.

[ViaCrucis]

Tobit.. Not inspired by the holy spirit.
Not holy scripture.
Apart from the obvious,that it is fanciful mythical stories.
It was penned during the time that God had already foretold he would NOT speak..
So to say any writings at that time are inspired by the spirit of God is a contradiction of the Spirit of God.

Care to back that up?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Except when it is God who tells us that the Bible is His revelation, we can simply believe it.

Where does God do this?

There are good, solid reasons to believe that only God could have given us this revelation, not least of which are fulfilled prophecy, and the existence of millions of people who are Christians, and believe what God has said, and exhibit a transformed life.

So you accept the canonical status of Tobit and 1 Maccabees?

Why or why not?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[keltoi]

Care to back that up?

-CryptoLutheran

I would hope that you would back up why you appear to believe it is scripture.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It all comes down to your faith that God is more than capable of preserving HIS WORD. That is on you and no one else.

You can continue to slander me all you want, you still haven't exactly provided anything as a defense. The closest you've come is to say that the Deuterocanonicals can't be Scripture because they were written during a period of time when God said He would be silent--but provided nothing to back that claim up.

It's also not a particularly helpful argument considering that that the book of Daniel, or at least parts of the book of Daniel, were almost certainly written in the Maccabean period--around the same time books like 1 Maccabees were written. Though I suspect you'll argue Daniel couldn't have been written during that period because you have already concluded, dogmatically, that Scripture can't have been written in that period, and you'll still insist Daniel is Scripture. What you'll likely not do is explain why Daniel is to be regarded as Scripture at all.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I would hope that you would back up why you appear to believe it is scripture.

I actually haven't suggested it is.

But seems to me that if one is going to have a position, one way or the other, one ought to have a good reason.

Coming from the Lutheran POV, we actually don't have an official position on the canonical status of the Deuterocanonicals one way or the other, our Confessions are entirely silent on that issue. Luther's opinion on the Deuterocanonicals do not have official status in global Lutheranism. This is markedly different than the Reformed position which is articulated in the Reformed confessions, including the Reformed-influenced Articles of Religion used by the Anglican Communion. Reformed Protestantism, and its denominational descendants (that includes the Arminian Protestants and later Methodists and their denominational descendants) have an official position on the Deuterocanonicals as not being canonical Scripture--Lutheranism makes no such claim.

My point is simply this: The Canon is shaped by the Church, through the received confession and tradition of the Christian Church through the last two thousand years. We have a Bible because those who came before us preserved, copied, and gave us the Bible. Without this we'd have no Bible, we wouldn't have any access to Scripture, or even know what Scripture is or isn't. By denying the historic voice of the saints we end up, fundamentally, denying the Scriptures themselves and we are left without God's holy and precious word.

One cannot find the Canon in the Canon--it's not there. The Canon, as an idea, is objectively speaking, extra-biblical. If a person is honest they'll admit this, but to admit this would mean that certain ideas about the Bible have to be discarded because they do not conform to reality, neither to the contents of Scripture itself or to the historical realities that have shaped the Biblical Canon.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Alithis]

Care to back that up?

-CryptoLutheran

good grief ..sure i'll back it up
with what iv already pointed out .

Tobit.. Not inspired by the holy spirit.
Not holy scripture.
Apart from the obvious,that it is fanciful mythical stories.
It was penned during the time that God had already foretold he would NOT speak..
So to say any writings at that time are inspired by the spirit of God is a contradiction of the Spirit of God.

To consider the op question.. I would say..imo, my theology is based firstly on the law and the prophets..by that ,in this case,i mean genesis to Malachi .
Why i say that is..,When the apostle penned under the inspiration of the holy spirit that "all scripture is God breathed and is profitable for instruction ..".etc.. He had to be referring to the law and the prophets(genesis to malachi) because there was no "new testament collection".

Nor was he referring to books of the apocrypha for both the reason already given And that he never quotes nor refers to them.
Also i observe that every doctrine in the epistles is found in origin in the law and the prophets.
So the basis (foundation)for my theology is in the old testament.the explanation and expounding of it in the new and the spiritual comprehension of it given by the holy spirit who bears witness to the truth and leads us into all truth.

--------
its been studies for 2000 years by scholars vastly varied and far more knowledgeable then i .
with the same results .
tolbit is nothing more than a story book with factual error ,inconsistencies and false doctrine .

 

[ViaCrucis]

good grief ..sure i'll back it up
with what iv already pointed out .

Tobit.. Not inspired by the holy spirit.
Not holy scripture.
Apart from the obvious,that it is fanciful mythical stories.
It was penned during the time that God had already foretold he would NOT speak..
So to say any writings at that time are inspired by the spirit of God is a contradiction of the Spirit of God.

Where does God say He would not speak? All you've done is say the same thing, show me, back your claim up.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[keltoi]

I actually haven't suggested it is.

But seems to me that if one is going to have a position, one way or the other, one ought to have a good reason.

Coming from the Lutheran POV, we actually don't have an official position on the canonical status of the Deuterocanonicals one way or the other, our Confessions are entirely silent on that issue. Luther's opinion on the Deuterocanonicals do not have official status in global Lutheranism. This is markedly different than the Reformed position which is articulated in the Reformed confessions, including the Reformed-influenced Articles of Religion used by the Anglican Communion. Reformed Protestantism, and its denominational descendants (that includes the Arminian Protestants and later Methodists and their denominational descendants) have an official position on the Deuterocanonicals as not being canonical Scripture--Lutheranism makes no such claim.

My point is simply this: The Canon is shaped by the Church, through the received confession and tradition of the Christian Church through the last two thousand years. We have a Bible because those who came before us preserved, copied, and gave us the Bible. Without this we'd have no Bible, we wouldn't have any access to Scripture, or even know what Scripture is or isn't. By denying the historic voice of the saints we end up, fundamentally, denying the Scriptures themselves and we are left without God's holy and precious word.

One cannot find the Canon in the Canon--it's not there. The Canon, as an idea, is objectively speaking, extra-biblical. If a person is honest they'll admit this, but to admit this would mean that certain ideas about the Bible have to be discarded because they do not conform to reality, neither to the contents of Scripture itself or to the historical realities that have shaped the Biblical Canon.

-CryptoLutheran

I appreciate your honest and open reply

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

You can continue to slander me all you want, you still haven't exactly provided anything as a defense. The closest you've come is to say that the Deuterocanonicals can't be Scripture because they were written during a period of time when God said He would be silent--but provided nothing to back that claim up.

It's also not a particularly helpful argument considering that that the book of Daniel, or at least parts of the book of Daniel, were almost certainly written in the Maccabean period--around the same time books like 1 Maccabees were written. Though I suspect you'll argue Daniel couldn't have been written during that period because you have already concluded, dogmatically, that Scripture can't have been written in that period, and you'll still insist Daniel is Scripture. What you'll likely not do is explain why Daniel is to be regarded as Scripture at all.

-CryptoLutheran

You made a claim you don't believe what's in the bible so again the burden of proof is on you. BTW me pointing out your lack of faith in God's word most certainly isn't slander.

Titus 3 :
8 This is a true saying, and these things I will thou shouldest affirm, that they which have believed God, might be careful to show forth good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
9 But stay foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and brawlings about the Law: for they are unprofitable and vain.
10 Reject him that is an heretic, after once or twice admonition,
11 Knowing that he that is such, is perverted, and sinneth, being damned of his own self.

2 Tim 2:
23 And put away foolish and unlearned questions, knowing that they engender strife.

1 Tim 1:
4 Neither that they give heed to fables and genealogies which are endless, which breed questions rather than godly edifying which is by faith.

 

[Job8]

Where does God do this?

Numerous times in the Bible. For example: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (Heb 1:1,2).

So you accept the canonical status of Tobit and 1 Maccabees?

Not at all. Old Testament Scripture is limited to the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Neviim), and the Psalms (Ketuvim), 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh (Bible). Those 24 books correspond exactly to our 39 books in the Protestant Bible.

And he said unto them,These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written (1) in the law of Moses, and (2) in the prophets, and (3) in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures (Luke 24:44,45).

"That they might understand the scriptures" clearly delineates the Scriptures.

 

[Goodbook]

In rgards to OP well some christians that are protestant i.e non catholic can actually be quite liberal in their theology and not regard scripture highly. Some are like half and half as you may see on here, like lutherans.

I think cs lewis might be in that category of placing his own resonings and arguments above scripture. Yes that puzzled me at first because I thought he would be protestant but he was more ecumenical. It was tolkien after all who convinced him to be a christian and tolkien was catholic. But as cs lewis was irish but northern irish, his background was more anglican. He compromised, that is why, in a book like mere christianity, he hardly mentions scripture at all.

 

[Goodbook]

The book of tobit is not scripture, but catholics and it seems lutherans think it is. It contradicts the other scriptures. That is why its not in protestant bibles.

It would be like saying narnia is scripture. To give a comparison. Ok not quite fantasy and myth but you get the picture. Mormons also have made up extra books of the bible they claim is new revelation, but since it contradicts other scripture, its not.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You made a claim you don't believe what's in the bible

Where did I do this?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Numerous times in the Bible. For example: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (Heb 1:1,2).

Yes, that says that God spoke by the prophets. Where does that say anything about the Bible?

Not at all. Old Testament Scripture is limited to the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Neviim), and the Psalms (Ketuvim), 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh (Bible). Those 24 books correspond exactly to our 39 books in the Protestant Bible.

I'm not talking about the modern Jewish Canon, which was developed in the centuries after our Lord's death and resurrection.

And he said unto them,These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written (1) in the law of Moses, and (2) in the prophets, and (3) in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures (Luke 24:44,45).

"That they might understand the scriptures" clearly delineates the Scriptures.

Yup. But you know what this doesn't do? It doesn't enumerate the books of Scripture. The Ketuvim, "the Writings", was a broad category that was a kind of catch-all. In the Jewish Canon Daniel is regarded as Ketuvim, so are the Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. And if that's the sort of category term you want to use, it would also include books like Tobit and Judith--and so you've still not really said anything on this matter.

Though I am noticing a demonstrable ignorance about the Bible.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The book of tobit is not scripture, but catholics and it seems lutherans think it is. It contradicts the other scriptures.

Do you have examples in mind of Tobit contradicting other Scripture; that is, do you have examples of a nature that couldn't also be said of any other book of Scripture?

I'm not saying Tobit is Scripture by the way--that's hardly my argument in this thread. But I am interested in getting people to actually think about their positions instead of just parrot what they've been told.

It's clear to me that a lot of people here have never bothered to seriously learn about the Bible and think through questions about the Bible and its history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Job8]

The book of tobit is not scripture... but since it contradicts other scripture, its not.

I don't believe Tobit contradicts Scripture as such, but perhaps introduces some legendary material (as below): 6:7 And he said unto him, Touching the heart and the liver [of the fish], if a devil or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man or the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed. 6:8 As for the gall, it is good to anoint a man that hath whiteness in his eyes, and he shall be healed... 6:16 And when thou shalt come into the marriage chamber, thou shalt take the ashes of perfume, and shalt lay upon them some of the heart and liver of the fish, and shalt make a smoke with it: 6:17 And the devil shall smell it, and flee away, and never come again any more:..
8:2 And as he went, he remembered the words of Raphael, and took the ashes of the perfumes, and put the heart and the liver of the fish thereupon, and made a smoke therewith.8:3 The which smell when the evil spirit had smelled, he fled into the utmost parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him.

But Tobit also has material that does NOT contradict Scripture: 8:5 Then began Tobias to say, Blessed art thou, O God of our fathers, and blessed is thy holy and glorious name for ever; let the heavens bless thee, and all thy creatures. 8:6 Thou madest Adam, and gavest him Eve his wife for an helper and stay: of them came mankind: thou hast said, It is not good that man should be alone; let us make unto him an aid like unto himself.

 

[Job8]

Yes, that says that God spoke by the prophets. Where does that say anything about the Bible?

The Bible IS the prophets (2 Pet 1:19-21), and the New Testament is what God has said through His Son, and what the evangelists and apostles wrote prophetically (by Divine inspiration).

I'm not talking about the modern Jewish Canon, which was developed in the centuries after our Lord's death and resurrection.

Not true. Because the canon was ALREADY ESTABLISHED 400 years before Christ, He spoke of that canon summarily in Luke. You simply do not wish to acknowledge that.

Yup. But you know what this doesn't do? It doesn't enumerate the books of Scripture. The Ketuvim, "the Writings", was a broad category that was a kind of catch-all. In the Jewish Canon Daniel is regarded as Ketuvim, so are the Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. And if that's the sort of category term you want to use, it would also include books like Tobit and Judith--and so you've still not really said anything on this matter.

The point is NOT to enumerate the books but to present the canon. There are five books in the Torah, eight in the Prophets, and eleven in the Psalms. That has not changed for about 2,500 years.

Though I am noticing a demonstrable ignorance about the Bible.

Yes. Certainly on your part.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Where did I do this?

-CryptoLutheran

Sorry if you can't remember what you posted then I can't help you.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

You've actually placed your faith in a certain group of men-that their particular canon is the correct one.

Where did I say anything about having faith is a "group of men". What I continually state is I know God has preserved His word by whatever means God sees fit to use.

2 Peter 1:211599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost.

 

[keltoi]

I'm not talking about the modern Jewish Canon, which was developed in the centuries after our Lord's death and resurrection.

The Jewish Canon as you call it was developed over a couple thousand years before Christ was born. What you are referring to is the so called council of Jamnia which there is no proof what-so-ever that it actually occurred. It is a Catholic invention not a Hebrew council and it is used to indicate that the Hebrew people's religious leaders had a council to finalise the Hebrew Canon. There are a couple of problems with this and the first is that the Romans banished the Hebrews from Israel before the Council of Jamnia was supposed to have been held.

Though I am noticing a demonstrable ignorance about the Bible.

-CryptoLutheran

Be careful here because your demonstration indicates you are blindly believing the Catholic version history with regards to this which has been widely discredited from the 20th century on.