R
Rightlydivide
Guest
What about the quotes in the NT referring to scripture?
- Status
B
Byzman
Guest
I have a question for you, Rightly If you dont answer, thats okay…it may take some time to think about…but, why do you believe the 66 books of your Bible are Scripture?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Dang. So the whole conversation is moot? If we do not agree there was scripture, you cannot prove it was closed. I never realized Catholics thought this. It really cannot go anywhere. That stinks.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
yeah
B
Byzman
Guest
That website you listed goes against what modern scholars say…very interesting. There is in that article no proof though to say otherwise…just an argument of misunderstanding.
Yes, the Talmud should have a weight for those looking into history…the Talmud helps us understand those time periods in Jewish history, for alot of reasons. What was the way they spoke?.. the way they understood Scripture?..certain practices?.. disputes that took place?..etc…
What made them Scripture?
Well of course, they believed it was God’s Word, but ultimately I think they were divided over this issue as to what books were Scripture…as a Catholic, thank the Lord we have the Church to say.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
No, Rightly,
(Edited)
Did Scripture exist at the time of the Apostles? Well, the OT obviously did, as no one wrote any OT books while the Apostles were alive.
Did any NT scripture exist BEFORE the apostles? Well, of course not - the NT did not exist until Jesus died. NO BOOKS of the NT were written while Jesus was alive.
But it is YOU who keep dodging the question:
Although God knew what scripture was, and that OT scripture existed, HOW DID GOD LET MAN KNOW WHAT BOOKS SHOULD FORM THE OT CANON?
It is YOU, Rightly, who won’t acknowledge the “delivery mechanism” - a MAN or MEN who were operating under the power of the Holy Spirit at the time they either WROTE the books that became part of the OT and NT canons, or who played a role in “recognizing” (using your word - “determining” is the same thing, whether you like it or not) scripture.
Again - it all goes back to HOW God imparted his knowledge to mankind of what was or was not sacred scripture.
Why won’t you answer WHO THAT WAS?
And you still cannot point to a certain book of the OT to say “see, this book refers to scripture”, because:
(1) if ONE book says, “look at the scriptures” (or words to that effect), then what other books refer to that original ONE book to state that IT should be considered scripture?
(2) NO book in the OT or NT specifically states what IS scripture. They only refer to “scripture” or “scriptures” in general terms.
You see, Rightly, once you acknowledged tha God did not “make a bible appear” or delivery it ALREADY WRITTEN to mankind, then you HAD to acknowledge that God operated through a man or men in letting others know what God decree should be considered scripture.
So, again - the question is: TO WHOM did God grant this knowledge, WHEN, and HOW DO WE KNOW that the supposed “person in authority” did, indeed, have the authority to “recognize” scripture when he saw it?
Don’t you find it odd that God would make it so difficult for mankind to determine what was or was not scripture, if one uses your approach? Unless a specific book or collection of books that mankind KNEW as scripture, listed a book or books that SHOULD BE considered scripture, then we always go back to the first book.
Yes, God always knew what was or would be scripture. But that misses the point. The point is not what God knows - we acknowledge that God knew and knows everything. The question is: how did God impart his knowledge to mankind?
Once you acknowledge that God worked through man and then tell me the names of the man or men and when this occurred, then you are dodging the ultimate fallacy of protestant theology: “well, man could just read a book and automatically KNOW if it was scripture or not.”
Really? Well, then, please tell me how in the world someone can read Philemon and “just know” that it was inspired?
(Edited)
Did Scripture exist at the time of the Apostles? Well, the OT obviously did, as no one wrote any OT books while the Apostles were alive.
Did any NT scripture exist BEFORE the apostles? Well, of course not - the NT did not exist until Jesus died. NO BOOKS of the NT were written while Jesus was alive.
But it is YOU who keep dodging the question:
Although God knew what scripture was, and that OT scripture existed, HOW DID GOD LET MAN KNOW WHAT BOOKS SHOULD FORM THE OT CANON?
It is YOU, Rightly, who won’t acknowledge the “delivery mechanism” - a MAN or MEN who were operating under the power of the Holy Spirit at the time they either WROTE the books that became part of the OT and NT canons, or who played a role in “recognizing” (using your word - “determining” is the same thing, whether you like it or not) scripture.
Again - it all goes back to HOW God imparted his knowledge to mankind of what was or was not sacred scripture.
Why won’t you answer WHO THAT WAS?
And you still cannot point to a certain book of the OT to say “see, this book refers to scripture”, because:
(1) if ONE book says, “look at the scriptures” (or words to that effect), then what other books refer to that original ONE book to state that IT should be considered scripture?
(2) NO book in the OT or NT specifically states what IS scripture. They only refer to “scripture” or “scriptures” in general terms.
You see, Rightly, once you acknowledged tha God did not “make a bible appear” or delivery it ALREADY WRITTEN to mankind, then you HAD to acknowledge that God operated through a man or men in letting others know what God decree should be considered scripture.
So, again - the question is: TO WHOM did God grant this knowledge, WHEN, and HOW DO WE KNOW that the supposed “person in authority” did, indeed, have the authority to “recognize” scripture when he saw it?
Don’t you find it odd that God would make it so difficult for mankind to determine what was or was not scripture, if one uses your approach? Unless a specific book or collection of books that mankind KNEW as scripture, listed a book or books that SHOULD BE considered scripture, then we always go back to the first book.
Yes, God always knew what was or would be scripture. But that misses the point. The point is not what God knows - we acknowledge that God knew and knows everything. The question is: how did God impart his knowledge to mankind?
Once you acknowledge that God worked through man and then tell me the names of the man or men and when this occurred, then you are dodging the ultimate fallacy of protestant theology: “well, man could just read a book and automatically KNOW if it was scripture or not.”
Really? Well, then, please tell me how in the world someone can read Philemon and “just know” that it was inspired?
B
Byzman
Guest
There is no doubt about that…books were recognized as Scripture…no one denies this. A Closed Canon or a Canon being debated, shouldnt that be and remain the question?
B
Byzman
Guest
Well said! :clapping:
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Rightly,
ANOTHER example of where your “approach” leads:
You see, Rightly, again - when you want to analyze as you do, I don’t mind, because we will always end up back at the origin: God. We both acknowledge that God is the author of all sacred scripture, and we both acknowledge that He did not “make a book miraculo0usly appear” or deliver any books of sacred scripture ***already written ***to anyone.
Those “givens” REQUIRE one such as yourself to admit that God DID IN FACT use humans in his delivery of scriptures to all men.
I want you to tell me who that man or who those people were, when did that delivery occur, and who granted that man or those men authority to tell everyone else that what they possessed was, in fact, holy scripture from God.
THIS is where YOUR “argument” breaks down - providing names and dates and authority.
ANOTHER example of where your “approach” leads:
- You say that Deuteronomy was “edited”, and that from 34:5 onward, Deuteronomy was added to by an “editor” other than Moses (as must be the case, considering verse 5 onward discusses what happened to Moses after he died - I don’t of any dead humans writing anything in the bible). So who was the editor (name, please), when did that editing take place, and, to put a “modern spin” on things, who put HIM in charge?
- Protestants and Catholics both have the Book of Daniel in their OT canon, except Catholics have a book of Daniel that is longer.
You see, Rightly, again - when you want to analyze as you do, I don’t mind, because we will always end up back at the origin: God. We both acknowledge that God is the author of all sacred scripture, and we both acknowledge that He did not “make a book miraculo0usly appear” or deliver any books of sacred scripture ***already written ***to anyone.
Those “givens” REQUIRE one such as yourself to admit that God DID IN FACT use humans in his delivery of scriptures to all men.
I want you to tell me who that man or who those people were, when did that delivery occur, and who granted that man or those men authority to tell everyone else that what they possessed was, in fact, holy scripture from God.
THIS is where YOUR “argument” breaks down - providing names and dates and authority.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Byzman
I am not sure that the other posters agree that we had OT scripture prior to their church saying it was in 400 AD. Perhaps they could clarify. It is the point. You cannot agree that the canon was open or closed if you cannot agree there was scripture.
I am not sure that the other posters agree that we had OT scripture prior to their church saying it was in 400 AD. Perhaps they could clarify. It is the point. You cannot agree that the canon was open or closed if you cannot agree there was scripture.
B
Byzman
Guest
I think you are very much misunderstanding the other posts on this thread than…they have said over and over that there was OT Scripture…we all, except you, believe the Canon was not closed, finalized, settled, agreed, consisted of, etc.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Rightly,
(Edited)
You continue, time after time after time after time, to refer to this (Edited), general, all encompassing term “scripture” or “scriptures”, yet you absolutely either ignore the question about it or just refuse to answer because you don’t want to acknowledge what WE have been saying all along:
***Once you acknowledge, Rightly, that God did not deliver an entire canon of holy scripture to man, bound and “certified” as complete, whether it be OT or NT, then you MUST acknowledge that God worked through humans to make known HIS determination fo what should and should not be considered part of what HE deemed to be the OT canon. God has always known what was or what would become scripture - even before it was written. And that is because of God’s omniscience - he always knew ahead of time what he would allow people to write while they were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Now please answer the questions that I have posed regarding “the scriptures”.
(Edited)
You continue, time after time after time after time, to refer to this (Edited), general, all encompassing term “scripture” or “scriptures”, yet you absolutely either ignore the question about it or just refuse to answer because you don’t want to acknowledge what WE have been saying all along:
***Once you acknowledge, Rightly, that God did not deliver an entire canon of holy scripture to man, bound and “certified” as complete, whether it be OT or NT, then you MUST acknowledge that God worked through humans to make known HIS determination fo what should and should not be considered part of what HE deemed to be the OT canon. God has always known what was or what would become scripture - even before it was written. And that is because of God’s omniscience - he always knew ahead of time what he would allow people to write while they were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Now please answer the questions that I have posed regarding “the scriptures”.
- WHO first knew what books (and I mean EVERY BOOK) should or should not be part of sacred scripture as determined BY GOD? For you, that would be 66 OT books, for us Catholics, that would be 73 OT books? I want a name or names of these humans.
- WHEN did these humans you just named, FIRST “recognize” EVERY BOOK - all 66 protestant OT books - as sacred scripture by virtue of what God deemed to be scripture? I want a year.
- BY WHOSE AUTHORITY did this person or these persons you named, “recognize” for the rest of mankind, that certain books should or should not be part of the 66 protestant OT canon? I want to know WHO gave these people you named, the authority to do what you said.***
N
Nicea325
Guest
Exactly! Like I always tell me people like Rightlydivide,it is not matter of what God gave us (The Bible) but a matter of…HOW did He do it? Through His bishops and councils-these are the facts of history and they cannot be disputed-I rest my case!
S
Salvatore123
Guest
And Rightly,(Edited) you KNOW that all Catholics and Orthodox and Protestants all believed that every OT book that was TO FORM part of the OT canon, was already written at the time Christ lived.
But that is NOT the question or the issue.
You keep asking if the “canon” was determined - I don’t see the word “canon” anywhere in the bible. Do you?
If you have asked: “Was every book that would ultimately become part of the OT canon, written by the time Christ lived?” Well the answer to that is yes.
If you have asked: "Did Christ know at the time he lived, what was considered the entire OT canon? Well of course - he was one of the three persons of the Holy Trinity.
If you have asked: “Did anyone other than Christ KNOW, AT THE TIME OF CHRIST, which books should be considered part of the OT canon?” Then the answer is “no one knows”.
If you take issue with last question I just posed, then YOU need to answer the questions I asked OF YOU in my previous posts.
***WHY WON’T YOU ANSWER WHO, WHEN, BY WHAT AUTHORITY?
***(Edited)
But that is NOT the question or the issue.
You keep asking if the “canon” was determined - I don’t see the word “canon” anywhere in the bible. Do you?
If you have asked: “Was every book that would ultimately become part of the OT canon, written by the time Christ lived?” Well the answer to that is yes.
If you have asked: "Did Christ know at the time he lived, what was considered the entire OT canon? Well of course - he was one of the three persons of the Holy Trinity.
If you have asked: “Did anyone other than Christ KNOW, AT THE TIME OF CHRIST, which books should be considered part of the OT canon?” Then the answer is “no one knows”.
If you take issue with last question I just posed, then YOU need to answer the questions I asked OF YOU in my previous posts.
***WHY WON’T YOU ANSWER WHO, WHEN, BY WHAT AUTHORITY?
***(Edited)
N
Nicea325
Guest
Here is a similar comparison. Did the U.S. Constitution all on its own determine it is an authority OR did an external factor/body SAY IT WAS AN AUTHORITY? Hhhmm? History clear proves the founding fathers decided and determined it was an authority.
The Bible is no different!
N
Nicea325
Guest
I’l tell you why he will not answer: WHO, WHEN, BY WHAT AUTHORITY?
Because it already has destroyed his belief the OT was set before Jesus…that is WHY! If it was settled before Jesus he would have provided evidence for: WHO, WHEN, BY WHAT AUTHORITY?
I am telling you,his pride gets in the way.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Nicea,
In additon to what you said about the US Constitution, it was not until the case of Marbury v. Madison that the US Supreme Court determined what laws were and were not “constitutional”. Until then, we had the constitution - no one disputed that.
But it then came down to a matter of INTERPRETING that that constitution meant.
And THAT is where Rightly’s position fails. The US had the Supreme Court to establish for it the principle of “judicial review”: what is or is not constitutional?
Rightly won’t tell us WHO should be considered the “Supreme Court” of the OT canon, nor will he tell us WHEN that “Supreme Court” was held, nor will he tell us BY WHAT AUTHORITY did that “Supreme Court” recognize certain books - 66 for Rightly - as being part of the OT canon.
He Can’t do it . . .
(Edited). . .
In additon to what you said about the US Constitution, it was not until the case of Marbury v. Madison that the US Supreme Court determined what laws were and were not “constitutional”. Until then, we had the constitution - no one disputed that.
But it then came down to a matter of INTERPRETING that that constitution meant.
And THAT is where Rightly’s position fails. The US had the Supreme Court to establish for it the principle of “judicial review”: what is or is not constitutional?
Rightly won’t tell us WHO should be considered the “Supreme Court” of the OT canon, nor will he tell us WHEN that “Supreme Court” was held, nor will he tell us BY WHAT AUTHORITY did that “Supreme Court” recognize certain books - 66 for Rightly - as being part of the OT canon.
He Can’t do it . . .
(Edited). . .
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
(Edited)
In the year 30 AD, Jesus refers to certain quotes from books in the OT as scripture. What made people prior to the church recognize these books, any of these books, as scripture?
In the year 30 AD, Jesus refers to certain quotes from books in the OT as scripture. What made people prior to the church recognize these books, any of these books, as scripture?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Jesus and Paul know that we have scriptures. Nothing has destroyed this at all.(Edited)
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I know they were written. And I am nice to Byzman. I am also nice and understanding with you even though you seem to also have anger problems. That is why I think you should keep your posts shorter and with less tone. You are getting yourself worked up. Its clear that Paul and Jesus recognized scripture. So lets just admit that we have recognized scripture prior to the church…sound right?
- Status