Another Catholic question (sorry guys!)

[lori4dogs]

I believe the reason for the revisionsit remark was rlated to your commenting on the Itala being a Waldensian work for the 2nd century. I asked you about this in an earlier post. The Vetus Itala is an old latin translation of the Septuagint - which of course would be closer to the Cathlic Bible with additional hebrew texts - then our protestant version.

Your reference to Waldensians in antiquity is counter to modern historical research and scholarship - at least in the worls I have read. What is your source for this position? I asked this earlier but you must have missed that post ... From my rsearch - especially thise widely accepted and recent in scholarship place the origins of he Waldenses at the earliest in the 9th century ... can you give me a source for your second century and a tie to the Vetus Itala?

THANKS

He didn't miss it, he ignored it. Just like he ignored my proving the Lutherans and Martin Luther believe that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Something he denied.

 

[DHK]

I believe the reason for the revisionsit remark was rlated to your commenting on the Itala being a Waldensian work for the 2nd century. I asked you about this in an earlier post. The Vetus Itala is an old latin translation of the Septuagint - which of course would be closer to the Cathlic Bible with additional hebrew texts - then our protestant version.

I am sorry. I did miss your post.
Welcome to the board.
The Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew into Greek about 250 B.C. far before any of the Apocryphal books were written. It was translated from the Masoretic Text. Why do you think it would be closer to the Catholic Bible? It is only the Greek OT. The Apocryphal books were added at a much later date, as they were always rejected by the Jews, and some of them were written after the birth of Christ. Again, the Septuagint is only the OT.
It was written in an old form of Latin because the Waldenses came from that area of the world--Italy. Catholicism, per se, did not exist until the fourth century as has already been noted.

Your reference to Waldensians in antiquity is counter to modern historical research and scholarship - at least in the worls I have read. What is your source for this position?

I use sources that are written either by Baptist historians or Presbyterian historians. The sources (and there are lots of them) written by Catholics, are tainted and revised.

I asked this earlier but you must have missed that post ... From my rsearch - especially thise widely accepted and recent in scholarship place the origins of he Waldenses at the earliest in the 9th century ... can you give me a source for your second century and a tie to the Vetus Itala?
THANKS

There are various sources. It depends what you are looking for. If you are simply looking for evidence of how our canon came into existence you can look here:

II' ANCIENT VERSIONS
(Translations from Greek to other major languages made In the early centuries of the Church) Among others, these would include the following:
A' THE PESHITTO SYRIAC VERSION (2nd Century A.D.)
B' THE CURETONIAN SYRIAC VERSION (3rd Century A.D.)
C' THE HARKLEIAN OR PHILOXENIAN SYRIAC VERSION (5th Century A.D.)
D' THE JERUSALEM SYRIAC VERSION (5th Century A.D.)
E' THE OLD LATIN (VETUS ITALA) VERSION (2nd Century A.D.)
F' THE LATIN VULGATE VERSION (382 A.D.)
G' THE BISHOP ULPHILAS GOTHIC VERSION (350 A.D.)
H' THE MEMPHITIC (COPTIC) LOWER EGYPTIAN VERSION (4th or 5th Century A.D.)
I' THE THEBAIC (SAHIDIC) UPPER EGYPTIAN VERSION (3rd Century A.D.) (Burgon, THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF MARK, pp. 32-37)
J' THE ARMENIAN VERSION (c. 5th Century A.D.)
K' THE ETHIOPIC VERSION (c. 4th to 7th (?) Century A.D.)
L' THE GEORGIAN VERSION (c. 6th (?) Century A.D.) (LAST 12 VV. OF MARK, p. 36)
M' THE SLOVONIC VERSION
N' THE BOHAIRIC VERSION (Burgon, THE TRADITIONAL TEXT, p. 136)

III' QUOTATIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT VERSES BY THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS IN THEIR WRITINGS
A' DEAN JOHN WILLIAM BURGON'S (of the 1800's in England) index of 16 large folio volumes of 86,489 quotations or allusions to Scripture is still in the British Museum even today [Cf. THE IDENTITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT by Wilbur N. Pickering, Ist Edition, p. 66]
B' BURGON GIVES THE TOTAL OF 100 CHURCH FATHERS who lived before our OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS are dated (that is, from c. 100--300 A.D.). [LAST 12 VV. OF MARK, p. 21].
C' BURGON GIVES THE TOTAL OF 200 MORE CHURCH FATHERS who lived between 300 and 600 A.D. (where our five oldest manuscripts would fall). [LAST 12 VERSES OF MARK, p. 21].

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/howbible.htm

I hope that helps.

 

[lori4dogs]

"I use sources that are written either by Baptist historians or Presbyterian historians. The sources (and there are lots of them) written by Catholics, are tainted and revised."

Baptist historians would never taint anything. Ever read 'The Trail of Blood'. That's real accurate Baptist history. Ever try to connect the dots in that little Baptist gem?

Chick Publications has a history of the Christian Church too. Why not use that? It certainly is has no 'tainted' history tales.

 

[DHK]

"I use sources that are written either by Baptist historians or Presbyterian historians. The sources (and there are lots of them) written by Catholics, are tainted and revised."

Baptist historians would never taint anything. Ever read 'The Trail of Blood'. That's real accurate Baptist history. Ever try to connect the dots in that little Baptist gem?

Chick Publications has a history of the Christian Church too. Why not use that? It certainly is has no 'tainted' history tales.

Same old. Same old. Get tired of the same old dribble.
First, I admit there are some historical inaccuracies in the Trail of Blood, and have so in the past, but the premise of the "pamphlet" remains true.
Second, that was not one of the sources I was referring to.

Third, there are very few if any on this board that use Chick Publications. So your dribble about such is simply a false accusation.

 

[WalkswithJesus]

I am sorry. I did miss your post.
Welcome to the board.

Thanks

The Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew into Greek about 250 B.C. far before any of the Apocryphal books were written. It was translated from the Masoretic Text. Why do you think it would be closer to the Catholic Bible? It is only the Greek OT. The Apocryphal books were added at a much later date, as they were always rejected by the Jews, and some of them were written after the birth of Christ. Again, the Septuagint is only the OT.

Yes the Spetuagint is only the Hebrew Texts [OT] but that OT included the books that are included in Catholic Bibles and Orthodox [- though the Orthodox have some additional writings as well] and that are not found in Protestant bibles - though technically the first 'protestant' bibles incuded them in an appendix. And this is a fact that does not come purely from catholic sources ... just to name a couple - Martin Hengel protestant german biblical historian and Moises Silva a presbyterian have written books on the Septuagint and they accurately indicate the inclusion of the Apocrypha/Duetero-canonical works.

It was written in an old form of Latin because the Waldenses came from that area of the world--Italy. Catholicism, per se, did not exist until the fourth century as has already been noted.
I use sources that are written either by Baptist historians or Presbyterian historians. The sources (and there are lots of them) written by Catholics, are tainted and revised.

Well I have never seen references to the Wadensians in Italy, nor that they existed prior to the 1100's except perhps JA Wylie who said they had their origins in the 9th century - and even today his work is considered very important on the history of the Waldensians. Lots of people can write books and web sites but not all have the same credentials nor write with the same level of academic study and research. Which is why I asked for specific citations.

There are various sources. It depends what you are looking for. If you are simply looking for evidence of how our canon came into existence you can look here:

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/howbible.htm

I hope that helps.

A listiing such as this is interesting but sheds little light on what writings are contained within the works listed - how complete the extant portions are etc ...

 

[DHK]

Yes the Spetuagint is only the Hebrew Texts [OT] but that OT included the books that are included in Catholic Bibles and Orthodox [- though the Orthodox have some additional writings as well] and that are not found in Protestant bibles - though technically the first 'protestant' bibles incuded them in an appendix. And this is a fact that does not come purely from catholic sources ... just to name a couple - Martin Hengel protestant german biblical historian and Moises Silva a presbyterian have written books on the Septuagint and they accurately indicate the inclusion of the Apocrypha/Duetero-canonical works.

But this information is not true. The date of the translation of the Septuagint was ca. 250 B.C. Not even one of the writings of the Apocrypha was written that early. They all were written much later than that. They eventually made their way into the Septuagint, but it was a Septuagint that came into existence sometime after the Apostles. Some of those books were not even written in the time of Christ, but later.

Well I have never seen references to the Wadensians in Italy, nor that they existed prior to the 1100's except perhps JA Wylie who said they had their origins in the 9th century - and even today his work is considered very important on the history of the Waldensians. Lots of people can write books and web sites but not all have the same credentials nor write with the same level of academic study and research. Which is why I asked for specific citations.

I agree, Wylie is a good source. Sometimes I use Philip Schaff, and I often refer to A.T. Armitage, "A History of the Baptists." You might find some other good references here:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil//baptist.htm

http://www.yellowstone.net/baptist/history.htm

 

[WalkswithJesus]

But this information is not true. The date of the translation of the Septuagint was ca. 250 B.C. Not even one of the writings of the Apocrypha was written that early. They all were written much later than that. They eventually made their way into the Septuagint, but it was a Septuagint that came into existence sometime after the Apostles. Some of those books were not even written in the time of Christ, but later.

Well you can say that but you offer no proof .. Sirach [or Eclesiasticus] dates to the second century BC .. I just don't understand this position of yours ... have you studied biblical history?

I agree, Wylie is a good source. Sometimes I use Philip Schaff, and I often refer to A.T. Armitage, "A History of the Baptists." You might find some other good references here:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil//baptist.htm

http://www.yellowstone.net/baptist/history.htm

Yes I am familair with that first web site and Armitage's work is a history of Baptists in America mostly with a small discussion of the puritans - a refernce to Europe but no 2nd century stuff ... I will check out the yellowstone site.

Spurgeon is not my favorite theologian - though he has some very interesting sermons - I don't count him as a Bible Scholar - more a preacher and no, I do not consider them to be the same nor exclusive, some preachers are very good scholars as well ...

Do you have any references to contemporary biblical scholars or historians that support your calim that the Vetus Itala was a Waldensian work, a Septuagint that did not resemble the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles and would clearly date the Waldensians to the 2nd century and not to the 1100's ... because besides some rather dubious web pages, I can't locate any ...

 

[Matt Black]

And another person who has no respect for the Apostles themselves

Where have I said that?

and even thought it was the Apostles themselves that wrote the Scriptures

Well, I believe they wrote the NT under the influence of the Holy Spirit

Matt would find them incapable of discerning which ones God inspired and which ones God did not inspire.

Possibly - but with the exception of Peter's comments about Paul's writings (and he does not specify which ones) in 2 Peter 3:16 there is no evidence in Scripture that they were aware of that (did they need to be?), but in any event there's a world of difference between saying that they knew when the HS was inspiring them and actually assembling a recognised Canon; MSS took time to circulate around the eastern Mediterranean world.

Matt do you really believe the Apostles could not tell when they were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?? Were they that dumb, and the RCC that smart??

OK, if they were as smart as you claim, how come they (or at least one of them) didn't come up with a table of contents before they all shuffled off this mortal coil? And I thought you maintained that the RCC didn't come into existence until many years after the formation of the Canon?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Johndeerefan you don't know much about Lutheranism do you?

If you say so.

Say, while you're here, how are you coming along with those examples to back up your false accusations against me?

Please feel free to call ANY local Lutheran Church or go to ANY Lutheran board and ask if it is common to call their pastors 'priest'.

Don't need to. I already know many Lutherans and we've already had this discussion.

 

[lori4dogs]

If you say so.

Say, while you're here, how are you coming along with those examples to back up your false accusations against me?



Don't need to. I already know many Lutherans and we've already had this discussion.

First of all, what false allegations? Secondly, it is really not worth debating on Lutherans calling their clergy 'pastor' or 'vicar' (an associate pastor) but not priest. I gave you the only exception to that that I know of and that was the link to the Lutheran monastery in Oxford, Michigan.

Guess you still insist after the documentation I provided that the Lutherans believe in consubstantiation as well.

 

[WalkswithJesus]

But this information is not true. The date of the translation of the Septuagint was ca. 250 B.C. Not even one of the writings of the Apocrypha was written that early. They all were written much later than that. They eventually made their way into the Septuagint, but it was a Septuagint that came into existence sometime after the Apostles. Some of those books were not even written in the time of Christ, but later.

I am still waiting for your sources regarding this claim aboutthe Septuagint .. One of my scripture professors is a Dead Sea Scholar [yes he has actually studied the scroll fragments - having just returned from a sabbatical year when I had him in class]. He reads and writes biblical greek and hebrew ... and in case his background means something to you - he is Lutheran

The Dead Sea scrolls [the souce of the oldest extant hebrew writings]actually sunstantiate the Septuagint more so then the Masoretic - especially those scrolls written in Aramaic. The Spetuagint being a collection of writings was nnot 'created' as with a printing press all at once. The Pentatuch was translated in the 3rd century BC the rest date from then to about 150 BC not any later then 100 BC and the additional works are a part of that. There is no concensus among scholars on dating the various booksss outside of the initial Pentatuch. I can find no reputable scholar who would deny the inclusion of the additional works in the Septuagint - that is just outside of mainstream of biblical scholarship. In fact the oldest extant versions of the Septuagint pre-date the oldest extant hebrew texts by hundreds of years and both are from the Christian era. Fragments is the norm and the Dead Sea Scrolls are a mjor source [and they all date from the time of Jesus and before - not after as your post would imply]

As to Waldensians in the 2nd century - I have found little hard evidence - and only vague references that are claimed to reference them ... this story reminds me of [and perhaps it is the same] a story my mom used to speak of - hidden christians, isolated from the world for a long time - uninfluenced by the papists that suddenly reamerged .... But there are no real facts or answers to even the most basic questions [when did this isoation take place, how was that islation maintaained and for how long, what religious writings did they have at the time of their isolation and what writings did they produce in the period of isolation, what did they believe and how did they worship] .. If stories like this were true, we would still be talking about it, artifacts would be preserved and displayed in museums, some Christian denomination would claim them as their roots in very distinct ways [tenets of belief, worship, etc], books would have been written and by today we would hae the hollywood version in movie ...

I have been curious about this group for years [probably because of the fairy-tale told by my mom] as they seem to fit the bill until the research starts..thus I have read about the Waldensians but as I noted .. nothing is mentioned before the 1100's and their history appears tied to the rest of Christianity - which has its roots in the catholic/orthodox traditions ... to the protestant reformation and the various traditions that were its off spring/outcome [which was clearly verified in the history at the 'yellowstone' baptist link you provided - and which I found very intersting - THANKS] ... to the modern day

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I can find no reputable scholar who would deny the inclusion of the additional works in the Septuagint - that is just outside of mainstream of biblical scholarship.

like DHK, i was, once upon a time a fundamental baptist...being raised a IFB until I left the denomination officially in 2004 and became Orthodox in 2008 during Pentecost Feast...

once i was 'unplugged' from the matrix (my favorite movie), and the 'matrix' being the IFB hold on my ability to think for myself, it didn't take long to realize that much of what I was taught and believed was outside of mainstream biblical scholarship...

so in regard to DHK, u have a long uphill battle ahead of you...he's right and we're wrong, regardless of the biblical or Church history aptitude of a person...they're corrupted.

If stories like this were true, we would still be talking about it, artifacts would be preserved and displayed in museums, some Christian denomination would claim them as their roots in very distinct ways [tenets of belief, worship, etc], books would have been written and by today we would hae the hollywood version in movie ...

you're quote above in regard to the 'Waldensians' is what I went in search of after an adult Sunday school class entitled 'Why a Baptist'...basically this class followed the "Trail of Blood" outline of Church hisory...at the time I was fascinated by this and had tons of questions...I was excited to learn that the IFB Church wasn't 'protestant' and was the NT Church!

basically the above quote, i too asked in regard to this 'Trail of Blood' history and the answer was...the Roman Catholic Church destroyed ALL evidence of any Church resembling the IFB Church...huh? Then why didn't the RCC destroy the Gnostic writings and others? Didn't make a lick of sense and i was really put-off by the whole discovery.

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

OK, if they were as smart as you claim, how come they (or at least one of them) didn't come up with a table of contents before they all shuffled off this mortal coil? And I thought you maintained that the RCC didn't come into existence until many years after the formation of the Canon?

Ludicrous!
Many of our Bibles today don't have a "Table of Contents," and they come off a modern day printing press!
The "Bible" of the first century was composed of scrolls. I never said that by the end of the first century one person had all of the scrolls had them all in one place "printed" in one book. You have a lively imagination.

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
--Timothy was at Ephesus. Paul was at Rome awaiting his execution. He desires "the books" but especially "the parchments."

One cannot be sure what the books are. The Greek word "Biblios" is used from which we get our word Bible. He could have been referring to the Old Testament or another book.
But the "parchments" were no doubt the epistles that he had written, and possibly some that other apostles had written. We don't know for sure, but what we do know is that the NT was written on parchments, and Paul desired that he have them.

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Peter puts the writings (inspired writings) of the apostles on the same level of importance as the inspired writings of the prophets. They were equal in weight. They were to obedy the commands of the apostles just as they were to obey the commands of the OT prophets. Peter seemed to know which ones were inspired and which were not.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
--Contend for the faith once delivered. The faith, that is the inspired writings, were only delivered once. God spoke one time through the apostles. That is our faith, today our Bible. Jude is one of the last epistles to be written, apart from the writings from John. This faith that we have, contained in the Word, we are to contend for. It is found in the Scriptures. It was a NT message that he was speaking of.

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Peter knew which of Paul's writings were Scripture and which were not.
From this I believe we can know that all the apostles knew when the Holy Spirit was guiding them to pen the words of God.
If the OT prophets knew, why wouldn't the NT apostles know. Look how many times the OT prophets used the term "Thus saith the Lord." They knew when God was speaking through them. So did the apostles.

 

[DHK]

Do you have any references to contemporary biblical scholars or historians that support your calim that the Vetus Itala was a Waldensian work, a Septuagint that did not resemble the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles and would clearly date the Waldensians to the 2nd century and not to the 1100's ... because besides some rather dubious web pages, I can't locate any ...

Concerning the Itala itself, as well as the canon of Scripture, here is some useful information:

September 19, 1996 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, Michigan 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) - The following is from the first chapter of the O Timothy magazine Editor's new book which is preparing for publication. The title is Rome and the Bible: Tracing the History of the Roman Catholic Church and Its Persecution of the Bible and of Bible Believers, copyright 1996 by David W. Cloud --
It is obvious from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that the Apostles viewed the Scriptures as sufficient for faith and practice.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be PERFECT, THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
​

The term "perfect" here is not used in the sense of sinless perfection, but in the sense of completion and sufficiency. THE QUESTION WHICH FOLLOWS IS HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE BIBLE, WITH ITS 66 BOOKS, CONTAINS THE COMPLETE SCRIPTURES WHICH ARE ABLE TO MAKE THE MAN OF GOD PERFECT?
FIRST, THE APOSTLES WERE PROMISED INSPIRATION FOR THE COMPLETION OF SCRIPTURE. The Lord Jesus Christ promised the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth and that He would shew them all the things they needed to know.

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you" (John 16:12-15).
​

In fulfillment of Christ's promise the New Testament revelation was completed by the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The apostolic writings which formed the New Testament Scriptures were accepted as Scripture by the first century churches. The Apostle Peter, speaking to the Christians about Paul's writings, referred to them as Scripture and placed them on par with the Old Testament prophets. "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15,16). The Apostles knew that the Lord had promised them inspiration (John 16:12-15), and they knew that they were receiving revelation. Consider, for example, Paul's statement to the churches in Galatia:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11,12). Consider the words of Paul to the church at Thessalonia:
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when YE RECEIVED THE WORD OF GOD WHICH YE HEARD OF US, YE RECEIVED IT NOT AS THE WORD OF MEN, BUT AS IT IS IN TRUTH, THE WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
​

The Thessalonian believers knew that Paul had given them the WORD OF GOD!
Consider, also, the words of Peter to the Christians in the first century churches:

"This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour" (2 Peter 3:12).
​

Peter reminded the Christians that the commandments of the Apostles are on par with the Old Testament prophets. Obviously this was something which the Apostles were careful to teach to all of the churches. They could not have been put in remembrance of something which they had not already been taught. The Christians of the first century were a close-knit community. It is ridiculous to think that they did not know these things, that they did not recognize that the Apostles were writing Scripture and that they did not receive the New Testament epistles as such. It was left for the modernists of the 19th and 20th centuries to deny these things and to claim that the forming of the New Testament canon was an almost haphazard thing which did not occur until centuries after the Apostles.

 

[DHK]

SECOND, WE KNOW THE BIBLE CONTAINS THE COMPLETE WORD OF GOD BECAUSE WE ARE TOLD THE FAITH WAS ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS.

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for THE FAITH WHICH WAS ONCE DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS" (Jude 3).
​

"The faith" refers to the body of New Testament truth delivered by the Apostles through Holy Spirit inspiration. The term "once delivered" tells us that this body of truth was given during one particular period of time and was completed. It refers to the New Testament Scriptures. This verse refutes the idea that the Christian faith has been progressively given through the Roman Catholic Church.
THIRD, A SEAL WAS PLACED ON THE FINAL CHAPTER OF THE FINAL BOOK OF THE BIBLE, SIGNIFYING ITS COMPLETION AND WARNING EVERY MAN NOT TO ADD TR SUBTRACT FROM IT.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Rev. 22:18,19).
​

Those who claim to have a new revelation or a tradition equal to the Bible fall under the judgment described in this passage. The book of Revelation completes the Holy Scriptures.
FOURTH, THE COMPLETED CANON OF SCRIPTURE WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE SECOND CENTURY. Christian leaders in the second century recognized the completed canon of the New Testament and accepted the apostolic writings as Holy Scripture on equal authority with the Old Testament. Irenaeus (125-192), for example, in his writings which still exist, made 1,800 quotations from the New Testament books and used them "in such a way as to imply that they had for some time been considered as of unquestioned authority" (Herbert Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 140). Irenaeus accepted the four Gospels, and four only, as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria (150-217) quotes from and acknowledges the four Gospels and most other New Testament books, calling them "divine Scriptures." Tertullian (150-220) made 7,200 citations from the New Testament books and accepted them as Scripture. The Latin Itala translation which was made in the second century "contained all the books that now make up the New Testament" (John Hentz, History of the Lutheran Version, p. 59). A list of New Testament Scriptures dating to the latter half of the second century was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy, in 1740. This second-century list contained all of the books of the New Testament canon (Ibid., p. 60).
Thus the completed Greek New Testament Scriptures were being circulated and accepted by God's people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many of the modernistic textual scholars who write today about these early centuries deny, or totally overlook, the working of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration and canonicity of the New Testament. The Apostles were not left to their own devices to transcribe the record of Christ, nor were the early Christians left to their own devices to recognize which writings were Scripture. The words of the New Testament are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ through Holy Spirit inspiration, and the Lord's sheep know the voice of their Good Shepherd and can discern His voice from false shepherds (John 10:4,5,27).
FIFTH, THE PASSAGES WHICH URGE CHRISTIANS TO FOLLOW TRADITION REFER TO THE INSPIRED TRADITION GIVEN BY THE APOSTLES, NOT THE UNINSPIRED TRADITIONS OF MEN WHO HAVE FOLLOWED AFTER THEM. Tradition is used in two ways in the New Testament. First it refers to apostolic doctrine given by inspiration (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6). The churches are bound to obey this tradition as it is recorded in the New Testament Scriptures. Second, tradition refers to uninspired teachings which religious teachers attempt to add to the Word of God and by which they attempt to bind the lives of men (Matt. 15:1-6; Mk. 7:9-13; Col. 2:8). In this sense, tradition is soundly condemned.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:9). "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye" (Mark 7:13).
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8).
​

We can praise the Lord that He HAS given us a completed revelation and that we are not dependent upon extra-biblical prophecies, visions, voices, tongues, or traditions. In the Bible we have everything the churches need for faith and practice.

file:///C:/Library%20CD-ROM/FundamentalBaptistLibrary2000/WWW/qindex.htm

 

[Agnus_Dei]

don't trust anything from david cloud...might as well read the back of a cereal box for that matter...

In XC
-

 

[WalkswithJesus]

Okay, I have done some research and reading after reading your quotes. Which though interesting did not exactly address neither my questions nor your assertions. I can see that David Cloud is a preacher and author. He does not like the early writings of the Christians from the last apostles to the Protestant reformation and sees them as a threat. He writes 'against' a lot of things and people - He is a KJV only bible believer other then that I could not deduce much... He lists no academic credentials.

I guess I am not making my request clear: I understand that you are a Christian and a Baptist one and that you are influenced by the writings put forth by writers like David Cloud ... We all have those who have influenced our faith walk :thumbsup:

Christianity [and its Jewish roots] is a faith - but it also has a knowable history, knowable from writings, archeology and the cultural aspects that can be observed and are carried forth [whether they be maintained, or lost or modified] through the ages.

Charismatic leadership is not biblical scholarship - no matter how many passages you can quote. And when it comes to interpreting a passage - well all bets are off. For just one example: Your David Cloud says that the prohibition to add to or subtract from references to the entire bible [and the King James - no less] and not just to the Book of Revelation ... which is just his interpretation/opinion and nothing more - It is not an objective TRUTH.

But to get back to our discussion:

It is a knowable fact that the Septuagint included works like Sirach and not works like the Jubilees...

To deny some truth that is totally removed from your 'faith' perspective is just something I do not understand. Its like denying that there is a tower in Pisa - which must be determined before you can even get to a discussion of whether it leans it not ... There are scholars who have studied ancient fragments, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls - and not just to say they exist but to have read and studied the contents [though in my case I owe a debt of gratitude to Geza Vermes] along with the jubilees and other ancient texts.

The quotes from David Cloud did not truly support your contention that
1] The Septuagint contained only the Hebrew OT and not the added books as one might find in either the Orthodox or Catholic bibles
2] The 2nd century Waldensians ...

What sources can you site for these two assertions...?

 

[Matt Black]

Ludicrous!
Many of our Bibles today don't have a "Table of Contents," and they come off a modern day printing press!

No, but we know what books should go in the Bible. It is noteworthy that the first individual recorded to come up with an accurate list of NT books was Athanasius in 367. Nothing before that. The Vetus Latina/Vetus Itala referred to by you is a red herring: the terms refer not to a complete 'book' comprising the entire NT as we have it today but, rather, they are collective terms for a number of Latin MSS containing parts of the NT which were circulating in the early centuries of the Church, before Jerome's Vulgate, much as there were many Greek MSS containing parts of the NT circulating at the same time. The earliest extant MS from the Vetus stable is the Codex Vercellensis, which dates from around 350 and contains all four Gospels.

The "Bible" of the first century was composed of scrolls. I never said that by the end of the first century one person had all of the scrolls had them all in one place "printed" in one book. You have a lively imagination.

So you accept then that no one congregation or individual at that stage had all 27 books of the NT

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
--Timothy was at Ephesus. Paul was at Rome awaiting his execution. He desires "the books" but especially "the parchments."

One cannot be sure what the books are. The Greek word "Biblios" is used from which we get our word Bible. He could have been referring to the Old Testament or another book.
But the "parchments" were no doubt the epistles that he had written, and possibly some that other apostles had written. We don't know for sure, but what we do know is that the NT was written on parchments, and Paul desired that he have them.

Speculative eisegesis; I expect something more rigorous from someone who claims to be sola Scriptura.

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Peter puts the writings (inspired writings) of the apostles on the same level of importance as the inspired writings of the prophets. They were equal in weight. They were to obedy the commands of the apostles just as they were to obey the commands of the OT prophets. Peter seemed to know which ones were inspired and which were not.

Now you move from eisegesis to naked interpolation! At no point does Peter use the word 'writings'. So, this could refer to parts of the NT, or it could refer to Apostolic Tradition, or both.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
--Contend for the faith once delivered. The faith, that is the inspired writings, .

Whoa, there! "There you go again!" You make a massive theological leap from 'faith delivered' to 'inspired writings'. Again, this passage could equally refer to Tradition - in fact, it is more likely to refer to this than to anything written, by virtue of the use of 'delivered' which in Latin, seeing as you seem to be fond of Latin MSS, is rendered traditio.

....were only delivered once God spoke one time through the apostles. That is our faith, today our Bible. Jude is one of the last epistles to be written, apart from the writings from John. This faith that we have, contained in the Word, we are to contend for. It is found in the Scriptures. It was a NT message that he was speaking of.

Oh dear! Poor old Jude, not to mention John! You see, what you are saying here is, for you, the meaning of 'once delivered' = 'only delivered once'. Now, that would mean that by the time Jude (or his scribe) picked up his quill, never mind about John, the 'faith' (= the Scriptures, according to you) had already been delivered 'only the once' and therefore there was nothing further to be added, which means there is no way that Jude or John's writings should be in the NT!

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Peter knew which of Paul's writings were Scripture and which were not.
From this I believe we can know that all the apostles knew when the Holy Spirit was guiding them to pen the words of God.
If the OT prophets knew, why wouldn't the NT apostles know. Look how many times the OT prophets used the term "Thus saith the Lord." They knew when God was speaking through them. So did the apostles.

I've already mentioned this in my last post and want to expand on what I said there. First, what is meant by 'all his epistles'? Did Peter have all of Paul's epistles that we have today in his possession? Did he have Paul's lost first letter to the Corinthians? We simply don't know.

 

[DHK]

Okay, I have done some research and reading after reading your quotes. Which though interesting did not exactly address neither my questions nor your assertions. I can see that David Cloud is a preacher and author. He does not like the early writings of the Christians from the last apostles to the Protestant reformation and sees them as a threat. He writes 'against' a lot of things and people - He is a KJV only bible believer other then that I could not deduce much... He lists no academic credentials.

In spite of what you call his weaknesses he has done much research, and the research that he has done he has given credit for, often using first hand sources. This is the typical thinking of Catholics (I had hoped not you), that when you don't like the message you shoot the messenger.
I also don't agree with all that he writes. But some of the things that he has written are well researched. Therefore I don't throw it all out.

I am not a Presbyterian and don't agree with their theology, but I often use sources written by Presbyterian scholars. The same principle applies.

I guess I am not making my request clear: I understand that you are a Christian and a Baptist one and that you are influenced by the writings put forth by writers like David Cloud ... We all have those who have influenced our faith walk :thumbsup:

No, I have not been influenced by David Cloud whatsoever. I became a Christian years before I ever heard of him. It is just one of many sources I occasionally refer to. I am sorry that you don't appreciate it. If it makes you happy I won't use it again.

Christianity [and its Jewish roots] is a faith - but it also has a knowable history, knowable from writings, archeology and the cultural aspects that can be observed and are carried forth [whether they be maintained, or lost or modified] through the ages.

And your point is?

Charismatic leadership is not biblical scholarship - no matter how many passages you can quote. And when it comes to interpreting a passage - well all bets are off.

I have no argument here, and never brought in the Charismatic movement here. This is a rabbit trail.

For just one example: Your David Cloud says that the prohibition to add to or subtract from references to the entire bible [and the King James - no less] and not just to the Book of Revelation ... which is just his interpretation/opinion and nothing more - It is not an objective TRUTH.

He has strong opinions on the KJV. So what. It basically boils down to MSS evidence: which is more accurate to the original--the Critical Text or the Majority Text. He believes it is the Majority Text, as do many others. In that I think he is right.

But to get back to our discussion:

It is a knowable fact that the Septuagint included works like Sirach and not works like the Jubilees...

You have been misled by liberal scholars. It is not a knowable fact. It is a theory put forth by those that would destroy the Bible. You have no basis in fact here.

To deny some truth that is totally removed from your 'faith' perspective is just something I do not understand. Its like denying that there is a tower in Pisa - which must be determined before you can even get to a discussion of whether it leans it not ... There are scholars who have studied ancient fragments, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls - and not just to say they exist but to have read and studied the contents [though in my case I owe a debt of gratitude to Geza Vermes] along with the jubilees and other ancient texts.

I also have studied this matter quite thoroughly. I know that you are dead wrong. Answer me this. How can books written during the time of Christ be included in a book that was written between 250 and 150 B.C.? You are putting forth the impossible. You still have no answer for that question. Do some research. Find out the dates of the 14 books of the Apocrypha, when they were written.
Do you know that they were not officially accepted, even by the RCC until 1534?

I have a copy of the Septuagint. It was printed in London by Bagster & Sons in 1879. It is an old book. In its introduction it gives a history of the Septuagint and tells how it went through a number of recensions. The Jews and Apostles would never have accepted the apocryphal books or allowed them into Septuagint. They were not put in until much later, possibly not until the date of Origen's time.
The Septuagint that I have does not include the Apocryphal books.

The quotes from David Cloud did not truly support your contention that
1] The Septuagint contained only the Hebrew OT and not the added books as one might find in either the Orthodox or Catholic bibles

Then pick up any one of dozens of OT or NT Survey textbooks, Bible Encyclopedias, Bible Dictionaries, etc. But avoid the Catholic sources and other liberal sources. Even the study Bible that I use agrees with me.

2] The 2nd century Waldensians ...

What sources can you site for these two assertions...?

More history books.
There are two streams of thought concerning the Waldenses.
The one is that they were a people that followed Peter Waldo, a preacher in the 12th century. That is true.
However the word "Waldenses" also means "people of the valley." Even a Roman Catholic Bishop, Cardinal Hosius, attests that the Waldenses date right back to the Apostles.

 

[DHK]

don't trust anything from david cloud...might as well read the back of a cereal box for that matter...

In XC
-

Yes Agnus we know of your exuding love for Baptist doctrine.