BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Having the same layout as the canon books does not necessarily mean these books were also considered canon. Emanuel Toy is only making an inference. It is not proof.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Essenes produced the work Jubillees - in it, the number of canon books is cited at 22, the exact number that Josephus cites. This is more direct evidence, rather than inference. Sorry, but this pretty much seals it.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'll close with the words of renown biblical scholar F.F. Bruce - "It is probable, indeed, that by the beginning of the Christian era the Essenes (including the Qumran community) were in substantial agreement with the Pharisees and the Sadducees about the limits of the Hebrew scripture."

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Finally on this point, you've repeated stated that we should trust what the Pharisees used as scripture, but in Matthew 16:6, Jesus warns, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," suggesting their teachings could be corrupting.

I'll take Jesus' word here and let the magisterium decide what is scripture.

---

The teaching of the Pharisees being corrupt doesn't mean that what they viewed as canon was corrupt. Jesus never once said their canon was wrong. In fact, he completely verified their canon (Law, Prophets, Psalms/Writings) as God's word. You're conflating two different concepts.

You continually make bad logical arguments like this.

---

Jesus never condemned the Deuterocanon.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

He never condemned Buddha's writings, the Vinaya, either. Doesn't make it Jewish canon.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You've repeatedly asserted that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes had different canons, but you've yet to show any actual historical proof of that. Up until now, you've only cited the presence of certain writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls as "proof" of a different canon, which is really bad logic.

---

Church Fathers like Hippolytus, Origen, and Jerome, who all state that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as Scripture. Acts 23:8 notes that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, angels, or spirits, which aligns with their limited scriptural canon.
You, yourself, have stated that the Protestant bible is exactly what the Pharisees used affirmed by Josephus.

---

Hippolytus, Origen, and Jerome all held the view that the Sadducees had the shorter canon for two main reasons:

1. They were talking about the Sadducees of THEIR time, not during Jesus' time. About a century after the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, the Sadducees joined with the Samaritans, who held to the shorter canon. However, during Jesus' time, there is no evidence that they held to the different canon than the Pharisees.

2. They misunderstood what Josephus wrote. F.F. Bruce explains - "The idea that the Sadducees (like the Samaritans) acknowledged the Pentateuch only as holy scripture is based on a misunderstanding: when Josephus, for example, says that the Sadducees 'admit no observance at all apart from the laws', he means not the Pentateuch to the exclusion of the Prophets and the Writings but the written law (of the Pentateuch) to the exclusion of the oral law (the Pharisaic interpretation and application of the written law, which, like the written law itself, was held in theory to have been received and handed down by Moses)".[note]F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), pp. 40-41.[/note]

The fact that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, angels, or spirits does NOT necessarily mean they held to the shorter canon. It means they had a different interpretation of it which considered those things as figurative, not literal.

Biblical evidence that the Sadducees had the same canon as the Pharisees: when the three wise men came to King Herod looking for the baby Jesus, he summoned the chief priests to find out where Jesus was to be born. During that time, most of the chief priests were Sadducees. They told Herod that Scripture predicted Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem, which comes from the book of Micah. This strongly suggests they believed the Prophets to be part of Scripture too.

Also, from the late second century B.C. up to the time of Jesus, the Sadducees were in control of which books were placed in the Temple, which meant these books were considered scripture. The Prophets and the Writings were placed in the Temple archives along with the Law of Moses during this time.

---

I'm not sure where you're getting your info on this. The Sadducees died out shortly after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

While they and the Samaritans shared the same Pentateuch-only canon, they were distinct groups with different beliefs and practices. There's no way the strict Sadducees would have intermingled with the Samaritans.

Have you forgotten the parable of the Good Samaritan?

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils, but were only regional councils, therefore their rulings did not have full authority over the whole Church.

And no, those Councils do not argue against my "history position" - they do nothing to erase the clear facts from church history that shows the majority view up until the time of the Reformation was that the Apocrypha were not considered canon Scripture.

If anything, you're only providing evidence for my point that the Catholic Church is in conflict with itself, considering that other Councils approved different canons than the ones you mentioned.

---

The Councils of Rome - 382, HIppo - 393, and Carthage - 397 & 419 were ALL affirmed by Florence in 1442. Well before the Protestant Rebellion. They were ratified in Trent.

You have to ask yourself, why was there no mention of this at the earlier ecumenical councils? It's because the canon was not called into question. It was accepted the the majority of the Church and the Magisterium.

This is confirmed with the following statement:

Protestant Church historian J.N.D. Kelly writes that, although some early writers had different views on these books, "for the great majority, however, the deuterocanonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense"

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Having the same layout as the canon books does not necessarily mean these books were also considered canon. Emanuel Toy is only making an inference. It is not proof.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Essenes produced the work Jubillees - in it, the number of canon books is cited at 22, the exact number that Josephus cites. This is more direct evidence, rather than inference. Sorry, but this pretty much seals it.

---

Not so fast. The issue of whether or not the Jubilees was written by the Essenes is complex. Many scholars believe that it was written by an author with a rigid Pharisaic point of view.

Also, I can find NO mention of a canonical list in Jubilees.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'll close with the words of renown biblical scholar F.F. Bruce - "It is probable, indeed, that by the beginning of the Christian era the Essenes (including the Qumran community) were in substantial agreement with the Pharisees and the Sadducees about the limits of the Hebrew scripture."

---

I can't verify that quote from FF Bruce. Even if I could, his opinion remains in the minority

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

He never condemned Buddha's writings, the Vinaya, either. Doesn't make it Jewish canon.

---

Talk about a bad logical fallacy masquerading as a snarky reply.

None of the writings or references of the Vinaya are ever mentioned in the NT like the Septuagint and Deuterocanon.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Having the same layout as the canon books does not necessarily mean these books were also considered canon. Emanuel Toy is only making an inference. It is not proof.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Essenes produced the work Jubillees - in it, the number of canon books is cited at 22, the exact number that Josephus cites. This is more direct evidence, rather than inference. Sorry, but this pretty much seals it.

---

Not so fast. The issue of whether or not the Jubilees was written by the Essenes is complex. Many scholars believe that it was written by an author with a rigid Pharisaic point of view.

Also, I can find NO mention of a canonical list in Jubilees.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'll close with the words of renown biblical scholar F.F. Bruce - "It is probable, indeed, that by the beginning of the Christian era the Essenes (including the Qumran community) were in substantial agreement with the Pharisees and the Sadducees about the limits of the Hebrew scripture."

---

I can't verify that quote from FF Bruce. Even if I could, his opinion remains in the minority

---

I didn't say there was a canon list. I said it cited the NUMBER of books in canon, which was the same as the Pharisees. Many scholars DO believe it was produced by the Essenes.

Majority opinion doesn't apply here, I'm interested only in quality of evidence. Remember, it is your claim that the Essenes had a different canon. My claim is that there isn't evidence of that. The burden of providing evidence is on you. And so far, you just haven't produced any of quality.

---

joseywales said:

---

It was written. By Greek writers in a mythological language anyone who thinks a spirit guided anyone to write is seriously delusional.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honestly, for me it comes down to not caring what the opinions of people thousands of years after the fact are - whether that is a pope in 1054 AD, or modern evangelicals. Give me the Bible used by the church of the first thousand years (more than 66 books, no argument about that) and the faith of the first eight ecumenical councils and everything else is just opinion.

To come in around 1900 and edit the Bible down to 66 books because "we know better" is an indictment of God.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honestly, for me it comes down to not caring what the opinions of people thousands of years after the fact are - whether that is a pope in 1054 AD, or modern evangelicals. Give me the Bible used by the church of the first thousand years (more than 66 books, no argument about that) and the faith of the first eight ecumenical councils and everything else is just opinion.

To come in around 1900 and edit the Bible down to 66 books because "we know better" is an indictment of God.

---

Honestly, for me it comes down to caring about what Scripture was to the Jews, to whom were "entrusted the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2) , and which Jesus himself personally affirmed as the very word of God that he came to fulfill; the same scriptural canon that not only represents the EARLIEST known church tradition but also was the prominent view of the church fathers who were the most connected to the very first Christians from where Christianity first emerged (Palestine), as well as being the dominant view of the majority of church fathers, theologians, and scholars from the time of Jerome (300's) all the way to the Reformation (1500's).

Saying it's the opinion of "people thousands of years after the fact" who "edited the Bible down to 66 books" is a complete repudiation and/or denial of church history, which has been clearly presented. Obviously you did not comprehend (or wanted to comprehend) any of it.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honestly, for me it comes down to not caring what the opinions of people thousands of years after the fact are - whether that is a pope in 1054 AD, or modern evangelicals. Give me the Bible used by the church of the first thousand years (more than 66 books, no argument about that) and the faith of the first eight ecumenical councils and everything else is just opinion.

To come in around 1900 and edit the Bible down to 66 books because "we know better" is an indictment of God.

---

Honestly, for me it comes down to caring about what Scripture was to the Jews, to whom were "entrusted the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2) , and which Jesus himself personally affirmed as the very word of God that he came to fulfill; the same scriptural canon that not only represents the EARLIEST known church tradition but also was the prominent view of the church fathers who were the most connected to the very first Christians from where Christianity first emerged (Palestine), as well as being the dominant view of the majority of church fathers, theologians, and scholars from the time of Jerome (300's) all the way to the Reformation (1500's).

Saying it's the opinion of "people thousands of years after the fact" who "edited the Bible down to 66 books" is a complete repudiation and/or denial of church history, which has been clearly presented. Obviously you did not comprehend (or wanted to comprehend) any of it.

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honestly, for me it comes down to not caring what the opinions of people thousands of years after the fact are - whether that is a pope in 1054 AD, or modern evangelicals. Give me the Bible used by the church of the first thousand years (more than 66 books, no argument about that) and the faith of the first eight ecumenical councils and everything else is just opinion.

To come in around 1900 and edit the Bible down to 66 books because "we know better" is an indictment of God.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honestly, for me it comes down to not caring what the opinions of people thousands of years after the fact are - whether that is a pope in 1054 AD, or modern evangelicals. Give me the Bible used by the church of the first thousand years (more than 66 books, no argument about that) and the faith of the first eight ecumenical councils and everything else is just opinion.

To come in around 1900 and edit the Bible down to 66 books because "we know better" is an indictment of God.

---

Who edited it down to 66 books in 1900?

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honestly, for me it comes down to not caring what the opinions of people thousands of years after the fact are - whether that is a pope in 1054 AD, or modern evangelicals. Give me the Bible used by the church of the first thousand years (more than 66 books, no argument about that) and the faith of the first eight ecumenical councils and everything else is just opinion.

To come in around 1900 and edit the Bible down to 66 books because "we know better" is an indictment of God.

---

Who edited it down to 66 books in 1900?

---

The Bible was never edited at al. The Council of Nicaea merely confirmed the 66 books that everyone already knew were inspired. They cut out the ones that were obvious forgeries and false books or uninspired books. It's that simple. No editing occured.

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Plus, I know Him personally. He has spoken to me...

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honestly, for me it comes down to not caring what the opinions of people thousands of years after the fact are - whether that is a pope in 1054 AD, or modern evangelicals. Give me the Bible used by the church of the first thousand years (more than 66 books, no argument about that) and the faith of the first eight ecumenical councils and everything else is just opinion.

To come in around 1900 and edit the Bible down to 66 books because "we know better" is an indictment of God.

---

Who edited it down to 66 books in 1900?

---

The Bible was never edited at al. The Council of Nicaea merely confirmed the 66 books that everyone already knew were inspired. They cut out the ones that were obvious forgeries and false books or uninspired books. It's that simple. No editing occured.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honestly, for me it comes down to not caring what the opinions of people thousands of years after the fact are - whether that is a pope in 1054 AD, or modern evangelicals. Give me the Bible used by the church of the first thousand years (more than 66 books, no argument about that) and the faith of the first eight ecumenical councils and everything else is just opinion.

To come in around 1900 and edit the Bible down to 66 books because "we know better" is an indictment of God.

---

Who edited it down to 66 books in 1900?

---

The Bible was never edited at al. The Council of Nicaea merely confirmed the 66 books that everyone already knew were inspired. They cut out the ones that were obvious forgeries and false books or uninspired books. It's that simple. No editing occured.

---

The question was reality not you. I know the Canon was closed and the sources are redacted to 66 books.

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Honestly, for me it comes down to not caring what the opinions of people thousands of years after the fact are - whether that is a pope in 1054 AD, or modern evangelicals. Give me the Bible used by the church of the first thousand years (more than 66 books, no argument about that) and the faith of the first eight ecumenical councils and everything else is just opinion.

To come in around 1900 and edit the Bible down to 66 books because "we know better" is an indictment of God.

---

Who edited it down to 66 books in 1900?

---

The Bible was never edited at al. The Council of Nicaea merely confirmed the 66 books that everyone already knew were inspired. They cut out the ones that were obvious forgeries and false books or uninspired books. It's that simple. No editing occured.

---

Realitybites said:

---

If you want to be sola scriptura, you shouldn't be using a 140 year old canon.

---

Realitybites said:

---

The history of the Bible in English (excluding the proliferation of 20th century translations):

1525: William Tyndale's New Testament translated from the Greek MSS; This is the first New Testament to be printed in the English language on the printing press. Tyndale did not finish translating the Old Testament.

1535: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The first complete Bible to be printed in the English Language (80 Books: Old Testament and New Testament including the Apocryphal books which are non-canonical).

1537: Matthews Bible; The second complete Bible to be printed in English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books).

1539: The "Great Bible" or "Cramner's Bible" printed; The first English language Bible to be authorized for public use (80 Books).

1560: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add numbered verses to each chapter (80 Books).

1568: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a revision (80 Books, as well as a 20% cut and paste from the Geneva Bible).

1609: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheimes New Testament of 1582 (Catholic translation) making the first complete English Catholic Bible; It was translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

1609: The first printing of the King James Bible; originally with All 80 Books.

1611: The King James Bible revised and printed; all 80 Books.

1885: The British & Foreign Bible Society redacts the deuterocanonical books and publishes the 66 book KJV.

If you want to be sola scriptura, you shouldn't be using a 140 year old canon.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

The history of the Bible in English (excluding the proliferation of 20th century translations):

1525: William Tyndale's New Testament translated from the Greek MSS; This is the first New Testament to be printed in the English language on the printing press. Tyndale did not finish translating the Old Testament.

1535: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The first complete Bible to be printed in the English Language (80 Books: Old Testament and New Testament including the Apocryphal books which are non-canonical).

1537: Matthews Bible; The second complete Bible to be printed in English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books).

1539: The "Great Bible" or "Cramner's Bible" printed; The first English language Bible to be authorized for public use (80 Books).

1560: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add numbered verses to each chapter (80 Books).

1568: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a revision (80 Books, as well as a 20% cut and paste from the Geneva Bible).

1609: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheimes New Testament of 1582 (Catholic translation) making the first complete English Catholic Bible; It was translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

1609: The first printing of the King James Bible; originally with All 80 Books.

1611: The King James Bible revised and printed; all 80 Books.

1885: The British & Foreign Bible Society redacts the deuterocanonical books and publishes the 66 book KJV.

If you want to be sola scriptura, you shouldn't be using a 140 year old canon.

---

"Sola Scriptura" is a doctrine and not reflective of the process of coming together of the Bible in 33 AD to 90 AD. The pastors of that early time were already preaching the good news as came it to them in oral form plus scrolls being passed from church to church. The gentile world was unaware of Jesus so they yearned for it when they heard, "There is a God and that God loves." The kerygma or proclamation addressed the hearer as a self. In other words the hearer hears a decisive word that changes everything in that one's life.
The kerygma was patchwork and probably haphazard but eventually was redacted by each of the gospel writers. These gospel evangelist were theological geniuses. We owe them a great of gratitude.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quick question for the guys who think they can just demand an answer over and over on a forum until someone gives in and says what they want to hear:

If you get someone to become Christian through profession of faith, do you then tell them there is nothing more to do?

Why or why not?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

A person hears the gospel, believes, and places his trust in Jesus for his salvation. The church schedules a water baptism for him in one week.

Question: when did he get saved - after belief, or one week later after he was water baptized?

---

Why does it matter?

Let me ask you this:

Suppose a person hears the Gospel, believes and places his trust in Jesus.

The person who got him to hear the Gospel leaves, believing he has done all that is necessary.

The new Christian falls away and goes back to his old habits, and soon after dies in a car accident while after driving home drunk from his time with the prostitute.

Did he get saved and lose it, or was he never really saved?

(spoiler alert - what matters is whether someone accepts Christ and becomes a Christian in truth. All this other arguing is useless and of no value in that matter).

---