Historical evidence for self-authenticating scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eark said:
Without an institutional authority mandated by Christ, I’m not sure why there must be a bible at all. Indeed, Quakers don’t feel it essential. What is the Lutheran justification for there being a “canon”, knowing Jesus never mentioned the prospect?
Click to expand...
Of course Christ mandates an institutional authority. It’s call the Church. Why would you think Lutherans wouldn’t recognize that? It is in the Bible. It was the practice of the early Church. Lutherans accept the early councils. The Lutheran Confessions are full of references to the Church.
Eark said:
What is the origin of this view, if not man? It seems totally arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Any determination of the canon is by man, through the Church. Why would that be a surprise to anyone ?
As for arbitrary, why do you consider the history of the Church and the ECF’s arbitrary?
I don’t. In fact, I consider the Lutheran practice rather systematic.
Eark said:
Wikipedia is generally reliable, so you’re going to have to give me compelling alternative source if I’m to believe your claim to the contrary.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing the statement you presented at all. Of course the canon was largely determined by the fifth century, but that statement is different than “established “. Furthermore, until Trent, western Christians has the liberty to dispute books, just like Eusebius did. In other words, Lutherans practice the same liberty that Catholics had before Trent. See Erasmus and Cajetan as examples.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
True Jesus never spoke of it. And the abruptness of his death had to be shocking. I think one of the most startling things historically is the infusion of genuine writing talent and education that somehow sprung from a cave dwelling community. The infusion of Hellenistic influences to somehow make sense of the death of their friend and Rabbi. A Christian School in Alexandria where the " whole story" was placed into a narrative.
Click to expand...
well, not sure that Hellenistic thought was needed in the place of Hebrew thought for figuring out the Lord’s death, or that we would not have a "whole story " otherwise.

Certainly the Alexandrian school, if that is what you are referring, was very influential.
 
JonNC said:
Of course Christ mandates an institutional authority. It’s call the Church. Why would you think Lutherans wouldn’t recognize that? It is in the Bible. It was the practice of the early Church. Lutherans accept the early councils. The Lutheran Confessions are full of references to the Church.
Click to expand...
I’d appreciate it greatly if you’d clarify this for me. Which, if any, of the following assertions do you disagree with:
  1. Christ mandated a visible institution (the Church), which rightly administered Christendom for some period of time.
  2. The Church ceased to rightly administer Christendom at some point in time (thus losing Christ’s mandate).
  3. (2) is compatible with Mt 16:18.
 
BartholomewB said:
Slightly off topic, but do you know anything about the fragments of the Hebrew Tobit found among the Dead Sea Scrolls? I tried several websites, including the Israel Museum and the Shrine of the Book, but didn’t find anything.
Click to expand...
Hrm… what exactly are you asking about? If you’re looking for information regarding their content, an English translation of the fragments is in “The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible” by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich.
 
Last edited:
Eark said:
  • Christ mandated a visible institution (the Church), which rightly administered Christendom for some period of time.
  • The Church ceased to rightly administer Christendom at some point in time (thus losing Christ’s mandate).
  • (2) is compatible with Mt 16:18.
Click to expand...
Christ mandated a visible Church that preaches (present tense) the gospel and rightly administers the sacraments.

Note: charitable dialogue requires that you answer my questions, too. Please refer back to my previous post.
 
Last edited:
ziapueblo said:
The Pharisees had a larger selection of books (Septuagint) the Sadducees, only the Torah.
Click to expand...
Agree but would add the Pharisees also had Hebrew writings, known as the Law and the Prophets and the Writings… I am of opinion that the Greek Septuagint contained "other " books not part of Hebrew “Writings”.
 
Last edited:
Yet the Septuagint was the more common translation at the time and from what I understand out of 350 or so Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, about 300 of those come from the Septuagint.

Regardless, the Greek Septuagint is in my Bible and I’m good with that.

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
Yet the Septuagint was the more common translation at the time
Click to expand...
Yes, probably…have no problem with Hebrew scipture being translated into other languages, just as we also translate other writings such as Didache or letter of Clement to Corinthians etc. into many languages.
 
JonNC said:
I’m not arguing the statement you presented at all. Of course the canon was largely determined by the fifth century, but that statement is different than “established “. Furthermore, until Trent, western Christians has the liberty to dispute books, just like Eusebius did. In other words, Lutherans practice the same liberty that Catholics had before Trent. See Erasmus and Cajetan as examples.
Click to expand...
Jon,

Is there much of a difference between “determined” and “established” especially since the canon as decreed by Pope Damasus I, in 382, didn’t change once it was made? That canon was validated by 2 other local councils, the ecumenical council of Florence, AND the ecumenical council of Trent, which again, validated that same canon.
 
steve-b said:
40.png
JonNC:
I’m not arguing the statement you presented at all. Of course the canon was largely determined by the fifth century, but that statement is different than “established “. Furthermore, until Trent, western Christians has the liberty to dispute books, just like Eusebius did. In other words, Lutherans practice the same liberty that Catholics had before Trent. See Erasmus and Cajetan as examples.
Click to expand...
Jon,

Is there much of a difference between “determined” and “established” especially since the canon as decreed by Pope Damasus I, in 382, didn’t change once it was made? That canon was validated by 2 other local councils, the ecumenical council of Florence, AND the ecumenical council of Trent, which again, validated that same canon.
Click to expand...
You and I have discussed this before. The Eastern Patriarchs have not approved the local councils at Florence and Trent. They are not ecumenical except for the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
The establishment of a 73 book council at Trent, therefore, makes it canon for only those in communion with the pope, not the universal Church.
That said, there is no reason not to receive that canon in the same way Catholics did prior to Trent. Nor is there any reason to deny the Christian liberty to dispute them.
What I mean is the 73 book western canon should be highly valued because of its history. Lutherans miss so much of their scriptural heritage by not knowing the DC books.
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
That canon was validated by 2 other local councils, the ecumenical council of Florence, AND the ecumenical council of Trent, which again, validated that same canon.
Click to expand...
Thank you but lol, I think we need some more validating!
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
40.png
steve-b:
40.png
JonNC:
I’m not arguing the statement you presented at all. Of course the canon was largely determined by the fifth century, but that statement is different than “established “. Furthermore, until Trent, western Christians has the liberty to dispute books, just like Eusebius did. In other words, Lutherans practice the same liberty that Catholics had before Trent. See Erasmus and Cajetan as examples.
Click to expand...
Jon,

Is there much of a difference between “determined” and “established” especially since the canon as decreed by Pope Damasus I, in 382, didn’t change once it was made? That canon was validated by 2 other local councils, the ecumenical council of Florence, AND the ecumenical council of Trent, which again, validated that same canon.
Click to expand...
You and I have discussed this before. The Eastern Patriarchs have not approved the local councils at Florence and Trent. They are not ecumenical except for the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
The establishment of a 73 book council at Trent, therefore, makes it canon for only those in communion with the pope, not the universal Church.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that a distinction without a difference?

And yes we’re talked about this many times.

If one isn’t in communion with the pope, (to be clear, the successor to St Peter in Rome) then they are NOT in the universal / Catholic Church in the first place.

Meaning THEY, in extension, who aren’t in communion with him, can’t be considered the pillar and foundation of truth either, that Paul taught about.

AND

You’ve seen this before.

The Eastern patriarchal system we see in the East is an Eastern invention. NOT established by Jesus who made Peter chief (therefore, his successors) , over the entire Church Jesus established.

From: HERE
40.png
JonNC:
That said, there is no reason not to receive that canon in the same way Catholics did prior to Trent. Nor is there any reason to deny the Christian liberty to dispute them.
What I mean is the 73 book western canon should be highly valued because of its history. Lutherans miss so much of their scriptural heritage by not knowing the DC books.
Click to expand...
It’s not just Lutherans who reject those 7 books. All of Protestantism no matter the stripe reject them also
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
40.png
steve-b:
That canon was validated by 2 other local councils, the ecumenical council of Florence, AND the ecumenical council of Trent, which again, validated that same canon.
Click to expand...
Thank you but lol, I think we need some more validating!
Click to expand...
Before I answer you,

If you accept a 66 book canon of scripture as a Protestant,

what evidence and authority do you have for accepting those 66 books?,
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
Isn’t that a distinction without a difference?
Click to expand...
No. It isn’t.
steve-b said:
If one isn’t in communion with the pope, (to be clear, the successor to St Peter in Rome) then they are NOT in the universal / Catholic Church in the first place.
Click to expand...
And you know that I consider that false, even triumphalistic.
steve-b said:
The Eastern patriarchal system we see in the East is an Eastern invention. NOT established by Jesus who made Peter chief (therefore, his successors) , over the entire Church Jesus established.
Click to expand...
Those words appear neither in scripture nor in the early councils. Universal jurisdiction is a latter innovation. It is also off the topic.
steve-b said:
It’s not just Lutherans who reject those 7 books. All of Protestantism no matter the stripe reject them also
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t care what they do. The fact is that, prior to Trent, there were Catholics who disputed them, too, and they were permitted to do so.
I’ve spoken about my view of them often, and I will not get into it again with you.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top