| Subject: |
|
Canon and Apocrypha |
| Name: |
|
Howard |
| Date Posted: |
|
Sep 15, 06 - 8:02 AM |
| Message: |
|
Theo said, “Yes, indeed. The discussion here on Tiber's blog regrding his article on the rosary provides an excellent example.”
And his post on the “magesterium” is also full of problems.
“Second, prior to AD 90, there was no single "official" collection. Even in Palestine, one did not find the same scripture everywhere.”
Yet Jesus had no problem of holding men accountable to the Word of God which your position says they cannot possibly know. Why didn’t they ask Jesus which books? Why doesn’t Jesus explain what His position is?
The Sadducees didn’t believe in anyone but Moses, yet Jesus held them accountable for what they did believe by quoting Moses to them about the resurrection.
The main point here should be obvious to us all. Books that are God’s Word are knowable even before some Magesterium. The fact that men have disagreed on the canon doesn’t mean it is unknowable before an official pronouncement.
So let me drive this point home again. They KNEW Moses’ books were God’s Word before any Magesterium said so. Therefore, one does not have to be a gnostic or an infallible Magesterium to know this.
The fact that they rejected the prophets is irrelevant. They were blinded by their Traditions and beliefs, therefore they were rejecting God’s later revelation. You might ask “Why did they believe in Moses then?” My response is that they DID NOT believe Moses either, which is Jesus’ point.
They knew what the Word of God was and rejected it. Jesus still held them accountable to it.
“As for "official" canon, there was none until the fourth century”
Could you cite for me the books of this canon that became official in the fourth century and who did this?
“if you infer that Jesus was indeed referring to some single canon, then his listeners also knew of this canon”
Is this a form of an admission? (I know its not.)
;-)
“Were that so, who told his listeners what this canon was? Did they all simply know it and agree upon it by God's soverign endowment of knowledge to each individual?”
Again this totally misunderstands the my position. Your conclusion is
“By your writing thus far, I'm confident that you would not knowingly embrace Gnosticism. Yet, as we examine your own beliefs, we see that you must either believe in a magesterium or in gnosticism.”
Again this conclusion is based on a premise that is false.
You are assuming that there must be an “infallible” magesterium that is able to tell us infallibly what the canon is. This however begs the question, and I could just as easily quote to you your conclusion quote above in order to know who this infallible magesterium is.
Your position only moves the question back one.
“One's view of God's Sovereignty is irrelevant”
I disagree. One’s view of His sovereignty plays a huge role. We have totally different understandings, therefore we will probably never even see the evidence we do agree upon with the same interpretation.
God Bless
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Webmasters! New Photo Album Service Launched - Check it out!
Reply
Home
bravenet.com