Name a doctrine that you used to believe in but dont anymore.

[MoreCoffee]

MoreCoffee, we may have our disagreements, but I love your username, and you can probably guess why.

heh heh heh, up late?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

heh heh heh, up late?

I love it for the same reason.

 

[Rev Randy]

Biblical authors quoting other source must be treated cautiously. Paul quotes Greek poets and philosophies.

John
NZ

I often quote Forrest Gump. I do not consider his words to be scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I often quote Forrest Gump. I do not consider his words to be scripture.

Most of my posts quote somebody ....

 

[nephilimiyr]

One can offer similar critiques of passages in any of the protocanonical books. I wonder how much of the bible would be received by one who offered such criticisms of all of its books. One cannot help but remember the many passages that speak of atrocious actions of slaughter, expressed desires for vengeance, unqualified expressions of pleasure at the destruction of the wicked, and inscrutable apocalyptic visions capable of misuse to justify almost any cause or revolution against the powerful and the wealthy.

I cannot join you, my brother, in such a critique without challenging the inspiration of sacred scripture in all of the books of the bible with almost no exceptions.

I'm glad you have called me brother because the feeling is mutual and I love the heck out of you, my brother. And that goes for everyone else here in this thread.

In my world this Book of Wisdom is not sacred scripture, and so far I have no reason to change my mind about that. I would very much like to get your opinions of those three things that Metal Minister posted though.

To address directly what you said; atrocious actions of slaughter, desires of vengence, etc., etc., I believe is explained throughout the 66 books of the Bible. And the 66 books do corroborate when put to the test. Yes, maybe even this Book of Wisdom. However, I think it is a bit disengenous to say that none of these other books teach something different than what the 66 other books do. If I'm not mistaken, the books of Maccabes is where the RCC gets it's teaching on purgatory. It's the only place where it strongly suggests such a place, but in my view as well as millions of others, is not corroborated in the other 66 books. I think Metal Minister brought up a few other things that, although you did respond to them, I didn't agree with. Admittantly, neither Metal Minister or yourself/Knee-V provided any source for me to look at, so I don't have much to go on.

In the end, or rather, at the end of the day, if these other Catholic books do nothing but support and corroborates with what's already in the 66 book Bible, then I don't have much of a problem with them, except concerning integrity. And the integrity of the Bible is very important to me, and is the sole reason why I don't view the Book of Enoch as cannon, although I believe that book is inspired by God and agrees and corroborates with the 66 book Bible.

If the Book of Enoch taught something that isn't found, or can't be corroborated, in the other 66 books then I wouldn't see it as scripture, yet it does. However, major portions of the book is held in suspect because of questions of authorship, because some suggest that there is more than one author. Differences in the wording of old manuscripts cause us to question which is the true copy.

From what Metal Minister has said, along with Albion, and others, I can't at this time find any reason to accept these other books, and will trust that they were not included into the cannon, the cannon I use, for good and honest reason.

 

[Knee V]

I'm glad you have called me brother because the feeling is mutual and I love the heck out of you, my brother. And that goes for everyone else here in this thread.

In my world this Book of Wisdom is not sacred scripture, and so far I have no reason to change my mind about that. I would very much like to get your opinions of those three things that Metal Minister posted though.

To address directly what you said; atrocious actions of slaughter, desires of vengence, etc., etc., I believe is explained throughout the 66 books of the Bible. And the 66 books do corroborate when put to the test. Yes, maybe even this Book of Wisdom. However, I think it is a bit disengenous to say that none of these other books teach something different than what the 66 other books do. If I'm not mistaken, the books of Maccabes is where the RCC gets it's teaching on purgatory. It's the only place where it strongly suggests such a place, but in my view as well as millions of others, is not corroborated in the other 66 books. I think Metal Minister brought up a few other things that, although you did respond to them, I didn't agree with. Admittantly, neither Metal Minister or yourself/Knee-V provided any source for me to look at, so I don't have much to go on.

In the end, or rather, at the end of the day, if these other Catholic books do nothing but support and corroborates with what's already in the 66 book Bible, then I don't have much of a problem with them, except concerning integrity. And the integrity of the Bible is very important to me, and is the sole reason why I don't view the Book of Enoch as cannon, although I believe that book is inspired by God and agrees and corroborates with the 66 book Bible.

If the Book of Enoch taught something that isn't found, or can't be corroborated, in the other 66 books then I wouldn't see it as scripture, yet it does. However, major portions of the book is held in suspect because of questions of authorship, because some suggest that there is more than one author. Differences in the wording of old manuscripts cause us to question which is the true copy.

From what Metal Minister has said, along with Albion, and others, I can't at this time find any reason to accept these other books, and will trust that they were not included into the cannon, the cannon I use, for good and honest reason.

Did you happen to see my response to MM's three points?

 

[Jig]

The Scriptures are the written legacy of the Prophets and Apostles. That is their purpose, and that is why God's people, guided by the Holy Spirit, have preserved them and read from them.

That's it? A mere written legacy of the Prophets and Apostles? I think not...

Here is a breif excerpt from the ISBE - 1915 Edition:

"Holy Scripture is not simply a collection of religious books: still less does it consist of mere fragments of Jewish and Christian literature. It belongs to the conception of Scripture that, though originating “by divers portions and in divers manners” (He 1:1), it should yet, in its completeness, constitute a unity, evincing, in the spirit and purpose that bind its parts together, the Divine source from which its revelation comes.

The Bible is the record of God’s revelations of Himself to men in successive ages and dispensations (Eph 1:8–10; 3:5–9; Col 1:25, 26), till the revelation culminates in the advent and work of the Son, and the mission of the Spirit.

It is this aspect of the Bible which constitutes its grand distinction from all collections of sacred writings—the so-called “Bibles” of heathen religions—in the world. These, as the slightest inspection of them shows, have no unity. They are accumulations of heterogeneous materials, presenting, in their collocation, no order, progress, or plan. The reason is, that they embody no historical revelation working out a purpose in consecutive stages from germinal beginnings to perfect close.

The Bible, by contrast, is a single book because it embodies such a revelation, and exhibits such a purpose. The unity of the book, made up of so many parts, is the attestation of the reality of the revelation it contains." (1)

1. James Orr, “Bible, The,” ed. James Orr et al., The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Volumes 1–5 (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 467–468.

 

[Rev Randy]

That's it? A mere written legacy of the Prophets and Apostles? I think not...

Here is a breif excerpt from the ISBE - 1915 Edition:

"Holy Scripture is not simply a collection of religious books: still less does it consist of mere fragments of Jewish and Christian literature. It belongs to the conception of Scripture that, though originating “by divers portions and in divers manners” (He 1:1), it should yet, in its completeness, constitute a unity, evincing, in the spirit and purpose that bind its parts together, the Divine source from which its revelation comes.

The Bible is the record of God’s revelations of Himself to men in successive ages and dispensations (Eph 1:8–10; 3:5–9; Col 1:25, 26), till the revelation culminates in the advent and work of the Son, and the mission of the Spirit.

It is this aspect of the Bible which constitutes its grand distinction from all collections of sacred writings—the so-called “Bibles” of heathen religions—in the world. These, as the slightest inspection of them shows, have no unity. They are accumulations of heterogeneous materials, presenting, in their collocation, no order, progress, or plan. The reason is, that they embody no historical revelation working out a purpose in consecutive stages from germinal beginnings to perfect close.

The Bible, by contrast, is a single book because it embodies such a revelation, and exhibits such a purpose. The unity of the book, made up of so many parts, is the attestation of the reality of the revelation it contains." (1)

1. James Orr, “Bible, The,” ed. James Orr et al., The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Volumes 1–5 (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 467–468.

Mere is your word. The bible is not a single book. It's a group of Books making up a Canon of Holy Scripture.

 

[Knee V]

That's it? A mere written legacy of the Prophets and Apostles? I think not...

Here is a breif excerpt from the ISBE - 1915 Edition:

"Holy Scripture is not simply a collection of religious books: still less does it consist of mere fragments of Jewish and Christian literature. It belongs to the conception of Scripture that, though originating "by divers portions and in divers manners" (He 1:1), it should yet, in its completeness, constitute a unity, evincing, in the spirit and purpose that bind its parts together, the Divine source from which its revelation comes.

The Bible is the record of God's revelations of Himself to men in successive ages and dispensations (Eph 1:8-10; 3:5-9; Col 1:25, 26), till the revelation culminates in the advent and work of the Son, and the mission of the Spirit.

It is this aspect of the Bible which constitutes its grand distinction from all collections of sacred writings--the so-called "Bibles" of heathen religions--in the world. These, as the slightest inspection of them shows, have no unity. They are accumulations of heterogeneous materials, presenting, in their collocation, no order, progress, or plan. The reason is, that they embody no historical revelation working out a purpose in consecutive stages from germinal beginnings to perfect close.

The Bible, by contrast, is a single book because it embodies such a revelation, and exhibits such a purpose. The unity of the book, made up of so many parts, is the attestation of the reality of the revelation it contains." (1)

1. James Orr, "Bible, The," ed. James Orr et al., The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Volumes 1-5 (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 467-468.

Who said anything about "mere"?

 

[Rev Randy]

Who said anything about "mere"?

Jig.

 

[Knee V]

I don't disagree that the Holy Spirit's involvement in the production of the Scriptures makes them a united whole. But the reason that we collect these specific books, and not others - Mere Christianity, The Divine Comedy, Against Heresies, On The Incarnation, The Shepherd of Hermas, etc - is because of the identity of the human authors. The Scriptures are not the only thing that the Holy Spirit has guided, but the authors of these books, and their place in the historic life of God's people, make these books special and unique.

 

[Jig]

Nm

 

[Knee V]

Nm

A little off topic, but I absolutely love the Hill Country down where you are. Every few months we visit some people around Blanco, and I would move down there in a heart beat.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I no longer refuse to call Mary, the mother of our Lord, blessed.

 

[Jig]

But the reason that we collect these specific books, and not others - Mere Christianity, The Divine Comedy, Against Heresies, On The Incarnation, The Shepherd of Hermas, etc - is because of the identity of the human authors. The Scriptures are not the only thing that the Holy Spirit has guided, but the authors of these books, and their place in the historic life of God's people, make these books special and unique.

I don't agree with this. For one thing, we don't even know who the authors are for many of these books. It appears you don't understand canonicity and authority. A document's divine authority is what ultimately dictates its canonicity - not its author. Surely Paul wrote more letters then that are found in our current Bible. Where are they today?

For example, when John wrote his Gospel through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - it automatically had divine authority the very moment the ink touched the papyrus. It was only considered canonical some time later when this divinely inherent authority was recognized by fellow Spirit-indwelled Christians.

A document first has divine authority based on its inspiration, and then attains canoncity due to its general acceptance as a divine product. No church council by its decrees can make the books of the Bible authoritative. The books of the Bible posses their own authority and had this authority long before any council had been formed.

What makes these books "special and unique" is their inspired revelation. It doesn't matter who wrote them.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I gave up believing that some special quality discernible by people and inherent in some books makes them canonical.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I no longer refuse to call Mary, the mother of our Lord, blessed.

Since when?



.

 

[Jig]

I gave up believing that some special quality discernible by people and inherent in some books makes them canonical.

I believe it is safe to expect that if the omnipotent Creator of our universe supernaturally and purposefully inspired men to write down His Words, that these unique documents would contain a special quality about them that would distinguish them from any ordinary document. Maybe I am giving God too much credit.

Also, I didn't just say any person could necessarily discern this. I stated that it was "Spirit-indwelled" Christians that would see this more clearly than non-Christians. What was written through the Spirit should be discoverable by the Spirit.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Since when?

Since I took the cure

 

[MoreCoffee]

I believe it is safe to expect

"Assume" is the word you ought to have used here.

that if the omnipotent Creator of our universe supernaturally and purposefully inspired men to write down His Words, that these unique documents would contain

Far more likely that the inspired books would be identified by people who God enabled to do so rather than that the books would have some kind of quality that made them immediately recognisable as canonical scripture.

a special quality about them that would distinguish them from any ordinary document. Maybe I am giving God too much credit.

It is not God that you are crediting in your theory but the books. While it is true that you are assigning the cause for the books having a "special quality" it is nevertheless the books that are "special" in your theory and God is in the background. I prefer to think of the books of sacred scripture as books that God calls the church to identify as special because his Spirit works within the church to make that identification. Thus God is to the fore and the books are placed in their proper place as witnesses to God's grace in revealing himself to the church.

Also, I didn't just say any person could necessarily discern this. I stated that it was "Spirit-indwelled" Christians that would see this more clearly than non-Christians. What was written through the Spirit should be discoverable by the Spirit.

If it takes the Spirit to enable the church to identify the books as canonical then the books themselves do not possess a "special quality" that can be identified without the Spirit's aid, thus the books themselves are books like other books, it is the Spirit that gives life the books have nothing to offer as far as deciding canonicity is concerned.