What does scripture say is scripture?

[visionary]

Superior attitude and so wrong, exactly what is wrong with a lot of people withinb this denom and why it is come against so much. I think God will take a dim view of this and it would be interesting come judgement day to see how God judges the RCC

When God cracks open the heart, and all the dark secrets are exposed, the light from His glory will shine through His Words upon the heart, exposing the hypocrisy, lies, bad deeds, and evil intents. It will be so encompassing OT as alive, that those who have focused on the NT for their center, will find themselves facing the Mount Sinai God in all His Glory and realize they had things upside down to His reality.

 

[MoreCoffee]

When God cracks open the heart, and all the dark secrets are exposed, the light from His glory will shine through His Words upon the heart, exposing the hypocrisy, lies, bad deeds, and evil intents. It will be so encompassing OT as alive, that those who have focused on the NT for their center, will find themselves facing the Mount Sinai God in all His Glory and realize they had things upside down to His reality.

The faithful have Jesus as their advocate, they need fear no accusations. Who shall separate them from the love of God? I am certain that neither death, nor life, nor Angels, nor Principalities, nor Powers, nor the present things, nor the future things, nor strength, nor the heights, nor the depths, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate them from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus their Lord.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #7 on Page 1, MoreCoffee stated:

Both the old testament and the new testament were examined and catalogued based on the use of the books in the Church's liturgy and their reception by the faithful as holy scripture the decision was made to include the books in the 73 book canon.

The Jews at the time of Christ and also at the time of saint Augustine did not yet have a definitive list of holy books. Even if they had it would not be the list Christians receive as holy scripture. Christians include 27 books from the new testament.

Saint Paul did not have any Jewish 'canon' in mind when he wrote to saint Timothy. Saint Timothy was Greek speaking and Greek reading. For him holy scripture was the Greek old testament that is called the Septuagint (symbolised as LXX).

The final section of MoreCoffee’s submission is not necessarily a sound conclusion.

If Timothy was a Greek speaker, then Paul could simply have used the Greek translation (Septuagint) for clarity and convenience. It does not mean that he differed from other Pharisees in their differentiation between the Hebrew Scriptures as translated into Greek, and the extra books that were tacked on as being of cultural and historical interest.

(We know that the Sadducees recognised only the first 5 books of the Hebrew Scriptures, but Jesus Himself referred to the Law and the Prophets.)

==============================================================================================

Perhaps a look at the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus actually referenced, would be instructive. That should give us a reasonable idea of the spread of Jesus’ perspective of Holy Scripture. What were the books he made reference to?

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah, Hosea, Micah, Malachi. A fair spread. Sufficient to conclude that He had no problem with the Jewish “canon” as it was then agreed. (Jesus clearly did not feel compelled to go out of His way to quote from every one of the recognised Hebrew Scriptures.)

==============================================================================================

And so we see that claim made by the Roman Catholic Church that there was no “canon” relating to God’s Holy Inspired Hebrew Scriptures until the Roman Catholic Church defined it, lacks credibility. Otherwise, what were the Holy (Sacred) Scriptures referred to by Paul and Peter, and Jesus, and James? The terminology clearly refers to a defined set of writings.

What does scripture say is scripture? It looks like visionary was right, right from the start.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Pedrito, what the Jews of Jesus time recognised as holy scripture differed between the sects of Judaism then in existence. Pharisees may have accepted 22 or 24 books as holy, or they may have been debating the matter at the time of Christ. Sadducees accepted only the books attributed to Moses. The Zealots accepted more books than did the Pharisees. Essenes also accepted more than did the Pharisees. Christians eventually came to accept the 73 in the canon defined first at Hippo and Rome and repeated in Carthage and then again in Florence and finally dogmatically defined at Trent.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #24 on Page 3, MoreCoffee stated:

Pedrito, what the Jews of Jesus time recognised as holy scripture differed between the sects of Judaism then in existence. Pharisees may have accepted 22 or 24 books as holy, or thy may have been debating the matter at the time of Christ. Sadducees accepted only the books attributed to Moses. The Zealots accepted more books than did the Pharisees. Essenes also accepted more than did the Pharisees. Christians eventually came to accept the 73 in the canon defined first at Hippo and Rome and repeated in Carthage and then again in Florence and finally dogmatically defined at Trent.

Well, that simply begs the question: "What then were Jesus and the apostles referring to when they used the terms 'Scripture' and 'Scriptures'?"

They obviously had something definite in mind. Not something amorphous. Not when those writings were referred to as authoritative so many times.

Matthew 21:42; 22:29; 26:54; 26:56; Mark 12:10; 12:24; 14:49; 15:28; Luke 4:21; 24:27; 24:32; 24:45; John 2:22; 5:39; 7:38; 7:42; 10:35; 13:18; 17:12; 19:24; 19:28; 19:36; 19:37; 20:9; Acts 1:16; 8:32; 8:35; 17:2; 17:11; 18:24; 18:28; Romans 1:2; 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4; 16:26; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 15:4; Galatians 3:8; 3:22; 4:30; 1 Timothy 5:18; 2 Timothy 3:15; 3:16; James 2:8; 2:23; 4:5; 1 Peter 2:6; 2 Peter 1:20; 3:16

Paul declared himself a Pharisee in Acts 23:6; 26:5; Philippians 3:5. Therefore, we must understand that when he referred to existing Scripture, he was referring to that set of Scripture accepted by the Pharisees as divinely inspired.

That is what he was referring to in 2 Timothy 3:15,16:
“15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

What does scripture say is scripture?

Scripture as referred to in the New Testament, means the existing Hebrew “canon” as defined and accepted by the Pharisees. Pedrito’s understanding is that that Hebrew “canon” became known as the “Old Testament” portion of what could be termed “Protestant Bibles”.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Pedrito, when Jesus spoke with the Sadducees and referred to the scriptures he used only the books of Moses. When Jesus spoke to the Pharisees he used only the Psalms, Moses, and the Prophets. The example of Christ appears to be "use what your hearer accepts as holy scripture". Paul used the LXX in his letters and Greek poets in Acts. Luke used the LXX in Acts. The apostles and the Lord didn't have a single "something definite in mind" they tailored their replies to effectively communicate with whoever they spoke to. Your post assumes that there was a single agreed canon already in existence when Jesus and the apostles were teaching but that is not the case.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #26 on Page 3, MoreCoffee stated:

The apostles and the Lord didn't have a single "something definite in mind" they tailored their replies to effectively communicate with whoever they spoke to.

When Jesus and the apostles referred to the Scripture(s), if they were not referring to something identifiable, were their references not in fact meaningless?

Your post assumes that there was a single agreed canon already in existence when Jesus and the apostles were teaching but that is not the case.

If that is really not the case, then what specific, authoritative set of writings were being referred to?

==============================================================================================

Paul obviously referred to the set of writings recognised as authoritative by the Pharisees. Jesus’ use of existing Scripture indicates the same thing. As stated before, Pedrito believes that that set is now labelled the “Old Testament” in Bibles used by Protestants.

Paul’s use of the Greek version of that recognised set of writings, when writing to people who spoke Greek as their first language, in no way indicates that he recognised the tacked on books as authoritative.

==============================================================================================

Do Readers find it interesting that MoreCoffee, in the light of the above, and in a thread titled “What does scripture say is scripture?”, makes statements such as:
“The Jews at the time of Christ and also at the time of saint Augustine did not yet have a definitive list of holy books.”
“Since there is one holy catholic and apostolic church it is to be expected that it is unique and that it defines what is and what is not Christian holy scripture.”
“Christians eventually came to accept the 73 in the canon defined first at Hippo and Rome and repeated in Carthage and then again in Florence and finally dogmatically defined at Trent.”

Pedrito finds it interesting, and possibly even instructive.

By contrast, Pedrito believes that the New Testament writings define with clarity, the set of writings that Jesus and the apostles accepted as God-inspired Scripture in Jesus’ time.

 

[Josiah]

Pedrito, when Jesus spoke with the Sadducees and referred to the scriptures he used only the books of Moses. When Jesus spoke to the Pharisees he used only the Psalms, Moses, and the Prophets. The example of Christ appears to be "use what your hearer accepts as holy scripture". Paul used the LXX in his letters and Greek poets in Acts. Luke used the LXX in Acts. The apostles and the Lord didn't have a single "something definite in mind" they tailored their replies to effectively communicate with whoever they spoke to. Your post assumes that there was a single agreed canon already in existence when Jesus and the apostles were teaching but that is not the case.

And your point is..... what? Yes, we all know, your individual denomination has a UNIQUE Bible, a UNIQUE canon, a UNIQUE embrace of what is and is not Scripture.... we all know, your singular, individual denomination stands all alone, all by itself, in unity with none, on this point. How does Jesus and the Apostles using Scripture normatively support that a singular individual denomination (such as the RCC or LDS) must be correct in its understanding of what is and is not Scripture IF none agree with it, it itself alone stands in disunity with all?


onder:



- Josiah

 

[Wilhemena]

In Post #24 on Page 3, MoreCoffee stated:


Well, that simply begs the question: "What then were Jesus and the apostles referring to when they used the terms 'Scripture' and 'Scriptures'?"

They obviously had something definite in mind. Not something amorphous. Not when those writings were referred to as authoritative so many times.

Matthew 21:42; 22:29; 26:54; 26:56; Mark 12:10; 12:24; 14:49; 15:28; Luke 4:21; 24:27; 24:32; 24:45; John 2:22; 5:39; 7:38; 7:42; 10:35; 13:18; 17:12; 19:24; 19:28; 19:36; 19:37; 20:9; Acts 1:16; 8:32; 8:35; 17:2; 17:11; 18:24; 18:28; Romans 1:2; 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 15:4; 16:26; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 15:4; Galatians 3:8; 3:22; 4:30; 1 Timothy 5:18; 2 Timothy 3:15; 3:16; James 2:8; 2:23; 4:5; 1 Peter 2:6; 2 Peter 1:20; 3:16

Paul declared himself a Pharisee in Acts 23:6; 26:5; Philippians 3:5. Therefore, we must understand that when he referred to existing Scripture, he was referring to that set of Scripture accepted by the Pharisees as divinely inspired.

That is what he was referring to in 2 Timothy 3:15,16:
“15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

What does scripture say is scripture?

Scripture as referred to in the New Testament, means the existing Hebrew “canon” as defined and accepted by the Pharisees. Pedrito’s understanding is that that Hebrew “canon” became known as the “Old Testament” portion of what could be termed “Protestant Bibles”.

Indeed. Jesus and all the New Testament bible characters were quoting from what we know as the Old Testament when they referred to Scriptures and they passed it down from generation to generation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Indeed. Jesus and all the New Testament bible characters were quoting from what we know as the Old Testament when they referred to Scriptures and they passed it down from generation to generation.

Paul quotes a pagan Greek poet. Jude quotes from the book of Enoch. There are no quotes from Ecclesiastes in the new testament. It is a more complicated reality than the simple 39 book old testament of Judaism can account for.

 

[psalms 91]

Paul quotes a pagan Greek poet. Jude quotes from the book of Enoch. There are no quotes from Ecclesiastes in the new testament. It is a more complicated reality than the simple 39 book old testament of Judaism can account for.

Only to you, the rest of us have bno problem or is this a way of justifying your bible being different from the rest of Christianity

 

[MoreCoffee]

Only to you, the rest of us have bno problem or is this a way of justifying your bible being different from the rest of Christianity

Your reply makes it sound like I am the only one who knows of the facts I've presented but that is not the case. It is known by scholars and billions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians that the claims of Rabbinic Judaism (echoed by some Protestants) are not true. The truth is that long before there was a single Protestant in existence the canon of the Christian holy scriptures was agreed by the bishops and people of catholic church. What's been done since then is irrelevant as far as settling he matter of what is canonical scripture and what is not.

 

[psalms 91]

Your reply makes it sound like I am the only one who knows of the facts I've presented but that is not the case. It is known by scholars and billions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians that the claims of Rabbinic Judaism (echoed by some Protestants) are not true. The truth is that long before there was a single Protestant in existence the canon of the Christian holy scriptures was agreed by the bishops and people of catholic church. What's been done since then is irrelevant as far as settling he matter of what is canonical scripture and what is not.

Again with the false claim that yours was the first church?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Again with the false claim that yours was the first church?

It most certainly was the Church of saint Augustine's time when the canon was defined. Pentecostal religion was not even a gleam in anybody's eye at that time. It would be another 1,500 years before anybody was born who grew up to profess the doctrines that today's Pentecostals profess.

 

[Josiah]

It most certainly was the Church of saint Augustine's time when the canon was defined. Pentecostal religion was not even a gleam in anybody's eye at that time. It would be another 1,500 years before anybody was born who grew up to profess the doctrines that today's Pentecostals profess.

We all know that your singular, individual denomination has a UNIQUE Bible, a UNIQUE canon, a UNIQUE embrace of what is and is not Scripture.... your denomination in DISunity with all, all by itself on this one. So, IT individually - as one singular, individual, unique denomination - "defined" the Bible in the 15th and 16th Centuries, but ONLY for it itself alone, uniquely, solely, exclusively, singularly, individually (just as the LDS would define a unique canon in the 19th Century - one also that no other agrees with). I'll ask again, MoreCoffee, how does a individual, singular denomination (such as the LDS and RCC) having a UNIQUE canon NO OTHER has prove that that singular, individual denomination in disunity with ALL ergo must determine what is and is not Scripture (but NONE follows its lead, NONE agrees with these denominations)?


You have yet to show one - not even one, not even one singular case - where a distinctive RC Dogma was taught as such before the year 300. NOTHING to show the early church was doctrinally "Catholic", not one - not even one - distinctive RCC Dogma being taught as such back then, NOTHING to show any "Catholic" teaching. I've asked you (and other Catholics) for such evidence (including a Catholic priest over at CARM) and NONE have been able to date to produce EVEN ONE distinctive RCC teaching existing then, not one, not even one. So..... no "Catholic" back then either.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Josiah, your post is repeating the hot wind that some of your earlier posts blew on this subject.

 

[psalms 91]

Anything to chip away at faith huh

 

[MoreCoffee]

Evidently so, psalms 91, it seems that the canon of the holy scriptures is only good if it was decided by anybody but Catholics. Such is the "faith" that some elevate. As for me, I am a believer, and the canonical Christian holy scriptures were decided by Christians and not by Rabbis in the 6th or 10th century nor by a few rebellious scholars in the 16th century, nor by a claimed charismatic revelation in the 20th century.

 

[psalms 91]

Then lets not split hairs over who followed what as far as scripture goes. I accept what we have and do not wish to exclude anyone from that belief. Scripture is the final say for me and I dont need to debate what might or might not have been followed 2000 years ago. It is pretty evident from the New Tetsamnt that the Old was known and accepted

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, your post is repeating the hot wind that some of your earlier posts blew on this subject.

MoreCoffee, your posts are just repeating the same baseless hot wind that some of your earlier posts have. While evading the whole point ... your denomination is in DISunity with ALL on this subject; why do denominations (such as the RCC and LDS) that are in DISUNITY with ALL as to what is and is not Scripture ERGO have God's authority to decide this shown by NONE following their lead?