[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles

Title: How Did the Early Church Recognize the Canonicity of a Book?
Source: Christian Apologetics
URL Source: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.o ... nize-the-canonicity-of-a-book/
Published: Feb 12, 2015
Author: Bill Pratt
Post Date: 2015-02-12 17:48:40 by redleghunter
Keywords: None
Views: 15555
Comments: 56

There is a misconception, popularized by books like The Da Vinci Code, that the way the books of the Bible were chosen consisted of politically infused church councils voting on the books they liked, and voting out the books they didn’t like. However, a careful reading of church history totally disproves this misconception.

As noted in a previous post, the church understood its role as recognizing what books God, himself, had inspired. This job of recognition was something the early church took very seriously, but how did they go about doing it? What were the criteria they used?

We know that propheticity was a necessary condition for canonicity, but sometimes church fathers who were trying to assess propheticity of a book were removed by decades, or even centuries, from the original composition of the books. So what did they do?

Norman Geisler and William Nix, in their book A General Introduction to the Bible, describe the criteria that were actually employed by the early church in this process.

1.Was the book written by a prophet of God? This was the most fundamental criteria. Once this was established, the book’s inspiration was recognized.

2.Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? If there were doubts about the author’s being a true prophet of God, miracles served as divine confirmation.

3.Did the message tell the truth about God? According to Geisler and Nix, “Any teaching about God contrary to what His people already knew to be true was to be rejected. Furthermore, any predictions made about the world which failed to come true indicated that a prophet’s words should be rejected.”

4.Does it come with the power of God? Geisler and Nix explain, “Another test for canonicity was the edifying effect of a book. Does it have the power of God? The Fathers believed the Word of God is “living and active” (Heb. 4:12), and consequently ought to have a transforming force for edification (2 Tim. 3:17) and evangelization (1 Peter 1:23).”

5.Was it accepted by the people of God? Geisler and Nix point out that “the initial acceptance of a book by the people to whom it was addressed is crucial. Paul said of the Thessalonians, “We also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God’s message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). For whatever subsequent debate there may have been about a book’s place in the canon, the people in the best position to know its prophetic credentials were those who knew the prophet who wrote it. Hence, despite all later debate about the canonicity of some books, the definitive evidence is that which attests to its original acceptance by the contemporary believers.”

Geisler and Nix summarize:

The most important distinction to be made at this point is between the determination and the discovery of canonicity. God is solely responsible for the first, and man is responsible merely for the last. That a book is canonical is due to divine inspiration. How that is known to be true is the process of human recognition. How men discovered what God had determined was by looking for the “earmarks of inspiration.”

It was asked whether the book (1) was written by a man of God, (2) who was confirmed by an act of God, (3) told the truth about God, man, and so on, (4) came with the power of God, and (5) was accepted by the people of God. If a book clearly had the first earmark, the remainder were often assumed. Of course the contemporaries of the prophet (apostle) knew his credentials and accepted his book immediately. But later church Fathers sorted out the profusion of religious literature, discovered, and gave official recognition to the books that, by virtue of their divine inspiration, had been determined by God as canonical and originally recognized by the contemporary believing community to which they were presented.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-15) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#16. To: redleghunter (#14)

Maybe the booze talk needs to walk on over to another thread.

It's more relevant to human life that talking about some old geezer that lived 3,000 years ago.

rlk  posted on  2015-02-13   1:25:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: rlk (#4)

If it supported their desired beliefs and they liked it, it was declared inspiration by the holy spirit.

I utilize the same technique for evaluating a good Bourbon.

You might know your Bourbon well, I do not deny it.

As well as these guys knew their books and spirit.

I do not mind to learn from you about Bourbon.

A Pole  posted on  2015-02-13   2:12:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Stoner (#12)

There are a lot of good ones, Knob Creek, Blantons, Buffalo Trace, Wild Turkey, Bakers, Bookers, etc, etc. And all of the newer Single batches, etc. They are all good, but for the money, Ancient Age 90 is excellent. IMHO.

Try it and let me know how you you like it. Enjoy

We are establishing the canon of Good Bourbon!

A Pole  posted on  2015-02-13   2:17:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: redleghunter (#13)

The notion of an infallible magesterium determining what belongs to God is quite arrogant.

NOBODY is infallible. Not any pope, patriarch, bishops or even a Church council.

The Truth belongs to God, and we can only search for it and embrace it with humility when we find it.

A Pole  posted on  2015-02-13   2:23:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: A Pole, RLK (#18)

" We are establishing the canon of Good Bourbon! "

LOL !

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stoner  posted on  2015-02-13   7:30:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: redleghunter (#0)

Looks like Demon Rum has reared its ugly head.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-02-13   8:36:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A Pole (#18) (Edited)

We are establishing the canon of Good Bourbon!

I've heard Ukrainians can make Vodka out of furniture.

I wonder if they've ever tried making it out of the Orthodox KGB's pews or pulpits?

"There is no god but the Tzar!"

VxH  posted on  2015-02-13   8:55:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: A Pole (#19)

NOBODY is infallible. Not any pope, patriarch, bishops or even a Church council.

The Truth belongs to God, and we can only search for it and embrace it with humility when we find it.

Indeed. Wow, we agree:)

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-13   10:15:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: redleghunter (#23)

NOBODY is infallible. Not any pope, patriarch, bishops or even a Church council.

The Truth belongs to God, and we can only search for it and embrace it with humility when we find it.

Indeed. Wow, we agree:)

For the Orthodox infallibility resides in the Church as a whole - when bishops, clergy and laymen of today and of the past are in consensus.

Saint Vincent from Lerins (V century Gaul) said: "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus". --- true and universal is what has been believed "everywhere, always, and by all"

A Pole  posted on  2015-02-13   10:53:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: redleghunter, rlk (#14)

Maybe the booze talk needs to walk on over to another thread.

Thank you in advance.

Hey Robert -- was splashing this thread with the booze comment really necessary?

Liberator  posted on  2015-02-13   13:08:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: TooConservative (#21)

Looks like Demon Rum has reared its ugly head.

I think the appropriate Chick tract is in order. More later.

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-13   13:37:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: TooConservative (#21)

This is it:

Just one more

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-13   13:43:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: A Pole (#24)

Saint Vincent from Lerins (V century Gaul) said: "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus". --- true and universal is what has been believed "everywhere, always, and by all"

I believe the above is captured in the piece I posted:

It was asked whether the book (1) was written by a man of God, (2) who was confirmed by an act of God, (3) told the truth about God, man, and so on, (4) came with the power of God, and (5) was accepted by the people of God. If a book clearly had the first earmark, the remainder were often assumed. Of course the contemporaries of the prophet (apostle) knew his credentials and accepted his book immediately. But later church Fathers sorted out the profusion of religious literature, discovered, and gave official recognition to the books that, by virtue of their divine inspiration, had been determined by God as canonical and originally recognized by the contemporary believing community to which they were presented.

"For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-13   13:53:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Stoner (#12)

I will let you know, Stoner.

By the way, I drink all liquor straight. No ice, thanks. That's it, keep going. Little more. That'll do for now.

Biff Tannen  posted on  2015-02-13   21:13:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Pridie.Nones (#10)

Recently the Bible has come under attack by liberal scholars who claim that the New Testament canon was determined by the winners of a supposed struggle for dominance in the early centuries of Christianity. As the following evidence reveals, however, the canon is not arbitrary or authoritarian, but divinely authoritative.

That is a silly perspective.

I've studied the subject for 43 years. YES!

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-02-13   23:53:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: redleghunter (#0)

An illuminating discussion would be headed by "It's canonical...SO WHAT?"

For some traditions,canon is everything because the Book is the Alpha authority. For others, it is. Interesting but not ultimately of central importance.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-14   10:07:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Vicomte13 (#31)

Indeed. Or even better...it wasn't really hard for those guided by the Holy Spirit then, why now?

"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-14   18:03:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: redleghunter (#32)

Indeed. Or even better...it wasn't really hard for those guided by the Holy Spirit then, why now?

In large part it's hard now among those who place final authority in the text. Those guided by the Holy Spirit back then did not. They placed great authority in it, but not final authority. Final authority reposed in some nebulous territory between written texts, unwritten traditions, living authorities, consensus practices of the Church, and the particular persuasiveness of charismatic individuals.

The Bible became the ULTIMATE source of authority for the FINAL resolution of ALL disputes with the Sola Scriptura doctrine of Martin Luther. That doctrine didn't exist before Luther, and it still doesn't exist in the Catholic, or Oriental or Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Those latter three no longer come to decisions the same way they did back in the day either. The Catholics have concentrated the final authority into a "Magisterium", with loosely defined borders but with a clearly supreme papacy at the head of it. The Orthodox rely very heavily on the authority of the ancient traditions and the decisions of past Councils. To Catholics and Orthodox both, there is far less discretion in decision-taking than there was, say, back in the time of the early Councils. For Catholics and the two flavors of Orthodox, those decisions taken long ago are themselves canonical, and set the rules (albeit in different ways). Scripture is NOT more authoritative than, say, the Council of Nicaea, to Catholics or the Orthodox because the Holy Spirit is believed to be have been as fully present and inspirational at Nicaea as He (or She) was when Paul or John were wielding their pens.

That last piece is not present in Protestantism: the equal authority of Church to Bible. In fact, it's heresy to the Protestants.

In turn, the refusal to acknowledge the authority of the Church over Scripture is, to Catholics and the Orthodox, to elevate the Bible over the Church, and is bibliolatry.

These two positions cannot be logically reconciled.

They are why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were united for 1000 years despite having slightly different books of the Old and New Testaments. That is still true of different Orthodox Churches today: some have a few more books in both Testaments. This would be an absolutely fatal flaw preventing unity of Protestants with either. because Protestants consider the Bible to be of the highest authority, so if there is disagreement about THAT, there can't be unity.

Catholics and the Orthodox, and the Orthodox among themselves, were not and are not held apart by differences of the canon, because what Councils say, and Popes, and magesteria over the ages are also canonical. Canon law is canonical. It's ALL canonical, but the canon doesn't MATTER as much in any of its individual pieces.

Put in political science terms, the Catholics and Orthodox have an unwritten, living Constitution which God CAN amend at any time. Catholics believe that God very rarely actually does. Orthodox are more likely to think that God HASN'T for 1500 years or so, but in theory COULD. Protestants have a fixed written Constitution that cannot be altered until Christ returns.

The real issue is less what is IN the Canon so much as what the Canon itself MEANS. Protestants MUST fight to the last trench over what is IN the Canon, because the Canon is fixed, final and absolute - it is the ONLY perfect revelation of God to the earth, and it cannot be altered until the end of the world (and there cannot be any new revelation, for the age of prophesy has ended, therefore, anything new is by definition Satanic if it is not in the Bible and would contradict something that is).

Catholics and the Orthodox CAN'T fight to the last trench over Scripture, because that would be to elevate what is, after all, just a very holy book over what is the more Holy Church that WROTE the book, and to whom God STILL gives revelations.

My own approach is to read the Scriptures LIKE a Protestant, in order to be able to talk to Protestants in terms they will accept. I think that the Catholic canon is canonical, and accept the wider Canon of the various Oriental Orthodoxies as also being holy writings. Given that there are contradictions within the Bible itself - some pretty glaring ones when one reads carefully - there is always a process of discernment and engagement one must do in deciding what one really thinks is accurate and what isn't.

NONE of the established Churches will admit THAT. The Protestants will assert (wrongly) that the Bible does not contradict. (It does.) The Catholics and the Orthodox will, more of less strongly, say that no, you as an individual cannot decide what is accurate and what is not. You have to accept the authority of "the" (meaning: "your respective") Church.

Both of these assertions don't hold up. In the former case, the Bible does contradict quite violently in English. It contradicts very little in Hebrew or Greek...but at the price of nullifying many doctrines that hang upon the English. And there is nothing, in my experience, that will lead to more explosive arguments faster than to tell somebody that a Hebrew or Greek word doesn't mean something that it HAS to mean for a doctrine to make sense. THEN we move instantly away from a battle over the authority of Scripture itself, and straight to a battle over the authority of translators and who has the right and power and ability to TRULY translate the Scriptures.

And it rapidly becomes a waste of my time and I leave the debate.

In the latter case, the "you must submit to the decisions of the Church!" the problem, for me anyway, is that I CANNOT "submit" to something when it comes to belief. I don't tell myself "Oh, I believe THAT" and just believe it. I can't "believe" things that I don't think are true, and I can't NOT believe things that I DO think are true. To pretend I could would be dishonest.

So, the Church CAN say "If you don't believe thus and so, you are wrong". Lots of people say that. But if I am not presented with a persuasive argument that causes me to substitute that set of beliefs for what I think, threatening authority certainly isn't going to persuade me of anything...other than that whoever is threatening me with authority has got bad facts and poor logic and is just trying to bully a consensus. All that bullying can ever do with me is to cause me to lie in order to avoid the bullying. "Yes, sure, I believe and accept that"...now please go away and stop bothering me.

This is why, when the Thirty Years War and the Huguenot Wars in France, and the English Civil War/Puritan Dictatorship/Reformation in England, the net result of all of it was the collapse of faith everywhere that there had been a civil war. The Age of Reason replaced the Age of Faith because the Age of Faith ended up with bullying, and people had mental reservations. With all of the death, people paid a lot of lip service but out of fear, not love. And with the Age of Revolution, they turned the tables and exacted revenge (or justice, depending on how one looks at it) on the old bullying institutions that harmed them.

One finds a curious analogy today with cigarette smoking. Cigars are more popular than ever, and marijuana is being legalized, but cigarettes, in particular, are vilified and persecuted, even to the point of preventing people from using VAPOR cigarettes that have no second hand smoke and that are, objectively, not very harmful at all.

Why the jihad on cigarettes? Because a young generation grew up in a place where people smoked everywhere, including offices and buses and airplanes, and those who didn't smoke HATED IT, and found it oppressive...and were ignored and told to shut up and had it imposed on them by parents and older people. The wheel turned and those who had been bullied came of age, gained power, and became the majority, and now they have turned the tables and used the LOGIC that was used on them when they were little: "Now I AM IN CHARGE, and YOU are weaker. I hate cigarettes, and YOU will go stand outside in the cold if you want to smoke. (Oh, and fuck you. Don't like it? GOOD. Submit! Respect ma authoritah!)"

That is the mindset that drives the anti-smoking jihad (in all its illogic), and it's also what drove the hard lines against religion (in all their illogic). Bullying begets bullying. Bully people in "faith" and command them to "believe", or else, and you will get an outward show of obedience, and massive inward resistance.

So, when it comes to the "Canon", there are several. The Catholics have one. The Greek Orthodox have one. The Slavonic Orthodox a slightly different one (the Maccabee books). The Oriental Orthodox have Enoch and the Shepherd of Hermas and 1 and 2 Clement, and the Didache, and some others. The Protestants have their Canon. They all think they're right, but it only really makes a DIFFERENCE across the divide between Protestantism and the rest of Christianity.

The best solution? Read them all, and limit yourself to the Canon of your interlocutor (at least if you want to have a discussion - if you just want an argument, then go out of your way to find something from a book he doesn't accept as canonical, and make the canon the Big Deal that it really isn't.)

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-17   17:17:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Vicomte13 (#33)

In large part it's hard now among those who place final authority in the text. Those guided by the Holy Spirit back then did not. They placed great authority in it, but not final authority. Final authority reposed in some nebulous territory between written texts, unwritten traditions, living authorities, consensus practices of the Church, and the particular persuasiveness of charismatic individuals.

The Bible became the ULTIMATE source of authority for the FINAL resolution of ALL disputes with the Sola Scriptura doctrine of Martin Luther. That doctrine didn't exist before Luther, and it still doesn't exist in the Catholic, or Oriental or Eastern Orthodox Churches.

The early fathers of the post apostolic period did place Scriptures as a final authority.

The Scriptures were used to validate what they proposed.

For example Cyril of Jerusalem:

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."

Gregory of Nyssa:

"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."

Those are just two. Many more. I've read these fathers of Christian theology. They proved their claims with scriptures. They knew they were fallible men.

"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-17   17:31:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: redleghunter (#34)

Those are just two. Many more. I've read these fathers of Christian theology. They proved their claims with scriptures. They knew they were fallible men.

If it were true that the ancients really did place the FINAL authority on the Scripture, there would not have been all of those Church Councils, and in particular, there would be no Nicene Creed.

Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of the 1500s, not the 200s.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-17   19:28:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: redleghunter (#34)

I've read these fathers of Christian theology. They proved their claims with scriptures.

Go back and read Gregory of Nyssa as he quotes Sirach, Baruch, and Wisdom, and St. Cyril quoting those plus Bel and the Dragon, Susanna and others.

You're going to find yourself with the Catholic or the Orthodox canon if you rely on them in the way you're trying to.

Or you're going to be forced into doing something that, if you read them and see how they integrated the deuterocanonical works without asterisks, will feel dishonest to you: pretending that they didn't treat books that Luther says isn't the canon just like the other books.

The arguments of the 1500s should stay in the 1500s. One of the reasons that Pope Leo, Calvin and Luther's and Knox's arguments are so very easy to rip to shreds today is that they were bullies living in a world of religious bullies. The net result is that they produced strongly opinionated works, and lived in lands where those who strongly disagreed and took firm and unyielding stands against them died for it.

Luther cheered on the slaughter of the Anabaptists. And we know about Calvin's Geneva and Pope Leo's realm. We know about both the Protestant and Catholic martyrs of England. The net result of all of that killing of people who disagreed is that the arguments of the "great" theologians of the 1500s are spit and tissue paper and don't stand up to direct hostile attack using facts, available by quick computer searches, by men that those violent worthies of that day cannot kill.

Leo was corrupt. Calvin wrote the first edition of his Institutes as a teenage law student AND IT SHOWS.

People back THEN had to treat these bellicose men as serious, but in fact their intellectual reasoning is that of belligerent children, and their scholarship does not stand up.

The early Church fathers were much better, because they couldn't KILL each other over disagreements, and they did not come up with the rigid malarky of the 1500s.

The early Church Fathers show how it was done, and it was neither Sola Scriptura NOR "sin has no rights - burn 'em at the stake" infallible priggishness either.

Christian institutions were once humble, and when they were, they didn't behave like the bellicose men of the 1500s.

Read Gregory of Nyssa: yes, he did back what he wrote up with Scripture - score a point for Luther. But no, he never said "scripture ALONE" - take a point from Luther. And he quoted the "apocrypha" just like any other Scripture - score a point for Trent - and he never wrote a word about any infallible anything. Take a point from Trent. Score? Match null.

Best result? Read Gregory and ignore the hard doctrines of the 1500s, because Gregory was right, and the theologians of the 1500s lacked any effective peer review. And since the 1500s, everybody has become ossified and ridiculous about it. Best? Let it go and read the Scripture directly, focusing on what GOD said, just like God says to. That clears all the freight.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-17   19:45:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Vicomte13 (#35)

The evidence points differently. Where did the councils go for their positions? Scriptures.

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–235) [in defending the truth of the Trinity against the heretic Praxeas:]

It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself. . . . All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith. (Against Praxeas, 11)

Hippolytus (d. 235)

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn. (Against Heresies, 9)

Eusebius of Caesarea (263–339)

What they [the heretics] say might be plausible, if first of all the Divine Scriptures did not contradict them. . . . They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it. And as being of the earth and speaking of the earth, and as ignorant of him who cometh from above, they forsake the holy writings of God to devote themselves to geometry. Euclid is laboriously measured by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshiped. But that those who use the arts of unbelievers for their heretical opinions and adulterate the simple faith of the Divine Scriptures by the craft of the godless are far from the faith, what need is there to say? (Church History, 5.28.4, 13–15)

Athanasius of Alexandria (296–373) [After outlining the books of the Bible, Athanasius wrote:]

These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’ (Festal Letter 39, 6–7)

Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386) [After defending the doctrine of the Holy Spirit]:

We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures…Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say. (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff)

John Chrysostom (344–407)

Let us not therefore carry about the notions of the many, but examine into the facts. For how is it not absurd that in respect to money, indeed, we do not trust to others, but refer this to figures and calculation; but in calculating upon facts we are lightly drawn aside by the notions of others; and that too, though we possess an exact balance, and square and rule for all things, the declaration of the divine laws? Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learnt what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things; which may we all obtain, through the grace and love towards men of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, to the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.” (Homily on 2 Corinthians, 13.4)

And it is possible the definition of Sola Scriptura is not clear to a post modern world:

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” — Westminster Confession of Faith

Sounds like some church fathers quoted previously.

"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-17   20:25:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Vicomte13 (#36)

Go back and read Gregory of Nyssa as he quotes Sirach, Baruch, and Wisdom, and St. Cyril quoting those plus Bel and the Dragon, Susanna and others.

You're going to find yourself with the Catholic or the Orthodox canon if you rely on them in the way you're trying to.

Or you're going to be forced into doing something that, if you read them and see how they integrated the deuterocanonical works without asterisks, will feel dishonest to you: pretending that they didn't treat books that Luther says isn't the canon just like the other books.

I agree with your final conclusion. However want to address the initial point above.

A prominent Cardinal of the reformation era and before Trent said the following:

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage." (Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," cited by William Whitaker in "A Disputation on Holy Scripture," Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

Luther never set a canon. Trent did. Cajetan gave us a good summary of the historic view of the church views on the Canon. Trent was a disaster IMO.

"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-17   20:41:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: redleghunter (#38) (Edited)

Trent was a disaster IMO.

You stand by Scripture Alone, and you're certain that the Protestants are correct about what specifically constitutes Scripture, and what does not.

I have said before that I am always willing to step completely outside of all Catholic tradition and to accept the stipulation of Scripture Alone, using the Protestant canon, just exactly as demanded, never referencing Catholic anything.

Scripture Alone means just exactly that: Scripture ALONE. It is a brutally limitative doctrine. I am perfectly fine with it, because it upholds MY personal views on religion completely, with no tension.

If we read what God said out of his own mouth, in koine Greek and in ancient Hebrew, then we know precisely what he wants.

I am happy to do Sola Scriptura. In fact, I think it's the only thing that is really worthwhile.

So, shall we do Sola Scriptura?

Good, then let's open up the most authoritative book: Revelation.

Why is it the most authoritative? Because it's the last time that God spoke directly out of his own mouth in Scripture, and because it is the only place in the New Testament where God explicitly commanded somebody to take dictation, and threatened damnation to anybody who changed a letter of it.

Therefore, we need to look at koine Greek Revelation, and specifically at what God SAID in it, because images and pictures are informative, but there's no commandment in them. There is law in words of command and rebuke. So that's where we have to go.

So, shall we?

I'm not going to muck around in the fever swamps of Catholic and Protestant Tradition, because the truth is, I do not care, at all, and I am never going to.

I suppose that, given that the subject of this thread...indeed its whole purpose...is to muck around in tradition and pick fights. So if we want to do Sola Scriptura, we should start another thread.

Happy to do it. Revelation is a lot easier than Genesis, because Genesis 1:1 is written in pictographs, and Hebrew, and defines all of the words, and deals with scientific concepts, and is incredibly dense.

Revelation is a lot more straightforward, particularly when you realize that John describing imagery of what he's seeing fills most of it, but the divine beings actually TALKING and imparting direction and commandment is only a small portion of the text.

I shall await your response. As far as the subject of this thread goes - I'm done with it because it's irrelevant to me.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-18   11:18:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Vicomte13 (#39)

Good, then let's open up the most authoritative book: Revelation.

All of God's Words are authoritative. Revelation being the last Words of all.

We should take the the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

As in not being a "Solo Me" as some on both sides of the Tiber tend to do.

That is the reason we have the error of man's tradition. Some focus on the bits and pieces. When in fact we are instructed to look at all of the Written Words of God (Luke 24:44-45)(2 Timothy 3:16). As in the Luke 24 reference our focus on scriptures should be Christ Jesus as it is written “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

Now that opens the door for quite an examination of the TaNaKh to 'see' Jesus Christ. Jesus on every page.

"For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith." (Augustine of Hippo (354–430)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   11:40:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Vicomte13 (#39)

I shall await your response. As far as the subject of this thread goes - I'm done with it because it's irrelevant to me.

Recommend if you want a Revelation thread, to please start a new one.

Thanks

"For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith." (Augustine of Hippo (354–430)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   11:41:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: redleghunter (#40)

All of God's Words are authoritative. Revelation being the last Words of all.

They have different degrees of authority, however, and it is crucial to weigh this authority properly, because the Scripture has conflicting pronouncements within it on crucial matters, and if one doesn't respect the proper ranks of authority, one will end up doing things God said not to do.

Example: Divorce.

This one matters a great deal, because adultery is at stake, and Jesus says flatly twice on the last page of Scripture that adulterers are headed for the Lake of Fire at judgment.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-18   12:18:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Vicomte13 (#42)

They have different degrees of authority, however, and it is crucial to weigh this authority properly, because the Scripture has conflicting pronouncements within it on crucial matters, and if one doesn't respect the proper ranks of authority, one will end up doing things God said not to do.

What was quoted from Luke 24 is what Jesus Christ focused His disciples on.

It was also the Gospel preached and written about by the apostles/disciples.

"For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith." (Augustine of Hippo (354–430)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   12:23:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: redleghunter (#41)

Recommend if you want a Revelation thread, to please start a new one.

Thanks

I don't need one.

I think Revelation's the most useful part of Scripture to discuss, because it's God's last words to us, and has particular authority, and also, because it reveals the way that the final judgment works, which is a corrective to a lot of pious fiction. So I figure that if we're going to discuss Scripture the end's the place to start, given that that's what we actually have to DO, while the rest is the build up to it. There's useful information on many of the earlier pages of Scripture, but there are some real rabbit holes. Example: does God create evil or not? If you listen to the Psalmist, absolutely not. If you listen to God in his own words, absolutely yes.

Obviously for me that's a no-brainer: What God says directly trumps some other opinion about him expressed in Scripture that contradicts that.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-18   12:24:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: redleghunter (#43)

What was quoted from Luke 24 is what Jesus Christ focused His disciples on.

His disciples were all Jews subject to the Law of Moses. When Jesus discusses the Jewish law in some depth with his Apostles, he is addressing particular thoughts and concerns and cultural issues of Jews, raised in a milieu with a certain law and belief system - a law that Jesus was changing, in the context of a whole religion that Jesus was in the process of destroying.

We always have to remember that "You" in the Scriptures means the person or persons being addressed. It does not usually mean YOU, or me.

"You shall not suffer a witch to live" never applied to any of my ancestors, or probably yours, in the history of the world.

Jews faced dilemma after dilemma with Jesus. For starters, they had read "echad" as meaning that God is a monad. Their Scripture, the parts that God spoke directly and revealed, speak of a unity of God, not a monad, but their own traditions - including traditions that leak into Scripture - were very hard-wired for a monad view of God (one that the Muslims share). The notion that God ever would have an actual physical son, like some sort of Greek god fathering children with human women, struck them as raw paganism. And you will note, well, that Jesus never, ever, not even once, referred to the circumstance of his birth in speaking with ANY Jew in Scripture. Matthew tells us the story, and Luke, but Jesus never referred to it or talked about it.

He did talk about his Father in the Sky, but he spoke of that Father as being the Father of all of those who are begotten anew of that Father through the spirit. Jesus does indeed, in his trial, answer that he is the son of God, in the context of a question asking if he is the Messiah, and he speaks of his father. But this is in the context of Jesus calling all of his disciples his brothers and sisters, and telling them all to pray to THEIR Father - and also calling those who opposed him at one point 'sons of the devil'. The notion of Jesus as the UNIQUE "only begotten" son, by the flesh, is a strong Nicene doctrine, widely accepted and acceptable to Gentiles. And it is not a doctrine that Jesus himself ever expounded to the Jews at all. To THEM, he told them that whomever was begotten again by the water and the Spirit became a child of the Father, and called them his brothers and sisters.

Traditional Christian doctrine is for Gentiles and Gentiles never had problem with Jesus' divinity. Indeed, their problem was reducing Jesus to a MERE demigod, in the tradition of the various sons and daughters of Jupiter and Neptune and the like. But that was a Gentile issue, not a Jewish one, and Jesus never addresses it at all.

The Jews had Moses' warning that false prophets would come who would even show signs, but told the Hebrews to kill anyone who purported to change a word of the Torah even if he did show signs. So, the Jews had to contend with the fear of Jesus as a false prophet, an agent of Satan who was there to deceive them and lead them away from true worship of the Father.

It did not help that the Jews had done what Christians have done: tacked on a lot of traditions to the spare words of the law. For example, the detailed washing of hands and pots by lay people. The Torah prescribes certain cleanliness for rites at the altar, but these were extended to cover much more of life.

Or dietary rules. God forbade eating meat boiled in its mother's milk, but Jewish interpretive law expanded that to mean that meat and milk could not be eaten together. But then Jesus said that NOTHING a man put in his mouth would make him unclean - and that clearly overturns whole passages of the Torah that say that many things WILL make a man unclean. So, here was a man directly contradicting YHWH's spoken law - the hallmark of the false prophet warned of in the Torah.

There was the tradition of not pronouncing the name YHWH, although YHWH had said that the Hebrews were to do all in his name. Jesus apparently used the name when he said "ego eimi", for the Jews present immediately sought to stone him for blasphemy. In that case, to use YHWH was NOT blasphemy, as the Torah actually says TO USE YHWH's name, but the Hebrew tradition said otherwise. However, in the former case, the Torah clearly says that eating pork or other foods will make a man unclean, but Jesus says it will not. Jesus countermands YHWH directly - he strikes out portions of the law.

And yet at the same time he says that not a letter nor a penstroke of the Law will pass away until the end of the world.

This was incredibly hard for Jews to accept, because it directly contradicted their God.

Suppose that Jesus returned on a cloud today, and he called forth Catholics and Baptists and Orthodox, and Jews, and Muslims, and Hindus, and Atheists as his own before the world. There are many, many Christians would would proclaim Jesus the anti-Christ, because THEY read "I am the way and the truth and the light, none comes to the Father except through me" as meaning that only baptized, believing Christians are acceptable to God. Jesus' words certainly CAN be read to mean that, but they can be understood to mean other things, especially in light of what he said. There are Christians who would reject the real Jesus out of hand if he were to return in a manner that showed those other readings are in fact what he meant, because they are so very CERTAIN that they KNOW what he meant. They don't, but they THINK they do. So it was with the Jews.

And then of course there is the matter of divorce. Remarriage after divorce is adultery. Jesus said that, flatly, to the Jews. They didn't like that. Nobody likes it. Jesus even cited the Torah, where YHWH gave the Jews the law of divorce. Jesus says it was not that way at the beginning, and the MOSES wrote that "out of the harness of your hearts". So the Jews (and discerning Gentiles) are faced with the thorny problem of Jesus, once again, directly overruling a commandment of YHWH, given at Sinai, and protected by the ward that says whoever seeks to change a word of this is a false prophet and to be killed for blasphemy. That's a key reason WHY so many Jews DID want to see him executed: they thought he was a false prophet who did his work with the power of Satan.

Saul of Tarsus was one such Jew. He was morally certain that Jesus was a blaspheming false prophet, and he set out with a will to destroy this outbreak of blasphemy and impiousness among the people of God, rooting out the Christians and clamping them in chains and procuring their deaths whenever possible.

He was unpersuadable by the logic of Christians. It took a direct divine revelation to change HIS mind.

This was the problem that Jews in particular had. Gentiles had lots of gods and superstitions, and the superiority of the Christian God - with all of the intendant miracles - as well as the social welfare of poverty relief and the particular concern for women made Christianity appealing to many Gentiles. But Jesus was talking to Jews, Jews who knew their own traditions well enough to know that what he was advancing was Not Cricket. So he spent a lot of time addressing Jews about things that Jews would care about, given their specific covenant and all of those years of accumulating writing and thought and philosophy and theology. Those "YOU's" that Jesus spoke to were JEWISH yous.

This is important when considering Paul's writings as well. Remember well: God never said to Gentiles that they needed to be "redeemed". There was no concept of first-born redemption given to Adam or Cain, or Noah, nor to Abraham or Isaac or Jacob either.

The REDEMPTION of the first born was a specific commandment initiated FOR THE ISAELITES at the Passover of Egypt, when the blood of the lamb was smeared on the doorposts of the Hebrews SO THAT the destroying angel would not kill THEIR firstborn. God then made the redemption of the firstborn, with money and with sacrifice, a remembrance specifically of THAT. The blood sacrifice of redemption of the firstborn was NOT instituted due to the sin of Adam and Eve. Go read Exodus. It was specifically a remembrance of the Passover of Egypt, when the firstborn of the Egyptians were killed, but the firstborn of the Israelites were not IF (and ONLY if) they respected the rule of the smearing of the blood. There was a ritualistic aspect of what God demanded of the Israelites that was intended to impress his message on their minds.

But the Israelites are NOT the whole world. Nor are they even particularly like the rest of the world. To the contrary, God identifies them as having been a "No-people" before he raised them up, insignificant, glorified only by the fact that God chose them, nothing but a mix of slaves without God. And moreover, a particularly stiff-necked people. Jesus himself noted that the Gentile cities, had THEY seen the miracles that he performed in Jewish cities, would have repented in ashes and sackcloth. Jesus made the point during his mission that he was preaching to the Jews, specifically, and that the Jews in particular were obstinate, difficult, particularly stubborn and unresponsive.

For all of these reasons and more, when we read Jesus, or Paul, expounding TO JEWS about Jewish things, we have to remember that Jewish things were NEVER MEANT FOR US, not from the beginning. We are part of creation, but we leave the stage with the onset of Abraham. Some of us REALLY leave the stage. I mean, the Basques and Saami and far Celts (my case) or Carib Islanders and far- West Africans? Not even mentioned in the tables of nations - TRULY the far flung fringes. We were not that "You" that Jesus was earnestly addressing when he spoke with Jews about Jewish things.

Our path is simpler and more direct: Jesus said "Follow me, I'm the way." So we follow him, and that means to do what he said to do, and stop doing what he said not to do. We had some law from God before that, particularly about killing, but we never had the Sabbath, or the laws of purity, or the other laws. Jesus gave us some new laws, but he didn't make us Jews. Cornelius and his household were directly possessed by the Holy Spirit, but they weren't Jews indoctrinated into Judaism.

Any European who ever burnt a witch on the authority of Leviticus did so UTTERLY without authority and was a frank murderer, nothing more. Leviticus NEVER applied to Gentiles, and Jesus never MADE it apply to Gentiles.

But Jesus spoke to Jews. That was his circle. He spoke to Jews about Jewish things, in a Jewish context, and he had to adjust THEIR thinking about things. They had a terrible time with it, and most could not accept it because Jesus contradicted not just traditions, but also Scripture...and gave insights into Scripture itself that Jews (and many Christians could not accept). For example: Jesus said that not a penstroke or a letter of the law would pass away until the destruction of the land and sky. And yet he also took a line about divorce that the Torah says "YHWH said..." and says "MOSES wrote that because of the hardness of your hearts". So did Jesus CHANGE the law of God there (before the end of the world)? Or was that never a law of God, and just something Moses added.

If the former case, then Jesus contradicted himself, immediately. But if the latter case, then Scripture is not completely reliable, for Scripture itself says that YHWH, not Moses, gave the law of divorce. Moses may have written that law, but it was just like all of the other laws that YHWH gave, and it was YHWH who stated that law.

These contradictions cannot be reconciled on the text. You come to a head on collision of authority, because what Jesus said circa 30 AD, and what YHWH had Moses write, for the Hebrews, circa 1500 BC. And the fact that such things are there diminishes the power of the text overall, shows us that what Jesus says trumps and replaces everything in it that contradicts him, but also shows the danger that arises from slipping into bibliolatry.

Do Christians have to keep the Sabbath? For example.

What about masturbation?

What about eating blood?

What about circumcision?

What about divorce?

Or eating - are there any religious dietary laws?

What about cleanliness?

What about tattoos?

What about wine?

Forced marriage of prisoners of war?

Slaves?

Forgiving debts?

What of the Jewish law applied to Gentiles at all? The answer is there, on the bald fact of who the convenant was with each time.

Christians have mangled this for centuries, for the same reason that the Jews mangled their traditions up with the law.

What you quoted was Christ focusing the Jews to whom he was speaking upon.

And what was the Gospel, exactly? What was new, the "good news" that Jesus preached?

It was THIS: that death is not the end. No indeed! That life continues after death, and that, moreover, there is eventual restoration to full physical life, and final judgment too...and that judgment will be on these (few) standards (and NOT on the Jewish law).

And the Jewish law? Jesus pronounced doom on the Temple and sent the Romans to destroy it, ending the rites, making it IMPOSSIBLE to follow it.

Where, then, comes the Christian heresy against Jesus' own judgment regarding the destruction of Israel and the end of the Mosaic promise (of a farm in Israel)?

It comes from not putting the authorities in their proper structure. It comes from not seeing the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. It comes from seeing covenants but forgetting that a covenant is a contract, and contracts only bind their parties.

The Jewish Law was a convenant, a contract between God and a certain set of people. Gentiles were never in that set of people, and didn't become part of it through Christ. Rather, Christ brought a new and totally different convenant, for all humans. And in the process he rendered that covenant of Sinai impossible to perform, by knocking down the Temple and ending its rites forever.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-18   14:50:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Vicomte13 (#45)

If the former case, then Jesus contradicted himself, immediately. But if the latter case, then Scripture is not completely reliable, for Scripture itself says that YHWH, not Moses, gave the law of divorce. Moses may have written that law, but it was just like all of the other laws that YHWH gave, and it was YHWH who stated that law.

These contradictions cannot be reconciled on the text. You come to a head on collision of authority, because what Jesus said circa 30 AD, and what YHWH had Moses write, for the Hebrews, circa 1500 BC. And the fact that such things are there diminishes the power of the text overall, shows us that what Jesus says trumps and replaces everything in it that contradicts him, but also shows the danger that arises from slipping into bibliolatry.

Do Christians have to keep the Sabbath? For example.

What about masturbation?

What about eating blood?

What about circumcision?

What about divorce?

Or eating - are there any religious dietary laws?

What about cleanliness?

What about tattoos?

What about wine?

Forced marriage of prisoners of war?

Slaves?

Forgiving debts?

What of the Jewish law applied to Gentiles at all? The answer is there, on the bald fact of who the convenant was with each time.

Christians have mangled this for centuries, for the same reason that the Jews mangled their traditions up with the law.

What you quoted was Christ focusing the Jews to whom he was speaking upon.

And what was the Gospel, exactly? What was new, the "good news" that Jesus preached?

It was THIS: that death is not the end. No indeed! That life continues after death, and that, moreover, there is eventual restoration to full physical life, and final judgment too...and that judgment will be on these (few) standards (and NOT on the Jewish law).

And the Jewish law? Jesus pronounced doom on the Temple and sent the Romans to destroy it, ending the rites, making it IMPOSSIBLE to follow it.

Where, then, comes the Christian heresy against Jesus' own judgment regarding the destruction of Israel and the end of the Mosaic promise (of a farm in Israel)?

It comes from not putting the authorities in their proper structure. It comes from not seeing the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. It comes from seeing covenants but forgetting that a covenant is a contract, and contracts only bind their parties.

The Jewish Law was a convenant, a contract between God and a certain set of people. Gentiles were never in that set of people, and didn't become part of it through Christ. Rather, Christ brought a new and totally different convenant, for all humans. And in the process he rendered that covenant of Sinai impossible to perform, by knocking down the Temple and ending its rites forever.

Well first I think you are not looking at Christ's words correctly.

Matthew 19:

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

There's no contradiction. There was the perfect Law of God for the unity of husband and wife. Then there was the Mosaic law which permitted divorce within the conditions Jesus gave above.

On the clean/unclean issues. We only have to go to God's Words on the matter of establishing a New Covenant:

Jeremiah 31:

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

On the New Covenant's relationship between God and mankind:

Ezekiel 36:

22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord,” says the Lord God, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.

25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Then of course, with all things in following and obeying our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ we must know this:

2 Timothy 1:

8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, 10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

1 Peter 2:

9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, 12 having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.

13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

And most importantly...

Matthew 5:

14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

What about masturbation?

What about eating blood?

What about circumcision?

What about divorce?

Or eating - are there any religious dietary laws?

What about cleanliness?

What about tattoos?

What about wine?

Forced marriage of prisoners of war?

Slaves?

Forgiving debts?

Based on the above what do you think is the answer? Based on the above, I see a clear indication that we should ask this one simple question before we conduct such "does it glorify God for me to do___?

The Jewish Law was a convenant, a contract between God and a certain set of people. Gentiles were never in that set of people, and didn't become part of it through Christ. Rather, Christ brought a new and totally different convenant, for all humans. And in the process he rendered that covenant of Sinai impossible to perform, by knocking down the Temple and ending its rites forever.

The cliffs of Sinai were impossible even before the Temple was destroyed by Rome. Praise be to God for His Grace and Mercy He sent us His only Begotten Son Jesus Christ.

"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   15:52:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: redleghunter (#46)

8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

This is the text of Deuteronomy 24: 1-2 in the King James Version.

24 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

Please tell me: is this a commandment of God, or is this merely Moses' writing his opinion?

(Remember, please, Matthew 5:17-19: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.")

Who, then, is speaking in Deuteronomy 24: 1-2. Is it God, or is it Moses?

If it is Moses, is it a commandment at all?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-18   16:21:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Vicomte13 (#47)

Who, then, is speaking in Deuteronomy 24: 1-2. Is it God, or is it Moses?

If it is Moses, is it a commandment at all?

It is the Law God gave to Israel in the wilderness. It is part of the Mosaic covenant.

Jesus in Matthew 19 explained the higher moral call He now expected from those who would follow Him as disciples. Just as adultery in the Mosaic law was a physical act. In Matthew 5 it is the heart and mind which sins.

It all goes back to the declarations of YHWH in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36.

And the higher standard is not burdensome because:

"Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them."

While on the subject also this:

Hosea 6:

6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

7 “But like men they transgressed the covenant; There they dealt treacherously with Me. 8 Gilead is a city of evildoers And defiled with blood. 9 As bands of robbers lie in wait for a man, So the company of priests murder on the way to Shechem; Surely they commit lewdness. 10 I have seen a horrible thing in the house of Israel: There is the harlotry of Ephraim; Israel is defiled. 11 Also, O Judah, a harvest is appointed for you, When I return the captives of My people.

"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   16:33:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: redleghunter (#48)

It is the Law God gave to Israel in the wilderness. It is part of the Mosaic covenant.

So, you say it is The Law. It is not merely something Moses said that can be disregarded. It is The Law.

Then we have a cataclysmic conflict between the Law and Jesus. Scripture collides irreconcilably with Scripture here, and you have to choose one or the other. No straddle is logically possible.

It is Jesus who says: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Just to be crystal clear as to the problem, so that I can be addressed directly and on the point: Jesus Christ says here that not one letter of The Law, none of it, shall pass away until the sky and the land end. And the law of divorce, which explicitly gives a man the right to divorce his right, and grants the right, from God, to remarry, is part of The Law. Therefore, Jesus has said that THAT LAW, the law PERMITTING DIVORCE and REMARRIAGE, SHALL NOT PASS AWAY until the world passes away in the events described later in Revelation: the end of the world.

So, the Law of God permits divorce and remarriage.

Moreover, Jesus says that not a letter or a penstroke - not a "jot or one tittle" shall pass away from the law until the end of the world. Not one letter.

THEREFORE, the Law stands, full strength, and the Law, of God, permits divorce and remarriage. But Jesus has just told JEWS, not Gentiles, that if they divorce and remarry, the have committed adultery. And Jesus later says, twice on the last page of the Bible, that adulterers are thrown into the Lake of Fire and do not enter into the City of God.

Divorce is not some trivial thing. it is a central feature of marriage in our time.

So, if people marry and divorce and remarry, following the Law of God given to Moses, are they adulterers destined for the fire at judgment or not? Jesus said, twice on the last page of the Bible, that adulterers are damned right alongside of murderers. And Jesus says in the section that we have been examining, that those who divorce and remarry are adulterers. But YHWH says that divorce and remarriage are ok.

Moreover, Jesus has said that he is not destroying a word of the Law, but he has just torn whole sentences out of it and replaced it with a far harsher rule that, if broken, will result in damnation to the fire ACCORDING TO JESUS.

Did Jesus change the Law? If he did not, then what Moses wrote originally cannot have ever been the Law, for Jesus said that not one letter of it would change until the end of the world.

If he DID, then he contradicted himself when he said that he had not come to destroy the law, and that not a letter of the law would change until the end of the world.

This is not a trivial thing. 50% of marriages end in divorce, and most of them, in remarriage. Jesus said that that is adultery. It appears in several versions. And Jesus said that adulterers are thrown into the fire and fail judgment.

This has to be answered directly.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-18   17:01:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Vicomte13 (#49)

So, you say it is The Law. It is not merely something Moses said that can be disregarded. It is The Law.

Then we have a cataclysmic conflict between the Law and Jesus. Scripture collides irreconcilably with Scripture here, and you have to choose one or the other. No straddle is logically possible.

No, you did not read my post clearly.

YHWH gave Israel those specific instructions on divorce because that was His covenant with them. Jesus is telling them in Matthew 19 what the Law is for the New Covenant which is a higher standard. No conflict. As in Noah did not receive what Moses did nor did Abraham.

"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   17:17:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Vicomte13 (#49)

Did Jesus change the Law? If he did not, then what Moses wrote originally cannot have ever been the Law, for Jesus said that not one letter of it would change until the end of the world.

No, Jesus fulfilled/is/will fulfill the Law.

Fulfilled:

Isaiah 61:

“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, Because the Lord has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,

Yet to be fulfilled same chapter starting with the second half of verse 2:

And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, 3 To console those who mourn in Zion, To give them beauty for ashes, The oil of joy for mourning, The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; That they may be called trees of righteousness, The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.”

4 And they shall rebuild the old ruins, They shall raise up the former desolations, And they shall repair the ruined cities, The desolations of many generations. 5 Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, And the sons of the foreigner Shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. 6 But you shall be named the priests of the Lord, They shall call you the servants of our God. You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, And in their glory you shall boast.

Which we see here Jesus clearly told those who would listen:

Luke 4:

17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; 19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth.

"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   17:28:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Vicomte13 (#49)

Did Jesus change the Law? If he did not, then what Moses wrote originally cannot have ever been the Law, for Jesus said that not one letter of it would change until the end of the world.

If he DID, then he contradicted himself when he said that he had not come to destroy the law, and that not a letter of the law would change until the end of the world.

This is not a trivial thing. 50% of marriages end in divorce, and most of them, in remarriage. Jesus said that that is adultery. It appears in several versions. And Jesus said that adulterers are thrown into the fire and fail judgment.

This has to be answered directly.

No. One only needs to read Matthew 5 to learn the perfection of Torah.

"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   17:31:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: redleghunter (#50)

No, you did not read my post clearly.

YHWH gave Israel those specific instructions on divorce because that was His covenant with them. Jesus is telling them in Matthew 19 what the Law is for the New Covenant which is a higher standard. No conflict. As in Noah did not receive what Moses did nor did Abraham.

I read it, but I do not agree with your analysis.

First of all, Jesus said specifically that Moses wrote that. He didn't say "God commanded". He placed the responsibility on Moses.

Secondly, Jesus didn't refer to anything new. In fact, he reverted to something very old. He said that the standard of marriage he was giving here was the way it was at the beginning. And that's true. He quotes Genesis and the cleaving of flesh.

Now, if you look very carefully at Deuteronomy, you will discover something here. Many of laws that God gave in Exodus and Leviticus and Numbers under the words "YHWH said", are repeated in Deuteronomy. But in Deuteronomy there is also a lot of "He said", and the "He" here is Moses saying this and that. The words on divorce are among those words.

Jesus is PRECISELY accurate: the part of Deuteronomy in which the granting of divorce is given is Moses speaking. It is not "YHWH said". It's "He" - Moses - said. So, Moses did indeed write this particular law. The degree to which one choses to perfectly identify Moses with YHWH is a choice.

It's the same choice one has to make in so many other places where there are the austere words of what God actually said directly, and there is much greater writing and expounding of opinion by some prophet (or apostle).

And this is why the question of the Canon is less important than how one reads the Canon, and where one places the precise authority. Every word in Scripture is indeed inspired by God, but God also inspired the Assyrians to attack and destroy Israel, and Nebuchadnezzar to destroy and slaughter the people of Judah, carting some off as captives. God inspires many things for a purpose, but the purpose is often not what it directly seems.

When Jesus faced off with Satan in the desert, he said that man lives on every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God. The words about marriage being permanent "from the beginning" came out of God's mouth. The words permitting divorce and remarriage did not "proceed forth out of the mouth of God". They proceeded forth out of the pen of Moses, just precisely as Jesus said.

So, there was indeed the law of Moses, and the traditions of Israel, and all sorts of legislation. But there was the Law of God embedded within that, and everything written in the Torah was not the Law of God.

Jesus said that marriage was thus since the beginning, and Jesus said that not one word or letter of the Law would change until the end of the world. Jesus said that MOSES wrote the bit about divorce, because of the hardness of the Jews hearts.

But was what Moses wrote The Law of God, in that case. No, it was not. It never was. The Law of God was established in the beginning, and it never changed. Moses made an allowance, and God didn't stop him, but Jesus restored The Law, of God, and thereby replaced the Tradition of Moses.

For if Jesus changed the Law, nullifying it, he lied when he said it would not change.

I read your post clearly.

What you wrote about the New Covenant having a higher standard is a good effort, except that Jesus said that no divorce and remarriage was the standard from the beginning. So no, it's not a new law. And it's not a restoration of the old law either. The old Law was always in force. Out of respect for Moses, God let Moses impose a tradition not from God, but it was never the Law of God. The Law of God, from the beginning, was what Jesus said it had always been, from the beginning. Jesus didn't change the law or restore it. He merely demonstrated that something Moses said was another Tradition of the Jews that would have to go in order to serve God.

Of course that means that every word of Scripture is revealed as not having the same force, and not necessarily conveying God's true will clearly. God's true will is most clearly expressed by God speaking directly.

And the law of divorce in Deuteronomy was not spoken by God. It was spoken by Moses, and it was not in fact the Law of God but a mere tradition of the Jews, which Jesus corrected, for the Jews (and revealed to the Gentiles).

Of course, we then return to the issue of divorce and remarriage. It's adultery. Is adultery forgivable? Is it forgiven? Does one not have to repent and cease to sin to be forgiven a sin? Do legally remarried people have to separate and abstain from one another to avoid adultery? If they don't, are they adulterers thrown into the fire at judgment, like Jesus says adulterers are twice on the last page of Scripture?

Or doesn't it matter because it's all simply forgiven by Jesus' crucifixion?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-18   18:13:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: redleghunter (#51)

No, Jesus fulfilled/is/will fulfill the Law.

But Jesus said that the sky and land would pass away before the Law did.

He didn't just say that the law had to be fulfilled (with his death) for the Law to end. He said that the world had to end. That didn't happen when Jesus died, and it hasn't happened yet either.

The Law remains FULLY in force - EVERY LETTER OF IT. Jesus death released nobody on earth from the Law. That only happens at the destruction of the world. Just like Jesus said.

Of course, Gentiles were never under any of the Law after Noah in the first place. And the Jews are either bound by Law, which will get them nothing, or break it and are cut off from their people, and no longer covered by the covenant, which means that they lose the promise of the covenant, which was a secure farm in the land of Israel...and that hasn't been obtainable from God since he destroyed the Temple.

So, the Law is still fully in force. The Law of Adam and of Noah fully applies, as greatly expanded by Jesus. This applies to all.

The Law of Moses is pointless. Gentiles are promised nothing under that covenant. And Jews can't follow it all and so get nothing either.

The Law is in force, and THEREFORE nobody can obtain a farm in Israel by following it. All we can hope to attain is life in Paradise after death, and then passing final judgment after the Resurrection and living with God in his City, when it comes to Earth. And that will have to be good enough.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-18   18:20:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Vicomte13 (#53)

If you go back in Deuteronomy you see Moses indicating the laws come from God.

But the point is Christ is telling the Jews what it was as in the beginning. That is now the standard.

"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   22:12:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Vicomte13 (#53)

But was what Moses wrote The Law of God, in that case. No, it was not. It never was. The Law of God was established in the beginning, and it never changed. Moses made an allowance, and God didn't stop him, but Jesus restored The Law, of God, and thereby replaced the Tradition of Moses.

Ok read your post a second time. I agree with the above.

I thought you were suggesting Moses went rougue on YHWH. You are not.

We start seeing the heart of God's Law in the Prophets and Psalms.

Ultimately we are taught by God in Matthew 5 and many other places.

I think the Ezekiel and Jeremiah references are key to seeing the New Covenant in the OT.

"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-18   22:20:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com