Questions about "The Queen of Heaven"

[Vendetta]

I was pointing out to the person I quoted that Scripture is determined by men guided by the Holy Spirit, not by itself. I guess I wasn't obvious enough.

Right, I was just agreeing with your statement that:

Since the New Testament didn't exist at that time, Paul couldn't have been speaking of any of the Gospels or letters. By that strictly scriptural example, how can we, or you, consider the New Testament as scripture? Paul certainly didn't.

I was agreeing by saying that Paul couldn't have been speaking of the Gospels and letters because they hadn't been written yet.

Actualy i think Matthews was the 1st written. I am guessing around 43 AD.

I think a bit later. Most scholars will say it was 80-90 CE because of the fall of the temple. Those of us who are believers, though, are of course more inclined to believe that the prophecy was actually prophecy. Thus, we can choose to believe it was written between Christ's death and the temple's destruction in 70 AD. On top of this, Matthew makes a lot of commentary about the Sadducees, who were mostly a threat to Christian teaching in the middle of the century. With this information, your guess of 43 CE isn't completely out of the question. Still, I think it was probably not written before Paul's first letter. I don't really have a great argument for 60ish CE against 43 CE except that it just seems the latter is a bit too early. The only argument I really have is that I don't see Paul's letters using anything of note from Matthew's gospel to suggest he had seen it (in contrast to something like the Epistle of James, which clearly was written as a reaction to how Christians were taking St. Paul's letters). In the end, who really knows for sure on this planet? Not I.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Right, I was just agreeing with your statement that:


I was agreeing by saying that Paul couldn't have been speaking of the Gospels and letters because they hadn't been written yet.



I think a bit later. Most scholars will say it was 80-90 CE because of the fall of the temple. Those of us who are believers, though, are of course more inclined to believe that the prophecy was actually prophecy. Thus, we can choose to believe it was written between Christ's death and the temple's destruction in 70 AD. On top of this, Matthew makes a lot of commentary about the Sadducees, who were mostly a threat to Christian teaching in the middle of the century. With this information, your guess of 43 CE isn't completely out of the question. Still, I think it was probably not written before Paul's first letter. I don't really have a great argument for 60ish CE against 43 CE except that it just seems the latter is a bit too early. The only argument I really have is that I don't see Paul's letters using anything of note from Matthew's gospel to suggest he had seen it (in contrast to something like the Epistle of James, which clearly was written as a reaction to how Christians were taking St. Paul's letters). In the end, who really knows for sure on this planet? Not I.

I meant the Aramaic version which was the first one written then he wrote later in Greek.

He first wrote Cephas [Kephas] in Aramaic, which a large rock when Jesus named Peter.
IN Greek he had to transfer it to Petros - a small rock in Greek - but the only male gendered noun for rock....unfortunately.
Though the use of Kephas / Cephas was still seen on occasion in the NT.

 

[ebia]

I think a bit later. Most scholars will say it was 80-90 CE because of the fall of the temple. Those of us who are believers, though, are of course more inclined to believe that the prophecy was actually prophecy.

Its not just that. Most scholars accept Markan priority, and Mark is easy to date to mid-60s which forces Matthew and Luke to post 70, regardless of one's position on prophesy. In any case the likelyhood of Rome loosing its rag if the Jews carried on and trashing the place doesn't require divine powers so much as a bit of objectivity.

 

[Davidnic]

Mark is likely mid 60's since it was dictated to him by Peter before Mark went to Alexandria so we have a loose time reference for that. Either way...since the canon of Scripture was set by the Church then anyone who accepts that the books of the Bible are divinely inspired needs to give serious consideration to the authority of the ancient Councils and the Church since if they had no authority other than man's then any man could just as easily choose to include the Gospel of Judas or any of the other hundreds of wacky books that popped up over the first few centuries. It is only by the power granted to the Magisterium that the canon would be comprised of the books that were inspired.

And if someone wants to argue that the Holy Spirit later inspired those who eliminated books later then that would imply that the HS was wrong the first time and Christians had no valid Scripture for 1500 years or so.

When people point to Sacred Scripture they have to logically accept the Sacred Tradition as well that is handed down by the Apostles. Since both were given to and preserved by the Church. And using the authority Christ gave to the Church the canon of Scripture was set. But people were dying for Christ and in love long before a Bible existed because all that was preserved and protected and taught by the Apostles and their students. And in that is perpetual Virginity, Mary as God bearer and many other things that are now rejected due to an interpretation of Scripture that is at odds with the early fathers who learned from the Apostles.

 

[xfisherman]

Really, what about those thousands of Christian converts in the 400years between Christs ressurrection and the compilation of the first Bible?

They did not have access to the Bible. It did not exist then.

They were taught orally by the Apostles then the successors to the apostles and then successors to them etc.

Do you consider them Christian?

The teachings of the Gospels were written by the Apostles and deciples of the Apostles and later on compiled into one large book called the Bible.Previously they had individual books and these were used to spread the Word.So whatever is taught in early Christianity would have been recorded in the many books of the Bible,anything after that might be corrupted and deviates from the true teaching as warn by Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul.

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Mat 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Luk 10:3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Act 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

 

[LOCO]

The teachings of the Gospels were written by the Apostles and deciples of the Apostles and later on compiled into one large book called the Bible.Previously they had individual books and these were used to spread the Word.So whatever is taught in early Christianity would have been recorded in the many books of the Bible,anything after that might be corrupted and deviates from the true teaching as warn by Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul.

In Jewish areas the Apostles had access to the Jewish scriptures.

What 'books' did the Apostles use to teach and convert in the non-Jewish areas during their mission?

They did not use any books at all. They performed miracles, practiced Sacred Tradition e.g. bread and wine, baptism etc. and preached about Jesus orally. There were no books.

Jeus did not write anything down and the Apostles did not write anything down until much later when they realised Jesus was not returning during their lifetime.

 

[xfisherman]

Really, what about those thousands of Christian converts in the 400years between Christs ressurrection and the compilation of the first Bible?

They did not have access to the Bible. It did not exist then.

They were taught orally by the Apostles then the successors to the apostles and then successors to them etc.

Do you consider them Christian?

In Jewish areas the Apostles had access to the Jewish scriptures.

What 'books' did the Apostles use to teach and convert in the non-Jewish areas during their mission?

They did not use any books at all. They performed miracles, practiced Sacred Tradition e.g. bread and wine, baptism etc. and preached about Jesus orally. There were no books.

Jeus did not write anything down and the Apostles did not write anything down until much later when they realised Jesus was not returning during their lifetime.

Thats why you have all the books of the New Testament,they were all firsthand witness of what was being taught and written down while the Apostles were alive,thats why any teachings not found inside the New Testament are irrelevant.

 

[LOCO]

Thats why you have all the books of the New Testament,they were all firsthand witness of what was being taught and written down while the Apostles were alive,thats why any teachings not found inside the New Testament are irrelevant.

Really, the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) is not in the Bible. Is it irrelevant?

Not everything Jesus or the Apostles said or did is written in the Bible.

Doctrine develops over time. The Bible does not interpret itself.

Whose interpretation of the Scripture do you trust?

 

[thereselittleflower]

In Jewish areas the Apostles had access to the Jewish scriptures.

What 'books' did the Apostles use to teach and convert in the non-Jewish areas during their mission?

They did not use any books at all. They performed miracles, practiced Sacred Tradition e.g. bread and wine, baptism etc. and preached about Jesus orally. There were no books.

Jeus did not write anything down and the Apostles did not write anything down until much later when they realised Jesus was not returning during their lifetime.

With the Athenians, Paul used no scripture at all . . .

He went to Mars Hill and used the ALTAR to the UNKNOWN GOD to teach them about God and Jesus.

That altar had a pretty specific history too it was not just some afterthought, it was erected due to a specific incident, in which it is believed catastrophe was averted when one of their wise men had them release sheep to wander, and where they laid down, they were to be sacrificed to a god they did not know, as it was reasoned that all their sacrifices to the gods they did know had done nothing - so there must be an unknown god they must find and appease.

As the story goes, the sheep laid down in a spot or spots not dedicated to any known god, and so this led to the erecting of the altar to the UNKNOWN GOD to whom the sheep were sacrificed.

As the story goes, the catastrophe was averted.


So when we have Paul using this altar to teach the Athenians, this background adds greater understanding to what we see related in Acts.


The point here though is that he didn't use scripture at all . . . but met them where they were and used what was familiar to them to preach the gospel.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Thats why you have all the books of the New Testament,they were all firsthand witness of what was being taught and written down while the Apostles were alive,thats why any teachings not found inside the New Testament are irrelevant.

So Paul's command to stand fast and hold to what the Apostles taught, whether verbally or by writing is irrelevant?

Paul's command to hold to what was taught verbally is irrelevant?

So what was taught verbally, since it was not written down in the NT . .is irrelevant even though scripture commands we hold to it?

 

[xfisherman]

Really, the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) is not in the Bible. Is it irrelevant?

God is a mystery which will only be revealed upon death.The word Trinity is a term coined by man.We believe in one God, The Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live… in one Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things came and through whom we live and in the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth who guides, teaches and reminds believers into all truth.

Not everything Jesus or the Apostles said or did is written in the Bible.

Agree,what we have as handed down through the scriptures is more than adequate to guide and teach a person unto salvation.The extras have been purposely left out.

Doctrine develops over time. The Bible does not interpret itself.

No,complete doctrine as taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles were all recorded in the books of the Bible. Interpreting it correctly is another matter which many humans failed to do,thats why you have corrections done all the time and which you have termed as "doctrine develops over time",re.your quote above.

Whose interpretation of the Scripture do you trust?

Of course I trust the interpretation done by my Church as you do with yours.

Oops! I think I not allowed to discuss here.Sorry got to go,God bless you.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Really, the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) is not in the Bible. Is it irrelevant?

God is a mystery which will only be revealed upon death.The word Trinity is a term coined by man.We believe in one God, The Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live… in one Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things came and through whom we live and in the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth who guides, teaches and reminds believers into all truth.

The Trinity doctrine is very specific.

Three Divine Persons, One Being.

Where is that in scripture?

Not everything Jesus or the Apostles said or did is written in the Bible.

Agree,what we have as handed down through the scriptures is more than adequate to guide and teach a person unto salvation.The extras have been purposely left out.

Says who?

Doctrine develops over time. The Bible does not interpret itself.

No,complete doctrine as taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles were all recorded in the books of the Bible.

Says who?

 

[D'Ann]

MOD HAT

This is a great thread and a lot of helpful answers to some really good questions. It was a joy to read it through for the most part.

Please continue to ask questions and get answers... but also avoid debating in the OBOB, although, you are welcomed here to share and fellowship and ask for prayers and/or questions... (RULES)

Congregational Forum Restrictions, Christian Only Forums, and Off-Topic posts
Do not teach or debate in any Congregational Forum unless you are truly a member and share its core beliefs and teachings. Questions and fellowship are allowed, proselytizing is not.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[largeli]

Hey quick ref check....where can I find where Paul says we are to be taught by traditions and verbal not just the written?

 

[Vendetta]

Hey quick ref check....where can I find where Paul says we are to be taught by traditions and verbal not just the written?

2 Thess 2:15


EDIT: The best part about this verse is in the implications. Paul was very educated. He wrote, and there's no way what we found are the only letters he ever wrote to churches. Thus, when he says to hold to oral traditions and what has been written, he's not restricting himself to talking about the letters we have in our canon.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
— II Thessalonians II, xiv.​

 

[Vendetta]

— II Thessalonians II, xiv.​

Eh?

 

[Foundthelight]

Eh?

II Thessalonians 2:14

 

[thereselittleflower]

And "word" in that verse in the original language means what is spoken - ie the verbal teaching of the Apostles. It does not refer to what is written.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Eh?

No, "A;" rather, it is verse 14, of the Second Chapter of the Second Epistle of the Blessed Apostle St Paul to the Thessalonians.