tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938438889241366279.post8056048872213903178..comments2023-12-31T00:17:31.718-08:00Comments on From the Caer: Scripture AloneProudHillbillyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14305205710265854978noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938438889241366279.post-74370875882725013412013-05-07T17:03:22.877-07:002013-05-07T17:03:22.877-07:00Just the fact that many people speak English but I...Just the fact that many people speak English but I speak Hillbilly can be a problem...ProudHillbillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305205710265854978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938438889241366279.post-45918313471470582922013-05-07T17:02:31.575-07:002013-05-07T17:02:31.575-07:00I am so easily tempted, though...:-)I am so easily tempted, though...:-)ProudHillbillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305205710265854978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938438889241366279.post-30577726990254743342013-05-07T17:01:58.406-07:002013-05-07T17:01:58.406-07:00I see I didn't make myself clear - the bane of...I see I didn't make myself clear - the bane of blogging. I absolutely agree that the documents you list above circulated throughout the Christian community as soon as they were written, being read, preached from, and used for guidance by the churches that were being established. However, Christianity has never functioned in a vacuum and is intertwined with history. The authors of the books in the New Testament canon were not the only ones writing and not the only ones whose letters were being passed throughout the communities. Disciples had disciples - Clement and Ignatius come to mind. Early church ethics and rituals were being laid out - the Didache comes to mind there. My reference is to a couple points: 1) Nowhere in the New Testament does it list which writings were to be put in the New Testament - there's no internal table of contents. We call them Scripture, now, yes, but not one of the books says, in essence, "Put me together with these other 26 documents and that's that." That came together over time and prayer and study and discussion and it came together amidst others writing and others having their letters treasured and read to churches for spiritual guidance - others providing context and history for the first centuries. Which is why 1 Clement was considered as part of what we now call the New Testament well into the 300s and the Shepherd of Hermes was considered highly enough to show up in early bound volumes of New Testament writings. The canon, that particular collection of books, is, in a manner of speaking, a tradition of man that you and I inherited. To say that scripture is scripture because it's scripture is a circular argument that doesn't answer the question of "Who sez?" 2) "Scripture alone" is not scriptural. Scripture is indeed divinely revealed, but the words "alone" or "only" aren't in it as far as total sufficiency for Christianity. For good reason - even the devil can quote scripture and every heretic who ever lived has backed their beliefs with scripture. Scripture can enlighten us, build us as Christians, give us ears to hear God with, but it can be and has been used to support appalling evil. <br /><br />I return to John's statement that we don't even have a record of everything Jesus did and said. What we do have is a Church He breathed on and sent out into the world. <br /><br />However you got to this blog, you probably read enough to know that I'm Catholic. Maybe you even went back far enough to see that I'm a convert. And I can support core Catholic teachings from scripture all day long given the time to write. If the Holy Spirit makes plain to each of us the meaning of scripture with no need of anything else, how is it that you hold that a verse means one thing and I hold that it means another? Can you say with certainty that I am not prayerful? That I don't read the Bible? That I don't study? Yet we differ. I would say that those differences are because scripture is NOT sufficient.<br /><br />And that doesn't even get into issues of language and translation, or of the earliest manuscripts for most of the books being fragments rather than whole documents or of so much having to be reconstructed with fragments that are basically out of some scriptorium's garbage dump, relegated there when an error of transcription was found. ProudHillbillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305205710265854978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938438889241366279.post-41385093320542742912013-05-07T15:20:11.923-07:002013-05-07T15:20:11.923-07:00I was thinking of the "Wicked Bible", in...I was thinking of the "Wicked Bible", in which a "not" was accidentally left out of "Thou shalt not commit adultery", earning the poor printers the ire of King Charles I and a hefty fine.ProudHillbillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305205710265854978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938438889241366279.post-9802681906582617902013-05-07T15:17:51.468-07:002013-05-07T15:17:51.468-07:00There is indeed an issue of translation. Other la...There is indeed an issue of translation. Other languages and English don't necessarily mesh exactly. Nuances can be lost.ProudHillbillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305205710265854978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938438889241366279.post-5352979004932336592013-05-07T04:24:58.721-07:002013-05-07T04:24:58.721-07:00Interesting site, and once again, the Bible IS ope...Interesting site, and once again, the Bible IS open to interpretation (in a whole bunch of aspects), but on the whole I agree with you.Old NFOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16404197287935017147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938438889241366279.post-16767244493997902312013-05-06T10:51:54.276-07:002013-05-06T10:51:54.276-07:00PH, I've read Mr. Finnell's writings too, ...PH, I've read Mr. Finnell's writings too, and we don't see eye-to-eye. But that's okay.Rev. Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04588179227576383679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938438889241366279.post-54435713346249858782013-05-06T05:02:13.965-07:002013-05-06T05:02:13.965-07:00SEE MY POST:DID THE 1ST CENTURY CHURCH HAVE NEW TE...SEE MY POST:DID THE 1ST CENTURY CHURCH HAVE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES?<br />The prevailing thought of many is that since the Bible was not canonized until sometime between 300 and 400 A.D. that the church of Christ did have New Covenant Scriptures as their guide for faith and practice. That is simply factually incorrect.<br /><br />The Lord's church of the first 400 years did not rely on the man-made traditions of men for New Testament guidance.<br /><br />Jesus gave the terms for pardon 33 A.D. after His death and resurrecting. (Mark 16:16) All the words of Jesus were Scripture. Jesus did not have to wait for canonization of the New Testament in order for His word to be authorized.<br /><br />The terms for pardon were repeated by the apostle Peter 33 A.D. on the Day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:22-42) The teachings of the apostles were Scripture. The words of the apostles were Scripture before they were canonized.<br /><br />The apostle Peter said the apostle Paul's words were Scripture. (2 Peter 3:15-16...just as also our beloved brother Paul , according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand,which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures...<br /><br />The apostle Paul's letters and words were Scriptures when he wrote and spoke them. Paul did not have to wait for canonization to authorize his doctrine.<br /><br />John 14:25-26 'These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to you remembrance all that I said to you.<br /><br />The words and writings of the apostles were Scripture and they did not have to wait for canonization to be deemed authoritative. The apostle did not use man-made creed books of the church or man-made oral traditions to teach the gospel of the New Covenant.<br /><br />Did the early church have written New testament Scriptures? Yes, and they were shared among the different congregations. (Colossians 4:16 When the letter is read among you, have it read in the church of the Laodiceans and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodica.) Paul's letters were Scripture and they were read in different churches.<br /><br />They were New Testament Scriptures long before they were canonized.<br /><br />WRITTEN<br /><br />Matthew A.D. 70<br />Mark A.D. 55<br />Luke between A.D. 59 and 63<br />John A.D. 85<br />Acts A.D. 63<br />Romans A.D. 57<br />1 Corinthians A.D. 55<br />2 Corinthians A.D. 55<br />Galatians A.D. 50<br />Ephesians A.D. 60<br />Philippians A.D. 61<br />Colossians A. D. 60<br />1 Thessalonians A.D. 51<br />2 Thessalonians A.D. 51 or 52<br />1 Timothy A.D. 64<br />2 Timothy A.D. 66<br />Titus A.D. 64<br />Philemon A.D. 64<br />Hebrews A.D. 70<br />James A.D. 50<br />1 Peter A.D. 64<br />2 Peter A.D. 66<br />1 John A.D. 90<br />2 John A.d. 90<br />3 John A.D. 90<br />Jude A.D. 65<br />Revelation A.D. 95<br /> <br />All 27 books of the New Testament were Scripture when they were written. They did not have wait until they were canonized before they became God's word to mankind.<br /><br />Jesus told the eleven disciples make disciples and teach them all that He commanded. (Matthew 28:16-19) That was A.D. 33, They were teaching New Covenant Scripture from A.D. 33 forward. The apostles did not wait to preach the gospel until canonization occurred 300 to 400 years later.<br /><br />THE WORDS OF JESUS AND THE APOSTLES WERE SCRIPTURE WHEN THEY WERE SPOKEN AND WRITTEN. THEY DID NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR CANONIZATION TO BE THE AUTHORIZED WORD OF GOD.<br /><br />MAN-MADE CREED BOOKS AND MAN-MADE ORAL TRADITION WAS AND IS NOT SCRIPTURE. <br /> <br />Posted by Steve Finnell at 4:22 AM No comments: Steve Finnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12863026367048527526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938438889241366279.post-87480762054753594992013-05-05T22:50:20.539-07:002013-05-05T22:50:20.539-07:00And, Lo, the LORD brought forth Gideons, and the G...And, Lo, the LORD brought forth Gideons, and the Gospel was spread... Acts of Gideon 5:32<br /><br />;)TinCan Assassinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01680618418991333460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938438889241366279.post-52998502486085723422013-05-05T19:48:35.401-07:002013-05-05T19:48:35.401-07:00Being a Christian myself, I've often wondered ...Being a Christian myself, I've often wondered at some of the things I read in the Bible, or have been taught are "Christian" or "Biblical" ways of living. Had a discussion with a co-worker on how far the translations have drifted from the original Aramaic/Hebrew over the centuries, how some passages were "edited" by a well-meaning cleric or scribe (check out the original translation for "Thou Shall Not Kill"...it brings a whole new light to why God would give that Commandment and then send His people out to kill everyone else), or were left out entirely because they didn't fit with how the Bishop/King at the time felt the Bible should read. Whenever I run into a sticky passage nowadays, I try to find a Hebrew translation of the passage, see what its REALLY saying.RabidAlienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07035887632706442114noreply@blogger.com