tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post3521754187158377816..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Melito of Sardis and the Old Testament Canon: Overview & ArgumentsJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-79240563497042619992010-06-02T01:29:11.753-04:002010-06-02T01:29:11.753-04:00Nick, you're just repeating the same thing you...Nick, you're just repeating the same thing you stated before. Did you read the article. The Catholic argument that SS cannot work without infallible certitude fails from the onset. Especially when the Catholic cannot move towards the "infallible" realm without imposing his/her own fallibility. In light of this, SS clearly is the more logical choice.Churchmousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13521990026485330450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-1913151778774946792010-06-01T15:28:46.241-04:002010-06-01T15:28:46.241-04:00Churchmouse,
The issue is a matter of logical co...Churchmouse, <br /><br />The issue is a matter of logical consistency and who's position provides greater plausibility. <br /><br />In this example, Melito could not practice Sola Scriptura by definition, for without the right canon it is *functionally impossible*. In terms of plausibility, I see scant evidence of any Fathers promoting the full "Protestant canon", implying most of the Fathers and Christians in history weren't led by the Holy Spirit to be able to recognize the supposed crystal clear, black and white fact of 66-book canon. <br />I say such a set up fails on both accounts (consistency and plausibility).Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-78405193553196564202010-05-31T20:44:30.319-04:002010-05-31T20:44:30.319-04:00I don't see how this post helps either side, t...<i>I don't see how this post helps either side, though I'd consider it a blow to the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura by the simple fact anything less than the full and "correct" canon makes SS functionally impossible. <br /><br />The Catholic position doesn't hang on whether any given father wrote down the "correct" canon while the very rule of faith for the Protestant has scant testimony.</i><br /><br />Not necessarily. When one realizes that everyone is fallible, including those who use their personal fallibility to determine such a thing as an "infallible" church, one realizes that to discredit SS because of discertainty regarding the canon, is a matter of epistemology. This article explains exactly what I mean: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/content/Parchmentandpen/In-Defense-of-Sola-Scriptura.pdfChurchmousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13521990026485330450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-45149775956157807062010-05-31T16:11:17.719-04:002010-05-31T16:11:17.719-04:00I don't see how this post helps either side, t...I don't see how this post helps either side, though I'd consider it a blow to the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura by the simple fact anything less than the full and "correct" canon makes SS functionally impossible. <br /><br />The Catholic position doesn't hang on whether any given father wrote down the "correct" canon while the very rule of faith for the Protestant has scant testimony.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-84195032987767048642010-05-30T22:40:29.995-04:002010-05-30T22:40:29.995-04:00I also don't understand why you assume he spok...<i>I also don't understand why you assume he spoke to the Jews: there's a Christian Church in Jerusalem: it was there from Pentecost; it never went away.</i><br /><br />You'll find this offensive, but your comment demonstrates you have poor reading comprehension.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-61772520080863387332010-05-30T18:34:27.686-04:002010-05-30T18:34:27.686-04:00That Melito had the LXX in mind is clear (case in ...That Melito had the LXX in mind is clear (case in point: "four books of Kings"). -- and I also bet he said Paralipomena, not Chronicles.<br /><br />Also, I didn't say that his canon included self-standing apocryphal BOOKS (it obviously didn't.. well, with the exception of 'Wisdom'). But the problem is that many of the so-called apocrypha AREN'T BOOKS: they're CHAPTERS: chapters *OF* books: CANONICAL books! <br /><br />Daniel has three such chapters; Jeremiah-Lamentations has two; Chronicles has [at least] one; the Psalms have also one; etc.<br /><br />I also don't understand why you assume he spoke to the Jews: there's a Christian Church in Jerusalem: it was there from Pentecost; it never went away.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-63459167343433006902010-05-30T18:13:59.623-04:002010-05-30T18:13:59.623-04:00Uhm... no. When he says simply `Ezra` or 'Jere...<i>Uhm... no. When he says simply `Ezra` or 'Jeremiah' he includes Nehemiah, as well as Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle [of Jeremiah], because he has the Septuagintal namings in mind. -- The same goes for 'Daniel', etc. </i><br /><br />1. Your argument is more against Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta than anything I've written. Michuta states: "A moments reflection reveals that [Melito's list] does not line up with the protestant canon at all. It omits the books of Lamentations, Nehemiah, and Esther - and includes the Book of Wisdom."<br /><br />2. As to the Septuagint, the oldest extant manuscripts of the Septuagint are of Christian origin from the 4th and 5th centuries, so we don't know for certain that the Septuagint included the Apocrypha as canonical scripture. <br /><br />These old copies do contain a number of Apocryphal books. None of the oldest Septuagint copies contain the same Apocryphal books, and some include books that aren't even thought to be canonical by Romanists (3 & 4 Maccabees). <br /><br />There is no compelling evidence that the Jews of Alexandria held to a broader canon than those in Palestine.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-62301771312814793782010-05-30T09:32:59.103-04:002010-05-30T09:32:59.103-04:00Exclusions to Melito's Old Testament Canon: Ne...<i>Exclusions to Melito's Old Testament Canon: Nehemiah, Lamentations, Proverbs, Esther, the Apocrypha.</i><br /><br /><br />Uhm... no. When he says simply `Ezra` or 'Jeremiah' he includes Nehemiah, as well as Baruch, Lamentations, and the Epistle [of Jeremiah], because he has the Septuagintal namings in mind. -- The same goes for 'Daniel', etc.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.com