A
- Status
M
mgrfin
Guest
D
Deconi
Guest
Circumcision! A big issue!
Acts 15…all of it.
My point is that Paul sought counsel of The Church; not relied on his wits or interllect, in spite having had a personal visit from The Eternal One.
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!
D
Deconi
Guest
P
peary
Guest
Well, from what we know, he didn’t. Although he himself had an epiphany of Our Lord, he needed validation that what he experienced as infused knowledge was acceptable and true, which is why he sought counsel from the Church. That is how sincere the man was in Truth. He could have gone his own way and did his own thing, and preached whatever, but he didn’t. He sought counsel from the Church. There is a lesson to be learned here. He did not place himself above the other Apostles or Church members but humbly submitted to them, even after such a life-changing vision.Circumcision! A big issue!
Acts 15…all of it.
My point is that Paul sought counsel of The Church; not relied on his wits or interllect, in spite having had a personal visit from The Eternal One.
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!
J
jmcrae
Guest
the point being that some Jews include only the Law in their canon of the Holy Scriptures (the remainder are considered “useful commentary” but not inspired by God) whereas other Jews take either one of or both of the other two sets, and include them as being “inspired of God” and place them in the same box with the Torah.
For some Jews, that is so, yes - they consider all three sets of books to be one canon of Holy Scripture. For others, not so - they include only the Torah, or only the Torah and the Prophets, or only the Torah and the Wisdom.
Well, obviously not - they included only the Torah at the Temple, It was the Synagogues where the rest of the books were read out. Christ used the set that had 46 books in it, and we know that based on the way the passage from Isaiah is translated in the New Testament, from which He read at the synagogue in Nazareth - he was reading from the Alexandrian set of 46 books, and not from the Palestinian set of 39 books.
Yes, of course - but they gave up all claim to authority over it at the moment that they gave Jesus over to be crucified, instead of recognizing Him as their Messiah.
All spiritual authority was transferred to the Apostles by means of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost Day, and from that moment onward, the Jews no longer had the ability to tell Christians what to put in their Old Testament - that authority now resides with the successors of the Apostles, meaning the Catholic Pope in Rome, and all of the Bishops who are in full communion with him (but not including any schismatics, nor anyone who takes upon himself to appoint himself leader of a church, who has not received authority to do so from God’s Church).
G
Ginger2
Guest
Perhaps I am not clear…Read The First Letter to The Corithians, Chapter 5.
Name one book or letter that has been authenticated as being written by the Apostle Paul, but was rejected by the Church and does is not included in the canon.
Out of these hundreds of writings from Paul, you must be able to cite at least one.
G
Ginger2
Guest
I misunderstood what you were implying.Circumcision! A big issue!
Acts 15…all of it.
My point is that Paul sought counsel of The Church; not relied on his wits or interllect, in spite having had a personal visit from The Eternal One.
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!
We agree.
M
mgrfin
Guest
Are you saying that there were more than the 14 letters from St. Paul we have in the NT?
peace
M
mgrfin
Guest
Just another example of circular reasoning, except more at length.
The Canon of the Scripture is such because the Catholic Church says it is. It is the only authority who can authenticate the Scriptures.
peace
G
Ginger2
Guest
No, I think it was jmcrae who suggested that.
I am asking for one example to support such a claim.
M
mgrfin
Guest
Quote:
Out of these hundreds of writings from Paul, you must be able to cite at least one.
Unquote
You seemed to be saying it.
peace
J
jmcrae
Guest
Surely there is no one who thinks St. Paul languished for how many years in jail and only wrote 13 or 14 letters in total? Yet we know that the canon of Scripture is complete. If any of his other letters do surface (such as “zeroth Corinthians” which he refers to in what we call the First Letter to the Corinthians) they cannot be admitted to the canon of the New Testament, because it has been closed for all time.
P
peary
Guest
**There isn’t a case for it. The early councils compiled what was already in common as far as his letters and instructions were concerned and included these in the canon of the NT. Now, if some original letter were to be found that was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was written by Paul, would the Church include that in the canon? Probably not, but it might make it in the deuterocanonicals. **
M
mgrfin
Guest
Paul served the Lord for 35 years, and spent years in prison. And all we have from him is 14 Letters. I find that unbelievable. Even considering his time in prison only, what else did he have to do but to write to his churches, and to his friends. Paul was a man of strength, and stamina, and would have lived several more years. Considering his martyrdom he lived to be 68 or so.
Maybe some day someone will come up with a cache of Paul’s other writings. Hopefully.
peace
D
Deconi
Guest
I’m not being argumentative, Ginger. Just relaying. The ‘First Letter to The Corithians’ was in fact not the first letter to them, as Paul says in Chapter 5, verse 9. Clearly there was either another before hand, or one of several, since the Apostle says,“In my other letter…” not "In my first letter to you…"
In Thessalonians 2, Paul in addressing the fraudulent claims being made by someone with one of his letters, or from he, Silas and/or Timothy shows two things; we don’t have all Paul’s letters and Silas didn’t make the canon.
Irrespective though of all these obvious other letters and writings existing, it is immaterial to me whether the councils had any more of them, or all of them in front of them during the canon decisions.
Even if any of them are found or uncovered now, would make little case to have them included.
WHY? The word “inspired” removes it from the hands of men and the Pope quite rightly seals it with "…and having God as their author, they wrote down those things and ONLY THOSE THINGS He willed and no more."
(Yeah, I’m paraphrasing there, but you get the picture)
What has been decided, He decided. Subtraction and/or additions are man-made. Currently, we’ve been arguing the subtraction, although ‘the thief’ now accuses ‘the owner’ of addition to the original piece !!
M
mercygate
Guest
My point is that the narrow definition of inspiration we all hold today would postdate the closing of the canon.
That would be a fun search! I did a similar search on the word “word” in the Septuagint and it completely changed the meaning of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness for me.
But as for the canon and the inspiration of the canon, Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees accepted the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint. So in I Tim 3:16 “all scripture” would have included the Deuterocanon. I never thought of this verse as a “proof text” for accepting the Deuterocanon as inspired.
G
Ginger2
Guest
(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./COLOR
posted by jmcrae, that seems to be suggesting that the church intentionally omitted inspired writings from Paul from the canon.
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.
Why is there not one list that contains even one of these letters? If they were authentic and had anything at all of spiritual value, why is there no evidence to their existence?
My question has nothing to do with whether Paul ever wrote anything other than what we find in the Bible. It is about whether or not Paul wrote inspired letters/books that were omitted by the authority of the church.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Maybe we should take a step back and ask jmcrae exactly what he was trying to say.
It’s been a long time since he made that post. Let’s give him a chance to explain and clarify. I believe he was speaking of 2 Peter 3:16.
- Status