Christianity and how the bible was put together

You said the Hellenists weren't Jews.

Please clarify then - which churches had all 27 books by the end of the 1st century: all, some (which ones in that case; where were they) or none?

 

Not sure that was what I said. To quote myself: They were "Hellenistic" which mean Grecian. They may have been of Jewish descent or they may have been proselytes, or both.

I don't think there is anyway to know which churches had which books. They were all available somewhere because they had all been written. But we simply cannot know who had what.

 

Which is great and no problem.

But how qualified are you to assess that? (I don't mean that prejudicially, but simply to get you to think about whether or not you are sufficiently informed to decide whether an answer is sufficient).

I have explained it, as well as pointed out flaws in your argument.

I don't think the evidence that favors them.

The testimony and example of the Scriptures themselves, and the historical evidence of the Church.

Seriously, think about this: Jesus would have had the DC. Yet he continually refers to the "Law and the Prophets" not the "Law and the Prophets and the DC." Isn't that striking? When the Lord himself doesn't testify to the status of the DC as canonical, that should settle it particularly since he did testify to others.

The RCC, Orthodox, and others have serious departures from Scripture and the reason is that if they hold to an orthodox view of Scripture, much of their teaching has no basis. So we have to take a more serious look at the Scripture itself.

 

OK, let's throw a negative argument in, just for a bit of fun: if the DCs were not regarded as inspired by Jesus and the NT writers, you would have thought, given that the LXX was the most widespread version of the OT, that one of them at least would have said at some point, "Oh, and by the way, guys, you know those bits of the LXX that are after the end of Malachi, the extra bits of Daniel and Esther and one or two books of the wisdom literature, well, they're not really Scripture." BUt no-one does.

 

Really? No one does? You know everything that was said and taught to those Christians? Where did you come across this information? Adn why not make it available to the rest of us?

Of course I speak facetiously, becasue as you know you have know idea that that wasn't said. What we have is teh consistent testimony of the Scriptures that the DC was not accepted as the Holy Scripture.

 

I have never seen anyone include the DC in the Law and the Prophets. Have you?

What distinction? The Law/Prophet distinction was well known.

We show this by looking at how the term was used.

I wish we could dispense with this argument because it contributes nothing. It is entirely possible the the LXX was used, and almost certian that it was in some cases, though not certain in other cases. However, it is a long reach from there to the inclusions of the DC in the canon.

I think I have, but why do I have to? Why don't you since you are departing from the historical position of the gospel church?

Which argument?

 

What are you willing to accept as proof?

Because saying that someone uses a particular translation of Scripture does not mean that they believe everything in that volume is Scripture. We see that so evident in other areas but yet we deny it in this one and that makes no sense.

But again, what kind of proof are you willing to accept?

As proof of what though? And are you willing to apply that same standard to other things used in the NT and earliest Christian writings (and OT)?

 

Nowhere in the NT. I find that telling.

 

As for authority, I am not one. I am a student of particularly the OT, and I realize that in this forum and with my time commitments, I can't give as full an answer as might be convincing to you. There are many good sources that address the various issues of canonicity.

 

But some how you don't find it telling that nowhere in the NT are we told to believe the DC is canonical. Furthermore (to draw on another conversation), you don't find the words of the Bible compelling to belief anyway. So what do you find telling?

 

Where have I said that I don't find the Bible compelling to belief? Surely you can't be confusing my saying that I don't necessarily accept that the Bible has to be literally interpreted, every word, with not finding it compelling to belief - I credit you with more intelligence than that!

 

We recognize in our own Bibles that the inclusion of study notes and the like does not testify for their inclusion in the canon. We recognize that the existence of commentaries that quote Scripture and make comments does not mean that the comments are a part of Scripture. Yet some are hesitant to recognize that while the DC provide historical data, they are not a part of Scripture.

One of your arguments is that the DC are cited in the NT and that gives evidence of their canonicity. Yet poets and philosophers are also quoted, and I don't think you affirm the sources of those quotes as canonical. So it seems like you have a double standard. You can't argue that something is quoted and therefore the source is canonical for the DC and not argue it for other things.

 

You said that the fact that God said he created the universe in six days does not compel you to believe that he created it in six days. Science aside (which is completely consistent with the biblical statements), it is a theological error on your part.

Being "literal" has nothing to do with it. I credit you with more intelligence than that.