Canonic Influence

[Swart]

There has been much discussion in the past on determining and accepting works of scripture. For the purposes of this thread I want to avoid classifying what is and what isn't scripture and focus upon what effect the acceptance of extra-Biblical works as scripture has on the interpretation and understanding of doctrine and belief.

Consider:

A particular Biblical scripture may have four possible interpretations, but combined with an extra-Biblical scripture, the number of possible interpretations are reduced to two. This will certainly lead those accepting interpretations three and four to conclude the extra-Biblical work is false. It could also potentially endear the extra-Biblical scripture to those accepting interpretations one and two. Are either of these positions valid reasons for rejecting or endosing the extra-Biblical scripture?

If verified works of scripture that have been lost (such as 0th Corinthinans) were discovered today and translated, would you accept it as scripture? What if it contradicted some of your beliefs?

Should extra-Biblical scripture be held to a higher standard of acceptance that the Bible? Should it be held to the same standard? A lesser one? What are the determining characteristics of scripture in general?

There is a great deal of evidence that the authours of the NT books accepted works of scripture that are not in the current canon. Should these works be read in conjunction with their writings in determining their meaning? What effect did these extra-Biblical works have on the authours of the Bible and what they wrote?

In particular, I would like to discuss what the canonic influence is of doctrinal belief. To what extent does our acceptance or non-acceptance of extra-Biblical scripture shape our beliefs. Does such acceptance or non-acceptance lead us closer or further from Christ? Does acceptance of extra-Biblical scripture alone disqualify us from eternal life?

Lotsa questions. I don't expect direct answers from all, these are meant to promote discussion. Pick something you'd like to run with in the general theme of 'Canonic Influence'.

 

[Deren]

There has been much discussion in the past on determining and accepting works of scripture. For the purposes of this thread I want to avoid classifying what is and what isn't scripture and focus upon what affect the acceptance of extra-Biblical works as scripture has on the interpretation and understanding of doctrine and belief.

Consider:

A particular Biblical scripture may have four possible interpretations, but combined with an extra-Biblical scripture, the number of possible interpretations are reduced to two. This will certainly lead those accepting interpretations three and four to conclude the extra-Biblical work is false. It could also potentially endear the extra-Biblical scripture to those accepting interpretations one and two. Are either of these positions valid reasons for rejecting or endosing the extra-Biblical scripture?

If verified works of scripture that have been lost (such as 0th Corinthinans) were discovered today and translated, would you accept it as scripture? What if it contradicted some of your beliefs?

Should extra-Biblical scripture be held to a higher standard of acceptance that the Bible? Should it be held to the same standard? A lesser one? What are the determining characteristics of scripture in general?

There is a great deal of evidence that the authours of the NT books accepted works of scripture that are not in the current canon. Should these works be read in conjunction with their writings in determining their meaning? What effect did these extra-Biblical works have on the authours of the Bible and what they wrote?

In particular, I would like to discuss what the canonic influence is of doctrinal belief. To what extent does our acceptance or non-acceptance of extra-Biblical scripture shape our beliefs. Does such acceptance or non-acceptance lead us closer or further from Christ? Does acceptance of extra-Biblical scripture alone disqualify us from eternal life?

Lotsa questions. I don't expect direct answers from all, these are meant to promote discussion. Pick something you'd like to run with in the general theme of 'Canonic Influence'.

 

[EchoPneuma]

Here's my belief. If it ain't in the bible...it's suspect. If it agrees with the bible, then it's OK...if it disagrees with the bible then it's garbage. No extrabiblical source should EVER change the way you interpret scripture. THe bible is it's own best interpreter. Let GOD interpret what God means.

 

[MormonFriend]

Here's my belief. If it ain't in the bible...it's suspect. If it agrees with the bible, then it's OK...if it disagrees with the bible then it's garbage. No extrabiblical source should EVER change the way you interpret scripture. THe bible is it's own best interpreter. Let GOD interpret what God means.

Your equation for the perfect results lacks the most important influence of a variable. One has to understand the Bible before they can ascertain if it agrees or disagrees. Where or how do you make that variable a constant?

 

[MormonFriend]

If he thinks the post is boring, it must be threatening him

 

[EchoPneuma]

Your equation for the perfect results lacks the most important influence of a variable. One has to understand the Bible before they can ascertain if it agrees or disagrees. Where or how do you make that variable a constant?

No, one doesn't have to understand the whole bible before you can let it interpret itself. I will give you a "for instance".

In Genesis 6 it says "the sons of God came and laid with the daughters of men" and from that union came the "giants".

THere is great speculation about who those "sons of God" were. Everyone has their OWN interpretation who they were. Everything from "the godly line of Seth" to "fallen angels" to "space aliens". But why don't we let the BIBLE tell us who they were.

There is ONLY ONE other place in the OT that talks about the "sons of God"....and shows who they were. Here it is:

Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
Job 2:1
Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38:7
When the morning stars sang together,And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Here in Job we are told who the "sons of God" were. They were angels. The bible interpreted ITSELF. But there are STILL people who will INSIST that those "sons of GOd" in Genesis 6 are something else. BUt they have NO scriptural basis for it AT ALL. God lets us know who those "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were....but it's somewhere else in the bible. You have to compare scripture with scripture to get correct interpretations.

Then in the NT we are told what God did with those disobedient angels who came down and lay with human women...

Jude 1:6
And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;

That is what I mean by letting scripture interpret scripture. It ISN'T rocket science.

 

[Deren]

If he thinks the post is boring, it must be threatening him

No, it's just boring. Besides, MF, you didn't do a very good job of sticking around and asking questions in the other thread. Why was that? Couldn't think of anything to trip me up?

 

[marvmax]

Here's my belief. If it ain't in the bible...it's suspect. If it agrees with the bible, then it's OK...if it disagrees with the bible then it's garbage. No extrabiblical source should EVER change the way you interpret scripture. THe bible is it's own best interpreter. Let GOD interpret what God means.

Good Grief Charlie Brown;
Does this mean electricty is suspect, the internal combustion engine. They're not mentioned.

1 Kings 7
23 ¶ And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

pi = 3 according to the Bible, do we go with that? Science would certainly seem to change that.

 

[buddy mack]

There has been much discussion in the past on determining and accepting works of scripture. For the purposes of this thread I want to avoid classifying what is and what isn't scripture and focus upon what affect the acceptance of extra-Biblical works as scripture has on the interpretation and understanding of doctrine and belief.

Consider:

A particular Biblical scripture may have four possible interpretations, but combined with an extra-Biblical scripture, the number of possible interpretations are reduced to two. This will certainly lead those accepting interpretations three and four to conclude the extra-Biblical work is false. It could also potentially endear the extra-Biblical scripture to those accepting interpretations one and two. Are either of these positions valid reasons for rejecting or endosing the extra-Biblical scripture?

If verified works of scripture that have been lost (such as 0th Corinthinans) were discovered today and translated, would you accept it as scripture? What if it contradicted some of your beliefs?

Should extra-Biblical scripture be held to a higher standard of acceptance that the Bible? Should it be held to the same standard? A lesser one? What are the determining characteristics of scripture in general?

There is a great deal of evidence that the authours of the NT books accepted works of scripture that are not in the current canon. Should these works be read in conjunction with their writings in determining their meaning? What effect did these extra-Biblical works have on the authours of the Bible and what they wrote?

In particular, I would like to discuss what the canonic influence is of doctrinal belief. To what extent does our acceptance or non-acceptance of extra-Biblical scripture shape our beliefs. Does such acceptance or non-acceptance lead us closer or further from Christ? Does acceptance of extra-Biblical scripture alone disqualify us from eternal life?

Lotsa questions. I don't expect direct answers from all, these are meant to promote discussion. Pick something you'd like to run with in the general theme of 'Canonic Influence'.

Does acceptance of extra- Biblical scripture alone disqualify's us from eternal life? answer with a queston, what does the Bible say about that?

 

[EchoPneuma]

Good Grief Charlie Brown;
Does this mean electricty is suspect, the internal combustion engine. They're not mentioned.

Those things don't have anything to do with spiritual matters. So it's irrelevant. Apples and oranges. Things pertaining to God and spiritual matters.....then the bible is the standard for truth.

1 Kings 7
23 ¶ And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

pi = 3 according to the Bible, do we go with that? Science would certainly seem to change that.

What are you saying here? Maybe their measurements weren't the same as ours. Who knows. Who cares how big the brass sea was or what it's dimensions were? What has that got to do with spiritual issues?

In other words....what is your point?

 

[MormonFriend]

No, it's just boring. Besides, MF, you didn't do a very good job of sticking around and asking questions in the other thread. Why was that? Couldn't think of anything to trip me up?

Patience is a virtue. I have a life to attend to.

 

[MormonFriend]

Here's my belief. If it ain't in the bible...it's suspect. If it agrees with the bible, then it's OK...if it disagrees with the bible then it's garbage. No extrabiblical source should EVER change the way you interpret scripture. THe bible is it's own best interpreter. Let GOD interpret what God means

Your equation for the perfect results lacks the most important influence of a variable. One has to understand the Bible before they can ascertain if it agrees or disagrees. Where or how do you make that variable a constant?

No, one doesn't have to understand the whole bible before you can let it interpret itself. I will give you a "for instance". . . .

Your "for instance" was irrelivant to my challenge of variables. Besides, I did not say one has to understand the whole Bible. When you place the condition if: "If it agrees with the bible, then it's OK...if it disagrees with the bible then it's garbage."
That preassumes the person knows and understands the original teaching of the Bible on that particular subject in question. This is the cause for most of the divisions in Christianity, as to whether or not it agrees or not, and they don't agree among themselves, so they divide. According to your "belief" as posted, most or all of the Christian denominations are founded on "garbage," unless you agree with all of the disagreements.

 

[Orontes]

...Besides, MF, you didn't do a very good job of sticking around and asking questions in the other thread. Why was that? Couldn't think of anything to trip me up?

Interesting, I asked questions in the same thread of the very person quoted above. There was no response. Maybe this is because the poster calling people out here was tripped up.

I would expect any reply to my questions (which I am always happy to engage over) to involve an actual argument. This means using reason. Name calling would not be a reply. Evasion would not be a reply, nor would any other pretense. Now not answering is perfectly fine, but one would expect if they do not answer questions because they are too difficult, or uncomfortable, or for whatever reason then the same courtesy would be shown to others for consistency sake if not basic politeness.

 

[Guyver]

Every book that God intended and inspired to be in the Bible is in the Bible pure and simple. If further books were added to the Bible, that would equate to saying that the Bible we have today is incomplete. God gave us all that is necessary for our salvation in the bible.

Have a blessed day

 

[Apex]

Every book that God intended and inspired to be in the Bible is in the Bible pure and simple. If further books were added to the Bible, that would equate to saying that the Bible we have today is incomplete. God gave us all that is necessary for our salvation in the bible.

Have a blessed day

And can you prove this?

 

[MormonFriend]

Every book that God intended and inspired to be in the Bible is in the Bible pure and simple. If further books were added to the Bible, that would equate to saying that the Bible we have today is incomplete. God gave us all that is necessary for our salvation in the bible.

Have a blessed day

I must agree with Apex about how your foundation is affixed in this statement. If it is so pure and simple, why so many denominations?

 

[kdlds]

Every book that God intended and inspired to be in the Bible is in the Bible pure and simple. If further books were added to the Bible, that would equate to saying that the Bible we have today is incomplete. God gave us all that is necessary for our salvation in the bible.

Have a blessed day

Every book that God intended. But what version the Protestant, The Catholic, Ethiopic Bible or the Armenian Bible. If the Bible is so pure and simple why are there so many translations, commentaries, etc.? With all the medling of human hands it amazing there anything inspired left. But it is inspired.

The Bible does not teach that it contains all that is needed for salvation.

 

[newyorksaint]

Excellent questions Swart. Now, one of mine. What would explain the people who had chosen interpretations three or four to follow interpretations one or two after seeing the extra-biblical material?

But, yes, our understanding of scripture leads us to accept or reject other teachings. As Echo is trying to say, if it agrees with our understanding, we accept it, and if it disagrees with our understanding, we reject it.

With this being the case, a modifier is necessary. Persons A, B, C, and D all believe something different about verse Z. Who is right? Obviously, only one can be. So, the Holy Ghost is necessary to help us understand what is being said. Also, God is more than capable of giving extra-biblical material to clarify the interpretation, so only one is see as the correct one, stopping confusion and contention. Of course, it doesn't help if people don't accpet God's extra-biblical material. (Where did God say that all that is contained in the Bible is the final word, nothing more will come, and these are the books that are going to be in the Bible?)

Thanks for the discussion, Swart. Sorry I'm not more coherent, I just got off of work, and I'm exhausted.

 

[Guyver]

I must agree with Apex about how your foundation is affixed in this statement. If it is so pure and simple, why so many denominations?

Why so many denominations ? because they are all arguing over non essential things. They all argree on the essential things of salvation though. Even your church has splits on the non essential things, just look at all the differant splinter groups in utah that have broken off from the "mainstream" LDS church.

 

[newyorksaint]

Why so many denominations ? because they are all arguing over non essential things. They all argree on the essential things of salvation though. Even your church has splits on the non essential things, just look at all the differant splinter groups in utah that have broken off from the "mainstream" LDS church.

But there are some things are not so non-essential. For instance, some churches believe that the Father, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are the same being, other churches believe that they are three seperate beings, but one in pupose. Some believe that Baptism is a must for salvation, others do not. Some believe that infants must be baptized to cleanse original sin, others don't. What of these things (and many others) are essential or non-essential?