sola scriptura [Archive] - Christian Forums

SumTinWong

18th November 2004, 10:11 AM

Im wondering what the exact use of the Septuagint was in Jesus' time. Thanks LE you are right that is what I meant. We know from some evidence that perhaps Paul used the LXX but what I would love to know is if the LXX was used in the Jewish temples. Considering they have nothing to do with these books now, I tend to think not. On the other hand people will say that they choose not to use them because they point towards Jesus, or that they left them out to spite the Christians. I consider that hogwash.

Anyway there is some evidence that the apocryha was used during that time. Now I personally do not think that they are inspired on the same level as that of the rest of the canon. I have read through them and have found quite a few mistakes, and things that just don't fit.

So my question was a what if. What have we done to find out about the Bible that Jesus read?

ZiSunka

18th November 2004, 10:11 AM

Lynn73

18th November 2004, 10:12 AM

rural_preacher

18th November 2004, 10:16 AM

ZiSunka

18th November 2004, 10:19 AM

He's reffering to the Greek OT if I am not mistaken, the Septugiant. The Septuagint included the apocryphal books and just so happens to date back before the time of Jesus. So Jesus had these texts.

Im wondering what the exact use of the Septuagint was in Jesus' time.
But Spetuagint was not used by Jews, they were translations of some Jewish texts and some other texts included with them. It's like today, you can get OT Bibles with the "missing books of the Bible" inserted before or after the NT. These missing books have fanciful claims about Christ, that he preached that salvation comes through eating uncooked vegetables and taking enemas, to Jesus only pretending to die to outwit the Jews and Romans so he could continue his ministry in India, to Jesus being a space alien who, like the folks from Third Rock from the Sun, came to observe Earth and its beings as a scientific experience and ended up teaching us the ways of the planet where he came from. No kidding, look on Ebay, these Bibles are available. So, does the Septuagint = the Jewish Bible? Jewish people all deny it, and few of the added texts add any real knowledge or doctrine about God. Jesus would have known about these "other texts," yet he never quoted from them or used examples from them. Thus, since they don't add anything of importance to the Bible, and Jesus never mentions them as being valuable, I agree with the folks who say they don't belong in the Bible. They were not part of the Hebrew texts during his life, and I believe if he wanted them to be added, he would have said so.

jcright

18th November 2004, 10:27 AM

What would one say to a person that says that scripture in Timothy was written before the rest of the New Testament was finished? Paul was killed in 68AD, and there is some evidence that rest of the NT was written after that. So by scriptures did he mean his letters, or the OT?

The Bible that Jesus read was the OT. Now we as Baptists, tend to leave out or omit books from the original texts. But what if the Bible that Jesus read, did have these books in it?
You raise a valid point. The fact that it was written before the rest of the books doesn't daunt me. I believe that it still holds true for the entire bible. It's my thought that Timothy is speaking about all of the books that are inspired by God...not just his writings or the OT. It's at this point where we would have to investigate the reasoning for each book being or not being included in the bible. However, I don't think that means that we should pick and choose what we will believe from the bible.

I still have to come back to the question of what other source is there? If there are other books, then why aren't they added? If we are to listen to man, then why aren't man's words (if we are to assume that the words are really from the Holy Spirit) written down and appended to the bible as additional inspired works? Why should we believe that the bible isn't complete?

SumTinWong

18th November 2004, 10:49 AM

But Spetuagint was not used by Jews, they were translations of some Jewish texts and some other texts included with them. Honestly LL do we know this is true? There is evidence that Paul used them.

It's like today, you can get OT Bibles with the "missing books of the Bible" inserted before or after the NT. These missing books have fanciful claims about Christ, that he preached that salvation comes through eating uncooked vegetables and taking enemas, to Jesus only pretending to die to outwit the Jews and Romans so he could continue his ministry in India, to Jesus being a space alien who, like the folks from Third Rock from the Sun, came to observe Earth and its beings as a scientific experience and ended up teaching us the ways of the planet where he came from. No kidding, look on Ebay, these Bibles are available. I know of the books you speak of I have one behind me on a shelf. I have yet to read it all the way through, but it is quite clear that they are not legit.

So, does the Septuagint = the Jewish Bible?
From what I understand the Greeks wanted a translation of the Jewish books and the LXX was what it came to be known as. And yes these books were included.

Jewish people all deny it, and few of the added texts add any real knowledge or doctrine about God. Jesus would have known about these "other texts," yet he never quoted from them or used examples from them. Thus, since they don't add anything of importance to the Bible, and Jesus never mentions them as being valuable, I agree with the folks who say they don't belong in the Bible. They were not part of the Hebrew texts during his life, and I believe if he wanted them to be added, he would have said so. Not all Jewish people deny it, but the majority do. Then again the majority of the Jews are still waiting for the messiah. Jesus does not mention Esther, does that make it uninspired? Did Jesus quote from every book in the OT? Jesus actually never mentioned any of the books that should be put in or taken out, so how does that prove that because he did not mention the apocrypha that they should not be included?

Here is a great article (http://goodnewschristianministry.org/apocrypha.htm) on the apocrypha, which gives descriptions and so forth. I do not agree with his assumption that the Apostles cast aide the OT completely, but that is another conversation.

SumTinWong

18th November 2004, 10:55 AM

You raise a valid point. The fact that it was written before the rest of the books doesn't daunt me. I believe that it still holds true for the entire bible. It's my thought that Timothy is speaking about all of the books that are inspired by God...not just his writings or the OT. It's at this point where we would have to investigate the reasoning for each book being or not being included in the bible. However, I don't think that means that we should pick and choose what we will believe from the bible. I agree with you, but where is our barometer, or measuring stick for what we have left in and what we left out? What I am getting at really is yes, the apocrypha in some way supports ideas perpetuated by the Catholic church, but does that that mean that they are to be forgotten? I am still trying to figure that out.

I still have to come back to the question of what other source is there? If there are other books, then why aren't they added? If we are to listen to man, then why aren't man's words (if we are to assume that the words are really from the Holy Spirit) written down and appended to the bible as additional inspired works? Why should we believe that the bible isn't complete? Oh I am not saying we should add any new books, by any means. I am asking why our "protestant" Bibles are now devoid of the texts that were in the LXX nad were available around the time of Jesus and the apostles.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

SumTinWong

18th November 2004, 11:00 AM

I'm sola scriptura also. There has to be an immovable standard by which we can measure things. God has given it to us and it's the Bible. The words of men aren't the standard. We take their words and compare them with the Bible and if they don't match up, we need to reject the words of men. Okay, so the Bible covers all subjects and is not confusing in anyway right? I mean we don't have any divisions within churches, and everyone is on the same page, and because the Holy Spirit has guided us all into truth, we are devoid of any controversies int eh church. Right?

The Bible never says it is a measuring stick, and we have no written record that God said it was our measuring stick, so how did we come by the idea that it was? Comparing the words of men to the Bible are fine, and we should all do that but what about when there was no Bible? How did Christians survive? What was their measuring stick then?

ZiSunka

18th November 2004, 11:09 AM

Honestly LL do we know this is true? There is evidence that Paul used them.
What evidence do you have? It's not from Catholic sources, is it, because they have a vested interest in Paul using the books, so their sources may not be the most reliable.

I know of the books you speak of I have one behind me on a shelf. I have yet to read it all the way through, but it is quite clear that they are not legit.
To us who know Him, yes, but to those who are perishing and yet not wanting to submit to the Gospel, they offer hope of salvation by other means.

From what I understand the Greeks wanted a translation of the Jewish books and the LXX was what it came to be known as. And yes these books were included.
Yes, by the Greeks, not the Jews. I dare you to find any Jewish Bible with the apochrypha included. None do.

Not all Jewish people deny it, but the majority do. Then again the majority of the Jews are still waiting for the messiah.
That's not true. You must not know many Jewish people. I know many, and they ALL say they believe Jesus really was the messiah but they refuse to become Christians because of the usual objections and because they would never be able to give up the traditions of Judaism to pick up the traditions of Christianity.

Jesus does not mention Esther, does that make it uninspired? Did Jesus quote from every book in the OT? Jesus actually never mentioned any of the books that should be put in or taken out, so how does that prove that because he did not mention the apocrypha that they should not be included?
But those apochryphal books were not part of the Jewish Bibles back then, according to the Rabbis I know. They were added by the Greeks, not the Jews, because the Greeks felt that more needed to be added to the story to make it interesting. They weren't satisfied with an Esther story that didn't mention God's direct intervention, so they augmented the story and added it to the apochrypha. Why would Jews have to Esther stories in the same Bible? It wouldn't make sense. The greeks hated an incomplete story, and they viewed the Jewish texts as stories, not as scritpure. They were a collection of morality plays to the Greeks, not a sacred book about the one true God. Adding a few more morality plays rounded the texts out nicely to them. Read the Book of Judith and tell me if you really think it is of God.

But back to your question, no, I don't believe that Jesus had to mention every book of the Bible in order for it to be a valid part of the canon. The Jewish canon was established by the time of Christ's birth. No writings have been added to it since then. Jews themselves call the apochrypha and all other additions "the spurious books." They don't believe that anything is missing from or needs to be added to the basic Bible. If they hold that belief now, what evidence do you have that they ever believed any other way. Again, without using Catholic sources, since they have a great stake in claiming the apochrypha ARE part of the canon.

jcright

18th November 2004, 12:00 PM

I agree with you, but where is our barometer, or measuring stick for what we have left in and what we left out? What I am getting at really is yes, the apocrypha in some way supports ideas perpetuated by the Catholic church, but does that that mean that they are to be forgotten? I am still trying to figure that out.

Oh I am not saying we should add any new books, by any means. I am asking why our "protestant" Bibles are now devoid of the texts that were in the LXX nad were available around the time of Jesus and the apostles.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
UB, I think we're straying from the subject. The question is: Why am I sola scriptora? The answer is: 2Tim3:16. For those that would still question, I would have to ask this: Where else am I to learn what God would have me know? Why would you think the bible isn't complete? If it isn't complete, what other sources are to be considered and why? If there are other sources, then why haven't they been appended to the bible? How does the bible back up your opinion? Of course, I will be looking for scriptural evidence that the bible isn't complete and that other sources should be considered and added to the bible.

To be sure, your statements about the barometer are important, just a different topic:D . I think we should start a new thread that discusses the aprocrypha. I'd be very interested to see what others have to say. As for me, Jesus never refers to any of the books in the apocrypha, it's never mentioned in any of the new testament books, the Jews don't have it in their bible...there is one more reason, but I can never remember it. Perhaps I'll edit this post later after I dig up my notes.

The apocrypha aside, what other books are omitted? I'll have to do research on those books.

UB, thanks for this post. I don't know about anyone else, but it's helping me to build a better defense for my opinions.

SumTinWong

18th November 2004, 12:02 PM

What evidence do you have? It's not from Catholic sources, is it, because they have a vested interest in Paul using the books, so their sources may not be the most reliable. That is sad. Really it is.

Yes, by the Greeks, not the Jews. I dare you to find any Jewish Bible with the apochrypha included. None do. Who do you think translated the books into Greek? Jews. If they were not part of their everyday reading why did they add them? The Jews are still waiting for the messiah.

That's not true. You must not know many Jewish people. I know many, and they ALL say they believe Jesus really was the messiah but they refuse to become Christians because of the usual objections and because they would never be able to give up the traditions of Judaism to pick up the traditions of Christianity. Go ask any Rabbi if Jesus was the messiah. You will be hard pressed to find any that will say he was. The ones you know, they actually admit Jesus was the messiah and yet they damn themselves to hell because they do not want to follow Him?

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because: (http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp)
1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.
5) Christianity contradicts Jewish theology
6) Jews and Gentiles
7) Bringing the Messiah

Anyway again: (http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_jesus.htm)
Why don't Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah?
Answer In brief:
1. No Jew accepts Jesus as the Messiah. When someone makes that faith commitment, they become Christian. It is not possible for someone to be both Christian and Jewish.
2. Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah because he didn't fulfill Jewish expectations of the Messiah.
3. The Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament by the non-Jewish world) is not proof for anything in the New Testament regarding a Messiah.

But those apochryphal books were not part of the Jewish Bibles back then, according to the Rabbis I know.
I would love to know what evidence they have of such a claim as people have been arguing about this for ages.

They were added by the Greeks, not the Jews, because the Greeks felt that more needed to be added to the story to make it interesting. They weren't satisfied with an Esther story that didn't mention God's direct intervention, so they augmented the story and added it to the apochrypha. Why would Jews have to Esther stories in the same Bible? It wouldn't make sense. The greeks hated an incomplete story, and they viewed the Jewish texts as stories, not as scritpure. They were a collection of morality plays to the Greeks, not a sacred book about the one true God. Adding a few more morality plays rounded the texts out nicely to them. Read the Book of Judith and tell me if you really think it is of God. I would love to see sources on this. Really.

But back to your question, no, I don't believe that Jesus had to mention every book of the Bible in order for it to be a valid part of the canon. The Jewish canon was established by the time of Christ's birth. We have no record of this account that there was an established canon. None. In fact that is what Jamnia was supposed to be about to establish a set canon.

No writings have been added to it since then. Jews themselves call the apochrypha and all other additions "the spurious books." They don't believe that anything is missing from or needs to be added to the basic Bible. If they hold that belief now, what evidence do you have that they ever believed any other way. Again, without using Catholic sources, since they have a great stake in claiming the apochrypha ARE part of the canon. What stake is that? 75% of the worlds Christians are either Catholic or Orthodox, and yet they are wrong and we are right when it comes to this issue? If I am wrong show me proof otherwise, as I can take it :)

That is why I brought this subject up so we can all learn from each other and decide for ourselves.

SumTinWong

18th November 2004, 12:17 PM

UB, thanks for this post. I don't know about anyone else, but it's helping me to build a better defense for my opinions. Iron sharpens iron, I agree. I hope that this does in someway spur us on to defend what we know but also know what we are defending.

So in that line of thinking how would you respond here?

You bring up some good questions (bolded):
Where else am I to learn what God would have me know?
Well the obvious answer would be the same place thatthe did before there was a Bible. The church. There was no set canon of scripture, lambslove mentioned some pretty spurious kinds of books that are now revered by the new age groups today. So the church set out to set the canon of the NT.
Why would you think the bible isn't complete?
One would say that until the Puritan ages the apocrypha was in all the Bibles (I would dispute that as not all of them did have it) and now they are gone. So do we not have an incomplete Bible if 12 books are missing?

If it isn't complete, what other sources are to be considered and why?
We covered this above but in most cases people will point to the apocrypha. For teh NT there are no books that i think are out there that belong and are not in.

If there are other sources, then why haven't they been appended to the bible?
Very good question. The church way back when decided these books were the books inspired by God, and included them. That same church by the way that we say had a vested interest in keeping the apocrypha in.

How does the bible back up your opinion?
It does not. But it doesn't back up yours either ;)

Of course, I will be looking for scriptural evidence that the bible isn't complete and that other sources should be considered and added to the bible.
Wouldn't that be nice. But then again the Bible does not list anywhere that the books that are in it are the ones that are supposed to be there.

ZiSunka

18th November 2004, 12:20 PM

That is sad. Really it is.
Not a slam on catholics, just that the testimony of those with vested interest is not usually considered reliable in court.

Who do you think translated the books into Greek? Jews. If they were not part of their everyday reading why did they add them? The Jews are still waiting for the messiah.
Okay, once again, the hebrew books were translated by Jews into Greek, but the Greeks added the other books separately without the add of the Jews. There is no evidence that the apochrypha were EVER in Hebrew, in fact, the first extant translation of them into Hebrew is from the 18th century.

Go ask any Rabbi if Jesus was the messiah. You will be hard pressed to find any that will say he was. The ones you know, they actually admit Jesus was the messiah and yet they damn themselves to hell because they do not want to follow Him? I HAVE asked several Rabbis if Jesus was the messaiah, and they have all said they believe so, but they cannot endorse the belief because it would be the death of Judaism.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because: (http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp)
1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.
5) Christianity contradicts Jewish theology
6) Jews and Gentiles
7) Bringing the Messiah

Anyway again: (http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_jesus.htm)
Why don't Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah?
Answer In brief:
1. No Jew accepts Jesus as the Messiah. When someone makes that faith commitment, they become Christian. It is not possible for someone to be both Christian and Jewish.
2. Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah because he didn't fulfill Jewish expectations of the Messiah.
3. The Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament by the non-Jewish world) is not proof for anything in the New Testament regarding a Messiah.

What Jews do you know and why are they soooo different from the Jews I know. The religious ones I know say they believe Christ WAS the messaiah and the non-religious ones say they don't care. Belief in Christ is entirely different than FAITH in Christ. To believe that Christ is the messaiah is completely different than FAITH that Christ is the way to salvation. A precious few religious ones will say they have no belief in Christ at all.

ZiSunka

18th November 2004, 12:28 PM

We have no record of this account that there was an established canon. None. In fact that is what Jamnia was supposed to be about to establish a set canon.The Jewish Bible hasn't changed one jot since the time of Christ. Copies of it are in tact since before Christ's birth. We don't have to guess what was in the canon, because the scrolls tell us exactly what was in the canon. And I am not using canon in the sense of the Catholic church decreeing what is acceptable scripture or not. I'm saying that the Hebrew OT hasn't changed in more than 3000 years. We don't guess or doubt because we can read and know. You need to hang around with more rabbis before you claim to know Jewish history. REading Christian books on the subject just won't do!

What stake is that? 75% of the worlds Christians are either Catholic or Orthodox, and yet they are wrong and we are right when it comes to this issue? If I am wrong show me proof otherwise, as I can take it :)Where'd you get that statistic? And yes, if they added junk to the Bible, then they are wrong. The Bible is complete as is and doesn't need an embellishment on the Esther story or a story about a scheming, revengeful widow who seduces a man so she can murder him in his sleep.

That is why I brought this subject up so we can all learn from each other and decide for ourselves.Having the choice of learning from a guy who has read about the Jews, or from people who ARE Jews, I don't think I'd choose the guy with a bunch of books but nothing else to support his statements.

SumTinWong

18th November 2004, 12:37 PM

Not a slam on catholics, just that the testimony of those with vested interest is not usually considered reliable in court. The vested interest part was a slam. It is as if the Catholics keep the claim that the apocrypha are canon just to suit what they believe, rather than they developed doctrine from the books themselves. Basically it is a given that the apocrypha was accepted before these things were implementd. The things were implemented because of what they read, not the other way around.

Okay, once again, the hebrew books were translated by Jews into Greek, but the Greeks added the other books separately without the add of the Jews. There is no evidence that the apochrypha were EVER in Hebrew, in fact, the first extant translation of them into Hebrew is from the 18th century. I am still waiting for proof that the Greeks did this. Any proof would do.

I HAVE asked several Rabbis if Jesus was the messaiah, and they have all said they believe so, but they cannot endorse the belief because it would be the death of Judaism. So they chose death in hell over Judiasm? And you consider these reliable people? he deliberatly decieve people inot thinking that the Christ (which means messiah by the way) has not come yet and they tell you on the sly, yeah he was here, but hey we like Judism too much to let go. Sorry but that is pathetic. Not on your part, but on theirs.

What Jews do you know and why are they soooo different from the Jews I know. Shall I name them? Read the sources I gave you, they are very well known Rabbis. If Jews really believed that Jesus was the Christ then why is it harder for a Christian to live in Israel today then ever? I am sorry but I think your friends are pulling your leg.

The religious ones I know say they believe Christ WAS the messaiah and the non-religious ones say they don't care. Belief in Christ is entirely different than FAITH in Christ. To believe that Christ is the messaiah is completely different than FAITH that Christ is the way to salvation. A precious few religious ones will say they have no belief in Christ at all. Find me a site on the internet, that is from Jews (not messianic jews) that admits, hey Jesus is the messiah, but we like our Judism too much to believe in Him.

jcright

18th November 2004, 12:42 PM

Iron sharpens iron, I agree. I hope that this does in someway spur us on to defend what we know but also know what we are defending.

So in that line of thinking how would you respond here?

You bring up some good questions (bolded):
Where else am I to learn what God would have me know?
Well the obvious answer would be the same place thatthe did before there was a Bible. The church. There was no set canon of scripture, lambslove mentioned some pretty spurious kinds of books that are now revered by the new age groups today. So the church set out to set the canon of the NT.
Why would you think the bible isn't complete?
One would say that until the Puritan ages the apocrypha was in all the Bibles (I would dispute that as not all of them did have it) and now they are gone. So do we not have an incomplete Bible if 12 books are missing?

If it isn't complete, what other sources are to be considered and why?
We covered this above but in most cases people will point to the apocrypha. For teh NT there are no books that i think are out there that belong and are not in.

If there are other sources, then why haven't they been appended to the bible?
Very good question. The church way back when decided these books were the books inspired by God, and included them. That same church by the way that we say had a vested interest in keeping the apocrypha in.

How does the bible back up your opinion?
It does not. But it doesn't back up yours either ;)

Of course, I will be looking for scriptural evidence that the bible isn't complete and that other sources should be considered and added to the bible.
Wouldn't that be nice. But then again the Bible does not list anywhere that the books that are in it are the ones that are supposed to be there.
My friend, I would contend that 2Tim3:16 does back me up.

2Tim3:16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (NIV)

2 Timothy 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV)

I can't help but to see that this verse tells us what scripture is intended for.

You mentioned going back to the church as a source. What are we to do with 2tim3:16? What do we do with the verses that warn us against false prophets? Every church makes their own mistakes. I have yet to go to a church that is perfect. I think Rom3:23 is a good verse to explain why we won't find a perfect church.

I guess I would contend that we must get our information from the perfect source (if you can't tell, I have a problem with trusting in humans). The perfect source is God. We know that all scripture is God breathed and therefore would be our physical reference (the Holy Spirit being our spirtual guide). Thus, the bible should be our source, not man. This is where your comments about other books come into play and therefore opens a new thread.

SumTinWong

18th November 2004, 12:43 PM

You need to hang around with more rabbis before you claim to know Jewish history. REading Christian books on the subject just won't do! Boy do you turn mean when things don't go your way...

Where'd you get that statistic? And yes, if they added junk to the Bible, then they are wrong. The Bible is complete as is and doesn't need an embellishment on the Esther story or a story about a scheming, revengeful widow who seduces a man so she can murder him in his sleep. My fault it is 65% (http://geocities.com/richleebruce/churchstat.html)

Having the choice of learning from a guy who has read about the Jews, or from people who ARE Jews, I don't think I'd choose the guy with a bunch of books but nothing else to support his statements. Okay i can see you cannot be civil. Goodbye.

SumTinWong

18th November 2004, 01:05 PM

My friend, I would contend that 2Tim3:16 does back me up.
2Tim3:16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (NIV)

2 Timothy 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV)

I can't help but to see that this verse tells us what scripture is intended for. There is the catch jc. Who defines what scripture is really scripture? I know we can say the Holy Spirit tells us that these books we have are inspired. And yet there are those out there that say that the Holy Spirit is telling them that the apocrypha is true. Are we right or are they? If they are wrong, were they right when they assembled the NT? Tough call aint it?

You mentioned going back to the church as a source. What are we to do with 2tim3:16? What do we do with the verses that warn us against false prophets? Every church makes their own mistakes. I have yet to go to a church that is perfect. I think Rom3:23 is a good verse to explain why we won't find a perfect church. I agree that churches make mistakes and I agree that the churches then were full of them, just like they are now. Some of Pauls letters were to try and correct mistakes in the churches, and you are right they were not even close to perfect :) When people say they want to be like the early church I ask them which one? The one in Ephesis? Rome? Corinthia?

I guess I would contend that we must get our information from the perfect source (if you can't tell, I have a problem with trusting in humans). The perfect source is God. We know that all scripture is God breathed and therefore would be our physical reference (the Holy Spirit being our spirtual guide). Thus, the bible should be our source, not man. This is where your comments about other books come into play and therefore opens a new thread. I am a person that does not trust humans as well. I think we will get a long well here. I take nothing at face value, from anyone :)

I agree with you otherwise I would not be a protestant, that we get our directions from the Holy Spirit. The problem is and has been that our Holy Spirit antennas are out of whack sometimes. Otherwise there would not be name it and claim it or health and wealth gospel churches out there.

So what is our standard? If we say we are sola scriptura, and we feel that 2 Timothy was right, what is our ballest? There are Christians who believe that Calvin was right and predestination is right. There are others who believe the Bible is their authority and say that God hates gay people. There are people who believe the Bible is the word of God and believe that we are called but not predestined. Anyway,as you can see, there are many different ideas from many different people, all who believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding them. Who is wrong? Or are they all right? Can they all be right?

jcright

18th November 2004, 04:41 PM

There is the catch jc. Who defines what scripture is really scripture? I know we can say the Holy Spirit tells us that these books we have are inspired. And yet there are those out there that say that the Holy Spirit is telling them that the apocrypha is true. Are we right or are they? If they are wrong, were they right when they assembled the NT? Tough call aint it?

I agree that churches make mistakes and I agree that the churches then were full of them, just like they are now. Some of Pauls letters were to try and correct mistakes in the churches, and you are right they were not even close to perfect :) When people say they want to be like the early church I ask them which one? The one in Ephesis? Rome? Corinthia?

I am a person that does not trust humans as well. I think we will get a long well here. I take nothing at face value, from anyone :)

I agree with you otherwise I would not be a protestant, that we get our directions from the Holy Spirit. The problem is and has been that our Holy Spirit antennas are out of whack sometimes. Otherwise there would not be name it and claim it or health and wealth gospel churches out there.

So what is our standard? If we say we are sola scriptura, and we feel that 2 Timothy was right, what is our ballest? There are Christians who believe that Calvin was right and predestination is right. There are others who believe the Bible is their authority and say that God hates gay people. There are people who believe the Bible is the word of God and believe that we are called but not predestined. Anyway,as you can see, there are many different ideas from many different people, all who believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding them. Who is wrong? Or are they all right? Can they all be right?
Nope, they can't all be right:) Just like the Highlander, there can be only one:)

Yes, there are different ways to interpret the bible and yes, there are those that would insist the aprocrypha is the inspired Word. However, that's a different (yet important) conversation.

Sola Scriptora is bible only correct? If that's not correct, then please correct me!:) If we aren't to turn to the bible (whether you believe in the catholic bible or the "protestant" bible, etc.) in all matters then where do we turn? Hang on...the next question will take us for a ride. Are you suggesting that the alternative to sola scriptora is man? Is man to be our alterntive to the bible? Never mind which version of the bible you accept...is man to be the compliment to that bible? I don't think that can be the case. We've been told to be on the watch for false prophets. How do you turn to man to find out if someone is a false prophet? How would you know the person you are turning to isn't a false prophet?

Here's an interesting thought. I think we can all agree that the bible should not be added to or taken away from. With exception to the aprocrypha, haven't we seen this to be the case? Here's the interesting part, no one tries to add anything else to the bible. The Catholics haven't added anything to their bible. The "protestants" haven't added anything to their bible. I would suggest it's because we consider our bible complete as it is. I grew up in a cult...even the founder didn't add to the bible (although there is a companion book for interpretive reasons, but that goes back to interpretation which is a different subject).

SumTinWong

18th November 2004, 04:52 PM

Nope, they can't all be right:) Just like the Highlander, there can be only one:) That was a great movie.

Yes, there are different ways to interpret the bible and yes, there are those that would insist the aprocrypha is the inspired Word. However, that's a different (yet important) conversation. I know i keep vearing off don't I? :)

Sola Scriptora is bible only correct? If that's not correct, then please correct me!:) If we aren't to turn to the bible (whether you believe in the catholic bible or the "protestant" bible, etc.) in all matters then where do we turn? Hang on...the next question will take us for a ride. Are you suggesting that the alternative to sola scriptora is man? Is man to be our alterntive to the bible? Never mind which version of the bible you accept...is man to be the compliment to that bible? I don't think that can be the case. We've been told to be on the watch for false prophets. How do you turn to man to find out if someone is a false prophet? How would you know the person you are turning to isn't a false prophet? Bravo, that is what I was looking for! The thing is this: You and I read the Bible. I believe you are filled with the Holy Spirit, as I am. If I read it and come out with one thing and you another, what helps us determine what is right? Part of defending what I believe is knowing what I believe. I am not really trying to side track anything,and I think you have answered very well. Just trying to go further I guess. You mentioned false prophets. Alot of them use the Bible to distort things. How in your opinion can we avoid this?

These are questions that will be asked, I guarantee it. Some will say hey we can look at what the early church fathers thought when faced with the same situation. Do we as Baptists do this or is there another group that we look to for guidance? I totally agree with you that Bible alone means Bible alone.

Here's an interesting thought. I think we can all agree that the bible should not be added to or taken away from. With exception to the aprocrypha, haven't we seen this to be the case? Here's the interesting part, no one tries to add anything else to the bible. The Catholics haven't added anything to their bible. The "protestants" haven't added anything to their bible. I would suggest it's because we consider our bible complete as it is. I grew up in a cult...even the founder didn't add to the bible (although there is a companion book for interpretive reasons, but that goes back to interpretation which is a different subject). You are so very right. Nothing has been added to either canon, and i am sure we do agree that!

mesue

18th November 2004, 04:53 PM

There are a great many people in the world that feel that they are sola scriptura Christians.

If you are one of them why?Sola Scriptura or "Only the Scriptures"
Should God's word be the final authority?
Yes.

GreenEyedLady

18th November 2004, 05:01 PM

SumTinWong

18th November 2004, 05:04 PM

Scripture proves itself which is why the aprocrpha is not included. The errors are so clear and does not match the rest of scripture. Why do you feel that the Holy Spirit is any differant today than back then? I don't really I am just giving you the questions I get in order to see what you think. Perhaps like jc we can feel better about what we believe if we strengthen why we believe in it.

The Holy Spirit has not changed, niether hads God's Word, there might be churches claiming THEY gave the scriptures, or that they have the "right" translation. I have been down this road, and I choose to just read them and not get all crazy about how they came to be. I trust that My Lord kept His word perfect.
GEL Thanks GEL :)

jcright

18th November 2004, 05:07 PM

That was a great movie.

I know i keep vearing off don't I? :)

Bravo, that is what I was looking for! The thing is this: You and I read the Bible. I believe you are filled with the Holy Spirit, as I am. If I read it and come out with one thing and you another, what helps us determine what is right? Part of defending what I believe is knowing what I believe. I am not really trying to side track anything,and I think you have answered very well. Just trying to go further I guess. You mentioned false prophets. Alot of them use the Bible to distort things. How in your opinion can we avoid this?

These are questions that will be asked, I guarantee it. Some will say hey we can look at what the early church fathers thought when faced with the same situation. Do we as Baptists do this or is there another group that we look to for guidance? I totally agree with you that Bible alone means Bible alone.

You are so very right. Nothing has been added to either canon, and i am sure we do agree that!
Heh:) I wasn't sure if you were pushing me to go there or not.

This exercise has been very helpful, so again, thank you. Today I was talking to one of the faculty in my department and she said that she wanted to sit down with me in the near future to discuss the movie The Passion of the Christ as well as to ask me questions about my faith, what I believe, etc. On the one hand I'm looking forward to it, on the other I'm not. I've got some time so I think I'm goign to look for section on CF that caters to seekers and see what kind of questions they ask so I'm better prepared.

SumTinWong

18th November 2004, 05:09 PM

Great idea!!! Pay close attention to the answers, and the people who are asking them as well. You can learn alot from what turns people off over there.

You are such a smart person, I bet you live in Michigan...LOL

ZiSunka

18th November 2004, 05:21 PM

The vested interest part was a slam. It is as if the Catholics keep the claim that the apocrypha are canon just to suit what they believe, rather than they developed doctrine from the books themselves. Basically it is a given that the apocrypha was accepted before these things were implementd. The things were implemented because of what they read, not the other way around.What catholic doctrines were created from these books and when were the doctrines created?

I am still waiting for proof that the Greeks did this. Any proof would do.I'm still waiting for any proof that the texts were translated by Jews and not Greeks. Any proof would do.

So they chose death in hell over Judiasm? And you consider these reliable people? he deliberatly decieve people inot thinking that the Christ (which means messiah by the way) has not come yet and they tell you on the sly, yeah he was here, but hey we like Judism too much to let go. Sorry but that is pathetic. Not on your part, but on theirs.They believe Christ is the messaiah, but not that he has the power of salvation. Christ having power of salvation is a new testament thing, and they refuse the NT because of Jewish tradition, yes. Also, they are a people frightened of losing their identity by being absorbed into other cultures, so they remain faithful to Judaism to preserve their identities as much as because they believe it is the truth.

Shall I name them? Read the sources I gave you, they are very well known Rabbis. If Jews really believed that Jesus was the Christ then why is it harder for a Christian to live in Israel today then ever? I am sorry but I think your friends are pulling your leg.Because most of the Christians are hated palestinians, that's why. Again, belief that Christ was the messaiah is different from a saving faith in Christ's atoning death, which most Jews lack. The Jewish idea of messiah is a political leader, not a savior in a spiritual sense. Many Jews will admit that Christ fulfilled the prophesies of the messiah but then was killed before he could overthrow the Romans and establish the new kingdom, but they do not understand messiah to be God with Us, a savior and payment for our sins. Also, Jews who come out about their belief in Christ as the messiah are pyrraias in Israel, unable to have government jobs, assistance, housing, schooling, or any other benefits reserved for Jews, so they keep it quiet. Even in this country, Jews are often belittled by their rabbis if they admit they believe in Christ, so they don't tell in public. Also, it's not that big of an issue with them that they would discuss it.

My friend Mike told me that when he decided that Christ was really messiah, he just accepted it without having to have big discussions about it. Many years later, he was talking to his brothers and they all admitted that they believed it, too, but never said anything because it was no big deal. Later he told his parents and they said, "Oh that. Whatever." So Mike believed in the messaiahship of Christ, but not in his authority to save. We talked about it at length and he said he didn't think he needed a savior because he didn't believe in an afterlife, as many modern Jews also do not.

Find me a site on the internet, that is from Jews (not messianic jews) that admits, hey Jesus is the messiah, but we like our Judism too much to believe in Him.You're kidding, right? That's not the kind of thing Jews would say to strangers. You really DON'T know many Jews personally do you? You don't seem to know much about them as a people or about their culture or national personality, yet you claim to be an expert on them. How can that be?

Messianic Jews are still Jews by the way, and don't call themselves Christians. They live as Jews who believe that Jesus is the messiah, but in all ways, they are Jews.

BBAS 64

18th November 2004, 06:22 PM

Honestly LL do we know this is true? There is evidence that Paul used them.

I know of the books you speak of I have one behind me on a shelf. I have yet to read it all the way through, but it is quite clear that they are not legit.

From what I understand the Greeks wanted a translation of the Jewish books and the LXX was what it came to be known as. And yes these books were included.

Not all Jewish people deny it, but the majority do. Then again the majority of the Jews are still waiting for the messiah. Jesus does not mention Esther, does that make it uninspired? Did Jesus quote from every book in the OT? Jesus actually never mentioned any of the books that should be put in or taken out, so how does that prove that because he did not mention the apocrypha that they should not be included?

Here is a great article (http://goodnewschristianministry.org/apocrypha.htm) on the apocrypha, which gives descriptions and so forth. I do not agree with his assumption that the Apostles cast aide the OT completely, but that is another conversation.
Good Day UB

Think we have been though this before you and I.

From the article you link to,

About 60 years after the crucifixion of Christ, a group of Rabbi's (survivors of the Roman annihilation of Jerusalem) met at Jamnia and canonized a Hebrew scripture specifically devoid of Greek writings. Any work of scripture not originally written in Hebrew was discarded as unclean.

This codification of the Hebrew Bible by the Jewish Rabbi's cancelled for the Jews the authority, not only of the contested books we now call apocryphal, but also the popular Greek Old Testament itself that foreign Jews had been using for the previous 300 years. That work had earlier been authorized for publication by the Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem for use by the Jews of the Dispersion whose language was primarily Greek.

Jamnia was a seminal decision because it isolated Christians from Jews on the basis, not just of scripture, but of language as well.
This is the permise where this author falls, he assumes that the these books where seen as Scripture "Gods oracles" and points to Jamnia as the instrument of the Jews to remove these books. No historical proof of this at all.

He must prove that they were there first, I have dfound no historical record that these books included in the cannon of the Jews. Not just that they knew of them.

Hebrew OT- Josephus

Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses. . . . The prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books [Joshua, Judges-Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah-Lamentations, Ezekiel, the twelve minor prophets considered as one, Job, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah [considered as one], Chronicles, Esther]. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life [Psalm, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs]. [As for the apocryphal books] From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets. We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable. And it is the instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God. [Against Apion 1:37-42]

Peace to u,

Bill

ZiSunka

18th November 2004, 06:49 PM

Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) is the name given to a Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.

The Septuagint contains the standard 39 books of the Old Testament canon, as well as certain apocryphal books. The term "Apocrypha" was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar, Jerome, and generally refers to the set of ancient Jewish writings written during the period between the last book in the Jewish scriptures, Malachi, and the arrival of Jesus Christ. The apocryphal books include Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), the Wisdom of Solomon, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, additions to the Book of Esther, additions to the Book of Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh.

The Apochryphal books were included in the Septuagint for historical purposes, but are not recognized by Protestant Christians or Orthodox Jews as canonical (inspired by God). Most reformed teachers will point out that the New Testament writers never quoted from the Apocryphal books, and that the Apochrypha was never considered part of the canonical Jewish scripture.

The apochyrphal books were considered the lastest new thoughts on Jewish life and history at the time, although Jewish leaders of the time spoke out against their inclusion because they were not considered pure texts inspired by God. Their inclusion has been a matter of dispute since ancient days.

(From the book Is the Bible Really Truth?, a chapter called On The Question of the Septuagint and Reliability, World Publishing, Cleveland 1903)

SumTinWong

18th November 2004, 07:27 PM

Good Day UB

Think we have been though this before you and I. You are right, we have and it is from you that I got the idea that Jamnia never happend.

This is the permise where this author falls, he assumes that the these books where seen as Scripture "Gods oracles" and points to Jamnia as the instrument of the Jews to remove these books. No historical proof of this at all.

He must prove that they were there first, I have dfound no historical record that these books included in the cannon of the Jews. Not just that they knew of them. Oh yeah I agree, I was using this article for the information on the books themselves, not his ideas. I think I said I don't buy all of what he is pushing, but the info about the books themselves (explainations).

And I think we discussed and I think you told me that you didn't think the LXX had the apocrypha. Right?

SumTinWong

18th November 2004, 07:37 PM

What catholic doctrines were created from these books and when were the doctrines created? Reportedly the indulgencies and praying for the dead. When I do not know. I am not an expert on Catholic doctrine.

I'm still waiting for any proof that the texts were translated by Jews and not Greeks. Any proof would do. You provided it for me thanks dear :) " Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation."

You're kidding, right? That's not the kind of thing Jews would say to strangers. You really DON'T know many Jews personally do you? You don't seem to know much about them as a people or about their culture or national personality, yet you claim to be an expert on them. How can that be? I claim to be an expert on Jews? When was this? Oh yeah, never. Look lambslove, I forgave you not once but twice for acting like a jerk and I will continue to forgive you as you are my sister in Christ but try not to push my kindness will you?

As far as this discussion goes with you I am done. Apparently you cannot talk about it in a civil manner, so I will leave you to fluster about without me. Try and have a good night.

BBAS 64

18th November 2004, 08:40 PM

You are right, we have and it is from you that I got the idea that Jamnia never happend.

Oh yeah I agree, I was using this article for the information on the books themselves, not his ideas. I think I said I don't buy all of what he is pushing, but the info about the books themselves (explainations).

And I think we discussed and I think you told me that you didn't think the LXX had the apocrypha. Right?
Good Day, Uncle Bud

I do not recall taking that postion on the LXX.

Peace to u,

Bill

Lynn73

18th November 2004, 09:10 PM

Okay, so the Bible covers all subjects and is not confusing in anyway right? I mean we don't have any divisions within churches, and everyone is on the same page, and because the Holy Spirit has guided us all into truth, we are devoid of any controversies int eh church. Right?

The Bible never says it is a measuring stick, and we have no written record that God said it was our measuring stick, so how did we come by the idea that it was? Comparing the words of men to the Bible are fine, and we should all do that but what about when there was no Bible? How did Christians survive? What was their measuring stick then?
Ac 17:11 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=ac+17:11&version=kjv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) - Show Context (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ac+17:11&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1)
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.They still had the Old Testament Scriptures. If you're speaking of God's people who lived in the OT, God spoke through His prophets. He spoke directly to some of them, such as Moses. Tell me something, if the word of God isn't to be our standard of truth, then what is?

2 Tim. 3 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Not used as a measuring stick? Sounds like it is to me if it's to be used for repoof, correction, and instrution in righteousness.

Heb 4:12 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=heb+4:12&version=kjv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) - Show Context (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=heb+4:12&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1) For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. It's a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, yet not a measuring stick? I have to disagree with you, I'm afraid.

SumTinWong

19th November 2004, 11:15 AM

[color=#000000]They still had the Old Testament Scriptures. If you're speaking of God's people who lived in the OT, God spoke through His prophets. He spoke directly to some of them, such as Moses. Tell me something, if the word of God isn't to be our standard of truth, then what is? That is the question that I posed. Some would say it was the church of that time that was their standard. If the Bible is our standard of authority, who gave us that right, and if there is support for it in the Bible?

Not used as a measuring stick? Sounds like it is to me if it's to be used for reproof, correction, and instrution in righteousness. When Paul wrote that the only Bible of sorts was the OT, and perhaps some of his other letters flaoting around. This was written before 68AD (as he was killed around that time along with other Christians), so the scriptureas he was reffering to was the OT. He was telling Timothy to search for the truth there. I do not , neither does anyone else any reason to think that Paul knew that this would have gotten to our present Bible. When Jesus mentioned the scriptures in John 5:39(You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,), He was referring to the Jews and the OT.

Anyway, I still ask by what authority do we say this book we now have is our authority on our life with Christ?

It's a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, yet not a measuring stick? I have to disagree with you, I'm afraid. It says the word of God. What in that verse was the writer saying was the word of God? There was no Bible yet Lynn, so what was the word of God that was spoken of here? Albert Barnes says of this verse: "The “Word of God” is “what God speaks” - whether it be a promise or a threatening; whether it be Law or gospel; whether it be a simple declaration or a statement of a doctrine."

I would look up what many comentators say about this phrase. Many people try to attribute this to the Bible, but there was no Bible. For Paul (yes I think it was Paul) to be talking to the Hebrews about a non-existant book, would have been ludicrous. Some say he was talking about the "Word" which was mentioned in John 1:1, and others say it was the Good News (Gospel) that was being preached. One thing they are pretty certain on it was not the Bible.