Historical evidence for self-authenticating scripture?

[BartholomewB]

Thank you, @JSRG! Here it is, freely available online at Archive . org:

The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible : Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Isn’t that a distinction without a difference?

No. It isn’t.

Yes it is ,
for space considerations, see HERE

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.

JonNC:

And you know that I consider that false, even triumphalistic.

And you know that your consideration has been proven false. And you are not using triumphalistic, correctly.

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.

JonNC:

Those words appear neither in scripture nor in the early councils. Universal jurisdiction is a latter innovation. It is also off the topic.

Actually, historically speaking,

Scripture (which is also history), discusses a jurisdiction that is universal as well as then Card Ratzinger, later Benedict XVI, also makes a historical point. So I would suggest the points I was making is not off topic

It’s not just Lutherans who reject those 7 books. All of Protestantism no matter the stripe reject them also

JonNC:

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.

Ok,

Considering this point of “permission”, you keep bringing up,

I would suggest that because 3 local councils (Rome, Carthage, and Hippo, all before 420 a.d.) and later 2 ecumenical councils, Florence and Trent, identifying the same 73 books as the canon of scripture, (IOW no changes for 1163 yrs), I’d say your view about specific names mentioned, who questioned the canon, only points to disobedience NOT permission, and BTW, the names you usually mention, Jerome, and Cajetan for example, all ended up accepting those 7 books anyway.

 

[JonNC]

Again, Steve, I’m not going to Parton your derailing of the thread. And frankly, your polemical approach actually hurts the Catholic narrative.

 

[steve-b]

Again, Steve, I’m not going to Parton your derailing of the thread. And frankly, your polemical approach actually hurts the Catholic narrative.

My answer pointed directly to who has the authority to authenticate scripture. It’s not pointing to self-authenticating

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Again, Steve, I’m not going to Parton your derailing of the thread. And frankly, your polemical approach actually hurts the Catholic narrative.

My answer pointed directly to who has the authority to authenticate scripture. It’s not pointing to self-authenticating

And we agree that personal interpretation is appropriate, at least in the realm of doctrine.
We disagree on the idea that one Bishop has the final say.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

JonNC:

Again, Steve, I’m not going to Parton your derailing of the thread. And frankly, your polemical approach actually hurts the Catholic narrative.

My answer pointed directly to who has the authority to authenticate scripture. It’s not pointing to self-authenticating

And we agree that personal interpretation is appropriate, at least in the realm of doctrine.

How far are you going with that?

JonNC:

We disagree on the idea that one Bishop has the final say.

As You know, the teaching for one bishop being greater/greatest in authority among all the others, doesn’t come from me, that comes from Jesus.

 

[JonNC]

How far are you going with that?

I’m a Lutheran. Those things that are doctrine are doctrine. Those things that are Adiaphora are Adiaphora.

As You know, the teaching for one bishop being greater/greatest in authority among all the others, doesn’t come from me, that comes from Jesus.

The level of his authority has seen added to, sometimes without council, is not from Christ.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

How far are you going with that?

I’m a Lutheran. Those things that are doctrine are doctrine. Those things that are Adiaphora are Adiaphora.

I thought you left Lutheranism, and became Anglican?

As You know, the teaching for one bishop being greater/greatest in authority among all the others, doesn’t come from me, that comes from Jesus.

JonNC:

The level of his authority has seen added to, sometimes without council, is not from Christ.

This topic is definitely about authority. AND giving evidence for our answer… right?

So

Jesus words, giving one bishop, Peter, chief authority in the Church can be described as follows

Example:

Luke 22:25 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 26 the greatest [ μείζων ] among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules [ ἡγούμενος ] like the one who serves… for context HERE

we see Peter is the only one mentioned by Jesus that fits this description of the greatest among THEM…

THUS

Peter is to

ἡγούμενος = hégeomai

Definition:

1. to lead …
   a) to go before
   b) to be a leader
2. to rule, command
3. to have authority over
4. a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseer or leader of the churches
5. the leader in speech, chief, spokesmana)to rule, govern

Add up the traits referring to Peter. And it goes without saying, Jesus expects the apostles to follow Peter’s lead. Point being, Jesus ends their argument and every body elses argument over who Jesus made the greatest among the Apostles…right?

And let’s not forget John 17:18-23 there is to be zero division in Our Lord’s plan to be one with Peter

All that should also answer the required communion with 1 bishop, Peter and his successors

Gee,

Sounds like Jesus describes and defends the papacy and His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church

As to the topic

That gives historical evidence AND authority for one person having great authority over everyone else,

AND

to your point,

we see where that authority comes from. It is NOT self authenticating authority, but authority that comes from Jesus to His Church AND one bishop in particular.

SO

Historically speaking then, that’s why I showed the history and the evidence I did, for making decisions like, how authenticating scripture. happens

 

[JonNC]

I thought you left Lutheranism, and became Anglican?

The little mission closed, leaving me few options.

 

[adf417]

The little mission closed, leaving me few options.

Sorry to hear that Jon!

Peace!!!

 

[steve-b]

leaving me few options.

interesting

 

[mcq72]

what evidence and authority do you have for accepting those 66 books?,

I think you have heard all evidence, and probably all the authority opinions/ convictions.

Although I believe OT saints had a consensus on their sacred scriptures, some say they had slight variations, and if so, did one ask to the other, by what authority ? …I think not.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

what evidence and authority do you have for accepting those 66 books?,

I think you have heard all evidence, and probably all the authority opinions/ convictions.

Although I believe OT saints had a consensus on their sacred scriptures, some say they had slight variations, and if so, did one ask to the other, by what authority ? ….I think not.

So is it 39 books or 46 books in the OT scripture canon? Who validly and with authority, makes that decision over those 7 books that are in one person’s canon as scripture, and not in another person’s canon of scripture?

 

[mcq72]

So is it 39 books or 46 books in the OT scripture canon? Who validly and with authority, makes that decision over those 7 books that are in one person’s canon as scripture, and not in another person’s canon of scripture?

We are in agreement on NT books, and we are in agreement on 39 of OT books, so I would think there has to be a reason why some folks dont hold to these deutero books, and why everybody rejects/ accepts some or all of the twelve or so deutero books found in Septuagint .

We have discussed authority, but that is neither here nor there to the reality and reasoning of their distinction.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

So is it 39 books or 46 books in the OT scripture canon? Who validly and with authority, makes that decision over those 7 books that are in one person’s canon as scripture, and not in another person’s canon of scripture?

We are in agreement on NT books, and we are in agreement on 39 of OT books, so I would think there has to be a reason why some folks dont hold to these deutero books, and why everybody rejects/ accepts some or all of the twelve or so deutero books found in Septuagint .

What counts is the Church Jesus established, accepts 46 OT books.

mcq72:

We have discussed authority, but that is neither here nor there to the reality and reasoning of their distinction.

To say authority is neither here nor there, speaks volumes.

 

[mcq72]

To say authority is neither here nor there, speaks volumes.

Aside from misquoting me, tell me how authority reasoned that authority is why say mac 2 is sacred and mac 3 is not for example.

Authority can determine, discern, proclaim what is writ but is not criteria or reasoning behind what is chosen.

What counts is the Church Jesus established, accepts 46 OT books.

Well, fallible men citing infallible writ.

 

[Eark]

Hi again Jon, sorry for the wait. I very much appreciate your continued efforts in my threads.

Note: charitable dialogue requires that you answer my questions, too. Please refer back to my previous post.

I didn’t answer your questions, initially, because they were counter-questions, contingent on questions I asked you, questions which I suspected do not apply to you. I now know that they don’t, but I’ll address them anyway:

1. Any determination of the canon is by man, through the Church. Why would that be a surprise to anyone ?

I agree, it’s unsurprising. At the time of my earlier post I had a different impression of your beliefs. I didn’t know of a Protestant position that affirmed a visible and institutional Church. I know you take issue with protestant, so I guess I’ll use ‘non-Catholic-or-Orthodox’, which is the next best denotation I can think of. I believe this also answers:

1. As for arbitrary, why do you consider the history of the Church and the ECF’s arbitrary?

I felt that it would be arbitrary if that Church (in the visible, institutional sense) had not, in fact, been mandated by Jesus Christ. You’ve made clear that you think that Church (in the visible, institutional sense) was mandated by Jesus Christ. I hope that clears things up.

Christ mandated a visible Church that preaches (present tense) the gospel and rightly administers the sacraments.

This is very interesting to me, but I’m not sure how to respectfully ask you about it. The only non-Catholic-or-Orthodox position like it that I know of is baptist successionism, but I’m fairly confident you’re a Lutheran, given that link you posted earlier. So the obvious interpretation is that you think that the church which Christ mandated is the Lutheran church. But, respectfully, I have no idea how this works; Luther wasn’t around for Christ to give him authority, so the Lutheran church cannot be the same church that Christ mandated. And it certainly seems to me that the church that Christ mandated could not ever lose His mandate: “… upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” How does this position get around this? Thanks.

 

[mcq72]

Luther wasn’t around for Christ to give him authority,

Neither was Linus and Clement.

 

[mcq72]

upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” How does this position get around this?

One could ask how does the CC get around this also, in areas they are not apostolic, even Petrine?

Other churches do not consider themselves to be apart from apostles, even from Peter, as I am sure CC does not either.

Apostolic is as apostolic does.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

To say authority is neither here nor there, speaks volumes.

Aside from misquoting me, tell me how authority reasoned that authority is why say mac 2 is sacred and mac 3 is not for example.

Authority can determine, discern, proclaim what is writ but is not criteria or reasoning behind what is chosen.

What counts is the Church Jesus established, accepts 46 OT books.

Well, fallible men citing infallible writ.

How easy you toss those terms around… Didn’t fallible men write infallible writ?

I don’t recall scripture calling either me or you, the pillar and foundation of truth. However, Scripture DOES call the Church that. Now 2000 yrs later, people ask which church?

There is only one Church Paul is talking about then. It is the only Church that is there, that Jesus established Himself, and gave all His promises to. The only Church Paul and the apostles are in, and writing to and for. The kataholos ekklesia, the Catholic Church with Peter as the head just as Jesus established. As I’ve shown you before HERE

SO

Bottom line, since I am a Catholic, I follow what Jesus established , as the pillar and foundation of truth. I’m thinking, Why follow anything else? In context Here