The Canon of "P"

[Jarthur001]

As for No. 2, I have found fault and expressed it earlier. But I am going to take a step back here and ask that you explain what you mean by self-attesting.

I have gave you a verse in Peter. Please look at it and we can talk about it.

I have taken this to mean that when you read it you intrinsically know it is God's word.

Then that would be wrong. Scripture attest for itself.

I don't believe that, but perhaps you have another meaning that you attach to "self-attesting."


***************

I can't recall who said it on this thread, but someone said that the canon came about because of wrong teachings like the Gnostics. I meant to say this before but forgot...

The Gnostics wrote their own literature. Early Christianity clearly produced their own literature, and it makes sense that those writings would address the heretical
issues of the day. However, it is also true that Gnosticism borrowed freely from those early Christian writings. Being that the Gnostic writings were after Christian writings it is clear why the two have some of the same subjects. So to claim that the gathering and canonization process of the early church was spurred on simply to fight heresy is unsubstantiated.

 

[Jarthur001]

I disagree with your statement here. Jesus made the Church.

To much to address in your last post. I want to ask one main thing now...

Please tell me how one can separate God from His holy Word?

 

[Zenas]

I have gave you a verse in Peter. Please look at it and we can talk about it.

15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

OK, Peter regarded the writings of Paul to be somewhat obtuse but nevertheless as sacred scripture. So we have scriptural validation of Paul's writings. Now, who validates Peter's writings? Or for that matter, who attests that 2 Peter was even written by Peter?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

To much to address in your last post. I want to ask one main thing now...

Please tell me how one can separate God from His holy Word?

What are you getting at? I'm speaking of history and how things came about. I have not seperated anything. Just spoken the truth. How does this change the word of God? Or its nature?

 

[Jarthur001]

OK, Peter regarded the writings of Paul to be somewhat obtuse but nevertheless as sacred scripture. So we have scriptural validation of Paul's writings. Now, who validates Peter's writings? Or for that matter, who attests that 2 Peter was even written by Peter?

Ok....well you went for the hardest one to prove...2 peter.

But lets be clear on something.You asked if I have proof Peter wrote 2 peter. No one can attest that 2 Peter was written by Peter and that was the matter of the debate. As was Hebrews, 2 John and 3 John. Origen mentions doubts about its authenticity, he does not evaluate these doubts himself. Its not that these books were out right rejected by any that I know of, but that they were unsure who wrote them. Right?

Now as to 2 peter...

Robert E. Picirilli builds a strong case that 2 Peter came before Jude. I wish I was well versed on this one, but I'm afraid I can only point you to a book.
The Randall House Bible Commentary: James, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude
LINK


If 2 Peter antedates Jude, then Jude would be the first document to cite material from 2 Peter. One of the things is this...

17But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.

18They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions."

Notice this is a command when it uses the word MUST. Must what? The reader is commanded to remember. They knew of this saying and Jude was reminding them of it. I say they had read it and knew all about it for it was scripture. Just as it says in John 2:17..

His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me."

Notice also that it came from the apostles.

And where is this quoted?

2 Peter 3

3knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming?

 

[Jarthur001]

What are you getting at? I'm speaking of history and how things came about. I have not seperated anything. Just spoken the truth. How does this change the word of God? Or its nature?

Keep up thinking...

You quoted me...

The church didn't make the canon, the canon made the church. The church just discovered it late.

And said...

I disagree with your statement here. Jesus made the Church.

Which is when I replied..

Please tell me how one can separate God from His holy Word?

John 1...In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If Scripture made the church as I said, it is also true that Jesus made the Church...which is what you said.

You can't separate the two now can you?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Keep up thinking...

You quoted me...

And said...



Which is when I replied..


John 1...In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If Scripture made the church as I said, it is also true that Jesus made the Church...which is what you said.

You can't separate the two now can you?

You know very well the different connotations of each. Jesus Made the Church you're using Johns application of the greek consept of Logos (to John the word which indicates Gods creative activity and sustenance of the universe and to plato a demurge or a lesser god who holds together matter) and the writen words of the NT.

 

[Jarthur001]

You know very well the different connotations of each. Jesus Made the Church you're using Johns application of the greek consept of Logos (to John the word which indicates Gods creative activity and sustenance of the universe and to plato a demurge or a lesser god who holds together matter) and the writen words of the NT.

Heraclitus was the 1st known person to use the word "Logos". Jews and Greeks alike used Logos to refer to God, since He was the rational mind and reason behind all things. Plato had made a statement that maybe someday man would here from God...as in "logos"... the wisdom of God....the reason..etc.

John is addressing both the Jew and the Greek when he chose "logos" in John 1.

And no, you cannot divide the two. I give you my word means...Trust ME. Me!!


It's my words...it is ME that I want you to trust.

A man is what his mind is. Words are a expression of his mind. They are one and the same.

 

[Zenas]

Ok....well you went for the hardest one to prove...2 peter.

But lets be clear on something.You asked if I have proof Peter wrote 2 peter. No one can attest that 2 Peter was written by Peter and that was the matter of the debate. As was Hebrews, 2 John and 3 John. Origen mentions doubts about its authenticity, he does not evaluate these doubts himself. Its not that these books were out right rejected by any that I know of, but that they were unsure who wrote them. Right?

Now as to 2 peter...

Robert E. Picirilli builds a strong case that 2 Peter came before Jude. I wish I was well versed on this one, but I'm afraid I can only point you to a book.
The Randall House Bible Commentary: James, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude
LINK


If 2 Peter antedates Jude, then Jude would be the first document to cite material from 2 Peter. One of the things is this...



Notice this is a command when it uses the word MUST. Must what? The reader is commanded to remember. They knew of this saying and Jude was reminding them of it. I say they had read it and knew all about it for it was scripture. Just as it says in John 2:17..

His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me."

Notice also that it came from the apostles.

And where is this quoted?

2 Peter 3

The fact that scripture quotes a writing is evidence that the writing is also scripture. But it is not conclusive. For instance, Jude also quotes from the book of Enoch and The Assumption of Moses but they are not scripture. We also don't know which book came first, despite the good case for the primacy of Jude made by your Picirilli commentary. Frankly, I tend to agree that 2 Peter came first because of the relatively early demise of Peter. Then you have the question of whether Jude belongs in the canon. If I were choosing the canon, Jude might not make it because of the strange quotations from aprcryphal books. But it's not up to me or you. The canon has been conclusively established for more than 1,600 years and, like or not, it was established by the Catholic church.

 

[Zenas]

Heraclitus was the 1st known person to use the word "Logos". Jews and Greeks alike used Logos to refer to God, since He was the rational mind and reason behind all things. Plato had made a statement that maybe someday man would here from God...as in "logos"... the wisdom of God....the reason..etc.

John is addressing both the Jew and the Greek when he chose "logos" in John 1.

And no, you cannot divide the two. I give you my word means...Trust ME. Me!!


It's my words...it is ME that I want you to trust.

A man is what his mind is. Words are a expression of his mind. They are one and the same.

I see your point here but you are dangerously close to saying the word of God = the Word of God. The "Word" is the eternal second person of the Holy Trinity. The "word" is a collection of books inspired by God. We learn from it, we even sometimes refer to it as sacred scripture, but we don't worship it. To do so would be pure idolotry.

 

[Jarthur001]

The fact that scripture quotes a writing is evidence that the writing is also scripture. But it is not conclusive. For instance, Jude also quotes from the book of Enoch and The Assumption of Moses but they are not scripture. We also don't know which book came first, despite the good case for the primacy of Jude made by your Picirilli commentary. Frankly, I tend to agree that 2 Peter came first because of the relatively early demise of Peter. Then you have the question of whether Jude belongs in the canon. If I were choosing the canon, Jude might not make it because of the strange quotations from aprcryphal books. But it's not up to me or you. The canon has been conclusively established for more than 1,600 years and, like or not, it was established by the Catholic church.

I'm doing some quick post tonight. I'll be back with you on Jude in a while.

 

[Jarthur001]

I see your point here but you are dangerously close to saying the word of God = the Word of God. The "Word" is the eternal second person of the Holy Trinity. The "word" is a collection of books inspired by God. We learn from it, we even sometimes refer to it as sacred scripture, but we don't worship it. To do so would be pure idolotry.

Please understand me. Gods Word cannot be removed from God. What he says...is truth. However, His written Word is not fully God and cannot be worshipped as you have stated. He is more than what his written Word has told us, because His written Word tells us that much.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Please understand me. Gods Word cannot be removed from God. What he says...is truth. However, His written Word is not fully God and cannot be worshipped as you have stated. He is more than what his written Word has told us, because His written Word tells us that much.

So then now that you state this how was the correct scripture discovered? By the church body? Or what?