What Do You Think Would Have Happened If...

[Stranger]

Yes, everyone would be in Eden until someone sinned.. No, we would have all been kicked out because we've all sinned. Even if Adam didn't screw-up. you and I have.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).

But, if Adam hadn't sinned then we would not be sinners.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

Tom,

Because the OT and NT do not give a list of books that are inspired of God to be included in the Bible does not mean that what we have is illegitimate. In fact, the word, Bible, appears nowhere in the Bible (that I'm aware of), so why are you supporting the use of the term, Bible?

However, God gave teachers to the church (1 Cor 12:28 ESV; Eph 4:11 ESV) who guide us through that process. These teachers themselves are not perfect in their understanding as Paul told the Bereans (Acts 17:11 ESV) that they were to check his teaching against the Scripture. Which Scripture? The OT. Paul didn't say in Acts 17, here's a list of the OT books that you need to use to check my teaching. They knew what they were as affirmed by the Jews.

Do you want the pseudo-gospel of Peter (GPet) to be in the NT? It was rejected by the early church fathers because of its heretical teachings. It was found with the Qumran documents. It was mentioned by early church historian, Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (3.3.1-4; 3.25.6; and 6.12.3-6).

Why not also the Gospel of Thomas (ca. AD 40-150)? If you read the Gospel of Thomas and compare it with each of the 4 Gospels in the NT, you will notice the marked difference in content. I'd suggest a read of Nicholas Perrin's, Thomas, the Other Gospel (SPCK, London, 2007). Perrin concludes his book with this comment:

Is this the Other Gospel we have been waiting for? Somehow, I suspect, we have heard this message before. Somehow we have met this Jesus before. The Gospel of Thomas invites us to imagine a Jesus who says, 'I am not your saviour, but the one who can put you in touch with your true self. Free yourself from your gender, your body, and any concerns you might have for the outside world. Work for it and self-realization, salvation, will be yours – in this life.' Imagine such a Jesus? One need hardly work very hard. This is precisely the Jesus we know too well, the existential Jesus that so many western evangelical and liberal churches already preach.
If the Gospel of Thomas is good news for anybody, it is good news to those who are either intent on escaping the world or are already quite content with the way things are (Perrin 2007:139).

This Gospel of Thomas is a different Gospel, "a Christianized self-help philosophy" (Perrin 2007:139).

As for the Gospel of Peter [GP], please read this assessment: Quarles, C. L. 2006, 'The Gospel of Peter: Does it contain a precanonical resurrection narrative?' in The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. R. B. Stewart, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, pp. 106-120. Here are a few grabs from Quarles' critique of GP:

Such compositional projection and retrojection [of GP] are absent from the canonical Gospels. This suggests that the authors of the canonical Gospels were constrained to preserve faithfully the traditions about Christ, but that the author of GP felt free to exercise his imagination in creative historiography. The compositional strategy of projection suggests that the GP shares a common milieu with second-century pseudepigraphal works and casts doubt on [John Dominic] Crossan's claim that the GP antedates the canonical Gospels…
Compositional strategies that were popular in the second century can readily explain how the author of the GP produced his narrative from the canonical Gospels…
The GP is more a product of the author's creative literary imagination than a reflection of eyewitness accounts of actual events (Quarles 2006:116, 119).

Charles Quarles has an online assessment of GPet HERE.

Of the Gospel of Judas, the National Geographic reported:

Stephen Emmel, professor of Coptic studies at Germany's University of Munster, analyzed the Gospel of Judas and submitted the following assessment.
"The kind of writing reminds me very much of the Nag Hammadi codices," he wrote, referring to a famed collection of ancient manuscripts.
"It's not identical script with any of them. But it's a similar type of script, and since we date the Nag 'Hammadi codices to roughly the second half of the fourth century or the first part of the fifth century, my immediate inclination would be to say that the Gospel of Judas was written by a scribe in that same period, let's say around the year 400."

Here is another assessment of the "other gospels" in an article on "the historical reliability of the Gospels" by James Arlandson:

The Gnostic authors often borrowed the names of Jesus’ disciples to attach to their texts, such as the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Mary. The Gospel of Judas has been discovered, restored, and published most recently. Using the disciples’ names or other Biblical names gives the appearance of authority, but it is deceptive. The original disciples or Bible characters had nothing to do with these writings. The teaching of Jesus, the names of his disciples, and the four Gospels traveled well. Gnostics capitalized on this fame.

All of these (late) Gnostic documents would not be a concern to anyone but a few specialists. Yet some scholars, who have access to the national media and who write their books for the general public, imply that Gnostic texts should be accepted as equally valid and authoritative as the four canonical Gospels, or stand a step or two behind the Biblical Gospels. At least the Gnostic scriptures, so these scholars say today, could have potentially been elevated to the canon, but were instead suppressed by orthodox church leaders. (Orthodox literally means “correct or straight thinking,” and here it means the early church of Irenaeus and Athanasius, to cite only these examples).

This series challenges the claim that the Gnostic texts should be canonical or even a step or two behind the four Biblical Gospels. The Gnostic texts were considered heretical for good reason.

So there are scholarly and practical reasons why the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter (GPet) and the Gospel of Judas are not chosen over the four NT Gospels.

I examined why some of the content of these pseudo-gospels that are not included in the NT in my doctoral dissertation. Take a read of the Gospel of Peter (online) and it should become evident why such fanciful nonsense is not included in the NT. This GPet states:

Here we have a walking and talking cross that came out of the sepulchre - fanciful nonsense! One does not have to be very astute to reject this kind of extra 'gospel', yet John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar believes GPet is the original Cross Gospel from which the other Gospels derived this information (Crossan 1994:154-155).

Oz

Works consulted
Crossan, J D 1994. Jesus: A revolutionary biography. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

So my point still stands: Scripture does not give us a list of books that are to be in the Bible. Scripture is silent about it.

So now I ask you: How can an argument from silence be a logical fallacy?

 

[OzSpen]

So my point still stands: Scripture does not give us a list of books that are to be in the Bible. Scripture is silent about it.

So now I ask you: How can an argument from silence be a logical fallacy?

Tom,

Argument from silence is fallacious/erroneous reasoning because you can't argue about what Scripture doesn't say. Let's deal with what it does say. I referred you to Acts 17:11 (ESV) to demonstrate that the Berean Jewish Christians in the first century KNEW what was in Scripture as Paul told them to check out the Scriptures. No need to mention the books of the Jewish canon. These folks knew them - and so did Paul.

I do note that you didn't bother to address this matter that I raised about Acts 17:11 (ESV).

Your point seems to stand because you are arguing from silence and it is a logical fallacy. We can't have a continuing, rational, reasonable conversation when you want to argue about what Scripture DOES NOT say. Let's deal with what it DOES say.

If you follow the link I gave you to Argument from Silence, you would learn this about how the discussion between Tom and Oz sees Tom using an argument from silence fallacy. It goes something like this:

Tom: 'Scripture does not give us a list of books that are to be in the Bible. How do we know we have the right books in the Bible? Scripture is silent about it' (#20).

Oz: There is no need for a list of books because the Berean Christian Jews knew what they were according to Acts 17:11 (ESV) in the first century.

Tom: 'So my point still stands: Scripture does not give us a list of books that are to be in the Bible. Scripture is silent about it' (#23).

Oz: Scripture does not need to give a list. You are placing a demand on Scripture that Scripture does not require. You are arguing about something that is not in Scripture. You want it to be in Scripture - a list of books from OT and NT - but the whole of the Bible does not support your view.

Someone else might respond to you, Tom, this way:

Tom: 'Scripture does not give us a list of books that are to be in the Bible. How do we know we have the right books in the Bible? Scripture is silent about it' (#20).

Another: Really?

Tom: 'So my point still stands: Scripture does not give us a list of books that are to be in the Bible. Scripture is silent about it' (#23).

Another: So I guess that we'll have to go looking for some other early or later documents to include in Scripture. Perhaps the Didache, Gospel of Thomas, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, 3rd Corinthians, Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Judas should be included. How will we know what to include or exclude? Surely the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Summa Theologica and the Nicene Creed should be included?

The link to Argument from Silence provided this ...

Explanation: The reason this technique works so well, is because imagined reasons are often more persuasive than real reasons. If someone wants to be convinced, this technique works like a charm. However, to the critical thinker, this will not fly. Silence is not a valid substitute for reason or evidence (emphasis in original).

Sincerely,
Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

Argument from silence is fallacious/erroneous reasoning because you can't argue about what Scripture doesn't say. Let's deal with what it does say. I referred you to Acts 17:11 (ESV) to demonstrate that the Berean Jewish Christians in the first century KNEW what was in Scripture as Paul told them to check out the Scriptures. No need to mention the books of the Jewish canon. These folks knew them - and so did Paul.

I do note that you didn't bother to address this matter that I raised about Acts 17:11 (ESV).

Your point seems to stand because you are arguing from silence and it is a logical fallacy. We can't have a continuing, rational, reasonable conversation when you want to argue about what Scripture DOES NOT say. Let's deal with what it DOES say.

If you follow the link I gave you to Argument from Silence, you would learn this about how the discussion between Tom and Oz sees Tom using an argument from silence fallacy. It goes something like this:

Tom: 'Scripture does not give us a list of books that are to be in the Bible. How do we know we have the right books in the Bible? Scripture is silent about it' (#20).

Oz: There is no need for a list of books because the Berean Christian Jews knew what they were according to Acts 17:11 (ESV) in the first century.

Tom: 'So my point still stands: Scripture does not give us a list of books that are to be in the Bible. Scripture is silent about it' (#23).

Oz: Scripture does not need to give a list. You are placing a demand on Scripture that Scripture does not require. You are arguing about something that is not in Scripture. You want it to be in Scripture - a list of books from OT and NT - but the whole of the Bible does not support your view.

Someone else might respond to you, Tom, this way:

Tom: 'Scripture does not give us a list of books that are to be in the Bible. How do we know we have the right books in the Bible? Scripture is silent about it' (#20).

Another: Really?

Tom: 'So my point still stands: Scripture does not give us a list of books that are to be in the Bible. Scripture is silent about it' (#23).

Another: So I guess that we'll have to go looking for some other early or later documents to include in Scripture. Perhaps the Didache, Gospel of Thomas, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, 3rd Corinthians, Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Judas should be included. How will we know what to include or exclude? Surely the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Summa Theologica and the Nicene Creed should be included?

The link to Argument from Silence provided this ...


Sincerely,
Oz

I never said that. If I did then please quote me.

I am simply stating a fact. Scripture is silent about what books are to be in the bible. This fact proves you can argue from silence.

We know what is inspired scripture and what is supposed to be in our bible because the Holy Spirit inspired MEN of The Church. Scripture is silent about it but The Church is not.

So then you have to decide which MEN you trust. The MEN of the Catholic Church or the MEN of the Protestant Church.

 

[OzSpen]

I never said that. If I did then please quote me.

What is THAT?

Do you mean what is in red here?

Here it is:

Oz: Scripture does not need to give a list. You are placing a demand on Scripture that Scripture does not require. You are arguing about something that is not in Scripture. You want it to be in Scripture - a list of books from OT and NT - but the whole of the Bible does not support your view.

Note who said what is in red. I said it as part of my created argument from silence dialogue with you. What I wrote in red is a summary of what you and I have discussed over the last few days. You claim a list of books of the Bible is not in the Bible.

Oz

 

[tom55]

What is THAT?

Do you mean what is in red here?

Here it is:

Oz: Scripture does not need to give a list. You are placing a demand on Scripture that Scripture does not require. You are arguing about something that is not in Scripture. You want it to be in Scripture - a list of books from OT and NT - but the whole of the Bible does not support your view.

Note who said what is in red. I said it as part of my created argument from silence dialogue with you. What I wrote in red is a summary of what you and I have discussed over the last few days. You claim a list of books of the Bible is not in the Bible.

Oz

I never said I want "a list of books from the OT and NT".

Which means I don't want/need Scripture to give me a table of contents. The infallible Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, has given it to us. Scripture is silent about it but The Church is not

From whom did you get your list of books from?

 

[Born_Again]

I never said I want "a list of books from the OT and NT".

Which means I don't want/need Scripture to give me a table of contents. The infallible Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, has given it to us. Scripture is silent about it but The Church is not

From whom did you get your list of books from?

Whaaaaaaa? Oh man, you cant be serious... LOL

 

[tom55]

Whaaaaaaa? Oh man, you cant be serious... LOL

If the Church didn't give us the list of books that are in the bible, who did?

 

[Stranger]

I never said that. If I did then please quote me.

I am simply stating a fact. Scripture is silent about what books are to be in the bible. This fact proves you can argue from silence.

We know what is inspired scripture and what is supposed to be in our bible because the Holy Spirit inspired MEN of The Church. Scripture is silent about it but The Church is not.

So then you have to decide which MEN you trust. The MEN of the Catholic Church or the MEN of the Protestant Church.

Scripture is not silent about what books are to be in the cannon of Scripture. The books of the Bible carry their own authority. They don't need the church to prove or disapprove. They are the inspired writings of God. The books of the Bible, are 66 total. Thirty nine in the Old and 27 in the New.

I trust the accepted 66 books of the Bible. I certainly don't trust Roman Catholicism's addition of books.

Stranger

 

[Born_Again]

Revelation 22:19(ESV)
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Though this speaks to taking away from the Word of God, I dont see how adding to it, after the 66 were written, is any different. The Mormon Church did the same thing. They miraculously produced golden tablets no one else saw and said they were from God as well. Then they used that make their own laws of the church as well.... How is that any different from what the RCC did?

 

[tom55]

Revelation 22:19(ESV)
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Though this speaks to taking away from the Word of God, I dont see how adding to it, after the 66 were written, is any different. The Mormon Church did the same thing. They miraculously produced golden tablets no one else saw and said they were from God as well. Then they used that make their own laws of the church as well.... How is that any different from what the RCC did?

If the Church didn't give us the list of books that are in the bible, who did?

 

[tom55]

Scripture is not silent about what books are to be in the cannon of Scripture. The books of the Bible carry their own authority. They don't need the church to prove or disapprove. They are the inspired writings of God. The books of the Bible, are 66 total. Thirty nine in the Old and 27 in the New.

I trust the accepted 66 books of the Bible. I certainly don't trust Roman Catholicism's addition of books.

Stranger

If the Church didn't give us the list of books that are in the bible, who did?

Where did you get those numbers? (39 and 27)

 

[Stranger]

If the Church didn't give us the list of books that are in the bible, who did?

Where did you get those numbers? (39 and 27)

God inspired the books. They carried their authority of inspiration with them. The real and final determination of their being recognized as inspired by God, were the Christians in that day. They, because the had the Holy Spirit, recognized certain books as of God's Spirit. The individual churches would desire to have certain books sent to them so that they could read them in their assembly. Others they did not desire. Why did they not desire some? Because there was nothing there. Like chewing cardboard. But the books inspired by God, ministered to them and they received them. Of these there were 66.

I looked at the table of contents and counted them.

Stranger

 

[OzSpen]

I never said I want "a list of books from the OT and NT".

Which means I don't want/need Scripture to give me a table of contents. The infallible Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, has given it to us. Scripture is silent about it but The Church is not

From whom did you get your list of books from?

That's committing a begging the question fallacy - your conclusion agrees with your premise.

We cannot have a rational discussion when you engage in the use of any logical fallacy. Asserting that 'the infallible [Roman Catholic] Church ... is the pillar and foundation of truth' proved NOTHING. It is your assertion with fallacious reasoning.

Oz

 

[tom55]

God inspired the books. They carried their authority of inspiration with them. The real and final determination of their being recognized as inspired by God, were the Christians in that day. They, because the had the Holy Spirit, recognized certain books as of God's Spirit. The individual churches would desire to have certain books sent to them so that they could read them in their assembly. Others they did not desire. Why did they not desire some? Because there was nothing there. Like chewing cardboard. But the books inspired by God, ministered to them and they received them. Of these there were 66.

I looked at the table of contents and counted them.

Stranger

"God inspired the books" and then he told WHO which books were inspired and should be in the bible?

The Christians in what day?

WHO "recognized certain books as of Gods Spirit"?

What "individual churches" are you speaking of?

What table of contents did you look at? The one from the Gutenberg Bible?

 

[tom55]

That's committing a begging the question fallacy - your conclusion agrees with your premise.

We cannot have a rational discussion when you engage in the use of any logical fallacy. Asserting that 'the infallible [Roman Catholic] Church ... is the pillar and foundation of truth' proved NOTHING. It is your assertion with fallacious reasoning.

Oz

And there it is.....the logical fallacy allegation. It always comes out when you can't defend your theory's!!

If the Catholic Church isn't the pillar and foundation of truth, which Church is?

 

[OzSpen]

And there it is.....the logical fallacy allegation. It always comes out when you can't defend your theory's!!

If the Catholic Church isn't the pillar and foundation of truth, which Church is?

I make no logical fallacy allegations unless you commit them. Fallacious reasoning prevents logical discussion. That's what you have done here with this response, which is a red herring fallacy.

 

[Stranger]

"God inspired the books" and then he told WHO which books were inspired and should be in the bible?

The Christians in what day?

WHO "recognized certain books as of Gods Spirit"?

What "individual churches" are you speaking of?

What table of contents did you look at? The one from the Gutenberg Bible?

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1Samuel, 2Samuel, 1Kings, 2Kings, 1Chronicles, 2Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

Do you disagree that all of these books are inspired by God?

The Old Testament is from the Jews in Israel. It is their Bible. The New Testament canonization was over a period of time, the prime factor being, was it received by the people of God as from God? Did it carry with it the voice of authority and minister to the people.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

I make no logical fallacy allegations unless you commit them. Fallacious reasoning prevents logical discussion. That's what you have done here with this response, which is a red herring fallacy.

If the Catholic Church isn't the pillar and foundation of truth, which Church is?

You know....the Church Jesus established in Matthew 16. The Church the Apostles talk about all thru scripture that is supposed to decide if someone is to be treated as a pagan or tax collector, elect the best among them to be elders and deacons. The ONE Church that speaks with ONE voice to decide if all new Christians have to be circumcised or not. The Church that we know from the historical writings of our Early Church Fathers!! The ONE Church that lives in harmony with each other where there are no divisions because that Church is of ONE mind, united in thought and purpose (1Corintians). You know the ONE.....NOT the separate LOCAL CHURCHES that teach different doctrine and then change their doctrines when they get new elders or they want to keep up with social culture.

See....no red herring fallacy here. Only the facts from scripture and history.

Which ONE Church do you choose?

 

[tom55]

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1Samuel, 2Samuel, 1Kings, 2Kings, 1Chronicles, 2Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

Do you disagree that all of these books are inspired by God?

The Old Testament is from the Jews in Israel. It is their Bible. The New Testament canonization was over a period of time, the prime factor being, was it received by the people of God as from God? Did it carry with it the voice of authority and minister to the people.

Stranger

The problems with your theory is that it relies on the incorrect notion that the modern Jewish Bible is identical to the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles. We know the Old Testament was still very much in flux in the time of Christ and there was no fixed canon of Scripture in the apostolic period.

YOU said "The Old Testament is from the Jews in Israel. It is their Bible". Which Old Testament Jews do you speak of?

The Sadducees who regarded the first five books of the Old Testament as inspired and canonical with the rest of the Old Testament being regarded by them in much the same way the deuterocanon is regarded by Protestant Christians today.

The Pharisees which was another Jewish faction of the time. These Jews held to a canon resembling the modern Jewish canon which was far larger than that of the Sadducees but not as large as other Jewish collections of Scripture.

The Diaspora Jews made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture, the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. The vast majority of Jews at the time regarded the Septuagint as inspired Scripture. In fact, the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint as Scripture.

You really didn't answer any of my legitimate questions from post #36:

God inspired the books" and then he told WHO which books were inspired and should be in the bible?

The Christians in what day?

WHO "recognized certain books as of Gods Spirit"?

What "individual churches" are you speaking of?

What table of contents did you look at? The one from the Gutenberg Bible?