A revelation about which OT books to include

[Uber Genius]

2 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

I question that Christ read NT apocrypha written after His ascension. My Jewish people have never held intertestamental apocrypha as authoritative.

First point is an argument that is not even being made. Not sure why you thing Jubalees or 1 Enoch are NOT part of the Septuagint. Did you make a mistake? Did you mean to say OT instead of NT apocrypha?

Don't think Jesus read anything after His ascension so what does that have to do with the fact that literate Jews read and discussed the Septuagint, NT Authors quoted from same, NT Authors quoted from things that Jesus taught them. All points infer that Jesus would have been familiar with and taught the things that Peter and Jude are quoting. But I'm am not saying anything in terms of canon here (if you read my post in context) I am suggesting that they set the background for 2nd-Temple Judaism in Jesus and the NT Authors culture. As to Jewish people not holding the OT Apocrypha as authoritative it seems to miss the obvious data of that very culture including them in the Septuagint. 

These are not as good as the historical arguments given by the ante-Nicaean Church Fathers for exclusion from the canon. I would stick with that approach.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Uber Genius

[Billiards Ball]

32 minutes ago, Uber Genius said:

First point is an argument that is not even being made. Not sure why you thing Jubalees or 1 Enoch are NOT part of the Septuagint. Did you make a mistake? Did you mean to say OT instead of NT apocrypha?

Don't think Jesus read anything after His ascension so what does that have to do with the fact that literate Jews read and discussed the Septuagint, NT Authors quoted from same, NT Authors quoted from things that Jesus taught them. All points infer that Jesus would have been familiar with and taught the things that Peter and Jude are quoting. But I'm am not saying anything in terms of canon here (if you read my post in context) I am suggesting that they set the background for 2nd-Temple Judaism in Jesus and the NT Authors culture. As to Jewish people not holding the OT Apocrypha as authoritative it seems to miss the obvious data of that very culture including them in the Septuagint. 

These are not as good as the historical arguments given by the ante-Nicaean Church Fathers for exclusion from the canon. I would stick with that approach.

You wrote, "Have never even heard someone suggest that Septuagint is quoting NT," which I read as saying I was saying I had the Septuagint after the NT. Sorry for the confusion.

The Jewish people who wrote the NT constantly quoted the Septuagint OT, hundreds of times, but not the apocrypha to even a marginal extent.

The apocrypha is garbage to me. The name refers to the fact that out of thousands of sects that studied the Bible individually, only a few cultic groups, with a wrong gospel, included them, using a title meaning "of dubious origin". The apocrypha has not saved the souls of billions through Jesus or changed the world, permanently. People are saved hearing God's Word with faith/trust.

I have multiple reasons to reject apocrypha, but can't one suffice? It contradicts scripture and has been used by the cults to justify false doctrines like baptism for the dead.

[Uber Genius]

14 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

You wrote, "Have never even heard someone suggest that Septuagint is quoting NT," which I read as saying I was saying I had the Septuagint after the NT. Sorry for the confusion.

The Jewish people who wrote the NT constantly quoted the Septuagint OT, hundreds of times, but not the apocrypha to even a marginal extent.

The apocrypha is garbage to me. The name refers to the fact that out of thousands of sects that studied the Bible individually, only a few cultic groups, with a wrong gospel, included them, using a title meaning "of dubious origin". The apocrypha has not saved the souls of billions through Jesus or changed the world, permanently. People are saved hearing God's Word with faith/trust.

I have multiple reasons to reject apocrypha, but can't one suffice? It contradicts scripture and has been used by the cults to justify false doctrines like baptism for the dead.

Yes well the Bible is filled with extra-Biblical sources from the Ancient Near East. I think that if you follow my line which is the reasons why canon ultimately chose not to include books like 1 Enoch you will have better footing. 

Think for a minute if we follow the rubric of "It contradicts scripture and has been used by cults to justify false doctrines you may have some circularity problems. This method was the one Luther used when suggesting James be removed from the canon. Further Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons and Unitarians have all given similar reasons for rejecting the book of Hebrews. 

Canon can't be a function of "Supporting what we currently Believe," because we saw beleifs change through every church council. And the creeds changed in their fundamental Christology from 325-451 7 times. 

There are hundreds of books on ANE sources that are incorporated by the Biblical authors. Now these references are sometime copied directly as part of the Law, sometimes used as a way to reveal God as the source of power rather than another deity ascribed in the original source but no modern commentary things that Paul or Peter or Jude are not referring to these books. And my point would simply be to understand the history and background of the 2nd Temple Jew we must read those books that they included in them OTHER canon. The authority thing is not even in view here as we are just doing an intertestimental background of the NT culture. 

I do not argue from the apocryphal books for any theological position. So I thing we would agree their but I don't think they were garbage and the Qumeran community of Jews and early Christians Fathers didn't either.

 

[Billiards Ball]

11 minutes ago, Uber Genius said:

Yes well the Bible is filled with extra-Biblical sources from the Ancient Near East. I think that if you follow my line which is the reasons why canon ultimately chose not to include books like 1 Enoch you will have better footing. 

Think for a minute if we follow the rubric of "It contradicts scripture and has been used by cults to justify false doctrines you may have some circularity problems. This method was the one Luther used when suggesting James be removed from the canon. Further Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons and Unitarians have all given similar reasons for rejecting the book of Hebrews. 

Canon can't be a function of "Supporting what we currently Believe," because we saw beleifs change through every church council. And the creeds changed in their fundamental Christology from 325-451 7 times. 

There are hundreds of books on ANE sources that are incorporated by the Biblical authors. Now these references are sometime copied directly as part of the Law, sometimes used as a way to reveal God as the source of power rather than another deity ascribed in the original source but no modern commentary things that Paul or Peter or Jude are not referring to these books. And my point would simply be to understand the history and background of the 2nd Temple Jew we must read those books that they included in them OTHER canon. The authority thing is not even in view here as we are just doing an intertestimental background of the NT culture. 

I do not argue from the apocryphal books for any theological position. So I thing we would agree their but I don't think they were garbage and the Qumeran community of Jews and early Christians Fathers didn't either.

 

As a Jewish Christian fundamentalist, I don't blindly accept appeals to authority, particularly mainline Protestant or Roman sources. As a believer in Jesus, I appreciate the Dead Sea Scrolls--I'm visiting Qumran next year in person--but I don't find ascetics who step away from my people to wait for alternate Messiahs in the desert hugely authoritative or wise, either.

Let's just be Berean with the scripture. The Bible IMHO isn't "filled with ANE extra-biblical sources". It's filled with direct revelation from God to man.

And I agree, to understand a 2nd Temple Jew as well as sections of the NT we should be familiar with intertestemental apocrypha like the Maccabees. For example, is Jesus alluding to Hanukkah in John, where He speaks of being the light of the world? My Jewish people have the same OT as the NT church.

But in general, apocrypha, where the child Jesus slays another child because He's angry, or Daniel sets traps to lie and trick people rather than witness honestly, or reading books of wisdom that "my grandfather taught me" rather than holy scripture, that uses the tetragrammaton almost 7,000 times to "hear the word of the Lord" is garbage IMHO.

As a pragmatist, I'd also say my people, Jew and Gentile, are being destroyed for lack of Bible knowledge. It's hard enough to get people to follow the 66. No one who died without reading the apocrypha missed much.

[Uber Genius]

6 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

Let's just be Berean with the scripture. The Bible IMHO isn't "filled with ANE extra-biblical sources". It's filled with direct revelation from God to man.

Berean would seem to mean letting the text convey its truths. Your statment above is known as a false dilemma. Here you suggest that one has to choice between the Bible being filled with extra-Biblical sources or  direct revelation from God to man. This is false for several reasons. Firstly no one holds a dictation view of inspiration accept the Muslims! Secondly, we can go out and buy such books on Amazon that catelog all the sources from ANE literature that are used by Bible authors. This is not Berean. The Bereans looked at the textual evidence including when the authors comment on extra-biblical poems or narratives. This dictation view will setup a potentially devastating false view of scripture making the Bible suddenly filled with innumerable contradictions. 

All of a sudden features like the description nailed above Jesus while he was on the cross become hopelessly incoherent. "Does God know the actual description? YES. Then why does he reveal four different descriptions across four authors who all received 'DIRECT REVELATION FROM GOD,' about the facts surrounding the crucifixion?"

 

[Billiards Ball]

5 minutes ago, Uber Genius said:

Berean would seem to mean letting the text convey its truths. Your statment above is known as a false dilemma. Here you suggest that one has to choice between the Bible being filled with extra-Biblical sources or  direct revelation from God to man. This is false for several reasons. Firstly no one holds a dictation view of inspiration accept the Muslims! Secondly, we can go out and buy such books on Amazon that catelog all the sources from ANE literature that are used by Bible authors. This is not Berean. The Bereans looked at the textual evidence including when the authors comment on extra-biblical poems or narratives. This dictation view will setup a potentially devastating false view of scripture making the Bible suddenly filled with innumerable contradictions. 

All of a sudden features like the description nailed above Jesus while he was on the cross become hopelessly incoherent. "Does God know the actual description? YES. Then why does he reveal four different descriptions across four authors who all received 'DIRECT REVELATION FROM GOD,' about the facts surrounding the crucifixion?"

 

To be Berean with the scripture is to search the OT carefully to help affirm NT doctrines. I find that most NT doctrine--over 95% IMO, is alluded to, hinted at, lifted at, etc. from the OT. We don't need to search, say, the apocrypha, except to see if a fragment of 1 Enoch is related to one NT concept. Should I spend my life in apocrypha or the 66, do you think?

The statement that the Bible is not littered with extra-biblical sources is separate.

God used ammanuenses to produce a scripture that is perfect. We Jews have four ways of reading scripture, only one is the face value of the text. The inspiration of the Bible is plain.

Can you think of a reason why the gospel narratives differ in places, or have parts of the narrative only? I bet you can, without saying "contradictions". I deal with this assertion made by atheists all the time. We need to also parse the scripture. I don't think the four gospel authors had direct revelation from God re: the crucifixion. I think it was a mix of eyewitness accounts and the author of Luke investigating and interviewing eyewitnesses, etc. An ammaneunsis is a person who writes in their own voice and personality yet God makes the outcome perfect, the living Word of God.

[Uber Genius]

11 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

Should I spend my life in apocrypha or the 66, do you think?

Again this is a false dilemma. One should use the historic-grammatical method as the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy suggests! This involves recognizing a verbal plenary view of inspiration. Namely that God knew what the authors would write before he chose them. Further in cases whe God doesn't dictate (we would want to recognized Jeremiah, Moses receiving the Ten Commandments, most prophecies and Revelation or parts of that book as dictation), we examine the culture context of the author, and the authorial intent, and use of idiomatic language, and literary style. Further if the author used a source that was a previous extra-Biblical source we would examine that source to see how the Biblical author modified it to dramatically change the message that the authors culture would have taken. Just like authors who recast Shakespearean plays with modern themes, we want to know how are the themes parallel and how are they different. 

So while there are hundreds of extra-biblical references there are over 30,000 verses and 800,000 words so it is rare that one needs to spend time but I'm not the one making sweeping geralizations. 

So follow the method that recommended by the Conservative Evangelicals outlined in Chicago Statement of Innerrancy and it will lead you occasionally to studying these extra-Biblical stories.

Now I do want to poison the wells to any claims that I am saying these sources have some authority just because the HS approached of the use of these sources. That has never been my claim.

[Uber Genius]

24 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

Can you think of a reason why the gospel narratives differ in places, or have parts of the narrative only? I bet you can, without saying "contradictions"

Of course but you were the one who described God's inspiration as "Direct," so on the view that removes the free will of the author to choose his style of writing and subject and how he will support his claims, we get dictation theory. Which in turn leads to contradictions that I highlighted. So throwing it back in my face, in know way answers the question.

if all revelation is direct from God, how can four separate authors have more than one account. Did God forget what was on that sign? Or did he mislead three authors. Or is dictation theory incoherent with infallibility?

Those seem to be the options. 

Further the text of 2 Tim. 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 1:21 Don't seem to account for the enormous assumptions around this category. 

As I've mentioned previously there are only a handful (less of than 5%) where the Bible Authors record dictation. The remaining material produced by the Biblical authors appear to have great choice as to how they communicate to their audience. And we would expect them to communicate in ways that their audience was familiar. 

 

[Uber Genius]

34 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

I don't think the four gospel authors had direct revelation from God

 

1 hour ago, Billiards Ball said:

Let's just be Berean with the scripture. The Bible IMHO isn't "filled with ANE extra-biblical sources". It's filled with direct revelation from God to man.

So I'm having a hard time reconciling your earlier statment (1 hour ago) with your more recent statment suggesting the Gospel authors didn't have direct revelation (34 minutes ago).

Did I misinterpret your earlier statement (interpreting it literally, when it was meant hyperbolically)?

[Billiards Ball]

37 minutes ago, Uber Genius said:

 

So I'm having a hard time reconciling your earlier statment (1 hour ago) with your more recent statment suggesting the Gospel authors didn't have direct revelation (34 minutes ago).

Did I misinterpret your earlier statement (interpreting it literally, when it was meant hyperbolically)?

Yes.