Post by servantofthelord on Jul 20, 2021 0:35:42 GMT -6
I'm creating this thread in the hopes we can all unite on a few things that tend to get contentious. First off let us agree that language and words matter. Especially where it concerns our beliefs. If definitions are to be arbitrairily changed as we go, the words we use lose meaning and we become unable to communicate effectively.
When it comes to biblical terms, this is especially important. Communicating ideas and beliefs and understandings of things written thousands of years ago is difficult enough without using word in a way there were not used when they were written.
In modern times people tend to use the word scripture and bible as interchangeable. They aren't. The bible does contain scriptures, but it isn't the definition of the word. "Scripture" basically means inspired writings. Divinely inspired when we speak in biblical language. What writings are divinely inspired is and has been debated since before we had a bible. I won't pretend to be the best judge of this. I myself, nor any relatives I could hope to even document were around in the times these things happened and were written about. but I do believe a general "rule" should be accepted.
There is the books of the modern canon, which ALL Christians are usually accepting of, then there are apocryphal books. Since what canon is, is apparently misunderstood by a lot of people. We can take a quick look at this. Depending on your beliefs, there is generally 60 to 66 books you consider to be THE canon.
It may surprise you to learn that the Christian canon has never actually been decided. We have, through tradition, accepted for the most part, the 66 books that most are familiar with. But the canon has never been officially closed. So, there is actually in point of fact NO complete canon. I just had to dig out a handful of reference materials to prove this on a separate thread. I will attach the list of what books were accepted by what era and who, at the bottom of this post. So all can avail themselves of the very real fact that it changed depending on the times and the churches. Nobody has the sole right to proclaim any one as THE canon, other than as a traditionally accepted one.
There are a number of books labelled as apocryphal books. Some of which actually predate the torah of Moses. I will address these in a general fashion and not make claims that I cannot possibly prove. But there is a very disturbing habit that Christians seem to have adopted towards these books. This I will address.
The idea that just because the modern church has decided not to include a scripture into it's bible, does not automatically equate to it being heretical or of no scriptural value. I will use the most obvious and logical case to show this. The general belief is that the books of Enoch and Jasher are either heretical, gnostic or just of little value.
This is a very short sighted view and it then begs an obvious question. Can the writers of the canon books be called heretics, gnostics, or ignorant? Since there is reference/quotes to these two books by the apostles within the canon, why would we automatically cast dispersion on these books, and by extension, those who quoted them?
Can books that were obviously taught from or read by the authors of our bible, really have little or no value to us? Let me clarify, before people go off the rails here. I am not insinuating that we give them the same authority as the biblical books. But not for the reasons you may expect. It is because they predate the scriptures we currently use, and have been obviously copied enough times to have effectually changed parts of them, we can't fully rely on their complete accuracy.
However, if one takes into account that they only actual disagree or contradict the scripture we already use in a few places, and accept that these are more than likely due to translation mistakes and scribal errors in copying, we would be far better served by ignoring the verses that specifically contradict our bible and use what remains for historical value and an example of writings that go back further than we are accurately able to determine. If I gave you 80% fact and misstated 20%, is that a good reason to ignore the 80% facts I gave simply because I had the audacity to also be mistaken about something?
I don't pretend to be the ultimate authority on scriptures, but since many of those in question, don't even contradict what we do have, and in fact go right along with them and even quote them in places, why throw out the baby with the bath water? As to the idea they are all somehow gnostic in nature, the gnostics didn't even exist when most of these writings were done. They use the basic books we do, plus a whole host of books that they claim were also written by apostles, but not the apocryphal writings which were used by the early church and before that. They are separate and easy to recognize when you read,(which I wouldn't suggest people do) since they see god the father in a totally different way, as well as Jesus.
I'll close this with a historical recounting of what books were and weren't accepted at what times as I said. Thanks for your patience and I hope you will educate yourselves on the facts before doing as many do, stating opinion as fact, void of proof.
Melito of Sardis, circa 170 AD
Old Testament only. Found in Eusebius “Ecclesiastical History” IV:26
of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy
Jesus Nave (ie. Joshua of Nunn)
Judges
Ruth
of Kings, four books: 1 & 2 Samuel/ 1 & 2 Kings
of Chronicles, two
the Psalms of David
the Proverbs of Solomon
Wisdom (it is unknown if this refers to the Wisdom of Sirach also known as Ecclesiasticas or the Wisdom of Solomon: both are considered apocryphal by the Protestant church)
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Job
of Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah
of the twelve Prophets, one book
Danial
Ezekiel
Esdras
Origen, circa 240 AD
from “Commentary on Psalms”, also cited in Eusebius' “Ecclesiastical History” VI:25:1-2
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Dueteronomy
Joshua
Judges and Ruth in one book
1 & 2 Kings in one book
1 & 2 Samuel in one book
1 & 2 Chronicles in one book
Ezra and Nehemiah in one book
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Isaiah
Jeremiah and Lamentations in one book
Daniel
Ezekiel
Job
Esther
Maccabees
Eusebius circa 323 AD
from “Ecclesiastical History” III:25:1-4
Accepted writings
four gospels
Acts
Letters of Paul
1 John
1 Peter
Revelation of John (He states here, after the accepted writings is to be placed the Apocalypse of John, if it be proper. He also adds some reject it and some accept it.)
Disputed writings
James
Jude
2 Peter
2 John
3 John
Rejected writings
Acts of Paul
Shepherd of Hermas
Apocalypse of Peter
Letter of Barnabas
Didache
Augustine circa 397 AD
from “On christian doctrine”
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
four books of Kings (includes 1 & 2 Samuel)
two books of Chronicles
Job
Tobiah
Esther
Judith
1 & 2 Maccabees
Ezra and Nehemiah
Psalms
Proverbs
Sons of songs
Ecclesiastes
Wisdom (of Solomon)
Ecclesiasticus ( Sirach)
12 minor Prophets
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Daniel
Ezekiel
Mathew
Mark
Luke
John
Romans
1 & 2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesus
Philippians
1 & 2 Thessalonians
Collossians
1 & 2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
1 & 2 Peter
1,2 & 3 John
Jude
James
Acts
Revelation of John
Augustine further writes “For two books, one called Wisdom and one called Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon for a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is they were written by Jesus, son of Sirach. Still, they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have obtained recognition as being authoritative.”
That I believe is more than enough to prove my point historically by fact, not personal assumption. I hope you will reconsider “teaching” others the version of history you put in this commentary. Be blessed!
Let me point out that I am providing history and facts, not debating the canon. hopefully facts have no opinions, but are simply facts.
PS- I assume we are all intelligent enough to know that ANY book that provides an "alternate version" of the facts, or is more than just select verses off, we would know better than to give that book any credence. I'm mostly talking about the books that are within the Septuagint and the 1611 KJV, with possible select jewish writings if you'd go that far. But only with the understanding that they are best used as additional to and not in place of, the books we already all accept.
When it comes to biblical terms, this is especially important. Communicating ideas and beliefs and understandings of things written thousands of years ago is difficult enough without using word in a way there were not used when they were written.
In modern times people tend to use the word scripture and bible as interchangeable. They aren't. The bible does contain scriptures, but it isn't the definition of the word. "Scripture" basically means inspired writings. Divinely inspired when we speak in biblical language. What writings are divinely inspired is and has been debated since before we had a bible. I won't pretend to be the best judge of this. I myself, nor any relatives I could hope to even document were around in the times these things happened and were written about. but I do believe a general "rule" should be accepted.
There is the books of the modern canon, which ALL Christians are usually accepting of, then there are apocryphal books. Since what canon is, is apparently misunderstood by a lot of people. We can take a quick look at this. Depending on your beliefs, there is generally 60 to 66 books you consider to be THE canon.
It may surprise you to learn that the Christian canon has never actually been decided. We have, through tradition, accepted for the most part, the 66 books that most are familiar with. But the canon has never been officially closed. So, there is actually in point of fact NO complete canon. I just had to dig out a handful of reference materials to prove this on a separate thread. I will attach the list of what books were accepted by what era and who, at the bottom of this post. So all can avail themselves of the very real fact that it changed depending on the times and the churches. Nobody has the sole right to proclaim any one as THE canon, other than as a traditionally accepted one.
There are a number of books labelled as apocryphal books. Some of which actually predate the torah of Moses. I will address these in a general fashion and not make claims that I cannot possibly prove. But there is a very disturbing habit that Christians seem to have adopted towards these books. This I will address.
The idea that just because the modern church has decided not to include a scripture into it's bible, does not automatically equate to it being heretical or of no scriptural value. I will use the most obvious and logical case to show this. The general belief is that the books of Enoch and Jasher are either heretical, gnostic or just of little value.
This is a very short sighted view and it then begs an obvious question. Can the writers of the canon books be called heretics, gnostics, or ignorant? Since there is reference/quotes to these two books by the apostles within the canon, why would we automatically cast dispersion on these books, and by extension, those who quoted them?
Can books that were obviously taught from or read by the authors of our bible, really have little or no value to us? Let me clarify, before people go off the rails here. I am not insinuating that we give them the same authority as the biblical books. But not for the reasons you may expect. It is because they predate the scriptures we currently use, and have been obviously copied enough times to have effectually changed parts of them, we can't fully rely on their complete accuracy.
However, if one takes into account that they only actual disagree or contradict the scripture we already use in a few places, and accept that these are more than likely due to translation mistakes and scribal errors in copying, we would be far better served by ignoring the verses that specifically contradict our bible and use what remains for historical value and an example of writings that go back further than we are accurately able to determine. If I gave you 80% fact and misstated 20%, is that a good reason to ignore the 80% facts I gave simply because I had the audacity to also be mistaken about something?
I don't pretend to be the ultimate authority on scriptures, but since many of those in question, don't even contradict what we do have, and in fact go right along with them and even quote them in places, why throw out the baby with the bath water? As to the idea they are all somehow gnostic in nature, the gnostics didn't even exist when most of these writings were done. They use the basic books we do, plus a whole host of books that they claim were also written by apostles, but not the apocryphal writings which were used by the early church and before that. They are separate and easy to recognize when you read,(which I wouldn't suggest people do) since they see god the father in a totally different way, as well as Jesus.
I'll close this with a historical recounting of what books were and weren't accepted at what times as I said. Thanks for your patience and I hope you will educate yourselves on the facts before doing as many do, stating opinion as fact, void of proof.
Melito of Sardis, circa 170 AD
Old Testament only. Found in Eusebius “Ecclesiastical History” IV:26
of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy
Jesus Nave (ie. Joshua of Nunn)
Judges
Ruth
of Kings, four books: 1 & 2 Samuel/ 1 & 2 Kings
of Chronicles, two
the Psalms of David
the Proverbs of Solomon
Wisdom (it is unknown if this refers to the Wisdom of Sirach also known as Ecclesiasticas or the Wisdom of Solomon: both are considered apocryphal by the Protestant church)
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Job
of Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah
of the twelve Prophets, one book
Danial
Ezekiel
Esdras
Origen, circa 240 AD
from “Commentary on Psalms”, also cited in Eusebius' “Ecclesiastical History” VI:25:1-2
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Dueteronomy
Joshua
Judges and Ruth in one book
1 & 2 Kings in one book
1 & 2 Samuel in one book
1 & 2 Chronicles in one book
Ezra and Nehemiah in one book
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Isaiah
Jeremiah and Lamentations in one book
Daniel
Ezekiel
Job
Esther
Maccabees
Eusebius circa 323 AD
from “Ecclesiastical History” III:25:1-4
Accepted writings
four gospels
Acts
Letters of Paul
1 John
1 Peter
Revelation of John (He states here, after the accepted writings is to be placed the Apocalypse of John, if it be proper. He also adds some reject it and some accept it.)
Disputed writings
James
Jude
2 Peter
2 John
3 John
Rejected writings
Acts of Paul
Shepherd of Hermas
Apocalypse of Peter
Letter of Barnabas
Didache
Augustine circa 397 AD
from “On christian doctrine”
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
four books of Kings (includes 1 & 2 Samuel)
two books of Chronicles
Job
Tobiah
Esther
Judith
1 & 2 Maccabees
Ezra and Nehemiah
Psalms
Proverbs
Sons of songs
Ecclesiastes
Wisdom (of Solomon)
Ecclesiasticus ( Sirach)
12 minor Prophets
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Daniel
Ezekiel
Mathew
Mark
Luke
John
Romans
1 & 2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesus
Philippians
1 & 2 Thessalonians
Collossians
1 & 2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
1 & 2 Peter
1,2 & 3 John
Jude
James
Acts
Revelation of John
Augustine further writes “For two books, one called Wisdom and one called Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon for a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is they were written by Jesus, son of Sirach. Still, they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have obtained recognition as being authoritative.”
That I believe is more than enough to prove my point historically by fact, not personal assumption. I hope you will reconsider “teaching” others the version of history you put in this commentary. Be blessed!
Let me point out that I am providing history and facts, not debating the canon. hopefully facts have no opinions, but are simply facts.
PS- I assume we are all intelligent enough to know that ANY book that provides an "alternate version" of the facts, or is more than just select verses off, we would know better than to give that book any credence. I'm mostly talking about the books that are within the Septuagint and the 1611 KJV, with possible select jewish writings if you'd go that far. But only with the understanding that they are best used as additional to and not in place of, the books we already all accept.
