Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
God's Truth
New member
Read the other scriptures too, the whole counsel.
God's Truth
New member
The scripture was speaking of not taking two of anything.
It is about not taking a bag to be stolen from.
It is about letting the people you preach to give you what you need.
It is about Jesus taking care of you.
You don't know that you are false in the heart.
As I wrote, if you are going to claim “Take no staff” really says “don’t take an extra staff,” then having an honest conversation with you is impossible.
Thank you for the discussion.
God's Truth
New member
Good bye false accuser judge condemner.
jsanford108
New member
I know you directed this at God'sTruth, but I would like to toss in my cent's worth.
I agree with you, that in order for any claim to be "true," it must be provable, using logic.
However, logic dictates that the Scriptures are inerrant. Does the Bible itself make that claim? No. Because, as you said, the Bible was not assembled until after the second century, and Canon was not declared until 325 AD. Yet, the Scriptures are inerrant (We can discuss this further if you wish, but that is not the point of my response).
The Bible as "inerrant" is not a man-made tradition, nor is canon. And to classify each as such, would logically contradict your posit of belief. For what then can you rely on as a basis of faith/belief? If the Bible is errant, then it is unreliable. If canon is man-made, then the Bible is errant. If either or both are true, then you can not have a single source of truth other than God speaking directly to you; which, ironically, is what the inspired authors claim. But if they are errant, then you are just as likely to err, as well.
With that, I ask how you logically believe in Christ.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Thank you for posting, jsanford.
I would first like to make a minor point. The canon was not set declared in 325 AD. The first recorded instance of the New Testament canon of 27 books was in the Festal Letter of 367 by Bishop Athanasius, and he excluded Esther from the OT while including Maccabees. The Roman Catholic canon was first set at the Council of Carthage around 397. I can provide more details if you’d like. If you have evidence otherwise, please provide it. The 66-book canon used by most Protestants is only a few hundred years 1611 KJV had many more books.
So, I have two questions for you to start:
1) Do you see the difference between Mark and Luke’s account of the words of Jesus concerning taking a staff on the missionary journey?
2) What is the basis of your statement that “logic dictates that the scriptures are inerrant?”
I will note that Moses was inspired by God to lead the people out of Egypt, yet he still made errors. Jesus breathed on Peter and inspired him to lead the early church. Yet Peter still made mistakes.
They were not inerrant, yet God used them.
So I appreciate your engaging in the discussion, and I would appreciate answers to the two questions.
As to the basis of my belief, it is the same as the reason I believe George Washington was our first president. I did not have to read an inerrant history text to come to that conclusion. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is clear: multiple witnesses saw the Lord die and then saw the risen Lord. The resurrection was such a powerful event that it turned a handful of unlearned disciples into men who changed the world. They didn’t need a perfect book; neither do I.
I would first like to make a minor point. The canon was not set declared in 325 AD. The first recorded instance of the New Testament canon of 27 books was in the Festal Letter of 367 by Bishop Athanasius, and he excluded Esther from the OT while including Maccabees. The Roman Catholic canon was first set at the Council of Carthage around 397. I can provide more details if you’d like. If you have evidence otherwise, please provide it. The 66-book canon used by most Protestants is only a few hundred years 1611 KJV had many more books.
So, I have two questions for you to start:
1) Do you see the difference between Mark and Luke’s account of the words of Jesus concerning taking a staff on the missionary journey?
2) What is the basis of your statement that “logic dictates that the scriptures are inerrant?”
I will note that Moses was inspired by God to lead the people out of Egypt, yet he still made errors. Jesus breathed on Peter and inspired him to lead the early church. Yet Peter still made mistakes.
They were not inerrant, yet God used them.
So I appreciate your engaging in the discussion, and I would appreciate answers to the two questions.
As to the basis of my belief, it is the same as the reason I believe George Washington was our first president. I did not have to read an inerrant history text to come to that conclusion. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is clear: multiple witnesses saw the Lord die and then saw the risen Lord. The resurrection was such a powerful event that it turned a handful of unlearned disciples into men who changed the world. They didn’t need a perfect book; neither do I.
God's Truth
New member
You did not read the whole counsel of God and you are not reasonable.
You are also trying to make the Bible untrustworthy.
Show where a false doctrine was made because of the staff.
If you get to the point that you can admit that “take no staff” means “take no staff,” rather than “don’t take two staffs,” let me know and we can continue the discussion.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The NT Canon - **Received** By The Church Long Before Rome "Declared" a canon
The NT Canon - **Received** By The Church Long Before Rome "Declared" a canon
"our Lord, whose advent was typified by the son of Nun [Joshua], when He came, sent His Apostles as priests bearing well-wrought trumpets. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Luke and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds loudly on the twofold trumpet of his Epistles; and also James and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet-sound in his Epistles and Apocalypse; and Luke while describing the Acts of the Apostles. Lastly however came he {nb: Paul} who said: 'I think that God has set forth us Apostles last of all,' and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his Epistles, threw down even to the ground the walls of Jericho, that is to say all the instruments of idolatry and the doctrines of philosophers."
That's twenty-seven. :AMR:
Don't take Rome's mythological history bait. :AMR1:
For more see:
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Testament-Development-Significance/dp/0198269544
AMR
The NT Canon - **Received** By The Church Long Before Rome "Declared" a canon
From Origen's Homilies On Joshua, 7:1 (more than one hundred years prior to Athanasius):
"our Lord, whose advent was typified by the son of Nun [Joshua], when He came, sent His Apostles as priests bearing well-wrought trumpets. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Luke and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds loudly on the twofold trumpet of his Epistles; and also James and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet-sound in his Epistles and Apocalypse; and Luke while describing the Acts of the Apostles. Lastly however came he {nb: Paul} who said: 'I think that God has set forth us Apostles last of all,' and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his Epistles, threw down even to the ground the walls of Jericho, that is to say all the instruments of idolatry and the doctrines of philosophers."
That's twenty-seven. :AMR:
Don't take Rome's mythological history bait. :AMR1:
For more see:
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Testament-Development-Significance/dp/0198269544
AMR
God's Truth
New member
You did not read the whole counsel of God and you are not reasonable.
You are also trying to make the Bible untrustworthy.
Show where a false doctrine was made because of the staff.
God's Truth
New member
There were canons put together and used by people even before the Catholics. Different people gave personal statements about the books, but they were only commenting on the books and letters that the first Christians used from the beginning. They had only acknowledged those books early Christian communities already accepted as scripture.
Official canonization of the New Testament scriptures came about because of heresies Gnostics and other sects spread. The first Christians accepted as scripture New Testament teachings by letter and books right from the beginning.
The New Testament teachings were by letter and books right from the beginning. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul joins a New Testament scripture (Luke 10:7) to an Old Testament scripture (Deuteronomy 25:4) and calls them both scripture. In addition, we can see in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter recognizes what Paul writes as scripture.
jsanford108
New member
This does not contradict in any way the Canon established by the Church. Nor does it negate history. There are 27 canonical books in the New Testament. And as far as being "received" before being declared Canon, well, obviously; one cannot logically declare something canon if it has never been received.
Last edited:
jsanford108
New member
At the Council of Nicaea, the canon was discussed, but not formally assembled. The formal assembling of Scripture into a canonical "book," was at the Council of Hippo, in 393.
Now, historically, we can find that there are a few instances of the same canon being suggested, as that which was established in Hippo. Pope Damasus (366-384), in his Decree, listed the exact books that are today's canon, if I am not mistaken. From AMR's post, we see that before the Councils even, most of the New Testament writings were already being considered as inspired. The only thing the Councils really did was make it official canon.
Excellent questions.
1.)I see the difference between many accounts. Not just the exact wording, but even the numbers of people present at given events. But that is losing sight of the forest for sake of the trees. If one says there were 500 present at an event, but another says 491, it does not render the first account false. Context is key. Such a tiny discrepancy on exact figures is attributable to the gathering of eye-witness testimony. Besides, 491 and 500 are so close, the difference is negligible in historical context.
2.)As for logic dictating that the Scriptures are inerrant, we will go down a very long path. First, we must look at them as historical documents. How do we determine authenticity of archaic documents? Historians compare any historical document that purports to have factual events against other historical documents of the time. For the sake of time, let us just progress with the knowledge that this criteria has been fulfilled. Next, we look at internal and external evidence that alludes to authorship, composition, and events detailed. Once again, this criteria is met by the Scriptures. Thus, historically, the Scriptures are reliable histories.
As for being "divinely inspired," we then must decide on the most basic of questions, one which was asked in the Gospel accounts themselves. Who do you say that Jesus is? Either He was exactly what He declared, or He wasn't. If He wasn't, then we can throw out the Scriptures all together, for they serve no purpose except to promote falsehoods. If Christ was as He declared, being God, then, relying on historical accuracy with the knowledge that Christ is God, we can hold that which He said, declared, and fulfilled, as Truth.
From this Truth, we see Christ establish Apostles, establish a Church, and send the Holy Spirit to guide and discern for the Apostles. Here is where we truly exhibit faith, relying on that which Christ and His Apostles declared as Truth. Truth must be logical. Anything illogical cannot be true, thus must be false. The same can go with any declaration made about Scripture. If any portion is illogical, then it cannot be true, thus cannot be the inspired Word of God; God, nor His Word, can be illogical.
Men make mistakes, yes. No disagreement there. But that does not mean that God does. So, if God, through the Holy Spirit, allows man to declare Scripture "the Word of God," then it must be so. Those men can make mistakes and err, yes; but when making such a declaration, guided by the Holy Spirit, they are infallible.
I agree. Christ is risen, alleluia. And yes, we do not need a perfect book, but God in His infinite wisdom allowed us one. Also, the Apostles did have a perfect book, the Old Testament Scriptures. They knew, beyond a shadow of doubt, that these writings were the inerrant, divinely written, Word of God. How did they know these things though? The exact same way we know them today. God, using fallible men, allowed the Holy Spirit to speak through them, to make infallible declarations of Truth.
Last edited:
Your quoting of Metzger is incomplete. Here is more:
“From what has been mentioned thus far we can see that Origen has no question about most of the books of the New Testament; the exceptions are the Epistles of James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. In fact, he nowhere quotes or mentions 2 Peter or the two minor Johannine Epistles in any of his writings that have come down to us in Greek.
The situation is different, however, in Origen’s Homilies on Joshua (written about A.D. 240), which have been preserved, unfortunately, only in a Latin translation, made, as it seems, by Rufinus (c. A.D. 345–410). Here we find, expressed in characteristic Alexandrian oratory, an incidental enumeration of all the authors of the entire New Testament. After describing how the walls of Jericho fell down Origen continues:
“So too our Lord Jesus Christ… sent his apostles as priests carrying well-wrought (ductiles) trumpets. First Matthew sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, and Luke, and John, each gave fourth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds with the two50 trumpets of his Epistles; James also and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet sound through his Epistles [and Apocalypse];51 and Luke while describing the deeds of the apostles. Latest of all, moreover, that one comes who said, ‘I think that God has set us forth as the apostles last of all’ (I Cor. iv. 9), and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his Epistles he threw down, even to their very foundations, the walls of Jericho, that is to say, all the instruments of idolatry and the dogmas of the philosophers (Hom. in Jos. vii. 1).
How should one evaluate the testimony presented in this homily, where Origen seemingly mentions all52 the books of the New Testament? It is, of course, not impossible that Rufinus altered Origen’s words so as to reflect a later, fourth-century opinion concerning the extent of the canon. But, as “Harnack has pointed out,53 the position of the Acts of the Apostles in the list does not favour such a supposition. It is also possible to account for the differences in terms of Origen’s audience and purposes; namely, in the context of a sermon Origen enumerates writings which had not yet attained universal approval but which might be used perfectly well for the edification of the faith“faithful, whereas in more detailed discussions he customarily differentiates between the two categories of books.
In any case, the list clearly is of interest for the history of the canon. In the first place, it contains together, without mentioning any other books and without making any distinctions, the books that in A.D. 325 Eusebius would cite as ‘homolegoumena’ and ‘antilegomena’ (see p. 203 below),54 and Athanasius in 367 would enumerate as constituting the New Testament (see pp. 211–2 below). Secondly, the order of the books in this list is noteworthy. There are three groups: Gospels; Catholic Epistles, with the Apocalypse and the Acts; and finally the Pauline Epistles. This sequence of Revelation (if Origen included it in the list) and Acts is found likewise in (only) the Catalogue Claromontanus (see Appendix IV. 4 below), which also belongs in the East.
Throughout his scholarly career Origen consulted and cited many books that contributed something of value to the subject matter that was under consideration. He refers, for example, to several of the writings of those who have now come to be called the Apostolic Fathers. Four times he quotes from Clement of Rome’s I Epistle, and three times[…]”
Excerpt From
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Bruce M Metzger
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/the-canon-of-the-new-testament/id806791592?mt=11
This material may be protected by copyright.
It is ironic that you would advise against taking Rome’s mythological bait while quoting a Roman Catholic Latin rewriting of lost Greek text.
See post 86
Since Scripture, the Greek word graphe, simply means writings or document, there is no significance to calling a document such as Luke “scripture.” That is what it is.
You earlier claimed the canon was set in 325. Did you find any evidence to support that? What I have seen shows it was later.
Metzer’s book that both “Ask Mr. Religion” and I have quoted is excellent. There are some summaries of it here:
http://ntcanon.org/table.shtml
Thank you for your civil and thoughtful post. Please continue to engage me as a brother in Christ.
Another reason to question the Latin & Roman Catholic quote you provided is found in Metzger’s book.
“In a statement quoted by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. VI. xxv. 8) from the fifth book of Origen’s Commentary on John (written perhaps during a trip to the East in 230–1), Origen says that ‘Peter… has left one acknowledged (ὁμολογομένη) Epistle); possibly also a second, but this is disputed’ (ἀμϕιβάλλεται). In the same passage he mentions that John, who wrote the Gospel and the Apocalypse, ‘left also an Epistle of very few lines, and, it may be, a second and third—but not all consider these to be genuine’ (οὐ πάντες ϕασὶ εἶνσὶ γνησίους ταύτας).”
Excerpt From
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Bruce M Metzger
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/the-canon-of-the-new-testament/id806791592?mt=11
This material may be protected by copyright.
I missed this post earlier, when I made post 98, so ignore any questions I had in that post. I will respond to this post shortly.