemis Entreri
Suspended Member (Idle past 4417 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: 07-08-2008
|
orly? part II
Joshua David Zambrano writes: I have Catholic friends who I very much respect and admire who I'm convinced are Christians. I really do hate to offend them. Nevertheless, I am likewise convinced the institution of Catholicism is not Christian, and is in fact one of the greatest institutions for evil and assault on Christianity ever introduced on Earth.
Lulz. Well thanks for the preface, I would like to preface myself by saying that contrary to popular opinion I am not trying to troll you here, but I am going to have to engage you on your falsehoods. 1st of all you cannot possibly have Catholic friends that you respect and admire when you think their church was founded by Satan to bring down all of Christianity (as it says later in your essay). Just be honest. Listening to you, We (Roman Catholics) are worse than atheists (you should get Buzsaw in here, he loves to hate us). I realize that these are your beliefs and you are entitled to them, but I have to question you about much of it.
I believe Roman Catholicism was instituted in A.D. 380 by Roman Emperor Theodosius I as a way to destroy Christianity.
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.
Before that, Rome had tried unsuccessfully to stamp out Christianity in defense of government power over the people and to protect its pagan traditions by lining up crucified Christians all along its highways, feeding them to lions, seizing their property, and imprisoning them to work in underground mines for the rest of their lives. That wasn't working, people continued to become Christians. Therefore, Rome declared "Christianity" the state religion but only pardoned Christians who swore allegiance to Rome, and confessed belief in the newly-created doctrine of the Trinity under the Nicene Creed.
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.
Those who believed Jesus and God the Father were separate entities, and that Jesus was the first-born of creation (a created being rather than eternal, according to Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14) were declared Arians and exterminated. This was only the beginning of Catholic persecutions of "heretics". Next were the Novatians and Donatists, who both believed in re-baptizing rather than infant baptism. They too were declared heretics and slaughtered.
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.
I believe Catholicism was in effect Satan's attempt to persecute real Christianity while removing popular appeal by creating a fake Christianity. This allowed Rome to continue persecuting the real Christians, giving itself justification for doing so (since now they were "heretics" rather than "Christians"), allowed it to preserve its pagan traditions under the guise of "Christianity", allowed it to attack all forms of real Christianity as heretical, eliminating them wherever they'd sprout, and allowed it to retain power over government and the people (confession could be considered a population control tactic, e.g.).
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 8:26 PM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 38 by bluescat48, posted 05-31-2012 12:17 AM | | Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied |
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4378 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Re: orly? part II
In a rare situation, I totally agree you you in this.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-30-2012 5:30 PM | | Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9456 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
|
Message 39 of 154 (664802)
06-05-2012 11:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by Theodoric
05-29-2012 11:14 AM
|
|
Bump for Jz
Aren't you going to come back to support your arguments? No defense of this
Concerning the New Testament, we have more than 24,000 manuscripts with 99.5% internal consistency showing the New Testament we have today is accurate with regard to the original autographs. No other ancient historical document has nearly this level of evidence. The closest is the Iliad with 643 manuscripts. Many documents like Caesar's Gallic Wars are considered accurately preserved with just 5-10 manuscripts dating 1,000 years or more after the originals. However, we have manuscripts for the New Testament dating less than a century after the original documents (autographs) like the John Rylands Papyrus (P52), P104, P90, P64+67, and P98. We have complete or nearly complete copies of the New Testament dating as early as 200-400 A.D. like the Sahidic Coptic Version, Sinaitic Curiac Version, and Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by Theodoric, posted 05-29-2012 11:14 AM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 40 of 154 (664821)
06-05-2012 3:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by Theodoric
06-05-2012 11:13 AM
|
|
Re: Bump for Jz
Jzyehoshua has mentioned on another thread that he can only find time to post at weekends. You'll just have to wait. The Christian canon's been around for a coupla millennia, I guess there's no hurry.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 06-05-2012 11:13 AM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|
Artemis Entreri
Suspended Member (Idle past 4417 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: 07-08-2008
|
delete
nevermind. Edited by Artemis Entreri, : protestants never show up when Catholics defend themselves.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2012 3:38 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
infoleather
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 4423 days) Posts: 1 From: I just want to stay at this place to make friends and enjoy part time Joined: 08-23-2012
|
|
|
Message 42 of 154 (671275)
08-23-2012 11:50 PM
|
|
|
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 (Idle past 771 days) Posts: 921 Joined: 12-26-2011
|
|
|
Message 43 of 154 (671276)
08-24-2012 1:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
05-29-2012 11:05 AM
|
|
Re: What is a Canon?
jar writes: So what is the justification argument that might show the Protestant Canon as superior? 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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by jar, posted 05-29-2012 11:05 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 44 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2012 1:36 AM | | foreveryoung has not replied | | | Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-24-2012 2:57 AM | | foreveryoung has replied | | | Message 46 by jar, posted 08-24-2012 8:59 AM | | foreveryoung has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17877 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 5.7
|
Re: What is a Canon?
quote:
The true canon must first have the true new testament canon. Whatever the orthodox church was using is the new testament canon.
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:
To determine what makes up the old testament canon, it must be referenced in the true new testament canon.
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:
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.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by foreveryoung, posted 08-24-2012 1:14 AM | | foreveryoung has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: What is a Canon?
The protestant old testament canon is the only one that has all the books referenced by the true new testament canon ... 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.
|
™ Version 4.2