Authority or not?

[John]

my question is this: how much authority do you guy's think extra biblical books have, compared to the canonized ones.

i think that some have as much authority as canonized books. after all, it was corrupted men who decided what books were "officially" part of the bile.

I think that Torah and some of the neviim have the highest authorit of scripture. They are direct revelations and if a problem arises in the commentaries than the Torah and some Neviim should be consulted to deal with the problem. If a historical book had an idea from, lets say, a patriarch that sounds kindof out there, than consult the Torah and part of nevvim. if the thought does not comply with the holy part than we can deduce that that person was out of line then.

and the epistles, talmud, etc, are all commmentaries on some neviim and Torah. These can contradict each other. James COULD HAVE contradicted Paul in doctrine. ( i dont think so, but i am using an example). Some of these commentaries do contradict the final word of YHVH. if they do, just realize that Paul admitted that man can make mistakes so he said :let man be the liar (not YHVH). in other words, if they DO contradict, than it is mans fault, not YHVH's. i think that extra biblical books should be put here (mainly). as wel as kethuvim.

As for the historical books, the kethuvim, and the rest of neviim, they are all history recorded from a religous viewpoint. they can be viewed as lessons through stories, except they are real stories about a real God interveneing and helping real lives. Often these books are used for examples like gideon and jonas, and other books.

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 4, 2009 20:47:29 GMT -5 John said:

my question is this: how much authority do you guy's think extra biblical books have, compared to the canonized ones.

i think that some have as much authority as canonized books. after all, it was corrupted men who decided what books were "officially" part of the bile.

I think that Torah and some of the neviim have the highest authorit of scripture. They are direct revelations and if a problem arises in the commentaries than the Torah and some Neviim should be consulted to deal with the problem. If a historical book had an idea from, lets say, a patriarch that sounds kindof out there, than consult the Torah and part of nevvim. if the thought does not comply with the holy part than we can deduce that that person was out of line then.

and the epistles, talmud, etc, are all commmentaries on some neviim and Torah. These can contradict each other. James COULD HAVE contradicted Paul in doctrine. ( i dont think so, but i am using an example). Some of these commentaries do contradict the final word of YHVH. if they do, just realize that Paul admitted that man can make mistakes so he said :let man be the liar (not YHVH). in other words, if they DO contradict, than it is mans fault, not YHVH's. i think that extra biblical books should be put here (mainly). as wel as kethuvim.

As for the historical books, the kethuvim, and the rest of neviim, they are all history recorded from a religous viewpoint. they can be viewed as lessons through stories, except they are real stories about a real God interveneing and helping real lives. Often these books are used for examples like gideon and jonas, and other books.

People in the early church considered Paul's writings to be Scripture, including other authors of the NT.

See for example:
2 Peter 3 (as quoted from the NASB)

14Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,18but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.


Please note that Paul's letters are considered to be inspired (wrote according to the wisdom given him) and Scripture ("as they do the rest of the Scriptures.") The phrase "the rest of the Scriptures" implies that the author of 2 Peter thought that Paul's letters were Scripture.

Yes, it was men who decided on the canon, but I can't help but think that the Holy Spirit played a part in helping them know what books to include and what books to throw out.

[John]

Pauls teaching did indeed stem from scripture. the scriptures teachings WERE distorted, but Shauls lettters were probably not reffered to as scripture, but the greek can go either way.

but remember that scholars regard (through textual analysis and like means) 2 peter as the oldest book of the bible. They date it as old as 120 AD. so at that time, there WAS a canonized NT, in which Shaul's letters were. So the canon, again, was organized by unlearned men at that time (until the later decieved, but learned men made the official canon). Kefa did NOT WRITE 2 peter.

on eof the proofs of this (through doctrinal statements) is Mellinarianism, a doctrine not formulated until aroun 98 AD after the destruction of the temple, is mentioned in 2Kefa. If this was written by Kefa, than this passage would have to at the least, be regarded as an added pasage

{note: i am not disregarding mellinarianism as a doctrine. actually,m i think you can give it credit, but i dont think you should rely on it. I am simply stateing that the HS did not reveal this until well after Kefa's death.}

[Never Looking Back]

Apr 6, 2009 17:57:56 GMT -5 John said:

Pauls teaching did indeed stem from scripture. the scriptures teachings WERE distorted, but Shauls lettters were probably not reffered to as scripture, but the greek can go either way.

but remember that scholars regard (through textual analysis and like means) 2 peter as the oldest book of the bible. They date it as old as 120 AD. so at that time, there WAS a canonized NT, in which Shaul's letters were. So the canon, again, was organized by unlearned men at that time (until the later decieved, but learned men made the official canon). Kefa did NOT WRITE 2 peter.

on eof the proofs of this (through doctrinal statements) is Mellinarianism, a doctrine not formulated until aroun 98 AD after the destruction of the temple, is mentioned in 2Kefa. If this was written by Kefa, than this passage would have to at the least, be regarded as an added pasage

{note: i am not disregarding mellinarianism as a doctrine. actually,m i think you can give it credit, but i dont think you should rely on it. I am simply stateing that the HS did not reveal this until well after Kefa's death.}

Not all scholars would agree that 2 Peter was the latest book written in the NT, or that it was written when you are suggesting it was written.

According to my study Bible:
"2 Peter was written toward the end of Peter's life, after he had written a prior letter to teh same readers. Since Peter was martyred during the reign of Nero, his death must have occurred prior to A.D. 68; so it is very likely that he wrote 2 Peter between 65 and 68.

Some have argued that this date is too early for the writing of 2 Peter, but nothing in the book requires a later date. The error comabated is comparable to the kind of heresy present in the first century. To insist that the second chapter was directed against second-century Gnostiicism is to assume more than the contents of the chapter warrant. While the heretics referred to in 2 Peter may well have been among the forerunners of second-century Gonstics, nothing is said of them that would not fit into the later years of Peter's life.

Some have suggested a later date because they interpret the reference to the fathers in 3:4 to mean an earlier Christian generation. However, the word is most naturally interpreted as the OT patriarchs. Similarly, references to Paul and his letters does not require a date beyond Peter's lifetime. "

[John]

Never looking Back: the greek that 2 kefa is written in is a latter version than kefa would have used. 2 kefa's vocabulary was a much later one... it was written with words that were only used in LATE 1st century.

it is not just the doctrine that is proof that 2kefa was written at a later time... it is the scientific resources to. scholars that dont believe that 2kefa was written so late are USUALLY choosing to beleive that way because it threatens there theology that the b'rit chashadah is not commentary, but actual scripture.

[Jonatan]

Why do you so argue on 2Kefa? What's that important on that whether it be an actual scripture or commentary?

[pioneer]

Head knowledge/theologians may find all sorts of things, but when I received the 'word of God" and I knew, there wasn't any redflag about the totallity of Kefa, even if it is by annother author it seems to have had been inspired by the HS.

So on this subject, I'm done.
PS; That is unless I am compelled to defend the bible. LOL

[John]

i am only using 2 kefa as an example. i am explaining that the brit chashadah is commentary...

[pioneer]

Apr 8, 2009 14:10:20 GMT -5 John said:

i am only using 2 kefa as an example. i am explaining that the brit chashadah is commentary...

I agree and disagree.
The gospels are as much as God breathed, then Johns revealation is prophesy, the rest is as you say commentary, carrying the same weight as the oral Torah/Halakah. How to.
This is a dissapointment to our Karaite friends.

Shalom/Shabbat Shalom

[John]

karaite?

[anochria]

The linguistic differences between 1 and 2 Peter may be explained by postulating that Peter used an amaneunsis to compose one book and wrote the other by his own hand. This is my current position. It is supported by the very vivid claims in 2 Peter that an eyewitness of the transfiguration is writing the letter.

[walt]

Apr 24, 2009 16:28:05 GMT -5 anochria said:

The linguistic differences between 1 and 2 Peter may be explained by postulating that Peter used an amaneunsis to compose one book and wrote the other by his own hand. This is my current position. It is supported by the very vivid claims in 2 Peter that an eyewitness of the transfiguration is writing the letter.

It could also be explained by translation. that Peter originally wrote the letters in Hebrew or Aramaic, and a different person (even from different locals) translated each letter.

Peter was an uneducated fisherman, it is highly unlikely he was able to write in Greek.
Josephus records for us that the Hebrew people back then didn't do Greek

[John]

The linguistic differences between 1 and 2 Peter may be explained by postulating that Peter used an amaneunsis to compose one book and wrote the other by his own hand. This is my current position. It is supported by the very vivid claims in 2 Peter that an eyewitness of the transfiguration is writing the letter.

what a large vocabulary... i did not know what some of those word meant and could only assum from the context of the sentences... i sa what you wrote like this:

The linguistic differences between 1 and 2 Peter may be explained by [assuming/ theorizing] that Peter [had another person] compose one book and wrote the other by his own hand. This is my current position. It is supported by the very vivid claims in 2 Peter that an eyewitness of the transfiguration is writing the letter.


but where do you get the idea that the second was written by him, and the first was not? why could he have not written the first and had the second written by someone else? or maybe both were written by amunesi, a different one for each letter?

shalom-john

[anochria]

The theory is this:

1 Peter is written in much better Greek than 2nd Peter.

In the ancient world it was a fairly common practice to use a anameunsis (a secretary to write up a final version). We have some evidence from the book of 1 Peter that Peter probably did use Silas as his secretary in composing 1 Peter:

1 Peter 5:12

12With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.

It may very well be that Peter wrote 2 Peter all by himself, and it thus reflects his less refined Greek.

[John]

okay- i understand the position now. very interesting. except for the fact that 2 peter was written way after peter himself died.

[anochria]

Not necessarily.

From what I've studied, the jury is still out on that.

The book is written "as if" it is from Peter- even more personalized that than most of the books of the New Testament. To claim it was written by a later disciple of his leaves it open to the charge of falsehood simply because of the number of very direct statements supposedly coming from Peter himself. "We were eyewitnesses", "this is now my second letter to you", "he [paul] is a dear brother", "we did not follow cleverly invented stories", etc..

[John]

Kefa and Yochanon died very early in the 1st century. so some of their books could not have been written by them. i personally think that Yochanon was the teacher of righteousnes, and that simon magus was the wicked priest, of the dead sea scrolls. The doctrines are very close, and it wouuld make sense that a theologian had a school. later however, Yochnon died. revelation was written after that, i think by one of his students.

remember that shaul didnt write all the letters attributed to him either. back then it was an honor to write a letter in your teachers name. the pastoral letters (except for philomon) were written by polycarp. hebrews was written by Ber-Nabba (later to fall out of the truth into the gospel of circumcision, than to do a 180 into replacement theology), ephesians and collosians were probably not written by shaul, but by a greek student of his. laodiceans was not included in the bible, but was undoubtedly written by shaul.

g2g, more later- john

[walt]

Apr 26, 2009 12:18:02 GMT -5 John said:

Kefa and Yochanon died very early in the 1st century. so some of their books could not have been written by them. i personally think that Yochanon was the teacher of righteousnes, and that simon magus was the wicked priest, of the dead sea scrolls. The doctrines are very close, and it wouuld make sense that a theologian had a school. later however, Yochnon died. revelation was written after that, i think by one of his students.

remember that shaul didnt write all the letters attributed to him either. back then it was an honor to write a letter in your teachers name. the pastoral letters (except for philomon) were written by polycarp. hebrews was written by Ber-Nabba (later to fall out of the truth into the gospel of circumcision, than to do a 180 into replacement theology), ephesians and collosians were probably not written by shaul, but by a greek student of his. laodiceans was not included in the bible, but was undoubtedly written by shaul.

g2g, more later- john

That puts alot of lies into what is called the NT, when it says "I Paul" or "I Peter" or "I John" - and thus puts the whole authority of the "NT" into question and doubt.
Then people are able to pick and choose what they like, and discard the rest.

Ploy of satan from begining "did Elohim REALLY say _ _ _ _ _ _"

How can you substantiate that polycarp wrote Paul's letters, and that John died before writing Revelation?
Because some college trained "experts" deduced that?

If Revelation was written after John's death, it is written as a lie and is therefor meaningless.

I accept by faith that John wrote Revelation, and Paul wrote (or dictated some) of his letters.

[John]

you cannot replace facts proven by science with religion- rather, religion should fix itself with the truth. If we could PROVE that there was a God, than people who didnt beleive in YHVH would. i mean solid concrete scientific proof. but if we get proof that something in religion is wrong, than we deny it.

exactly they are EXPERTS. many of them are christians or messianics! i think ephesians and collosians can be just as authorative no matter who writes it. just because shaul didnt write it doesnt mean it is not inspired by YHVH.

just because KEFA didnt write it doesnt mean it wasnt inspired by YHVH, etc.

YHVH can work through anyone- not just people known in history.

shalom- john

[walt]

Apr 26, 2009 16:24:50 GMT -5 John said:

you cannot replace facts proven by science with religion- rather, religion should fix itself with the truth. If we could PROVE that there was a God, than people who didnt beleive in YHVH would. i mean solid concrete scientific proof. but if we get proof that something in religion is wrong, than we deny it.

exactly they are EXPERTS. many of them are christians or messianics! i think ephesians and collosians can be just as authorative no matter who writes it. just because shaul didnt write it doesnt mean it is not inspired by YHVH.

just because KEFA didnt write it doesnt mean it wasnt inspired by YHVH, etc.

YHVH can work through anyone- not just people known in history.

shalom- john

What "science" proves who wrote what?

So you accept Scripture lies - I Peter doesn't mean that.


What "science" proves who wrote what?

If "science" says Peter didn't write the epistle, and Scripture says he did - I believe Scripture.
"Science" changes with the tides and whims.