Doc Holliday said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Doc Holliday said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Doc Holliday said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Doc Holliday said:
xfrodobagginsx said:
The Apochrycal books were never acccepted as Scripture until the Catholic Church.
The apostles reference and pull from the deuterocanon numerous times...
No, they do not. Catholic apologists will even admit that the only (possible) merited reference from the deuterocanon is in Hebrews 11:35. And we aren't even sure that an original apostle wrote Hebrews. And still, Hebrews 11:35 is only referencing something specific from Jewish history that is indeed recorded in Maccabees, but that does not necessarily indicate that Maccabees was the source. It could have been something simply drawn from a generally well-known piece of Jewish history that everyone knew about, or drawn from some other historical source that recorded the same event. And even if it indeed was sourced from Maccabees, still, a that does not indicate that Maccabees was considered scripture. The apostles also referenced books like Enoch and pagan Greek philosphers. Jesus directly validated the 3-fold division of the Hebrew canon (the Tanakh) as God's word. He did not do so for the deuterocanon.
This attempt to twist Luke 24:44 into a Protestant canon list is absolute revisionist garbage. When Jesus said "the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms," He was pointing out the specific messianic prophecies about His resurrection. He wasn't sitting the Disciples down for a publisher's board meeting to define an exact table of contents.
To pretend that "the Psalms" was code for "a strictly locked 39-book Protestant canon" is historical fantasy. The Ketuviim (the Writings) wasn't even a closed category in 1st-century Judaism, and Jesus was explicitly talking about texts that spoke of Him, not handing out an index of allowed books. If you're going to be dishonest enough to claim His silence on the Deuterocanon in that single verse invalidates it, then have the spine to be consistent and rip Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon right out of your own Bible, because Jesus didn't validate those there either.
FYI, Romans 1 is effectively a rewrite of Wisdom of Solomon 13-14.
As usual, you're arguing against what's created in your head rather than the point actually being made. Nowhere was there any attempt to "twist Luke into a Protestant canon". There wasn't even anything in my response about the Protestant canon at all. The argument was against your claim that the "apostles reference and pull from the deuterocanon", which isn't true, but even if it were it still would not make the case for their canonicity. And importantly it lacks in one crucial aspect - the deuterocanon does not have Jesus' own positive affirmation as being the actual uttered words of God in the same way that the Tanakh does.
I don't see Romans 1 as being a "rewrite" of Wisdom of Solomon 13-14 at all. But if it is as you say, then you've just proven that Wisdom is NOT canonical. You don't "rewrite" God's infallible word. You quote it. A fact that Paul, a former Pharisee, would obviously have been acutely aware of.
Paul's step by step argument in Romans 1 (creation reveals God -----> man worships creation -----> God hands them over to sexual depravity) follows the exact structural blueprint of Wisdom of Solomon 1314.
Paul does not necessarily have to be "following" the structure of Wisdom when he's writing Romans 1. "Creation revealing God" is straight from Psalms 19. Paul makes significantly different theological points from Wisdom of Solomon stemming from this truth in Psalms 19: where Wisdom says that the "ignorance" of God leads to to the folly of idolatry of created things, Paul is declaring that all men in their hearts KNOW there is a God by his creation, and are actively suppressing this truth, and they refuse to honor him and give him glory as a result. And Paul is saying that this is when God GAVE OVER these people to evil. Wisdom does not say anything about God handing them over to evil, rather, it was a consequence of their own ignorance. This is a significant theological difference.
Moreover, most of the content of Wisdom 13-14 is about the foolishness of idolatry and it's is straight from Isaiah 44, written centuries earlier. It even follows Isaiah in structure. Wisdom is following Isaiah, NOT Romans is following Wisdom.
Paul didn't even agree with what Wisdom was saying in those chapters. Wisdom 14 says that the root of all evil is the the worship of idols. Paul, rather, believes that the love of money is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 16:10).
And you're still repeating your same logical mistake - EVEN IF we steel man your argument, and say that Jesus and Paul were indeed referencing certain themes and structures from the deuterocanon (which they weren't), this does not necessarily indicate that the sources they were drawing from were considered canon. Scripture references the book of Enoch, the Ascension of Isaiah, and even quotes pagan Greek philosophers, just to name a few.
Wisdom 13 explicitly states: "For all men who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature... for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator." Wisdom literally says creation reveals God so clearly that men are "without excuse" (Wisdom 13:8): the exact same Greek concept and argument Paul uses in Romans 1:20 ("so they are without excuse").
Comparing Wisdom 14:27 ("the worship of idols... is the beginning and cause and end of every evil") with 1 Timothy 6:10 ("the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil") as an actual theological contradiction is embarrassing exegesis. Idolatry is the overarching spiritual cause of human rebellion against God. Greed/Love of Money is a specific, primary manifestation of idolatry (which Paul himself explicitly defines in Colossians 3:5: "covetousness, which is idolatry").
When Paul quotes pagan poets, he uses them as external cultural illustrations to make a point to non-Jews. When the NT uses the Deuterocanon, it weaves its theology, eschatology, and messianic expectations directly into the core fabric of Christian doctrine.
By rejecting the authority of the Church to infallibly discern the canon, you have no objective, biblical way to prove that Esther belongs in the Bible while Wisdom of Solomon belongs out. There is no inspired table of contents in Scripture. You're simply submitting to the 16th-century tradition of European Reformers who trimmed the canon to fit their own novel system, a system focused on removing authority by any means necessary, not a good faith pursuit of the truth.
Paul in Romans 1 is going further than Wisdom 13, saying that they "knew" God, not that they were just foolishly ignorant of him as Wisdom describes. And again, Paul explains that as a result, God "gave them over", declaring that it was the withdrawal of God's grace that led them to collapse into total evil. This is not expressed in Wisdom; rather, Wisdom describes their evil as a natural result of their ignorance of God and worship of created things. Paul saying the same thing that Wisdom does, that they were "without excuse", is sharing the same idea in Wisdom; it's not necessarily
taking this idea from Wisdom. I don't think that using the same word or phrase is clear indication that Paul is taking from Wisdom. And like I said, EVEN IF we steel man your argument here, and say that Paul is indeed taking from Wisdom, he clearly would only be taking a similar idea and structure, but he's also clearly expounding/adjusting on it by making very different theological points. The key point here is that
if this were Scripture to Paul, then Paul would not "rewrite" it like this, especially without citing that it is Scripture or giving reference to it as Scripture. I'm still waiting on your example of a Scripture writer doing this. And the point also remains, that just because an NT writer alludes to or references a work,
it does not make that work canonical, as has been proven by their references to other non-canonical sources.
Though the "love of money" is a form of idolatry, it is not the same "worship of idols" being expressed in Wisdom 13, which is clearly referring to the worship of objects made by man's hands. (Think
statues of Mary and the saints.) And you still have the major problem of Paul not once ever citing Wisdom as his reference or inspiration for his exposition on the same idea in Romans. Whenever Paul does this for Scripture, he makes that known. Neither he, nor any of the other NT writers "rewrite", paraphrase, expound upon, or adjust anything that they believe to be Scripture without expressly citing it as being Scripture or from Scripture. With regard to "rewriting", they would NEVER do that. Again, I'm waiting on you to give me an example of this, if you disagree.
You: "When the NT uses the Deuterocanon, it weaves its theology, eschatology, and messianic expectations directly into the core fabric of Christian doctrine." - firstly, this is begging the question. You haven't really given valid evidence that the NT uses the deuterocanon. What you've only done so far is 1) credit the a prophetic fulfillment of the deuterocanon for what was actually prophesied in Psalms; 2) credit the deuterocanon for what was already in Isaiah; 3) stretch what's said in the deuterocanon to force-match Jesus' sayings, 4) show,
at best, that Jesus and the NT writers may have borrowed/drawn ideas and structure from the deuterocanon - but they clearly adjusted/re-worked what was said, which is a clear indicator of the non-canonical status of that source.
You: "By rejecting the authority of the Church to infallibly discern the canon, you have no objective, biblical way to prove that Esther belongs in the Bible while Wisdom of Solomon belongs out." - of course I do. Scripture says that the Jews were "entrusted with the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2). By this standard, it is what the Jews understood the canon to be, and Esther is included. The critical question is this - what did
God want his people the Jews to recognize as canon scripture? The reason why it's important that God had to make sure the Jews knew exactly what his written word was, was so that they couldn't make the excuse that they failed to recognize Jesus as their Messiah from Scripture. So God has to make sure they aren't mistaken,
even unto this day, as a continuous testament to them, and for them to finally come to recognize their Messiah. God is still in control over what the Jews believe to be God's word. If the Jews ever erred, then they were never truly and correctly "entrusted with God's oracles" as Paul declared, and Scripture would be in error.
