[Akoue]

Akoue, are you having a senior's moment? You questioned whether the gospel were part of the canon - did YOU forget? Let me remind you by quoting you:

" Originally Posted by Akoue View Post
Then there must equally be no evidence that they included the Gospels in the canon. Odd that."

Yes, "they" refers to Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Wow, you really did lose it there for awhile, huh. You claimed that the mere inclusion of Tobit and Sirach and the others in the codices does not prove that they were regarded as canonical. I pointed out that there is nothing in the mss. To indicate that any of the books had a different canonical status from any of the others. Therefore, if the mere inclusion of Tobit and Sirach and the others isn't sufficient to show that they were members of the canon of those mss. Then, it follows, that the mere inclusion of the four Gospels in those mss. Isn't sufficient to show that they were members of the canon of those mss.

You place your faith in your denomination therefore. I don't. That is a key difference. When the canon was determine, your denomination did not exist. I accept that the Bible, as God's word, was defined in whole, both in scope and content by God alone.

When did I ever say anything about a denomination? You're jumping to conclusions again.

You still haven't answered the question: How did you arrive at the canon you use? How did you decide which canon of Scripture is the one that is uniquely "defined in whole, both in scope and content by God alone"?

[Tj3]

Yes, "they" refers to Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Wow, you really did lose it there for awhile, huh.

You are getting confused. Maybe you should sort out first whether you are talking about this specific translation, or the canonicity of the gospel.

You claimed that the mere inclusion of Tobit and Sirach and the others in the codices does not prove that they were regarded as canonical.

Finally you have read what I posted!

I pointed out that there is nothing in the mss. To indicate that any of the books had a different canonical status from any of the others. Therefore, if the mere inclusion of Tobit and Sirach and the others isn't sufficient to show that they were members of the canon of those mss. Then, it follows, that the mere inclusion of the four Gospels in those mss. Isn't sufficient to show that they were members of the canon of those mss.

Ah, so if I find other, perhaps heretical books bound together with canonical books, the canonicity somehow migrates by osmosis into the other books bound with them? Are you next going to tell me that all the books found with the Dead Sea scrolls are canonical because many were, and there was no differentiation made between the scrolls?

When did I ever say anything about a denomination? You're jumping to conclusions again.

The tradition to which you refer to denomination specific.

You still haven't answered the question: How did you arrive at the canon you use? How did you decide which canon of Scripture is the one that is uniquely "defined in whole, both in scope and content by God alone"?

I answered many times. You just don't like the answer.

[Akoue]

You are getting confused. Maybe you should sort out first whether you are talking about this specific translation, or the canonicity of the gospel.

Yeah, Tom, unless you go back and re-read the last couple of pages you are going to remain as lost as you manifestly are right now. You can tell me it's me if you like, but the posts are there for anyone to read. You've pretty dramatically missed the point. Sorry to have lost you.

Ah, so if I find other, perhaps heretical books bound together with canonical books, the canonicity somehow migrates by osmosis into the other books bound with them? Are you next going to tell me that all the books found with the Dead Sea scrolls are canonical because many were, and there was no differentiation made between the scrolls?

See, now this is why I mentioned Nag Hammadi. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are codices, bound books, with their contents arranged serially just as you would find in a modern book. The Dead Sea Scrolls (and this goes for Nag Hammadi as well) is a library of scrolls contained in lots of jars. The Dead Sea scrolls have been collected, edited, and translated, but the actual scrolls did not compose a single book but were part of a library. Just as the books in a public library cannot all together be regarded as a single book, so neither can the scrolls be regarded as a single book.

A codex is a single bound book. Here we find the books of the Bible arranged in the way you find them in printed Bibles today, in just the same way that the chapters of a book are arranged. In the codices we are talking about, the books of Tobit, Sirach, and the rest are included within a single bound book, and that book is the Bible that was used by Christians of the fourth and fifth centuries. If the books included in these codices were individually stuffed into different jars and placed in a cave, then you'd be right to say that we cannot infer from their proximity that they were all regarded as canonical. But since that isn't the case, since they are found intermingled with books that are now regarded as canonical, scholars take them to have been members of the canons of these two codices. Now, if there were something within the codices to indicate that some of the books were considered canonical and others were not, then that would be one thing. But there isn't. There isn't any grouping or addenda which indicate that Tobit and Sirach and the others were held to be non-canonical.

And now let me see if I can help you to understand the point I made about when I mentioned the Gospels. There is nothing in these codices to indicate that they were regarded as any less canonical than the four Gospels. In a modern study Bible, the editors use various sorts of apparatus to indicate that some books are non-canonical, typically by segregating them and appending a heading that indicates that the books are apocryphal or deuterocanonical. There is nothing like this in the codices. So, if your argument is that the mere inclusion of these books in the codices of the Bible is insufficient that they are members of the canon of Scripture of the codices, then, by the very same reasoning, it could just as easily be said that the four Gospels are not members of the canon of these codices--this for the reason that, as I've explained, there is nothing to indicate that the Gospels and the books of Tobit and Sirach, etc. had any different canonical status. That being so, there needs to be some special reason for holding that these books (Tobit, Sirach, etc.) were not part of the canon of the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus.

Understand now? If not, then you're going to have to remain confused for awhile, because I'm heading to bed soon.

The tradition to which you refer to denomination specific.

Perhaps you could explain how. I've spoken of Tradition in a very generic way.

I answered many times. You just don't like the answer.

The only thing I can think of that might have been you answering my question is the one time, recently, when you suggested that I must deny prophetic revelation. Is your answer that you received a prophetic revelation and that is how you arrived at the canon you use?

If that's your answer then please confirm it, since I'm not at all sure that that's what you meant (you framed it as a question). If that isn't your answer, then no, you haven't answered the question.

[Tj3]

Yeah, Tom, unless you go back and re-read the last couple of pages you are going to remain as lost as you manifestly are right now. You can tell me it's me if you like, but the posts are there for anyone to read. You've pretty dramatically missed the point. Sorry to have lost you.

Akoue, I don't know if your memory is the problem or it is your difficulty in avoiding abuse of others, or if you just are trying to distract from your difficulty with what scripture has to say.

Understand now? If not, then you're going to have to remain confused for awhile, because I'm heading to bed soon.

It appears that I understand more than you do. You seem to feel that the more that you post, the truer it is, but it is no more convincing the 15th time as it was the first time, or when I first read the same material and arguments many years ago.

Perhaps you could explain how. I've spoken of Tradition in a very generic way.

Not as generic as you may think.

[Akoue]

Akoue, I don't know if your memory is the problem or it is your difficulty in avoiding abuse of others, or if you just are trying to distract from your difficulty with what scripture has to say.



It appears that I understand more than you do. You seem to feel that the more that you post, the truer it is, but it is no more convincing the 15th time as it was the first time, or when I first read the same material and arguments many years ago.



Not as generic as you may think.

Apparently my efforts to help oout of your confusion weren't appreciated. That's fine.

You have once again managed to post without making a single substantive claim about the subject-matter under discussion. That's fine, too. I'm satisfied to leave it here. Oh, and you've totally outed yourself once again: There is just no way, given what you've posted, that you have even a passing familiarty with scholarship on the early NT canon and the manuscript tradition. And I'm not the only one reading this thread who has picked up on that fact.

Nighty-night.

[Tj3]

Apparently my efforts to help oout of your confusion weren't appreciated. That's fine.

I don't follow those who are so mixed up that they don't even remember what they said, but are absolutely certain that they alone are right.

Maybe a good nights sleep will help you clear your thoughts.

[cozyk]

There is nothing like watching Bible believers argue about whose version is THE version. My point keeps being proven. No one KNOWS. So, why argue? Just be your best self people.

[Tj3]

There is nothing like watching Bible believers argue about whose version is THE version. My point keeps being proven. No one KNOWS. So, why argue? Just be your best self people.

Though I will agree that a couple of folk on here are arguing about one translation as being "The Bible" (the Septuagint), I am not. I have used the Septuagint, but it is a translation, and a translation is not the source.

[ordinaryguy]

There is nothing like watching Bible believers argue about whose version is THE version.

I know, ain't it great? It's like bare-knuckle cage fighting. What a thrill.

Actually, what they're really arguing about is whether the Catholic Church is God's Instrument on Earth, whose traditions define both which texts deserve to be regarded as Scripture, and how those texts should be interpreted. That's the source of the seething anger, bitter sarcasm and vicious put-downs in their "scholarly discussions" about manuscripts, codices, and canons. Family fights can get really ugly, can't they?

My point keeps being proven. No one KNOWS. So, why argue? Just be your best self people.

I like how you think, cozy

[Sunflowers]

I don't care if she was ever a Christian or if she just thought she was a christian but wasn't because she wasn't following the correct Christian doctrine. Geez O Petes! This whole thing is so silly. How can any Christian believe they are exclusively better when that very belief causes them to behave immorally towards others? I don't think I'll ever understand why Christians think they are not out of line when they go putting their noses so far up someone else's a**.

[gromitt82]

I don't care if she was ever a Christian or if she just thought she was a christian but wasn't because she wasn't following the correct Christian doctrine. Geez O Petes! This whole thing is so silly. How can any Christian believe they are exclusively better when that very belief causes them to behave immorally towards others? I don't think I'll ever understand why Christians think they are not out of line when they go putting their noses so far up someone else's a**.

Unfortunately, you are right! I also wonder why so many Christians consider they are above and beyond the Law (God’s Law, that is) and believe they are better than those who walk the line though they may not be Christians. That reminds me always of the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-14).

Although, as a Christian (RCC) I am convinced there are more Publicans than Pharisees, I admit that no matter how few of the latter we may have they do not set a good example to those who enjoy finding as many defects as possible to our religion.:):)

[arcura]

I do believe that...
Christians are human beings and therefore imperfect beings like all other humans.
Some do err more than others but I believe that most, if not all, try to live their lives better than if they were not Christians and that transends all the different denominations.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[cozyk]

I do believe that.......
Christians are human beings and therefore imperfect beings like all other humans.
Some do err more than others but I believe that most, if not all, try to live their lives better than if they were not Christians and that transends all the different denominations.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

That sounds like you believe that christians corner the market on good behavior.

[Tj3]

That sounds like you believe that christians corner the market on good behavior.

Christians have no corner on good behaviour, but there are two important difference for Christians:

1) Christians have a standard of moral conduct provided to us in scripture, and with the help to obey it through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

2) Christians are not perfect and do fail. Scripture says all are sinners and that includes Christians. Christians differ in that they have accepted Jesus' offer to pay the price for sin that we rightly deserve. That offer is open for all.

[cozyk]

[QUOTE=Tj3;1660029]Christians have no corner on good behaviour, but there are two important difference for Christians:

1) Christians have a standard of moral conduct provided to us in scripture, and with the help to obey it through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

I and many other people I know live by a high moral code that has nothing whatsoever to do with any scripture.

[Tj3]

I and many other people I know live by a high moral code that has nothing whatsoever to do with any scripture.

The difference is that for Christians the moral code is unchanging. For others, that moral code is personal, and is defined by experience and is good for this person in this timeframe. It has no anchor to prevent it from changing.

[arcura]

CozyK
Yes you are right there are many people with a high moral code that they have chosen to follow.
BUT often that moral code is not the same as the one that is established by Christianity in Holy Scripture which is, as Tj3 said unchanging.
If a person who is not a Christian follows a moral code like that of Christianity, I wonder from where they got that...
Have you ever considered the fact that in the laws in many nations are based on the Jewish/Christian moral code?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[cozyk]

The difference is that for Christians the moral code is unchanging. For others, that moral code is personal, and is defined by experience and is good for this person in this timeframe. It has no anchor to prevent it from changing.

I believe that you are underestimating your own GOD GIVEN intelligence when you rely on something someone wrote down to be your moral guide. Are you telling me that you would not be able to keep it straight what is right or wrong if you couldn't refer to it in a book?
And what about the gray areas? "Thou shalt not kill" Ever?? There are times we are called to make a decision that may not be covered in the bible. The God within us guides us in our decisions if we just listen to Him. Life is fluid and circumstances we face may not be something that was covered in a book written so long ago. Maybe there should have been a bible sequel? Possibly a running sequel. The bible IS a little out dated don't you think? Where is the guide for the 21st century? Twenty one centuries is a long time for nothing new to be added.

[cozyk]

[QUOTE=arcura;1660131]cozyK
This is what I think...

Yes you are right there are many people with a high moral code that they have chosen to follow.

With you there.

BUT often that moral code is not the same as the one that is established by Christianity in Holy Scripture which is, as Tj3 said unchanging.

Still with you. It's a good place to start. The unchanging part is actually the down side.
Refer to my post about the gray area where you are left to your own God Given intelligence to make a choice. Not everything is just black or white.

If a person who is not a Christian follows a moral code like that of Christianity, I wonder from where they got that...

I don't know where I got my initial ideas. Probably a combination of my Christian up bringing, parental teachings, laws, and the bad feeling I get when I know I am behaving in a way that is not pleasing to my God. That was the infancy of my choices. Since then, my choices are guided by a much higher power. Call it my conscience or call it the God within. It does not lie to me. Even if my ego tries to fool it, make bargains with it, or even if laws were changed and it was "legal" to do certain things that used to be frowned upon. My ultimate guide would still be my conscience.

[Tj3]

I believe that you are underestimating your own GOD GIVEN intelligence when you rely on something someone wrote down to be your moral guide. Are you telling me that you would not be able to keep it straight what is right or wrong if you couldn't refer to it in a book?

You miossed what I said. I don't rely solely upon the written as a moral guide to how I behave - Ialso have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide me on a day by day basis.

And what about the gray areas? "Thou shalt not kill" Ever??

Go back to the original Hebrew. The word translated kill actually is "murder". Should you not murder ever? No, you shouldn't.

There are times we are called to make a decision that may not be covered in the bible.

That is where the Holy Spirit comes in.

The God within us guides us in our decisions if we just listen to Him.

The Holy Spirit only indwells believers.

John 7:39
39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive;
NKJV

The bible IS a little out dated don't you think? Where is the guide for the 21st century? Twenty one centuries is a long time for nothing new to be added.

The Bible is not outdated at all. When did you last read it?