The CC "got it right" on the NT canon? How do you know?

[zz912]

I looked at it as some sort of evolution. Some books that were included earlier later were omitted and vice versa. Over time, whether though constant usage, popularity or redundancy, (no doubt with the HS behind all these processes) a tighter collection evolved. The pedigree of NT books by and large are tagged as apostolic, whether in fact or not they are actually written by the apostles or by their help. Perhaps the longevity of John the apostle helps to sanity check the contents for validity rather than authorship. None of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers made it into the canon.

This statement may be false. The 2nd and 3rd letters of John may be a different John (Presbyter John) than John the Apostle.

Additionally, we believe Jude is the Apostle Jude, but it may be another Jude entirely. And let’s not forget about those writings which we have little evidence of their author’s identity (i.e. Hebrews, etc)

So we can’t say definitively that the writings of the Apostolic Fathers did not make it into the canon.

 

[zz912]

God’s breath is the revelation of a person, not a book. God did not breath forth a book. He breathed forth his Son in the virgin’s womb. So it is patently incorrect to say that only the Scriptures are theopneustos.

God breathed on Adam to give him life, and God breathed on the Apostles to give men spiritual life (through Confession).

Jesus is the Word of God.

 

[PRmerger]

God’s breath is the revelation of a person, not a book. God did not breath forth a book. He breathed forth his Son in the virgin’s womb. So it is patently incorrect to say that only the Scriptures are theopneustos.

Fair enough.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ah, I see.

No, when the priest is speaking and preaching his homily, he is not speaking as an inspired agent of the Holy Spirit.

Maybe I missed something in your exchange here? In regards to the NT canon by a Church council possesses a charism of infallibility not to be confused with an agent speaking inspired of the Holy Spirit, when no more divine revelations can be added or subtracted from what has been handed down.

A private reading of scripture does not carry with it the charism of infallibility. Yet in a liturgical setting when the Gospels of Jesus Christ are read and proclaimed (in homily) especially when the priest is in persona Christi there exist a charism of infallibility and an inspiration of the Holy Spirit presence which contradicts your statement here; “Only the Scriptures are inspired. That is, theopneustos”

Can you help clarify my misunderstanding of your post’s that appear to be lending to a contradiction?

Thanks Gabriel of 12

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe I missed something in your exchange here? In regards to the NT canon by a Church council possesses a charism of infallibility not to be confused with an agent speaking inspired of the Holy Spirit, when no more divine revelations can be added or subtracted from what has been handed down.

A private reading of scripture does not carry with it the charism of infallibility.** Yet in a liturgical setting when the Gospels of Jesus Christ are read and proclaimed (in homily) especially when the priest is in persona Christi there exist a charism of infallibility **and an inspiration of the Holy Spirit presence which contradicts your statement here; “Only the Scriptures are inspired. That is, theopneustos”

Can you help clarify my misunderstanding of your post’s that appear to be lending to a contradiction?

Thanks Gabriel of 12

Perhaps the putative contradiction can be reconciled in the bolded section: I don’t believe that is true. I’ve never heard of the charism of infallibility being invoked during the Divine Liturgy. When the priest speaks, he is speaking as a man, perhaps (hopefully) a holy man, whose prayers and compliance with the Holy Spirit make his words wise and true, but not infallible.

 

[ericc]

This statement may be false. The 2nd and 3rd letters of John may be a different John (Presbyter John) than John the Apostle.

Additionally, we believe Jude is the Apostle Jude, but it may be another Jude entirely. And let’s not forget about those writings which we have little evidence of their author’s identity (i.e. Hebrews, etc)

So we can’t say definitively that the writings of the Apostolic Fathers did not make it into the canon.

Presbyter John and this other Jude, they are not Apostolic Fathers are they? Hebrews wasn’t claimed as written by an Apostolic Father either, correct? The ones we know of like Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Papias did not claim authorship of John 2,3 or Hebrews or Jude. Hence, it is rather safe to say they are not written by them. Perhaps by unknowns but not Apostolic Fathers, at least the known ones.

 

[zz912]

Presbyter John and this other Jude, they are not Apostolic Fathers are they? Hebrews wasn’t claimed as written by an Apostolic Father either, correct? The ones we know of like Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Papias did not claim authorship of John 2,3 or Hebrews or Jude. Hence, it is rather safe to say they are not written by them. Perhaps by unknowns but not Apostolic Fathers, at least the known ones.

They would be Apostolic Fathers if we could definitely determine their identity, and determine they were different from the Apostles.

 

[Protestor]

You have never stated any of the above to me before.

False we have been having this convo for years now. I know I mentioned history, I might have said historicity, in the last thread at least and specific revelation a long time ago.

Are you saying that you 'd be able to tell, by reading, if it’s theopneustos? If so, how would you tell? If it had things in it which weren’t true?

Yes I believe it is possible to know from reading. Are your last 2 sentences the one sentence or 2. As a multiple question the second part doesnt make sense. My answer to the first part is that it would have to be revealed to you. For the combo question I would probably be able to tell by reasoning.

Isn’t the paradigm “It’s inspired, so therefore I believe it!” So if it has things in it that you’ve never heard before…but it’s inspired, then you’d have to believe it, right?

Well first you have to believe that it is inspired or know that it is then the latter follows. I see no reason why things could not be partially inspired. If I have never heard it how could I know or believe it was inspired. Lets say that for the sake of this argument that the CC had in it’s possession extra verses from a book already believed to be inspired that were not to be revealed until now. If the CC made them public the verses wouldn’t automatically be considered inspired. The CC would have to present more then just it’s word for why others should believe that it is inspired. In this scenario I would exam their evidence and the verses and if either wasn’t logical I would reject the CCs claim.

To answer your ? specifically I reject verses about snake handling in Mark 16 and I reject the practice of handling snakes to prove your christianity and/or the drinking of poison. This does not mean that I could not accept them, but history and tradition would have to look a lot different for me to believe it. If we as christians were impervious to drinking poison, and could handle snakes safely, and spoke in new tongues, and were given the gift of healing there would be a stronger case for me to believe that those verses are theopnuestos. I really don’t get why the CC can figure out or have it revealed to them, but I cannot.

So my question to you is do you think that the CC has to prove the divine nature of it’s authority in order for it to claim the “truths” it speaks are a part of general revelation? In other words how can I know or believe the that the CC possesses divine authority unless they prove it or it is revealed to me? Its funny you want to know why I believe in scripture and reject other claims to authority and I want to know why I should believe the CCs claim to authority at all.

In a short form this is how I see what you are saying. A lot of people over a large period of time believed p to be true. Also the CC has said p is true. Neither of these IMNSHO are good reasons to believe p. Never mind that you want me to believe that p is of a divine nature. These are both fallacious in reasoning, but p can still be true. I would just not be justified in holding p as a belief without better reasoning. This is where we get to the brass tax. I don’t think my reasoning is that much better than yours. Which is why I said that if backed into a corner I would claim theopnuestosness as assumption/axiom.

 

[rcwitness]

To answer your ? specifically I reject verses about snake handling in Mark 16 and I reject the practice of handling snakes to prove your christianity and/or the drinking of poison. This does not mean that I could not accept them, but history and tradition would have to look a lot different for me to believe it. If we as christians were impervious to drinking poison, and could handle snakes safely, and spoke in new tongues, and were given the gift of healing there would be a stronger case for me to believe that those verses are theopnuestos. I really don’t get why the CC can figure out or have it revealed to them, but I cannot.

I believe you are interpreting this passage wrongly.

These ‘examples’ of signs which accompany believers is not a necessary thing to be Christian or to prove one is Christian. Rather they are signs of Confirmation that God is working through them and doing great things through their faith.

A dangerous example of abusing this passage is some bible belt ‘snake kissers’ who intentionally allow snakes to bite them or knowingly drink poison. This is putting God to the test instead of allowing faith to bring us where we are led, and “IF” something tragic should happen, the Lord would miraculously sustain them as a sign for others.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes I believe it is possible to know from reading.

I am absolutely astonished that you would assert this.

Absolutely. Astonished.

Firstly, this means that you have already received the Good News from some other source, and then you can read a manuscript and then determine whether this manuscript conforms to the Good News or not.

So, what is this other source?

Secondly, this means that you permit all other Christians to read a text and determine whether they can “know from reading” if it’s theopneustos.

So these folks who claim that Paul is a false apostle are also part of the Christian world, and able to reject the Pauline epistles?

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

Remember, you cannot permit yourself the right to read a manuscript and determine if it’s theopneustos, while object to others doing the same.

 

[PRmerger]

So my question to you is do you think that the CC has to prove the divine nature of it’s authority in order for it to claim the “truths” it speaks are a part of general revelation? In other words how can I know or believe the that the CC possesses divine authority unless they prove it or it is revealed to me?

I think you use logic.

We first understand that the Bible is reliable, as merely a historical document. Then we understand, based on this reliable Bible, that an infallible Church was founded. From that we take that this infallible Church determined that the Bible is inspired. And this inspired Bible proclaims that the Church is infallible.

 

[JonNC]

I think you use logic.

We first understand that the Bible is reliable, as merely a historical document. Then we understand, based on this reliable Bible, that an infallible Church was founded. From that we take that this infallible Church determined that the Bible is inspired. And this inspired Bible proclaims that the Church is infallible.

Which part of that Church, PR? Leave the Reformation era aside for a moment.
How do you know?

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Which part of that Church, PR? Leave the Reformation era aside for a moment.
How do you know?

Jon

The Church that can trace its heritage back to Christ and His Apostles.

The Church that has preserved the kerygma for you and me, without editing it to make it more palatable.

The Church that has withstood 2000 years of corruption, persecution, betrayal and sin.

That is, the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

The Church that can trace its heritage back to Christ and His Apostles.

The Church that has preserved the kerygma for you and me, without editing it to make it more palatable.

The Church that has withstood 2000 years of corruption, persecution, betrayal and sin.

That is, the Catholic Church.

And the Orthodox Church, which can make the same claims? If we’re going to talk about persecution, wow, look at what the EO has had to survive?

Maybe its both… but they disagree.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

And the Orthodox Church, which can make the same claims? If we’re going to talk about persecution, wow, look at what the EO has had to survive?

Maybe its both… but they disagree.

Jon

As I have said many a time in the past, I consider the EO to be essentially the same as the CC. We are One in all things except the supremacy of the Pope.

 

[JonNC]

As I have said many a time in the past, I consider the EO to be essentially the same as the CC. We are One in all things except the supremacy of the Pope.

Then full unity and communion is imminent.

That’s actually a prayer.
Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Then full unity and communion is imminent.

That’s actually a prayer.
Jon

From our mouths to God’s ears, yes?

 

[JonNC]

From our mouths to God’s ears, yes?

It would lots of questions for me, that’s for sure. But I think for many others as well.

We ask you to hear us, Oh Lord!

Jon

 

[steido01]

Just wanted to note that, as usual, PR and Jon demonstrate how charitable dialogue can be. Thank you both for your Christian example.

 

[PRmerger]

Just wanted to note that, as usual, PR and Jon demonstrate how charitable dialogue can be. Thank you both for your Christian example.

Awww, thanks, brother.

I do try to model my posting style after Jon, as well as my hero, guanophore. (Where the heck has he been, BTW???)