Canon of Scripture

[mercygate]

Moreover, in Jerusalem, James was Bishop. Yet Paul sought Peter’s counsel, not James. (The Papacy in full view!)

I should hope that Paul was able to preach at least 3years without ‘guidance’ from The Church after a personal visit from Its FOUNDER, anyway. However, to negate future arguments about any man being above the Papacy and/or The Church, clearly to me, The Eternal One “ensured” that Scriptures records that Paul made the above visit and also WHO he sought and spent time with. Not run off and start another church, or a denomination of it!

There is no evidence that Paul evangelized during his three years in Arabia. (My Evangelical Protestant friend and I hold to the thesis that he spent that time re-reading the Scriptures under the personal tutelage of the Holy Spirit.)

He begins his missions only upon his return to Damascus. Not only was Paul taught by the Lord Himself, but as you note, he consults with the Jerusalem church.

Years later, he boasts that “the pillars” added nothing to his gospel. In other words: the Jerusalem church affirms Paul. Paul does not go up to teach the eyewitnesses. Paul is no “Lone Ranger”. He is part of the team.

 

[jmcrae]

(sigh)

I was addressing a post #243,
“Scripture” means “writings.”

St. Peter was referring to all of St. Paul’s writings, but not all of St. Paul’s writings made it into the canon of the New Testament - we find only 12 of his letters in the New Testament (or 13, if he did in fact write the Letter to the Hebrews), out of what must originally have been hundreds.

posted by jmcrae, that seems to be suggesting that the church intentionally omitted inspired writings from Paul from the canon.

I didn’t specify whether it was intentional or not. All I was saying was that St. Peter, at the time that he wrote those words, knew of more of St. Paul’s writings than what we have in the New Testament right now, including the letter to Silas and the previous letters to the Corinthians, which St. Paul himself refers to respectively in II Thessalonians and in I Corinthians.

St. Peter was including those writings (the ones that didn’t make it into the canon, either because God caused them to get lost or destroyed, or because the Church deliberately chose to omit them; this part, I don’t know) in the grouping of St. Paul’s writings when he said,

2 Peter 3:14-16 (King James Version)

Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 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, “all” includes the missing two that are referred to in his writings, along with any others he wrote that we don’t know anything about] 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.

I am asking that statement be backed up by some sort of evidence. If the church actually had writings they believed were inspired I charge that there would have been documentation of the discussion that lead to their omission. Furthermore, it is highly probably and most likely they would have preserved these writings even if they didn’t qualify to be included in the canon.

I have never claimed that the Church omitted them on purpose. It may well be that the Holy Spirit caused them to be lost or destroyed, in order to protect the Church from including them by mistake. In either case, however, they are not part of the canon of the Scriptures, even though St. Peter clearly calls them “Scripture” - meaning that he meant something different by that word than we do, today, since obviously at least two of St. Paul’s letters are no longer in existence, and are not, in fact, Scripture in the sense that we use that term today.

 

[Ginger2]

I didn’t specify whether it was intentional or not. All I was saying was that St. Peter, at the time that he wrote those words, knew of more of St. Paul’s writings than what we have in the New Testament right now, including the letter to Silas and the previous letters to the Corinthians, which St. Paul himself refers to respectively in II Thessalonians and in I Corinthians.

St. Peter was including those writings (the ones that didn’t make it into the canon, either because God caused them to get lost or destroyed, or because the Church deliberately chose to omit them; this part, I don’t know) in the grouping of St. Paul’s writings when he said,

2 Peter 3:14-16 (King James Version)

Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 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, “all” includes the missing two that are referred to in his writings, along with any others he wrote that we don’t know anything about] 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.

I have never claimed that the Church omitted them on purpose. It may well be that the Holy Spirit caused them to be lost or destroyed, in order to protect the Church from including them by mistake. In either case, however, they are not part of the canon of the Scriptures, even though St. Peter clearly calls them “Scripture” - meaning that he meant something different by that word than we do, today, since obviously at least two of St. Paul’s letters are no longer in existence, and are not, in fact, Scripture in the sense that we use that term today.

I’m lost…how does that relate to what we are discussing? If Peter was including all Paul’s writings in his statement, are you suggesting Peter was aware of every letter Paul wrote and was saying everything Paul wrote was inspired?

15
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
16
speaking of these things 12 as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
17
Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.
18
But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory now and to the day of eternity. (Amen.)

OR that Peter meant all Paul’s “writings”, some inspired some not? If that is what you are saying, then how does it relate to Peter’s meaning in verse 16?

 

[jmcrae]

I’m lost…how does that relate to what we are discussing? If Peter was including all Paul’s writings in his statement, are you suggesting Peter was aware of every letter Paul wrote and was saying everything Paul wrote was inspired?

No, that’s exactly what I’m trying to get away from. St. Peter was indeed talking about everything that St. Paul wrote (because of the word “all”), and he calls all of it “Scripture” but we can’t leap then to the conclusion that Peter is talking about the New Testament Bible, here, because Peter is not talking about what WE call “Scripture” - he is using a different meaning of that word, which is “writings,” without reference to whether it is inspired, or not.

My point being that, therefore, you can’t use II Peter 3:16 to establish the canon of the New Testament, or even the canon of the Epistles of St. Paul, because that is not what St. Peter was thinking of, when he wrote that.

 

[steve_b]

" Pwrlftr:

:
Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Here’s the rub. Given what we agree on, why are there ANY disagreements on ANY books?

Why do people disagree on anything? It sounds like you are looking for something specific and it has flown over my head.

Please 'splain yo self.

You were saying that scripture is self authenticating. If that were the case, there should be no disagreements.

 

[Ginger2]

My point being that, therefore, you can’t use II Peter 3:16 to establish the canon of the New Testament, or even the canon of the Epistles of St. Paul, because that is not what St. Peter was thinking of, when he wrote that.

I see. I can’t speak for other protestants, but when I mention 2 Peter it is only to point out that Peter considered Paul’s writings inspired.

Do you agree?

 

[jmcrae]

I see. I can’t speak for other protestants, but when I mention 2 Peter it is only to point out that Peter considered Paul’s writings inspired.

Do you agree?

No. I think he was referring to all of St. Paul’s writings (because he says “all”); not only the inspired ones. I don’t think he was thinking of the New Testament Bible at the time that he wrote that; it probably (I am speculating, here) did not even occur to him that such a thing was ever going to exist.

 

[Ginger2]

You were saying that scripture is self authenticating. If that were the case, there should be no disagreements.

Pardon me for jumping into your conversation with pwrlftr, but …

Of course there would be disagreements. The Bible tells us there will be disagreements because some will pick and choose what pleases them as opposed to submitting to the Will of God.

Even today there are pseudo-gospels that nice people read - knowing that they have been found to be false - and then they go around pretending to know something no one else knows about Jesus.

 

[jmcrae]

Pardon me for jumping into your conversation with pwrlftr, but …

Of course there would be disagreements. The Bible tells us there will be disagreements because some will pick and choose what pleases them as opposed to submitting to the Will of God.

Even today there are pseudo-gospels that nice people read - knowing that they have been found to be false - and then they go around pretending to know something no one else knows about Jesus.

So, how does someone (little girl, housewife, factory worker) who wants to know what the Bible is, find out that information? Most people don’t have the resources or the time to pick through every detail of the Scriptures to figure it out for themselves - we rely on our pastors at Church to give us this information, and we trust them to know what they are talking about.

 

[Ginger2]

No. I think he was referring to all of St. Paul’s writings (because he says “all”); not only the inspired ones. I don’t think he was thinking of the New Testament Bible at the time that he wrote that; it probably (I am speculating, here) did not even occur to him that such a thing was ever going to exist.

That I can agree with. They wouldn’t likely have insight into what today’s Bible would look like. That is not how the old testament was kept, either. It is most likely their view of Scriptures remained consistent with what was written before Jesus.

However, I believe they knew at least some writings of certain Apostles were being inspired by God, and therefore considered them Scripture in the same sense as the OT

 

[mercygate]

That I can agree with. They wouldn’t likely have insight into what today’s Bible would look like. That is not how the old testament was kept, either. It is most likely their view of Scriptures remained consistent with what was written before Jesus.

However, I believe they knew at least some writings of certain Apostles were being inspired by God, and therefore considered them Scripture in the same sense as the OT

This little discussion of 2 Peter is kind of interesting since 2 Peter was one of the “writings” of which the authenticity was debated when the canon was set.

 

[Deconi]

No, that’s exactly what I’m trying to get away from. St. Peter was indeed talking about everything that St. Paul wrote (because of the word “all”), and he calls all of it “Scripture” but we can’t leap then to the conclusion that Peter is talking about the New Testament Bible, here, because Peter is not talking about what WE call “Scripture” - he is using a different meaning of that word, which is “writings,” without reference to whether it is inspired, or not.

My point being that, therefore, you can’t use II Peter 3:16 to establish the canon of the New Testament, or even the canon of the Epistles of St. Paul, because that is not what St. Peter was thinking of, when he wrote that.

I agree.

At the time of St Peter (as Pope) the writings of the evangelists must have numbered hundreds! When we consider, Silas, Barnabas, Phillip, Sosthenes,Jude, Timothy, James, Paul, et al,…

Peter focuses on Paul and supports his ‘writings’ (scriptures) as Paul is the one on record as having some people and churches doubting his authenticity as an Apostle.

I think the point is that ALL their writings are sciptures. But only those that made the canon are “inspired” for only the canon carry the Penmanship of The Almighty. That is, only the books in the canon were inspired DURING their being written, as through His Guidance, only they will make it into the canon, as Holy Scriptures, to say what He Wills to be known.

The same process He does with the OT.

 

[Ginger2]

So, how does someone (little girl, housewife, factory worker) who wants to know what the Bible is, find out that information? Most people don’t have the resources or the time to pick through every detail of the Scriptures to figure it out for themselves - we rely on our pastors at Church to give us this information, and we trust them to know what they are talking about.

And that is VERY unfortunate.

There are Pastors out there who preach a false gospel. But God does not dessert His own. He gives everyone a chance to accept the truth. If someone really loves God and is sincerely seeking His truth, God will find a way to speak to their soul and they will listen. Those who belong to God will not be deceived forever. And those who love themselves will deceive themselves.

I love to share the story about Helen Keller to make this point…

Helen Keller was blind and deaf from the age of two, she had lived a life of isolation, unable to speak words she could not hear, unable to know what a word was.
She was taught to communicate by a dedicated teacher in a process that has inspired people ever since. She learned to speak, to read, to write. She went to college and graduated with honors. She dedicated her entire life to educating the world about its responsibility to its disabled members. Died in 1968.
In a letter she wrote a preacher named Phillips Brooks, Helen told him that she had always known about God, even before she had any words. Even before she could call God anything, she knew God was there. She didn’t know what it was. God had no name for her – nothing had a name for her. She had no concept of a name. But in her darkness and isolation, she knew she was not alone. Someone was with her. She felt God’s love. And when she received the gift of language and heard about God, she said she already knew.

God can speak to us from within. We have a way to know when we are being lied to. Sometimes it takes awhile before God opens our eyes to truth, but that’s OK.

I could ask you the same question and say, “How does someone (little girl, housewife, factory worker) who wants to know what the Bible is” know which Bible is true? There are very corrupt Bibles being written today. This church says there are the one, that church says they are the one.

It is God who reveals Himself to each of us.

 

[jmcrae]

I could ask you the same question and say, “How does someone (little girl, housewife, factory worker) who wants to know what the Bible is” know which Bible is true? There are very corrupt Bibles being written today. This church says there are the one, that church says they are the one.

It is God who reveals Himself to each of us.

I think it is much easier to discern that Christ founded the Catholic Church than it is to discern each and every word of the Bible, whether it is “Biblical” or not, since we can see from a plain reading of history that this is so - it doesn’t take a degree in theology or knowledge of ancient languages to figure that out.

It is certainly God who leads us, but He also provides us with many clues, including history and sensory evidence.

 

[mgrfin]

You were saying that scripture is self authenticating. If that were the case, there should be no disagreements.

The Scriptures are not self-authenticating. That is an old Protestant view, and one that Ginger defends.

Self-authentication is necessary for her because they didn’t want to accept the Tradition aspect of revelation, and the inerrancy of the word of the Church in this respect.

"Self-authentication’ is circular reasoning. “I am inspired because I say I am inspired”, rather than the infallible Church who says what is inspired and what isn’t. The infallible Church in her Tradition cooberates what is Scripture.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

And that is VERY unfortunate.

There are Pastors out there who preach a false gospel. But God does not dessert His own. He gives everyone a chance to accept the truth. If someone really loves God and is sincerely seeking His truth, God will find a way to speak to their soul and they will listen. Those who belong to God will not be deceived forever. And those who love themselves will deceive themselves.

I love to share the story about Helen Keller to make this point…

Helen Keller was blind and deaf from the age of two, she had lived a life of isolation, unable to speak words she could not hear, unable to know what a word was.
She was taught to communicate by a dedicated teacher in a process that has inspired people ever since. She learned to speak, to read, to write. She went to college and graduated with honors. She dedicated her entire life to educating the world about its responsibility to its disabled members. Died in 1968.
In a letter she wrote a preacher named Phillips Brooks, Helen told him that she had always known about God, even before she had any words. Even before she could call God anything, she knew God was there. She didn’t know what it was. God had no name for her – nothing had a name for her. She had no concept of a name. But in her darkness and isolation, she knew she was not alone. Someone was with her. She felt God’s love. And when she received the gift of language and heard about God, she said she already knew.

God can speak to us from within. We have a way to know when we are being lied to. Sometimes it takes awhile before God opens our eyes to truth, but that’s OK.

I could ask you the same question and say, “How does someone (little girl, housewife, factory worker) who wants to know what the Bible is” know which Bible is true? There are very corrupt Bibles being written today. This church says there are the one, that church says they are the one.

It is God who reveals Himself to each of us.

Fortunately, for true believers, we have the Catholic Church who has an infallible mission to guide us. We don’t have to worry about false preachers, and false bibles. The Church, thru the Written word (Scripture) and Tradition (the Unwritten Word) has guided Christ’s faithful inerrantly since the first Pentecost Sunday.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

… the Catholic Church …(doesn’t) have to worry about false preachers, …

You’ve got to be joking. Every church needs to be on guard against false preachers.

 

[mgrfin]

You’ve got to be joking.

Would you like to make an attack on the Catholic Church?

peace

 

[Ginger2]

Would you like to make an attack on the Catholic Church?

peace

I am stating that the Catholic Church is always on guard against false preachers, otherwise no one would ever be ex-communicated.

Ex-communication would be obsolete.

 

[mgrfin]

I am stating that the Catholic Church is always on guard against false preachers, otherwise no one would ever be ex-communicated.

Ex-communication would be obsolete.

So then you can see why I said the Church doesn’t have to be concerned about false preachers.

When was the last excommunication that you know of? Excommunication is very rare in the external forum nowadays.

Other christian communities have a lot more freedom: no dogmas, no magisterium, free personal interpretation of Scripture, no accountability. That is why there are thousands of them.

peace