The canon was closed with Deuteronomy

The Rogue Tomato

New member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
5,279
Reaction score
2
Points
0
According to FSSL "logic" (and I'm being overly generous with that term), anyway.

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Everything after Deuteronomy should therefore be excluded.

 
The Rogue Tomato said:
According to FSSL "logic" (and I'm being overly generous with that term), anyway.

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Everything after Deuteronomy should therefore be excluded.

It does seem to appear that way..... maybe he'll change his position.
 
I'd also like to recognize the fact that Rev 22:19 should just have a "soft link" to Deut 4:2...
 
praise_yeshua said:
I'd also like to recognize the fact that Rev 22:19 should just have a "soft link" to Deut 4:2...

There's your answer...
 
FSSL said:
praise_yeshua said:
I'd also like to recognize the fact that Rev 22:19 should just have a "soft link" to Deut 4:2...

There's your answer...

LOL. I was just kidding. Do you know what a "soft link" is?

I imagine when you have no answer..... ANY answer will do.
 
FSSL said:
praise_yeshua said:
I'd also like to recognize the fact that Rev 22:19 should just have a "soft link" to Deut 4:2...

There's your answer...

Then it's okay for me to add a few more books and just link back to Rev 22:19.  Cool. 

 
praise_yeshua said:
LOL. I was just kidding. Do you know what a "soft link" is?

I figured it was PY-speak for cross-reference.

I really don't expect you to take a cross-reference/quotation from Rev 22 to Deuteronomy's quote, the other one in Deut 12:32 and the one in Proverbs 30:6, seriously.
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
Then it's okay for me to add a few more books and just link back to Rev 22:19.  Cool.

Who's stopping you from taking a few books away?
 
FSSL said:
The Rogue Tomato said:
Then it's okay for me to add a few more books and just link back to Rev 22:19.  Cool.

Who's stopping you from taking a few books away?

According to your new logic (again, I use the word ever so loosely), I can add and delete as I please as long as I link back to Rev 22:19, which links back to Prov, Deut, etc., and which magically applies to all of my brand new canon. 

My point was that, according to your PREVIOUS logic, if those words close the canon (as you claimed for Rev), then the first occurrence (Deut 4:2) should have closed the canon right there, and nothing should have been added or subtracted after that. 

By the way, PY, I'm a nerd so I know what a soft link is.
 
So then, according to your logic, you need to split Deuteronomy in half,
 
FSSL said:
So then, according to your logic, you need to split Deuteronomy in half,

No, it applies to all of Deuteronomy and only Deuteronomy the same way Rev 22:19 applies to all of Revelation and only Revelation.  Which means Rev 22:19 doesn't apply to your notion of what constitutes the "closed canon". 

Oops, sorry, we're back to reality now.  You'll never accept that.

 
John got the background for his teaching directly from Deut. Without the OT, Revelation does not make sense.

Neither you nor PY care about the link to the OT since you both have already lopped Rev 22 out of Scripture.

Go ahead a criticize me for arguing in favor of the 66 books we have. All of your speculative nonsense which relies on higher textual critics is not convincing.
 
FSSL said:
John got the background for his teaching directly from Deut. Without the OT, Revelation does not make sense.

Daniel does a pretty good job without including Revelation. Thanks for reminding us that large parts of Revelation is just a copy of the OT.

Neither you nor PY care about the link to the OT since you both have already lopped Rev 22 out of Scripture.

I never said to remove it. Quit saying that. I've told you time and time again that I don't want it removed. I want it put into perspective.

Go ahead a criticize me for arguing in favor of the 66 books we have. All of your speculative nonsense which relies on higher textual critics is not convincing.

What "higher textual critics" argument have I made?

I don't think you really understand the classification.


What
 
FSSL said:
praise_yeshua said:
LOL. I was just kidding. Do you know what a "soft link" is?

I figured it was PY-speak for cross-reference.

I really don't expect you to take a cross-reference/quotation from Rev 22 to Deuteronomy's quote, the other one in Deut 12:32 and the one in Proverbs 30:6, seriously.

I take all of them seriously. A "soft link" or "symbolic link" is just a shortcut. Its not a cross reference.
 
I say that the OT is the background for Revelation and you say "large parts of Revelation is just a copy of the OT."

You denied that Rev 22 was the word of God (probably added by Iraneaus) and you now say "I never said to remove it. Quit saying that. I've told you time and time again that I don't want it removed. I want it put into perspective."

Why do you change what I say and play around with weasel words? Are your arguments so poorly framed that you need to argue in this fashion? Yes, this is EXACTLY how a higher critic debates.
 
FSSL said:
I say that the OT is the background for Revelation and you say "large parts of Revelation is just a copy of the OT."

Just pointing out that "Revelation" isn't "revealing" much of anything.... NEW.

Do you accept any writing as canonical because it quotes the OT?

You denied that Rev 22 was the word of God (probably added by Iraneaus) and you now say "I never said to remove it. Quit saying that. I've told you time and time again that I don't want it removed. I want it put into perspective."

I never said Iraneaus added it. I SAY that someone added it before Iraneaus witnessed it had already been corrupted.

Why do you change what I say and play around with weasel words? Are your arguments so poorly framed that you need to argue in this fashion? Yes, this is EXACTLY how a higher critic debates.

I haven't changed what you said. Prove it.

So I witness the fact you're making KJVOist arguments and you retaliate by calling me a "higher critic".

Again. You show the fact that you don't know what a "higher critic" argues. I haven't been saying that Revelation was written by John the Baptist and is nothing more than a collection of his preaching. THAT is what a "higher critic" would argue.

You're being down right silly. Don't be a sore loser....
 
Just pointing out that "Revelation" isn't "revealing" much of anything.... NEW.

Have you read Revelation?

Do you accept any writing as canonical because it quotes the OT?

Nope.

I never said Iraneaus added it. I SAY that someone added it before Iraneaus witnessed it had already been corrupted.

It's difficult to follow all of your twists and turns to argue that Rev 22 is not Scripture, it's corrupted, but somehow you maintain that it still should be in the Bible.
 
FSSL said:
Have you read Revelation?

Extensively.


You're the nut that argued for inclusion of Revelation because it mentioned Deut 4. Are you really so dumb as to not be able to put two and two together? Do I have to SPELL everything out for you?

It's difficult to follow all of your twists and turns to argue that Rev 22 is not Scripture, it's corrupted, but somehow you maintain that it still should be in the Bible.

I imagine its difficult for you to follow Luther. That exactly what Luther did. Its not called Luther's Antilegomena for nothing....
 
praise_yeshua said:
I imagine its difficult for you to follow Luther. That exactly what Luther did. Its not called Luther's Antilegomena for nothing....

Luther's preface to Revelation is interesting (note that he believes Rev 22:19 refers ONLY to Revelation):

"About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly -- indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important -- and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely."

 
The Rogue Tomato said:
praise_yeshua said:
I imagine its difficult for you to follow Luther. That exactly what Luther did. Its not called Luther's Antilegomena for nothing....

Luther's preface to Revelation is interesting (note that he believes Rev 22:19 refers ONLY to Revelation):

"About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly -- indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important -- and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely."

Sometimes I wonder if FSSL has actually read any of this. He claims I'm hard to understand..... maybe I can claim some Scripture based on 2 Peter 3:16..... <sarcasm alert>

All I want is the truth. Just looking for evidence. Shallow arguments like....It quotes Deut 4.... it must be Scripture.... is just down right silly.

 
Back
Top