Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

[straykat]

Marcion is an interesting fellow, this heretic wrote the earliest recorded list of N.T letters. Please do not assume that a canon of N.T letters was only available once Marcion mentioned them in 144 AD. It is obvious that these N.T letters were widely circulated before Marcion even mentioned the list of letters.

After all, Paul's letters were no doubt being copied and circulated. Paul even mentions passing his letters onto other churches.

There can be no doubt whatsoever, that Luke's Gospel and Paul's letters were well circulated, even at the end of the first century.

It's not an assumption. It's history as far as we can tell. I doubt it's going to change much or some new revelation will change the history. There are zero records or even indirect quotes of the Church making any effort at this until he came out. And even then, they differed, once they started doing it. Many didn't know what to make of Revelation, for example. While to this day, they never made any "official" statement about the Old Testament (other than the Catholics at the Council of Trent). It's why Ethiopian and Greek and Slavic bibles differ a bit.

 

[straykat]

Marcion is an interesting fellow, this heretic wrote the earliest recorded list of N.T letters. Please do not assume that a canon of N.T letters was only available once Marcion mentioned them in 144 AD. It is obvious that these N.T letters were widely circulated before Marcion even mentioned the list of letters.

After all, Paul's letters were no doubt being copied and circulated. Paul even mentions passing his letters onto other churches.

There can be no doubt whatsoever, that Luke's Gospel and Paul's letters were well circulated, even at the end of the first century.

It's not an assumption. It's history as far as we can tell. I doubt it's going to change much or some new revelation will change the history. There are zero records or even indirect quotes of the Church making any effort at this until he came out. And even then, they differed, once they started doing it. Many didn't know what to make of Revelation, for example. While to this day, they never made any "official" statement about the Old Testament (other than the Catholics at the Council of Trent). It's why Ethiopian and Greek and Slavic bibles differ a bit.

Now if you are saying there was something more intangible and unwritten but still assumed about divine truths and what the church should teach, then you're (ironically) agreeing with what some of us have been saying: That Tradition itself is an authority.

 

[Cis.jd]

They were your own Roman Catholic sources to include Catholic Encyclopedia. There's that, so much for infallibility

And you misunderstood them. It was never forbidden to read the Bible, however some priests don't advertise doing so mainly because of the chance of conflicting interpretations of Scripture. An example of the dangers of that is you, the protestant.
Protestantism is now around 5,000+ all claiming to be of divine inspiration and all of them due to their own interpretation. You protestants and your free for all interpretation gave way to unitarianism such as the Latter Day Saints, Iglesia ni christo, etc.. all claiming that Jesus isn't God based on what they interpreted from the Bible. The Bible isn't banned but we do take in caution about newbies just reading it alone. Many have claimed that the NT denies what we believe Jesus is - God because of verses they interpreted and these were all grown men who studied the bible in their protestant churches prior to creating cults that deceived many.

They were written for sure in the time of the apostles Irenaeus confirms this.

They were written already during the time acts is referencing, including the epistles?

Polycarp had a keen understanding of the epistles of Paul as many of the early early fathers did.

One only has to read Against Heresies by Irenaeus to see even in the late 2nd century he had compiled the entirety of what later was called the NT.

This is inaccurate. During the first 3 centuries there was no universally recognized NT canon. There where many books other than the 27 we have now and some with in that 27 where still omitted, even by Iranaeus. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian held other writings (that are now considered apocrypha) in high esteem other than the 4 gospels and some of Paul's letters.

Listen, calling it lies is calling your own scholars and Catholic Encyclopedia liars. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that as I think they handled the information honestly.

To say "they only did that to stop heretics" is akin to seizing guns from law abiding citizens because of a few murderers who mishandled guns.

Oh no, you are just being told that you misunderstood the catholic encyclopedia.

 

[Cis.jd]

edit:double post

 

[straykat]

I want to add that fighting Marcion is one of the Church's greatest, but unsung traditions. The root of his heresy was rejecting anything remotely Jewish. His canon practically threw everything out (including the whole OT) and only relied on Luke and Paul (not that they were anti-Jewish, but Marcion could manipulate them in isolation). But the Church saw itself as a continuation/fulfillment of Israel, and ousted him for it. This goes against the whole myth often trotted out that the early Church was anti-Semitic. That's hardly the case. The heretics were anti-Semites. And this continued to be fought with the Gnostics as well.

Anyways.. just a sidenote. And a "tradition" worth remembering.

 

[Cis.jd]

The 27 books were of apostolic origin from the 1st century. The Revelation of Peter is dated after the apostolic era.

But how do you know that the 27 books are still inspired word, like 1st-3rd John, Jude, Hebrews, James, and Revelation? Even if they where in the 1st century, how do you know that one or a few are incorrectly canonized? Remember, James was considered "Epistle of Straw" to you protestants and Irenaeus only knew 23 out the later canonized 27.

Also what about the gnostic writings such as Gospel of Thomas which is said by scholars such Helmut Koester to be written during the same time (or even earlier) than the 4 gospels but compiled around 140c?

 

[Cis.jd]

The 27 books were of apostolic origin from the 1st century. The Revelation of Peter is dated after the apostolic era.

But how do you know that the 27 books are still inspired word, like 1st-3rd John, Jude, Hebrews, James, and Revelation? Even if they where in the 1st century, how do you know that one or a few are incorrectly canonized? Remember, James was considered "Epistle of Straw" to you protestants and Irenaeus only knew 23 out the later canonized 27.

Also what about the gnostic writings such as Gospel of Thomas which is said by scholars such Helmut Koester to be written during the same time (or even earlier) than the 4 gospels but compiled around 140c?

 

[straykat]

It's not clear when Revelation was written btw. Only Premillenials would insist it was a late date, but even they don't know. But it's one of the funny and rare agreements where Evangelicals are in lockstep with liberal/critical scholars. Just for different reasons (the liberal wing goes out of their way to destroy any apostolic authorship, so a late date suits them better. While Premills like it because it boosts the applicability to modern times, like in their supermarket schlock... Left Behind, etc..).

 

[redleghunter]

And you misunderstood them. It was never forbidden to read the Bible, however some priests don't advertise doing so mainly because of the chance of conflicting interpretations of Scripture.

Perhaps read what I sourced as what you write above is inaccurate. Also consider the Scriptures were in Latin during the timeframe of the restrictions. The Catholic sources I quoted did indeed state there were restrictions at different periods in Roman Catholic history.

An example of the dangers of that is you, the protestant.

Yes the dangers of actually reading the very words of Christ as this former Roman Catholic actually did.

Protestantism is now around 5,000+ all claiming to be of divine inspiration and all of them due to their own interpretation. Y

Rhetoric. Good rhetoric actually but devoid of an argument.

You protestants and your free for all interpretation gave way to unitarianism such as the Latter Day Saints, Iglesia ni christo, etc.. all claiming that Jesus isn't God based on what they interpreted from the Bible.

Protestants are as much responsible for the above as Roman Catholicism is responsible for Muhammad, Mao and Stalin. Which means we are not.

The Bible isn't banned but we do take in caution about newbies just reading it alone. Many have claimed that the NT denies what we believe Jesus is - God because of verses they interpreted and these were all grown men who studied the bible in their protestant churches prior to creating cults that deceived many.

No one made the claim the Bible is currently banned for Catholics. If you examine what I actually posted I fairly aired out the actually history when and where the reading by the laity was restricted or discouraged.

They were written already during the time acts is referencing, including the epistles?

Unless you believe Paul did not write his own epistles nor Peter, the majority of the NT books were complete before both Paul and Peter were martyred which would be before the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. Most NT scholars put the epistles of John, his gospel and Revelation after that date with Revelation being the latest circa 95AD.

When were the NT books written?

This is inaccurate. During the first 3 centuries there was no universally recognized NT canon.

I did not say canon but the 27 books which would later be in the canon were already in wide circulation being quoted by both the apostolic fathers and early fathers.

There where many books other than the 27 we have now and some with in that 27 where still omitted, even by Iranaeus.

Irenaeus uses 25 of 27 books of the NT in Against Heresies.

Irenaeus recognized in the New Testament 25 books and letters, or every book except Philemon and 3 John.
This before an official church NT canon. In addition he extensively quoted the OT.

Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian held other writings (that are now considered apocrypha) in high esteem other than the 4 gospels and some of Paul's letters.

Name them and show me where they were used to confirm doctrine.

Oh no, you are just being told that you misunderstood the catholic encyclopedia.

Obviously not. I think you read my post with a misconception of what was communicated clearly and fairly.

 

[redleghunter]

It's not clear when Revelation was written btw. Only Premillenials would insist it was a late date, but even they don't know. But it's one of the funny and rare agreements where Evangelicals are in lockstep with liberal/critical scholars. Just for different reasons (the liberal wing goes out of their way to destroy any apostolic authorship, so a late date suits them better. While Premills like it because it boosts the applicability to modern times, like in their supermarket schlock... Left Behind, etc..).

No most NT scholars give the later date as did Irenaeus. Only the modern heresy of full preterism argues for an earlier date before 70AD.

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

Irenaeus uses Revelation extensively in Against Heresies confirming the prophecies therein are yet future. He was a Millennialist.

 

[straykat]

Protestants are as much responsible for the above as Roman Catholicism is responsible for Muhammad, Mao and Stalin. Which means we are not.

Hah. I would argue some of that is partly true. It was Catholics who broke away from revelation and started overly relying on philosophy like Plato (an ancient defender of slavery and totalitarianism if there ever was one). Then on to Aristotle, who was enshrined by Aquinas. Aquinas in turn spawned Scholaticism. Scholaticism in turn spawned William of Ockham.. a Franciscan, who gave us the famous "Ockham's Razor". This shaped everyone from Luther breaking down Christianity to the most simplistic tenet (Sola Fide) to Catholics like Pascal and Descartes... who eventually spawned the Enlightenment.. and an even more full overthrow of Church authority than Luther or philosophically minded theologians ever did. And it was this enlightenment that gave us Marx.

Absurd? Maybe

 

[redleghunter]

But how do you know that the 27 books are still inspired word, like 1st-3rd John, Jude, Hebrews, James, and Revelation? Even if they where in the 1st century, how do you know that one or a few are incorrectly canonized?

Is it your point you need a self assured infallible magisterium to tell you what is divine revelation and what is not? That the books of the NT became authoritative based on a human decree?

I already pointed out that early Christian souls quoted the NT books long before the canon.

 

[straykat]

No most NT scholars give the later date as did Irenaeus. Only the modern heresy of full preterism argues for an earlier date before 70AD.

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

Irenaeus uses Revelation extensively in Against Heresies confirming the prophecies therein are yet future. He was a Millennialist.

It's not just preterists who argue this. Some scholars who argue it have little concern on the interpretation. For example, the Anchor bible commentary (forgot the writer) argues that the core of John was written by John the Baptist!.. and was only later dressed in Christian themes. This totally goes beyond anything to do with preterism or premills.. or even Christianity. While many would say the internal evidence for Nero = 666 is a good indicator of an early date. Even some of those who still argue for a later date still see Nero as the Beast, but say the writer only tried to "make it look like a prophecy" and was being dishonest (this would be some of the mainline scholars who like deconstructing things, obviously).

 

[redleghunter]

Remember, James was considered "Epistle of Straw" to you protestants and Irenaeus only knew 23 out the later canonized 27.

I don't remember calling James an epistle of straw, but your straw man is evident.

I'm sure Irenaeus knew all 27 apostolic writings. He used 25 of them to be precise.

Also what about the gnostic writings such as Gospel of Thomas which is said by scholars such Helmut Koester to be written during the same time (or even earlier) than the 4 gospels but compiled around 140c?

The manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi dates to around A.D. 340 though the original composition of the Gospel of Thomas was definitely before that time probably sometime around A.D. 140 to 180. Which is close to 100 years after the apostolic era.

Have you actually read the supposed gospel of Thomas? It's like reading the Book of Mormon.

 

[straykat]

I don't remember calling James an epistle of straw, but your straw man is evident.

I'm sure Irenaeus knew all 27 apostolic writings. He used 25 of them to be precise.


The manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi dates to around A.D. 340 though the original composition of the Gospel of Thomas was definitely before that time probably sometime around A.D. 140 to 180. Which is close to 100 years after the apostolic era.

Have you actually read the supposed gospel of Thomas? It's like reading the Book of Mormon.

It was Luther who infamously called James an epistle of straw (I assume... "meant to be burned"). Because it explicitly challenged Sola Fide.

 

[redleghunter]

It's not just preterists who argue this. Some scholars who argue it have little concern on the interpretation. For example, the Anchor bible commentary (forgot the writer) argues that the core of John was written by John the Baptist!.. and was only later dressed in Christian themes. This totally goes beyond anything to do with preterism or premills.. or even Christianity. While many would say the internal evidence for Nero = 666 is a good indicator of an early date. Even some of those who still argue for a later date still see Nero as the Beast, but say the writer only tried to "make it look like a prophecy" and was being dishonest (this would be some of the mainline scholars who like deconstructing things, obviously).

Yet Irenaeus did not. He's probably the most reliable source we have found the later dating and understanding of the text being yet future. I believe Book 5 addresses most of Revelation.

 

[redleghunter]

It was Luther who infamously called James an epistle of straw (I assume... "meant to be burned"). Because it explicitly challenged Sola Fide.

I'm quite aware of this. Which the comment did not show in his revised Bible before he died. He grew to appreciate James.

 

[straykat]

Yet Irenaeus did not. He's probably the most reliable source we have found the later dating and understanding of the text being yet future. I believe Book 5 addresses most of Revelation.

It's funny that you're even mentioning Irenaeus. Yet arguing against Tradition in the same breath. What do you think Irenaeus is part of?

Don't think of tradition in strictly Catholic terms. I know you're arguing with a Catholic at the moment, but that is not what tradition means in general.

That said, Irenaeus is but one tradition. I think it's safe to move outside him myself. And even someone who respects tradition need not follow individuals like this. This is no better than following Popes. It's almost impossible anyways, since many church fathers disagree on little details.. It's the Councils where tradition is truly of one mind and authority.

 

[redleghunter]

It's funny that you're even mentioning Irenaeus. Yet arguing against Tradition in the same breath. What do you think Irenaeus is part of?

Irenaeus upheld the Holy Scriptures "to be the ground and pillar of our faith." In that light he held to Sola Scriptura.

His great defense of the faith in Against Heresies is a model for how one properly exegetes Scriptures.

I'm not arguing against apostolic tradition. One finds apostolic tradition in the rule of faith. Everywhere Tertullian and Irenaeus use "tradition" you will find them stating the rule of faith.

Don't think of tradition in strictly Catholic terms. I know you're arguing with a Catholic at the moment, but that is not what tradition means in general.

I don't. You have probably read both Irenaeus and Tertullian and know tradition handed down by the apostles meant the rule of faith which later developed into creeds.

That said, Irenaeus is but one tradition. I think it's safe to move outside him myself. And even someone who respects tradition need not follow individuals like this. This is no better than following Popes. It's almost impossible anyways, since many church fathers disagree on little details.. It's the Councils where tradition is truly of one mind and authority.

I was citing Irenaeus mainly to show the external evidence for the extensive use of NT Scriptures well before the canon.

 

[straykat]

Well, I wouldn't argue Tertullian as a good guide. I like some of his writings and arguments, but he became a Montanist.. and while they didn't outright teach any heresies, they taught rebellion and special revelation... revelation that the bishops didn't have. He was quite the opposite of "Tradition" for this. If the very bishops who had the laying on of hands and succession of the Apostles couldn't be trusted, then WHO could you trust? This was the model set down by the Apostles, but then all of a sudden some people come along and say it didn't matter. For Tertullian and Montanists, they were much like modern Charismatics - they trusted their private revelations and tried to loosen ecclesiastical authority.

 

[Mountainmike]

So you're suggesting its good to observe vain traditions of men, which they added to Gods word?

Clearly not.

But t then if you understood tradition, you would know that is not what paul refers to or even what tradition - paradosis- handing down of faith - means in the context of the new covenant church.

The OT tradition , works of law , is what Jesus criticises

What tradition actually means ( which refers to paradosis, handing down of truth) is using John and Paul's intended meaning for gospel, and related truth, i.e. Jesus' meaning not YOUR or a reformers opinion.

And you don't care about truth. Or by now you would have looked at what for example John actually taught his disciples, which does not contradict his scripture and writings but it does give meaning to it. But it does contradict the meaning most Protestants hold.

The fact is YOU don't look at scripture except through a totally false lens of a false man made tradition. Called sola scriptura. And you add layers of reformer teachings to that.

If you looked at scripture through the eyes of what apostles taught, who were sent to teach true doctrine you would not be separated from the authority of the church. " The foundation of truth."

This time read my analogy: in dismissing tradition You would all tell apostle John , to shut up, that his teaching on what his gospel meant was irrelevant, that only YOUR opinion matters 2 millennia on. You would say to him " we are sola scriptura now, so your opinion does not matter! How silly is that!

Be under no illusion.
In dismissing tradition you ARE telling John he did not know what his own writings meant! Tradition carries his meaning.

Anyway. Enough time wasted on those who seemingly don't care about truth. I am not called to make you believe it: I am called to tell you what truth is.

 

[Mountainmike]

now read the whole of book 4
And see what iraneus actually said: stop cherry picking out of context.

At the time iraneus wrote , the NT was a long way in the future. And iraneus notes the canons of the time e.g. Marcions were rejected by Rome

iraneus also stated that the truth of scripture could be found by listening to the doctrine of the church at Rome, and he criticises gnostics for disregarding scripture and tradition wherever it suits them.
Just like modern day Protestants do.

Scripture says the foundation of truth is the church, which dovetails with iraneus defining which church!

Irenaeus upheld the Holy Scriptures "to be the ground and pillar of our faith." In that light he held to Sola Scriptura.

His great defense of the faith in Against Heresies is a model for how one properly exegetes Scriptures.

I'm not arguing against apostolic tradition. One finds apostolic tradition in the rule of faith. Everywhere Tertullian and Irenaeus use "tradition" you will find them stating the rule of faith.



I don't. You have probably read both Irenaeus and Tertullian and know tradition handed down by the apostles meant the rule of faith which later developed into creeds.


I was citing Irenaeus mainly to show the external evidence for the extensive use of NT Scriptures well before the canon.