• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Which Bible is inerrant and inspired?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
It doesn’t matter what I believe. it only matters what we know can be proven. The Bible is a collection of texts written by human beings. That’s a fact. whether the Bible is “God’s word” is a matter, not of fact, but of belief. The exegetical process seeks to separate the two to keep them from becoming conflated.

See, yet you say I am a heretic. It does matter what you believe. That is the basis for the Christian faith. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour? You who are not Christian, and deny Jesus Christ, want to deny the Bible as the Word of God as it claims. That's a fact.

If you want to believe the Bible is just a book written by human beings, that's fine. Believe what you want. But don't come peddling your false statements that Christianity believes that. That is the very basis of Christianity. The Bible is the Word of God and we believe what it says.

As I said, you want to 'conflate' Christianity with your faith, as you show in your label (christian/shamanic). To do so you must remove the Bible as the Word of God. You must remove it as the basis for the Christian faith. Because the Bible is against any such merger.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Last edited:

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
In the case of the exegetical process to determine authenticity, it certainly is.


Of course i understood it! I didn’t manipulate it; I merely quoted the point I wanted to make, which is that, factually and historically, the texts are what they are, not what we “believe” them to be. it wasn’t a false representation. Although your claim of the canon is....


It does determine which books are authentic.


I never said they did.


I labeled you a heretic for your views of sola scriptura.


Which is why you’re wrong. There are a number of legitimate canons, and they all vary in number.


You’re against me. Happily, you don’t represent either Christianity or the Bible very well in this thread.

Authenticity is based upon the inspiration of God in the writing.

No, the sentence you quoted said just opposite of what you were saying. It recognized that Christianity holds to the Bible as from God as the Word of God. That was the point. Christianity does believe the Bible as the Word of God which made your claim that mainstream Christianity does not, void. So, you left it out. You made it appear that the sentence started in the middle when it did not. And, in doing this you wanted to make it appear that the Interpreters Bible supported what you are saying. Another manipulation by you. And I proved that the Interpreters Bible does not support what you are saying.

Authenticity is based upon the writing being inspired by God.

If you are saying now that Christianity does not rely on historical criticism alone and that they rely on the inspiration of the Bible as the Word of God, then why do you say I am heretical? Why do you say that is not what mainstream Christianity believes?

Yes, you did say that. In post #(222) you said I am heretic because I believe in Sola Scriptura and that the Bible is that. In (229) you say my view is not mainstream Christianity. What you are trying to do is label what Christianity believes as 'heresy'. And what your are calling heresy is based upon your effort to conflate your faith with Christianity.

There is only one inspired Bible, one Book on earth which is the written Word of God. The 66 books of the Old and New Testament.

Actually, what I said was the Christian faith and the Bible are against you. But you are right...because they are against you, so am I. Have your faith all you like. Your effort to merge, conflate, Christianity with your faith, is a fool's errand.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
And what Christian believes that? None. Christianity recognizes the Bible is the Word of God. If you don't, you cannot be Christian. If the Bible is not the Word of God, it has no authority
Christians believe in the Word of God, and that that Word is extant in the texts through spiritual inspiration of human authors. I never said I didn’t believe that. It is a theological stance, but not a factual stance. We know the texts were written by people through the lens of their understanding. You, OTOH, are pushing for something that passes the boundaries of belief. You state as fact that the texts were physically written by God. You have twisted “the Word of God” (which is a philosophy or an idea) into “the words of God,” forcing a belief to become a fact.

Why didn't you answer my other questions? I said in post #(226) that you denied God and Christ in the Scriptures. You claimed in (229) that you didn't. Thus my questions in (233), of which one, you ignored
I did answer them, as you state. I ignored the last one because it’s not germane to the topic of discussion and not up for discussion.

Why? Because you deny God and Christ in the Scriptures. If not plainly answer. Is Jesus Christ the Son of God and only Saviour as the Bible states
This topic is not up for discussion. Leave it be.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
See, yet you say I am a heretic. It does matter what you believe. That is the basis for the Christian faith. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour? You who are not Christian, and deny Jesus Christ, want to deny the Bible as the Word of God as it claims. That's a fact
There are some wonderful medications for dementia. Or perhaps you have a UTI that needs to be cleared up? Because this post is full of fantasies.

If you want to believe the Bible is just a book written by human beings, that's fine
When did I say that?

But don't come peddling your false statements that Christianity believes that.
Of course it does. Many of the most learned scholars of Xy know that God didn’t physically write the Bible, nor dictate it verbatim.

That is the very basis of Christianity
It’s the very basis for your fantasy.

The Bible is the Word of God and we believe what it says.
Of course we believe that, and we believe the truths contained in the texts, even as we understand the metaphoric and mythic nature of the writings. But we don’t fall into the trap of naïveté that the myths are historically factual.
As I said, you want to 'conflate' Christianity with your faith, as you show in your label (christian/shamanic). To do so you must remove the Bible as the Word of God. You must remove it as the basis for the Christian faith. Because the Bible is against any such merger
Malicious provocation. You don’t know enough to know what you’re talking about.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Authenticity is based upon the inspiration of God in the writing
Authenticity is based upon who wrote the text and when.
No, the sentence you quoted said just opposite of what you were saying. It recognized that Christianity holds to the Bible as from God as the Word of God. That was the point. Christianity does believe the Bible as the Word of God which made your claim that mainstream Christianity does not, void. So, you left it out. You made it appear that the sentence started in the middle when it did not. And, in doing this you wanted to make it appear that the Interpreters Bible supported what you are saying. Another manipulation by you. And I proved that the Interpreters Bible does not support what you are saying
And I answered by saying that my point in doing so was to show that a historic position had to be considered apart from a theological position. You’re reading the paragraph wrong.

If you are saying now that Christianity does not rely on historical criticism alone and that they rely on the inspiration of the Bible as the Word of God, then why do you say I am heretical
because you come from a position of sola scriptura, which is a heretical position.

Why do you say that is not what mainstream Christianity believes
Because it isn’t. Your beliefs are not in the Christian mainstream.

Yes, you did say that. In post #(222) you said I am heretic because I believe in Sola Scriptura and that the Bible is that. In (229) you say my view is not mainstream Christianity. What you are trying to do is label what Christianity believes as 'heresy'. And what your are calling heresy is based upon your effort to conflate your faith with Christianity
No, I’m trying to separate mainstream Xy from your claims about it.

There is only one inspired Bible, one Book on earth which is the written Word of God. The 66 books of the Old and New Testament
You’re confused and willfully ignorant of the nature of the texts.

Actually, what I said was the Christian faith and the Bible are against you. But you are right...because they are against you, so am I. Have your faith all you like. Your effort to merge, conflate, Christianity with your faith, is a fool's errand
No. They’re not. You are at odds with the mainstream faith and with the nature of the texts. Your avatar is prophetic in that regard.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No, that is not what Christians believe
Well, it certainly is what millions of us in the mainstream of the Faith believe.

Christians believe the Bible is the Word of God
I never said they didn’t. Did you actually read my post?

The inspiration is from God, not human writers
I said as much.

That is factual. That is what we believe
“What we believe” and “what is factual” are two separate things.

That doesn't push any boundaries as that is what the Bible claims to be....written by God
Nope.

you know you cannot honestly claim the name of Christ
Knock it off, Skeezix. You’re crossing a boundary.

Why is the topic not up for discussion when you come distorting what Christians believe
I’m not distorting what Xtians believe. You’re confused.

You want to cast doubt on the Christian faith, you want to tell me what I am supposed to believe as a Christian, but when your faith is questioned it is not up for discussion.
1) No, I want to clarify the Faith.
2) you may believe whatever you wish, but you don’t get to claim that belief as fact.
3) My faith isn’t up for discussion. Neither is yours, yet you keep dragging it into the discussion. I don’t care to do that. My faith is sacrosanct. Yours may not be.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour? If not, why do you call yourself some sort of Christian
You have no authority to examine my faith, and I didn’t invite you to do so. Drop. It.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
There are some wonderful medications for dementia. Or perhaps you have a UTI that needs to be cleared up? Because this post is full of fantasies.


When did I say that?


Of course it does. Many of the most learned scholars of Xy know that God didn’t physically write the Bible, nor dictate it verbatim.


It’s the very basis for your fantasy.


Of course we believe that, and we believe the truths contained in the texts, even as we understand the metaphoric and mythic nature of the writings. But we don’t fall into the trap of naïveté that the myths are historically factual.

Malicious provocation. You don’t know enough to know what you’re talking about.

Full of truth.

Post #(238)

Oh, now you say 'many'. Before it was 'mainstream christianity'. Doesn't matter. Christianity believes the Bible is the written Word of God. God is the Author. Human writers were used, but they wrote what God gave them to write. Inspiration.

Who is 'we'? You don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. Post #(237)

You're the one that started the 'provocation'. You want to cast doubt on my faith, yet you don't know what you are talking about. You attack the Christian Bible, yet when your faith is questioned you cry foul. Typical.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Authenticity is based upon who wrote the text and when.

And I answered by saying that my point in doing so was to show that a historic position had to be considered apart from a theological position. You’re reading the paragraph wrong.

because you come from a position of sola scriptura, which is a heretical position.


Because it isn’t. Your beliefs are not in the Christian mainstream.


No, I’m trying to separate mainstream Xy from your claims about it.


You’re confused and willfully ignorant of the nature of the texts.


No. They’re not. You are at odds with the mainstream faith and with the nature of the texts. Your avatar is prophetic in that regard.

No. Authenticity is based on the inspiration of God. "The final product of God's causality and the prophetic agency is scriptural authority, that is, a divinely authoritative book. God moved the prophets in such a way as to breathe out (literaly, spirate) their writings. In other words, God spoke to the prophets and is speaking through their writings. The cause of inspiration is God, the means is the men of God, and the end result is the world of God in the language of men." (A General Introduction To The Bible, Geisler,Nix, Moody Press, 1976, p. 29)

Sorry, I presented the statement you manipulated to your advantage and distorted what was really said. The Interpreters Bible is not proof of your belief at all. It supports the Bible as the inspired and written Word of God.

Are you saying now that Christianity does rely on the inspiration of God in recognizing the Canon? How is sola Scriptura heretical? Based on who? Who are you to call one a heretic in the Christian faith?

You are wrong. My views are the orthodox mainstream Christianity as I have showed you. You on the other hand must manipulate Christian commentaries and present them falsely to support your distortion.

If you want to discuss my avatar go to the 'Nikki Haley' thread.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST ONE OF FOUR

I'VE wonderED what CAN be said with accuracy about the specific “people” or “organizations” involved in the several millennia-long process of accumulating a vast amount of text, processing through culling and editing so as to include some texts and to exclude others in the creation of Bibles. History becomes increasingly shrouded as one moves more anciently. I have wondered if similar principles that we know happened to New Testament records could be a model for the Old Testament and other sacred Christian writings as well. I think one can only speculate regarding these things, but I felt like speculating a bit.

I believe that the two main criteria determining whether a text would be INCLUDED into or EXCLUDED from any several different N.T. canons which have come and gone over the centuries were NOT based on whether a text was “inspired” using @Subduction Zone s (post #129) “inspirometer”


Rather I believe such decisions were mainly based on the following criteria :

The main Criteria upon which INCLUSION into a canon seems to have been based were:
#1) a textual agreement with the personal theology of the influential person or organization promoting a specific canon and
#2) The way in which the person or organization wishes to use the included texts
The main Criteria upon which EXCLUSION seems to have been based:
#3) The strength of a specific doctrinal disagreement contained in an excluded text.

We see this same phenomenon within forum discussions. Posters wishing to demonstrate their theology choose certain sacred texts and they tend to avoid other texts. Luther, in his desire to promulgate “Faith without works” desires to quote Paul and desires to exclude james from our canon. Psychologically, texts which agree with our personal theology appear “authoritative” and “feel” worthy of canonization, whereas texts which disagree with our personal theology tend to be dismissed and remained “unused” and neglected.


1) TEXTS IN THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD – SOME CONTEXT AND COMMENTS

The Earliest Christians kept collected letters and texts, but they were poorly fitted to collate and standardize sacred records of their times. I think that as dissensions arose, the development of some sort of standard, written word of the Apostles became a necessity.

Early Judeo-Christians had a large library of sacred texts of various levels of availability. Letters included in modern New Testaments represent only a fraction of the total that must have been written. If one considers just Paul, we assume he wrote many other letters during his years as an apostle, which have been lost to history. Presumably many of these lost letters were just as sacred as those that came to be included in the New Testament. If we found one of these “lost letters” in an archeological dig, it would be just as inspired as those letters we have.

It isn’t just these “letters”, but there was a wide range of literature written and distributed; being read; believed and adhered to by early Christians. There were many early Gospels beside the four we have. Luke introduces his gospel version by indicating that … many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us…(Lk 1:1) All of these “gospels” were part of the early Christian literature. Similarly, there were many Christian apocalypses in addition to that of John. The Shepherd of Hermas was one such apocalypse found included in the 4-5th century New Testament canon, Codex Sinaiticus. Other apocalypses were quite popular sacred texts in the early centuries of the various Christian churches.

There were church order such as The Didache (Teaching) of the Twelve Apostles in multiple languages and versions. There were many, many Christian apologies and martyrologies (e.g. Martyrdom of Polycarp) and tracts and commentaries. There was a great deal of “romance” literature (i.e. “novels”) hymns, and poetry, etc. As Christianity spread and became more organized, specific “liturgies” started to develop.

Justin Martyr describes a Sunday service in his Roman congregation where Christians gather : “…and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things…”(1 Apol. 67)

I believe that, in the earliest Judeo-Christianity’s, certain books simply became more popular and viewed as more “authoritative” than other books in an organic way in the same way as many other types of traditions develop. I do not think that there was any “organized Christian group” who, in the first two centuries, designated what was in some arbitrary canon. However, pressures for a “standardized” canon did develop over time.



2) THE FIRST SIGNIFICANT CHRISTIAN “CANON”

An influential Christian-philosopher-teacher named Marcion, developed the first “canon” of any significance. Though Marcion had access to other texts, his canon excluded all but eleven books: a version of the gospel of Luke and ten epistles. The reason for the exclusion of other text had to do with Maricons’ personal theology.

This first canon and the reasoning underlying its’ inception are important example, because all other canons seem to come into being under similar circumstances. They all reflect the personal theology of the Canon’s promoter, or promoting organization. There were many early “canons”. Some Jewish Christians who held the Mosaic law was still valid used only Matthew; others accepted only Mark; Marcion accepted only Luke; the Valentinians accepted only John, and importantly, they formed their ideas regarding what was inspired and ‘canonical’ based on their personal theologies.

Irenaeus accepts all four, but again, his reasoning is not because these four were “inspired” in some special way, but rather he accepts them because of his personal belief in a particular theological symbolism. He explains: “It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are [4]. For, since there are four zones of the world I which we live, and four principles winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world, and the pillar and ground of the church is the Gospel…it is fitting that she should have four pillars…. (Against Heresies 3.11.7) “

The underlying reasoning as to WHY these gospels (and no others) should be included was Not based on whether they were “inspired” (which was somewhat of an arbitrary measure itself), but rather was most often based upon arbitrary theology and personal logic (or illogic).

It wasn’t until the middle of the 4th century until Athanasius, a bishop of the most dominant form of Christianity wrote a list of the current 27 books. Thus we are left during the 2nd and 3rd centuries without any generalized agreement as to theology and without an agreement as to a specific canon.

Just as these early groups of Christians disagreed with one another and this affected their preferred “canons”, The various versions of the New Testament emerged out of theological conflict. As one Christianity gained greater influence and membership than all the others, they decided for their members which books would be included in their canon. And, I think, that in the same manner as Marcion who determined his “canon” based on texts that agreed with his theology; just as Irenaeus determines 4 gospels are fitting based on his personal logic; that the developing roman church created both theology and matched a set of books to that theology and called it their “canon”. BUT, this didn’t happen until the 4th century.

Initially, there were difficulties in creating a standard with the Gospels and letters they already had. Paul had already stamped a qualified approval onto Old Testament texts as “able to make wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”, however New Testament texts had only limited distribution and were NOT universally accepted as inspired in the same sense as the Old Testament text. If prophets are not received “in [their] own country” then it seems equally true that their texts are not received “in [their] own time period”. It was a difficult for some of the early Christians to accept New Testament canonical texts as authoritative in the same way the Old Testament had been. Bishop Ignatius laments : “For I heard some people say, “If I do not find it in the archives [i.e. the Old Testament] I do not believe it in the gospel [i.e. New Testament Text].” And when I said to them, “It is written,” they answered me, “That is precisely the question.” But for me, the “archives” are Jesus Christ,...” (Ignatius to the Philadelphians 8:2)

POST TWO OF FOUR FOLLOWS
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST TWO OF FOUR

Looking back, there were so many sacred texts quoted in early Christian documents, it was also difficult to know which texts WERE sacred to them before any of the various Christian “canons” were arbitrarily decided upon. The Apostolic Fathers are a group of Christian texts that come from the period when an original apostle could have either still been alive or the writer could have known an apostle. These writers use both texts that later came to be in later New Testaments, and they quote texts that did not end up in the modern canon. The early Christians in their various writings simply quote texts they personally feel are authoritative for their purpose.

Such writings also demonstrate that the modern canonical texts are not the same as some of the original texts. This is not simply a matter of their “quotes” being different than modern text (since exactness of quotation was not required to the ancient writing styles) but, as in the case of Mark (which some think is a source document for much of the other gospels), Papias writing seems to indicate an original Mark existed which was different than our modern Mark.

For example, Papias (quoted by Eusebius) said “the Elder [John] used to say. Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered.; though he did not [record] in order that which was either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I said, [attached himself to] Peter, who used to frame his teaching to meet the [immediate] wants [of his hearers]; and not as making a connected narrative of the Lord’s discourses” (Euseb l.c.)

Since the current Mark is in as clear an order as the other Gospels, it seems that this Mark was not the same as current Mark.

The same issue arises with early manuscriptual differences. For example Catabriensis Bezae, one of the five oldest and most important New Testament Manuscripts we have (4-5th century) is so different than others from a similar period (i.e. Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc) in its details and text. For example, it’s text in ACTS of the Apostles is approx. 20% longer than other Manuscripts; leading so scholars to speculate that it represents a “second edition” of the New Testament material. Perhaps “First Mark” which Papia’s described” was deemed insufficient for the needs of the later church and thus our current version of Mark represents a “second edition” as well. Certainly there were also counterfeit Marcan texts (which the sad story of the licentious Carpocratians demonstrates). In the final analysis, the Gospels do not represent a complete “Life of Christ” nor full chronological biographies, but rather they are simple fragmentary “memoirs” of “some events” in the Life of Jesus.

The situation is more complicated than the existence of multiple versions of the text. Not only did influential individuals and organizations pick texts that agreed with their theology, but textual changes by copyists also tended to bring the texts in line with their idea of “orthodoxy”. Remember, this is an age BEFORE copyrights and “intellectual property laws”. Texts were not only freely used, but freely changed according to their usage.



3) THE “ACCUMULATION OF SACRED TEXTS” VERSUS “CANONIZATION OF” SACRED TEXTS

It is in this prior context that I wanted to make the important distinction that there was an accumulation of vast amounts of sacred texts and, as Papias reminds us regarding the New Testament, only a small portion of the records and deeds were recorded and saved. That our records only represent a tiny portion of real history is the clear in the final message of John to us : “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. (John 21:25)

We know there are other New Testament era prophets who wrote and prophesied, but whose histories we do not have. For example, the prophet Agabus described in NT Acts 11:27 : “And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, ... We have very little of the history of such relatively “unknown prophets”.

The same is true of Old Testament prophets. There are some books referred to in the Old Testament (which were used as source material) but which were not included in the later versions of the Old Testament. In fact, some of the Old Testament text cannot BE understood, without referring to extra biblical versions of those same histories which were left out of its texts.

For examples : The history of Moses first Marriage. Moses encourages Israel NOT to marry non-Israelites, yet his first marriage was to anEthiopian woman. This marriage seems like an “apparent” hypocrisy unless one knows this specific marital history (which our version of the Old Testament, in the main, leaves out). The story in Numbers 12 where Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. is so fragmented so as NOT to be contextually understandable.

One must turn to other sources such as Josephus who HAD access to the earlier Old Testament histories and relates the story of Moses marriage to Princess Tharbis (the Ethiopian woman) and provides the important context which relieves Moses of any hypocrisy.

There are entire BOOKS that have been left out of Old and New Testaments.
For examples : the covenant (Ex. 24:7), the wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14), Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41), Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29), Nathan the prophet (2 Chr. 9:29), Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chr. 12:15), Iddo the prophet (2 Chr. 13:22), Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34), the sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19), Enoch (Jude 1:14) (though an enoch IS included in the modern EASTERN Old Testament still), New Testaments epistles to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9), to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3), and from Laodicea (Col. 4:16). The HUGE changes occurring in Old Testament Samuel that are occasioned by the recovery of earlier and larger versions of Samuel which have been found in the Dead Sea Scroll Samuel is a profound example of how modern bibles will change significantly as we continue to discover much of the missing texts.

I believe that there have been more ancient Judao-Christian texts discovered within the last century and a half, then in all other centuries combined. This is not merely both amazing and exciting, but I believe that it will hold special meaning for restoration efforts in relation to early Judeo-Christian theology. I do not know much about specific decisions as to how some books ended up in the multiple versions of the Old Testament and why some were left out. I do not know why some verses were translated as they are, rather than in another manner. However, as I look at later important disputations over the canon, such as occurred among reformers who engaged in disputations over the New Testament canon and some of whom created their OWN Old and New Testaments, I imagine that the earlier processes of discussion and dispute and decisions regarding including and excluding texts may be much the same as disputations and translational changes the New Testament underwent as the reformers re-examined the text and the canon. It is speculation, but I will give some reasons why I think it is a good provisional model (until we have more and better data).


4) THE POPULAR DOCTRINE OF EACH COMMUNITY AND AGE AFFECTED (DETERMINED?) IT’S CANON

No only did (does) the most popular doctrine of each community determine its view of an authoritative canon, but the resulting canon it produces then comes to represent and support the most popular doctrines. Thus the canon becomes a “tool” to be used as a source of instruction and edification for specific doctrines believed by that particular community. (By community, I mean a group of believers)

In regards to the current western New Testament, the Anglican historian, B.F. Westcot, said It cannot be too often repeated, that the history of the formation of the whole Canon involves little less than the history of the building of the Catholic Church.

I think his historical point is, in the main, correct and a good provisional model for the processes which created the modern western canon (as opposed to the eastern Christian Canon which has 81 books). The important principle is that the nature of any textual canon represents in great measure, the nature of the individuals and the organization that most affected the creation of that specific canon. Had the Jerusalem Saints achieved domination over other Christian churches instead of the Roman Church, a resulting canon might have both included and excluded different books than we now have just as the modern eastern Ethiopic Old Testament includes more books than the western Old Testament.

DOCTRINE CREATE CANONS AND THE RESULTING CANON SUPPORTS DOCTRINE
I think Westcot was correct in the main in his theory that the books included into the western Canon, were settled by common usage AND that common usage was determined to a great extent by the western roman church which both encouraged some texts and banned other texts based on the texts agreement to IT’S theology.

For example, even into the 1600s, Galileo was punished and his writing banned based on the fact that Galileo's text disagreed with the catholic doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe and did NOT move. However, in the Protestant nations and among Protestant Scholars, Galileo’s texts were, comparatively, very well received and were more “authoritative”. In this same manner, whether a sacred or profane text was authorized and “included” into a group of “authoritative” literature, was, somewhat arbitrary and dependent upon popular belief which encouraged or discouraged specific texts.

We can see similar polarization and reactions to the Book of Enoch
. Enoch was extremely popular to the New Testament writers, who read Enoch and who quoted Enoch as authoritative scripture a great deal (the Great apochryphologist, James found 128 references from Enoch in the New Testament). However, the Enochial literature and it’s early Christian model of the Trinity (as three individuals) would have been discouraged by any dominant church attempting to advance a different model of the Christian trinity. Additionally, Enoch’s description of a physical heaven with physical angels who are able to exercise free will and choice (and who abuse their free will) would have caused additional dissonance as the later Christians distanced themselves from such early Christian doctrines. I think this is one of the reasons that some early Christian literature and doctrines which were extremely popular and very orthodox, became unpopular and labeled as “unorthodox” in later christianities.

POST THREE OF FOUR FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST THREE OF FOUR

t’s not just TEXTS containing opposing doctrines that can be excluded, but individuals who step away from the party line regarding a popular canon were excluded from religious influence as well. For example : In Geneva, Sebastian Castellio, an Erasmian in the court of the Lord, was denied ordination to the ministry on the ground among others that he rejected the inspiration of the Song of Songs. The ministers of Geneva (including Calvin) gave this account of the incident : "Castellio said that it was a lascivious and obscene poem in which Solomon described his indecent amours. [...]we told him also that he should not trust so to his own judgment, especially when he advanced nothing which had not been obvious to everyone before he was born...[...] When this did not weigh with him we considered what we should do. We were all agreed that it would be dangerous and set a bad example if he were admitted to the ministry on this condition. To begin with, good people would be not a little offended if they heard that we had ordained a minister who openly rejected and condemned a book accepted as Scripture by all the churches. Further the door would be open to adversaries and detractors who seek to defame the gospel and disrupt this church. Finally, we should be without any answer for the future to anyone who wanted to repudiate Ecclesiastes or Proverbs or any other book, unless we wanted to debate whether or no the book were worthy of the Holy Spirit (Cal. Op. XI, 674-6 (Corpus Reformatorum 39)



5) REFORMATION DISCUSSIONS : ARE THEY A PROVISIONAL MODEL FOR ANCIENT CANONICAL DISPUTATIONS?

Since we do not HAVE many clear records describing specific ancient discussions and disputations as the Old Testament “ur-texts” were written and came to be either included or excluded from an increasingly stabilizing group of popular Jewish texts, we cannot know exactly how the ancient Jews came to accept one text over another in the gradual production of what came to be the western Old Testament. We don’t have many extant records from the production period of New Testament texts that specifically record discussions and disputations regarding the specific popular Christian texts that ultimately became the western New Testament.

However, we DO have later discussions and disputations where influential protestant leaders discuss the canon. I believe that these discussions help us form an fairly accurate “provisional models” as to what ancient discussions and disputations were like; the very discussions and disputations and principals involved in forming the various ancient Judeo-Christian Canons. An analysis of these discussions may help us understand WHY some books came to be included in a canon and why others were excluded AND, perhaps serve to correct some of our erroneous assumptions regarding the genesis of sacred canons themselves. For example :


AUTHORSHIP DID NOT DETERMINE THE POPULAR CANON FOR REFORMERS
It was long known by Protestant reformers that Moses could not have written the account of his own death and Carlstadt pointed this out, yet again when the issue of false authorship came up as an issue. (Herman Barge, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, 2 vols (1905), 1, 193.) Luther admitted that this portion of Genesis must have been added by someone else, but felt that we should accept Moses as partial author of the text preceding his death. Luther, in his own right, did not believe Revelation was apostolic nor that Hebrews was Pauline. However, In Luther’s translations, he kept both of them in his Canon despite making significant changes in his translation of the text.

There was and is still a lot of confusion regarding the texts of the New Testament : For example, the early traditions fixed upon Clement of Rome as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (On Origen’s authority, ap. Euseb, H.E. vi.25). Some later traditions attribute it to Paul. Others disagree with them. No one can confirm WHO wrote it. Thus the text was involved in on-going controversy as to whether it should be included in the “canon” or not. We still do not know who it's author was. However, since all New Testament books are apocryphal or pseudographic to the extent that they could not prove the authorship of any of them other than the deep tradition gleaned from early writers, then the ability to PROVE authorship was NOT a criteria for inclusion into the biblical text.



6) THE VIEWS REGARDING SPECIFIC AUTHORITY OF BOOKS WERE DRIVEN BY DOCTRINAL PREFERENCES AND UPON THEIR VALUE AS DOCTRINAL SUPPORT

I believe that when one looks and the underlying motives and criteria, one finds that these influential players viewed texts as authoritative to the degree that the texts agreed best with their own religious notions and beliefs rather than a dependence upon an arbitrary catholic derived canonicity, or traditional inclusion.

For example : In their controversy over the freedom of the will, Erasmus argued with Luther by citing Sirach (from Old Testament apocrpha). He believes it authoritative and says: “I think no one should detract from the authority of this book Because Saint Jerome indicated that it should not belong to the Hebrew canon, since Christians received it into their canon, and I cannot see why the Hebrews excluded it when they included the Parables of Solomon[presumably Ecclesiastes rather than Proverbs] and the amatory Canticles . (Weimar edition (W), 18, 666, lines 18-22; Tishreden (TR), 1, no. 475. 208)


Luther, having his own scriptural dislikes said : “I so hate Ester and II Maccabees that I wish they did not exist. There is too much Judaism in them and not a little heathenism.”

However, Luther’s reasons for dislike of Maccabees was because it contains the scripture on which the Catholics based the doctrine of purgatory (Xii 40-6). Ester, however, was in the canon.

Luther loves Paul’s writings on Faith because Luther’s faith is so dependent upon them, however, the writings of James which is used so often to counter Luther’s doctrine, is NOT accepted to readily by Luther. The Epistle of James Luther characterizes as an
‘epistle of straw’. In 1522 Luther declares regarding the Book of Revelation that he : “...could not regard it as prophetic or apostolic or even as the work of the Holy Ghost because it was so replete with visions and images.” The worst was that in this book ‘Christ was neither taught nor known’. Luther would not impose his own opinion upon others, but for himself his spirit "could not find its way into this book” (Erlangen edition (EA), 63, 115, 169.)

Luther could find only pretend enough palliation towards the book of James so as not to “forbid it”. He says regarding James : “... His book is not to be forbidden, because it does contain some good sayings.” (EA, 63, 157) Still, his view on the minimal value and authority of James for doctrine is clear. It is also clear from such sayings that, for such influential individuals, (who affected both the canons and biblical texts of millions of others), THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS DETERMINED THEIR PERSONAL CANONS, that is, if the text agreed with their beliefs, it was viewed as authoritative. If the text did not agree with their views, it either was NOT viewed as authoritative, OR, it was views as LESS authoritative. It is a two edged sword that both uses some text and avoids other texts just as we see from the ways scriptures are used in debates on the forums nowadays.

An important criteria for Luther was whether a book, (in HIS PERSONAL ESTIMATION) “proclaimed Christ”. He proclaimed: “That which does not preach Christ is not apostolic though it be the work of Peter or Paul and conversely that which does teach Christ is apostolic even though it be written by Judas, Annas, Pilate, Herod.” (Luther in EA, 63, 156f)


Thus, again we see that the religious ideology of individuals affects the types of text they as sacred. If the Bible tells us anything, it tells us that it is always more difficult to change ones current dogma to match a living prophet than it is to “listen selectively” or to cull from a speaeh or text, that which does not match our personal theology. The problem with such an arbitrary criteria and the actions which follow it, is that it is dependent upon background and understanding and a host of purely personal characteristics. This is what I mean when I say that ANCIENT INCLUSIONS INTO THE CANON WERE DRIVEN BY DOCTRINAL PREFERENCES of influencial individuals and groups.

If issues such as personal and popular doctrine determined which texts the influential individuals choose as authorized scripture for CHRISTIANS, then can one assume that similar issues and arguments affected ancient influential Jews anciently in their attitudes and in their editing and translations of texts they selected to include in an arbitary canon anciently?

We sometimes hear that a Jewish council at Jamnia determined the Jewish canon, but this is not so. The council was convened to discuss which books “defiled the hands” in the view of the specific type of Jews *attending this meeting. (“defiling the hands” was is a euphemism for which books were so sacred as to require one to wash ones hands to be read, and other, less respected books did not require the washing of the hands). Their discussions and disputations concerned a level of respect that is being described and I imagine their disputations occurred in their meetings regarding their canon were similar in nature to the disputations among the reformers regarding the reformers’ canon. (*By “specific type of Jews” I mean this in the sense that such determinations, would have been dominated by the dominate type of Judaism controlling the Jamnian conference.)

If Jewish apostates (from original ancient Judaism) are the dominant religion, then apostate Judaism would dominant such discussions, would determine the popular canon and would affect the text and translation that went into that canon. One must remember that Jamnia came on the tail end of any number of such discussions comprised of any number of individuals and groups who would have both included and culled texts and who would have edited those texts according to some standard, and that standard would have been THEIR personal beliefs, and/or the beliefs of the religious community of which they were a part.

It is partly because this principle the translator Jim Sanders comments “Whenever one says canon, one has to be clear which community one is talking about. It one says canon, one has to say which canon. There are many canons. The Ethiopian Orthodox canon has 81 books in it.....Professor VanderKam said this morning that we don’t really know the limits of what would have been thought of an authoritative traditional literature at Qumran. . (Lecture, Oct 27, 1990 BAR)

POST FOUR OF FOUR FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST FOUR OF FOUR

7) TEXTUAL CHANGES IN THE CANON WERE DRIVEN BY PERSONAL THEOLOGY

Not only did personal preference affect what BOOKS were held to be authoritative by individuals, but personal preference affected the inclusion of biblical text (or exclusion of sacred text) in the various translation of these influential individuals and groups.

For examples : In HIS translation of the New Testament, Erasmus shocked contemporaries by omitting the famous proof text for the trinity in I John v.7 where the authentic text reads :
‘There are three that witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are at one.’ The fictitious modification had amplified the original thusly : ‘There are three that witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus, and there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit’.

This proof text had long been recognized as spurious and counterfeit and did not belong in any authentic New Testament. Since the text was not to be found in any authentic early Greek manuscript, Erasmus properly omitted this text.

However, the masses were used to reading that specific text and the Church Hierarchy were used to using that specific text to support their doctrine. BOTH groups demanded that Erasmus replace the text back into the subsequent bible. This he refused to do. However, the ultimate pressure of the outcry was such that he gave in to the demands to reinsert it (which he did in his third edition in 1519) His critics even went so far as to have a counterfeit Greek manuscript created to show the text existed in the Greek… The Strong-willed Luther was able to withstand such pressures and did NOT insert the spurious text into his translation. However, others did, including the compilers of the King James Version.

This tendency to believe as authoritative, text which supports our views may underlie the initial 1897 declaration by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, with the endorsement of Pope Leo XIII that this passage WAS authentic (as it agreed with their doctrine). It took another 40 years for this decision to be reversed. (I do not think the text is claimed by the roman church to be authentic since this time though I do not know this.)

The tendencies in ALL men (including Luther) and ALL ecclesiastical organizations is that we tend to view that which agrees with our prior biases to have authority and to be useful for edification and to change texts that are not in agreement by either ink or by interpretation to agree with our bias. If this principle is true of the reformers and true of organizations, and all men, then this tendency to change text to agree with prior belief affected the Jewish compilers and the Jewish editors of the Old Testament as well.


8) TEXTUAL CHANGES IN CANON WERE USED TO SUPPORT THE BELIEFS OF THE TRANSLATORS

Not only were texts included into a canon based upon doctrinal preferences but Textual changes were made to support the belief of the translators who create the bibles. In fact, personal belief CANNOT HELP BUT CHANGE MEANINGS of what we read. If I believe in a certain doctrine, I cannot help but read my bias INTO the text. All of us do this since we ALL HAVE BIAS. This is true of the reformers and it is true of the reformers who were translators.

The protestant reformers also used translation to bolster their personal theologies. Erasmus frustrated his contemporaries when he translated LOGOS in John’s prolog not by the prior word “VERBUM” but instead by the word “SERMO”. Both refer to verbal expression, but VERBUM, by usage has overtones of consubstantiality with the Father, and SERMO allows a possible lower view of Christ’s person.

Even more insulting was his rendering of METANOEITE ( Matt. Iv. 17). The Cambridge history of the Bible relates that “The Catholic Vulgate had POENITENTIAM AGITE, which might be taken to mean DO PENANCE. Erasmus rendered it RESIPISCITE which means BE PENITENT. Luther, used THIS translation to bolster his critique of the penitential system of the Catholic Church.”


If Erasmus’ changes to text angered contemporaries, then Luther’s changes enraged them. His famous addition to the text is in Romans 3:28 where he adds the word “allein” to the text so as to change Pauls speech from “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. “
to being justified “allein durch den Glauben” (i.e. ALONE through faith / through faith ALONE). It the addition of a single word raised a furor, then Luthers removal of one of the Ten Commandments incensed his critics.

The Cambridge History of the Bible explains : “Luther omitted from the Ten Commandments the one against graven images partly on the ground that it was meant only for the jews. In consequence Luther’s list of the commandments ran in part as follows : (1) thou shalt have no other gods before me. (2) thou shalt no take the name of the Lord in vain. (3) remember the sabbath day, etc. But calvin did not admit Luther’s distinction and his list read : (Thou shalt have no other Gods. (2) thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. (3) thou shal not take the name... This is why in Germany the fourth commandment is the one which enjoins obedience to parents, but in the reformed lands, the fourth commandment refers to the sabbath. Luther compensated for his omission of the second on images by making two commandments out of the tenth. For him the ninth forbade coveting the neighbor’s house, and the tenth, coveting his wife, etc. (Walter Dress, ‘Die Zehn Gebote in Luthers theologischen Denkin’ (Wissenshaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt

Luther believed in a principle he called “JUDISCHES SACHENSPIEGEL”. He meant that it was a “specific case rule” (my translation) for specific people at specific times. Thus, he felt that the Pentateuch and even the Ten Commandments contained portions which were specifically directed to the Jews and only to the Jews. Obviously, his personal beliefs affected what he included and what he excluded from his first translation (what was specifically authoritative and what was not specifically authoritative IN HIS PERSONAL VIEW).

As I’ve demonstrated, it is not merely textual inclusions and exclusions that are driven by personal theology, but the text itself. Luther’s theology affected his translation, which in turn, confirmed his conviction. The word LIFE in the Old Testament was translated by him as ETERNAL LIFE in his translation. MERCY became GRACE, and THE DELIVERER OF ISRAEL was translated as SAVIOUR.

This principle has ALWAYS been true. Christians and Jews and most individuals who have influence over texts have always manipulated these texts, whether knowingly or unknowingly, to support their own doctrinal biases.

Luther’s motivation to exclude the second commandment and translate words to support his theological beliefs may be similar to the motivation for the Jewish tiqqune sopherim (errors of the scribes). The scribes changed what was there because it did not suit their prior biases. It happened with the Jews; with the Samaritans; and with the Christians, and (I suspect it happened with Muslim texts but do not have sufficient data to support this belief)

Erhman reminds us of an important principle regarding editing of all manuscripts, both Old Testament AND New Testament. Some changes are made on the "lowest level" by scribes who are simply trying to correct the manuscript to agree with their own beliefs (or often to agree with another manuscript they are working with or have worked with previously).

For example My Avatar is a picture of a text in the first Chapter of the Book of Hebrews in one of the oldest and best surviving manuscripts of the New Testament, codex Vaticanus (one of the five most important New Testament Manuscripts we have from before the 6th century). A note appears in the margins between the 1st and 2nd columns. One corrector to the text erased a word in verse 3 and substituted another word in it’s place; however, a second corrector came along, erased the first correction, and then reinserted the original word, and wrote a note in the margin, castigate the first corrector. The note reads, “Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don’t change it!”. In such cases, it's often impossible to tell who was correct; the corrector, the corrector of the corrector, or a third or more correctors who correct them, each in accordance with their differing data and biases.

I've got to stop here or I cannot get any other work done today.

I hope your journeys are all wonderful and insightful


Clear
τωδρφυτωω
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Oh, now you say 'many'. Before it was 'mainstream christianity'. Doesn't matter. Christianity believes the Bible is the written Word of God. God is the Author. Human writers were used, but they wrote what God gave them to write. Inspiration
Mainstream Xy consists of many, does it not? Shall we all limit our vocabularies to the kindergarten reading levels of those who complain?
See #238. I said that the word of God is a matter of belief.
If human writers were in the equation, then they’re the authors. Writing under inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not imply that they were taking dictation.
Who is 'we'? You don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. Post #(237)
Not in the way you mean it, I don’t. In the conventional meaning, then, yes, I do.

You're the one that started the 'provocation'.
So now debate of facts is “provocation.”

You want to cast doubt on my faith, yet you don't know what you are talking about
I never cast doubt on your faith. I said that you were conflating belief with fact.

You attack the Christian Bible
I defend the Bible that some would try to twist with heresy.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No. Authenticity is based on the inspiration of God. "The final product of God's causality and the prophetic agency is scriptural authority, that is, a divinely authoritative book
Authenticity and authority are separate issues. The source you quoted talks about authority, not authenticity.

It supports the Bible as the inspired and written Word of God
Nonetheless, it separates the work of exegesis from the work of theology. Which is proper. Which was my point. Exegesis determines evidence of authenticity. Theology assigns authority.

Are you saying now that Christianity does rely on the inspiration of God in recognizing the Canon?
No. It Partly relies on what it believes is inspired in setting the canon. It relies on apostolic authority in recognizing the canon. Except for you, apparently.

How is sola Scriptura heretical?
Because sola scriptura is a product of the Reformation, 1500 years after the formation of Xy. The church got along quite well for 1500 years basing doctrine on both scripture and the apostolic tradition. When we take away tradition, we take away the very source that gave us a canon to begin with.

Based on who?
Apostolic authority.

Who are you to call one a heretic in the Christian faith?
I’m a member of the clergy. I carry ecclesial authority. And BTW, I didn’t “call you a ‘heretic.’” I said that your views were heretical, being based in a heresy (sola scriptura).

My views are the orthodox mainstream Christianity as I have showed you
No. They’re not. And you have failed to show such.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Your faith is not the Christian faith as I have demonstrated to you
You’ve demonstrated nothing of the sort.

Who is 'we'? You're not Christian
My standing in my denomination prove otherwise.

What I have declared concerning God and Christ and the Canonization of the Bible is mainstream Christianity. That is a fact
It’s not mainstream in the least, and it’s not a fact.

Yup. The Bible claims to be the Word of God and written by God
It doesn’t claim to have been written by God.

You crossed the boundary when you come attacking the Christian faith, attacking the Canon of the Bible, calling mainstream Christianity heresy, and presenting yourself as mainstream. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour. All the while you want to label yourself some sort of 'christian'.
This is unhinged. Perhaps the debate is getting to be too much for you to maintain objectivity?

How can you clarify the Christian faith yet deny Jesus Christ?
I never said that I did.

My faith is the Biblical faith.
There is no such thing.

It is the faith needed to be a Christian
Apostolic faith is what is needed.

That is a fact. I do get to claim it.
It’s not, and you don’t.

If my faith is not up for discussion, then why do you call me a heretic
I never called you a heretic.

So your faith, which is not Christian, is too important to talk about, yet the Christian faith you attack
Full sentences are best for clarity. And my faith is Christian. It says so right there by my avatar.

Then you get all high and mighty about your faith
Nope. Not “high and mighty,” just protective of it from the likes of you who would attack it, as you’ve done in your posts. Those occurrences have been reported.

Yes you invited me to do so when you called me heretical for believing the Christian faith
I never called you heretical. I said that your beliefs were based in a heresy. That’s not the same thing.

You're the one claiming to be some sort of Christian. Do you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour
You have no authority to examine my faith. I shan’t allow you to do so. Deal with it.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
See, yet you say I am a heretic. It does matter what you believe. That is the basis for the Christian faith. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour? You who are not Christian, and deny Jesus Christ, want to deny the Bible as the Word of God as it claims. That's a fact.

If you want to believe the Bible is just a book written by human beings, that's fine. Believe what you want. But don't come peddling your false statements that Christianity believes that. That is the very basis of Christianity. The Bible is the Word of God and we believe what it says.

As I said, you want to 'conflate' Christianity with your faith, as you show in your label (christian/shamanic). To do so you must remove the Bible as the Word of God. You must remove it as the basis for the Christian faith. Because the Bible is against any such merger.

Good-Ole-Rebel

"Believe whar you want" is an improvement
over inquisition days. They'd have done beastly
things to you! Or me. I'd be lucky to merely
burned alive.

Of course, "believe as you choose" is an
interesting concept.

Just decide what to believe?

Some of us find that impossible, or
at best willful self deception.

Thinking people believe what is
reasonable, based on solid criteria.

Religious people believe by "faith"
based on what they feel like believing.

You think that is somehow better?
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Mainstream Xy consists of many, does it not? Shall we all limit our vocabularies to the kindergarten reading levels of those who complain?
See #238. I said that the word of God is a matter of belief.
If human writers were in the equation, then they’re the authors. Writing under inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not imply that they were taking dictation.

Not in the way you mean it, I don’t. In the conventional meaning, then, yes, I do.


So now debate of facts is “provocation.”


I never cast doubt on your faith. I said that you were conflating belief with fact.


I defend the Bible that some would try to twist with heresy.

No, the Author is God. I didn't say dictation. You did. Under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, the words written are the Word of God. The Bible is the written Word of God.

As I said, you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God.

You're the one that started whining about provocation. You tell me.

You said I was a heretic toward the Christian faith. If that is not casting doubt upon my faith, what is? Belief and faith is what Christianity is all about. You do not represent Christianity.

The canon you defend is not the Christian Bible. You deny Jesus Christ, and so are not Christian. Yet you want to declare what canon the Christian should recognize. How stupid.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
"Believe whar you want" is an improvement
over inquisition days. They'd have done beastly
things to you! Or me. I'd be lucky to merely
burned alive.

Of course, "believe as you choose" is an
interesting concept.

Just decide what to believe?

Some of us find that impossible, or
at best willful self deception.

Thinking people believe what is
reasonable, based on solid criteria.

Religious people believe by "faith"
based on what they feel like believing.

You think that is somehow better?
It is rather amazing how the God one believes in tends to agree with the believer so often. If that God is a racist, for some strange reason so is the believer. If the God is a homophobe again for some odd reason so is the believer. It is almost as if they are making up their own God most of the time. But that can't be, can it?
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Authenticity and authority are separate issues. The source you quoted talks about authority, not authenticity.


Nonetheless, it separates the work of exegesis from the work of theology. Which is proper. Which was my point. Exegesis determines evidence of authenticity. Theology assigns authority.


No. It Partly relies on what it believes is inspired in setting the canon. It relies on apostolic authority in recognizing the canon. Except for you, apparently.


Because sola scriptura is a product of the Reformation, 1500 years after the formation of Xy. The church got along quite well for 1500 years basing doctrine on both scripture and the apostolic tradition. When we take away tradition, we take away the very source that gave us a canon to begin with.


Apostolic authority.


I’m a member of the clergy. I carry ecclesial authority. And BTW, I didn’t “call you a ‘heretic.’” I said that your views were heretical, being based in a heresy (sola scriptura).


No. They’re not. And you have failed to show such.

If a writing does not carry with it the authority of God, then it is not inspired of God. It is not authentic as the Word of God. It may be 'authentic' as a real historical writing. But that doesn't make it the Word of God.

The Interpreters Bible supports the Bible as the inspired Word of God. The article you manipulated showed that Christainity does hold to the Bible as the Word of God. And that refutes the lie you are trying to peddle....that your faith is the true mainstream of Christianity. And that is not true.

What Christianity believes and holds to is the Christian faith, based upon the Bible. You don't like it but that doesn't mean you can change it. We believe the Bible is the written Word of God. In other words, I am in line with the Christian faith. You are not. I am not the heretic. You are.

Again, what is heretical about Sola Scriptura? What does Sola Scriptura have to do with the forming of the Canon? The forming of the Canon is based upon the inspiration of God found in the writings.

Apostolic authority? You just said authority and authentic were not the same. Now you want to talk about 'authority' as if it does decide. So, again, you said Sola Scriptura is heretical. Based on who? How does apostolic authority make Sola Scripture heretical?

Oh, you're clergy. I'm impressed. Actually...not. What are you clergy of? That is the question. It certainly isn't the Christian faith. And yes, when you accuse one of heresy, that is calling them a heretic. You deny Jesus Christ yet call me a heretic who believes in Jesus Christ and the Bible as the Word of God.

I have showed you that my faith is Christian and based upon the Bible. I didn't need to manipulate quotes in order to do it as you need to.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
You’ve demonstrated nothing of the sort.


My standing in my denomination prove otherwise.

It’s not mainstream in the least, and it’s not a fact.


It doesn’t claim to have been written by God.


This is unhinged. Perhaps the debate is getting to be too much for you to maintain objectivity?


I never said that I did.


There is no such thing.


Apostolic faith is what is needed.


It’s not, and you don’t.


I never called you a heretic.


Full sentences are best for clarity. And my faith is Christian. It says so right there by my avatar.


Nope. Not “high and mighty,” just protective of it from the likes of you who would attack it, as you’ve done in your posts. Those occurrences have been reported.


I never called you heretical. I said that your beliefs were based in a heresy. That’s not the same thing.


You have no authority to examine my faith. I shan’t allow you to do so. Deal with it.

You deny Jesus Christ as the Son of God and only Savour. Thus I have demonstrated your faith is not Christian. You deny the Bible as the written Word of God, thus I have demonstrated your faith is not Christian.

Lots of 'clegyman' or 'church goers' are not Christian. Hell will be full of them. And what is your denomination that makes you ashamed of confessing Christ openly?

Yes, I have showed you what Christianity believes. You simply say no it doesn't. Or, you try and manipulate quotes to give some validity to what you say. You have been shown to be....wrong. You have nothing to say but 'no it doesn't'. You believe if you tell the lie long enough people will believe it. But, you are wrong there also.

Yes, the Bible claims to be written by God. (1 Thess. 2:13) "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

No, you are unhinged. You accuse me of crossing a boundary that you crossed first in attacking the Christian faith and the Bible. Then when I respond you start whining about me crossing a boundary. Again, you can clear it all up by declaring your faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and only Saviour. If you are Christian, why wouldn't you want to?

There is such thing as the Biblical faith. If you were Christian, you would know it. But you don't. Speaks volumes.

Describe 'apostolic faith'.

Yes it is.

Yes, your avatar says Christian/shamanic. Contradiction in terms. If you were Christian you would confess Jesus Christ as the Son of God and only Saviour. Yours is the heresy. And yes you did call me a heretic.

Oh so you have reported me. You like to attack the Christian and seek to cast doubt upon their faith, but when yours is threatened, you run to the mods. Typical. Just to let you know, I haven't reported you. Why? You are not threat to me or Christianity.

Who gave you authority to examine my faith. Who gave you authority to call me and my faith heresy. I can deal with it. Apparently you can't. You're the one that went running to the mods. Not me.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Top