Early Church

[Montalban]

The men who wrote the scriptures did so from Power of the HS.. This is why I go clear back to them and their writings. I take everything that is being taught back to what the Apostles teach through their writings..God declares what is scripture and what is not. Not man. For not all writings are breathed by God.. This is why I go back to the writings of the Apostles.

So God compiled the Bible?

 

[Anglian]

The men who wrote the scriptures did so from Power of the HS.. This is why I go clear back to them and their writings. I take everything that is being taught back to what the Apostles teach through their writings..God declares what is scripture and what is not. Not man. For not all writings are breathed by God.. This is why I go back to the writings of the Apostles.

It is true that one of Paul's letters tell us Scripture is inspired, but where does it tell us what that Scripture is? Take II Peter, there is no way it was written before AD 80, so who wrote it? As you say, dead men don't write letters. It wasn't by St. Peter any more than Hebrews was by St. Paul. They both bear false names. How do you know they are inspired and not totally fake?

Answer - the tradition of the Church tells us so.

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

So God compiled the Bible?

You don't believe He did ? You believe that is was man and their own logic that compiled the bible?

 

[MamaZ]

It is true that one of Paul's letters tell us Scripture is inspired, but where does it tell us what that Scripture is? Take II Peter, there is no way it was written before AD 80, so who wrote it? As you say, dead men don't write letters. It wasn't by St. Peter any more than Hebrews was by St. Paul. They both bear false names. How do you know they are inspired and not totally fake?

Answer - the tradition of the Church tells us so.

peace,

Anglian

How is there no way it was written before AD 80? My answer differs from yours.. The Power of the HS His annointing in us..

 

[Montalban]

You don't believe He did ? You believe that is was man and their own logic that compiled the bible?

I believe God worked through man. But I note you didn't answer my question. Asking me a question is not an answer.

I note you don't even acknowledge your fundamentally basic mistake about "AD"

 

[Anglian]

Originally Posted by MamaZ
How is there no way it was written before AD 80? My answer differs from yours.. The Power of the HS His annointing in us..

I am never sure what your mantra at the end means. The fact is that you did not discover the NT canon by yourself, it is there and has been determined for all of us by the Church, guided by the HS. You seem to imagine the HS only inspired it on one thing; those of us who venerate the Blessed Theotokos accept the more logical one that the HS inspired the Church on all things - that was what the Lord promised. It seems strange to imagine that the HS went away after dropping off a book.

Now, as to the nature of that book, it is plain you have no answer to the question of where, in it, it states what should be there. II Peter is a good example of a very late work which was not received in many Churches.


That it is 'late' can be seen from the fact that one of its main themes is to tackle the claims of those who say that the non-arrival of the parousia shows the Faith to be in vain. We know that some early Christians had this problem, as Paul writes about it. This comes even later because those who deny it are drawing attention to the fact that since the fathers have fallen asleep everything remains as it has been from the beginning of creation (3:4). If the 'Fathers' have fallen asleep, and the tradition that St. John died in the 90s, this would place it very late indeed.


I Clem 23:3 f and II Clem 11:2 ff record opponents laying down the challenge "We have already heard that in the days of our fathers, but look, we are become old and nothing of that has happened to us." I Clem was written ca. 95, and II Clem can hardly have been written earlier than 150. We have historical evidence from the end of the first century onward for the skepticism which is expressed in II Pet 3:3 ff.

It was the Gnostics of the second century who opposed the parousia and reinterpreted it along spiritualistic lines. It may be that they are meant by the proclaimers of the "clever myths" (1:16) and of "knowledge". Characteristic of them are the libertinism and the insolent disrespect for spirit powers . II Pet is therefore aimed against a movement which bears the essential features of second-century gnositicism.

This quotation from the website offered by our friend Montalban is helpful here:

"Also indicative of the second century is the appeal to a collection of Pauline letters from which "statements that are hard to understand" have been misinterpreted by the false teachers, and to further normative writings which inlcude not only the OT but also the developing NT (3:16). In view of the difficulty in understanding "scripture," and its ambiguity, II Pet offers the thesis that "no prophetic scripture allows an individual interpretation" because men have spoken under the power of the Holy Spirit (1:20 f). Since not every Christian has the Spirit, the explanation of Scripture is reserved for the ecclesiastical teaching office. Accordingly we find ourselves without doubt far beyond the time of Peter and into the epoch of "early Catholocism."

It is certain, therefore, that II Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged."

So, how do you know that this book is 'inspired'? You know the same way as the rest of us - the Church told us so and some of us acknowledge that - others evade it.

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

So God compiled the Bible?

He sure did to my belief.. He is faithful to His people even when they are not faithful to him

 

[MamaZ]

I believe God worked through man. But I note you didn't answer my question. Asking me a question is not an answer.

I note you don't even acknowledge your fundamentally basic mistake about "AD"

Like I said when I post AD it is after Christs Death not the death of Peter or Paul..

 

[MamaZ]

I am never sure what your mantra at the end means. The fact is that you did not discover the NT canon by yourself, it is there and has been determined for all of us by the Church, guided by the HS.

Discover the NT by myself? Please expound.

You seem to imagine the HS only inspired it on one thing; those of us who venerate the Blessed Theotokos accept the more logical one that the HS inspired the Church on all things - that was what the Lord promised. It seems strange to imagine that the HS went away after dropping off a book.

The Church is still inspired by the HS.. Your view of church and my view are different though.

Now, as to the nature of that book, it is plain you have no answer to the question of where, in it, it states what should be there. II Peter is a good example of a very late work which was not received in many Churches.

We have gone over this a dozen times. For the HS annointing in us quickens truth to our inner beings of what is written of God. For the Spirit bears witness to the word and the Spirit dwells in us Gods temple.

That it is 'late' can be seen from the fact that one of its main themes is to tackle the claims of those who say that the non-arrival of the parousia shows the Faith to be in vain.

Still not understanding what you are saying here. Only God knows when that time is.

We know that some early Christians had this problem, as Paul writes about it. This comes even later because those who deny it are drawing attention to the fact that since the fathers have fallen asleep everything remains as it has been from the beginning of creation (3:4). If the 'Fathers' have fallen asleep, and the tradition that St. John died in the 90s, this would place it very late indeed.

Explain. For Peter knew that Christ was coming again. He still is coming in all His Glory for His bride. Your timing and Gods timing are not the same. For God has taken the foolish things of the world to confound the wise..

I Clem 23:3 f and II Clem 11:2 ff record opponents laying down the challenge "We have already heard that in the days of our fathers, but look, we are become old and nothing of that has happened to us." I Clem was written ca. 95, and II Clem can hardly have been written earlier than 150. We have historical evidence from the end of the first century onward for the skepticism which is expressed in II Pet 3:3 ff.

What does Clem have to do with what Peter wrote? I don't even know Clem.

It was the Gnostics of the second century who opposed the parousia and reinterpreted it along spiritualistic lines. It may be that they are meant by the proclaimers of the "clever myths" (1:16) and of "knowledge". Characteristic of them are the libertinism and the insolent disrespect for spirit powers . II Pet is therefore aimed against a movement which bears the essential features of second-century gnositicism.

There is nothing new under the sun. Even in Pauls day He had to write and let them know that He had not come yet and to not be afraid.. For this was started way back when Paul was still preaching the Gospel..
This quotation from the website offered by our friend Montalban is helpful here:

"Also indicative of the second century is the appeal to a collection of Pauline letters from which "statements that are hard to understand" have been misinterpreted by the false teachers, and to further normative writings which inlcude not only the OT but also the developing NT (3:16). In view of the difficulty in understanding "scripture," and its ambiguity, II Pet offers the thesis that "no prophetic scripture allows an individual interpretation" because men have spoken under the power of the Holy Spirit (1:20 f). Since not every Christian has the Spirit, the explanation of Scripture is reserved for the ecclesiastical teaching office. Accordingly we find ourselves without doubt far beyond the time of Peter and into the epoch of "early Catholocism."

Sorry but Peter does not say what you are trying to say he said. If a Christian does not have the Spirit then they are not a Christian for those who have not the Spirit have no part with Him who Calls us. For it is the Spirit who seals us. It by His Spirit that Jesus calls His sheep and it is By the Spirit that His sheep hear Him and will follow no other.

It is certain, therefore, that II Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged."

By who?

So, how do you know that this book is 'inspired'? You know the same way as the rest of us - the Church told us so and some of us acknowledge that - others evade it.

The Spirit in me bears witness to the word of God.
peace,

Anglian

So therefore if the scripture was indeed penned by Peter is was way before 80 AD

 

[Anglian]

Like I said when I post AD it is after Christs Death not the death of Peter or Paul..

Dear MamaZ,

AD is an abbreviation for 'Anno Domini', that is 'in the year of Our Lord'. This means we date things from His birth, not His death.

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

Dear MamaZ,

AD is an abbreviation for 'Anno Domini', that is 'in the year of Our Lord'. This means we date things from His birth, not His death.

peace,

Anglian

Oh well thanks for that it sure clears up alot for me.. So if AD is used as 'Anno Domini'. Then what is BC?

 

[Anglian]

Discover the NT by myself? Please expound.

What I meant was that you, like the rest of us, didn't establish the Canon; you, like the rest of us, read the book long-established by the Church.

The Church is still inspired by the HS.. Your view of church and my view are different though.

Indeed, but my view incorporates that Church which established the canon.

We have gone over this a dozen times. For the HS annointing in us quickens truth to our inner beings of what is written of God. For the Spirit bears witness to the word and the Spirit dwells in us Gods temple

Indeed, but this does not mean that the HS does not do this to His Church.

Still not understanding what you are saying here. Only God knows when that time is.

We know from Paul's letters that some early Christians took literally Christ's words that some would not know death before He came again. When this did not happen, people began to ask why, implying it made His whole teaching false. II Peter refers to the death of the Fathers - this makes it quite late.

What does Clem have to do with what Peter wrote? I don't even know Clem.

1 and 2 Clement both refer to the same problem over the Parousia, which suggests what common sense also suggests, that after the death of the last Apostle there was a problem with those who took Christ's words literally. This suggests that II Peter may well have come out of the same circumstances which produced 1 Clement; 1 Clement is included as Scripture in the earliest codices; if the Church Fathers had not excluded it, you would be telling us it was inspired, perhaps?

When you write:

Sorry but Peter does not say what you are trying to say he said. If a Christian does not have the Spirit then they are not a Christian for those who have not the Spirit have no part with Him who Calls us. For it is the Spirit who seals us. It by His Spirit that Jesus calls His sheep and it is By the Spirit that His sheep hear Him and will follow no other.

This shows the danger of assuming that your own personal private interpretation is definitive. Why does it not mean what the author (not me) says it means? He is writing about false teachers and telling us that the only real prophecy comes from within the Church.

If you look at any of the standard works of scholarship, Matzger, Green. Pelikan, not one of them thinks II Peter is earlier than 80. If you look at the website cited by Montalban here:
2 Peter
you will find more evidence.

More to the point, can you find any scholars who think it was written by St. Peter?

So therefore if the scripture was indeed penned by Peter is was way before 80 AD

I think that has been dealt with above and in my last post. Why do you think it was by St. Peter? Has the HS told you that specifically? Or is it because tradition traces to to St. Peter?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Oh well thanks for that it sure clears up alot for me.. So if AD is used as 'Anno Domini'. Then what is BC?

Glad to help dear sister

This is where it can confuse people. AD is Latin. BC is not, it means: 'Before Christ'.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Coralie]

nvm!

 

[MamaZ]

Originally Posted by MamaZ

Discover the NT by myself? Please expound.
​

What I meant was that you, like the rest of us, didn't establish the Canon; you, like the rest of us, read the book long-established by the Church.

Oh Okay I understand what you are saying. But what I don't understand is why does it matter who put the bible together? It is the words of the scripture such as the OT cannon that was already established as OT cannon before the church that really matter. This is what confuses me. I listen to the words of the book. I do not look to those who gather what was already written for it is the writings I am interested in for Christianity . They are food to a Spiritual body for they are Spirit. Jesus said the words that He spoke are Spirit and they are Life. We know that God spoke through Paul and Peter and John.. We know that God spoke through the Prophets of old.

The Church is still inspired by the HS.. Your view of church and my view are different though.
​

Indeed, but my view incorporates that Church which established the canon.

We have gone over this a dozen times. For the HS annointing in us quickens truth to our inner beings of what is written of God. For the Spirit bears witness to the word and the Spirit dwells in us Gods temple
​

Indeed, but this does not mean that the HS does not do this to His Church.

The HS will bear witness to what is written. There are three that bear witness and this is why we can trust the scripture and know that God has said..

Still not understanding what you are saying here. Only God knows when that time is.
​

We know from Paul's letters that some early Christians took literally Christ's words that some would not know death before He came again. When this did not happen, people began to ask why, implying it made His whole teaching false. II Peter refers to the death of the Fathers - this makes it quite late.

What does Clem have to do with what Peter wrote? I don't even know Clem.
​

1 and 2 Clement both refer to the same problem over the Parousia, which suggests what common sense also suggests, that after the death of the last Apostle there was a problem with those who took Christ's words literally. This suggests that II Peter may well have come out of the same circumstances which produced 1 Clement; 1 Clement is included as Scripture in the earliest codices; if the Church Fathers had not excluded it, you would be telling us it was inspired, perhaps?

I don't know if I would call it scripture because I have never read this person and would have to line up what he has to say through the full context of the scripture we have.. If it was excluded then why are we discussin this? For God is faithful and my trust is in Him.

When you write:

Sorry but Peter does not say what you are trying to say he said. If a Christian does not have the Spirit then they are not a Christian for those who have not the Spirit have no part with Him who Calls us. For it is the Spirit who seals us. It by His Spirit that Jesus calls His sheep and it is By the Spirit that His sheep hear Him and will follow no other.
​

This shows the danger of assuming that your own personal private interpretation is definitive. Why does it not mean what the author (not me) says it means? He is writing about false teachers and telling us that the only real prophecy comes from within the Church.

Lets look at the scripture for the answer to this. First this is what Peter said.

2Pe 1:15 And I will also be diligent to cause you always to have memory of these things after my departure.
2Pe 1:16 For not following fables which had been cleverly devised, but having become eyewitnesses of the majesty of Jesus Christ, we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord.
2Pe 1:17 For receiving honor and glory from God the Father such a voice being borne to Him from the magnificent glory, "This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I have been delighted," Psa. 2:7; Gen. 22:2; Isa. 42:1; Matt. 17:5
2Pe 1:18 even we heard this voice being borne out of Heaven, being with Him in the holy mountain,
2Pe 1:19 and we have the more established prophetic Word, in which you do well to take heed, as to a lamp shining in a murky place, until day dawns and the Light-bearing One rises in your hearts;
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture did not come into being of its own interpretation;
2Pe 1:21 for prophecy was not at any time borne by the will of man, but being borne along by the Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke

More to the point, can you find any scholars who think it was written by St. Peter?

So therefore if the scripture was indeed penned by Peter is was way before 80 AD
​

I think that has been dealt with above and in my last post. Why do you think it was by St. Peter? Has the HS told you that specifically? Or is it because tradition traces to to St. Peter?

When you line what is said in second Peter to the full context of the other scripture it lines up.. This is why we take all we have been taught and heard the the full context of the scripture including the OT.. Because.
2Pe 1:19 and we have the more established prophetic Word, in which you do well to take heed, as to a lamp shining in a murky place, until day dawns and the Light-bearing One rises in your hearts;
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture did not come into being of its own interpretation;
2Pe 1:21 for prophecy was not at any time borne by the will of man, but being borne along by the Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke.

 

[MamaZ]

Glad to help dear sister

This is where it can confuse people. AD is Latin. BC is not, it means: 'Before Christ'.

peace,

Anglian

Thanks again..

 

[Montalban]

He sure did to my belief.. He is faithful to His people even when they are not faithful to him

Where does it say


I did this
-God


In the Bible? (without working through man)

 

[Montalban]

Thanks again..

I had pointed out what AD meant in my earlier post. Didn't you read it when I wrote it? Seems not.

 

[Montalban]

So therefore if the scripture was indeed penned by Peter is was way before 80 AD

Which doesn't matter in relation to whom you wre arguing against because not ALL Scripture had been set down by then.

What I don't get is if you believe God wrote it, then what would it matter when Peter died? God could just write "This is what Peter would have written" when he wrote the letters of Peter.

 

[heymikey80]

2 Peter

Many scholars generally consider the epistle to be written between c 100–150AD[4] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical. For an argument for a late date see Harris.[5] For a 'middle date' see Bauckham who opts for a date between 80–90AD as most probable.[6] For an early date and (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger,[7] Zahn,[8] Spitta,[9] Bigg,[10] and Green.[11] Jeremy Duff argues that the various strands of evidence "point towards the period 60–130 CE, with some reason to favour 80–90 CE."[12] -- Wikipedia

I'd also think, while I have no particular special knowledge about 2 Peter, that the arguments over John's writings as being late have a similar list of issues. Some critics have made fairly obvious misstatements to support their case for John being a late date.

I'm open to the thought -- councils and churches have erred in the past and do err today. But there's just not enough evidence for scholars to pontificate over this. Good thing, too. By the end of all this criticism, there wouldn't me much. The Jesus Seminars have at least demonstrated that by hacking apart the Gospels into "authentic" and "inauthentic" stories by popular vote.