P
Prodigal1984
Guest
Interestingly this site has the Apocalypse of Peter as being earlier than 2 Peter.
http://earlychristianwritings.com/
- Status
http://earlychristianwritings.com/
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
I get what you mean. But that is irrelevant to my cherub(im) / seraph(im) examples. I even gave the example that there are singular forms of “God” in Hebrew. When the plural is explicit - whether the pluralistic nature of God, or false gods - Elohim - is used. And this is the form used to describe the pluralistic God of Genesis, which the NT identifies as a Trinity.
I was referring more to the claims “the Catholic church gave us our Bible” criteria, citing select ECFs. Godly criteria, like lack of errors & contradictions, are not the same thing, just because they agree with them. They would be godly even if the Catholic Church didn’t use them or agree with it (which they don’t, since they even admit to accepting errors & contradictions found in the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture).
You’re missing the point. This LATER “legitimate action” contradicts previous inspired Scripture that demonstrates baptizers & the baptized getting baptized WITHOUT fasting first.
He wasn’t part of the church, which was established at Pentecost, but He was a believer in Christ, as were His disciples. And in the gospels, Jesus answered the question about why John the Baptist’s followers fasted like the Pharisees, while Jesus’ disciples didn’t. Since the Didache commands not to fast like the Pharisees, yes, that is a contradiction with inspired Scripture.
Again, missing the point. The use of the word (name - singular) indicates baptism into the Triune God indicating a single immersion, plus the NT ONLY immerses a baptismal candidate ONCE into the water. You never read of pouring water on the head three separate times. And, again, since it is most likely written early second century, this is much later “tradition” that began to evolve in the early church.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Interestingly the inspired FIRST CENTURY book of Jude cites 2 Peter extensively & states he received it from the apostles. Again, the reason 2 Peter is “believed” by some to be written later is because no second century Christian writer cites it, which again is not a reason to dismiss it as being written in the first century. We know 2 Peter was written before Jude, because while 2 Peter warns false teachers were going to rise up in the church, Jude writes they were already there. That make 2 Peter FIRST century, since Jude was written AFTER 2 Peter, also in the first century.
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
Why do you like Jude?
You know your man Luther hated that book. He wanted it out along with Hebrews, James, and Revelation.
You know your man Luther hated that book. He wanted it out along with Hebrews, James, and Revelation.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Why are you bringing up strawman like Luther, since you know Luther is not a Protestant’s authority, nor did Luther want himself to be. Could you stick to the argument? BTW, Luther did nothing different than early Catholics did, who were not “universal” in what books belonged in either the OT or NT. Even the fourth century councils were not “universal” with each other, nor even later ecumenical councils, Cardinals, & even Popes. So, if you are going to condemn Luther, you better be consistent & condemn them as well. That is why Trent was the first council to officially “define” the canon. Rather late, don’t you think?
Again, Jude was written first century, and like the rest of the Bible, it meets all the godly criteria for inspiration listed above.
Last edited:
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
Actually most scholars believe 2 Peter was based off of Jude because Jude is smaller and 2 Peter seems to be speaking about the false apostles in his day and growing off of Jude. 2 Peter was not written by the Disciple. No Judean first century fisherman would have the ability to write. Only the Pauline epistles, James, and 1 John are authentic.
But that doesn’t matter. Who wrote it is of no concern. The point is the author was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Writing in someones name isn’t like how we view it today. It was a form of respect. More than likely the epistles of Peter were written by a Greek in Peters inner circle after he was martyred. Maybe Silvanus or even John Mark. The language between 1 and 2 Peter are so different it is impossible it is the same writer.
The Letter to the Hebrews was attributed to Barnabas or Clement in the early Church. Then in the 3rd century it was attributed to Paul which it stayed attributed to him until the 17th century when questions arose that it didn’t speak like Paul. Now the Letter is just unanimous. But it is still inspired.
But that doesn’t matter. Who wrote it is of no concern. The point is the author was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Writing in someones name isn’t like how we view it today. It was a form of respect. More than likely the epistles of Peter were written by a Greek in Peters inner circle after he was martyred. Maybe Silvanus or even John Mark. The language between 1 and 2 Peter are so different it is impossible it is the same writer.
The Letter to the Hebrews was attributed to Barnabas or Clement in the early Church. Then in the 3rd century it was attributed to Paul which it stayed attributed to him until the 17th century when questions arose that it didn’t speak like Paul. Now the Letter is just unanimous. But it is still inspired.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
First, you are making an assumption you really can’t back up. Even if Silvanus wrote his epistle, it was still under the authority of Peter who dictated it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And it is baseless to believe first century fishermen could not have the ability to write. That is an assumption with no verifiable backing. John was a fisherman, and could read the inscription above Jesus’ cross, and he could read it in Greek, Hebrew, & Latin. Jews in the first century were multilingual. And the reason “who” wrote it is significant, because the Biblical canon was closed in the first century - meaning second century writings were not canonical, since they could not have been written by the apostles or their close contemporaries. And, again, Jude cites 2 Peter - not the other way around - for the reasons I cited in both of their inspired epistles.
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
You should be a biblical scholar then. It would be nice to have opposing views to the status quo.
And no the canon wasn’t closed in the first century otherwise Iranaeus wouldn’t have called the Shepherd of Hermas scripture, nor would it be in Codex Vaticanus along with the Epistle of Barnabas, where 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John were also missing. The Apocalypse of Peter wouldn’t be in the Muratorian Fragment. And how much more does anyone need? We have these early Church Fathers writing in the second and third century quoting these non canonical books as scripture. If the canon was closed in the first century that would be ridiculous.
And no the canon wasn’t closed in the first century otherwise Iranaeus wouldn’t have called the Shepherd of Hermas scripture, nor would it be in Codex Vaticanus along with the Epistle of Barnabas, where 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John were also missing. The Apocalypse of Peter wouldn’t be in the Muratorian Fragment. And how much more does anyone need? We have these early Church Fathers writing in the second and third century quoting these non canonical books as scripture. If the canon was closed in the first century that would be ridiculous.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Because these separate letters are writing about different topics, much like John’s gospel & the book of Revelation, but internal evidence demonstrates the “John” who wrote Revelation wrote the gospel of John too.
No different than the gospels, which were also “anonymous,” but like them the epistle to the Hebrews was written in the apostolic age in the first century by a contemporary of the apostles. And like them, it lacks errors & contradictions with previous Scripture. Can’t say the same for the later gnostic “gospels,” 1 Clement, the Didache, the epistle of Barnabas, or other books not found in the NT canon.
The point of all these arguments, is that non-Catholics are not “dependent” on the Catholic Church for what books belong in the Bible - in either the OT or NT - despite agreeing on the same NT books, most of which were considered just as inspired as the OT by mid-first century, which is significant. These godly criteria demonstrates this objectivity of why non-Catholics accept them independent of Catholicism, while at the same time affirming the “smaller” canon that the Pharisees, Jesus, Paul, and later Protestants accepted, based on the authority of the NT we all accept.
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
Someone tell me where in the New Testament it says we should only do what is written? Does anyone here even know how the writing of letters occurred in the first century? It was a long expensive task. The chances we have all of the letters are zip. None. Many were lost. Carriers were robbed or churches discarded them. Who knows? The letters were never meant to be the only authority, in fact Paul wished to visit these churches but was unable. The entire notion of sola scriptura is unfounded in any point in church history until the 16th century. It fails it’s own test. The Church created the canon. What if they didn’t? You know many early Christians didn’t want one. They thought it was to Jewish. Most just wanted to go by the Church alone. Yes the New Testament is inspired and the only way we know, how we know they chose the correct ones is because of Tradition. Without that they would not have been able to discern the correct books because they would not have known what was the pure Christian faith. In a very strange way, everything you are saying is proving my point even the more and you don’t even realize it.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
This only demonstrates the lack of consistency in the early church, which is why we shouldn’t rely on the writings of ECFs for what the canon included. And there are historical reasons for this, including the Septuagint getting “added” to in the second century & afterwards, the lack of any real “authority” in the early church what belonged in the NT, false early dating & false authorship of early epistles (like assuming Barnabas wrote Barnabas & Hermas in the NT wrote Hermas, etc). That is why objective godly criteria is what non-Catholics use to discern what the NT canon included, like what I listed above. But since NT Scripture was inspired the moment it was penned, when the last apostle wrote the final book, which closed the apostolic age, the canon was closed. But later councils didn’t “determine” to canon, since inspiration isn’t based on vote. God simply revealed to Christians what He had already inspired in writing.
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
No. The Gospel writer wrote 1 John. Your internal evidence is flawed. John the elder most likely wrote Revelation. He was according to Papias in 115 a different John who had witnessed the resurrection and became an Apostle. That’s pretty close to the fact. That is real internal evidence.
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
That is a completely irrelevant & separate issue to the topic. Sola scriptura has nothing to do with the formation of the canon itself. I would suggest you start a different thread, since the forum does not like going off on separate topic irrelevant to the OP.
Then I’m afraid you completely missed the purpose of my posts, such as explaining the difference between godly criteria & the “the Church gave us our Bible” claim.
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
So basically to you the biblical canon is like made manifest to us like Mormons claim the Book of Mormon is scripture? It is just made known and manifests it to us? That is incredibly historically inaccurate.
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
The Church did give us the Bible. You know Revelation was not accepted in the east and Hebrews was not in the west, and John Chrysostom says at the Council of Carthage the two came to an agreement that if they accepted one the other had to be accepted as well. Otherwise both would be missing from our Bibles. It really is that fragile how the canon came to be. God works miraculously to bring the Church together to discern these things!
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Both the gospel of John & Revelation use specific Greek words & phrases common to both of them. Plus, when they quote the prophet Zechariah, not only do they both deviate from the Septuagint, they deviate in the same way with the same Greek translation.
Contrary to popular belief, Papias was NOT a disciple of John, whose own fragments of Papias’ writings admit he got his information from “the elders,” not John himself. The “belief” Revelation was not written by John the apostle is based on ONE second century writer, who admitted he didn’t understand the book (source: Eusebius’ Church History). So, it’s not as “close” as you think.
LOL! If that is what you got from everything I wrote, you really aren’t understanding a thing!
You realize you are arguing in circles. You keep repeating this line. And using examples of MUCH LATER lists only demonstrates we shouldn’t rely on the writings on ECFs who contradict each other, which I believe I mentioned this before too.
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
After all this, don’t forget to read the book!
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
For all we know there could be other books that are scripture. The Shepherd of Hermas is a good example of private revelation. The only decree the church ever made about books not being scripture is the Galasian Decree of the 5th century by Pope Galatius. No Council ever said these books are canon and no others are. All they did was say which are definitely scripture.
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
Those contradictions are what later led to the Church coming to know what was definitively scripture and which were not.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Right. In order for sola scriptura to prove itself a correct doctrine, one would need to find in Scripture something to support it, but it is not there. There is nothing found in Scripture as to what one would need to prove it. As you said, it was not a principal that was in use in the apostolic age and not heard of until the 16th century.
The apostles could not say during their age to new Christians, what you need to know and believe you will find in Scripture because they were teaching new doctrines that had been given to them by Jesus and had not yet been written down.
- Status