Where and when was established the canon of Scriptures that protestants believe? (SPLIT)

[fasolislithuan]

thetazlord:

All this shows is that these “sources” aren’t ignoring the TWENTY-THREE TIMES the EXACT SAME Hebrew word is translated “sand,” & never…NEVER…Phoenix. What “should” be obvious is that they are exegetically wrong. The fact that other translations, like the KJV, renders it “Phoenix,” only demonstrates that they too are exegetically ignoring these same 23 verses as well.

1. The existence of all these sources (an ancient exegetical tradition) refute your assertion that is painfully obvious that it means “sand”.
2. The exegesis is wrong in your eyes because you opine is wrong but not for me. From an hermeneutic perspective they’re far to be wrong. Those sources has the same rights that another sources to apply exegesis and to determine another renderings. Is not a bad translation because the term * chol* perfectly allows this translation (it’s not an invent) and exegetic-ly is appropiate, even brilliant taking into account the context of the verse: " I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days like the phoenix" (a bird). So your assumption is arbitrary. The more common translation not becomes wrong another legitimate possibilities (suppported by the context and because the term has such meaning). That’s is basic in exegesis.
3. You don’t have the monopoly of Exegesis. Therefore the reading can be perfectly correct and legitimate in spite your opinion. In fact is correct and legitimate because of two solid reasons
   3a) Because is supported by an important Jewish exegetic tradition
   Rashi
   Midrashim
   Babylonian Talmud
   3b) Because is supported by modern scholars as:
   The scholars who translated the Complete Jewish Bible
   The scholars who translated the Jewish Publication Society Bible
   The scholars who translated the New Revised Standard Bible
   The scholars who translated the Lexham English Bible

With this in mind we can conclude that “phoenix” in Job 29:18 is a legitime, opportune and solidly supported translation. I’ve provided sufficient data to show this conclusion.

Taking into account all previously showed, the arbitrary rule you apply in 1 Clement can be equally applied to Job, and Job becomes with your absurd rule in a book with errors (out of the canon). Errors, however, that only you pressupose. If your rule is applied to Job an 1Clement we can suppose the existence of one error, but if we apply to other biblical books, it becomes the Bible in a book infested with myriad of errors (begining with Genesis). Absolutely ridiculous. Your position is untenable and you know.

 

[fasolislithuan]

This all comes down to whether a person can discern between truth & lies. If a person cannot discern it for themselves, then no one can show it to them. Otherwise, you are simply accepting the definition of “truth” from human beings, who themselves are capable of being wrong. That is why when you ask “who,” the real question should be “Who?” And the answer to that is Jesus Christ. The typical non-believing secular argument for not believing in the Word of God is that “I wasn’t there when the Bible was written & these ‘alleged’ miracles, like the Resurrection, happened. Therefore, I don’t believe any of it.” In a way, you are giving that same argument with your question “who?” Obviously, I wasn’t there, so I am basing my faith in the writings of the NT regarding the Resurrection on the eyewitness testimonies of it, which is based on fact that none of them recanted their faith, even in the eye of torture & death. That is what I base my faith on the writings of the NT - their unwillingness to recant their faith, which is “why” I believe their writings, including the ones about the Resurrection, are Inspired. That is where I begin my faith in their writings. And then when I compare their writings to those of say Hebrews, which is unauthored, as well as other unauthored NT (as well as OT texts), I find the same godly attributes as those of Peter, James, John, & the rest of the NT writers who died martyrs’ deaths without recanting their faith. And regarding 1 Clement, not only does Scripture not support that the Phoenix was real, nor does credible secular history. Otherwise, “why” would the Catholic church leave it out of their NT canon?

So Jesuchrist says to you 1Clement has errors and Sirach has errors but Hebrews has not…

Well, after reading your message I’ll only tell you the next:

Approximately 1650 years before Jesus communicates to you such “truth” (I put quotations because is only a subjective truth), the same Jesus, together with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, in perfect “homousious” communicated to bishops of His Church in council (the same method with which the apostles practised their infallible authority) that Sirach is a God-breathed book. As God cannot say Sirach’s Book is inspired by God to His bishops in council 1700 years ago and later Jesus can say to you (in isolation) exactly the contrary I know one thing. Either the bishops of the Apostolic Church are all of them a bunch of impostors and liars or you’re lying. I reserve myself the evident conclusion because I don’t want to be disrespectful toward you. But personally I think you have a serious problem of reception.

 

[PRmerger]

That also seems to be your theme here. No one, it appears, that you are in dialogue with, reads your posts or understands your responses.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12683861&postcount=767
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12603755&postcount=30
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12616521&postcount=99
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12626642&postcount=251

All of the above are different posters. None of us, it seems, has the ability to “comprehend” what you are saying.

thetazlord:

Hmmmm! And what do all these posters have - theologically & denominationally - in common? Hmmmmm!

Ummm…surely you can’t mean that we’re all Catholic.

Because what would the utility be in coming to a, er,* Catholic* forum, and then accusing all the posters of having an inability to comprehend your arguments simply because we’re, er, Catholic?

Why come to a Catholic forum if Catholics, by virtue of their denomination, are simply unable to understand you?

That’s kind of odd.

But as far as the OP: yes, it is true that we cannot comprehend your position here.

It is most circular: I get my theology from the Bible, but I also read the Bible to determine whether it has theological errors.

Could you please 'splain how this works?

Well, if a person believes God can contradict Himself,

NO. God cannot contradict himself.

But he can rescind his commands.

Remember, God abhors human sacrifice, but also had human sacrifice at the heart of his divine plan.

God condemns the worship of man, but also accepted the worship of a Man.

God declares that all men die once, but then also has men who died twice, and some will not die at all.

So it’s not a contradiction but rather God, as the Keeper of the Law, can certainly rescind.

And you believe this, too, taz. Unless you do not accept the atoning death on the cross? And also do not worship the Man?

I’m explained this already. Had I been living in the Church at the time of Clement of Rome, the OT had already been written, as well as the entire NT - including Revelation. And NOWHERE in the OT ("the Law & the Prophets)(let alone the NT) does it ever mention that the Phoenix, theologically, let alone historically, was a real animal - even in the Apocrypha. You are under the false impression that because the canon wasn’t “officially” placed under one cover until the fifth century, that the early Christian Church would have no idea what books were Inspired.

Ah. So if you had been living in the time of Clement you would have deferred to what the early Christian Church leaders told you was theopneustos?

Yes?

Or would you have been of the same cloth that you are here: no one can tell me what’s inspired. I get to do that on my own. And as such, I must read all of the texts to determine if they are theologically correct. Oh, wait. ***I don’t know what’s theologically correct because I don’t have a Bible. *** Oh, and wait some more. I can’t read, either.

So how does this work, taz, if you were living in the time of St. Clement? Either you would have accepted what the Church elders/presbyters told you, or you would have studied on your own, (even if you couldn’t read)? Which one?

 

[PRmerger]

thetazlord:

It would help if you quoted me in context, rather than take a snippet - a fraction of what I said - rather than the entire context of what I wrote.

As you wish.

Here’s your entire post.

As I’ve mentioned MANY times to you, just because something is “fanciful” like miracles, doesn’t make it not true. The lack of any objective evidence - Scriptural or otherwise - is what determines if something is historically true or not. If we can’t find evidence for the existence of the concept of the Phoenix, neither in Scripture, nor in secular history, then it’s not historically true, because birds don’t live for 1,600 years, die, then suddenly rise from it’s own ashes. Since Jesus & the NT writers of Inspired Scripture acknowledge that he Behemoth & Leviathan as actual living animals, then we can trust them, otherwise, we are saying they are lying, which they aren’t, because Jesus proved it by rising from the dead. Same with people being healed by handkerchiefs in Acts. Paul acknowledged Luke’s writings (which includes Acts) as Inspired Scripture, & Peter backed up Paul by acknowledging Paul’s, which they both were able to back up by performing miracles. But nobody backed up Clement’s claims of the Phoenix - either secularly, nor Scripturally.

Mentioning the Name “Jesus” isn’t a criterion for making a writing Inspired, nor did I EVER even insinuate that, let alone state that. So, I don’t know “where” you got that idea - you are really out in left field on your own on that one!

It amazes me how much you don’t listen. You are making the common fallacy **that when godly criteria are given **for a text to qualify for Inspiration, you falsely “assume” that ALL of those criteria MUST be present to make them Inspired. Obviously, the writer of Hebrews is unknown. In fact, it is only by tradition that we know who the authors of the Gospels & Acts are, because they texts themselves don’t say. But lack of authorship doesn’t “disqualify” those texts from being Inspired. Like the Gospels & Acts, Hebrews too is inerrant & lacks contradictions - both theological & historical - something you can’t say about 1 Clement. And to answer your question, I know Jesus rose from the dead because OTHER BOOKS IN THE NT “’'STATE” that He did, & the apostles like James the brother of John DIED for that faith without recanting (Acts 12:2) - something they would “not” have done if it was a lie. All this I’ve told you - numerous times! - yet you keep repeating yourself over and over and over again, proving that you either aren’t listening & having real difficulty comprehending simple English, even after it’s been explained to you numerous times.

Now, could you please answer—in the above response you said that “when godly criteria are given”-- who is doing the “giving” for this godly criteria?

 

[ericc]

'zactly.

Either taz received the Word of God (imprinted into his heart?) and now has the ability to read the over 400 ancient Christian manuscripts and eliminate the ones which are in conflict with what he received…

OR, he already HAD the Bible (courtesy of the CC) and read all (excuse me, “most”) of the 400 manuscripts and x’d out the ones that were in error.

But that wouldn’t work because he’s saying he doesn’t need the CC to tell him what’s the Word of God.

He already knew it. Somehow…

How? Still to be explained…

Oooh…and somehow after he has gone through each and every ancient writing and lo and behold after he has determined which books are inspired, his Bible shows the same sequential order of books as the Catholic one minus the deuterocanon. This must be a miracle! Or a random event where we lost count of the zeros of improbability. Or as in my or any graduate school , a blatant case of plagiarism. I’d have a lot of explaining to my professors. For him, he has to explain to the Lord his claims.

 

[PRmerger]

Oooh…and somehow after he has gone through each and every ancient writing and lo and behold after he has determined which books are inspired, his Bible shows the same sequential order of books as the Catholic one minus the deuterocanon. This must be a miracle! Or a random event where we lost count of the zeros of improbability. Or as in my or any graduate school , a blatant case of plagiarism. I’d have a lot of explaining to my professors. For him, he has to explain to the Lord his claims.

Not to mention, for this paradigm to work, this means that every single Christian has to do this. No one submits to any other authority save for himself in discerning the canon.

While taz has the benefit of a graduate degree (in Business Administration), and can critically study the over 400 ancient texts to determine canonicity, not everyone has this luxury. Not everyone has internet access. Not everyone has this secret knowledge infused into his heart that is privy to what is “correct” or not.

So how does this work for these folks?

Not to mention, for this paradigm to work, this means that every single Christian throughout antiquity would have had to do this. Even the illiterate peasant in the fields.

How does this work for these folks?

Besides it straining the realms of credulity that taz is able to read most of the 400 ancient Christian texts and eliminate all of the same ones that the CC did…it really boggles to think that every single Christian today and in history has been able to do this as well.

 

[Porknpie]

Again, you didn’t comprehend what I said. Jesus recognized the OT canon by saying, “the Law…the Prophets…AND the Psalms” (Luke 24:44-45), rather than just saying “the Law & the Prophets.” That’s because when He corrected the Pharisees, He quoted their Scriptures, which even CA Jimmy Akin admits were the EXACT SAME as the Protestant OT canon. “The Psalms” (which were part of the “third” part of the THREE-fold division of Luke 24:44-45) included the Poetic Books (Psalms, Proverbs, Job), the ‘Five Rolls’ (‘Megilloth’ - Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), & the ‘Historical Books’ (Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, (I & II) Chronicles). Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, Lamentations, & Nahum were covered under the “second” part of the THREE-fold division Luke 24:44-45, just as they are when Jesus simply states “the Law AND the Prophets” elsewhere in Scripture…

Let’s look at Lk 24:44-45:

44 Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,

Where in this text does Jesus state that the OT is only the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms?

He doesn’t.

You are inserting your views into the text.

Jesus IS referring to the prophecies contained in these books in reference to himself but he is not giving us an infallible listing of what is and is not, OT scripture.

And the word “scriptures” in verse 45 is not limited to the books in verse 44.

That’s again, your inserting your view into the text.

See the collection of ancient commentary here. Interesting that none in the early Church has your insight, if true, a remarkable one that they all missed.

 

[fasolislithuan]

Not to mention, for this paradigm to work, this means that every single Christian has to do this. No one submits to any other authority save for himself in discerning the canon.

While taz has the benefit of a graduate degree (in Business Administration), and can critically study the over 400 ancient texts to determine canonicity, not everyone has this luxury. Not everyone has internet access. Not everyone has this secret knowledge infused into his heart that is privy to what is “correct” or not.

So how does this work for these folks?

Not to mention, for this paradigm to work, this means that every single Christian throughout antiquity would have had to do this. Even the illiterate peasant in the fields.

How does this work for these folks?

Besides it straining the realms of credulity that taz is able to read most of the 400 ancient Christian texts and eliminate all of the same ones that the CC did…it really boggles to think that every single Christian today and in history has been able to do this as well.

Illiterates, uneducated people of the world? Perhaps taz’ God doesn’t love illiterates and they are condemn to not know God’s Word. This is, certainly, a cruel god but undoubtely not our Father. Or rather taz is only wrong.

 

[Porknpie]

Excellent. The more you listen to Jimmy, the better. :

Agree

Taz misconstrues Jimmy Akin’s comment on the pharisees having the same 66 book canon as protestants. Jimmy is not giving a bashful “ADMITS”, rather he stating a fact, one that contrasts the canon of the pharisees to what Jesus and the disciples used.

Why would one place trust in the Pharisees at the Council of Jamnia in 90ad to determine what is and what is not scripture - and to do so, in the 1,500’s after the Church affirmed 46 books of the OT for 1,100 years?

For more of Jimmy Akin on this topic, see his well written article here.

Excerpt below
The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.

 

[fasolislithuan]

You actually believe that the Phoenix was a real bird who lived for 1,600 years, then died, then rose from its own ashes? You actually, honestly believe that, despite there being ZERO evidence IN the Bible, or OUTSIDE the Bible, that the Phoenix was real? Are you sure that you’re not merely trying to prove some kind of point, rather than accept the logical explanations that I have not “dodged” from you?

I believe and I’m sure one thing. That all those exegetes and scholars I’ve put as example, i.e.:

Rashi
Midrashim
Babylonian Talmud
The scholars who translated the Complete Jewish Bible
The scholars who translated the Jewish Publication Society Bible
The scholars who translated the New Revised Standard Bible
The scholars who translated the Lexham English Bible

translate Job 29:18 as:* I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days like the phoenix* and that implies only one thing: That being correct, arguable or even wrong translate phoenix in this verse, there are a lot of experts, christian and jewish scholars (including prominent scholars in Jewish Scriptures as Rashi) that believe and are sure that to mention an imaginary bird as if it were real in a book of the Sacred Scriptures doesn’t automatically disquallify that book as no God-breathed such as you wrong suppose.
Therefore it looks irrelevant if the rendering is wrong for you (for me phoenix sounds more correct and poetic than sand), the relevant in this case is that your assumption-theory of the consideration of a no real animal as if it were real in an book becomes automatically this book as no inspired Scripture is arbitrary. Is evident there are a lot of scholars, catholic, protestants and jewish that don’t share your criterion. So your rule can be valid for you to reject a book as Sacred Scripture but this rule, actually, is far to be an universal rule in the field of Exegesis, as we can verify with all these examples.

 

[PRmerger]

the relevant in this case is that your assumption-theory of the presence of a no real animal in an book becomes automatically this book as no inspired Scripture is arbitrary.

Indeed. It’s so arbitrary.

It’s as if I said, “Only manuscripts that mention the Trinity are to be theopneustos” or “Only manuscripts that mention the virgin birth are theopneustos” or “A manuscript has to be written before 60 AD for it to be theopneustos”.

The Bible doesn’t tell us what “godly criteria” make a text theopneustos.

That means people who are recusant to Sacred Tradition are using a man-made tradition to discern what’s theopneustos.

And in something of such great import as “Is this the inspired word of God or not?” one would think arbitrary criteria must be rejected at all costs.

 

[SJacob7]

Agree

Taz misconstrues Jimmy Akin’s comment on the pharisees having the same 66 book canon as protestants. Jimmy is not giving a bashful “ADMITS”, rather he stating a fact, one that contrasts the canon of the pharisees to what Jesus and the disciples used.

Why would one place trust in the Pharisees at the Council of Jamnia in 90ad to determine what is and what is not scripture - and to do so, in the 1,500’s after the Church affirmed 46 books of the OT for 1,100 years?

For more of Jimmy Akin on this topic, see his well written article here.

Excerpt below
The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.

I thought that the ‘Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God’. So I find it rather confusing that Christians would try to determine what was given to the Jews? Just my thoughts…

 

[PRmerger]

I thought that the ‘Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God’. So I find it rather confusing that Christians would try to determine what was given to the Jews? Just my thoughts…

Not sure I understand your point.

Christianity received the OT from the Jews, who were indeed entrusted with the oracles of God.

Obviously, I wasn’t there, so I am basing my faith in the writings of the NT regarding the Resurrection on the eyewitness testimonies of it, which is based on fact that none of them recanted their faith, even in the eye of torture & death. That is what I base my faith on the writings of the NT - their unwillingness to recant their faith, which is “why” I believe their writings, including the ones about the Resurrection, are Inspired.

But the fact remains that you don’t know which of the manuscripts belong in the NT and which are simply ancient Christian texts…except that you took the word of some men on this. Catholic men. Catholic bishops to be exact.

So what you are really saying is that you base your faith on what some Catholic men have told you are “the writings of the NT”.

That is where I begin my faith in their writings.

But how do you know that these writings are inspired?

And then when I compare their writings to those of say Hebrews, which is unauthored, as well as other unauthored NT (as well as OT texts), I find the same godly attributes as those of Peter, James, John, & the rest of the NT writers who died martyrs’ deaths without recanting their faith.

Do you permit every other Christian to use the same paradigm you are using?

And what if they come up with a different answer? What if they decided that Hebrews is NOT theopneustos?

Are they permitted to have their own opinion on this, or must they defer to what you have declared to be theopneustos?

If they have to agree with you, then you are acting in the same way that the CC does, saying, “This is what is true. When you divorce yourself from what has been revealed, you divorce yourself from truth.”

Except you say the CC can’t do this.

If they don’t have to agree with you, then think about the repercussions of what you are proposing: every man gets to decide for himself what’s theopneustos.

-I believe only Jesus Words are inspired!
-I reject all of the Pauline epistles!
-I think ONLY the Pauline epistles are inspired!
-I only believe that the writings that mention Jesus by name are inspired!
-I think that only the manuscripts that we have extant copies are theopneustos!
-I reject all of it except for the Gospels of Matthew and Mark because they were actually apostles!

Think about what kind of chaos and confusion this paradigm would produce.

Otherwise, “why” would the Catholic church leave it out of their NT canon?

They left it out for the same reason you leave it out, taz: because it wasn’t part of the kerygma.

You actually believe that the Phoenix was a real bird who lived for 1,600 years, then died, then rose from its own ashes? You actually, honestly believe that, despite there being ZERO evidence IN the Bible, or OUTSIDE the Bible, that the Phoenix was real? Are you sure that you’re not merely trying to prove some kind of point, rather than accept the logical explanations that I have not “dodged” from you?

Well, if it’s part of the inspired word, then we would have to believe it, right?

You can’t reject something because it’s not in the Bible, and then say you believe something because it’s in the Bible.

That’s…circular.

And an atheist could ask you, “You actually believe that someone was healed by passing by Peter’s shadow? A shadow. Cured someone. You actually honestly believe that, despite there being ZERO evidence for it?” (Remember, you can’t know that Acts is inspired yet, since you’re trying to figure out what’s inspired.)

The Bible didn’t just float down from heaven on the wings of a dove, with Acts included in it for you to know.

You have to, as you claim, discern whether it actually is true or not, of your own accord.

 

[ericc]

While taz has the benefit of a graduate degree (in Business Administration), and can critically study the over 400 ancient texts to determine canonicity, not everyone has this luxury. Not everyone has internet access. Not everyone has this secret knowledge infused into his heart that is privy to what is “correct” or not.

I didn’t know that MBA covers ancient Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek languages or even Latin. I know mine didn’t! But my MBA was decades ago. May be taz’s graduate school is of the theological or seminary type.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Originally Posted by FathersKnowBest View Post
Can you show me where scripture says that all the teachings of Jesus were written down in the canonical NT books?

It does? Can you quote the text?

But the things that were not written down, nowhere does it say the Church was to follow them, because we don’t know what those things He said were, nor if He commanded the Church to follow them.

Wrong.

For instance:

2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Did you live during the first century? Did you see Jesus rise from the dead? Did you perform miracles in the first century to back up that your writings were Inspired? No offense, but this is a weak strawman argument that non-christians use.

You must be quite strong, having to continually move those goal-posts & all.

Actually, the etymology of the English word, “priest” IS presbyteros.

No, it’s “hiereus” not “presbyteros”:

blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2409

[priest (n.) Look up priest at Dictionary.comOld English preost probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German prestar, Old Frisian prestere, all from Vulgar Latin *prester “priest,” from Late Latin presbyter “presbyter, elder,” from Greek presbyteros (see Presbyterian).

An alternative theory (to account for the -eo- of the Old English word) makes it cognate with Old High German priast, prest, from Vulgar Latin *prevost “one put over others,” from Latin praepositus “person placed in charge,” from past participle of praeponere (see provost). In Old Testament sense, a translation of Hebrew kohen, Greek hiereus, Latin sacerdos.](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=priest)

How can it be true, & not connected to what we’re discussing at the same time?

There are very many things that are true & not connected to what we’re discussing.

 

[thesmiter1]

I thought that the ‘Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God’. So I find it rather confusing that Christians would try to determine what was given to the Jews? Just my thoughts…

Probably because the Jews had so many varying opinions regarding the inspiration of Scripture at the time. The Sadduccees, for instance, held only to the Torah. The Pharisees, WELL after Jesus’ time (100-500ad) used the canon that Protestants now use. But the majority of Jews used the Septuagint, and this is why it is quoted so frequently in the New Testament.

Regardless, Jesus said we’d have the ability to determine things like this when he promised Peter that hell would not prevail, promised the apostles the power of binding and loosing, and promised the guidance of the Spirit. Further, we have an example from Acts 15 regarding how to approach disagreements or uncertainty on doctrine. There is only one church that still does this as perfectly as in Acts 15. I’ll let you guess which church that is.

 

[thetazlord]

It does? Can you quote the text?

My bad. I thought you were asking me where it states that Jesus’ teachings were written down, which “is” at the end of John’s Gospel. I inadvertantly missed the word “all.” That still doesn’t change the fact that there is no command from Jesus, or anyone else in Scripture, to teach things spoken by Jesus that is not found in Scripture. You are making an argument from silence.

Wrong.

 

[Porknpie]

That still doesn’t change the fact that there is no command from Jesus, or anyone else in Scripture, to teach things spoken by Jesus that is not found in Scripture. You are making an argument from silence.

Taz,

When St. Paul says to hold fast to what is spoken and written…

You do understand that this is the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

It IS Jesus is speaking through the human authors.

The Written Word of God is explicitly clear on this point.

Explicitly… unless you want to argue that St. Paul was only speaking of the OT scripture.

 

[ericc]

And if you go back over the previous 14 verses, those “traditions” Paul is referring to, he had just written down. He’s not referring to “traditions” that he had not previously communicated to the Thessalonians in written form. What you are doing by providing that quote is called “quote-mining” Scripture out of context, rather than exegetically examining the surrounding passages & other relevant verses to find out what Paul is actually saying.

Which exact verse is that (the previous 14 verses you mentioned ) that you said Paul had written down the traditions? I went back and check but I can’t find any verse that correlate with what you said.

If he had previously written them down, why did he refer those traditions “by word of mouth”? If it was by word of mouth, then it couldn’t have been written. Your exegesis doesn’t explain the inconsistency and your prior 14 verses referring to the written traditions seems to be not there. Perhaps you may want to review your exegesis for accuracy?

 

[fasolislithuan]

thesmiter1:

.

Respect the different Bible canons of the different jewish groups (Saducees Christ days’ canon, pharisees Christ days’, alexandrian-greek jewish in the diaspore’s, essenies’, palestinian jewish’s, etc…) there is a unexpected variable that protestants aren’t aware when they accept only the* palestinian canon* and reject the* alexandrian canon* (with deuterocanonicals). The unexpected variable is that Paul doesn’t address his letters to sadducees (who use only the Torah as Sacred Scriptures), neither the pharisees (whose elusive canon was discuted in the first 9 centuries post-Christ forming later the palestinian canon). The people that Paul is addressing his epistles are the gentile-christian and "hebrew-christian of the diaspore that use the alexandrian canon (Septuagint). This is the reason why Paul uses the Septuagint in his quotes, because the Bible used for hebrew-christians in the diaspore and greek-christians was the Greek Bible nor the hebrew Bible. And the Septuagint has the deuterocanonical books as theopneustos. So protestants are here in another serious problem (in general his theology has a lot of holes). If they only admit as Sacred Scripture the palestinian jewish canon (formed between the 1st and the 10th centuries post-Christ) they are rejecting the alexandrian canon (Septuagint) used by the first christians. That’s interesting and problematic for them because when protestants for example argue that Sola Scriptura is tacit in 2Tim 3:16* “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” *they don’t realize that Paul with the expression all Scripture is speaking not about the palestinian canon rather the greek canon (with deuterocanonical books included). The reason of this is because their interlocutors are not rabbinical people but hebrews of the diaspore and gentiles who read the Bible in greek using the Septuagint (with deuterocanonical books included) and not the hebrew text. The dillema is unavoidable: If they reject the alexandrian canon (greek) they are also rejecting the true meaning of 2Tim 3:16. If they claim 2Tim 3:16 is refered to Sola Scriptura then Sola Scriptura should irremissibly include the deuterocanonical.

There are a lot of evidences of this pauline use of Septuagint text in detriment of the hebrew one. I wont’ show all those quotes but I’ll limit only to the epistle 2 Timothy.** If there is a verse in 2Tim where Paul quotes the Septuagint in detriment of the masoretic text we have the evidence that in the same epistle where Paul uses the expression All scripture is inspired Paul is using Septuagint and not the masoretic text and therefore with “all scripture” he is refering all Sacred Books contained in the Septuagint, including deuterocanonical and not the more restrictive palestinian canon.**

In 2Tim 2:19 Paul quotes Num 16:5.
Let’s compare Septuagint Num 16:5 with Paul quotes in the New Testament (2Tim 2:19):

1. Num 16:5 Septuagint: καὶ ἐλάλησεν πρὸς Κορε καὶ πρὸς πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ τὴν συναγωγὴν λέγων ἐπέσκεπται καὶ* ἔγνω** ὁ θεὸς τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἁγίους…*
   (Brenton Transl) And he spoke to Core and all his assembly, saying, God has visited and* known** those that are his and who are holy…*"

Let’s read 2Tim 2:19:
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550/
ὁ μέντοι στερεὸς θεμέλιος τοῦ θεοῦ ἕστηκεν ἔχων τὴν σφραγῖδα ταύτην· Ἔγνω κύριος τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ καί Ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας…

Is very important to remark that the verb used by Paul in this verse is ἔγνω that means to know, to recognize. If he had wanted to use the verb* to show* he had written * δείκνυμι* but not ἔγνω

the same can be verified in:Scrivener’s,Greek Orthodox Church 1904 RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005 Westcott,Tischendorf, Nestle GNT, etc… The verb is always ἔγνω (to know)

All those Bibles translate: *But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord **knows **those who are his,” and, Let every one… *. 12Tim 2:19 matches perfectly with the Septuagint text.

Now let’s read the Masoretic Text. “And he spoke unto Korah and unto all his company, saying: 'In the morning the LORD** will show** who are His, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near unto Him…” ( (2Tim 3:15-1) Paul with “all Scripture” is not, at all, refering to the restricted Sacred Scriptures canon used by the rabbinical groups in Jerusalem and Palestine, unfamiliar for Timothy, rather the wide Sacred Scriptures canon (with deuterocanonicals) used by the hebrew-christians of the diaspore and gentile-christians as Timothy.to show ** to knowto knowto show**“and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” The Bibles that follows masoretic text consign the verb )