Books of the Bible

[for_his_glory]

You forgot to add the pseudopigrapha, the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, the Gita the Koran, the New World Translation and any other "holy" writings that do not line up with Old Testament Scripture and the oversight of the Holy Ghost. The ones that meet those qualifications are the 66 books of the Bible (70 when you count the Psalms as 5 books).

Hi JohnD, I was only addressing the seven that were asked about in the OP to show they are in the Bible as not the whole, but parts of the importance they have to all of us. Nothing more, nothing less than the question itself. There are many more that could be addressed but that would be a lengthy discussion and a couple you listed I never heard of.
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
Baruch
I Maccabees
II Maccabees

 

[farouk]

Hi JohnD, I was only addressing the seven that were asked about in the OP to show they are in the Bible as not the whole, but parts of the importance they have to all of us. Nothing more, nothing less than the question itself. There are many more that could be addressed but that would be a lengthy discussion and a couple you listed I never heard of.
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
Baruch
I Maccabees
II Maccabees

for_his_glory:

It's interesting that, as regards the books of the Apocrypha, the so-called Protestant Apocrypha is even longer that the list of books which the Roman Catholic church acknowledges as the Apocryphal, or Deuterocanonical, books.

They are not, of course, part of the Canon of Scripture.

Blessings.

 

[francisdesales]

Deuterocanonical (or Apocryphal) books means they are not part of the Canon of Scripture.

Really? Than you apparently have tossed out 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, 2,3 John, Jude from your bible...

 

[francisdesales]

Yes, the apostles were infallible and no one else was. This is the teaching of the NT.

[

I thought we were discussing the contents of the NT. Again, you are basing your argument on circular reasoning... I asked that you would please stop that, you are wasting my time.

How can you base your "teaching of the NT" without an authoritative body to tell you WHAT IS THE NT/OT?

Whether you realize it/admit it or not, we BOTH look to some authoritative body to tell us what is "Scriptures", since the majority of them are not self-authenticating. You don't strike me as the "God is telling me that this is Scripture" bunch.

With the possible exception of Revelation, none of the NT books claim to be Sacred Scriptures or "written under divine inspiration". Thus, basing your idea that the "apostles were infallible...because it is a teaching of the NT" is hardly convincing, logically speaking, if we forego the idea of what IS Scriptures...

What is ironic, to me, is that even more so, my separated brothers rely on the JEWS to tell them what is the Old Testament. There is no apostolic authority here. The same group who discounts the Gospels are the judge for what is Scriptures? The apostles used mostly the Septuagint and that use continued by the Church Fathers after 70 AD. If we claim to follow apostolic teaching, clearly, we should be considering their judgment and using the Septuagint version of the OT, which does include the Deuterocanonicals and MUCH LATER cast out by Luther.

And so I ask yet again, how do we know what is Scriptures, unless we have an authoritative body to judge for us what was valid based upon the Apostolic teaching given? How can someone 1500 years or more removed decide which writings are actually from Paul or accurately portray the writings of the Church in the first century without a witness telling us so?

If anyone can present their case that we can come to know the Bible without the Church's witness without using circular arguments and other such logical nonsense, please tell me.

 

[francisdesales]

"The ones that meet those qualifications are the 66 books of the Bible (70 when you count the Psalms as 5 books)."


Oversight of Holy Spirit and the existing scriptures determined the NT was legit and the other writing not legit.

Do you know what a circular argument is?

WHO decided which was "legit" and which were not?

 

[francisdesales]

Paul the Apostle sure had it right.. was the Council Of Trent held before during or after the Inquisitions..

So did Paul also tell us the contents of Sacred Scriptures?

 

[Eugene]

None of the NT books claim to be Sacred Scriptures or "written under divine inspiration". Thus, basing your idea that the "apostles were infallible...because it is a teaching of the NT" is hardly convincing, logically speaking, if we forego the idea of what IS Scriptures...

Hi dear francisdesales, I would like to chip in here with N.T. scripture I believe to be relevant to the authority of bibles I am acquainted with. By the selection of your user name of “François de Sales” I suppose you to be Catholic, a church I came out of. As to their authority the following scripture remains fundamental to their dogma by the very printing of it.

You stated “None of the NT books claim to be Sacred Scriptures or "written under divine inspiration". Gal 1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.Sacred? You bet.

Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Rom 15:15-16 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

1Co 9:16-17 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! 1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.

Col 1:25 Whereof I (Paul) am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God; Logical? I reckon it depends on what you determine to be logical. Truth? Yes according to the authority of God’s word.

Blessings in Christ Jesus.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, how many times have I said the Church has NOT passed down either written or oral infallible tradition? No matter how many times I say this, you always answer saying I said it. I am making direct statements that I deny that that the scripture is infallibly passed down either orally or in writing. This is really not going to go anywhere if you keep forcing me to repeat over and over, tradition is not passed down infallibly either in writing or in oral tradition.

I bring this up because you seem to accept written tradition - what we call "Bible" - as infallible... What external evidence are you using to make this claim?

True, we do not possess any autographs. I have also stated this before. That is the whole reason I deny that written tradition is infallible.

Again, you are not realizing that what WE call the written words of the SO-CALLED apostle Paul are indeed a "tradition". I presume you are aware of a number of writings that claim the authorship of Paul, while Paul himself realizes that others are writing in his stead...

What do you mean "trust?" Are you saying that something must be infallible for me to trust it. I trust my wife, but she would be the first to say she is not infallible, do you trust your wife? Is she fallible or infallible?

To call it infallible is to mean that there is no POSSIBILITY of error. Please do not take this the wrong way, this is for the sake of argument - You trust your wife, but not infallibly, knowing full well that ANYTHING is possible and you may be wrong, even if there is a 0.00001% chance of that. Do you have ANY doubt that Matthew is not part of the Word of God? If you have NO doubt, then you believe that this writing has been INFALLIBLY INCLUDED. As such, the canon is infallibly given. Without error, it includes Sacred Scriptures and thus, we can trust its CONTENTS.

Your sentence is confusing. I am saying that all traditions of the apostles were infallible, but not infallibly passed down.

Based upon what "rule", Mondar? Even IF the Bible stated that "every apostle is infallible, (which it doesn't) and no one else, the very fact that this is written proves nothing on whether it is actually true. Marcion could have written such a verse in his version of Acts of the Apostles - and there you have it. That's my point, again and again... Unless you have an authoritative body we can trust to rule out such things, who witnessed the giving of the Apostolic teachings (orally and written), you have nothing infallible.

LOL, sorry about laughing, but where did I say that " So when you say "infallible", to what extent are you saying Paul's writings are infallibly passed down? Sigh, I did not say that the writings of Paul were infallibly passed down. Is this something you said wrong by accident?

How do you know that 1 Corinthians was written by the apostle Paul? It is not self-authenticating, nor do we have the original, only a copy. Think about this before you laugh and sigh. What external evidence (outside of the Church saying it is) are you about to give me to prove this is the Apostle Paul's writing?

Francis, all writings that claim apostolic sources in a false way are usually painfully obvious.

Please, I asked you kindly to not use circular arguments... Painfully obvious to someone who is begging the question. Don't you see that you are using logical fallacy? You begin with a presumed body of apostolic teaching - PRESUMED - and then you use THAT to judge what BELONGS??? How do you know, without a witness to the apostolic teachings, that the Gospel of Thomas does NOT include "infallibly" the teachings of the Lord? These writings are not necessarily contradictory - only contradictory to OUR sense of what is apostolic. Not by their own CONTENT.

Take this has a hint. How hold would Thomas have been when he wrote that Epistle. Where are all these 1st century pseudo apostolic writings? How many are there? To the extent of my knowledge, there is a big "0." The pseudo apostolic writings were all from later time periods.

That's incorrect. There are a number of writings that "date" the first century. Furthermore, how certain are you that the Gospel of Thomas was written in the 3rd century? Some state it WAS written in the first century. Of course, these men are not infallible, right? It is difficult to date such writings. However, we do have writings that we CAN date without doubt that refer to such Gnostic writings that are unacceptable to us. Irenaeus writes an entire book about them, writing c. 180 AD. Obviously, he is refering to pre-existing writings, is he not? Writings that CLAIM to be the teachings of the Apostles? What is the GUARANTEE against false apostolic teachings? He states the line of bishops that continue the apostolic teachings. I would suggest you read and digest "Proof of Apostolic Teachings" or "Against Heretics"...

If I could modify your statement above to "I cannot contemplate an authority telling me infallibly, what is the canon of Scriptures. I think that is what you are saying.

No, I am not allowing an authority to infallibly tell me what the OT canon is either. I do recognize the Jewish Faith as the guardian of the oracles of God.

Those same Jews discounted the NT and rejected Christ... This does not strike me as a consistent argument.

On the other hand, do you grasp the concept of trusting an authority without declaring it infallible? Please remember what I said. The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. Your not grasping what I am saying in asking this question.

That's your claim, but it still fails take into account that there are other such "collections". The Koran, for example.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Where is this thread headed guys? Please tell me it is not the the 'dead thread' .

Reba,

What would make this a "dead thread"? I ask because I was asked to return to this forum after a long time and give my particur Catholic input on the subject. I did because I see this subject as utterly DECISIVE. All the talk about faith/works or the Eucharist or the Trinity is secondary compared to this subject, in my mind. All else is opinion based upon a presumed authoritative book. How does that book become authoritative in these arguments?

Having a history background, I personally can appreciate that one cannot have a "Bible" without an authoritative body, accepted by the community, to vouch for this Bible. It's the same sense of knowing who Alexander the Great is, since we have no extant writings of people who lived at the same time as Alexander. Military historians thus rely on competent "tradition", if you will, of what Alexander did. Now, with the Bible and the Church, if the Church can make such a decision, accepted by the Church community of the era, why would one today deny other such authoritative decisions made by this body and accepted by the same community? As such, I had to become Catholic - this analysis was instrumental for me. Other arguments are circular and begging the question.

Thus, I would like to ensure that this topic does not become a dead thread because of anything that I say.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Hi dear francisdesales, I would like to chip in here with N.T. scripture I believe to be relevant to the authority of bibles I am acquainted with. By the selection of your user name of “François de Sales” I suppose you to be Catholic, a church I came out of. As to their authority the following scripture remains fundamental to their dogma by the very printing of it.

You stated “None of the NT books claim to be Sacred Scriptures or "written under divine inspiration". Gal 1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.Sacred? You bet.

Thanks for your input, but you fail to see my point - that you are using circular reasoning...

Is the Bible the Word of God?

Yes...

How do you know?

Because the Word of God is in the Bible...

Just the simple existence of a collection of books that we call the Bible proves nothing about the reality of the claims found within - its claims to eternal life or revelation by God to them. I could write such things and bury it somewhere. It can be found later - and maybe some cult will follow my writings. That proves nothing about their claims, does it?

Now, do you have a certified copy that Paul himself wrote that? How do you even know you possess the writings of Paul? Two thousand years removed, you know Paul wrote that, based upon your expert opinion? Or are you relying on someone else to tell you that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul?

Furthermore, even if we believe Paul wrote that, why would we, 2000 years removed, believe that God revealed anything to Paul? Beyond authorship, does THAT prove that his writings are infallible and true? Jim Jones claimed that God revealed that his cult had to commit suicide. Joseph Smith claimed to be inspired by God and so did Mohemmed.

At the end of the day, we rely on the witnesses of those who have seen and can vouch for Paul and his teachings. Without the church community to vouch for these teachings as the actual teachings given by Paul, you have hearsay. Deeper thought on this subject reveals that we utterly depend upon some external witness to vouch for the claims found in that particular collection of writings we call "The Bible".

Regards

 

[Eugene]

Just the simple existence of a collection of books that we call the Bible proves nothing about the reality of the claims found within - its claims to eternal life or revelation by God to them. I could write such things and bury it somewhere. It can be found later - and maybe some cult will follow my writings. That proves nothing about their claims, does it?

Now, do you have a certified copy that Paul himself wrote that? How do you even know you possess the writings of Paul? Two thousand years removed, you know Paul wrote that, based upon your expert opinion? Or are you relying on someone else to tell you that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul?ven by Paul, you have hearsay. Deeper thought on this subject reveals that we utterly depend upon some external witness to vouch for the claims found in that particular collection of writings we call "The Bible". Regards

Dear @francisdesales, thanks for your reply. I had not read back far enough in your posts to understand your exact thinking in this. I’ll go no further with this for to me we must have some basis for our faith, and the accepted books of the bible have established their veracity to my satisfaction due to their cross referencing even of Peter making mention of Paul’s epistles in 2Pe 3:16 “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

I would add that even if we have the sworn testimony of Moses as to the authenticity of a document, it is in doubt by some that read it. Being that we are in the wrong forum to debate Catholicism your same argument concerning faith based apparitions, and especially dogma assigned as a result comes into this same realm of belief.

In Christ Jesus.

 

[WIP]

Let's remember to take care not to turn this into a Catholic vs Protestant discussion. My purpose for this thread was to try and understand why certain books that were once considered part of the Holy Bible were later rejected as inspired. When did this happen and on what basis? The concern that I am having is whether or not it was right to do so.

 

[mondar]

Whether you realize it/admit it or not, we BOTH look to some authoritative body to tell us what is "Scriptures", since the majority of them are not self-authenticating. You don't strike me as the "God is telling me that this is Scripture" bunch.

In your statement above, this is typical of the way your reading my statements. Of course your reading too many things wrong. This broad brushing things in your statements demonstrate that your not grasping the issue. Yes, I consider certain people authorities. Why would I have a problem with the fact of authorities? The 1689 is an authority to me. It is not an infallible authority, but it is an authority. I have said stuff like this before. On the other hand, you look at Trent as an infallible authority. So the, yes, I believe there are authorities, but that has nothing to do with the issue. So why would you equate or two different positions?

What is ironic, to me, is that even more so, my separated brothers rely on the JEWS to tell them what is the Old Testament. There is no apostolic authority here.

francisdesales, you ask for apostolic authority to be behind the OT? We are talking here about authorship (or the apostles being used as eyewitnesses or sources). Think about this at least a tiny amount and there is something painfully obvious. If there is apostolic authority behind an OT book, there is a huge problem since there were no apostles during OT times. How could the apostles possibly then be the source from which the OT came?

If a godly person sat down with a manuscript of Jeremiah in 10 BC, would he be looking for "apostolic authority?" The person in 10 BC would not even know what an apostle is, let alone being able to identify apostolic authority. Are you going to tell me because Jeremiah was mentioned at Hippo or Trent, that this person in 10 BC knew that Jeremiah was the word of God? Of course protestants take into consideration what the Jews said, and of course that is not based upon Jewish recognition of apostolic authority. Does this mean that no one had any idea of what book was canonical until some later church council put it in their list of canonical books?

Francisdesales, your statement seems to me to be a painfully shallow response.

The same group who discounts the Gospels are the judge for what is Scriptures? The apostles used mostly the Septuagint and that use continued by the Church Fathers after 70 AD. If we claim to follow apostolic teaching, clearly, we should be considering their judgment and using the Septuagint version of the OT, which does include the Deuterocanonicals and MUCH LATER cast out by Luther.

Francis, this is another shallow statement on your part. Yes, the apostles commonly quoted from the Septuagint. However, they did not exclusively quote from the Septuagint. There were times they used something similar to the Masoretic Text. There are times they quoted from a text different from either the masoretic text or the Septuagint. If they quoted from various sources, how would this prove that we must consider only the LXX.

Your statement also fails to even grasp what the LXX was historically. There was no single manuscript called the LXX. Rather it was different collections of manuscripts in Koine Greek. Not all collections were identical. As we go later in history, more manuscripts were added. Also, think just a little about the history of the LXX. I assume some readers and you will be familiar with the fact that the LXX was originally a Greek translation of the Hebrew texts. Well, that would exclude books like Macabees. There is no Hebrew background to Macabees. That composition was originally written in Greek, how then could it have been one of the original books translated into Greek from Hebrews by the original 70 translators?

And so I ask yet again, how do we know what is Scriptures, unless we have an authoritative body to judge for us what was valid based upon the Apostolic teaching given? How can someone 1500 years or more removed decide which writings are actually from Paul or accurately portray the writings of the Church in the first century without a witness telling us so?

If anyone can present their case that we can come to know the Bible without the Church's witness without using circular arguments and other such logical nonsense, please tell me.

The essence of a failed argument is consistency. Since your argument is completely circular, how then can you accuse me of being circular? Rome claims infallibility. How can this claim be substantiated? It is substantiated because Rome claims infallibility.

I do not have this problem because I do not claim anyone knows infallibly what scripture is scripture. I can look at the testimony of everyone in both Judiasm and the Early Church and also the internal evidence within each book and come to a fallible view of the claims of each book. That is not circular, as your statements are.

 

[mondar]

mondar said: ↑
Francis, how many times have I said the Church has NOT passed down either written or oral infallible tradition? No matter how many times I say this, you always answer saying I said it. I am making direct statements that I deny that that the scripture is infallibly passed down either orally or in writing. This is really not going to go anywhere if you keep forcing me to repeat over and over, tradition is not passed down infallibly either in writing or in oral tradition.

I bring this up because you seem to accept written tradition - what we call "Bible" - as infallible... What external evidence are you using to make this claim?

Francis, first, your reply does not demonstrate that you grasped what I said. Your reply is non-sequitur and has little to do with my statement. I am not suggesting you did this on purpose, I think you simply do not know anything about the passing down of manuscripts. Because you know nothing about the 5700+ Greek manuscripts, you cannot grasp the point.

I talk about the passing down of written manuscripts, and you make a statement about me receiving the written tradition as infallible. If the autographs are not infallible, in what way can anyone claim to be "Christian." We would be adrift in the sea of secularism.

You ask for evidence of the truth of Romans? You want proof that John says anything worth reason? What would you accept as evidence? Will you accept "external evidence" alone? No internal evidence would be allowed because it would be circular? I do not agree at all that it would be circular. If you look at the internal nature of each book, it is great support for their being recognized as infallibly authoritative. Just read the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John and there are massive differences.

Again, you are not realizing that what WE call the written words of the SO-CALLED apostle Paul are indeed a "tradition". I presume you are aware of a number of writings that claim the authorship of Paul, while Paul himself realizes that others are writing in his stead...

Of course I know that infallible written tradition is tradition. Paul never recognized others as ghost writers, but most likely did use an amanuensis. Again, your broad brush things to make using an amanuensis sound like a ghost writer. Its not the same thing.

Based upon what "rule", Mondar? Even IF the Bible stated that "every apostle is infallible, (which it doesn't) and no one else, the very fact that this is written proves nothing on whether it is actually true. Marcion could have written such a verse in his version of Acts of the Apostles - and there you have it. That's my point, again and again... Unless you have an authoritative body we can trust to rule out such things, who witnessed the giving of the Apostolic teachings (orally and written), you have nothing infallible.

I must admit I cannot conceive of such claims. You seem to be saying that the writing can only be infallible if there is an authority over it to say it is infallible. So then, sola ecclesia for you and the scriptures for me. How would you know that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible? Your whole approach only puts the same question off one more level and does not answer anything.

Again, if you want me to defend the infallibility of the scriptures, what would you accept as evidence?

 

[francisdesales]

Dear @francisdesales, thanks for your reply. I had not read back far enough in your posts to understand your exact thinking in this. I’ll go no further with this for to me we must have some basis for our faith, and the accepted books of the bible have established their veracity to my satisfaction due to their cross referencing even of Peter making mention of Paul’s epistles in 2Pe 3:16 “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

I would add that even if we have the sworn testimony of Moses as to the authenticity of a document, it is in doubt by some that read it. Being that we are in the wrong forum to debate Catholicism your same argument concerning faith based apparitions, and especially dogma assigned as a result comes into this same realm of belief.

In Christ Jesus.

As I mentioned to Mondar, "Scriptures" in the above citation does not necessitate the same meaning you are implying, but can also refer to any writing whatsoever. Furthermore, a more careful reading states this:

Some of Paul's writings are difficult to understand. This misunderstanding causes destruction.
In the same manner, reading Sacred Scriptures is causing the same people to misunderstand and leads to their own destruction.

I don't see Peter calling all of Paul's writings "Sacred Scriptures" to be equated with the OT.

Regards

 

[mondar]

As I mentioned to Mondar, "Scriptures" in the above citation does not necessitate the same meaning you are implying, but can also refer to any writing whatsoever. Furthermore, a more careful reading states this:

Some of Paul's writings are difficult to understand. This misunderstanding causes destruction.
In the same manner, reading Sacred Scriptures is causing the same people to misunderstand and leads to their own destruction.

I don't see Peter calling all of Paul's writings "Sacred Scriptures" to be equated with the OT.

Regards

Eugene is totally correct in that the word "Scriptures" in 2Peter 3:16 can be none other than the OT scriptures. When he refers to Pauls epistles not talking about some letter Paul sent home to momma, it his Epistles to the Churches, or the epistles in the bible. Why would any other of Pauls writings be "hard to understand" and be "wrested ... unto their own destruction." Its not Pauls grocery list that would be referred to in this way.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, first, your reply does not demonstrate that you grasped what I said. Your reply is non-sequitur and has little to do with my statement. I am not suggesting you did this on purpose, I think you simply do not know anything about the passing down of manuscripts. Because you know nothing about the 5700+ Greek manuscripts, you cannot grasp the point.

I don't know anything about the variety of Greek manuscripts? Really? You think that? Wow, maybe it's time for me to leave again, I don't need such comments. I clearly stated several times in this very thread that there are a variety of manuscripts TO PROVE MY POINT about knowing whether a book, in of itself, could be self-authenticatingly infallible. I am hoping this is just a slip of the tongue and not some lame ad hominem attack.

Since we don't have the original autographs, how can you call a book infallible based merely upon reading it? ESPECIALLY considering the variety of manuscripts which differ in some ways. That's the point that you failed to digest.

I talk about the passing down of written manuscripts, and you make a statement about me receiving the written tradition as infallible. If the autographs are not infallible, in what way can anyone claim to be "Christian." We would be adrift in the sea of secularism.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY AUTOGRAPHS, MONDAR. Let me shout that out to you. Yes, you know that, you state that, but you are not making the logical connection, are you. NO, you aren't... On their own merit, without witnesses, HOW are you going to tell me they are infallible??? I never said the autographs are not infallible. You don't have any autographs, so what good is that argument from you? By internal investigation, how can you know INFALLIBLY that you have the actual writings of Paul? Did you live with Paul? Do you know someone who is familiar with Paul's actual writings (rather than the claims of Paul's writings)?

By themselves, we cannot even know that the writings that we have are from the supposed authors. Remember the manuscript argument that I made?

Is this sinking in yet? We depend upon a witness who cannot be mistaken to verify that such writings are indeed Paul's. This witness MUST be infallible. You cannot use a circular argument to "prove" that the Bible is infallible from itself. That goes way beyond even knowing who the author is of the writings...

You ask "in what way can anyone claim to be Christian"? Because people believe that the Church is a valid witness of Jesus Christ. As such, they believe what she says regarding the teaching of Jesus, to include the Bible and its interpretation. It CERTAINLY is not from studying in an ivory tower with the 28th edition of some tome, when the 29th edition will blow Romans 3:28 out of the water.

I think the part of the problem is that you do not fully understand the concept of "infallibility". You have admitted as such in your poor example regarding the knowledge of what your wife would do. Infallible means "without possibility of error". There is NO human endeavor that can have such a statement attached to it, without God being involved. Thus, we cannot use merely human means of IDENTIFYING those same writings and calling them infallible.

RC Sproul aside, the argument of "fallible table of contents giving an infallible book" shows a lack of knowledge on the very concept of infalliblity. For some book to be "infallible", one must be absolutely certain that it is presented without error. For the BIBLE as an entire entity to be infallible, each and every SECTION must be infallibly selected to an infallible content. Thus, there CANNOT BE a fallible decider of an infallible work, for fallible authority CAN be incorrect - which defeats the entire notion of an infallible book to begin with. The argument utterly fails. I pray that this is seeping in.

You ask for evidence of the truth of Romans? You want proof that John says anything worth reason? What would you accept as evidence?

That's not what I am asking for. Again, you do not understand the concept of infallibility. Of course there is truth in Romans. There is truth in the newspaper. Infallible truth? You are going to need some external proof of that.

Will you accept "external evidence" alone? No internal evidence would be allowed because it would be circular?

Internal evidence is not necessarily circular, so no to your question. If a book actually STATED that "this is the infallible word of God" or any such preface, we would have some internal evidence that could then be debated on its veracity. The Koran would pass such an internal test. Naturally, it would have to ALSO pass external evidence, as well. Now, if we had autographs, again, that is internal evidence - what is called "self-authentication". Courts of today have such standards. Unfortunately, the New Testament has very little internal evidence.

Fortunately, Jesus Christ was not concerned with apostles presenting an infallible book, but rather, an infallible Church, guaranteed by the Spirit of Truth.

Of course I know that infallible written tradition is tradition. Paul never recognized others as ghost writers, but most likely did use an amanuensis. Again, your broad brush things to make using an amanuensis sound like a ghost writer. Its not the same thing.

You didn't appear to know that a few posts ago. But don't worry, we'll drop discussion about traditions for now.

You seem to be saying that the writing can only be infallible if there is an authority over it to say it is infallible.

Yes. Otherwise, it is just an opinion, which is fallible. The contents cannot be infallible if we cannot trust of an impossibility of error.

BY DEFINITION, an infallible book must have been infallibly selected/recognized as such. ANY possibility of error taints the very idea of "infallible book", Mondar. I have been trying since the first post to make this clear to you...

So then, sola ecclesia for you and the scriptures for me.

Sola Scriptura for you. But you misrepresent my argument and what the Catholic Church teaches. The Church CANNOT teach something that contradicts the Apostolic Tradition, whether oral or written traditions. Thus, the Church is bound by the past handing down (and interpretations) of that tradition. Thus, the Church cannot call Mary "God" in an attempt to further devotion to her. Sola ecclesia would state, by definition, that the Church could change such beliefs found in Sacred Scriptures or taught by a different generation. That's the very idea of faithfully handing down the tradition once given. I am not allowed to further discuss that here...

How would you know that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible? Your whole approach only puts the same question off one more level and does not answer anything.

We are now off topic and are not allowed to talk about that, nor do I have to... The question is not about my beliefs, but how you have come to know about an infallible book without an infallible authority. You have yet to answer it with your long winded posts.

Again, if you want me to defend the infallibility of the scriptures, what would you accept as evidence?

That's your burden. To prove that fallible people cannot make a mistake on the contents of a book. You believe this, so how did you come to that belief?

 

[francisdesales]

Eugene is totally correct in that the word "Scriptures" in 2Peter 3:16 can be none other than the OT scriptures. When he refers to Pauls epistles not talking about some letter Paul sent home to momma, it his Epistles to the Churches, or the epistles in the bible. Why would any other of Pauls writings be "hard to understand" and be "wrested ... unto their own destruction." Its not Pauls grocery list that would be referred to in this way.

The Greek used by Peter refers to "letters", not "Sacred Scriptures". You see "scriptures", which means "writings", and you presume that they are equated to Exodus and Genesis. Clearly, Paul wrote a number of things that we no longer possess. Most Scripture scholars recognize that we do not have one or two letters that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, for example. We don't know what Peter was refering to, which writings, nor is it necessary to say Peter was calling Paul's writings "The Bible".

 

[francisdesales]

WIP,

To your question - it would appear that the idea of the contents of the canon was a long process based upon utilization of particular books to explain the teachings of the Apostles. Thus, when we look at the Church Fathers of the first few centuries, we see that they use particular writings, claiming the same authority for them as already-recognized Scriptures, such as Exodus. Thus, books found in the Septuagint are cited in the same sentences as Protocanonical books, which implies the same level of Scriptural authority. This recognition was a process. In time, as some questioned what was the content of Scriptures (namely, men such as Marcion who wanted to eliminate much of the accepted Scriptures), the Church found it necessary to rule authoritatively which were acceptable letters that could be read at the Liturgy and from which the Good News could be accurately proclaimed. This process led to such Counciliar meetings as Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century. These were not universal councils, but local. Only at Trent did the universal Church proclaim solemnly and officially (because of Luther et al) that "these books are Sacred Scriptures". This includes not just the 7 deterocanonicals, but also the protocanonicals, such as the Gospels. Since the Church community had already accepted that the Church declares such things without error, it remains accepted as such. Were these books "added in"? At what point can one say that there was universal acceptance of the 66 and not the 73, prior to Luther???

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

...

I do not have this problem because I do not claim anyone knows infallibly what scripture is scripture. I can look at the testimony of everyone in both Judiasm and the Early Church and also the internal evidence within each book and come to a fallible view of the claims of each book. That is not circular, as your statements are.

I am not ignoring this post, but quite frankly, it is filled with the same lack of appreciation for what "infallibility" means, so there is no point in continuing a detailed response. Your next to last sentence states the problem clearly: You cannot have a fallible view of a book and call it infallible. By definition, a fallible view cannot identify something as infallible.