Christianity and how the bible was put together

[Matt Black]

No kidding. No one said that it did. Again, you are missing the point in a big way.

You said the Hellenists weren't Jews.

I am not sure what you are responding to. Your previous statement was that I said the NT was available to "the whole Church." But when you try to prove I said that, you cite something completely different where I said that the "churches ... had all of it by the end of the first century." I didn't say any one church at it all. I didn't say that all churches had it all. I said what I said.

It reminds me of one of the key problems in communication, both in this type as well as in Scripture. Sometimes people do not speak clearly, and as I have often said, it is impossible to anticipate all the ways in which someone might misread something. But equally problemmatic is that some people simply do not read carefully and think about what is said, and as a result read their own biases into it. That is what you have done.

Please clarify then - which churches had all 27 books by the end of the 1st century: all, some (which ones in that case; where were they) or none?

 

[Pastor Larry]

You said the Hellenists weren't Jews.

Not sure that was what I said. To quote myself: They were "Hellenistic" which mean Grecian. They may have been of Jewish descent or they may have been proselytes, or both.

Please clarify then - which churches had all 27 books by the end of the 1st century: all, some (which ones in that case; where were they) or none?

I don't think there is anyway to know which churches had which books. They were all available somewhere because they had all been written. But we simply cannot know who had what.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am confused. So now you are saying that the philosphers and poets quoted in the NT are in fact Scripture? When I asked you earlier I thought you said that they weren't. Now you are saying that you aren't excluded any writings.
And I think that question has been sufficiently answered by looking at the Scriptures themselves which refer to the OT as the Law and the Prophets, not the Law and the Prophets and the DC. The fact that you don't accept an answer doesn't mean that it is not correct, nor that it wasn't given. There is no reason biblically to think that the DC was considered part of the HOly Scripture. There are in fact a number of good reasons why they should not be.

But when someone "just doesn't know," how else do we answer? I have taken a fair amount of time pointing out both factual and argumentative errors in your position. But there are sources far more qualified and well-written that are widely available that will give further insight into what I have said here. I understand not everyone has gone to seminary, and so I have great patience with questions. I am not sure that it is profitable to keep asking the smae questions over and over again after they have been answered and discussed. The kind of resources and citations that perhaps you are looking for are not suitable for this board, and my time schedule doesn't allow me to do that anyway.

I am asking questions trying to find out the truth of things. I do not believe that you're answers sufficiently answered the questions. Self evident to Paul yes 2000 years ago not to us now. I was speaking once with an Orthodox priest about some issue regarding a problem I came accross. His answer was well that was handled. What kind of answer was that? Handled when and how? Obvioiusly on the issue we were discussing you and I would disagree that it was handled. That is why when someone doesn't know you explain it to them. You don't just say you don't know. Obvioiusly on what is included ornot in canon isn't decided because the RCC the Othodox the Copts the Protestants all have differeing views I can see their reasoning. I can't see yours from a historical perspective. Evidence favors them not you. So said you've provided evidence. What evidence is that? What hard evidence do you have? The way I see it is that Protestants only decided recently (from historical perspective) that they would go with the 22 rather than the entire LXX. Strangely enough protestants kept the DC in the bible until the 1800's. (though it may have not been canon in their perspective) I don't understand. explain it to me.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Posted twice sorry.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I am asking questions trying to find out the truth of things.

Which is great and no problem.

I do not believe that you're answers sufficiently answered the questions.

But how qualified are you to assess that? (I don't mean that prejudicially, but simply to get you to think about whether or not you are sufficiently informed to decide whether an answer is sufficient).

That is why when someone doesn't know you explain it to them. You don't just say you don't know.

I have explained it, as well as pointed out flaws in your argument.

Obvioiusly on what is included ornot in canon isn't decided because the RCC the Othodox the Copts the Protestants all have differeing views I can see their reasoning. I can't see yours from a historical perspective. Evidence favors them not you.

I don't think the evidence that favors them.

What evidence is that? What hard evidence do you have?

The testimony and example of the Scriptures themselves, and the historical evidence of the Church.

Seriously, think about this: Jesus would have had the DC. Yet he continually refers to the "Law and the Prophets" not the "Law and the Prophets and the DC." Isn't that striking? When the Lord himself doesn't testify to the status of the DC as canonical, that should settle it particularly since he did testify to others.

The RCC, Orthodox, and others have serious departures from Scripture and the reason is that if they hold to an orthodox view of Scripture, much of their teaching has no basis. So we have to take a more serious look at the Scripture itself.

 

[Matt Black]

OK, let's throw a negative argument in, just for a bit of fun: if the DCs were not regarded as inspired by Jesus and the NT writers, you would have thought, given that the LXX was the most widespread version of the OT, that one of them at least would have said at some point, "Oh, and by the way, guys, you know those bits of the LXX that are after the end of Malachi, the extra bits of Daniel and Esther and one or two books of the wisdom literature, well, they're not really Scripture." BUt no-one does.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Seriously, think about this: Jesus would have had the DC. Yet he continually refers to the "Law and the Prophets" not the "Law and the Prophets and the DC." Isn't that striking? When the Lord himself doesn't testify to the status of the DC as canonical, that should settle it particularly since he did testify to others.

No.

First of all the Law and the Prophets do not necissarily exclude the DC. In fact, at that time the DC were part of the Alexandrian translation. So since they did not have that distinction at that time it would have all been the Alexandrian translation of the scriptures. Yet also note that there are scrolls at Qumran that are from selections out of the DC. You would have to show that what Jesus meant by Law and Prophets. Did Jesus use the LXX ? LXX was commonly used at that time. But then again Jesus was in Judea and was a Jew. Jesus spoke Aramaic as well as Greek and Hebrew. The Qumran find indicates that they had texts found in the DC. So you would have to show what Jesus was refering to necissarily excluded text that we've later dubed DC.

So we have to take a more serious look at the Scripture itself.

Which is what I'm doing.

As far as an authority. Admittedly I'm not. Are you do you stand by your own arguement? I'm curious.

 

[Pastor Larry]

OK, let's throw a negative argument in, just for a bit of fun: if the DCs were not regarded as inspired by Jesus and the NT writers, you would have thought, given that the LXX was the most widespread version of the OT, that one of them at least would have said at some point, "Oh, and by the way, guys, you know those bits of the LXX that are after the end of Malachi, the extra bits of Daniel and Esther and one or two books of the wisdom literature, well, they're not really Scripture." BUt no-one does.

Really? No one does? You know everything that was said and taught to those Christians? Where did you come across this information? Adn why not make it available to the rest of us?

Of course I speak facetiously, becasue as you know you have know idea that that wasn't said. What we have is teh consistent testimony of the Scriptures that the DC was not accepted as the Holy Scripture.

 

[Pastor Larry]

First of all the Law and the Prophets do not necissarily exclude the DC.

I have never seen anyone include the DC in the Law and the Prophets. Have you?

So since they did not have that distinction at that time it would have all been the Alexandrian translation of the scriptures.

What distinction? The Law/Prophet distinction was well known.

You would have to show that what Jesus meant by Law and Prophets.

We show this by looking at how the term was used.

Did Jesus use the LXX ?

I wish we could dispense with this argument because it contributes nothing. It is entirely possible the the LXX was used, and almost certian that it was in some cases, though not certain in other cases. However, it is a long reach from there to the inclusions of the DC in the canon.

So you would have to show what Jesus was refering to necissarily excluded text that we've later dubed DC.

I think I have, but why do I have to? Why don't you since you are departing from the historical position of the gospel church?

Are you do you stand by your own arguement? I'm curious.

Which argument?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What distinction? The Law/Prophet distinction was well known

Show it to me that it was well known to have only included the 39 books please.

However, it is a long reach from there to the inclusions of the DC in the canon.

How is it a long reach?

I think I have, but why do I have to? Why don't you since you are departing from the historical position of the gospel church

Prove this. This is what I'm trying to get at. The historical position of the church. They didn't have the Roanoke Baptist gospel church back then. The Gospel church (the church that taught the the good news) seems to have used the DC's. The orthodox/traditional churches of the world all claim that it was inspired and they can point to its use in the NT and the earliest christian writing as proof. Is there a church council that I don't know of that says the DC are not canon? I don't know enlighten me please. Is There a statement in the NT the excludes the DC as inspired if so please show me.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But how qualified are you to assess that? (I don't mean that prejudicially, but simply to get you to think about whether or not you are sufficiently informed to decide whether an answer is sufficient).

It was this arguement I was referring to.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Pastor Larry,

I do thank you for your patients with me as I review these things. I'm also review a book called "the right doctrine from the wrong texts" Which is a compilation of different essays on the matter. However, I'm looking at these matters from this perspective so you can better understand what I am saying. Astro physics can determine that billions of miles away that a planet exist around a star based on two primary reasons. 1) the wobble of the star shows a gravetational pull that is indicative of a planet orbiting that star and 2) a dimming of the light from that star for a short period of time also indicative of a planet orbiting that star because as it passes in front of the star the light would necissarily decrease. This is how I'm viewing the DC and their use in the early church and why I'm having a problem with your explination.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Show it to me that it was well known to have only included the 39 books please.

What are you willing to accept as proof?

How is it a long reach?

Because saying that someone uses a particular translation of Scripture does not mean that they believe everything in that volume is Scripture. We see that so evident in other areas but yet we deny it in this one and that makes no sense.

Prove this.

But again, what kind of proof are you willing to accept?

The orthodox/traditional churches of the world all claim that it was inspired and they can point to its use in the NT and the earliest christian writing as proof.

As proof of what though? And are you willing to apply that same standard to other things used in the NT and earliest Christian writings (and OT)?

 

[Matt Black]

Really? No one does? You know everything that was said and taught to those Christians? Where did you come across this information? Adn why not make it available to the rest of us?

Of course I speak facetiously, becasue as you know you have know idea that that wasn't said. What we have is teh consistent testimony of the Scriptures that the DC was not accepted as the Holy Scripture.

Nowhere in the NT. I find that telling.

 

[Pastor Larry]

As for authority, I am not one. I am a student of particularly the OT, and I realize that in this forum and with my time commitments, I can't give as full an answer as might be convincing to you. There are many good sources that address the various issues of canonicity.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Nowhere in the NT. I find that telling.

But some how you don't find it telling that nowhere in the NT are we told to believe the DC is canonical. Furthermore (to draw on another conversation), you don't find the words of the Bible compelling to belief anyway. So what do you find telling?

 

[Matt Black]

Where have I said that I don't find the Bible compelling to belief? Surely you can't be confusing my saying that I don't necessarily accept that the Bible has to be literally interpreted, every word, with not finding it compelling to belief - I credit you with more intelligence than that!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

We see that so evident in other areas but yet we deny it in this one and that makes no sense

where?

And are you willing to apply that same standard to other things used in the NT and earliest Christian writings (and OT)?

yes. Though I'm not sure what standard you are speaking of.

 

[Pastor Larry]

where?

We recognize in our own Bibles that the inclusion of study notes and the like does not testify for their inclusion in the canon. We recognize that the existence of commentaries that quote Scripture and make comments does not mean that the comments are a part of Scripture. Yet some are hesitant to recognize that while the DC provide historical data, they are not a part of Scripture.

Though I'm not sure what standard you are speaking of.

One of your arguments is that the DC are cited in the NT and that gives evidence of their canonicity. Yet poets and philosophers are also quoted, and I don't think you affirm the sources of those quotes as canonical. So it seems like you have a double standard. You can't argue that something is quoted and therefore the source is canonical for the DC and not argue it for other things.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Where have I said that I don't find the Bible compelling to belief?

You said that the fact that God said he created the universe in six days does not compel you to believe that he created it in six days. Science aside (which is completely consistent with the biblical statements), it is a theological error on your part.

Surely you can't be confusing my saying that I don't necessarily accept that the Bible has to be literally interpreted, every word, with not finding it compelling to belief - I credit you with more intelligence than that!

Being "literal" has nothing to do with it. I credit you with more intelligence than that.