Sola Scripture isn't rational

[twosid]

99.9% of my time in Church has been in a Baptist Church http://www.fbcw.org While denomination has always bothered me because I see it as the destruction of unity and club like I've done the best I could do to make myself believe what I was taught in the Baptist Chruch. Spending a great deal of time here arguing my faith has taught me that I know nothing about Church history and that over the course of 10 years I've learned what others consider to be the truth but have never really searched out the truth for myself. Are you willing to die based on what someone else believes about Christianity without searching it out yourself? I find that I'm very much not in the minority and I am shocked to see how many people especially those who are teaching others have never learned for themselves what Christianity is but merely parrot back what they have been told.....sans facts. So initially what started bothering me was that I didn't know Church history and I also quickly found out that no one I knew did either. So anyhow.....here are just a couple of easy things that make Sola Scripture irrational to me. How can you throw away history and tradition?

The bible was first translated into english in 1382AD by John Wycliffe.

We didn't have a printed copy of the bible until 1454AD.

Why was the bible changed during the reformation? Had it not been the Word of God for a long time prior?

Can you really ignore history and tradition?

So your telling me that we were to be Christians and live our lives exclusively based on the Word of God for 1400 years without a copy of what we were to be using to do this with? During the birth of the early Church and for a thousand years following there was unity and then came division but not nearly the division created by the reformation. God left everyone in the wilderness for 1600 years following the birth of Christianity all certainly doomed to hell until somebody stumbled on Sola Scripture? :eek: Can you really believe this and claim yourself to be a rational person?

[II Paradox II]

So your telling me that we were to be Christians and live our lives exclusively based on the Word of God for 1400 years without a copy of what we were to be using to do this with? During the birth of the early Church and for a thousand years following there was unity and then came division but not nearly the division created by the reformation. God left everyone in the wilderness for 1600 years following the birth of Christianity all certainly doomed to hell until somebody stumbled on Sola Scripture? :eek: Can you really believe this and claim yourself to be a rational person? hmmm... a few thoughts:

1) I guess I am lucky in some respects to have the influence of more historically based Reformed and Reformed Baptist roots. I personally love history, though I do agree with you that it is often mischaracterized.

2) IMO - the confessional definition of sola scriptura as the norming norm that we (the reformed) hold to is far from irrational. In fact, I think it preserves the patristic attitude towards the scriptures better than the modern catholic position.

3) As for not having a copy of the scriptures, you might want to do some study on that subject beyond apologists. The early and medieval churches and cultures are not like our own. Their relation to scripture was often communal (through the reading of scritpure and catechism), but it was nonetheless firmly rooted there. A reading of the primary sources shows this.

Perhaps you can listen to Saint Ceasarius
Willingly listen to the divine lessons in church, as you usually do, and read them over again in your own homes. If anyone is so busy that he cannot take time for holy Scripture before lunch, he should not be ashamed to read over something of it at his own little meal. In this way just as the body is fed with food, so the soul is refreshed by the word of God, the handmaid is satisfied but the mistress is tormented by hunger, and your holy selves know how wrong this is. For this reason, as I have already said, you ought to read and listen to the sacred lessons with such eagerness that you may be able to speak about them and teach them to others both in your own homes and elsewhere, wherever you are. As you, like clean animals, masticate the word of God by continuous reflection, you may be able both to procure useful flavor for yourselves, that is, their spiritual meaning, and with God’s help give it to others. FC, Vol. 66, Saint Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 187-238, Sermon 198.5

And yes, I actually have this book, it is not just a quote taken from a website.

4) As for 1000 years of unity, I think you may be mistaken. What about the monophysite schism? What about the numerous smaller (some short lived) schisms between various bishops and areas of the church? There may have been more unity than we have today, but it wasn't one big happy family either. Schism and heresy occured very early in our history and hasn't stopped yet.

ken

[eldermike]

Perhaps you should also look into the area of Baptist seminary requirements for Church History. I can assure you that your discovery of your lack of knowledge in this area is not a discovery of a trend within the Baptist'.

[bleechers]

Can you really ignore history and tradition?

Yes. Jesus did.

Paul said in Galatians that the gospel had been preached and delivered and could not be changed. Jude said the "the faith" had been delivered. Paul told Timothy that "the scriptures are able to make you wise unto salvation" and that scripture was sufficient for a man to be perfect in all his ways.

How on earth could history or man's traditions possible compare to the God-breathed Word? History is the story of man's rebellion against God and His Word.

"You make the Word of God of none effect by your tradition."

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

More later.

[GreenEyedLady]

To me its totally rational, the bible is either your final authority or it is not.

I think its funny that people don't think that the scriptures did not "exits" until the 1600's.
These letters were written by the apostles! What do you think they did with them, just passed them down without reading it to the followers?
Look at all the letters in the NT. Corinth, Romans, I and II TIM, I and II Peter, all of these letters were being read to the early church before the bible was "bound in leather" So the early church followers HAD the scriptures, they just did not have it bound in leather. That does not mean that there was no scripture until the book was completed. I think what will help you is to reseach how the Jewish people (the scribes) were trained in manuscript writing.
I think what you typed it totally irrational and I would agree with you about it not sound irrational. But that is not what happened. The early churches had scriptures to read, just not the book bound in leather called the Bible.
GEL

[Crazy Liz]

I think we need to clarify what sola scriptura really means. When we claim that scripture is our only guide to faith and practice (a common Free Church Protestant formula) I don't think most of us really mean we disregard everything else, but that we compare everything to scripture, and let scripture prevail in every conflict.

We have many traditions. Sola Scriptura is itself a tradition. We also rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, working in us and in our brothers and sisters. (At least the Anabaptists and Quakers teach this.) But anything anyone claims to have received from the Holy Spirit is tested, and rejected if it goes against scripture.

This is the principle of sola scriptura in the Reformation. We do not have to reject all traditions. We reject only those that go against scripture, and we moderate others to bring them into conformity with scriptures.

[Cary.Melvin]

To me its totally rational, the bible is either your final authority or it is not.

I will say not. God is the final authority not a book (even if its contents are said to be inspired). The Bible is the Word of God, but it is only as good as your personal ability to understand it. And who said that scripture is the only source of devine revelation?

[theseed]

Can you really ignore history and tradition?

Yes, when it contradicts the word of God--which we have in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. We have old copies of the bible. Not just English translations from the 14th century.

God left everyone in the wilderness for 1600 years following the birth of Christianity all certainly doomed to hell until somebody stumbled on Sola Scripture? :eek: Can you really believe this and claim yourself to be a rational person?

Depsite your studies of history and the scriptures, you remain uninformed about both.

Sola Scirptura has nothing to do with whether one is going to hell or not. That has to do with Jesus Christ--which we read about in the The Bible. And it says that whosoever shall believe in thier heart that Jesus rose from the dead, and confess with thier mouth that he is Lord--they will be saved (Rom. 10.9-13).

That means that one does not have to have the bible to be saved, but only saving knowledge of the truth.

[theseed]

I will say not. God is the final authority not a book (even if its contents are said to be inspired). The Bible is the Word of God, but it is only as good as your personal ability to understand it. And who said that scripture is the only source of devine revelation?
It may be true that other books are inspired by God. But we don't have the gall to say they are. And they will be tested against Scripture.

The bible however, is sufficent by itself, and not other canon, confessions or writing is required.

Also, no one should have to believe something because the "church" says so, or go to a Chruch because the government says so. Only God is Lord of the conscience.

[Crazy Liz]

And who said that scripture is the only source of devine revelation?

Well, of course the Bible itself says that scripture is not the only source of divine revelation. Hebrews 1:1-2.

[II Paradox II]

I will say not. God is the final authority not a book (even if its contents are said to be inspired). This is a bad comparison. The reason is that when we talk of the scriptures being the final authority, we are referring to a source of knowledge. When God is asserted as the final authority, it is in a metaphysical sense as the ground of authority. It is God's existence and nature that gives authority to his words.


The Bible is the Word of God, but it is only as good as your personal ability to understand it. The exact same thing can be said of any given teaching of the church. They are only as good as your capacity to understand them. God gave his Word to his people to be understood, not to be a black box open only to a select few. God's people hear his voice and listen to Him.

And who said that scripture is the only source of devine revelation? It is probably more proper to say that it is the normative source of divine revelation avaible to His people. Obviously, when Christ spoke he was revealing divine truth and some of that is not in the bible.

ken

[oworm]

And who said that scripture is the only source of devine revelation?
Scripture is Gods special revelation to man. Creation is his general revelation.
When people say that the Holy Spirit only reveals in accordance with Scripture they are really saying that Scripture IS the revelation as it is illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,..................


Psalm 119 is stacked with references to Gods "Word" Where else do we find God speaking directly to us aprt from his word ?

MT 4:4 Jesus answered, "It is written: `Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "

JN 17:13 "I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth

[eldermike]

I can't imagine jumping on the bandwagon to post support in a thread that begins with an insult to one of the largest Christian groups anywhere. The bible is the sole authority for our faith and that is foundational to our beliefs. It's not based on a lack of study or not hearing from YOU on the issue. It's just the way it is.

Have you ever known anyone that came into a church and began to preach from the back pew, something like: "Your beliefs are not rational".

Now if you want to know someting about our beliefs, then please ask. But if you wrap your request around a rock and throw it through the window, watch out!

It it not ok in this forum to be rude. You may say: I believe there are other sources of Truth beyond the bible. That's ok. You may not say: "your beliefs are not rational" (period, as if you are the only source on what is, and what is not rational)

This is our home.

Thanks for reading this
Mike

[BBAS 64]

99.9% of my time in Church has been in a Baptist Church http://www.fbcw.org (http://www.fbcw.org/) While denomination has always bothered me because I see it as the destruction of unity and club like I've done the best I could do to make myself believe what I was taught in the Baptist Chruch. Spending a great deal of time here arguing my faith has taught me that I know nothing about Church history and that over the course of 10 years I've learned what others consider to be the truth but have never really searched out the truth for myself. Are you willing to die based on what someone else believes about Christianity without searching it out yourself? I find that I'm very much not in the minority and I am shocked to see how many people especially those who are teaching others have never learned for themselves what Christianity is but merely parrot back what they have been told.....sans facts. So initially what started bothering me was that I didn't know Church history and I also quickly found out that no one I knew did either. So anyhow.....here are just a couple of easy things that make Sola Scripture irrational to me. How can you throw away history and tradition? ?
Good Day,Twosid

I must say I totaly understand where you are coming from having been there at one point in time. You must make a commitment to your self to seach the scriptures and the various views that Church history holds. Why do you feel you are in a minority, do you believe a majority makes things Truth. On what standard do you feel people have never learned things about Christiany for themselfs?

What conections are you trying to make between histoy and Sola Scriptura? I for one do not throw away History nor traditions. I hold them in the light of which they are to be observed. History is just that history, tradition is tradition. In andfor them selfs they are fallible and some what skewed based on many factors that involve the humans involved and the times in which they are presented.

Where as Scripture transends all that rubish. Now I must pray, read ask, seek to understand it. My abilty to understand it does in no way injure the nature of Scripture.

What is your view of Sola Scriptura?

The bible was first translated into english in 1382AD by John Wycliffe.

We didn't have a printed copy of the bible until 1454AD.

Why was the bible changed during the reformation? Had it not been the Word of God for a long time prior?

Can you really ignore history and tradition??
I will accept your dates here as I do not know other wise. You assert that the bible was changed during the reformation, what history do you have to back up such a statement?

There are some thread in the Non-denom fourm that addresses the history of the cannon, history will over whelmingly so the various thoughts on this issue.

This quote is many many years before the reformation.
Athanasius, "There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews" (Festal Letter 39:4)So your telling me that we were to be Christians and live our lives exclusively based on the Word of God for 1400 years without a copy of what we were to be using to do this with? During the birth of the early Church and for a thousand years following there was unity and then came division but not nearly the division created by the reformation. God left everyone in the wilderness for 1600 years following the birth of Christianity all certainly doomed to hell until somebody stumbled on Sola Scripture? :eek: Can you really believe this and claim yourself to be a rational person?
I do not believe that any one is telling you this, and your fixation with a"copy" as abasis for your feelings. How are you using the word unity what do you think unity is as compared to your thoughts on disunity, how would you prove one in comparision to the other? You have put your self in a"box" as having to believe this when you have not defined the historical premise on which it is based.

"I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books [scripture], to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else." - Jerome (Letter 53:10)

I know where you are at and I will pray for you, as you have chosen a though road that will require hard work and honest review of the facts. You are to be commended for your thinking process, the road is long you will be better in the end.

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

I will say not. God is the final authority not a book (even if its contents are said to be inspired). The Bible is the Word of God, but it is only as good as your personal ability to understand it. And who said that scripture is the only source of devine revelation?
Classic! The Bible says it I believe it, or not, I make the call. The Bible with out me assenting to it worth less. It is all about me and how I come to my knowledge by the falible choices I make.

God Centered ??:sigh: You make the Call!!

As the processes of man contiune to move the focus towards their center.:(

Where is Paul when you need him? Oh yeah we have his words let us stand against such world views, even when the standing is unpopular.

Peace to u,

Bill

[thereselittleflower]

99.9% of my time in Church has been in a Baptist Church http://www.fbcw.org (http://www.fbcw.org/) While denomination has always bothered me because I see it as the destruction of unity and club like I've done the best I could do to make myself believe what I was taught in the Baptist Chruch. Spending a great deal of time here arguing my faith has taught me that I know nothing about Church history and that over the course of 10 years I've learned what others consider to be the truth but have never really searched out the truth for myself. Are you willing to die based on what someone else believes about Christianity without searching it out yourself? I find that I'm very much not in the minority and I am shocked to see how many people especially those who are teaching others have never learned for themselves what Christianity is but merely parrot back what they have been told.....sans facts. So initially what started bothering me was that I didn't know Church history and I also quickly found out that no one I knew did either. So anyhow.....here are just a couple of easy things that make Sola Scripture irrational to me. How can you throw away history and tradition?

The bible was first translated into english in 1382AD by John Wycliffe.

We didn't have a printed copy of the bible until 1454AD.

Why was the bible changed during the reformation? Had it not been the Word of God for a long time prior?

Can you really ignore history and tradition?

So your telling me that we were to be Christians and live our lives exclusively based on the Word of God for 1400 years without a copy of what we were to be using to do this with? During the birth of the early Church and for a thousand years following there was unity and then came division but not nearly the division created by the reformation. God left everyone in the wilderness for 1600 years following the birth of Christianity all certainly doomed to hell until somebody stumbled on Sola Scripture? :eek: Can you really believe this and claim yourself to be a rational person?
Hi Twosid!

I just thought you might like to know that the first english translation of the scriptures was many centuries before Wycliffe . . :)


Peace in Him!

[twosid]

Hi Twosid!

I just thought you might like to know that the first english translation of the scriptures was many centuries before Wycliffe . . :)


Peace in Him!
well......don't tell me I'm wrong and then run away....when was it? :)

[II Paradox II]

well......don't tell me I'm wrong and then run away....when was it? :)
She's probably thinking of the translation work of bede...

read more here
http://www.didyouknow.cd/Bible/translation.htm

As far as I know, however, wycliffe had the first complete translation that we know of.

ken

[thereselittleflower]

Hi twosid . .

Actually, there were several in Saxon, Old English . . . some think that there had been a complete bible translation early on, but most are parts of the bible, such as the Gospels, the Psams, etc . .

Then the Norman invasion stopped all Enlgish translation and use, for Saxon was no longer the language of the people, Norman French was . .

Then Anglo-Saxon came back around the time of Wycliffe . .


Here is a review of the history of the Bible in English

http://www.newman-asu.org/lit_corner/lit_bibleinenglish.html


Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

Here is a sampling of what we have as extant today of the Old English (pre-Norman) bibles . .


http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/catholic/scriptures/saxon-bible.html

Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

I've decided to remove the link as it is too anti-catholic and I don't find that as we get to later centuries it is very trustworthy in some of its 'facts'.



1. EARLY VERSIONS


Ungers Bible Dictionary says, "There were portions of the Bible, and possibly the entire work, rendered into the English vernacular very early in the history of the language. Gildas states that 'When the English martyrs gave up their lives in the 4th century, all the copies of the Holy Scriptures which could be found were burned in the street."


Happy reading! :)



Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

edit for double post! :)



Peace in Him!

[theseed]

We must also keep in mind that modern English period does not start until the 1600's, so older English versions would be in Middle English or Old English

[thereselittleflower]

twosid . . I forgot to memtion . . the last link I gave you is from a very pro-protestant, very anti-catholic view point . . so, please take the anti-catholic remarks and sentiments in it with a grain of salt. (and no one here in this forum can fault me with only providing Catholic links . . ;) )

I just wanted to show that even an anti-Catholic site at least recognizes that possibly the entire bible was translated into Old English . . by the Catholics no less. :D


Peace in Him!

[II Paradox II]

twosid . . I forgot to memtion . . the last link I gave you is from a very pro-protestant, very anti-catholic view point . . so, please take the anti-catholic remarks and sentiments in it with a grain of salt. (and no one here in this forum can fault me with only providing Catholic links . . ;) )
heh... I actually used to know several people who go to the church that made that website. I learned some of my first bits of theology by hanging out with a guy who argued with them for almost 3 years over calvinism and KJV-onlyism. The guys I knew were pretty nice but they definitely had it in for Calvin and the rest of of the reformed (they didn't particularly like Lutherans, Catholics, non-seperated baptists or many others either!)

I just wanted to show that even an anti-Catholic site at least recognizes that possibly the entire bible was translated into Old English . . by the Catholics no less. :D It seems to me that much of the confusion is over the fact that many laymen don't distinguish between the first full translation we know of and partial translations we know of. I saw that particular mistake several times. Unfortunately, there are also a number of times when polemic considerations probably came into view as well... oh well...

ken

[bleechers]

The scriptures are able to make even a child "wise unto salvation." (2 Tim 3:15)
They are what even the Apsotle Paul was checked against (Acts 17:11).
They are sufficient for correction and for a man to be perfect. (2 Tim 3:16-17)
They are able to keep a young man pure. (Ps 119)
They are able to sanctify. (John 17:17)
They bring people to saving faith. (Rom 10:17)
They testify of Him (John 5:39)
They are superior to tradition (Matt 15:13)
They are the test of all doctrine. (Acts 17:11)
They contain the final gospel, never to be added to. (Gal 1:6-12)
They are superior to Peter, Paul and even angels. (Gal 1:6-12)
They are consistent from Genesis to Revelation. (2 Peter 1:20)
They are powerful, able to expose the soul. (Hebrews 4:12)
They are the sword of the Spirit. (Eph 6:17)
They cannot be bound. (2 Tim 2:9)
They can make one born-again. (1 Peter 1:23)
They must be fulfilled (Mark 14:49)

They all we need for life and godliness. We live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God!

Adam, Abel, Noah, Job, Jonah and Daniel are all real people... they lived when and as long as the Bible says they did... Matthew wrote Matthew... it contains no error, scientific, historical or otherwise... no matter what any commission says... they are sufficient to counsel... no matter what Jim Dobson says...

John 8:47
He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

[FreeinChrist]

I think we need to clarify what sola scriptura really means. When we claim that scripture is our only guide to faith and practice (a common Free Church Protestant formula) I don't think most of us really mean we disregard everything else, but that we compare everything to scripture, and let scripture prevail in every conflict.

We have many traditions. Sola Scriptura is itself a tradition. We also rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, working in us and in our brothers and sisters. (At least the Anabaptists and Quakers teach this.) But anything anyone claims to have received from the Holy Spirit is tested, and rejected if it goes against scripture.

This is the principle of sola scriptura in the Reformation. We do not have to reject all traditions. We reject only those that go against scripture, and we moderate others to bring them into conformity with scriptures.
I believe this nicely describes the view of Sola Scriptura in the churches I have attended. :)

[ZeroTX]

Why was the bible changed during the reformation? Had it not been the Word of God for a long time prior?

This is a ridiculous and untrue claim made by certain uninformed Catholics, usually on very poorly argued apologetics websites.

The Canon of the Bible didn't include the Apocryphal books UNTIL the Reformation. Before this, the Bible that we Protestants use, was indeed the Canon.

The Catholics themselves refer to the Apocryphal books as the Deuterocanonicals, which means SECOND Canon.

Do a little reading outside Catholic websites.

Here's some information on reasons why the Apocrypha is not considered canonical:

http://nc.essortment.com/whatapocrypha_rgcf.htm

-Michael

[isshinwhat]

The Canon of the Bible didn't include the Apocryphal books UNTIL the Reformation.

Please do not take this as argumentative, but the following are the relevant portions of the Synods which are looked to as proclaiming the Canonicity of the Bible, deuterocanon included, and which date from 382 A.D. at the earliest.

God Bless,

Neal

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paraleipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Phillipians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle."
Pope Damasus(regn A.D. 366-384),Decree of,Council of Rome,The Canon of Scripture(A.D. 382),in DEN,33
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
"Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.'. The canonical books are:---Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, the two books of Paraleipomena(Chronicles), Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are:---the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted."
Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393), in HCC,2:400
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
" that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are:Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paraleipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John."
Council of Carthage III,Canon 47([i]A.D. 397),in DEN,39-40

[FreeinChrist]

The lists above include the OT Aprocrypha. It existed in Christ's day...but this is what Christ included:

Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.


In the Hebrew Tanckh, Malachi came before Zachariah. The Tanckh does not include the Aprocrypha. Tobit, 1 and 2 maccabees, judith..wee all written after Zachariah. NONE of the Apropcrypha books, like Tobit, are quoted in the NT.

The most ancient list of Old Testament books is that which was made by Melito of Sardis (cf. A.D. 170); none of the apocryphal books is included (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14).

The apocryphal books were produced in an era when no inspired documents were being given by God. Malachi concludes his narrative in the Old Testament by urging Israel: “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances.” He then projects four centuries into the future and prophesied: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come...” (Mal. 4:4-5). This text pictured the coming of John the Baptist (cf. Mt. 11:14; Lk. 1:17). The implication of Malachi’s prophecy is that no prophet would arise from God until the coming of John. This excludes the apocryphal writings.


Josephus did not recognize the Apocrypha as canonical.


Let's look at what is said in the Aporcrypha:
2 Maccabees 1:14-16
13When the leader reached Persia with a force that seemed irresistible, they were cut to pieces in the temple of Nanea by a deception employed by the priests of the goddessd Nanea. 14On the pretext of intending to marry her, Antiochus came to the place together with his Friends, to secure most of its treasures as a dowry. 15When the priests of the temple of Nanea had set out the treasures and Antiochus had come with a few men inside the wall of the sacred precinct, they closed the temple as soon as he entered it. 16Opening a secret door in the ceiling, they threw stones and struck down the leader and his men; they dismembered them and cut off their heads and threw them to the people outside.

2 Mac. 9: 19 "To his worthy Jewish citizens, Antiochus their king and general sends hearty greetings and good wishes for their health and prosperity. 20If you and your children are well and your affairs are as you wish, I am glad. As my hope is in heaven, 21I remember with affection your esteem and goodwill. On my way back from the region of Persia I suffered an annoying illness, and I have deemed it necessary to take thought for the general security of all. 22I do not despair of my condition, for I have good hope of recovering from my illness, 23but I observed that my father, on the occasions when he made expeditions into the upper country, appointed his successor, 24so that, if anything unexpected happened or any unwelcome news came, the people throughout the realm would not be troubled, for they would know to whom the government was left. 25Moreover, I understand how the princes along the borders and the neighbors of my kingdom keep watching for opportunities and waiting to see what will happen. So I have appointed my son Antiochus to be king, whom I have often entrusted and commended to most of you when I hurried off to the upper provinces; and I have written to him what is written here. 26I therefore urge and beg you to remember the public and private services rendered to you and to maintain your present goodwill, each of you, toward me and my son. 27For I am sure that he will follow my policy and will treat you with moderation and kindness."
28 So the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the more intense suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a most pitiable fate, among the mountains in a strange land. 29And Philip, one of his courtiers, took his body home; then, fearing the son of Antiochus, he withdrew to Ptolemy Philometor in Egypt.

So did Antiochus die from stoning and dismemberment in Persia ...or by an "annoying" disease in the mountains, having left Persia?


Tobit is said to have lived 158 years (14:11), yet, supposedly, he was alive back when Jeroboam revolted against Jerusalem (931 B.C.), and then still around when the Assyrians invaded Israel (722/21 B.C.) - a span of some 210 years (Tobit 1:3-5) - hmmm.


And check this:
Wisdom of Soloman 8:
19 As a child I was naturally gifted,
and a good soul fell to my lot;
20 or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body.

Preexistence of the soul?

[seebs]

To me its totally rational, the bible is either your final authority or it is not.

Well, yeah. Likewise, either your cat is your final authority or it is not; the language allows us to bifurcate truth values that way.

For me, God is the final authority. Therefore, nothing other than God can be the final authority, and that includes the Bible, which is at most a penultimate authority.

Of course, one can say "well, since the Bible is what God said to us, it's the same as God", but it isn't quite that simple. If two people disagree on what the Bible says, how shall I determine which one I trust? Both may be able to argue persuasively from the Bible... I end up needing some other source of information to interpret the Bible. That's where it gets fun!

[JeffreyLloyd]

So by your logic does this mean the book of Jonah is not true because it tells of an absurd story of a guy living in a whale for a few days?

Just wondering?


The lists above include the OT Aprocrypha. It existed in Christ's day...but this is what Christ included:

Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.


In the Hebrew Tanckh, Malachi came before Zachariah. The Tanckh does not include the Aprocrypha. Tobit, 1 and 2 maccabees, judith..wee all written after Zachariah. NONE of the Apropcrypha books, like Tobit, are quoted in the NT.

The most ancient list of Old Testament books is that which was made by Melito of Sardis (cf. A.D. 170); none of the apocryphal books is included (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14).

The apocryphal books were produced in an era when no inspired documents were being given by God. Malachi concludes his narrative in the Old Testament by urging Israel: “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances.” He then projects four centuries into the future and prophesied: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come...” (Mal. 4:4-5). This text pictured the coming of John the Baptist (cf. Mt. 11:14; Lk. 1:17). The implication of Malachi’s prophecy is that no prophet would arise from God until the coming of John. This excludes the apocryphal writings.


Josephus did not recognize the Apocrypha as canonical.


Let's look at what is said in the Aporcrypha:
2 Maccabees 1:14-16
13When the leader reached Persia with a force that seemed irresistible, they were cut to pieces in the temple of Nanea by a deception employed by the priests of the goddessd Nanea. 14On the pretext of intending to marry her, Antiochus came to the place together with his Friends, to secure most of its treasures as a dowry. 15When the priests of the temple of Nanea had set out the treasures and Antiochus had come with a few men inside the wall of the sacred precinct, they closed the temple as soon as he entered it. 16Opening a secret door in the ceiling, they threw stones and struck down the leader and his men; they dismembered them and cut off their heads and threw them to the people outside.

2 Mac. 9: 19 "To his worthy Jewish citizens, Antiochus their king and general sends hearty greetings and good wishes for their health and prosperity. 20If you and your children are well and your affairs are as you wish, I am glad. As my hope is in heaven, 21I remember with affection your esteem and goodwill. On my way back from the region of Persia I suffered an annoying illness, and I have deemed it necessary to take thought for the general security of all. 22I do not despair of my condition, for I have good hope of recovering from my illness, 23but I observed that my father, on the occasions when he made expeditions into the upper country, appointed his successor, 24so that, if anything unexpected happened or any unwelcome news came, the people throughout the realm would not be troubled, for they would know to whom the government was left. 25Moreover, I understand how the princes along the borders and the neighbors of my kingdom keep watching for opportunities and waiting to see what will happen. So I have appointed my son Antiochus to be king, whom I have often entrusted and commended to most of you when I hurried off to the upper provinces; and I have written to him what is written here. 26I therefore urge and beg you to remember the public and private services rendered to you and to maintain your present goodwill, each of you, toward me and my son. 27For I am sure that he will follow my policy and will treat you with moderation and kindness."
28 So the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the more intense suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a most pitiable fate, among the mountains in a strange land. 29And Philip, one of his courtiers, took his body home; then, fearing the son of Antiochus, he withdrew to Ptolemy Philometor in Egypt.

So did Antiochus die from stoning and dismemberment in Persia ...or by an "annoying" disease in the mountains, having left Persia?


Tobit is said to have lived 158 years (14:11), yet, supposedly, he was alive back when Jeroboam revolted against Jerusalem (931 B.C.), and then still around when the Assyrians invaded Israel (722/21 B.C.) - a span of some 210 years (Tobit 1:3-5) - hmmm.


And check this:
Wisdom of Soloman 8:
19 As a child I was naturally gifted,
and a good soul fell to my lot;
20 or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body.

Preexistence of the soul?

[bleechers]

So by your logic does this mean the book of Jonah is not true because it tells of an absurd story of a guy living in a whale for a few days?

A. Are you debating? See Rules.

B. Jesus validates the authenticity of Jonah. Period.

C. A certain Commission does not validate the literal interpretation of Jonah.

D. I'll go with Jesus.

E. See Rules. :)

[eldermike]

The bible tells us that God gives some the gift of teaching. He also holds them to a higher standard. The fact that there are false teachers is also promised and it's simply part of this fallen world.

The idea that biblical clarity is in the hands of man is as far from biblical as one can get. Teachers are to be tested with scripture itself. You are to show YOURSELF approved by YOUR study of scripture. If you hear something that sounds wrong to you, doesn't measure up to your study of scripture, then you may be hearing a false teacher. But, there is only one defense from false teaching, and it's not a man made defense, it's YOU and your relationship with Christ and your close and constant prayer life, and personal study of the bible. If you hand over this important issue of your Spiritual life to an organization you are trusting in yours and other's intellect in a fallen world.

There is good reason for trusting the bible. It's actually the same reason others trust institution's. We can't be trusted to ascend to the truth, so it was given to us. (This simple truth is revealed by several posters in this thread, all coming from different directions, but identifying the same issue.)
To give this away is giving up. To make arguments that are essentially "I don't get it, so it must be that you also don't get it" is proof that our pride and trust in our personal abilities and intellect has been placed above trust in God. The fact is.....some DO get it!!!! Your not hearing them is your problem, it's not evidence of a religious process problem, it's evidence of pride and the cries of those in bondage. It's the same response as the slaves in John 8 who claimed Abraham, but did not know they were trying to teach God Himself about religion.





Eldermike

[Servant of the Kingdom]

A. Are you debating? See Rules.

B. Jesus validates the authenticity of Jonah. Period.



bleechers, Jesus used parables so often that the very 12 had trouble understanding him quite often. I find both the sapiential and historical interpration compatible with Jesus words. I will find truth in heaven, I guess
:D.

[eldermike]

bleechers, Jesus used parables so often that the very 12 had trouble understanding him quite often. I find both the sapiential and historical interpration compatible with Jesus words. I will find truth in heaven, I guess
http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif.
When Jesus said "It is like" we know it's a parable. Beyond that we have only our reasons for thinking such. It can even sound reasonable but the questions is: If Jesus told us He was using a parable, every time He did so, why did He leave that part out when He told us about Jonah?

Mike

[Crazy Liz]

The lists above include the OT Aprocrypha. It existed in Christ's day...but this is what Christ included:

Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.


In the Hebrew Tanckh, Malachi came before Zachariah. The Tanckh does not include the Aprocrypha. Tobit, 1 and 2 maccabees, judith..wee all written after Zachariah. NONE of the Apropcrypha books, like Tobit, are quoted in the NT.


I have never before heard this argument that Jesus defined the canon in Matthew 23:35. You might be able to defend your argument if you can show that any of the books in dispute record the murder of a prophet by his/her own people.

The canon of the Tanach was settled after the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. There is plenty of evidence (particularly the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls) that before that there was considerable diversity in OT manuscripts. Without the Temple to unite Jews, attention was paid to uniting them around a standardized canon of scripture. Of course, by this time the Pharisaical rabbis already had an interest in seeing to it that their own canon did not support the rival Christian movement.

The most ancient list of Old Testament books is that which was made by Melito of Sardis (cf. A.D. 170); none of the apocryphal books is included (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.14).

We can see by the diversity of the early lists that the issue was not settled at this time.

The Eastern Orthodox have for a very long time considered these books valuable, and suitable for reading in church on some occasions, but not as high as the OT and the NT. They also, like many Christians, hold the four gospels in special respect within all of scripture.

Let's look at what is said in the Aporcrypha:
2 Maccabees 1:14-16
13When the leader reached Persia with a force that seemed irresistible, they were cut to pieces in the temple of Nanea by a deception employed by the priests of the goddessd Nanea. 14On the pretext of intending to marry her, Antiochus came to the place together with his Friends, to secure most of its treasures as a dowry. 15When the priests of the temple of Nanea had set out the treasures and Antiochus had come with a few men inside the wall of the sacred precinct, they closed the temple as soon as he entered it. 16Opening a secret door in the ceiling, they threw stones and struck down the leader and his men; they dismembered them and cut off their heads and threw them to the people outside.

2 Mac. 9: 19 "To his worthy Jewish citizens, Antiochus their king and general sends hearty greetings and good wishes for their health and prosperity. 20If you and your children are well and your affairs are as you wish, I am glad. As my hope is in heaven, 21I remember with affection your esteem and goodwill. On my way back from the region of Persia I suffered an annoying illness, and I have deemed it necessary to take thought for the general security of all. 22I do not despair of my condition, for I have good hope of recovering from my illness, 23but I observed that my father, on the occasions when he made expeditions into the upper country, appointed his successor, 24so that, if anything unexpected happened or any unwelcome news came, the people throughout the realm would not be troubled, for they would know to whom the government was left. 25Moreover, I understand how the princes along the borders and the neighbors of my kingdom keep watching for opportunities and waiting to see what will happen. So I have appointed my son Antiochus to be king, whom I have often entrusted and commended to most of you when I hurried off to the upper provinces; and I have written to him what is written here. 26I therefore urge and beg you to remember the public and private services rendered to you and to maintain your present goodwill, each of you, toward me and my son. 27For I am sure that he will follow my policy and will treat you with moderation and kindness."
28 So the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the more intense suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a most pitiable fate, among the mountains in a strange land. 29And Philip, one of his courtiers, took his body home; then, fearing the son of Antiochus, he withdrew to Ptolemy Philometor in Egypt.

So did Antiochus die from stoning and dismemberment in Persia ...or by an "annoying" disease in the mountains, having left Persia?

This argument is dangerous, as it also undermines the NT:

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus-- he was one of our number and shared in this ministry."
(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Did Judas hang himself, or did he fall and his intestines spill out? Did Judas buy the Field of Blood, or did the priests?


Tobit is said to have lived 158 years (14:11), yet, supposedly, he was alive back when Jeroboam revolted against Jerusalem (931 B.C.), and then still around when the Assyrians invaded Israel (722/21 B.C.) - a span of some 210 years (Tobit 1:3-5) - hmmm.

So Tobit isn't excluded by your earlier argument that only writings from before the time of Malachi (or Zachariah) can be OT scripture.

An extreme view of sola scriptura and an extreme view of biblical inerrancy are very difficult to defend. The arguments used to discredit other books can be used to discredit scriptures, as well. (People who live in glass houses, yo know... ;) ) You yourself rely on extrabiblical tradition to decide which books are and which are not canonical. The Bible is not self-proving.

This does not mean that we should not hold scripture in highest respect and use it as a measure for anything and everything else claimed to have been revealed by God or claimed to be a godly or ungodly practice. Christians have always done this. This practice is strongly supported by both scripture and tradition.

Unfortunately, the kinds of arguments you are making hurt the church in its defense of scripture, since they are so easy to debunk. Keep doing your research and come up with some better ones.

[JeffreyLloyd]

When Jesus said "It is like" we know it's a parable. Beyond that we have only our reasons for thinking such. It can even sound reasonable but the questions is: If Jesus told us He was using a parable, every time He did so, why did He leave that part out when He told us about Jonah?

Mike

Based on that, how would you interpret John 6: 53-55 ?

[eldermike]

Based on that, how would you interpret John 6: 53-55 ? By reading on to 63. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."

[bleechers]

For my Baptist friends:

John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

People are not metaphors. When Jesus said "I am the door" He no more meant He was a piece if wood than He meant He was flour and water when when He said "I am the bread of Life."

John 6:66-69
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Note: not "Lord give us this flesh and blood now! How long do we have to wait around?" No. he knew that Jesus had the "words" of eternal life. For, as eldermike alread noted, Jesus said "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

v58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Also, if He meant that by doing this ONCE that one had eternal life, it is consistent with salvation by faith as taught everywhere else by Christ and most certainly by Paul. "Eternal life" is not an incremental idea.


Matthew 12:41
The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

These are real people. Jesus is greater than "the prophet". It would not make sense to say He was greater than "the imaginary figure".

:)

[theseed]

Based on that, how would you interpret John 6: 53-55 ?
You mean you don't think Jonah is literal? But you believe that Mary remained a virgin :rolleyes:

[Servant of the Kingdom]

theseed, do you have inside info on Mary? :p

[twosid]

By reading on to 63. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Can you explain this to me and how it answers Jeffrey's question?

[FreeinChrist]

I have never before heard this argument that Jesus defined the canon in Matthew 23:35. You might be able to defend your argument if you can show that any of the books in dispute record the murder of a prophet by his/her own people.later you wrote:
So Tobit isn't excluded by your earlier argument that only writings from before the time of Malachi (or Zachariah) can be OT scripture.That Jesus mentions Zechariah last gives support to the ordering of OT scripture in the day of Jesus Christ, for the prophet Urijah was killed by king Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:20-23) more than a century after the martyrdom of Zechariah. King Jehoiakim was the 18th ruler of the southern kingdom of Judah, and he reigned from 609-598 B.C.

But your reasoning above is not making sense to me, for I and 2 Macabees, Tobit, Judith and more were written between what we call the Old Testament and the New Testament. Judith was completed about 100 BC. Tobit was written about 280-300 BC.

The addition to Daniel, referred to as 'Bel and the Dragon', was written about 2nd century BC, while the rest of Daniel was written centuries earlier.

But I see what you are saying about the prophets....and will check on that.



Now I wrote:
So did Antiochus die from stoning and dismemberment in Persia ...or by an "annoying" disease in the mountains, having left Persia?:
And you wrote:

This argument is dangerous, as it also undermines the NT:
? That doesn't make sense to me either. Tobit has antiochus dying 2 different ways in the very same book. Different locations.

The differences in the account of how Judas died can be explained. This site does it well:
http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt27_3.htm
How did Judas die, by hanging or falling down?
Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:16-19


By hanging(Matthew 27:3-8 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Matt/matt_27.htm#1)) - "Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" 5And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6And the chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood." 7And they counseled together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers. 8For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day."
By falling(Acts 1:16-19 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Acts/acts_1.htm#14)) - "Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17"For he was counted among us, and received his portion in this ministry." 18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)"
There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. In fact, what happened here is that Judas went and hung himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight and his body fell down and his bowels spilled out.
Also, notice that Matt. 27:3-8 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Matt/matt_27.htm#1) tells us specifically how Judas died, by hanging. Acts 1:16-19 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Acts/acts_1.htm#14) merely tells us that he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Acts does not tell us that this is the means of his death where Matthew does.



The canon of the Tanach was settled after the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. There is plenty of evidence (particularly the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls) that before that there was considerable diversity in OT manuscripts. Without the Temple to unite Jews, attention was paid to uniting them around a standardized canon of scripture. Of course, by this time the Pharisaical rabbis already had an interest in seeing to it that their own canon did not support the rival Christian movement.
Seems that your main complaint is that you beleive the OT canon was in question. But the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that the OT was available in Jesus' day.

This article does a good job of examining the inspiration of the Apocrypha:

http://www.probe.org/docs/apocrypha.html

And this site is good too:
http://wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/fathers.htm


Unfortunately, the kinds of arguments you are making hurt the church in its defense of scripture, since they are so easy to debunk..I don't believe they are easy to debunk, and you haven't debunked them at all.

I'll point one more inconsistency between the apocrypha and the OT.
Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 For thy all-powerful hand,
which created the world out of formless matter,
did not lack the means to send upon them a
multitude of bears, or bold lions,

formless matter???? Compare that to:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.Psa 33:7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses.Psa 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.Psa 33:9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.
Hbr 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

[twosid]

By reading on to 63. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."


I'm not sure what you are saying here. Can you explain this to me and how it answers Jeffrey's question?

Are you planning on responding to this? If not can you say so please?

[Rising_Suns]

Can you really ignore history and tradition?

Yes. Jesus did.


Paul said in Galatians that the gospel had been preached and delivered and could not be changed.

Paul also said to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15).

[theseed]

Paul also said to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15).
Which we have in Paul's letters. So its not just any traditions here, but the traditions they had been taught.

[theseed]

theseed, do you have inside info on Mary? :p
What does Mary have to do with sola scriptura :confused:

[FreeinChrist]

Paul also said to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15).
The context that verse is given is very important.
Someone claiming to have a message or letter from Paul had told the Thessalonians that they were alredy in the Day of the lord and distressed them.
2Th 2:2

that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

It is because of this false message that Paul concluded the letter with this:
2Th 3:17 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write.
So when Paul wrote:
2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us.
He was referring to what he, himself, wrote to them or said when he was there with them.

Now the Pharisees had their traditions that they handed down that went beyond the Law. Jesus had this to say about their traditions:
Mat 15:5 "But you say, 'Whoever says to {his} father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given {to God,}"Mat 15:6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And {by this} you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.Mat 15:7 "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:Mat 15:8 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.Mat 15:9 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' "

[Rising_Suns]

2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word {of mouth} or by letter from us.
He was referring to what he, himself, wrote to them or said when he was there with them

Right; what he wrote down (recorded in the Bible), and what he said (not recorded in the Bible).

[FreeinChrist]

[/color]

Right; what he wrote down (recorded in the Bible), and what he said (not recorded in the Bible).
Yes...but it is not a support for the way tradition is viewed by some today.

As the Pharisees added to teaching, so can NT Christians. The fake message from paul was one way that false tradition can be added.

[Rising_Suns]

Yes...but it is not a support for the way tradition is viewed by some today.

As the Pharisees added to teaching, so can NT Christians. The fake message from paul was one way that false tradition can be added.Right, but the point was that not every tradition Paul taught was written down in his letters.

[FreeinChrist]

I believe Paul covered everything that was essential. The writer of hebrews added more. As did the other writers.

[II Paradox II]

Right, but the point was that not every tradition Paul taught was written down in his letters.
a few points here:

1) The argument we have with many such "apostolic traditions" that have been passed down is that we don't think they really have been passed down! For example, we recognize that the apostles probably taught that at least a few of the books of scripture were canonical, and that this teaching is extra-scriptural (because they didn't write it down in the bible itself except in one or two locations). However, when one advances a notion that for instance, the Imacculate Conception was a tradition handed down by the apostles in the same sense, we doubt the legitimacy of that claim on historical grounds because it has far less evidence for it that the canon does.

2) The notion that the scriptures are "materially sufficient", or that they contain all Christian doctrine within their pages (or at least all essential doctrine), is a common thought among the fathers of the church while the opposite view is less dominant.

3) In light of that, it isn't enough to say that Paul had other traditions outside of scripture because this material insufficiency view has problems on historical grounds as well as it doesn't establish the validity of individual traditions which still need to be vetted for legitimacy.

ken

[Rising_Suns]

2) The notion that the scriptures are "materially sufficient", or that they contain all Christian doctrine within their pages (or at least all essential doctrine), is a common thought among the fathers of the church while the opposite view is less dominant.Yes, but now you are going beyond the scope of Scripture to prove your point, which is not Sola Scriptura. If you take into account the writings of the early Church fathers on Scriptural sufficiency, then you must also take into account their other writings such as their belief in Apostolic Succession, Confession, ordination, the Real Presence, Apsotolic Tradition, etc.

This topic is about the authority of the Bible alone, and my point was simply, that the Bible itself indicates that there were teachings and traditions passed down that were not recorded in writing, which suggests their could be an extra-Biblical presence of authroity. It is also worthy to note that nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the eclusive authority of God's word.

EDIT: I just realized what forum I was in. I apologize for debating here. sorry!

[II Paradox II]

Yes, but now you are going beyond the scope of Scripture to prove your point, which is not Sola Scriptura.
Sure it is. Sola scriptura as the refomers defined it (and I am confessionally reformed) did not say that their was no authority outside of scripture, just that the scriptures are the sole infallible authority for doctrine. It is a reaction to those who appealed to the custom and traditions of their churches to establish doctrine and bind the hearts of believers.

If you take into account the writings of the early Church fathers on Scriptural sufficiency, then you must also take into account their other writings such as their belief in Apostolic Succession, Confession, ordination, the Real Presence, Apsotolic Tradition, etc.
a few thoughts here:

1) I do take those into account. I spend a lot of time reading them and trying to figure out how Church history fits together.

2) The establishment of your religious authority (church, tradition, reason, scripture, etc...) is not identical to beliefs on such things as baptism and real presence. What you see as your authorities will determine how you view these other issues because it establishes where you getyour imformation about those beliefs. Ergo - this issue in particular is of paramount importance and relevence above the others you listed.

3) I would add that the equation goes both ways. I critique your view of scripture and tradition because I think it is a foreign to the dominant patristic view, and you may in turn critique my other views as being foreign to them as well.

4) I should add as well that depending on how you view the fathers views of scripture could radically affect how much their own teachings will affect your views. To the extent that you see them as authorities in their own right will determine how you interact with their views.

This topic is about the authority of the Bible alone, and my point was simply, that the Bible itself indicates that there were teachings and traditions passed down that were not recorded in writing, which suggests their could be an extra-Biblical presence of authroity.
Most Christians I think would agree with this to some degree if they thought about it (i.e... my example of the canon, or the fact that Jesus spoke other words not recorded in scripture). If that's all you claim, I don't really have a big problem with it.

Where the issue becomes contentious is when claims are made that specific teachings are apostolic traditions (such as the IC, or papal infallibility). The issue is, as always, whether supposed oral traditions from the apostles or Jesus really are such or whether they are illegitimate accretions to the faith.

ken

[Rising_Suns]

Most Christians I think would agree with this to some degree if they thought about it (i.e... my example of the canon, or the fact that Jesus spoke other words not recorded in scripture). If that's all you claim, I don't really have a big problem with it.

I see. So you are not a Sola Scripturist to the point where others seem to take it today. I have seen Christians speak of the "Scripture Alone" and leave it at that, neglecting the wirtings of the Church fathers and other historical evidence. In that sense, I take it you would agree with me that people should not simply point to the Bible for an answer to every question without taking into account the history, context it was written, and other forms of evidence by the Church fathers that can provide insight as to how the Bible was interpretted by the first Christians.

I just want to make sure that you agree with me that history is an important consideration when seeking to understand the true interpretation of the Bible.

Beyond this, I cannot comment, as I do not want to get into a debate. Just clarifying what you blieve.

[II Paradox II]

I see. So you are not a Sola Scripturist to the point where others seem to take it today. I have seen Christians speak of the "Scripture Alone" and leave it at that, neglecting the wirtings of the Church fathers and other historical evidence. I am Reformed and act within the general bounds of that confessional tradition. To borrow a statement I made on the soteriology forum:

"The reformers were for the most part Humanists. A humanist at that time was someone who advocated the study of original documents to critique modern views. This was in distinction to the reigning method of theologizing during the day, scholasticism. The scholastic method consisted primarily of building knowledge slowly by appealing to authority then adding your own insights. You can see this by looking at the use of textbooks such as Peter Abelard's "Sentences". The scholastics would take a book such as this, which was already a commentary on the scriptures and the fathers, and add their own commentary on the commentary. What you'd get after a while is increasingly specialized and technical discussions of formal theology that found itself removed from the original sources. The Humanist movement grew as a response to this and soon found it's most fertile ground in the reformation.

For the reformers then, the perspective was that one ought to go back to the scriptures and the early fathers for one's theology, as the scholastics had encrusted the simple faith with generations of speculation. You can see this for instance, in Calvin. In his combined works, he cites fathers from 100-400 AD well over 2,000 times (scholars have compiled a complete list you can get). Many of these cites are positive or at least given the respect of a thorough examination. This is in contrast to his cites of medieval schoolmen, number in the low hundreds, many of which are treated rather more harshly. If anything, the major reformers saw the early church as a golden age of Christianity, an age eclipsed by a corrupted post-schism papacy and it's attendant theological schools."

We hold the scriptures alone to be the standard of doctrine and the revelation of God. However, we do not ignore history or secondary sources of fallible authority (such as our confessions).

In that sense, I take it you would agree with me that people should not simply point to the Bible for an answer to every question without taking into account the history, context it was written, and other forms of evidence by the Church fathers that can provide insight as to how the Bible was interpretted by the first Christians. Yes, I would agree with that, though with stipulations. Those fathers should be read with respect, but the scriptures themselves are the final authority above any individual father or collection of them. Ultimately, they are fallible men and the scripture is God's infallible revelation.

Ultimately, the scriptures are what God uses to stregthen and teach his people. The writings of even the greatest man of the church is a shadow next to the light of the scriptures themselves.

I just want to make sure that you agree with me that history is an important consideration when seeking to understand the true interpretation of the Bible. Yes, it is. But it is not infallible itself, nor is it to be taken at face value without testing those historical view by scripture.

Beyond this, I cannot comment, as I do not want to get into a debate. Just clarifying what you blieve. that's fine.

ken

[Rising_Suns]

Thank you. I am glad to see you value history, as it would seem others have all but tossed it out the window today.

As to the general concensius of what the Church fathers believed, I suppose we will have to put it off for another discussion. May God's peace be forever with you. :)

[II Paradox II]

Thank you. I am glad to see you value history, as it would seem others have all but tossed it out the window today.
History has it's value. I think, however, that if someone is going to devote their life to studying anything, I'd much prefer it to be the scriptures rather than history. IMO - history is far more difficult to interpret than the scriptures ever could be. The sheer amount of information to be considered is so massive it's hard to know where to begin even on the most narrow and simple subjects.

As to the general concensius of what the Church fathers believed, I suppose we will have to put it off for another discussion. May God's peace be forever with you.
I'm sure it will come up again.

have a good day... :wave:

ken

[oworm]

For the life of me i cant remember; who said? "History teaches us that history teaches us nothing"

[II Paradox II]

For the life of me i cant remember; who said? "History teaches us that history teaches us nothing"
I think that comes from Hegel. :)

ken

[Koey]

You are quite correct that sola scriptura doesn't make sense. In one sense it is a fiction, because NO CHURCH follows it literally. ALL churches have added to the Bible their traditions, their legalistic rules and so on. However, sola scriptura is an ideal to be strived for in doctrine. It is perhaps like utopia and unrealizable. However, if we don't have something to shoot for, we will fall into the same traps the Church has fallen into for 2,000 years - creating extra rules like the Pharisees.

Granted, Baptists have some silly rules which do not come from the Bible. The no-alcohol rule is not even Scriptural. It is a man-made rule which crept in from the women's temperance movement. The no-dancing rule which some few Baptist churches still follow is another such silly example.

However, the sola scriptura ideal also weeds out some other silly man-made rules, like mandatory celibate pastors (contrary to 1Tim 3), making Mary a mediatrix (contrary to 1Tim 2:5), etc.

[Rising_Suns]

For the life of me i cant remember; who said? "History teaches us that history teaches us nothing"
It is unfortunate that some people actually believe that to be true.

[Koey]

I think the quote is closer to "the biggest lesson of history is that nobody learns anything from history." Wars? Hey we've learned that lesson ---- not. Famines caused by politics? Failed. You name it and we have failed to learn from history.

Now we do have some wonderful gadgets and stuff which we did learn from our technological history. It takes generations of history to build the wonderful technology we have today. However, the lessons, the morals and the wisdom of history have been lost on us. What usually happens is that a new generation throws out the good with the bad of former generations.

e.g. Democracy vs. Oligarchy or Monarchy. In a monarchy/oligarchy people are trained from childhood for the office they held. They were really qualified unlike our democratic politicians of today. Problem? Greed, corruption, absolute power - and those were the Christian kings. In a democracy we get to choose someone who is handsome or witty or quick thinking or makes wonderful materialistic promises and kick out those who are greedy and corrupted or have failed us in some way. Problem? We elect ignoramuses who only look good to an ignorant public. We have not learned from history, just swapped weak and ineffective government for weak and ineffective government.

What humanity has failed to learn is "love thy neighbor" is the only rule that really works. All else is a failure.

[Rising_Suns]

I think the quote is closer to "the biggest lesson of history is that nobody learns anything from history." Wars? Hey we've learned that lesson ---- not. Famines caused by politics? Failed. You name it and we have failed to learn from history.

Yes exactly. The guilt is on us because we haven't learned from it, which has nothing to do with the value of history of itself. If anything, it further supports the fact that we tend to ignore its value.

What humanity has failed to learn is "love thy neighbor" is the only rule that really works. All else is a failure.
Amen.

[Koey]

Yes exactly. The guilt is on us because we haven't learned from it, which has nothing to do with the value of history of itself. If anything, it further supports the fact that we tend to ignore its value.


Amen.I think that's 100% correct. History would be a FANTASTIC, VALUABLE lesson, IF we learned from it.

[II Paradox II]

It is unfortunate that some people actually believe that to be true.
What's even funnier is that Hegel said it... Doesn't quite jive with Thesis, Antithesis & Synthesis very well. He pretty much laid the foundations for the idea of development across many fields (including theology - influencing the development theories of Newman and Schaff alike).

ken

[ChiRho]

You are quite correct that sola scriptura doesn't make sense. In one sense it is a fiction, because NO CHURCH follows it literally. ALL churches have added to the Bible their traditions, their legalistic rules and so on.

Sola Scriptura


Q. Where in the Bible is the doctrine of sola scriptura taught? Are the verses of 2 Pet. 1:20 and 2 Pet. 3:15-16 contradictory to this doctrine?

A. The Latin expression "sola scriptura" refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm for all that is taught and confessed in the church. In numerous passages the Scriptures claim this authority for themselves as the inspired Word of God. For example, St. Paul writes in 2 Tim. 3:16, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...." (RSV). Likewise, the apostle Peter declares that "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet. 1:20-21; RSV). It should be remembered that acceptance of the Bible as the sole authority for teaching comes not from rational arguments or human traditions, but is a conviction produced by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. In other words, it is a matter of faith worked by the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures themselves (see 1 Thess. 2:13)!

There is, of course, no contradiction between 2 Pet. 1:20 and what Peter says later in 3:15-16. That the Scriptures may be difficult for human beings to understand in certain places does not take away from their divine authority. In fact, St. Peter's words underline the necessity and importance of praying for the Holy Spirit's guidance to properly interpret Scripture as we "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 3:18; emphasis added).

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2519

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Rising_Suns]

It's interesting that the first part of the question was never really answered.

[Koey]

...Are you willing to die based on what someone else believes about Christianity without searching it out yourself?...How can you throw away history and tradition?...Why was the bible changed during the reformation? Had it not been the Word of God for a long time prior? Can you really ignore history and tradition?...God left everyone in the wilderness for 1600 years following the birth of Christianity all certainly doomed to hell until somebody stumbled on Sola Scripture? :eek: Can you really believe this and claim yourself to be a rational person?So, I went back to your original post to see what you meant by not answering the first part. I'll give it a gooo...

Am I willing to die based on what someone else believes? No. I don't trust ANY church leaders/theologians to be 100% correct.
How can you throw out history, etc? I agree with you. The Holy Spirit has been with the Church of God for 2,000 years. It is not perfect, but we can learn much from Orthodox & Catholic history. That does not mean either one is 100% correct, but neither are you and I. :)
Why was the Bible changed? A good question. The deuterocanonical books have never had the same import as the primary canon. The Protestant reformers believed that the Jews were the "authority" on what was OT Scripture. The second canon is only found in the Greek OT, not the Hebrew. The Jews did not recognize the Apocrypha as OT canon. Does it matter? For hundreds of years most Christian churches did not have the entire NT, but only portions. I think we get overly superstitious about the canon of Scripture. I think the deuterocanonical books have value, but don't put them in first place. So do Catholics and Orthodox by the way.
Was the Church in the wilderness before the Protestants came along? No, Baptist successionism is just as suspect as Catholic successionism.
Sola Scriptura? It is in one sense a fiction, because we all have our traditions. It is in another sense an ideal, because of the human tendency to add a Christian version of the Pharisaic Talmud, rules of touch not, taste not.
For my personal faith, I apply the idealistic principal of sola scriptura to help me weed out man-made rubbish while I also learn from the wonderful good things God has taught the Orthodox, Catholics and orthodox Protestant churches which are more educated in the Scriptures (some are pretty ignorant). I'm guessing I have lots of company. I believe that lay people often have more common sense than denominationally bigoted theologians. Not all theologians are denominationally bigoted though and their numbers seem to be growing.

[Rising_Suns]

Was the Church in the wilderness before the Protestants came along? No, Baptist successionism is just as suspect as Catholic successionism.

Just a point of clarification, but if you are referring to valid Apostolic Succession, the Catholic Church indeed has it; She can trace an unbroken line of Papal successors back through time to the disciple Peter.

[Koey]

Just a point of clarification, but if you are referring to valid Apostolic Succession, the Catholic Church indeed has it; She can trace an unbroken line of Papal successors back through time to the disciple Peter.
Yes, that's the theory. Although I haven't seen the proof or documentation myself. You apparently have a wonderful line of history as do those awesome and faithful Orthodox Christians. However, being in a line of succession means absolutely nothing if you have no love.

Some Baptists claim an unbroken line of immersionists from Christ. Some Saturday Sabbatarians claim an unbroken line of Sabbath keepers from Christ. Some Pentecostals claim an unbroken line of tongues speakers from Christ.

All successionism theories are worthless if we do not love God with our whole hearts and love our neighbor as ourselves. Even Jesus praised the schismatic Samaritan who was not in succession yet had more love than two religious leaders in the line of Jewish succession.

[Rising_Suns]

Some Baptists claim an unbroken line of immersionists from Christ. Some Saturday Sabbatarians claim an unbroken line of Sabbath keepers from Christ. Some Pentecostals claim an unbroken line of tongues speakers from Christ.

Yes brother, I am familar with those claims. I just wanted to clarify that ours are actually founded, well documented, and supported by all histroical evidence.


Just for your personal edification (and, I apologize to others for this taking up so much space. forgive me.)


1) St. Peter (42-67)
2) St. Linus (67-76)
3) St. Cletus (76-88)
4) St. Clement 1 (88-97)
5) St. Evaristus (97-105)
6) St. Alexander I (105-1l5)
7) St. Sixtus I (1l5-125)
8) St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9) St. Hyginus (136-140)
10) St. Pius I (140-155)
11) St. Anicetus (155-166)
12) St. Soter (166-175)
13) St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14) St. Victor I (189-199)
15) St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16) St. Callistus (217-222)
Hippolytus St. (217-235)
17) St. Urban I (222-230)
18) St. Pontian (230-235)
19) St. Anterus (235-236)
20) St. Fabian (236-250)
21) St. Cornelius (251-253)
Novatianus (251)
22) St. Lucius I (253-254)
23) St. Stephen I (254-257)
24) St. Sixtus I1 (257-258)
25) St. Dionysius (256-268)
26) St. Felix I (269-274)
27) St. Eutychian (275-283)
28) St. Caius (283-296)
29) St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30) St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31) St. Eusebius (309)
32) St. Miltiades (31l-314)
or Melchiades
33) St. Sil Vester I (314-335)
34) St. Mark (336)
35) St. Julius I (337-352)
36) Liberius (352-366)
Felix II (355-365)
37) St. Damasus I (366-384)
Ursjnus (366-384)
38) St. Siricius (384-399)
39) St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40) St. Innocent I (401-417)
41) St. Zosimus (417-418)
42) St. Boniface I (418-422)
Eulallo (418-419)
43) St. Celestine I (422-432)
44) St. Sixtus III (432-440)
45) St. Leo I (440-461)
46) St. Hilarus (461-468)
47) St. Simplicius (468-483)
48) St. Felix III (483-492)
49) St. Gelasius I (492-496)
50) Anastasius II (496-498)
51) St. Symmachus (498-514)
Laurence (498-501-505)
52) St. Hormisdas (514-523)
53) St. John I (523-526)
54) St. Felix IV (526-530)
55) Boniface II (530-532)
Dioscoro (530)
56) John II (533-535)
57) Agapitus I (535-536)
58) St. Silverius (536-537)
59) Vigilius (537.555)
60) Pelagius I (556-561)
61) John III (561-574)
62) Benedict I (575-579)
63) Pelagius II (579-590)
64) St. Gregory I (590-604)
65) Sabinian (604-606)
66) Boniface III (607)
67) St. Boniface IV (608-615)
68) St. Adeodatus (615-618)
or Deusdeit I
69) Boniface V (619-625)
70) Honorius I (625-638)
71) Severinus (640)
72) John IV (640-642)
73) Theodore I (642-649)
74) St. Martin I (649-655)
75) St. Eugene I (654-657)
76) St. Vitalian (657-672)
77) Adeodatus II (672-676)
78) Donus (676-678)
79) St. Agatho (678-681)
80) St. Leo II (682-683)
81) St. Benedict II (684-685)
82) John V (685-686)
83) Conon (686-687)
Theodore (687)
Paschal (687)
84) St. Sergius I (687-701)
85) John VI (701-705)
86) John VII (705-707)
87) Sissinius (708)
88) Constantine (708-715)
89) St. Gregory II (715-731)
90) St. Gregory III (731-741)
91) St. Zacharias (741-752)
92) Stephen II (752-757)
93) St. Paul I (757-767)
Constantine (767-769)
Philip (768)
94) Stephen III (768-772)
95) Hadrian I (772-795)
96) St. Leo III (795-816)
97) Stephen IV (816-817)
98) St. Paschal I (817-824)
99) Eugene II (824-827)
100) Valentine (827)
101) Gregory IV (827-844)
John (844)
102) Sergius II (844-847)
103) St. Leo IV (847-855)
104) Benedict III (855-858)
Anastasius (855-880)
105) St. Nicholas (858-867)
106) Hadrian II (867-872)
107) John VIII (872-882)
108) Marinus I (882-884)
109) St. Hadrian III (884-885)
1l0) Stephen V (885-891)
1ll) Formosus (891-896)
1l2) Boniface VI (896)
1l3) Stephen VI (896-897)
1l4) Romanus (897)
115) Theodore II (897)
1l6) John IX (898-900)
117) Benedict IV (900-903)
1l8) Leo V (903)
Christopher (903-904)
1l9) Sergius III (904-91l)
120) Anastasius III (91l-913)
121) Lando (913-914)
122) John X (914-928)
123) Leo VI (928)
124) Stephen VII (928-931)
125) John XI (931-935)
126) Leo VII (936-939)
127) Stephen VIII (939-942)
128) Marinus II (942-946)
129) Agapitus II (946-955)
130) John XII (955-964)
131) Leo VIII (963-965)
132) Benedict V (964-966)
133) John XIII (965-972)
134) Benedict VI (973-974)
Boniface VII (974-985)
135) Benedict VII (974-983)
136) John XIV (983-984)
137) John XV (985-996)
138) Gregory V (996-999)
John XVI (997-998)
139) Silvester II (999-1003)
140) John XVII (1003)
141) John XVIII (1004-1009)
142) Sergius IV (1009-1012)
143) Benedict VIII (1012-1024)
Gregory (1012)
144) John XIX (1024-1032)
145) Benedict IX (1032-1044)
146) Silvester III (1045)
147) Benedict IX (1045)
148) Gregory VI (1045-1046)
149) Clement II (1046-1047)
150) Benedict IX (1047-1048)
151) Damasus II (1048)
152) St. Leo IX (1049-1054)
153) Victor II (1055-1057)
154) Stephen IX (1057-1058)
Bened1ct X (1058-1059)
155) Nicholas II (1059-1061)
156) Alexander II (1061-1073)
Honorius II (1061-1072)
157) St. Gregory VII (1073-1085)
Clement III (1084-1100)
158) Bl. Victor III (1086-1087)
159) Bl. Urban II (1088-1099)
160) Paschal II (1099-1118)
Theodoric (1100-1102)
Albert (1102)
Sylvester IV (1105-1111)
161) Gelasius II (1118-1119)
Gregory VII (1118-1121)
162) Callistus II (1119-1124)
163) Honorius II (1124-1130)
Celestine II (1124)
164) Innocent II (1130-1143)
Cletus II (1130-1138)
Victor IV (1138)
165) Celestine II (1143-1144)
166) Lucius II (1144-1145)
167) Bl. Eugene III (1145-1153)
168) Anastasius IV (1153-1154)
169) Hadrian IV (1154-1159)
170) Alexander III (1159-1181)
Victor IV (1159-1164)
Paschal III (1164-1168)
Callistus III (1168-1178)
Innocent III (1179-1180)
17l) Lucius III (1181-1185)
172) Urban III (1185-1187)
173) Gregory VIII (1187)
174) Clement III (1187-1191)
175) Celestine III (1191-1198)
176) Innocent III (1198-1216)
177) Honorius III (1216-1227)
178) Gregory IX (1227-1241)
179) Celestine IV (1241)
180) Innocent IV (1243-1254)
181) Alexander IV (1254-1261)
182) Urban IV (1261-1264)
183) Clement IV (1265-1268)
184) Bl. Gregory X (1272-1276)
185) Bl. Innocent V (1276)
186) Hadrian V (1276)
187) John XXI (1276-1277)
188) Nicholas III (1277-1280)
189) Martin IV (1281-1285)
190) Honorius IV (1285-1287)
191) Nicholas IV (1288-1292)
192) St. Celestine V (1294)
193) Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
194) Bl. Benedict XI (1303-1304)
195) Clement V (1305-1314)
196) John XXII (1316-1334)
Nicholas V (1328-1333)
197) Benedict XII (1335-1342)
198) Clement VI (1342-1352)
199) Innocent VI (1352-1362)
200) Bl. Urban V (1362-1370)
201) Gregory XI (1371-1378)
202) Urban VI (1378-1389)
203) Boniface IX (1389-1404)
204) Innocent VII (1404-1406)
205) Gregory XII (1406-1415) Clement VII (1378-1394)
Benedict XII1 (1394-1423) Alexander V (1409-1410)
John XXI11 (1410-1415)
206) Martin V (1417-1431)
207) Eugene IV (1431-1447)
Felix V (1440-1449)
208) Nicholas V (1447-1455)
209) Calixtus III (1455-1458)
210) Pius II (1458-1464)
211) Paul II (1464-1471)
212) Sixtus IV (1471-1484)
213) Innocent VIII (1484-1492)
214) Alexander VI (1492-1503)
215) Pius III (1503)
216) Julius II (1503-1513)
217) Leo X (1513-1521)
218) Hadrian VI (1522-1523)
219) Clement VII (1523-1534)
220) Paul III (1534-1549)
221) Jules III (1550-1555)
222) Marcellus II (1555)
223) Paul IV(1555-1559)
224) Pius IV (1560-1565)
225) St. Pius V (1566-1572)
226) Gregory XIII (1572-1585)
227) Sixtus V (1585-1590)
228) Urban VII (1590)
229) Gregory XIV (1590-1591)
230) Innocent IX (1591)
231) Clement VIII (1592-1605)
232) Leo XI (1605)
233) Paul V (1605.1621)
234) Gregory XV (1621-1623)
235) Urban VIII (1623-1644)
236) Innocent X (1644-1655)
237) Alexander VII (1655-1667)
238) Clement IX (1667-1669)
239) Clement X (1669-1676)
240) Bl. Innocent XI (1676-1689)
241) Alexander VIII (1689-1691)
242) Innocent XII (1691-1700)
243) Clement XI (1700-1721)
244) Innocent XIII (1721-1724)
245) Benedict XIII (1724-1730)
246) Clement XII (1730-1740)
247) Benedict XIV (1740-1758)
248) Clement XIII (1758-1769)
249) Clement XIV (1769-1774)
250) Pius VI (1775-1799)
251) Pius VII (1800-1823)
252) Leo XII (1823-1829)
253) Pius VIII (1829-1830)
254) Gregory XVI (1831-1846)
255) Pius IX (1846-1878)
256) Leo XIII (1878-1903)
257) St. Pius X (1903-1914)
258) Benedict XV (1914-1922)
259) Pius XI (1922-1939)
260) Pius XII (1939-1958)
261) John XXIII (1959-1963)
262) Paul VI (1963-1978)
263) John Paul I (1978)
264) John Paul II (1978-


All successionism theories are worthless if we do not love God with our whole hearts and love our neighbor as ourselves.

Yes most definately. That is the heart of Christianity.

In Christ,
-Davide

[SumTinWong]

Here's some information on reasons why the Apocrypha is not considered canonical:

http://nc.essortment.com/whatapocrypha_rgcf.htm

-Michael
I wouldn't hang my hat on that website so quickly. The second reason may or may not be true:

2. Jesus Christ, nor any of the New Testament writers, ever quoted from the Apocrypha.

Well scholars are baffled by a verse in the NT by a man named Jude:
But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses, he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, Let the Lord rebuke you! Jude 1:9

The OT doesn't mention this at all. So where did he get this information?

Origen said it was possibly from a book called "the Ascension of Moses", which was one such book. Others have said that it was rabbinical teaching, or tradition. So we have no idea that this statement is true or not.

By the way i got this information from "John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible"

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Davide

Intresting list there not that I would think that it is not the offical list from the vatican. It in of it's self raises some good questions:

Peter, Linus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus

However Irenaeus and Eusebius say the order is:

Peter, Linus, Anencletus, Clement

Contrarily to both, Hippolytus in Canons, XXIII holds Clement to have been ordained by Peter, and thus his immediate successor.

I believe that there is a good book out ther by an RC Historian called the rise of the papacy the may address the error in the historical context of the list now used by the RCC. I hope some one may have this book and shed some historic back round on thius issue.

Peace to u,

Bill

Irenaeus, Adversus Omnes Haereses, III, iii, 3, and Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, ii, and IV, vi, give the order of the bishops of Rome as Peter, Linus, Anencletus, Clement. But Hippolytus, Canons, XXIII, says that Clement was ordained by Peter and thus regards Clement as Peter’s immediate successor. The present R.C. catalogue of popes follows the order Peter, Linus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus.

[Rising_Suns]

bras,
It did not come straight from the vatican so perhaps it could have one or two successors out of order from the Vatican list. However, whether Clement came before Anencletus or after him, my point still holds in that there exist an unbroken line of successors. That was the only reason for my clarification.

[BBAS 64]

bras,
It did not come straight from the vatican so perhaps it could have one or two successors out of order from the Vatican list. However, whether Clement came before Anencletus or after him, my point still holds in that there exist an unbroken line of successors. That was the only reason for my clarification.
Good Day, Rising_sun

Fair enough, the list that has been pointed to would lead one to a beleive that in and of it's self is self eveident. One may choose to look at a the historical support of any list and will find that some lists are differnet from others. One needs IMO to reconsile the obvious contradictions "if" that is even possible, with in the context of history and the information it provides.


Peace to u,

Bill

[Koey]

I really appreciate the list. However, I have not seen any biblical evidence that such a list is even mandatory. Mat 16:18 has been greatly overstated. Sure Peter and rock were the same in Aramaic, but the writer chose TWO different Greek words, perhaps to clarify something for those of us who were not there to see Jesus' gestures and to whom he was pointing. Whatever is really meant is thus in dispute.

We do not create whole doctrines on unclear passages of Scripture. Even though I highly respect Catholic theologians because of their great depth and wisdom, this particular area is just bad theology and the pictures of a key on the pope's regalia thus show support for a particularly weak conclusion, which I can only conclude is based upon power rather than good theology.

What Mat 16:18 does NOT say is more interesting. It does not say Peter would be the first pope with an unbroken line of successors and that only those guys would be the authorities. What it does not say shouts rather loudly.

Continuing with your theory of petrine "authority" though: What if some of those on your list were carnal as a bed bug? What if some were actually evil liars? How can we honestly say that the line is an unbroken spiritual list? How can we actually say that heaven supports this theory and no other "authorities?" It just doesn't make sense.

Sorry to be a pain. Don't want to offend. I just don't believe men. My faith is in Jesus not institutions of men.

[Bulldog]

So you are not a Sola Scripturist to the point where others seem to take it today. I have seen Christians speak of the "Scripture Alone" and leave it at that, neglecting the wirtings of the Church fathers and other historical evidence.

That sounds like the doctrine of solo scriptura, which is different from different from sola scriptura.

Here is a sola scripturaist critique on solo scriptura:

http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html