So as to not hijack. . .for BibleApologist

[alexaustralia]

1. As for the inclusion of the NT epistles … Jesus, Who is God in the flesh; chose 12 men to be Apostles (messengers) to preach the gospel…

And yet how very few of them actually committed anything to writting…My 2 cents…take them for what they are worth

 

[John_Henry]

1. Because He has obviously peserved His word, and it could only be by His Grace, and His Mightly Hand manipulating certain events to cause His will to be fulfilled, it stands to reason that since there is other scripture included with that preserved Old Testament word, that God would have that scripture to be included.

I got lost somewhere towars the end of that paragraph. NT scripture has been preserved by the Church with the OT. That doesn’t mean the Timothy verse you are citing is referring to scripture.

1. As for the inclusion of the NT epistles … Jesus, Who is God in the flesh; chose 12 men to be Apostles (messengers) to preach the gospel…

True.

And these Apostles did not preach their own message, but the gospel that was given to them by the Holy Spirit…

True.

1. Jesus promised that He would send to us certain people gifted to be “scribes”, who would be responsible to carry out His will to “preserve” His Word (that is what a scribe does)…

OK. For the sake of argument, I’ll accept that…

1. Why would Jesus need to send unto us scribes, if the Jews already had scribes who had perfected the art. What scripture would need to be copied, that Jesus felt it would be necessary to encourage Christians that He would preserve? And why would those particular scribes be in danger of being killed?..

Good question…

These scribes would be hated because they wrote scripture pertaining to Jesus… whom the Jews hated… not because they merely copied Old Testament scripture.

Nothing false there.

1. Since there are (according to the arguments above) canonized scripture beyond the Old Testament (canonized by God).

This is where I hop off the BA train. You say "canonized by God. Inspired by God, absolutely. Canonized by God, if you mean that only those inspired books would be canonized, OK. But it simply false history to imply that the united Church that was walking and talking in the early centuries was not God’s chosen organ of “canonization”.

How can we tell what scripture is to be included in canon and what is not? We can refer to the symbolism of the Old Testament to get a clue…

Lev 24:5 And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake.
Lev 24:6 And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the LORD

These “cakes” representing the “Bread of Life” which is the Word of God made flesh (John 1:14). This bread was set up in two rows, six on a row… first of all there were 12 cakes altogether which could represent the 12 Apostles and the 12 tribes of Israel from which the Word came… but it is also plausible that these two rows of six represented the 66 books of the present state of the Word of God.

OK, there are so many things wrong with this that I am tripping over myself to get them all out before I forget them:

1. You say the cakes represent the bread of life, which is the word of God made flesh. Even if this is true, and I doubt it, note that the word of God made flesh is Jesus, not the bible. This is a good example of the equivocation that sometimes comes out of Protestant circles regarding the “Word of God”. He is Jesus.
2. 66 books…for roughly 1100+ years (AD 400-AD1500), there didn’t exist a 66 book bible. Is it your claim that, for over half of Christian history, Christians were functioning without a proper bible? What does that make of the truth of a system that posits scripture as the only authority for saving truth?
3. That’s all you have, biblically, to help arrive at a 66 book canon? A loosely interpreted OT story about cakes? Doesn’t seem like enough to ignore the obvious facts of history, previously mentioned.
4. Even granting your logic and interpretation, knowing that 66 books should be in the bible does not get you any closer to demonstrating what those books are?

 

[NotWorthy]

Actually it is from God through the human hands of the church.:D

Otherwise known as… Sacred Tradition!!!

Thanks, AFH!

 

[Truthstalker]

That 66 book symbolism: they didn’t use base ten numbering, which is required for this to be plausible. Eisegesis is required here. In Roman numerals 66 is LXVI. Greek and Hebrew had similar systems. I doubt 2 rows of 6 would have cut it.

 

[JaneFrances]

These “cakes” representing the “Bread of Life” which is the Word of God made flesh (John 1:14). This bread was set up in two rows, six on a row… first of all there were 12 cakes altogether which could represent the 12 Apostles and the 12 tribes of Israel from which the Word came… but it is also plausible that these two rows of six represented the 66 books of the present state of the Word of God.

John
www.gideonsword.net

I do not have time to respond in full this morning. . .HOWEVER, I did get a giggle from the above post. It reminds me of how people fold paper $$ to reveal some amazing “sign.”

 

[bibleapologist]

This is where I hop off the BA train. You say "canonized by God. Inspired by God, absolutely. Canonized by God, if you mean that only those inspired books would be canonized, OK. But it simply false history to imply that the united Church that was walking and talking in the early centuries was not God’s chosen organ of “canonization”.

First of all, you are not contradicting me at all. I never said that the early church was not the “chosen organ of canonization”. I am saying that it was God who promised to preserve His word, and after all that He gave (His Son) to re-unite man with Himself - I refuse to accept that He would place that promise into the hands of fallible men and their will. Of course God uses man to accomplish His agenda, It is ALWAYS those men who are completly submitted to Him and His will.

I reject the idea that God placed in the hands of fallible men to canonize whatever scripture they deemed necessary, or thought fruitful, it was God’s promise to preserve His will, and the scripture expressly says that “Thou shalt preserve them”.

Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

You also said…

OK, there are so many things wrong with this that I am tripping over myself to get them all out before I forget them:

1. You say the cakes represent the bread of life, which is the word of God made flesh. Even if this is true, and I doubt it, note that the word of God made flesh is Jesus, not the bible. This is a good example of the equivocation that sometimes comes out of Protestant circles regarding the “Word of God”. He is Jesus.

1. 66 books…for roughly 1100+ years (AD 400-AD1500), there didn’t exist a 66 book bible. Is it your claim that, for over half of Christian history, Christians were functioning without a proper bible? What does that make of the truth of a system that posits scripture as the only authority for saving truth?

You are taking God’s promise to preserve His word, and proving it to be false by claiming that it hasn’t always been so. Sarah did the same thing when she was told she would bear a son… she never bore a son, she was barren, but Abraham had faith that God would do what He said He would do.

Actually that, according to Paul is how we receive justification…

Rom 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb:
Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Rom 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

That is the kind of faith we are to have to please God. Although for many years in early church history there was not a complete canon of scripture, that does not negate the fact that God promised to preserve His word, and that completion of the promised canon being prophecied by Moses, and declared by God through the symbolism of the Tabernacle. Of which Jane Frances stated (as does the Catholic Church), part of canonized scripture…

Jane Frances said…That you would agree, at least in part, that St. Paul is referring to the Old Testament in 2 Timothy is a good thing.

By the way, the other symbolism evident in the tabernacle construction and furnishing… do you deny that?

Can you give me a better explanation of the two rows of 6 cakes on the altar?

What do you think was the symbolism behind the candlestick of Lev. 24?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[SemperJase]

And God, being omniscient knowing all things inspired John to write and end his letter as such.

And that is the kicker. Why would an omniscient God prompt John to write so that his warning was so specific to the book of Revelation if he really meant it to apply to all of scripture. You position is that God does not write what he means. It says one thing but really means another.

And why would God allow seven extra books to be in scripture for the first 1400 years of the Bible’s existence if they really were not cannon?

You create a number of problems about the inerrancy of the Bible when you expand the meaning of the scriptures beyond what it refers to.

 

[John_Henry]

First of all, you are not contradicting me at all. I never said that the early church was not the “chosen organ of canonization”. I am saying that it was God who promised to preserve His word, and after all that He gave (His Son) to re-unite man with Himself - I refuse to accept that He would place that promise into the hands of fallible men and their will. Of course God uses man to accomplish His agenda, It is ALWAYS those men who are completly submitted to Him and His will.

Good!

I reject the idea that God placed in the hands of fallible men to canonize whatever scripture they deemed necessary, or thought fruitful, it was God’s promise to preserve His will, and the scripture expressly says that “Thou shalt preserve them”.

Good…

You are taking God’s promise to preserve His word, and proving it to be false by claiming that it hasn’t always been so. Sarah did the same thing when she was told she would bear a son… she never bore a son, she was barren, but Abraham had faith that God would do what He said He would do.

I’m not sure what this means. I believe that God was true to his word and DID preserve scripture, and inspired the early church to select the correct canon. And believe the reformers had no authority (or logic) to reject that canon that God had inspired. It seems to be your belief that God got it wrong for 1100+ years.

Although for many years in early church history there was not a complete canon of scripture, that does not negate the fact that God promised to preserve His word,

Nothing wrong with that…

By the way, the other symbolism evident in the tabernacle construction and furnishing… do you deny that?

Don’t know what you are referring to…

Can you give me a better explanation of the two rows of 6 cakes on the altar?

Represents Israel, as you said.

What do you think was the symbolism behind the candlestick of Lev. 24?

Beats me… the light of the world? God’s presence?

 

[bibleapologist]

I’m not sure what this means. I believe that God was true to his word and DID preserve scripture, and inspired the early church to select the correct canon. And believe the reformers had no authority (or logic) to reject that canon that God had inspired. It seems to be your belief that God got it wrong for 1100+ years.

Of course I am not saying that God got it wrong for 1100 years. But I can reasonably assume that God has not left a generation without His inspired Word… through the presence of the Apostles in the early church years, to their letters, to the copies of those letters to the Syriac to the Peshito and Itala Biblia, to the Gothic of Ulfilas… and the subsequent translations of the Antiochan text.

Since I don’t read those languages (some Greek) I can by faith reasonable assume that they were, for that generation, God’s inspired Word preserved.

As far as what the Reformers did in rejecting scripture I’m not sure what you mean, but I can tell you this, there were others beside Luther and Zwingle who rejected the Latin Vulgate and saw the current “preserved word” for their generation for what it was.

Can you give me a better explanation of the two rows of 6 cakes on the altar?

Represents Israel, as you said.

Quote:
What do you think was the symbolism behind the candlestick of Lev. 24?

Beats me… the light of the world? God’s presence?

The 6 cakes did in part represent Israel which Christ came to fulfil, but a more full explanation is the New Testament Church which is based upon the foundation of… the twelve apostles who are also represented in Revelation…

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

That’s not Mary, that is the Church. And the twelve stars are the twelve Apostles on who’s doctrine the Church was founded. That doctrine began as spoken word, but was also written in epistles which God inspired and would include as canonical to complete the scripture. Therefore the completion of scripture in it’s fullness ended with 66 books, which God foreknew even when He ordered the cakes to be arranged in two rows of 6.

The candlestick with the seven lamps was an illustration of the Holy Spirit (Rev. 1:12-17; Matt. 25:1-10; Rev. 4:5)

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Church_Militant]

One thing that most folks don’t know is that out of the 373 OT quotes in the NT 340 (90%) come from the Septuagint Greek text, which tells us that that is the one that Jesus and the apostles quoted from. Since it patently contained the DCs, that tells us something by inferrence don’tcha think?

BTW this bit of scholarship actually comes from “Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey” (Moody Press, 1983) by Gleason Archer & G.C. Chirichigno, both of whom are Protestant.

There is a substantial list and discussion of the DC quotes in the New Testament HERE.
If, as you say, the reformers “rejected” the LV, why then was it used as a source for the KJV, and why does the original 1611 edition contain all 73 books? I have yet to see a valid reason for their exclusion, especially in light of the evidence that I cite here.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[JaneFrances]

Of course I am not saying that God got it wrong for 1100 years. But I can reasonably assume that God has not left a generation without His inspired Word… through the presence of the Apostles in the early church years, to their letters, to the copies of those letters to the Syriac to the Peshito and Itala Biblia, to the Gothic of Ulfilas… and the subsequent translations of the Antiochan text.

Since I don’t read those languages (some Greek) I can by faith reasonable assume that they were, for that generation, God’s inspired Word preserved.

As far as what the Reformers did in rejecting scripture I’m not sure what you mean, but I can tell you this, there were others beside Luther and Zwingle who rejected the Latin Vulgate and saw the current “preserved word” for their generation for what it was.

You don’t have to read Greek to know history.

And if you are insinuating that the Scriptural texts you are using today are “LV-free,” you would be terribly mistaken.

The Reformers did not reject the Latin texts, in general. Indeed, many modern Protestant scholars cite Jerome’s work and opinions as their “proof” for their rejection of the Septuagint. They chose to overlook and/or disregard centuries of Christian tradition in favor of a second century Jewish canon.

The 6 cakes did in part represent Israel which Christ came to fulfil, but a more full explanation is the New Testament Church which is based upon the foundation of… the twelve apostles who are also represented in Revelation…

How does this discussion further your arguement for Scripture being your supreme authority? Or are you unable to defend your position, so you have changed the subject as a distraction?

That’s not Mary, that is the Church.

Did I miss something? When did the Scriptural interpretation of Revelation 12 become proof for “the supreme authority of Scripture”? You are off topic. You were trying to prove that Scripture is the supreme authority.

If you want to discuss who the “woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” is, start a thread on it–I’ll be there!

And the twelve stars are the twelve Apostles on who’s doctrine the Church was founded. That doctrine began as spoken word, but was also written in epistles which God inspired and would include as canonical to complete the scripture.

You have not provided proof for your arguement that the written Word is superior to the spoken Word. And, you have not provided proof for your arguement that everything that was spoken by the Twelve was written.

You, again, are presupposing without proof.

Therefore the completion of scripture in it’s fullness ended with 66 books, which God foreknew even when He ordered the cakes to be arranged in two rows of 6.

Interesting, but not scholarly. And I would challenge you to find any Scripture scholar studying the Greek who would support this assertion.

The candlestick with the seven lamps was an illustration of the Holy Spirit (Rev. 1:12-17; Matt. 25:1-10; Rev. 4:5)

Interesting, but not relevant.

A discussion of Scriptural interpretation (which does not pertain to proving “Scripture is the superior authority”) does not belong in this thread.

You seem to be grasping for distraction.

Please return to the topic at hand. . .How do you prove from Scripture, of course, that Scripture is the superior authority?

 

[John_Henry]

You don’t have to read Greek to know history…

Thankfully, I did read ahead. Thanks for doing the leg work on that one, JaneFrances…

 

[bibleapologist]

Jane Frances,

A discussion of Scriptural interpretation (which does not pertain to proving “Scripture is the superior authority”) does not belong in this thread.

You seem to be grasping for distraction.

Please return to the topic at hand. . .How do you prove from Scripture, of course, that Scripture is the superior authority?

The points that I listed are relevant to the topic of scriptural authority. But they apparently don’t hold much weight with you as you don’t consider the scripture infallible and authoritative.

My points that you attempted to refute were points to establish first principles… which you according to your post, have thereby denied. Since the two of us don’t have any basis of foundation for this argument in scripture… where would you suggest we begin our discussion? On reason alone? I didn’t realize I was speaking to someone who doesn’t agree with Apostolic authority, or Old Testament canonization.

But you could see how I was mislead from your posting on another thread…

You are assuming that you have full knowledge of God’s infinite power. You do not. Neither do we. What we can not understand, we accept through faith.

For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 1:11)

Our God has made known to us, through this prophecy, that He intends for His “pure offering” to be present “from the rising of the sun, even to its setting.” We do not limit God.

Be that as it may… why don’t you give me your arguments based on reason and we will start again.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[John_Henry]

The points that I listed are relevant to the topic of scriptural authority.

Color us Catholics silly then. Use small words… Point: the message ain’t getting through, if they seem irrelevant to us.

But they apparently don’t hold much weight with you as you don’t consider the scripture infallible and authoritative.

That, kind sir, is poppy cock.

My points that you attempted to refute were points to establish first principles…

Dude, as far as I can see, you cited a passage about cake, and then completely out of left field, started talking about Mary. That’s first principles?!

which you according to your post, have thereby denied. Since the two of us don’t have any basis of foundation for this argument in scripture… where would you suggest we begin our discussion? On reason alone? I didn’t realize I was speaking to someone who doesn’t agree with Apostolic authority, or Old Testament canonization.

Because none of us understand where you are going or what you are saying, this means that we don’t agree with Apostolic authority, or Old Testament canonization? C’mon, you can do better than that.

But you could see how I was mislead from your posting on another thread…

Or, you could just charitably assume we have no clue how the things you are quoting actually make your point, which is what JF said, instead of assuming that we therefore do not accept the OT as part of the canon. We’re Catholics: we accept 73 books.

 

[JaneFrances]

The points that I listed are relevant to the topic of scriptural authority.

I am sorry, I didn’t catch that.

It seemed to me that you were attempting to elicit an argument on Scriptural interpretations.

The orginal point of this thread was for you to have the opportunity to prove your contention that Scripture is the superior authority, not to debate whose interpretation of any given passage of Scripture is accurate.

But they apparently don’t hold much weight with you as you don’t consider the scripture infallible and authoritative.

You have entirely misrepresented my position.

I will state it, so that you will be informed:

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 81)

The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired they are truly the Word of God. (CCC 135)

God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives us assurance that their writings teach without errror his saving truth. (CCC 136)

I will assume at this point that your misrepresentation was inadvertent. Please be advised.

My points that you attempted to refute were points to establish first principles… which you according to your post, have thereby denied.

Which “first principles” were you referring to?

Since the two of us don’t have any basis of foundation for this argument in scripture… where would you suggest we begin our discussion?

To be clear. . .You (bibleapologist) stated:

The Bible does not teach that in any way, but actually forbids it and exhorts Christians to only trust scripture as it was written before the end of the 1st century.

Our challenge was: prove it.

On reason alone?

I have no idea to what you are referring!?

I didn’t realize I was speaking to someone who doesn’t agree with Apostolic authority, or Old Testament canonization.

You aren’t.

With regards to Apostolic authority, I accept it entirely.

With regards to the Old Testament canon, I merely reject the authority of the council at Jamina. Instead, I accept the canon of the Christian Church.

But you could see how I was mislead from your posting on another thread…

You’re going to have to explain that further if you want a response. . .

Be that as it may… why don’t you give me your arguments based on reason and we will start again.

My arguements, while reasonable, are not based on “reason” as you have asserted.

Instead, how about YOU do what it is you said you could do. . .
Prove, from Sacred Scripture, that Scripture is the superior authority.

Can you?