Bible alone

[Randy Kluth]

Yeah, that's the difference between us : you entrust yourself to the men who compiled the Bible (men who certainly held to tradition-based concepts you would reject), I don't.

No, I trust them only up to a point. The point is, I agree with the logic they used in adopting the canonical writings. It was a process--not a sudden revelation. The same reason they came to rely on writings as "Scripture" are the same reasons I accept them as "Scripture." They contain apostolic doctrine.

 

[Randy Kluth]

More circular reasoning : "no biblical source substantiates". Can't deal with this. Anyone who is reasonable will see I've already addressed these things. Nothing left to say. Not repeating myself or talking to a brick wall.

No, brick walls are not worth talking to--I quite agree.

That being said, you began with the assumption that Jude, a biblical source, substantiated Enoch as a legitimate contender for "Scripture." So now you find my doing that is "circular reasoning?" The mind boggles!

 

[GracePeace]

No, brick walls are not worth talking to--I quite agree.

That being said, you began with the assumption that Jude, a biblical source, substantiated Enoch as a legitimate contender for "Scripture." So now you find my doing that is "circular reasoning?" The mind boggles!

You must not have read what my position actually is if you find that inconsistent with what you think my position is.

 

[GracePeace]

No, I trust them only up to a point. The point is, I agree with the logic they used in adopting the canonical writings. It was a process--not a sudden revelation. The same reason that came to rely on writings as "Scripture" are the same reasons I accept them as "Scripture." They contain apostolic doctrine.

"Contain", yes, but to now proceed from there and say "this is all there is" is ridiculous.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Teaching authority of the Apostles and their successors . . .

No such thing as apostolic successors.

 

[Wrangler]

No such thing as apostolic successors.

His entire position is ridiculous. The entire claim of RCC authority is absurd. The very idea that almighty God would rely on the pitiful power of a man and his successors to carry out his plain for humanity's salvation rather than his own omnipotent power is shocking to all reason.

It really undermines the significance of the man Jesus later being given all power and authority - over heaven and Earth. The RCC is committing to usurping the proper role of Christ on Earth.


Jesus came and told his disciples, “I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth.
Matthew 28:18

 

[Randy Kluth]

"Contain", yes, but to now proceed from there and say "this is all there is" is ridiculous.

We don't have much else that claims apostolic authority from the Early Church. These letters were preserved precisely because there was a consensus that they were important. Other works, including heretical works, were preserved for different reasons. Some works, apart from Scriptures, were preserved for their intrinsic value in preserving some cultural truths helpful to understanding either truth or history. But I'm no expert in early literature.

Largely, Christians preserved what they thought were valuable as Scriptures because they had apostolic authenticity. Enoch falls into the category of OT literature, and thus falls outside the category of material declared canonical by the Church.

The Jews established what was Scripture in the OT period, for the most part. Some books, like Daniel, were "writings" that lacked prophetic authority for them, but still qualify as Scripture for Christians. There was a vested interest, by Jews, to reduce Daniel's material to something that cannot easily be accepted as legitimizing Christianity. They rejected Enoch as Scripture apparently for some other reason. I don't know what that was--perhaps a disinterest in legitimizing pseudepigraphal works?

 

[GracePeace]

We don't have much else that claims apostolic authority from the Early Church. These letters were preserved precisely because there was a consensus that they were important. Other works, including heretical works, were preserved for different reasons. Some works, apart from Scriptures, were preserved for their intrinsic value in preserving some cultural truths helpful to understanding either truth or history. But I'm no expert in early literature.

Largely, Christians preserved what they thought were valuable as Scriptures because they had apostolic authenticity. Enoch falls into the category of OT literature, and thus falls outside the category of material declared canonical by the Church.

The Jews established what was Scripture in the OT period, for the most part. Some books, like Daniel, were "writings" that lacked prophetic authority for them, but still qualify as Scripture for Christians. There was a vested interest, by Jews, to reduce Daniel's material to something that cannot easily be accepted as legitimizing Christianity. They rejected Enoch as Scripture apparently for some other reason. I don't know what that was--perhaps a disinterest in legitimizing pseudepigraphal works?

Again, sources the Bible cites authoritatively justifiably spark my interest.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Again, sources the Bible cites authoritatively justifiably spark my interest.

I'm okay with that.

 

[GracePeace]

I'm okay with that.

But this part you’re not : the fact that authoritative sources are left out proves IMO the Bible is incomplete.

 

[Randy Kluth]

But this part you’re not : the fact that authoritative sources are left out proves IMO the Bible is incomplete.

I'll try to explain my position, because I've not really given it to you. The Early Church, including the apostles, are *no better than you or me.* Now, that may seem a bit arrogant, and presumptuous, but I don't think so. We have the same Christ, and the same God, who is absolutely impartial. He has no reason to prefer one thing He created over another.

So what the apostles have is the call to preserve authentic original teaching from Jesus. Nobody else in history can do that, because the past is past. The original Church, along with the apostles, are gone. Only they knew what happened and what Jesus said, because only they were there. And Jesus spent over 3 years with them every day, precisely so that they wouldn't get confused later about what he taught and what he meant.

So Scripture for me comes from people as flawed as you or me. The difference is, they spent 3 years with Jesus, and could accurately pass on what we call "Scripture," which are doctrines from Jesus that the Church can be adequately founded upon. After all, in the book of Revelation, the apostles are called the "foundation" of New Jerusalem. And Jesus, elsewhere, is also called the Foundation.

And so, Scripture consists of material that is really no better than what other mature Christians write, except that they had the advantage of knowing Jesus every day, and could transmit material accurately straight from the mouth of Jesus. This is called "source material" at its finest. But not the source material that we normally think of as such.

We normally think that getting back to the oldest documents provides authentic source material. In the case of Scriptures we have evidence that Christians through the centuries have been disciplined and faithful to transmit the earliest copies available to them. I think Jesus is indeed the source, and that's what makes the Gospels and the Epistles authentic teaching from Jesus.

If you're looking for extra-canonical materials to call "canon," you don't have much to choose from. But good luck--I won't persecute you for it. "Scriptures" merely represent, for me, reliable material from chosen Christian leaders who were given by God to give us "good stuff" upon which we can build our Christian lives.

Many Christian leaders and writers in history have contributed to Christian development in this way. But the "Scriptures" are unique in that they represent stuff directly from the mouth of Jesus, which certainly counts for something, right?

 

[GracePeace]

I'll try to explain my position, because I've not really given it to you. The Early Church, including the apostles, are *no better than you or me.* Now, that may seem a bit arrogant, and presumptuous, but I don't think so. We have the same Christ, and the same God, who is absolutely impartial. He has no reason to prefer one thing He created over another.

So what the apostles have is the call to preserve authentic original teaching from Jesus. Nobody else in history can do that, because the past is past. The original Church, along with the apostles, are gone. Only they knew what happened and what Jesus said, because only they were there. And Jesus spent over 3 years with them every day, precisely so that they wouldn't get confused later about what he taught and what he meant.

So Scripture for me comes from people as flawed as you or me. The difference is, they spent 3 years with Jesus, and could accurately pass on what we call "Scripture," which are doctrines from Jesus that the Church can be adequately founded upon. After all, in the book of Revelation, the apostles are called the "foundation" of New Jerusalem. And Jesus, elsewhere, is also called the Foundation.

And so, Scripture consists of material that is really no better than what other mature Christians write, except that they had the advantage of knowing Jesus every day, and could transmit material accurately straight from the mouth of Jesus. This is called "source material" at its finest. But not the source material that we normally think of as such.

We normally think that getting back to the oldest documents provides authentic source material. In the case of Scriptures we have evidence that Christians through the centuries have been disciplined and faithful to transmit the earliest copies available to them. I think Jesus is indeed the source, and that's what makes the Gospels and the Epistles authentic teaching from Jesus.

If you're looking for extra-canonical materials to call "canon," you don't have much to choose from. But good luck--I won't persecute you for it. "Scriptures" merely represent, for me, reliable material from chosen Christian leaders who were given by God to give us "good stuff" upon which we can build our Christian lives.

Many Christian leaders and writers in history have contributed to Christian development in this way. But the "Scriptures" are unique in that they represent stuff directly from the mouth of Jesus, which certainly counts for something, right?

1. Though I know Paul's statement in Galatians 2, I've also heard an argument (that I'm not entirely convinced by, but also leave room that it might be true) that might make me doubt that the Apostles aren't my betters... there was something that, over and over, set Peter apart, for instance.
2. Paul, author of the majority of the writings entitled "New Testament", wasn't with Christ 3 years--though he did say he had some revelations.
3. Again, when these Scriptures RELY ON and AUTHORITATIVELY CITE other documents (and, again, comparing Jude's citation of Enoch (calling him a Prophet who spoke God's Words, in order to teach the Church--using inspired-by-God material that corresponds with the inspired-by-God audience) to Paul's citation of a pagan (becoming as a pagan in order to win pagans' souls) is an apples-to-oranges comparison) not included in the anthology known as "the Bible" it's more than a hint that it, having been compiled by men "no better than you or me" (proven by the fact that they had already begun to hold Mary in far too high esteem--from whom issued errant doctrines--who would have been corrected by the Apostles had the Apostles been present to correct them, just as Paul wept knowing how men would come in later on over whom he would hold no sway) is not an exhaustive complete collection.

 

[theefaith]

No such thing as apostolic successors.

Why are there mosaic successors?
Matt 23


What authority does Christ have?
What power does Christ have?
What mission / ministry does Christ have?

Peter, the apostles and their successors have the same authority, power, and mission! Jn 20:21 as my father sent me, even so send I you!

The apostles are Christ’s successors!
They have authority to send others as well, apostle means one who is sent!

Therefore the apostles have authority to send more apostles or successors!
Apostolic succession!

The nations still need to be taught, disciples still need to be baptized and the church the new covenant kingdom of christ still needs to be governed!

 

[Randy Kluth]

1. Though I know Paul's statement in Galatians 2, I've also heard an argument (that I'm not entirely convinced by, but also leave room that it might be true) that might make me doubt that the Apostles aren't my betters... there was something that, over and over, set Peter apart, for instance.
2. Paul, author of the majority of the writings entitled "New Testament", wasn't with Christ 3 years--though he did say he had some revelations.
3. Again, when these Scriptures RELY ON and AUTHORITATIVELY CITE other documents (and, again, comparing Jude's citation of Enoch (calling him a Prophet who spoke God's Words, in order to teach the Church--using inspired-by-God material that corresponds with the inspired-by-God audience) to Paul's citation of a pagan (becoming as a pagan in order to win pagans' souls) is an apples-to-oranges comparison) not included in the anthology known as "the Bible" it's more than a hint that it, having been compiled by men "no better than you or me" (proven by the fact that they had already begun to hold Mary in far too high esteem--from whom issued errant doctrines--who would have been corrected by the Apostles had the Apostles been present to correct them, just as Paul wept knowing how men would come in later on over whom he would hold no sway) is not an exhaustive complete collection.

Yes, comparing Paul's quotation of pagan material with Jude's quotation of Enoch is an apples and oranges comparison in some respects. I'd hoped to show that language generally does *not require* that religious people cite religious works that are uncompromised to make a point. For example, Paul had no problem referring to "baptism for the dead" to make a point, even though "baptism for the dead" was not valid.

But there is no way I can prove this in this particular case except that the work Paul is citing appears to be pseudepigraphal, and his reference to Enoch legitimate. And so I conclude, along with the Jews, that Enoch is not canonical, although something worthy of quoting.

As to Paul being an apostle, I did not mean to say that all the apostles had to spend 3 years with Jesus. It is just a fact that the 12 apostles did have this time and for this reason, I believe. Jesus wanted them not to be better than us, spiritually, but to be able to reliably transfer truth from him to us, knowing that we all, including the apostles, are susceptible to error. Jesus wanted his teaching to be reliably and truthfully transmitted. Hence, we call it "Scripture."

Paul was an apostle not by virtue of being one of the 12 apostles, but only by virtue of his own special calling, which extended far beyond Israel. The 12 also had ministries extending beyond Israel, but their ministries began in Israel.

Paul's ministry began abroad, though he always taught in the synagogues abroad first. And he certainly consulted with the leaders among the 12 apostles, to ensure that his own stories and teaching about Jesus was correct. He was an apostle, therefore, in the truest sense of the word.

We cannot have apostles founding the Church today because it has already been founded. Nobody can go back and get the scoop on Jesus in the time in which Jesus lived, and from the people that intimately knew him.

That being said, churches are still be founded in other countries, and I suppose you could call leaders and missionaries doing this work "apostles." But I'm referring to the apostolic ministry of *founding the Church." And writing Scriptures was dependent, I believe, on getting the straight scoop directly from Jesus' apostles, as well as by getting spiritual revelation and calling directly from Jesus.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Why are there mosaic successors?

Jesus is talking about the Sanhedrin, who acted as Judges in Israel, especially with regard to religious matters. The law they defended and prosecuted was the Law of Moses, which is why Jesus says they sit in the chair of Moses. Long story short, these men were holding official positions in the government.

Apostle, on the other hand, is not an office. Unlike a supreme court, which is filled by successors at the death of a member, an apostle is an individual chosen by Jesus Christ to speak as his ambassador. The apostleship is granted by Jesus Christ himself, not filled by succession.

Jn 20:21 as my father sent me, even so send I you!

Here Jesus is talking specifically about the 11, no one else.

Therefore the apostles have authority to send more apostles or successors!

The Bible records one single incidence where the apostles attempted to fill the place of Judas. According to Peter,

21 Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. ​

There is no person alive today that meets these qualifications.

 

[GracePeace]

Yes, comparing Paul's quotation of pagan material with Jude's quotation of Enoch is an apples and oranges comparison in some respects.

Well, he himself said he became all things to all people so as to win souls--without a shadow of a doubt, that's all he was doing there.

I'd hoped to show that language generally does *not require* that religious people cite religious works that are uncompromised to make a point.

That's not even in contention--never was--what I'm saying is that when it is clear that Paul or Jude are citing from material that THEM THEMSELVES LIVE BY I am interested in knowing more about that source--and the fact that those sources in "the Bible", to me, is proof that it just represents another failure and I love truth and desire enrichment from those sources.

For example, Paul had no problem referring to "baptism for the dead" to make a point, even though "baptism for the dead" was not valid.

I do not know what that phrase means, and I would not say that I agree Paul was assenting to something he rejected.

But there is no way I can prove this in this particular case except that the work Paul is citing appears to be pseudepigraphal, and his reference to Enoch legitimate.

Paul quoted Enoch? You mean Jude?

And so I conclude, along with the Jews, that Enoch is not canonical, although something worthy of quoting.

Well, I tested "the Book of Enoch". I think the last two books (2 Enoch and 3 Enoch) are false : 2 Enoch says the sun was given 7 more portions of light than the moon (the moon has ZERO light apportioned to it), and 3 Enoch gives the wrong reason for Noah having received his name so I reject it. Incidentally, 1 Enoch was the book cited. I consider it might be trustworthy. Maybe it is a fraudulent document. I don't know.
The best books are John's Gospel and the Revelation he wrote anyway. LOL!

As to Paul being an apostle, I did not mean to say that all the apostles had to spend 3 years with Jesus. It is just a fact that the 12 apostles did have this time and for this reason, I believe. Jesus wanted them not to be better than us, spiritually, but to be able to reliably transfer truth from him to us, knowing that we all, including the apostles, are susceptible to error. Jesus wanted his teaching to be reliably and truthfully transmitted. Hence, we call it "Scripture."

All right.
Thanks!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well, he himself said he became all things to all people so as to win souls--without a shadow of a doubt, that's all he was doing there.

Paul was doing both, becoming all things to all people and quoting non-Christian sources to prove Christian truth. In quoting Enoch, Jude utilized a non-Christian source to prove Christian truth.

I do not know what that phrase means, and I would not say that I agree Paul was assenting to something he rejected.

I don't know what "baptism for the dead" means either. I just know that it sounds like Paul was referencing a non-Christian practice to prove a Christian truth, that the dead do not *stay dead.*

Paul quoted Enoch? You mean Jude?

Yes, sorry. It was Jude who quoted Enoch.

Well, I tested "the Book of Enoch". I think the last two books (2 Enoch and 3 Enoch) are false : 2 Enoch says the sun was given 7 more portions of light than the moon (the moon has ZERO light apportioned to it), and 3 Enoch gives the wrong reason for Noah having received his name so I reject it. Incidentally, 1 Enoch was the book cited. I consider it might be trustworthy. Maybe it is a fraudulent document. I don't know.
The best books are John's Gospel and the Revelation he wrote anyway. LOL!

Right. I have Christian friends who accept Enoch. Not a big deal. Jude saw fit to quote it. It must contain the truth that was specifically quoted. Whether that sanctions the entire book of Enoch or not is in question. I sure don't lose sleep over it.

 

[Wrangler]

the authority of Christ you mean?

acts 8 the eunuch had scripture but the spirit sent an apostle to instruct him

Authority. Teaching. Not the same thing.

 

[GracePeace]

Paul was doing both, becoming all things to all people and quoting non-Christian sources to prove Christian truth. In quoting Enoch, Jude utilized a non-Christian source to prove Christian truth.

Ummm... all of the "Scriptures" the Apostles grew up on were "non-Christian". Oops!
We already know Enoch wasn't Christian--not even a Jew!

I don't know what "baptism for the dead" means either. I just know that it sounds like Paul was referencing a non-Christian practice to prove a Christian truth, that the dead do not *stay dead.*

So, you admit you don't know what it means, but you're using it as an argument?

Yes, sorry. It was Jude who quoted Enoch.

OK

Right. I have Christian friends who accept Enoch. Not a big deal. Jude saw fit to quote it. It must contain the truth that was specifically quoted. Whether that sanctions the entire book of Enoch or not is in question. I sure don't lose sleep over it.

I lost sleep--and I therefore went and did my due diligence, and found those latter books (separate writings) wanting.

 

[theefaith]

Jesus is talking about the Sanhedrin, who acted as Judges in Israel, especially with regard to religious matters. The law they defended and prosecuted was the Law of Moses, which is why Jesus says they sit in the chair of Moses. Long story short, these men were holding official positions in the government.

Apostle, on the other hand, is not an office. Unlike a supreme court, which is filled by successors at the death of a member, an apostle is an individual chosen by Jesus Christ to speak as his ambassador. The apostleship is granted by Jesus Christ himself, not filled by succession.


Here Jesus is talking specifically about the 11, no one else.


The Bible records one single incidence where the apostles attempted to fill the place of Judas. According to Peter,

21 Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. ​

There is no person alive today that meets these qualifications.

apostle not an office?

acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

that’s an office

Jn 20:21-23

as the father sent me, I send you

so they have the same mission ministry power and authority as Christ!
And can choose successors

must choose successors to continue to teach the nations and baptize disciples Matt 28:19