Compiling of the New Testament

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Compiling of the New Testament

Post by jriccitelli » Fri May 04, 2012 12:23 pm

Jon, want you to know I appreciate your posts, knowing that it is hard when four people are throwing stuff at you it is hard to respond to all. And yet you made a good effort.
And if you cannot respond to everything that is ok, and it's understood that when life gets very busy there is not enough extra time to post here. I am 'really' arguing with the RCC's doctrine and leadership, and not it's people or you personally. So please pardon my perceived hardship as passion.
---------------------------------
Jon wrote; "And if we cannot trust ourselves, then how can we trust our own personal interpretation of scripture? Your comment is intended to support your claim that you should not trust in another man, but if you cannot even trust yourself per God's teaching and you believe it, why do you trust yourself in scripture interpretation?"

Jon, I love your thinking here, this is what I have been longing for.
'We cannot trust ourselves' but we can trust God.
This is 'not' to say we are such complete idiots that we cannot think for ourselves (in fact Gods word tells us to grow wise in 'all' our understanding).
But it 'is' saying; (as in as plain words as Gods word has given us) consider Gods ways, words, and warnings (like as we would listen to good and loving Father) and follow His thinking rather than our own (With that you would agree).
Any person who can hear and read (anyone who has ears to hear) can base their interpretation of scripture on what they are hearing. Gods Word does not need interpretation it only needs translation, since not all of us are Greek (yet my son in law and his family are very Greek, and of course Greek Orthodox).
The Bible was spoken in the common everyday language of the period and area, and the scriptures were written down in the common everyday language.
(As I have often said; God spoke to me personally, and He wrote it down so I wouldn't forget)
So our own personal interpretation of scripture is just really what our own final understanding has, so far, concluded from everything we have heard and read. Anything otherwise would be mind control. In this regard you have to trust your own thinking in the final analysis. (This is a good reason not to smoke pot)

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Compiling of the New Testament

Post by jriccitelli » Fri May 04, 2012 12:32 pm

The Biblical warning is; to not take 'anyones' authority on what God has said, unless it seems by demonstration of divine miracles or prophecy that it must be God who is speaking.
So I am only going to hold onto 'who' I understand as being 'authentic witnesses' to God and His Word. And I trust their witness has been faithfully written down for me in a collection of books that appear to all fit together in agreement and authenticity.

These I trust are Moses, Isaiah, Amos, the Prophets, as I trust John, Peter, James and the others in what they have written as faithful accounts of Jesus' Words. I have not seen any evidence or reason to not accept the 'major' portions and current Canon of scripture (99.8% NASB) Not because of some church council somewhere, but because I trust Gods word when HE promised HE would keep HIS Word, and I trust God to preserve and make available His word to me, no matter how much effort men 'try' to corrupt and change it.

So I am not going to trust in another man to tell me what God has written down in plain language. I do have to trust translations 'in a sense', but I am free to study the original languages on my own, and I have become convinced that 'God' has been faithful in providing us with very trustworthy translations of the very words God inspired HIS own Prophets and Scribes to write. So when I pick up any one of my 'more trustworthy translations' I am satisfied that I am hearing Gods Word.

The Old Testament mandate was that a Prophet 'prove' His authority from God, Jesus demonstrated this also, and so now it is written that we have Gods final Word in Christ Jesus Himself, and there is no longer any need for a man as Prophet, Priest or mediator between us and Jesus, it has been promised to us that those who hear and believe would each receive His Holy Spirit, and His Words are Spirit, that in Him no man will have to depend on another to hear from God because He has revealed His whole Word in His Son.

"We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us"
"And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. Little children, guard yourselves from idols" (1John 3:24 & 5:20-21)

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Compiling of the New Testament

Post by darinhouston » Fri May 04, 2012 6:36 pm

Jon, how do you respond to this passage?

Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Paul and Silas (more authority than the Pope, surely) taught them and they didn't just accept what they said, they took their words to Scripture.

Jon
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:34 am

Re: Compiling of the New Testament

Post by Jon » Sat May 05, 2012 12:33 am

steve wrote:
Do all Protestants understand everything in scripture the same way. Of course not. Neither do all Catholics understand everything the same way. There are many differences of opinion. As long as there are human brains, the tendency to think will be almost irresistible. As long as thinking occurs, there will be learning. As long as there remains something to learn, the learners will be holding some correct and some incorrect opinions. Even the Catholic Church has not been able to stop this trend in its own ranks. Of course, having different opinions is no excuse to break fellowship. It is reason to continue studying and interacting with those who disagree, so that either they or we will learn from the others. Disagreement arises, not from too careful a discipline of study in the scriptures, but from too little or too careless study of the same. Divisions arise, mostly, not from lack of uniformity of thought, but from lack of love.
Steve,

I did want to respond to this one point. Individual Catholics may not understand everything the same way, even Priests may not understand it in the same way, but this may be poor teaching. The Catholic Church does not teach differences of opinion or multiple versions of the Truth. Protestant Churches do. This is the difference. A Catholic can always rely on the Church to have one single correct interpretation of the Bible or Tradition. Protestants cannot make this claim. In this regard Catholics and Protestants are not the same, and it's not simply "oh everyone sees things differently whether you're Catholic or not".

Jon

Jon
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:34 am

Re: Compiling of the New Testament

Post by Jon » Sat May 05, 2012 12:47 am

jriccitelli wrote: So I am not going to trust in another man to tell me what God has written down in plain language. I do have to trust translations 'in a sense', but I am free to study the original languages on my own, and I have become convinced that 'God' has been faithful in providing us with very trustworthy translations of the very words God inspired HIS own Prophets and Scribes to write. So when I pick up any one of my 'more trustworthy translations' I am satisfied that I am hearing Gods Word.
John,

We'll get back to the RCC stuff later - I do want to respond but I've been sick, have a new baby coming in a few days, and have too much to do in preparation. I will probably fall off the map soon but I will be back.

For all who have been reading this thread including John who have had discussions with me, I, like John, may seem heated at times, but I believe it is because we are all passionate about sharing what we believe to be the truth. However, anger, bickering, argumentative conversation, these are tools of the Devil for us to not have useful dialogue. If I have sounded short in any of my posts I blame the Devil or my zealousness and I apologize. I value these conversations and want to keep up the useful conversation. Let's keep it up.

Back to John, there is definitely danger in thinking that you are free from deception with your own thoughts about God's word. The Devil is not limited to only using other men to lead you astray. Assuming any "man" is wrong but your personal thoughts are free from error or diversion is a dangerous stance. How might you explain the volume of different Christian denominations in the world today? Do you think they are all begun by corrupt men leading other men? Or is it possible that the seed of division and confusion is planted by the Devil, who chooses to divide us in this way?

Out of curiosity do you belong to a denomination and if so how did you choose it and/or the church you attend today?

Jon

Jon
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:34 am

Re: Compiling of the New Testament

Post by Jon » Sat May 05, 2012 1:03 am

darinhouston wrote:Jon, how do you respond to this passage?

Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Paul and Silas (more authority than the Pope, surely) taught them and they didn't just accept what they said, they took their words to Scripture.
I have recently re-read Acts and know this passage well. I'm assuming they are looking up OT scriptures to help verify the prophecies about Jesus. This is a slightly different case than we have today because the NT was not written at this time, right?

The Catholic Church does not try to hide the Bible in the corner. I would think that if the Bereans found something in scripture that contradicted Paul and Silas' message they would have brought it up and we would have read about it.

The Christian Church existed for a while before the New Testament was written. Teaching of the Word had to be done by men only and not through the Bible, since the Christian Church existed before the NT Bible was written. Traditions may be passed between men that are not explicitly stated in the Bible. Is there a passage in the Bible that says "this is the only complete work you need to understand the complete Truth of God's word"? I don't think there is, but if you have a relevant passage let us please examine it together. Please don't use the closing passage of the Bible to argue this, it does not imply that it is the sole teaching authority to God's word, only that no man should CHANGE what is written in the Bible.

How would you respond to this passage?

2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

Jon

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Compiling of the New Testament

Post by darinhouston » Sat May 05, 2012 8:13 am

Jon wrote: I have recently re-read Acts and know this passage well. I'm assuming they are looking up OT scriptures to help verify the prophecies about Jesus. This is a slightly different case than we have today because the NT was not written at this time, right?
No, it's not different. First, you assume this was only about prophecies, but what basis do you have for this? In either event, they were taught something by an apostle (whether prophecy or didactic teaching about God's grace and means of salvation or whatever). The point is they didn't just accept the authority of the apostles. They judged it not against their authority but against the Scriptures.
Jon wrote:The Christian Church existed for a while before the New Testament was written. Teaching of the Word had to be done by men only and not through the Bible, since the Christian Church existed before the NT Bible was written. Traditions may be passed between men that are not explicitly stated in the Bible. Is there a passage in the Bible that says "this is the only complete work you need to understand the complete Truth of God's word"? I don't think there is, but if you have a relevant passage let us please examine it together. Please don't use the closing passage of the Bible to argue this, it does not imply that it is the sole teaching authority to God's word, only that no man should CHANGE what is written in the Bible.

How would you respond to this passage?

2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

Jon
I respond with a hearty "Amen!" It doesn't just say "the traditions they were taught." I believe "from us" modifies both "by word of mouth" and "by letter." So, here they are saying it is the traditions of the Apostles that are to be held firm to. This begs the question of whether today's bishops are successors of the Apostles with their same authority. I do not believe this is the case. Yes, there are teachings and traditions passed between men not stated in the Bible, but we have nothing to judge them by except Scripture. They are to be respected, but they have no authority over Scripture, no matter who they come from.

There are other sources of revealing God's Truth, and the Bible tells us that we can seek the wisdom of elders and others of faith, but while their can be wisdom and Truth from them, there is no inherent authority from them that doesn't derive from the extent to which they are being true to the Apostle's teaching. I have no such inherent confidence in anything from the RCC. If they could show a tradition derives directly from the Apostle's teaching, I would judge that evidence and if it could be shown to be truly an Apostle's teaching, I would stand firm and hold to it as though it were Scripture. But, the one thing I know is that it would never contradict Scripture.

I have seen many contradictions and positions that are outright against Scriptural teaching from the RCC over the years. Faced with these, the only response when it is incontrovertible seems to be that the pope wasn't acting ex cathedra but as a private theologian This is not only a little too "convenient" (and has been demonstrated false) but leaves the Catholic without the ability to discern the difference, so what god does it do for you? One example that comes to mind since you raised the Canon is Pope Gregory's official rejection of the entirety of the Apocrypha.

Jon
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:34 am

Re: Compiling of the New Testament

Post by Jon » Sat May 05, 2012 8:54 am

Darin,

It sounds like you are implying that the RCC teaches that their Tradition is greater than Scripture. They teach that Scripture and Tradition are equal in authority and do not contradict. Based on your comments it seems like you believe Scripture is the only authority.

Clearly if something is passed down by Tradition it is not necessarily in Scripture. Yet, you turn to scripture to judge the Tradition. Using this method you will probably never consider the RCC position.

I'll look into more detail about Pope Gregory's situation before I respond to that comment.

If I accepted your judgement that the RCC is contradictory and I decided to look for the true Church, where would you have me turn? Is there any Christian group that does not contract themselves or scripture by the same standard you are judging the RCC by?

Jon

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Compiling of the New Testament

Post by steve » Sat May 05, 2012 10:24 am

If I accepted your judgement that the RCC is contradictory and I decided to look for the true Church, where would you have me turn? Is there any Christian group that does not contract themselves or scripture by the same standard you are judging the RCC by?
Why must you turn to a group? All groups are flawed. Why not just walk with Jesus and enjoy the company of others who do so?

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Compiling of the New Testament

Post by jriccitelli » Sat May 05, 2012 10:51 am

Whether you approach the books of the Bible one at a time, or all at once, the "canon debate" is a smoke screen argument, just as the; "thousands of protestant denominations" argument is. The Roman Catholic Church lights these huge fires and points the finger at the 'Christians'. The RCC 'leaders' are the dissenters from the Bible, and are guilty of starting a denomination themselves, even punishing those who would disagree.
This sounds more like a dangerous cult than a denomination.
There are also many differing opinions 'within' the RCC, and they have changed their own doctrines over the years. So the next time I see the Pope I am going to ask him to quit allowing his Apologists to use this argument to white wash over its own sins in an attempt to keep or gain converts.
(Note; I had already written the above awhile back on another blog, and before seeing Jon's point today about 'denominations', same old argument)

The same also goes for the RCC's 'Canon' argument; this argument is true only if we believe their 'other' argument is true. That argument is; "We are the true Church because we have the keys of Saint Peter"
(This claim is based on their interpretation of Matt 16:18)

They are claiming the Council of Hippo and Carthage were the councils of God Himself.
Do you see the circular reasoning between the two?
To say that these councils were the elected vessels and spokesmen for God is without warrant or verification. The councils were a collection of believers and elders for sure, but saying that the council was the 'divinely selected' group of men with the keys of Saint Peter is going 'way' too far. The RCC is claiming the council for themselves but missing the major point that; God is the head of the Church, and 'never' a man.
Nothing says; "The true Church will establish the Canon, therefore this is how you will know them". The Scriptures teach that The True Church will 'not have a man at the head' of His Church. 'This' is how you will know 'Him'.

No one is in grave danger because they have an extra book on their shelf, the real danger may be when 'someone' demands that the questionable books support something other than what the 'foundational' and generally accepted books teach. The only books in question are really just the Apocrypha and a few of the books at the end of the New Testament. The major Canon of scripture was clearly used profoundly by all. Each person can have there own opinion of the books in question, as did the Council of Carthage and Hippo. We can choose to examine the record ourselves. I would rather be dogmatic about the books that are without question and have always been accepted and used.

Post Reply

Return to “General Bible Discussion”