What were the last inspired writings?

[oi_antz]

My position is exactly that of the Chicago statement. I gave you the link rather than retyping it.

Feel free to disagree with my position.

OK, I am going to disagree with that Chicago statement as I see a lot of baseless assertions and bias to promote acceptance of unproven assumptions.

I still would like to know your response to this question:

So do you think the message of God manifests outside of the bible?

 

[Architeuthus]

I still would like to know your response to this question: So do you think the message of God manifests outside of the bible?

Not in the same way.

 

[oi_antz]

Not in the same way.

Haha, thanks for your answers

Edit: By the way, I never actually found out why you believe I should place St Paul's statements of truth above other statements of truth. Truth is truth AFAIC, and St Paul has some qualifier above modern Christians because of his proximity to the events. I am still wondering whether there is some reason, maybe some special relationship with God that he had that others don't, and whether that is a scriptural concept.

I will just see whether this answer is provided to me at some time, it is not my thread. I have stated my views to OP already.

 

[Architeuthus]

Edit: By the way, I never actually found out why you believe I should place St Paul's statements of truth above other statements of truth.

Because his epistles are part of the Bible.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think you have summed me well, though I cannot comment specifically on the texts you have mentioned. Obviously there is advantages the ancients had that moderns do not have (culture and information) whereas moderns have hindsight which the ancients could only imagine.

Yes, I did mention why I have elevated razeontherock's statement and viacrucis' statement on par with St Paul's because I believe and state that I observe a significant truth in these statements. I did explain too how I perceive God's Word: not scribbles on paper bound in black cover, but Truth. Jesus said "I am the truth" and He also said "where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst if them". So you and I being gathered in His name has brought the truth to our midst. We have The Word of God in our midst.

I think it's rather dangerous to elevate my words to the same level as the inspired writings of St. Paul. What I've said certainly isn't divinely inspired. I aim to agree with Scripture and to root what I say into Scripture and the wisdom of historic Christian thought--but what St. Paul wrote is divinely inspired Scripture, breathed by God for the edification of the whole Church of God for all time. While I consider it flattering that you think my words are inspired, they most certainly are not.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[oi_antz]

I think it's rather dangerous to elevate my words to the same level as the inspired writings of St. Paul. What I've said certainly isn't divinely inspired. I aim to agree with Scripture and to root what I say into Scripture and the wisdom of historic Christian thought--but what St. Paul wrote is divinely inspired Scripture, breathed by God for the edification of the whole Church of God for all time. While I consider it flattering that you think my words are inspired, they most certainly are not.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks ViaCrucis. Can you please explain a little more for me this difference as you see it. Do you think that when a Christian speaks on matters of truth, making claims that they wish someone to believe is true, then that is somehow less intended by God to impart the truth upon anyone who reads it? Can you please describe why you have said you were not inspired by God to write that, or that God does not breathe through statements of truth such as this? I wonder whether perhaps you have been led to believe this way, as I have noticed from a past conversation. But, my reference to your statement here is not meant for flattery. I saw a beautiful truth when I read it, said beautifully, and it gave me a noticeable relief to see it this way. While some people like to put a crucifix in their footer to convey what Christ means to them, I much rather would put this!

 

[oi_antz]

Because his epistles are part of the Bible.

OK. It was polite for you to have answered all of my questions. Thank you.

 

[Willtor]

I think it's rather dangerous to elevate my words to the same level as the inspired writings of St. Paul. What I've said certainly isn't divinely inspired. I aim to agree with Scripture and to root what I say into Scripture and the wisdom of historic Christian thought--but what St. Paul wrote is divinely inspired Scripture, breathed by God for the edification of the whole Church of God for all time. While I consider it flattering that you think my words are inspired, they most certainly are not.

-CryptoLutheran

Don't conflate the purpose of a thing with its truth. The Bible serves a different purpose from your words. But there are 3 things we typically call "the Word of God" in the Church:

1. Jesus, the Son.
2. Holy Scripture.
3. Preaching.

And it helps that #2 calls out #1 and #3. Now, the Son, in himself, is the Truth. The other two derive their... "worditude"... from him. They become the Word to us when we hear them. The purpose of #2 is different from the purpose of #3, but it isn't "less" the Word because of it.

 

[oi_antz]

Don't conflate the purpose of a thing with its truth. The Bible serves a different purpose from your words. But there are 3 things we typically call "the Word of God" in the Church:

1. Jesus, the Son.
2. Holy Scripture.
3. Preaching.

And it helps that #2 calls out #1 and #3. Now, the Son, in himself, is the Truth. The other two derive their... "worditude"... from him. They become the Word to us when we hear them. The purpose of #2 is different from the purpose of #3, but it isn't "less" the Word because of it.

Can I ask for your view on whether St Paul's letters to various churches and people are #2 rather than #3, and if you do say so, what sets his preaching apart from other preaching which is not included in the bible?

 

[Willtor]

Can I ask for your view on whether St Paul's letters to various churches and people are #2 rather than #3, and if you do say so, what sets his preaching apart from other preaching which is not included in the bible?

His letters were #3 to the original audience. What makes them #2, today, is that they have been recognized and received by the Church throughout history as #2. If this sounds a bit circumspect, it's because the difference between #2 and #3 is purely a matter of intention by the Holy Spirit. This is something that is for the Church to recognize, not to decide.

Again, we call them "canon" because they hold that purpose for the Church. You can read other orthodox texts that were written around the same time. They've been translated and are online, free at a number of sites. When you read them, you will say: some of these read a lot like canon texts, content-wise. But these particular texts weren't received by the Church, historically, as canon. Perhaps the Church thought they might not be authentic sources. Perhaps there's a subtle point of doctrine that was and has been widely rejected. Perhaps no clear reason presents itself. Perhaps they are inspired, through-and-through! But, whatever the reason, these did not get circulated in the way that the canonical texts were, among the Churches, and are, therefore, measured (themselves) by the texts that _were_ received as canon.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Obviously the books of the biblical canon(s) are held to be inspired and those books included in scripture will vary. But are there other inspired writings? I know we have the various creeds, but are they considered inspired? What were the last inspired writings? I would love to know.

In Catholic teaching only the books of the holy scriptures are inspired. No other writings and no other spoken (and later written) words are inspired. Catholics believe and teach that human beings can speak infallible truth and write infallible truth mainly because if something is true then it is by its nature infallibly so since truth is truth and cannot be error filled or error prone.

It is important when considering Catholic teaching to bear in mind that infallible pronouncements made by popes and church councils are infallibly true even when one cannot prove them to be true by other external sources. A similar quality is present in holy scripture insofar as there are statements in holy scripture that cannot be proven to be true apart from faith in the reliability of holy scripture.

Consider the sermon on the mount which is, in holy scripture, attributed to the Lord Jesus Christ and ask can one prove that Jesus said these things apart from accepting the reliability of the testimony in scripture, it is clear that without the testimony of scripture the sermon on the mount would be as open to doubt and dispute as any oral tradition could be. ​

 

[klatu]

Obviously the books of the biblical canon(s) are held to be inspired and those books included in scripture will vary. But are there other inspired writings? I know we have the various creeds, but are they considered inspired? What were the last inspired writings? I would love to know.

A good question. With the discovery only near the end of last century of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library, who knows what may still be discovered? As for any of them being 'inspired' as if by God, such an expression is more a theological myth of tradition than reality. If someone ever demonstrates how they all fit together, that would indeed come under the heading of inspired. http://www.energon.org.uk

 

[Datak]

So what I gather so far, in representation of those who responded clearly on behalf of their sect (is that not a good word to use? I couldn't think of a better label) and not for themselves personally, is that there is agreement that only the scriptures are considered inspired writings.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So what I gather so far, in representation of those who responded clearly on behalf of their sect (is that not a good word to use? I couldn't think of a better label) and not for themselves personally, is that there is agreement that only the scriptures are considered inspired writings.

I imagine that is so if by "scripture" your post is referring to the canonical writings acknowledged as inspired by each Christian body (sect may not be the best word, "faith tradition" is far less likely to insult anybody").

 

[Datak]

I imagine that is so if by "scripture" your post is referring to the canonical writings acknowledged as inspired by each Christian body (sect may not be the best word, "faith tradition" is far less likely to insult anybody").

Well it is sort of a situation that might make me throw my arms up if I'm forcing myself to conclude that there is agreement in any official capacity. Roman Catholics hold only Scripture to be inspired. Well so do Protestants. So do Latter-day Saints. There's a big omission in all of this, I freely admit. If I force agreement, I'm going to have to append to it that I believe Scripture is flexible, which I kind of do, whereas according to each tradition it's closer to being static yet differs in significant ways from what others say is Scripture.

But only in some capacity would I say scripture refers to the canonical writings acknowledged by each Christian body. It does because everything that is canon in one tradition is considered scripture in that same tradition. So descriptively, yes. This thread was kind of made to ask if there were inspired writings outside of what each tradition considers scripture. Or are inspired writings always considered scripture?

 

[St_Worm2]

I imagine that is so if by "scripture" your post is referring to the canonical writings acknowledged as inspired by each Christian body......

Agreed ^

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well it is sort of a situation that might make me throw my arms up if I'm forcing myself to conclude that there is agreement in any official capacity. Roman Catholics hold only Scripture to be inspired. Well so do Protestants. So do Latter-day Saints. There's a big omission in all of this, I freely admit. If I force agreement, I'm going to have to append to it that I believe Scripture is flexible, which I kind of do, whereas according to each tradition it's closer to being static yet differs in significant ways from what others say is Scripture.

Being inspired doesn't mean that no flexibility exists.

 

[St_Worm2]

Well it is sort of a situation that might make me throw my arms up if I'm forcing myself to conclude that there is agreement in any official capacity. Roman Catholics hold only Scripture to be inspired. Well so do Protestants. So do Latter-day Saints. There's a big omission in all of this, I freely admit. If I force agreement, I'm going to have to append to it that I believe Scripture is flexible, which I kind of do, whereas according to each tradition it's closer to being static yet differs in significant ways from what others say is Scripture.

We do not consider the LDS to be a Christian denomination or church (though they claim to be, I thnk), so what they believe about Scripture should have no bearing on this discussion.

That said, what are the "significant ways" that you believe the rest of us (IOW, those within Christendom and the pale of orthodoxy) disagree about what is and what isn't the "breathed" word of God? (I realize the books that were written in between the OT and the NT that are referred to as "Deuterocanonical" are a point of contention with many Protestant denominations, but where do you believe we "differ" concerning the OT and the NT)?

Thanks!

--David

 

[Datak]

Being inspired doesn't mean that no flexibility exists.

I don't mean the text itself, I mean the the body of scripture. Could have done better just saying the canon probably. When I look at an individual tradition, it appears to be more static. Texts are not added, texts are not thrown out; the status quo does not change. I'm not a proponent that this should happen, I have no reason to be invested in such a thing.

 

[Datak]

We do not consider the LDS to be a Christian denomination or church (though they claim to be, I thnk), so what they believe about Scripture should have no bearing on this discussion.

That said, what are the "significant ways" that you believe the rest of us (IOW, those within Christendom and the pale of orthodoxy) disagree about what is and what isn't the "breathed" word of God? (I realize the books that were written in between the OT and the NT that are referred to as "Deuterocanonical" are a point of contention with many Protestant denominations, but where do you believe we "differ" concerning the OT and the NT)?

Thanks!

--David

I don't know if you are trying to minimize the the difference there on the Deuterocanonical books, but I would say that is a significant difference. I wasn't actually trying to press on you about your disagreements, just stressing the difference. It was brought up to bolster the point that Scripture is flexible from my point of view, while I was also saying that I thought according to each tradition the body of scripture is closer to static in that there aren't texts being added or thrown out all the time.