Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It gets tiresome that you keep claiming that when it's not true. Nobody I know "simply dismisses the parts they don't like". There is something to be learned from most of the Bible in a Christian study session or a sermon based on the day's readings, regardless of whether or not one believes it's literally "God's words" or not. Do you think our non-fundamentalist priests actually get up there and say, "we're going to disregard this part of today's lectionary because we don't like it"? See how silly that sounds?
Again, I will point out your consistent black/white, either/or thinking. Just because someone doesn't believe God actually directed that something be written doesn't mean it's dismissed. Don't you see ANY in-between areas anywhere? That way of thinking is extremely limiting, BF.
Also, "God-breathed" is but one interpretation of what the word translated as inspiration means, and while what you assume the term means or choose to believe it means is one thing, not every Christian agrees that it's what BF thinks it is
And stop saying this or that is what has been historically taught. It's not necessarily true. Christian history is far richer and more involved than what you appear to know.
There's a certain mystic that posts here regularly that makes a habit of telling us that the parts he disagrees with are primitive and barbaric. And he only believes the parts that agree with his understanding. So..well....sure, whatever.
The koine Greek word "θεόπνευστος", which Paul wrote in 2 Tim 3:16 literally translates as "God-breathed".
The apostles taught it. And since then it has been taught. That's history.
It's apocryphal. It's not Scripture. It was Luther that said it's great for historical purposes, but it's never been considered "God-breathed" as the rest of Scripture
It's apocryphal. It's not Scripture. It was Luther that said it's great for historical purposes, but it's never been considered "God-breathed" as the rest of Scripture
"Never"? How do explain its inclusion in the canons issued in multiple 4th century councils and its inclusion in the Vulgate?
I'm sorry. It was added by Jerome and others. But the Jews didn't include it in the canon, and the early church didn't consider it Scripture.
What years do you consider "early church"?
Where is your evidence that "the early church didn't consider it Scripture"? Since "Scripture" wasn't authoritatively defined until the 4th Century, it stands to reason that some Christians prior to that would have considered it Scripture while some didn't.
Many Jews used the Septuagint, which includes the so-called "apocryphal" books.
The New Testament itself quotes the Septuagint more often than it does the Hebrew Bible.
Typically, I use that phrase to reference the first century.
Quote:
Where is your evidence that "the early church didn't consider it Scripture"? Since "Scripture" wasn't authoritatively defined until the 4th Century, it stands to reason that some Christians prior to that would have considered it Scripture while some didn't.
Many Jews used the Septuagint, which includes the so-called "apocryphal" books.
The New Testament itself quotes the Septuagint more often than it does the Hebrew Bible.
I'll go with Jesus on this one.
Luke 11:51 "51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all."
Jesus was referencing the earliest bloodshed, in Genesis, and the last book of the Canon in Zechariah. He rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. He never quoted it. And there are no clear quotes from it in the NT. It was not considered Scripture.
The Apocryphal books were not officially added by the RCC until Trent.
It's apocryphal. It's not Scripture. It was Luther that said it's great for historical purposes, but it's never been considered "God-breathed" as the rest of Scripture
Typically, I use that phrase to reference the first century.
Ok, thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
I'll go with Jesus on this one.
Luke 11:51 "51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all."
Jesus was referencing the earliest bloodshed, in Genesis, and the last book of the Canon in Zechariah.
I don't see how that passage can be interpreted to have any relevance to the canon. Even so, Malachi is ordered last.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
He rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. He never quoted it. And there are no clear quotes from it in the NT.
Esther is not quoted either. The fact that they are allegedly not quoted is clearly not an automatic disqualifier.
At any rate, the Septuagint is quoted many times in the New Testament, and the Septuagint contains those books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
It was not considered Scripture.
By whom though? Obviously, it has been considered Scripture by many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
The Apocryphal books were not officially added by the RCC until Trent.
The present canon was formulated at the Synod of Hippo in 393. It was presented at the Council of Carthage (AD 397), and ratified by Rome.
Trent simply reaffirmed what had long been established.
I don't see how that passage can be interpreted to have any relevance to the canon. Even so, Malachi is ordered last.
The canon at the time was Genesis to Zechariah. So he was referencing the canon.
Quote:
Esther is not quoted either. The fact that they are allegedly not quoted is clearly not an automatic disqualifier.
At any rate, the Septuagint is quoted many times in the New Testament, and the Septuagint contains those books.
The Apocryphal books were in their own section. They were not part of the Canon.
Quote:
By whom though? Obviously, it has been considered Scripture by many.
Many also consider the RCC to be heretical. Do you? We can play this "many people think" game all day. But it isn't a good way to debate a topic.
Quote:
The present canon was formulated at the Synod of Hippo in 393. It was presented at the Council of Carthage (AD 397), and ratified by Rome.
And the Apocryphal books were not Scripture.
Quote:
Trent simply reaffirmed what had long been established.
And they added the books in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
