But someone has to decide what is and isn't divinely inspired.
-
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!
Intertestamental Period
- Thread starter pearl
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Simply put, without the scriptures being canonized you would no longer have a Bible to read as they would most likely be lost to history. It was the Church that copied them, translated them, and then passed them down to all future generations. Without the Church doing that, literally everything would be up for grabs, thus no "bible" would exist. It really is that simple.
False.
The inspired Word of God is a product of His will, not of men.
Humanity today has the Scriptures because God himself saw to it that it was so, and they did not grope while searching for Him and the truth. In it He reports what He did, what He is doing and what He will do for humanity and the planet He created.
I understand that any non-believer can think of anything else that comes to mind. What would they know?
So you think the Bible just fell from the sky, fully formed?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I didn't say otherwise, so your response is "false", as the topic that was under discussion was and is the selection of the canon, not the inspiration of the books themselves.
A "non-believer" in what? Is it that anyone that doesn't fully agree with you on your opinions is a "non-believer"?
CANON is a word that means "measuring rule" and is applied to the set of divinely inspired writings because they contain everything that is "worthy of being used as a straightedge in measuring faith, doctrine, and conduct" being "a measuring rule or standard for determining right faith and doctrine and what is acceptable conduct with God" (I used expressions from our official documentation).
In other words: the CANON is the "virtual" set of writings that are considered inspired by God and that constitute the complete manual of education for the servants of the God of Abraham and Jesus. I say "virtual" because it can be considered as a set that is already well determined since the writings that comprise it have DIVINE AUTHORSHIP. Since God himself is responsible for the creation of these books, no one can decide that any of them is not a part or that another one that is not a part can become a part.
As I said before, what remains is to discover which those writings are. That work has been done before: modern Jews did not decide which books are part of the canon of the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures, but ancient authorities who still had the spirit of God to recognize them did. Likewise, it is not the Catholic Church of the fourth century that decides which book is canonical, but the Christians who preceded it and who had already recognized which ones had been written by authorized persons and approved by the anointing of the holy spirit in them.
Unbelievers do not recognize God's involvement through the holy spirit in shaping the Scriptures, so they will try to see the matter from a purely human point of view, and when they consider religious leaders meeting to "decide" those matters they are not even remotely going to consider whether those people have the necessary aptitude or authority for it from God's point of view.
In other words: the CANON is the "virtual" set of writings that are considered inspired by God and that constitute the complete manual of education for the servants of the God of Abraham and Jesus. I say "virtual" because it can be considered as a set that is already well determined since the writings that comprise it have DIVINE AUTHORSHIP. Since God himself is responsible for the creation of these books, no one can decide that any of them is not a part or that another one that is not a part can become a part.
As I said before, what remains is to discover which those writings are. That work has been done before: modern Jews did not decide which books are part of the canon of the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures, but ancient authorities who still had the spirit of God to recognize them did. Likewise, it is not the Catholic Church of the fourth century that decides which book is canonical, but the Christians who preceded it and who had already recognized which ones had been written by authorized persons and approved by the anointing of the holy spirit in them.
Unbelievers do not recognize God's involvement through the holy spirit in shaping the Scriptures, so they will try to see the matter from a purely human point of view, and when they consider religious leaders meeting to "decide" those matters they are not even remotely going to consider whether those people have the necessary aptitude or authority for it from God's point of view.
And you know which books they had? They had what you consider Apocrypha.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But we know with certainty that the Church did debate and decide on the canon, so how can you possibly deny this?
I have never denied the above, but what you seem to be sorely missing is that God also works through people, and I believe He likely worked through the Church to help guide them in making their decisions.
Why did you write "unbelievers", btw? Who was that aimed at? Is it just because I'm not a JW that takes directions from the GB that I am therefore an "unbeliever"?
I don't know what are you talking about.
Recognition of God-inspired books occurred at the time they were written and began to circulate. For example, in Daniel's time the book of Jeremiah was already known to be inspired (Dan. 9:2), and Peter knew that Paul's letters were (2 Pet. 3:15,16).
The earliest Christian communities had books of what you call the Apocrypha. We know this because Jude quotes 1 Enoch,
Jude 14-15 It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
1 Enoch 1:91 Behold, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all flesh for all the wicked deeds that they have done, and the proud and hard words that wicked sinners spoke against him.
This is not the only example. Sirach seems to be used a lot and the Tanakh refers to The Book of Jasher, which we don't have now.
Wisdom of Syrach in Matthew's Gospel — Conciliar Post
As I keep saying, there was no fixed canon of Jewish scriptures in the 1st century ce. There were books considered authoritative, which are included in the Christian canon, but there were also other books. I'm not sure why you are disputing this as no source will tell you otherwise. I linked you to Jewish sources that confirm what I'm saying.
How the various works of Ketuvim came to be canonized together is not known. Fragments of every book except for Esther are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date as early as the second century BCE. Not until the first century CE are there sources that hint at a recognized Jewish canon in three parts.
The Talmud records the rabbis’ disagreements over whether to include Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, and suggests that Esther too was not unanimously approved.
Ketuvim (Writings) | My Jewish Learning
Jude didn't mention he was quoting from that book.
He didn't say where did he get that reference from, so saying that Jude was quoting from that book has no solid proof. Everyone knows for certain that the book known today by that name was written in Greek in the intertestamental period by a Jew who pretended to be Enoch himself.
On the other hand, we have many books that are mentioned by title in the Hebrew Scriptures and were not considered inspired, for example the book of Jashar mentioned in Josh. 10:12,13. Quoting from some other book or document does not mean that book is inspired.
Here there is an interesting article about other books mentioned in the Bible https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000789 Go to the subtitle Other Books Referred To in the Bible.
He didn't say where did he get that reference from, so saying that Jude was quoting from that book has no solid proof. Everyone knows for certain that the book known today by that name was written in Greek in the intertestamental period by a Jew who pretended to be Enoch himself.
On the other hand, we have many books that are mentioned by title in the Hebrew Scriptures and were not considered inspired, for example the book of Jashar mentioned in Josh. 10:12,13. Quoting from some other book or document does not mean that book is inspired.
Here there is an interesting article about other books mentioned in the Bible https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000789 Go to the subtitle Other Books Referred To in the Bible.
Jude says he is quoting a prophecy of Enoch from a book that was very well known.
No it doesn't make it canon but this is the point. There is a difference between a fixed and a non-fixed canon. In the early centuries CE the canon was not-fixed; it was subject to change and debate. One or two Orthodox Churches do consider 1 Enoch scripture; other Orthodox Churches don't. That's a flexible canon and it was the same within 2nd Temple Judaism and early Christianity. A book can be considered inspired and not considered canon. Canon means to be read at the liturgy. Those books that were considered inspired but not read during the liturgy were called 'apocrypha' - hidden - because they were hidden from the liturgy so to speak, but this didn't make them any less canonical. Revelation is in this category in many Orthodox Churches. Prior to Vatican II, the RCC didn't read from Esther at all, but this didn't make it non-inspired.
If today we know that those supposedly Enochian books were not written by Enoch (that is why they are classified as pseudo-epigraphic) and much less in the time of Enoch, the pre-Flood character that the Bible does speak of... wouldn't Jude, a man who had the holy spirit of God, know?
Evidently if he knew he didn't care. He quoted the passage, which I put side by side for you to see that he did. And as I said, 1 Enoch is considered inspired by some African Orthodox Churches - they didn't get it from nowhere, as we can see Jude was making use of it, as Peter likely did.
Also, we know that many of Paul's letters were not written by Paul; nor was 2 Peter apparently written by Peter. The Gospel according to John almost certainly was not written by any Apostle, either.
Obviously you are convinced that Judas quoted from some pseudo-epigraphic book, but you have no valid reasons for that. Therefore, others do not agree with that idea.
Have you considered the alternative that he may have quoted from some older writing that was known by the Jewish tradition at that time?
Have you considered the alternative that he may have quoted from some older writing that was known by the Jewish tradition at that time?
Paul knew very well that some false Christians were writing letters claiming to be inspired by God, and some of them may have been signed with his own name as if he himself had been the author. Obviously, the Christians were in danger of these false Christians affecting their beliefs and the way they behaved as genuine Christians.
2 Thes. 2:1However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.
The same thing happens today, because the invisible enemies of the truth use the same old methods, especially when they worked in the past. We have many today, including religious leaders, who have bowed to pressure from so-called modern scholars who deny the truth of the biblical writings, their historicity, and even their authorship.
2 Thes. 2:1However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.
The same thing happens today, because the invisible enemies of the truth use the same old methods, especially when they worked in the past. We have many today, including religious leaders, who have bowed to pressure from so-called modern scholars who deny the truth of the biblical writings, their historicity, and even their authorship.
Uh, yes; 1 Enoch.
I put the quotes for you side by side.
Why are you denying this?
Jude 14-15 It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
1 Enoch 1:91 Behold, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all flesh for all the wicked deeds that they have done, and the proud and hard words that wicked sinners spoke against him.
Several letters bearing Paul’s name are disputed among scholars, namely:
- Ephesians
- Colossians
- 2 Thessalonians
- 1 Timothy
- 2 Timothy
- Titus
No one knows who wrote either 1 Peter or 2 Peter, but the one thing almost every New Testament scholar agrees on is this: It probably wasn’t the Apostle Peter.
Sorry Christians: Our Bible Contains Fake Letters From Paul (And Peter) | Keith Giles (patheos.com)
No-one knows who wrote Hebrews. It's always been anonymous.
Maybe you can tell me who wrote Hebrews then..?