what is scripture?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by beryl etanah on -
Things can be authentic, without being canonical.
yes
I try to emphasize the huge distinction between the canonized sayings of Solomon, and those sayings of Solomon which were not canonized;the difference between the canonical prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and so forth, and the un-canonical, yet fully inspired prophets that are mentioned, Shemaiah, Iddo, Nathan, Gad, and so forth.
the latter list of prophets left no materials authenticated to have been written by them personally under their prophetic inspiration; anyone can write anything and name a valid prophet in the past for its author, but again scholars can easily uncover this ploy through internal and external evidence.A text may be fully authentic, doctrinally accurate, theologically flawless, and yet not canonical, that is to say, a part of the one and unique collection of Scriptures which we call the Bible.
yes. truth of teaching is not the sole element qualifying a claim of inspiration, otherwise, S.I.Newton's book "De Principia" it being a definitive book teaching the Law of Gravity would have an equal claim to inspiration: nothing could be more funny than that. inspiration is one key element for cannonization of material; yet apostolicity and dogmatic orthodoxy are another indispensible criteria, that is, we don't mention yet the physical aspect of any material proposed to be treated with canonicity. the work of the past in segregating materials from the better ones were not taken for granted: the scholars have valid academic reasons for doing so: the council at Yavneh was not a joke nor was it attended by mere scriptural neophytes, as well as the councils of Carthage, Trent and the Reformation conventions: they were performed by people who were qualified for the work. so that, personally, i can say there is no need to reinvent the wheel here: all questions concerning Torah observance and the gospel can be readily settled from the writings in Tanakh, oral torah and Brit Chadasha. i think G-d has conveyed to this present age more than enough to guide us into the Kingdom Come.
peace.
Christian said:Things can be authentic, without being canonical.
I try to emphasize the huge distinction between the canonized sayings of Solomon, and those sayings of Solomon which were not canonized;
the difference between the canonical prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and so forth, and the un-canonical, yet fully inspired prophets that are mentioned, Shemaiah, Iddo, Nathan, Gad, and so forth.
A text may be fully authentic, doctrinally accurate, theologically flawless, and yet not canonical, that is to say, a part of the one and unique collection of Scriptures which we call the Bible.
I suspect many of the texts you mentioned may be flawless and perfect, yet not meant to be part of the canon, which I must conclude to be a closed work.
J. Jury said:There are certain works outside the Tanakh and Apostolic Writings that I have no issue accepting as fully authentic, such as the (standard) Apocrypha (and Jasher). Then there are certain works that I accept with some reservations, such as Enoch, Aseneth, the Gospel of Thomas, Clement of Rome, etc. Then there are works that I outright reject, such as Jubilees, Hermas, etc.
Christian said:The Tanak and the NT.
TaNaK:
- Torah
- Nevi'im
- Ketuvim
NT:
- Gospels and Acts
- Apostolic Epistles, General Epistles
- Pauline Epistles
- The Revelation of Yeshua the Messiah
-
Permalink Reply by beryl etanah on
-
brother Andrew,
every writing is a scripture. but to be an inspired scripture is another thing.
look at the various extra-canonical materials of centuries close to the 1st century, they are available in the multitude, and they teach in some unique method the messianic Person and message of Yeshua and His assembly (church). yet, why no worthy scholar of the past has ever cared fight for their canonicity? it is because they have convincing technical reasons for ignoring them from the list.
Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:I am one of the few that advocates all of the books of Scripture as being Scripture. this would be way more than the silly 66 canon.
-
Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on -
my definition of scripture is the same as inspired. thus, if its inspired, its Scripture. If its not inspired, its not Scripture. call it what you want, but the concepts we are discussing are clearly distinguished, regardless of what we call these concepts.
As to why certain scholars do not regard certain books as canon, it is because as 2 Esdras says, they are not wise, for if they were wise, they would regard all Scripture as Scripture, not just the "traditional" ones that the paganized Jews and Christians chose for their canon.
-
Permalink Reply by J. Jury (אליהוא) on -
If you want to make that the deciding factor, I might argue that only the Torah and the Gospels are "inspired Scripture".
beryl etanah said:
brother Andrew,
every writing is a scripture. but to be an inspired scripture is another thing.
look at the various extra-canonical materials of centuries close to the 1st century, they are available in the multitude, and they teach in some unique method the messianic Person and message of Yeshua and His assembly (church). yet, why no worthy scholar of the past has ever cared fight for their canonicity? it is because they have convincing technical reasons for ignoring them from the list.
Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:I am one of the few that advocates all of the books of Scripture as being Scripture. this would be way more than the silly 66 canon.
-
Permalink Reply by sevynn leverette on
-
The Torah is the only Scripture and the rest is inspired commentary.
Shalom
-
Permalink Reply by James Trimm on
-
so why does the "Inspired Commentary" so often refer to the Prophets (Mt. 26:56; Mk. 15:28; Lk. 4:21), the Writings (Mt. 21:42), the Gospels (1Tim 5:18=Matt. 10:10) and even Paul's letters (2Tim. 3:15-16) as "Scripture"?
sevynn leverette said:The Torah is the only Scripture and the rest is inspired commentary.
Shalom
-
Permalink Reply by beryl etanah on
-
as a matter of personal opinion:
on account of my faith in Yeshua i take the gospel of Matthew as one inspired and include it in my accepted scriptures to the Law, Prophets and Writings (this without offense to fellow brothers and sisters who themselves hold all the 27 books of the nt as inspired.) for, although, i only study the book of Matthew for messianic instruction i also hold with high respect all the other 26 books as worthy of comparative reading and as indispensable aid to understanding of the messianic mission to all nations.
i hold no authority to declare what books are to be treated as inspired or not. but i profess to accept the book of Matthew from the basis of talmud when latter records of the fact that Raban Gmali'el ones at least in a case affecting a nazarene used the writing as a basis for his ruling: thus, it is understood that so long as the book is not twisted into antinomian interpretation, the book is kosher to me as it was to R. Gmaliel. moreover, i found out that the other gospel summaries Markus, Lukas and Yochann, as well as Acts, are themselves good supplements where Matthew has not recorded, and that makes the latter books worthy of reading.
but this my opinion is only good for any Jew/Jewess who has faith in Yeshua. without faith there is no business for any Jew studying these important materials. as the philosopher Augustine says crede ut inteligas --believe, so that you will understand (the opposite of common error of understanding in order to believe, because when one has attained understanding there is nothing left for him to believe but knowing).
-
Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on
-
To suggest that some words of Yahuwah are of greater authority than other words of Yahuwah is extremely absurd.
Every writing that is inspired by Yahuwah is thus the words of Yahuwah. What is spoken by Yahuwah in very definition is Scripture. What is spoken by Yahuwah has divine authority. There is no more divine authority in the few commands of a book such as 2 John, and the plethora of commands in the Torah. They all carry the exact same weight of authority. One may talk of which book is more valuable in the sense that which has more commandments, or has a bigger message or scope, but for one to suggest that the obligation to keep the commands of Yahuwah as taught in 2 John is not as great as the obligation to keep the commands of Yahuwah as taught in the Torah is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. The commandments of Yahuwah are the commandments of Yahuwah, regardless of whether or not they come from the Torah, 2 John, or some other source, so i think people should stop desecrating Yahuwah's commands by making them of little obligation, contrary to Yahuwah's will.
-
-
Well that might not be accurate, but look at it this way.
The Scriptures are like a pyramid, with the Torah as its base, the prophets and writings built upon that base, the gospels upon that and the emissaries at the top built upon the whole.
Now if you could prove the Torah was false (and its not) the whole thing will collapse. However if you could prove that Isaiah was false, the Torah would not fall, but much of the "New Testament" would. You get the idea, while we accept all of it as inspired there are levels of authority, because each one is built upon the claims and authority of the earlier books.
Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:To suggest that some words of Yahuwah are of greater authority than other words of Yahuwah is extremely absurd.
Every writing that is inspired by Yahuwah is thus the words of Yahuwah. What is spoken by Yahuwah in very definition is Scripture. What is spoken by Yahuwah has divine authority. There is no more divine authority in the few commands of a book such as 2 John, and the plethora of commands in the Torah. They all carry the exact same weight of authority. One may talk of which book is more valuable in the sense that which has more commandments, or has a bigger message or scope, but for one to suggest that the obligation to keep the commands of Yahuwah as taught in 2 John is not as great as the obligation to keep the commands of Yahuwah as taught in the Torah is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. The commandments of Yahuwah are the commandments of Yahuwah, regardless of whether or not they come from the Torah, 2 John, or some other source, so i think people should stop desecrating Yahuwah's commands by making them of little obligation, contrary to Yahuwah's will.
-
Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on
-
I agree with a hierarchy of importance, or integral status. I agree that if Torah is disproven, that essentially overthrows every book after that time founded on it as Scripture, but Isaiah disproven does not have nearly the same drastic effects. But, my main point, which i would think you agree with, by something of this nature we have talked about before, is that we have an obligation to follow 100% of the pyramid of Scripture. If we have a book of Scripture that is ten words versus a book of Scripture that is ten thousand words, that does not make the ten words less authoritative than the ten thousand. We are called to obey every word of Yahuwah, not just the ones that come from the biggest bestest books. Even the least of all the books that are Scripture as a full 100% obligation to be followed, and in that sense, i find it absurd to suggest that Yahuwah's commandments in the Torah have more authority than Yahuwah's commandments in other sources. I believe every commandment of Yahuwah has equal authority, just not equal scope or meaning. I hope this clarifies some things ;). Shalom.
I regard the foundation as most important. In my mind, the foundation to all of Scripture, including the Torah written, is Enoch and Jubilees, as they came first and the written Torah was derived from them, not the reverse.
-
Permalink Reply by 命 on
-
This almost explains your extremely skewed and unreasonable misgivings.
A hallmark of heretics is the denigration of the Torah and the real Scriptures.
I state for the record: The Torah, the Nevi'im, the Ketuvim and the New Testament are equally inspired and God-breathed, being all infinitely superior to the corrupt, provably corrupt, and laughable books you just mentioned.
Enoch will laugh in the resurrection, when he sees the drivel accredited to him !
Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
I regard the foundation as most important. In my mind, the foundation to all of Scripture, including the Torah written, is Enoch and Jubilees, as they came first and the written Torah was derived from them, not the reverse.
-
Permalink Reply by J. Jury (אליהוא) on
-
If the Torah is called a "Perfect Work", then we need not add anything to it. Hence, all Scripture is Inspired Commentary to the Torah. (With the exception of the Gospels, which are an extension of Torah per Deut 18)
Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:I agree with a hierarchy of importance, or integral status. I agree that if Torah is disproven, that essentially overthrows every book after that time founded on it as Scripture, but Isaiah disproven does not have nearly the same drastic effects. But, my main point, which i would think you agree with, by something of this nature we have talked about before, is that we have an obligation to follow 100% of the pyramid of Scripture. If we have a book of Scripture that is ten words versus a book of Scripture that is ten thousand words, that does not make the ten words less authoritative than the ten thousand. We are called to obey every word of Yahuwah, not just the ones that come from the biggest bestest books. Even the least of all the books that are Scripture as a full 100% obligation to be followed, and in that sense, i find it absurd to suggest that Yahuwah's commandments in the Torah have more authority than Yahuwah's commandments in other sources. I believe every commandment of Yahuwah has equal authority, just not equal scope or meaning. I hope this clarifies some things ;). Shalom.
I regard the foundation as most important. In my mind, the foundation to all of Scripture, including the Torah written, is Enoch and Jubilees, as they came first and the written Torah was derived from them, not the reverse.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2013 Created by James Trimm.
