The Origin of the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stouts989 said:
Yes, if you believe Jesus is God in flesh. John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. 2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;”. and 2 Peter 1:21 “for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

So technically Jesus wrote the entire Bible. John 1:1,14 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Was with God, and the Word as God…and the Word became flesh…”

No, but Jesus liked to use the phrase…“It is written” a lot!

Neither, it is the written Words of God. (2 Timothy 3:16 & 2 Peter 1:21)

Yes, and No. We don’t have a list of names of books, but we have verses in scripture where Jesus and the Apostles gives the authority of writings as being the inspired Words of God.

In Luke 11:49-51 and Luke 24:44, Jesus tells us which Old Testament is the authoritative written Words of God. Both passages are direct references to the Tanak (TNK) which consist of the same 39 Old Testament book (though in a different order) that make up the Bible we use by reformed churches today.

Jesus promises the Apostles the Holy Spirit as they would continue to teach and record the events and teachings of Christ (John 14:26). Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3:15-16 that Paul is writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

There’s your Bible for ya…

I know this question is an attack on Sola Scriptura. I also know that nothing I have written here will make you think or change some of your views of the authority of scripture, because I know you believe that the RCC has authority over the Bible, because you believe that the RCC gave us the Bible.

But I want to leave you with one last thing…

If the scripture we have that is organized into what we refer to as the Bible really is the written Word of God…then it is the written Word of God. If it is the written Word of God, then everything else is subjected to it.
Click to expand...
CAn you give the Scripture that says that Scripture is the final authrity? I can give you Scriptures that give that distinction to the Church.
 
Sword_Brethren said:
So what? Differing opinions?
"Synod at Rome in the year 382. Neither the general council at Constantinople of the preceding year nor that of Nice (365) had considered the question of the Canon. This Roman synod must have devoted itself specially to the matter… The Damasan catalogue presents the complete and perfect Canon which has been that of the Church Universal ever since. " What Differing opinions? Differing opinions by revolutionaries like Luther, Calvin, so what?
newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
Click to expand...
The point being that Hippo, Carthage or whatever council before Trent did not dogmatically define the canon of the OT. Therefore, one needn’t be a “revolutionary” to reject the deutero’s before Trent. Did the early councils proclaim the same OT canon? Yes they did. Did they do so dogmatically or infallbily? No they didn’t.

Frome the earliest days all the way up to Trent we see that the canon of the OT was anything but “settled”.

For example, the council fathers at Trent had there doubts to about the deutero’s. Jedin (Tridentine historian) had this to say:
Jedin:
“(Seripando was) Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici”; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 270-271

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 278.

Jedin also documents a group of excellent scholars that stood against “tradition” as being on the same level of authority as scripture:

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”

Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 281-282.
Click to expand...
This history of this issue simply doesn’t support the popular Catholic claim that the canon of the OT was settled before Luther came along and upset the apple cart.
 
CWBetts said:
CAn you give the Scripture that says that Scripture is the final authrity? I can give you Scriptures that give that distinction to the Church.
Click to expand...
Who has authority over the Words of God? God has the final authority. Is the Bible the written Word of God…or is it not?

What verses are you referring to?
 
Stouts989 said:
Who has authority over the Words of God? God has the final authority. Is the Bible the written Word of God…or is it not?

What verses are you referring to?
Click to expand...
It concerns me that you are unable to answer CWBetts question.

God bless you
 
historyb said:
I don’t, the RCC is not any part of the Body of Christ
Click to expand...
Most people that answer question on this board are not as rude as you are so I,l ask why are you so rude is it your ignorance of the CC.Because you never asnwer a question,are do you not have the knowledge to answer. well some one said keep you mounth shut and let people thing you are a idiot or open you month and let then know you are
 
Bill_Pick said:
Most people that answer question on this board are not as rude as you are so I,l ask why are you so rude is it your ignorance of the CC.Because you never asnwer a question,are do you not have the knowledge to answer. well some one said keep you mounth shut and let people thing you are a idiot or open you month and let then know you are
Click to expand...
I know much more than you I promise you that.
 
Stouts989 said:
I gave all the scripture in my OP. Again God is the final authority…and the Bible is the written Word of God…no?
Click to expand...
I am growing more concerned Stouts. I am beginning to think that your belief in Sola Scriptura is not Biblical 😃

God bless
 
StrawberryJam said:
Hi!
Could be wrong here, but does not Paul of Tarsus have Timothy circumcised, yet preaches no one needs to be circumcised anymore at the same time?

I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
He preaches that one can be circumcised AND become Christian. Moreover, if you are circumcised into the Mosaic Law, then you HAVE to follow the old covenant enriched by the Christian revelation. But indeed, this is not necessary as Paul preaches.

Secondly, Timothy is circumcised so as he will be Paul’s companion as a Jew in his respect to the Jewish law that it is not lawful to mingle with non-Jews. Hence, this is understood by Timothy as a necessary act for those they preach, so that they can preach more effectively – to even greater glory of Him that they preach.
 
Sword_Brethren said:
So what? Differing opinions?
"Synod at Rome in the year 382. Neither the general council at Constantinople of the preceding year nor that of Nice (365) had considered the question of the Canon. This Roman synod must have devoted itself specially to the matter… The Damasan catalogue presents the complete and perfect Canon which has been that of the Church Universal ever since. " What Differing opinions? Differing opinions by revolutionaries like Luther, Calvin, so what?
newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
Click to expand...
“Canon of the New Testament”
 
Stouts989 said:
I gave all the scripture in my OP. Again God is the final authority…and the Bible is the written Word of God…no?
Click to expand...
If God is the final authority, isn’t it possible to have that authority be executed through living peoples? While God gave authority to the people who literally wrote the Bible when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, why can’t the Holy Spirit give a definite guide to a Church so that the same writings can always be interpreted best? In the end, it is true that God is the FINAL authority; this authority He chose to exercise through men He chose.

Eph. 3:4-5, Acts 15:30-31 >> revelation is given through people, of course by God’s will
2 Peter 3:16, Eph. 4:11-16 >> not everyone should interpret the Bible as if with finality in authority.
Bible as any written letter still finds its end to the literal writer who is a person. Hence, authority comes first to the writer. But the ULTIMATE authority is of course to the One who is the Inspiration.

There is no mistake in stating that God is the Final Authority, but ignoring His instruments (read: People, not books) would i believe nullify that final authority and power.
 
SemperReformada said:
The point being that Hippo, Carthage or whatever council before Trent did not dogmatically define the canon of the OT. Therefore, one needn’t be a “revolutionary” to reject the deutero’s before Trent. Did the early councils proclaim the same OT canon? Yes they did. Did they do so dogmatically or infallbily? No they didn’t.

Frome the earliest days all the way up to Trent we see that the canon of the OT was anything but “settled”.

For example, the council fathers at Trent had there doubts to about the deutero’s. Jedin (Tridentine historian) had this to say:

This history of this issue simply doesn’t support the popular Catholic claim that the canon of the OT was settled before Luther came along and upset the apple cart.
Click to expand...
Did you get this from, beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/who-were-some-of-best-scholars-at.html?
 
Stouts989 said:
Who has authority over the Words of God? God has the final authority. Is the Bible the written Word of God…or is it not?

What verses are you referring to?
Click to expand...
So what you are telling me is that Sola Scripura can’t really be found in the Bible? If that is thae case, then how can you adhere to the doctrine, bing non-Scriptural?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top