Yeah if anything the scriptures at Qumran affirmed the East's position that the LXX is a better representation of the scriptures used by the Apostles than the Masoretic texts.

I get it. You just want to paint me as a heretic to discredit me. Welcome to the club. Stay in the dark I really don't care.

Only because many of the original hebrew texts were destroyed.

You asked him a question. He answered it. Was his answer incorrect? For you, of all people, to play the victim is rich.

I really don't care. I have more important things to do. I already quoted it several times. The orthodox church claims to have pre-modern ideas, they also claim that pre-modern ideas and post-modern ideas are similar.

...which Hebrew texts would these be? Because Qumran matches well with the LXX.

Quote:

---

I really don't care. I have more important things to do. I already quoted it several times. The orthodox church claims to have pre-modern ideas, they also claim that pre-modern ideas and post-modern ideas are similar.

---

*citation needed

Ok so I just read the Orthodox article. Boy Howdy is it disingenuous at best to say that the Orthodox Church, as presented in the article, is post modern.

From the Article:
"This pre-modern perspective is inherently similar to many aspects of a post-modern perspective. It offers a critique of modernism for the very reason that modernism was itself a rejection of Orthodoxy. Thus many who complain about the constant "bashing of the West," are simply hearing the sound of antiquity lapping on their shores. The West embraced modernism and became the West in so doing. Call it the West, call it modernity it is the same rejection of tradition and communion as a means of knowing."

It is clear from the article that the writer is explicitly going after "Modernity" and "The West" by pointing out that even post-modernism is attacking it. The writer explicitly attacks innovation stating "Innovation is not a virtue."

What the writer is clearly stating is that he rejects both Modernism and Post-Modernism, but that Post-Modernism and "Via Antiqua" reject Modernism.

If one wanted to critique Orthodox theology along a post-modernist line, their are much better ways than to misquote and deliberately misread the author of that article.

Here is a scholarly article describing roman weapons found at Qumran, dated to the same time as its destruction and subsequent looting.

https://www.academia.edu/402774/_Roman_Book_Destruction_in_Qumran_Cave_4_and_the_Roman_Destruction_of_Khirbet_Qumran_Revisited_Forthcoming_in_2011_in_a_volume_edited_by_J%C3%B6rg_Frey_et_al_on_Qumran_and_Archaeology#:~:text=Thus%2C%20excavations%20at%20Qumran%20have%20yielded%20at%20least,conflagration%20after%20which%20the%20site%20was%20partly%20resettled.

Furthermore, Athanasius led a movement which included Arians, but was not limited to Arians. These include the War Scroll, the Testament of Levi, the Book of Giants, the Book of Enoch, Jubilees, the Apocryphon of Moses, the Apocryphon of David. These books were in existence 500 years before Athanasius even had a thought.

He made up a list about books he liked. He took out all the parts he didn't like. Then he said everything that was not a book he liked was heretical. Some of these book are heretical in that they deny Christ, but not all of them are.

I never said they were related, I merely said that both destroyed scriptures.

Athanasius destroyed more than just Arian books.

Ordhound04 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

I never said they were related, I merely said that both destroyed scriptures.

---

You certainly implied it.

And, since you brought up scriptures in canon. What "Scriptures" were destroyed?

---

War Scroll, the Testament of Levi, the Book of Giants, the Book of Enoch, Jubilees, the Apocryphon of Moses, the Apocryphon of David.

To be clear, there is a fundamental difference between "scripture" and "canon". A biblical canon refers to a fixed collection of scriptures. One good indicator of the status of a writing as scripture is the care with which the community recorded it. Codices and actual books were very rare and treasured during 2nd and 3rd century A.D. If the community regarded something as scripture, they put it in a codex nearly entirely. This is not true for secondary sources. About 65% of 2nd-3rd century copies of other Christian literary text such as theological treatises, other gospels etc. made it into codices, the rest were left in rolls or only recorded as rolls.

So, copying a text in a codex doesn't necessarily mean it was regarded/treated as "scripture". But I contend that copying a text on a roll, for most 2nd-3rd century Christians at least, meant that the text (or at least that copy of it) wasn't regarded as "scripture".

Flashback about 600 years to the Ancient Near Eastern Jews. Each community had slightly different requirements. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, and Essenes were all subsets of Jews and all viewed scripture differently. And noone has codices. How are we going to figure out what they thought was canon?

They best way to is to look for commentaries on "books" to see if the community valued it:
(1) the existence of pesherim, midrashim, or other forms of commentary on a text is strong evidence that a community regarded the scripture as sacred. This is because writing is painstaking, so the book must be revered if the community would spend valuable time simply commenting on the text and not copying the text itself. Pesherim exist for the following writings: Deut, 2 Sam, Exod, Amos, Pss, Ezek, Dan, and Isa (4Q174); Deut, Num, and Josh (4Q175); Isa and Zech (4Q176); and Pss, Isa, Mic, Zech, Ezek, and Hos (4Q177). People describe Pesherim for Isa, Hos, Mic, Nah, Hab, Zeph, and Pss.

It is noteworthy that among the extant examples of the chief genres of exegetical literature of the first six centuries -- there are none for Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobit, 1-2 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Ezra-Nehemiah, or Esther.

Another good way is to see if there is parabiblical literature describing the event in question. This includes a midrash. These are imaginative expansions of events that occured in scripture. They are not scripture, but "books" they expand upon are scripture. The following figures and retelling of events and thus the "books" they are a part of should be considered scripture: Enosh, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, Abraham, Book of Giants, Enastr, Book of Dreams' Letter of Enoch, Birth of Noah, Jacob, Testament of Judah, Joseph, Naphtali, Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses, Jubilees/Aporcryphon of Moses, Apocryphon of Joshua, Samuel, and Ezekiel. Jubilees in particular enjoyed authoritative status and had its own pesherim. The Damascus Document [Cairo Geniza A] 16:1-3 promotes the authority of Jubilees.

There is no such thing as a Septuagint canon.

https://academic.logos.com/was-there-a-septuagint-canon/

No. I can't cite their website? That's the whole point of the internet is for other people to read it.

Welcome to the internet.

Ok fine, Im going to use the same standards Catholics and Orthodox use. Now we have the Apocalypse of Abraham as Canon. There I said it so it's authority.

Yes, the internet, where you can easily provide a link to your source. But you chose to plagiarize. If you had a shred of humility, you would just say "my bad. Good catch guys. I'll fix that."

Don't care. Honestly I should rail into you for passing off English as your own. You didn't invent it, yet you use it every day when you write on this cite. Where is your cite for your English?

Just be honest, you are all using personal attacks against me instead of trying to refute the arguments I found.

You still have not addressed any of my arguements.

When are we adding the Apocalypse of Abraham to the canon?

Stealing an entire language is thievery.

You can only speak latin or greek austinite.