Holy Scripture: Source & Norm of All Faith & Life - Page 5 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-17-2020, 09:46 PM
RichardinColorado's Avatar
RichardinColorado RichardinColorado is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 915
Thanks: 182
Thanked 2,207 Times in 646 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trogshak View Post
Seems to be a bit off topic.
Not at all. In fact we've spent a good deal of time talking about the necessity of a Pope or not. Thus, if you don't want Scripture as the source and norm of all faith and life, then something else has to be. You've been making the case that the Magisterium of Rome is the norm and source of all faith and life but that is only possible if you have a papacy based on Matt. 16:18, and that is why it is carved in stone on St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-18-2020, 12:16 PM
Trogshak's Avatar
Trogshak Trogshak is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,603
Thanks: 340
Thanked 1,049 Times in 670 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardinColorado View Post
Not at all. In fact we've spent a good deal of time talking about the necessity of a Pope or not. Thus, if you don't want Scripture as the source and norm of all faith and life, then something else has to be. You've been making the case that the Magisterium of Rome is the norm and source of all faith and life but that is only possible if you have a papacy based on Matt. 16:18, and that is why it is carved in stone on St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
You are certainly big on straw-man argumentation.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-18-2020, 09:56 PM
RichardinColorado's Avatar
RichardinColorado RichardinColorado is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 915
Thanks: 182
Thanked 2,207 Times in 646 Posts
Default

Trogshak,

Just because you call a rationale a "straw man" doesn't make it so.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-19-2020, 08:37 AM
Trogshak's Avatar
Trogshak Trogshak is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,603
Thanks: 340
Thanked 1,049 Times in 670 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardinColorado View Post
Trogshak,

Just because you call a rationale a "straw man" doesn't make it so.
You are certainly within your right to address/rebut actual Catholic doctrine. I can live with that, and at the end of the day we go our separate ways acknowledging what you have already expressed in post #50 :
I believe we have arrived at the point of having irreconcilable differences.
However, your post #82 ...
Thus, if you don't want Scripture as the source and norm of all faith and life, then something else has to be. You've been making the case that the Magisterium of Rome is the norm and source of all faith and life but that is only possible if you have a papacy based on Matt. 16:18, and that is why it is carved in stone on St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
... misstates Catholic doctrine regarding the role of the Catholic Church's Magisterium and its relationship to Scripture and Tradition. As I previously posted (#42 of this thread):
Pope John Paul II had this to say in 1992 (my emphasis):
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!
Let's see what that "sure norm" has to say about the Church's role with regard to Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition (my emphasis):
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source ...

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own always, to the close of the age.

... two distinct modes of transmission

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

And Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.

As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church


The apostles entrusted the Sacred deposit of the faith, contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. By adhering to this heritage the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.

The Magisterium of the Church

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.

Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
As Scripture itself attests:
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15)
It is from the Church that I receive the Apostolic Tradition; it is from that Tradition I receive Sacred Scripture; it is through the lens of the Church that I understand the Church's Tradition and Scripture. Take away the Church - you take away my Christian faith. If the gates of Hell prevail against the Catholic Church, I depart Christianity altogether.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Trogshak For This Useful Post:
Old 02-19-2020, 10:08 AM
RichardinColorado's Avatar
RichardinColorado RichardinColorado is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 915
Thanks: 182
Thanked 2,207 Times in 646 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trogshak View Post
You are certainly within your right to address/rebut actual Catholic doctrine. I can live with that, and at the end of the day we go our separate ways acknowledging what you have already expressed in post #50 :
I believe we have arrived at the point of having irreconcilable differences.
However, your post #82 ...
Thus, if you don't want Scripture as the source and norm of all faith and life, then something else has to be. You've been making the case that the Magisterium of Rome is the norm and source of all faith and life but that is only possible if you have a papacy based on Matt. 16:18, and that is why it is carved in stone on St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
... misstates Catholic doctrine regarding the role of the Catholic Church's Magisterium and its relationship to Scripture and Tradition. As I previously posted (#42 of this thread):
Pope John Paul II had this to say in 1992 (my emphasis):
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!
Let's see what that "sure norm" has to say about the Church's role with regard to Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition (my emphasis):
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source ...

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own always, to the close of the age.

... two distinct modes of transmission

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

And Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.

As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church


The apostles entrusted the Sacred deposit of the faith, contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. By adhering to this heritage the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.

The Magisterium of the Church

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.

Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
As Scripture itself attests:
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15)
It is from the Church that I receive the Apostolic Tradition; it is from that Tradition I receive Sacred Scripture; it is through the lens of the Church that I understand the Church's Tradition and Scripture. Take away the Church - you take away my Christian faith. If the gates of Hell prevail against the Catholic Church, I depart Christianity altogether.
Yes, I am aware that this is the thinking and claims of Rome with respect to Sacred Tradition, that it claims to be the continuing revelation of the Holy Spirit through the successors to St. Peter. I get that, but I also reject that as a legitimate expression of the Holy Spirit and is, in fact, just another form of continuing immediate revelation much like that claimed by virtually everyone who claims to know what God is thinking.

If I do not accept that St. Peter is Christ's Vicar on earth, and if I do not accept that Rome is the only true Christian Church, then why would I accept Rome's claim to be the only authoritative interpreter of Holy Scripture? Additionally I do not accept that there is no salvation outside of "Holy Mother Church", then I am damned by Rome anyway.

So what is actually important to me is God's own Word. That is the only norm and source of all faith and life. Unlike the pronouncements of Rome that changes from time-to-time, God's Word never changes and is always true. I do not need Rome to interpret it for me. Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to RichardinColorado For This Useful Post:
Old 02-19-2020, 11:46 AM
Trogshak's Avatar
Trogshak Trogshak is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,603
Thanks: 340
Thanked 1,049 Times in 670 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardinColorado View Post
Yes, I am aware that this is the thinking and claims of Rome with respect to Sacred Tradition, that it claims to be the continuing revelation of the Holy Spirit through the successors to St. Peter. I get that, but I also reject that as a legitimate expression of the Holy Spirit and is, in fact, just another form of continuing immediate revelation much like that claimed by virtually everyone who claims to know what God is thinking.
Nonsense. As the Catholic Church teaches:
There will be no further Revelation

• The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

• Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

• God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father's definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardinColorado View Post
If I do not accept that St. Peter is Christ's Vicar on earth, and if I do not accept that Rome is the only true Christian Church
As I explained previously in this thread, the Catholic Church consists of 23 Eastern Catholic Churches in addition to the Church in Rome:
Coptic Catholic Church
Eritrean Catholic Church
Ethiopian Catholic Church
Armenian Catholic Church
Albanian Greek Catholic Church
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
Greek Catholic Church of Croatia and Serbia
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church
Melkite Greek Catholic Church
Romanian Greek Catholic Church
Russian Greek Catholic Church
Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church
Slovak Greek Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Maronite Church
Syriac Catholic Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardinColorado View Post
then why would I accept Rome's claim to be the only authoritative interpreter of Holy Scripture?
It is reasonable that if you accept the Catholic Church's authority to determine your New Testament canon of Scripture, it follows that the Catholic Church has interpretive authority over said canon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardinColorado View Post
Additionally I do not accept that there is no salvation outside of "Holy Mother Church", then I am damned by Rome anyway.
From where do you get this nonsense? I don't believe it either, nor does the Catholic Church teach it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardinColorado View Post
So what is actually important to me is God's own Word. That is the only norm and source of all faith and life. Unlike the pronouncements of Rome that changes from time-to-time
Such as?
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Trogshak For This Useful Post:
Old 02-19-2020, 12:35 PM
Cabinet Maker's Avatar
Cabinet Maker Cabinet Maker is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,149
Thanks: 22,397
Thanked 13,710 Times in 4,469 Posts
Default

1Thess5 KJV

I still want to know when this...

Quote:
19Do not quench the Spirit. 20Do not despise prophecies. 21Test all things; hold fast what is good.
changed to this...

Quote:
19Ignore all which meets not thy personal interpretation of Spirit. 20Despise all prophesies after Revelation. 21Bother not testing new things; ignore anything not already written in Scripture.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-19-2020, 01:49 PM
PeterEnergy's Avatar
PeterEnergy PeterEnergy is offline
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 17,959
Thanks: 13,244
Thanked 32,229 Times in 11,298 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardinColorado View Post
Yes, I am aware ... it claims to be... I also reject ... I do not accept ... I do not accept ... why would I accept ... I do not accept that there is no salvation outside of "Holy Mother Church", then I am damned by Rome anyway.

So what is actually important to me is God's own Word. That is the only norm and source of all faith and life.
I agree with you and would like your take on how do you determine God's own Word outside the Church for the Church compiled Scripture and pre-exists Scripture?
__________________
John 10:24 (CEV)“How long are you going to keep us guessing? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly!”

1 Cor 11:3 (VOICE) the Anointed One is the head of every man, the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of the Anointed.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-21-2020, 03:14 PM
RichardinColorado's Avatar
RichardinColorado RichardinColorado is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 915
Thanks: 182
Thanked 2,207 Times in 646 Posts
Default

Well Peter,

Guess I must disagree with you that Scripture pre-exists the Church since it was for the Church that Scripture was provided. Now, to be sure, the oral Word of God did precede the written Word of God from Eden to Moses. The first congregation was Adam and Eve...the Church is from the very beginning of man.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-21-2020, 03:50 PM
PeterEnergy's Avatar
PeterEnergy PeterEnergy is offline
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 17,959
Thanks: 13,244
Thanked 32,229 Times in 11,298 Posts
Default

Hey! You cannot disagree with me when I agree with you.
  • I think your last post used the word "Church" (from the very beginning of man) to mean something different than your use of the word "Church" in the 2nd to last post. Then you talked about 'what is actually important to me is God's own Word' while rejecting the 'Church' - who compiled Scripture.
  • Clearly circular.
We agree the Church pre-exists Scripture. And more than that, we agree the Church compiled Scripture. So, to talk in terms of Scripture - God's own word - apart from the body, the Church who safeguarded and wrote it (via "Church Fathers") makes for a compelling discussion that I look forward to having with you.

A simple review of books shows there is most certainly NOT universal agreement on even what the word of God is.
Orthodox (77) > Catholic (73) > Protestant (66)

That is why I asked the question 'how do you determine God's own Word outside the Church for the Church compiled Scripture and pre-exists Scripture?'
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-21-2020, 09:35 PM
RichardinColorado's Avatar
RichardinColorado RichardinColorado is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 915
Thanks: 182
Thanked 2,207 Times in 646 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
Hey! You cannot disagree with me when I agree with you.
  • I think your last post used the word "Church" (from the very beginning of man) to mean something different than your use of the word "Church" in the 2nd to last post. Then you talked about 'what is actually important to me is God's own Word' while rejecting the 'Church' - who compiled Scripture.
  • Clearly circular.
We agree the Church pre-exists Scripture. And more than that, we agree the Church compiled Scripture. So, to talk in terms of Scripture - God's own word - apart from the body, the Church who safeguarded and wrote it (via "Church Fathers") makes for a compelling discussion that I look forward to having with you.

A simple review of books shows there is most certainly NOT universal agreement on even what the word of God is.
Orthodox (77) > Catholic (73) > Protestant (66)

That is why I asked the question 'how do you determine God's own Word outside the Church for the Church compiled Scripture and pre-exists Scripture?'
I think it's possible that we are both making circular arguments.

1. I do not accept the premise that the Church "wrote" the Scriptures. The Scriptures are, by their very nature Apostolic (NT) and Prophetic (OT). God inspired the writers to use the words and sentences that He wanted them to write. The true author of Holy Scripture is the Lord God Himself. (II Tim. 3:16; II Peter 1:19-21)

2. It is true that the Church has had many canons of Scripture over the centuries. This is why the Lutherans determined to make three prerequisites for considering an NT book to be canonical:

a. It had to be written by an Apostle or the Apostle's amanuensis.
b. It had to agree with all the other books of Scripture.
c. It had to be accepted by all the Churches.

Applying those criteria only the 66 books of the prologoumina passed muster. That doesn't mean, however, that we do not recognize the antilogoumina as having value for the Christian. What a surprise! The Lutherans took the conservative approach.

Frankly, I don't understand what you mean by "Scripture apart from the Church." Explain please.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to RichardinColorado For This Useful Post:
Old 02-21-2020, 10:10 PM
PeterEnergy's Avatar
PeterEnergy PeterEnergy is offline
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 17,959
Thanks: 13,244
Thanked 32,229 Times in 11,298 Posts
Default

I'm not making an argument but simply asking a question.

Church = body of believers [including writers of Scripture, Apostolic (NT) and Prophetic (OT)]

Regarding #1, while we agree God inspired the writers, we certainly disagree in any kind of literal authorship by God of this literary work.

Quote:
a. It had to be written by an Apostle or the Apostle's amanuensis.
b. It had to agree with all the other books of Scripture.
c. It had to be accepted by all the Churches.
This Church existed before various fragments, making "c" above, accepted by all the churches, quite different than after all the fragmentations. That is, if you use that standard today no book of the Bible might survive that standard.

I noticed you skipped over the determination of OT books, e.g., Maccabees. Why is that?
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-22-2020, 10:19 AM
RichardinColorado's Avatar
RichardinColorado RichardinColorado is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 915
Thanks: 182
Thanked 2,207 Times in 646 Posts
Default

Peter,

First a bit of history respecting the OT books:

For many years, a list of the books that were considered Holy Scripture was not necessary. God had directed Moses to put a copy of the Ten Commandments into the ark of the covenant (Ex. 25:16, 21). He had also told Moses to record the Law and told the priests to teach the Law (Ex. 17:14; 34:27; Lv. 10:11). The Old Testament often refers to these texts but also mentions some books that were eventually lost. Over time, the writings of the Prophets and also the Psalms were preserved for use by God's people. Scrolls were likely kept in the temple archives (cf 2 Kings 22:8; 1 Macc. 2:13;; 1 Chron. 26:20-28).

By the first century BC, the books of the Holy Scripture were well established as the books we have in our Old Testament. According to the Mishnah, in c AD 100 (after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple), Jewish religious leaders in Jamnia also discussed qualities of the Old Testament Books. (See rabbinic opinions in Mishna Yadayim 3:2-5; Bava Batra 14b; Shabbat 14a, 30b.)

During the time between the Testaments, a variety of books related to themes and figures in the Hebrew Scripture were produced. Some of these documents claimed to be written by people in the Bible from long ago (pseudepigrapha, credited to people such as Enoch, Adam and Eve, and Moses.). Other books contained history 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to recognized biblical books (Baruch, additions to Daniel and Esther), or contemporary religious thought (wisdom books). A number of the books were translated for the Septuagint (LXX).

Jerome included some of these books in his Latin translation of the Bible (Vulgate) in the fourth century AD. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Protestants regard these books as a "second canon" (deuterocanonical books) or supplemental list to the Old Testament. Luther thought these books were good to read but did not regard them as Holy Scripture.

Lutherans have never consider the canon to be "closed" but have listed these books as the Apocrypha (Gk. "hidden away) and separated them from the books universally recognized as Holy Scripture. Apocryphal books are not typically read in worship services nor do they typically serve as sermon texts.

Just as many nonbiblical books appeared during the time between the Testaments, so there were a variety of works that non-Christian sects produced during the Early Church period. Many of these books (e.g., the Nag Hammadi library) came from Gnostic groups that rejected all or part of biblical teaching.

Gnostics varied widely in their teachings and beliefs, but most emphasized the importance of a secret "knowledge" passed on to followers by a founding religious figure. Some Gnostic groups had little or nothing to do with Christianity (e.g., Sethian Gnostics were more Jewish in character), but many borrowed heavily from the New Testament and Christian traditions.

"Christian" Gnostics and other false teachers invented a "Jesus" who is very different from the real Jesus Christ. They preached a "gospel" that eliminated the cross as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. They also produced numerous documents to support their philosophy. But the Gnostics eventually died out and were almost forgotten. Because some of their literature was discovered in the 19th and 20th centuries, people have shown a renewed interest in these old religious sects. If you hear news reports about a recent or newly discovered "gospel," it is likely one of these Gnostic texts.

In the 2nd century, the heretic Marcion of Sinope rejected the entire Old Testament Scripture and taught that the God who created the physical world was a lower-level spiritual being whose creation ineptly caused the creation of evil. Marcion taught that people should worship the supreme, loving God instead. Marcion created his own version of the Gospel according to Luke and rejected all the New Testament books except some of Paul's letters. Marcion denied the Christ of Scripture and taught that Jesus was a middle-level spirit-being who came to teach His disciples a body of secret knowledge. Marcion's teachings caused the Church to define and defend the books that are in the Bible.

The following is a list of the versions of the canon that people over time had accepted:

The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170).
Melito (c. 170).
Origen (c. 240).
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 324).
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350).
Hilary of Poitiers (c. 360).
The Cheltenham List (c. 360).
Council of Laodicea (c. 363).
Letter of Athanasius (367).
Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 380).
Amphilocius of Iconium (c. 380).
The "Apostolic Canons" (c. 380).
Epiphanius (c. 385).
Jerome (c. 390).
Augustine (c. 397).
Third Council of Carthage (397).
Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 400).
Codex Claromontanus (c. 400).
Letter of Innocent I (405).
Decree of Gelasius (c. 550).
Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (c. 550).
John of Damascus (c. 730).
Others
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to RichardinColorado For This Useful Post:
Old 02-22-2020, 10:33 AM
RichardinColorado's Avatar
RichardinColorado RichardinColorado is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 915
Thanks: 182
Thanked 2,207 Times in 646 Posts
Default

In terms of which books were included in each of the canon lists above:

KEY

Esth. - Esther
Bar. - Baruch
Eccl. - Ecclesiasticus
Wisd. - Wisdom of Solomon
Tob. - Tobit
Jud. - Judith
Mac. - First and Second Maccabees


1. Greek Authors. Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd.Tob. Jud. Mac.
Melito 160 S S S S S S S
Origen 225 Y M S S S S N
Cyril of Jerusalem 348 Y Y N N N N N
Council of Laodicea 363 Y Y S S S S S
Athanasius 367 N Y N N N N S
Gregory of Nazianzus 380 S S S S S S S
Amphilocius of Iconium. 380 M S S S S S S
Epiphanius 385 Y S N N S S S
Stichometry of Niceph. 550 N Y N N N N N
Synopsis of Sac. Scrip. 550 N S N N N N N
Leontius 590 S S S S S S S
List of the Sixty Books 650 N S N N N N N
John of Damascus 730 Y S N N S S
2. Syrian Greek. Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd.Tob. Jud. Mac.
"Apostolic Canons" 380 Y S N S S M Y

3. Latin Authors.* Date Esth. Bar. Eccl. Wisd.Tob. Jud. Mac.
Hilary of Poitiers 360. Y S S M M S
Cheltenham List 360 Y M S M Y Y Y
Jerome 390 Y M N N N N N
Augustine 397 Y M Y Y Y Y Y
3rd Council of Carthage397 Y M Y Y Y Y Y
Rufinus 400 Y M N N N N N
Codex Claromontanus 400 Y M Y Y Y Y Y
Letter of Innocent I 405 Y M Y Y Y Y Y
Decree of Gelasius 550 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Cassiodorus 560 Y M Y Y Y Y Y
Isidore of Seville 625 Y M Y Y Y Y Y


My apologies that the formatting is a bit messed up. Tried to fix it twice...gave up.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-22-2020, 10:40 AM
PeterEnergy's Avatar
PeterEnergy PeterEnergy is offline
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 17,959
Thanks: 13,244
Thanked 32,229 Times in 11,298 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardinColorado View Post
Jerome included some of these books in his Latin translation of the Bible (Vulgate) in the fourth century AD. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Protestants regard these books as a "second canon" (deuterocanonica books) or supplemental list to the Old Testament. Luther thought these books were good to read but did not regard them as Holy Scripture.
Lots of good stuff here. Perhaps this Jerome translation is why my NLT study notes sometimes say things like a minor variation in the Greek (or other language) original manuscript.

But this brings us back to my original question, how do you determine what is God’s word, what is Scripture given these churches consider them second canon? Or does “second canon” mean a type of NON-cannon, non-Scripture, not truly the word of God?

You mentioned Psalms. Although it is in the Bible, no one claims these are God’s words but mostly David praying to God. Lots of wisdom and history in the OT but like Psalms, not necessarily the word of God. See military conquests. Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy reading it for what it is. However, I recognize a chronicle of Babylon conquering Judah is different from God giving Moses the 10 Commandments.

You said this body of work was well established as Scripture but kind of gloss over why some history is included but Macabees is excluded. By the time of Luther, they were part of accepted Scripture for millennia. Very interesting.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-22-2020, 11:12 AM
RichardinColorado's Avatar
RichardinColorado RichardinColorado is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 915
Thanks: 182
Thanked 2,207 Times in 646 Posts
Default

Frankly, the determination of the canon is not that tidy. What clearly seems to have happened is that there were lots of opinions...and still are, respecting what should be considered the very Word of God. Your definition is quite different than my own. I do believe that the consensus of the Early Church (the earlier, the better), is our best way to determine mere literature from the Word of God. This is why the distinction between the prologoumina and the antilogoumina is so critical. There is no disagreement between Rome and Lutherans as to the status of the 66 books. The question is regarding the antilogoumina, that is the disputed books. Rome considers them to be fully the Word of God while the Lutherans consider them of value, but since they do not (and have not in the past) been fully agreed upon by the Early Church, serve in a lesser status.

Modern theologians like to say that "The Gospel is contained in the Scriptures." This, of course, means that its up to them to figure out what is and isn't the Word of God. This allows men to say anything they want is the Word of God or isn't. This, in turn, destroys any notion of absolute truth.

Rome rather disregards the various early canons and resolves the problem by letting the Pope/Councils decide what books constitute the canon and which do not and then insist that everyone else has to follow their lead. Lutherans would rather not dismiss the earlier canons out of hand and go with the prologoumina books as the consensus of the Church.

Thus, I consider the 66 books not merely to "contain" the Word of God, but, in fact, are the inspired Holy Scriptures, that is the very Word of God as II Timothy 3:16 declares, "God-breathed" (theopnustas in the Greek).
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to RichardinColorado For This Useful Post:
Old 02-22-2020, 11:36 AM
RichardinColorado's Avatar
RichardinColorado RichardinColorado is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 915
Thanks: 182
Thanked 2,207 Times in 646 Posts
Default

Here is a link to a website that has the information in post # 95 properly formatted.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html

Once there, click on "Disputed Books of the New Testament".
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-22-2020, 04:54 PM
Trogshak's Avatar
Trogshak Trogshak is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,603
Thanks: 340
Thanked 1,049 Times in 670 Posts
Default

21 REASONS WHY THE “SCRIPTURES ALONE (SOLA SCRIPTURA)” IS UNBIBLICAL, MAN-MADE, ERRONEOUS AND MUST BE REJECTED:
• The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible

• The Bible Indicates That In Addition To The Written Word, We Are To Accept Oral Tradition.

• The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the “Pillar and Ground of the Truth.”

• Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church

• Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

• The first Christians did not have a Bible

• The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa

• The idea of the Scripture’s Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.

• Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.

• The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4thCentury.

• An “Extra-Biblical” Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.

• The Belief that Scripture is “Self-Authenticating” Does Not Hold Up under Examination

• None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant.

• The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations

• There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.

• The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15thCentury.

• The Doctrine of Sola ScripturaDid Not Exist Prior to the 14thCentury.

• The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.

• The Doctrine of Sola ScripturaDoes Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.

• The Protestant Bible Is Missing 7 Entire Books

• The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther’s Own Emotional Problems.
Click on the link for an explanation of each bullet-point:
https://catholicsstrivingforholiness...tura-j-peters/
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-22-2020, 07:21 PM
PeterEnergy's Avatar
PeterEnergy PeterEnergy is offline
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 17,959
Thanks: 13,244
Thanked 32,229 Times in 11,298 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardinColorado View Post
Frankly, the determination of the canon is not that tidy.
I'm glad you see it that way too.

This makes my question also not that tidy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardinColorado View Post
Rome considers them to be fully the Word of God while the Lutherans consider them of value, but since they do not (and have not in the past) been fully agreed upon by the Early Church, serve in a lesser status.
Lesser status? I'm unclear of the hierarchy:
  • canon
  • 2nd canon
  • Apocrapha
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardinColorado View Post
This allows men to say anything they want is the Word of God or isn't. This, in turn, destroys any notion of absolute truth.
Putting aside any religious analysis, absolute truth is a philosophical certainty. In fact, the only kind of truth is absolute truth. Of course, this could be an entirely separate thread. Let me just share 3 undeniable axioms from the philosophy of Objectivism regarding absolute truth:
  1. Existence exists
  2. Identity exists
  3. Consciousness exists
Of course men can say anything they want, including X is the word of God but Y is not. Saying so does not make it so. The Holy Spirit spoke to me. It is not for you or councils or even the Apostles to judge. I know it to be true. This God I worship, not parchment. What the Holy Spirit said was for a doctor, not for all mankind. As a learned man, I am honored to be able to read all religious works regardless how others classify them, e.g., cannon, 2nd cannon, Apocrapha. Again, it is not the words on parchment but a relationship with the living God that matters. Yes, sometimes it seems to me that the parchment is worshipped not the living God. Yes, even the parchment is an idol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardinColorado View Post
Thus, I consider the 66 books not merely to "contain" the Word of God, but, in fact, are the inspired Holy Scriptures, that is the very Word of God as II Timothy 3:16 declares, "God-breathed" (theopnustas in the Greek).
Only last year did I complete reading the 66-book Bible for the 1st time. I have no opinion or definition of Scripture but am beginning to delve into the subject matter. Although Cat_1978 is a top notch PIA, I credit him with educating me about 1.5 years ago on the different books contained in the Bible are not the same. Until then, I always thought "the Bible" was undisputed.

Although I plan to one day read the 2nd cannon and Apocrapha, I know I need to re-read the 66-book Bible a few times in the hopes of understanding it before moving on to this other material. To be sure, I have found value in many books even if not "the word of God" and I assume the 2nd cannon and Apocrapha will be no different.
__________________
John 10:24 (CEV)“How long are you going to keep us guessing? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly!”

1 Cor 11:3 (VOICE) the Anointed One is the head of every man, the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of the Anointed.
Quick reply to this message
Old 02-23-2020, 12:10 AM
Matzoh Ball Soup Matzoh Ball Soup is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 5
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Enlightened people know that God, heaven, karma etc are real.

But how can anyone who genuinely values truth (God) remain Christian after learning the facts about Jews' fake Bible, including the absence of any historical evidence for "Jesus" (e.g. the research of Joseph Wheless)?

I'm more God conscious than ever since learning the facts about Christianity:
https://evolutionofconsciousness.hea...ler-religions/
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net