|
Post by yusufnoor on Sept 19, 2013 7:40:12 GMT -6
"None of the Quran makes any sense to a Christian who goes by the Word of God the Scriptures. the Word of God the Scriptures." Good Morning All, i was pondering this little quote by one of the members in another section... i'm assuming that by the phrase, "the Word of God the Scriptures", you mean "The Bible." i wonder what "evidence" you posses that inclines to to believe that "The "Bible" is the "Word of God"? let's start with a simple question, "who wrote The Epistle to the Hebrews? be cautioned, i'm not asking who you "think" wrote it, i'm asking you if you can tell me who really wrote it. please provide whatever evidence you have to back up your answer. if anyone actually attempts to answer correctly, i may post a little tidbit on the "identity of Melchizedek". good luck! (you're gonna need it!) Peace, Love and Joy! Sam
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 8:08:31 GMT -6
"None of the Quran makes any sense to a Christian who goes by the Word of God the Scriptures. the Word of God the Scriptures." Good Morning All, i was pondering this little quote by one of the members in another section... i'm assuming that by the phrase, "the Word of God the Scriptures", you mean "The Bible." i wonder what "evidence" you posses that inclines to to believe that "The "Bible" is the "Word of God"? let's start with a simple question, "who wrote The Epistle to the Hebrews? be cautioned, i'm not asking who you "think" wrote it, i'm asking you if you can tell me who really wrote it. please provide whatever evidence you have to back up your answer. if anyone actually attempts to answer correctly, i may post a little tidbit on the "identity of Melchizedek". good luck! (you're gonna need it!) Peace, Love and Joy! Sam All Scripture is inspired by God. The Holy Spirit was the divine author of the book of Hebrews. It isn't important who put the pen to paper. 2 Timothy 3:16–17 (ESV) 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
|
|
|
Post by yusufnoor on Sept 19, 2013 8:54:18 GMT -6
All Scripture is inspired by God. The Holy Spirit was the divine author of the book of Hebrews. It isn't important who put the pen to paper. 2 Timothy 3:16–17 (ESV) 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. so, you are saying that you don't actually KNOW who wrote Hebrews, am i correct? here's the problem with quoting "2 Timothy", it is a forgery! the vast majority of Biblical scholars agree that Paul did NOT write it! therefore, the book begins with a LIE when it claims to be written by Paul. According to: and therefore, we can conclude that "because you believe the holy spirit IS God" and God cannot lie, then according to your belief system, 2 Timothy cannot be inspired by God. we can eliminate it from any claim that it is "inspired scripture". now, where is your evidence that the "author of Hebrews", whom you don't seem to be able to identify, was "inspired by the holy spirit, "whom you claim to be God"? so, circular arguments aside, do you have any answer to who actually wrote it? i didn't say this was easy! Peace Love and Joy! Sam
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Sept 19, 2013 9:35:27 GMT -6
Oh dear. Yusuf most of us who are interested in the history and transmission of the Bible know that there are only 7 or 8 genuine pauline letters. Most of us know that the Gospels were written by the communities associated with various apostles. This is a distinct advantage for us. We know that someone wrote them-- not in a vacuum but as part of a community engaged in the work of spreading the Gospel. That is, frankly, far superior to arguing for the trustworthiness of "scriptures" dictated privately by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. That simply cannot be verified and I do not know why anyone would believe it. It is the same sort of thing Joseph Smith claimed-- he had been given 11 golden plates containing the Book of Mormon by the angel Moroni which he translated. Nobody else ever examined the plates and never could because they had been given back to Moroni. None of this is verifiable.
The Bible is simply not in that category. It exists in multiple manuscript families that support its accuracy (of text-- not necessarily what it claims). So I am afraid that your claim that we must be able to name the authors of the books of the Bible fails. It fails further because the Bible does not occupy the place in Christianity that the Qu'ran does in Islam. While Protestants tend to think of it as somehow divine, that is, and always has been, the minority opinion in world-wide Christianity. As you know, I imagine, the Catholic church down to this day is the largest body of Christians-- not by a little but by a lot. It has never bought into "sola scriptura". For us the Bible, which we compiled and safeguarded through the centuries, is a tool given to us along with Sacred Tradition. Jesus guaranteed the teachings of the Church. Not the Bible. So I am afraid that your belief that challenging us to name the authors of the individual books will somehow prove the Bible false is mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by yusufnoor on Sept 19, 2013 10:16:49 GMT -6
Oh dear. Yusuf most of us who are interested in the history and transmission of the Bible know that there are only 7 or 8 genuine pauline letters.
actually, there are only 7 authentic letters written by Paul, according to the majority of scholars.
Most of us know that the Gospels were written by the communities associated with various apostles.
how do you know which communities of Christians wrote the Gospels?
This is a distinct advantage for us.
how can not having 1 iota of knowledge as to who wrote a certain document be a means of attesting to the documents veracity?
We know that someone wrote them-- not in a vacuum but as part of a community engaged in the work of spreading the Gospel.
aye, but which community? Paul, himself claims there false Christian groups about!
That is, frankly, far superior to arguing for the trustworthiness of "scriptures" dictated privately by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad.
i've not seen "anonymous" used in any court to verify a document. hearsay, yes! fact, no! i am asking about Christian documents, there is a section for questions on the Qur'an! btw, you are incorrect in your statement that the Qur'an was "privately" revealed.
That simply cannot be verified and I do not know why anyone would believe it. It is the same sort of thing Joseph Smith claimed-- he had been given 11 golden plates containing the Book of Mormon by the angel Moroni which he translated. Nobody else ever examined the plates and never could because they had been given back to Moroni. None of this is verifiable.
i've seen this comparison before (though, perhaps in another section! ); there is a big difference between a book that no-one can understand and one which cause many to accept because no man could have written those those words! in other words, they understood it perfectly and completely. not only that, but the beauty and clarity and succinctness of the words were unmatched by any they ever heard! (this was in the Makkah period)
The Bible is simply not in that category. It exists in multiple manuscript families that support its accuracy (of text-- not necessarily what it claims). So I am afraid that your claim that we must be able to name the authors of the books of the Bible fails. It fails further because the Bible does not occupy the place in Christianity that the Qu'ran does in Islam.
that sure is a lot of misleading information. i shall have to ask, in the future, what it is you know about said manuscripts.
While Protestants tend to think of it as somehow divine, that is, and always has been, the minority opinion in world-wide Christianity. As you know, I imagine, the Catholic church down to this day is the largest body of Christians-- not by a little but by a lot.
actually, there is a lot of misconception about the early church. the original churches were in Palestine, Antioch and Alexandria. most of those churches did not and do not agree with the "Catholic Church". it was centuries after the first Christian group that the church in Rome became the "Catholic" church. the Papa in Alexandria and the Bishop of Antioch were the most powerful seats in the church. if numbers were the factor in "correctness", we'd all be agnostic!
It has never bought into "sola scriptura". For us the Bible, which we compiled and safeguarded through the centuries, is a tool given to us along with Sacred Tradition.
that just means that you are Catholic! and it would be more correct to say, " the Bible, which we compiled through the centuries..."
Jesus guaranteed the teachings of the Church.
but you are claiming that your church is the church of Jesus. there is no evidence for that. so your claim becomes that you have no basis for the "correctness" of your beliefs OR the "correctness" your Bible! you are therefore in the position of having to prove that you "are the church of Jesus". in order to do that, you have to determine what Jesus taught. THAT brings us back to "who wrote the New Testament" in order to determine what Jesus taught
Not the Bible. So I am afraid that your belief that challenging us to name the authors of the individual books will somehow prove the Bible false is mistaken. so, to bottom line it, i can be correct in assuming that you DO NOT know who wrote Hebrews, eh? it's OK. there are times that "i don't know" is a perfectly legitimate answer. i say it all the time! what say you? Peace, Love and Joy! Sam
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Sept 19, 2013 10:46:43 GMT -6
I simply cannot reply to every sentence of a lengthy message that is all over the board. I responded to what interested me. There is nothing new in telling me that we don't know who wrote Hebrews. I have known that for 35 years. What is it you really want to talk about? You are going to have to pick one subject and stick to it until we get tired of it or come to some agreement about it. The idea that accepting a book dictated by an angel(which is absolutely unverifiable) is superior to accepting a compilation of books written by men strikes me as bizarre. It won't go any place either, so we need to agree to disagree on that subject. The biggest problem with your approach to this topic is that you are assuming that the Protestant approach to the Bible is the one we all share. It is not. Sola scriptura is fraught with problems. Challenging me to name the author of this, that, or the other book is simply a gigantic ! It isn't relevant to any concern of mine or of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by yusufnoor on Sept 19, 2013 12:38:56 GMT -6
Good Morning again,
my initial question was 1 simple question. it was really directed at the person who made the statement that i quoted. your answer is that you do not know. thanks you!
you muddy the waters, so to speak, when you feel compelled to add "The idea that accepting a book dictated by an angel(which is absolutely unverifiable) is superior to accepting a compilation of books written by men strikes me as bizarre"
i did not ask that question. nor was i seeking that information. but now that you have stated it, let me ask, "if you don't know who actually wrote a book, how can you "verify" that said book is inspired by a "holy spirit"?
it also begs the question, "do you know believe that human beings have had angels as visitors?"
and, no, i did not know you are Catholic. i usually don't assume what denomination folks belong to. am i to assume that ALL the Christians here are Catholic?
and do "all the Catholics here" use the same version of the "Bible"?
my bad, forgot to close,
Peace, Love and Joy, Sam
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 12:56:41 GMT -6
Yusuf, I said that the Holy Spirit wrote the Scriptures. All of the writing of what is contained in the Holy Bible both old and New Testament was superintended by God. 66 books, 40 different authors of different occupations and the time between the writing of the first book and the last was 1,600 years. And it is perfectly unified. God promised to preserve His word.
1 Peter 1:24-25
24 for
“All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, 25 but the word of the Lord remains forever.”
---------------------------------
it serves no purpose for you to be a Bible detective.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Sept 19, 2013 13:28:23 GMT -6
... you muddy the waters, so to speak, when you feel compelled to add "The idea that accepting a book dictated by an angel(which is absolutely unverifiable) is superior to accepting a compilation of books written by men strikes me as bizarre" Perhaps, but to me it is the 600 pound gorilla in the room. You are hurling challenges about the authorship of scripture so, of course, there is an undercurrent of "your books are made up, mine was not." Because there is nothing more to say after someone claims his book was dictated by an angel, the whole subject is off the table. It cannot go anywhere. This is the issue I am trying to clarify. The Bible can do nothing on its own. It is paper and ink. The Church, which compiled the Bible we have, based on 5 well-known criterion, and safe-guarded it for the next 1700+ years guarantees its inspiration. It can do that because Jesus Christ gave all authority to the Church and guaranteed that it would always teach truth in matters of faith and morals. It does? If you are asking me if I believe it has happened, I am quite certain that it has. No, indeed. We are all a different flavor of Christian, so to speak. I am not quite sure what you are asking. There are many translations of the Bible (they are not different versions until you start talking to the Churches in the East that have a somewhat different canon than we). The only difference between a Roman Catholic Bible and a Protestant Bible is that Catholic Bibles include 6 Old Testament books that the reformers rejected based on the objections of a Jewish council in 90 AD. The Jews had never had a formal canon. So, they came up with certain criteria for including or rejecting the books their people had written, e.g. They could not have been written after the time of Ezra (around 400 BC); they had to be written in Hebrew; and they had to written in Palestine. The extra books found in the Catholic bible are written in Greek and are found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation by Jewish scholars of the Old Testament books dating from around the late 2nd century B.C.) Well, this is getting too long. So, shall we decide on a subject to discuss more in depth? Or do you want to be less formal and go with the flow, so to speak?
|
|
|
Post by yusufnoor on Sept 19, 2013 14:54:18 GMT -6
Yusuf, I said that the Holy Spirit wrote the Scriptures. All of the writing of what is contained in the Holy Bible both old and New Testament was superintended by God. 66 books, 40 different authors of different occupations and the time between the writing of the first book and the last was 1,600 years. And it is perfectly unified. God promised to preserve His word. 1 Peter 1:24-25 24 for “All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, 25 but the word of the Lord remains forever.” --------------------------------- it serves no purpose for you to be a Bible detective. well, you've quoted 2 Timothy and now 1 Peter, so...who wrote 2 Timothy and 2 Peter? as for: "it serves no purpose for you to be a Bible detective"; i'm not, i just enjoy reading stuff by those that are. maybe you meant, "for YOU, it serves no purpose." according to the author of the Gospel, later attributed to Mark in Ch 7, Jesus said, "6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" i think it is reasonably logical to try to determine what is from God and what is from man. Peace, Love and Joy!
|
|
|
Post by yusufnoor on Sept 20, 2013 8:47:08 GMT -6
Perhaps, but to me it is the 600 pound gorilla in the room. You are hurling challenges about the authorship of scripture so, of course, there is an undercurrent of "your books are made up, mine was not." Because there is nothing more to say after someone claims his book was dictated by an angel, the whole subject is off the table. It cannot go anywhere. i was wondering why you all kept bringing up the Qur'an, though you all was a little bit crazy. THEN, the WHOLE of the quote flashed before my eyes...(i wasn't on the computer at the time.) didn't realize it started with..."The Qur'an..." i reckon i opened THAT door! the one against the other isn't my view on this subject (though it IS part of my view), you're a lot closer when you say the Protestant view. my views are more like: Bart Ehrman via Herbert W Armstrong. Armstrong got me to the point that i was "Ehrmanic" BEFORE Bart ever wrote a book. knowing the Christians change the Bible when they translate it (via JWs), i was pretty confident that the Gospel (later attributed) to John was tampered with and the verses 1:1-1:5 were NOT original to the document. WHY? it CAN'T be! you can't be a MONOtheist and a BItheist AT THE SAME TIME! (let alone a TRItheist, but THAT takes 3 centuries to happen.) Armstrong is a derivative or offshoot of 7th Day Adventist. so, in some ways, you could say i make Calvinists look liberal!This is the issue I am trying to clarify. The Bible can do nothing on its own. It is paper and ink. The Church, which compiled the Bible we have, based on 5 well-known criterion, and safe-guarded it for the next 1700+ years guarantees its inspiration. It can do that because Jesus Christ gave all authority to the Church and guaranteed that it would always teach truth in matters of faith and morals. you viewpoint assumes "a lot of facts not in evidence". ONE of your 5 well-know criterion is "Apostolic" authority. THIS is where your case doesn't hold water. the Gospels weren't given the names that they have because they were authored by those men, which they weren't. they WERE generally "thought" to be the most authentic by the end of the 2nd Century CE. that gives us a 150 to 170 year period where there is NO DEFINED CANON used by Christians, as well as the fact that WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN isn't really decided upon. evidence in that is the fact that Origen, once thought to be THE greatest "orthodox" speaker of his generation, had many of his views condemned as heresy 3 centuries later. the "Roman Catholic" view that there "always was an orthodoxy" and the "Rome" always prescribed to that "orthodoxy" is simple not historically accurate. whether you like that or not is irrelevant, whether the Roman Catholic Church teaches it is irrelevant. IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE! It does? If you are asking me if I believe it has happened, I am quite certain that it has. No, indeed. We are all a different flavor of Christian, so to speak. I am not quite sure what you are asking. There are many translations of the Bible (they are not different versions until you start talking to the Churches in the East that have a somewhat different canon than we). The only difference between a Roman Catholic Bible and a Protestant Bible is that Catholic Bibles include 6 Old Testament books that the reformers rejected based on the objections of a Jewish council in 90 AD. The Jews had never had a formal canon. So, they came up with certain criteria for including or rejecting the books their people had written, e.g. They could not have been written after the time of Ezra (around 400 BC); they had to be written in Hebrew; and they had to written in Palestine. The extra books found in the Catholic bible are written in Greek and are found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation by Jewish scholars of the Old Testament books dating from around the late 2nd century B.C.) let's stick with the New Testament. the OT actually began to written more cohesively (and re-written and edited) IN BABYLON! that subject can be discussed in the appropriate section. much like Christians, Jews aren't exactly sure WHAT should be in their Scriptures. the biggest hangups are Daniel and Esther. Daniel wasn't written until the 2nd century BCE, and Esther, well, OOPS(!). Esther doesn't contain ANY references to God. there most Jewish scholars still feel it shouldn't be included. (which is why someone wrote a prayer and stuck it in the end. so it could be included. though the prayer is usually excluded.)
Well, this is getting too long. So, shall we decide on a subject to discuss more in depth? Or do you want to be less formal and go with the flow, so to speak? if you want to focus on a singularity, lets look at your statement: you say that the "Church" safe-guarded the Bible for 1700 years. that leaves a gap of 300 years between Jesus, pbuh, and a "Bible." what happened in that 300 years? why was there no "Bible" for 300 years! THAT is an interesting subject. go ahead and give us your 5 criteria, and we can go from there! Peace, Love and Joy! Sam
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Sept 20, 2013 9:38:45 GMT -6
The Church had no Bible, i.e. compilation of texts, for nearly 100 years. Teaching and preaching were primarily oral, supplemented by letters like Paul's and other written texts which were circulated among the churches and read to the congregations. There were many texts circulating that were used by some congregations but not by others. That is why a "canon" was needed and it was left to various Church councils to decide on that canon. That happened at councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419). We have the so-called Muratorian Fragment (a list written ca. 155 A.D. to 200 A.D. of New Testament books). It contains most, but not all, the books in the canon today, along with some non-canonical books which the author of the list is also quite skeptical about. Interestingly, while the canon was settled in the late 4th century, it wasn't pronounced the "official canon" until the Council of Trent in the 16th century. It was necessary to do so because Luther and other reformers were proposing to throw books like Revelation, 2nd Peter, etc. out of the Bible right and left.
As far as the criteria for accepting a book as canonical are concerned, there is no mystery. It had to be 1.) "apostolic", that is, written by an Apostle or by someone known to be close to him. Since the Church had known from the beginning who the apostles were and where and with whom they worked, there is no great mystery there. 2.) The book had to have been used liturgically. That means it had to have been read aloud in the congregation and have met with overwhelming acceptance. 3)It had to teach true doctrine without contradicting doctrine. (There are a couple more that I cannot remember). As a result, wildly popular works like the Didache which taught true doctrine did not make it into the canon because its author was not an apostle or associated with one.
So, it is wrong to say there were no written texts for the first 300 years. It is correct to say there was no Bible, no settled collection of texts, that constituted "scripture". Teaching and preaching were mostly oral for centuries to come. Manuscripts were terribly expensive and most people were illiterate. Even after the invention of the printing press, books were terribly expensive and most people illiterate. We take for granted that everyone who wants one can have a Bible or twenty, if he so wishes. That is a relatively modern phenomenon and not one we can wish backward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2013 22:11:29 GMT -6
Yusuf, I said that the Holy Spirit wrote the Scriptures. All of the writing of what is contained in the Holy Bible both old and New Testament was superintended by God. 66 books, 40 different authors of different occupations and the time between the writing of the first book and the last was 1,600 years. And it is perfectly unified. God promised to preserve His word. 1 Peter 1:24-25 24 for “All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, 25 but the word of the Lord remains forever.” --------------------------------- it serves no purpose for you to be a Bible detective. well, you've quoted 2 Timothy and now 1 Peter, so...who wrote 2 Timothy and 2 Peter? as for: "it serves no purpose for you to be a Bible detective"; i'm not, i just enjoy reading stuff by those that are. maybe you meant, "for YOU, it serves no purpose." according to the author of the Gospel, later attributed to Mark in Ch 7, Jesus said, "6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" i think it is reasonably logical to try to determine what is from God and what is from man. Peace, Love and Joy! I already told you that the words written in the Holy Bible were superintended by God, the Holy Spirit, that means that if someone comes along and tries to throw out some suggestions that the "literal" author is more important than the words then they are being a Bible detective and that is not helpful.
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Sept 21, 2013 18:58:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by yusufnoor on Sept 24, 2013 22:58:08 GMT -6
jstwebbrowsing wrote: did you 2 want to sidebar? well, apart from the incorrect designation, "God, the Holy Spirit" (as there is only One True God), what is your evidence that someone was "supervised" by what you allege is the "Holy Spirit?" do you just take said author at his/her word? do you have any authentic writings to back up your mantra? you keep going in circles, using forged documents to show other forged documents somehow an act of God. and if you don't know who the author is, again, how do you determine that author's relationship to the truth? Peace, Love and Joy! Sam ps: i was going to ask about your "Councils" but i fugured i'd go back and read a few texts as my memory is not so strong. i'll probably misspeak when i know what i'm talking about, but the odds are even worse when the memory is a bit gray.
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Sept 25, 2013 9:34:46 GMT -6
did you 2 want to sidebar? I replied to your question.
|
|
|
Post by jstwebbrowsing on Sept 26, 2013 17:08:34 GMT -6
So what are your thoughts on Melchizedek?
|
|
john
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by john on Oct 1, 2013 8:45:23 GMT -6
Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by yusufnoor on Oct 8, 2013 0:18:56 GMT -6
So what are your thoughts on Melchizedek? my bad, 1 book leads to another and another. Melchizedek was a key (to me) to understanding that Paul, or anyone who studied under Gamaliel, could NOT have written Hebrews. of course, that was long before i understood that acts is "not correctly attributed", either. Melchizedek is NOT "without beginning or end." he was born in the year 1558 and died in the year 2158, according to the Jewish calendar. long lived, yes; eternal? not so much! no one who studied the Midrash could make such a n00b mistake. it's not in Philo or Josephus, but Gamaliel would have been familiar with it. after all, there is really only 1 person that it could have been! any guesses? and no,john, it ain't Jesus, pbuh! also, your reply to the question looked more like a "cut and paste" than an answer. for Maggie: are there any other books in the NT that you are aware that are "incorrectly attributed"? Peace, Love & Joy
|
|
|
Post by littleboat on Oct 8, 2013 4:13:27 GMT -6
Yusuf, I am struggling to understand what your motivation in starting this thread is; in other words, what are you trying to achieve? I have read through the thread but find it's a little disjointed and difficult to follow in many places. As a sort of 'refresher', would you be so kind as to re-state your purpose in a short, coherent sentence or two? It would be very much appreciated! :0)
|
|