The new teachings of Jesus

This thread is not about Rose Creek Village. I hope the thread at least somewhat applies to the topic of the lack of preservation of Scripture, because that's what I got on this thread about, and that's what I've been talking about this whole time.Maybe you can take your offenses about whatever all this stuff is you've dreamed up to a new thread if you think it's important enough.

Thank you.But to head back towards the topic, what would you say "Scripture" is?It seems obvious to me that it is NOT the Bible. First, there are several canons and in addition, all of the canons postdate the references to Scripture in the Bible itself.During the time such references were made there were many other tracts being read and discussed. The book of Enoch or First and Second Adam and Eve as well as many other Gospels and an unknown number of Epistles.Would the concept of Scripture point to anything written that one can learn from? Would, for example, it be reasonable to consider Origin of Species or the writings of CS Lewis as scripture?Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Despite drbill's interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16, I'd say it's pretty easy to see what first the Jews and then the Christians called Scripture. There are some books that are questionable, i.e. not universally agreed on, but otherwise the whole subject seems pretty obvious to me.Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Torah, etc. were all obviously considered Scripture by the early Christians. (Since the thread topic is "The new teachings of Jesus," I'm assuming we're talking about what Christians call Scripture.)By sometime in the 2nd century it became universal to call all apostolic writings as well as those writings written by companions of apostles as Scripture (thus Mark was Peter's Gospel and Luke was Paul's).Jude obviously considered First Enoch Scripture, and it seems to me that it's referred to a lot in the 2nd century, too. It's odd that it seems to have disappeared somewhere along the line as a part of Scripture, except in the Ethiopian church.James, 2&3 John, Jude, 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation all seemed to have been questioned, but the Shepherd of Hermas wasn't written until the 2nd century and several authorities, most notable Clement of Alexandria, thought it was Scripture.The problem is, I don't see any indication that any Christians anywhere in the first few centuries wanted to add anything to Scripture that wasn't apostolic. Supposedly, Clement of Alexandria thought the Shepherd was written by the Hermas who Paul mentions in Philippians 4, thus providing apostolic authority to it. I don't know how anyone could know that, but apostolic authority definitely seemed to be the main criterion for the early church's assessment of Scripture.That said, the Bible is an attempt to gather all the writings considered Scripture by the church. Since there's so many churches, those Bibles vary, but not by that much, in my opinion.On a personal level, our church, Rose Creek Village, has felt free to suggest that some of Amy Carmichael's writings ought to be in Scripture as well as a couple other modern people.Since you asked "what would you say 'Scripture' is," that's my answer.I like the writings in the Bible. I just don't like the cover that limits it to those books, and I don't like what people have done with it, turning it into a magic book.I'm sort of interested in this issue, so I may push myself to the computer at points this weekend, but it's a big weekend. I'm taking 22 kids to a 5K race tomorrow morning, and my wife will be gone all weekend at a "passage" for three young ladies. (We have a celebration/ceremony time whenever we acknowledge one of our youth as becoming an adult with adult responsibilities. Those are awesome.) I have six children, and the youngest is still just 4 (cutest little girl in the whole world, I'm sure of it), so I'll have my hands full and I may not be able to get back to this till Monday, though I'll try.

Scripture is----whatever tickles your ears.You want a different slant? We have slants for all seasons.You want verses? We have verses coming out of our--um--Bible.No likee? We have tons of other verses.Still not satisfied? We have interpretations.Don`t like? We have other interpretations.Still unhappy? We have different Bibles.Not satisfactory? We can write another Bible for you.Want to hate other Christians? Try our assorted hater groups.Church turn you off? We can offer other churches, sects, splinter groups, live togethers, live aparts, even the Jim Jones non-livers.You want music? We can offer organs or guitars or PA systems that will blow your mind.You want singers? How about hymns, dirges, hot gospel, singalongs, sing alones, or singing in tongues.You want animals? We do a good deal on snakes.How about other Scriptures? We have assorted collections, additions, subtractions, scribal errors both in and out, hidden, just-located, barely-mentioned, hints of, repudiated, heretical, controversial and just plain uninspired ones that missed the cut.You want original Scriptures? What are you, some Commy evo deviate? We have original Scriptures by the dozen. Even hundreds. Thousands, maybe. We have original Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Greek, Latin, Gangastanian. We even have original English Scriptures. Written by Jesus himself. How more original can you get?So come on in. Christians can deliver.

Hello again truthlover. It's been a long time since we chatted. Good to see worthy opponents continuing in the fray. Thank you for mentioning my argument. Is it safe to assume that your vision includes all of the so-called 'Apocrypha;' not just First Enoch?Seems to me the important thing is not so much what the masses called "scripture" but rather what Paul meant by "All scripture." In this connection I think it important, first of all, to clearly define what is meant by the word "scripture." Not what it means to people today but what it meant in the language of the time. This word has evolved from the Latin scriptura; (think 'script') meaning: something written. If, on the other hand, one prefers to explore the Greek meaning, one encounters a like etymology. The word is 'Graphi;' (think 'graphic') meaning: something written.In Greek, the Graphi ("scripture") of 1 Tim 3:16 is set in contrast to the Gramma ("scripture") of 1 Tim 3:15. From 'Gramma' we derive our word: Grammar. Gramma conveys a sense of formality and was used to describe legal documents. In verse 15, the one preceding that which is so often quoted, Gramma is combined with the word Hiera (Priest) which is translated "Holy" or "Sacred;" the latter being consistent with the Vulgate perspective: "sacras litteras," which, in case your Latin is rusty, is root to our word literature.This is one detail among many which persuade me that Paul intends to contrast this line with the one which follows. Otherwise he might just as easily, more clearly and much less controvertibly have said:

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

It could happen. It very well could.I am surprised that no one has mentioned it yet but there's a precedent for this: You know who I mean don't you?What reason, if any, do Church fathers give for including this man's writings in the canon?Was it his conversion story? - "I saw the light."
Was it his attitude? - "I'm sorry. Really I am."
Was it his Judaism? - "The law doesn't really mean what it says."
Was it his clean record? - "I'm writing this from prison you know."I don't know what it was but I'm pretty sure it wasn't his resume'.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Funny how what we have of James and the Ebionites points to avoiding YOUKNOWWHO like the plague. :-p

Don't believe I'd ever heard of these guys. Ran a search and scanned a few articles and - I find it interesting, more like amazing how: solely by virtue of having read the Pauline letters and compared them to the recorded teachings of Jesus, that I have arrived independently at conclusions which I now hear repeated by others; namely: this.Thanks for the tip.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

doctrbill,I looked at that link you gave in message 98. Here's a couple quotes I had real problems with:

quote:

---

the source of the original teachings of the Ebionites, Gnostics, Manicheans, Sabians, Mandeans, Nestorians and Elkasites has been described as the Nazarene philosophy.

---

As far as I can tell from what I know of early church history, which is a lot but no one can be exhaustive, this is ridiculous. The gnostics, Manicheans, Sabians, and Nestorians did not hold to any Ebionite doctrine. None of them were law keepers. Nestorius wasn't born until AD 386, and he was a Christian with a doctrine about the divinity of Christ that most of us would never understand the difference between the catholics and him. The Manicheans were a form of gnosticism (speaking very generally), and gnosticism was a Greek religion having nothing to do with keeping the law. In fact, a central theme of most gnostic religions is that Yahweh of Israel was an ignorant, lesser god who shouldn't have created the earth.It is true that the Ebionites claimed their descent from James and that they were law keepers who believed Jesus was human. We know very little about these folks, all of it secondhand. The author's comment that "The inescapable conclusion of the scrupulous student" is that Paul abandoned the religion of Christ is simply nonsense based on any Ebionite history. If you want to argue that Paul disagreed with what's in the Gospels, like some do here, that's one thing, but to take an almost non-existent Ebionite history and talk about "inescapable conclusions" is utter nonsense. Tacking on gnostic and Manichean history to that shows an complete ignorance of history, and adding the Nestorians from three centuries later is simply inexcusable.

Thank you for your response.I'm sure you're right about that. The subject is new to me. I simply found it surprising that my impressions had been shared by others, even in Paul's time.As to my question: Do you happen to know any early arguments for including Paul's writings in the NT?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Well, they believe Paul's story that he was approved by Peter and James. They state as history that Paul and Peter were together leading the church of Rome for years, Peter longer than Paul.What's certain is that Paul's churches, John's churches, and Peter's churches had absolutely no problems being in fellowship with one another. That makes the church fathers version of history seem pretty likely, and the "apostles on one side, Paul on the other" version pretty unlikely.That there were issues with James is obvious even from the Biblical and church father version of history. That this was a heretic vs. orthodox sort of issue doesn't jive too well with what follows as history.My suspicion is that there was ongoing tension between James and Paul especially, but also between James and those allowing the freedom to the Gentiles that was allowed in the church (freedom from the Law of Moses, I mean). James, however, being an extraordinarily meek, gentle, and righteous man, chose to maintain a unity with those of the twelve that stayed in or near Jerusalem, which meant a tenuous unity with Paul, too.When James, an extremely cool head, was stoned to death, I think that was the motivation for those less motivated to unity to split off. Thus the formation of the Ebionites.Since I am a believer that Jesus Christ still transforms lives and still plans to build a kingdom that will transform the world, I take results as meaning a lot. The Ebionites died out. Those who held to Paul's teachings, which do NOT include the ridiculous no works doctrine of Martin Luther, continued in incredible love and power for several centuries till they merged with the government.Paul's message still has power, even though Martin Luther's, which gets blamed on Paul, is so ineffective. Someone will have to show me that the Ebionites message has the power to create the things Christ spoke of before I'm convinced it's Christ's message.

Indeed.IMHO, being not yet a know-it-all, I imagine that Paul has destroyed the Christian movement, as it was originally envisioned, and simultaneously given it re-birth via the mechanism of his marvelous spiritualistic spin on Judaic legalism while accomodating the desire, of many Jewish persons, to live in harmony with the world at large.Kudos to him, I say.But that was then.And this is now.Time to evolve again.Yes?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Care to put a date on those 'church fathers', TL ?

Pre-Nicene. The comments about unity between Paul's churches and those of the other apostles would be based on Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, & Irenaeus, so AD 110 to 185.

I take it you don`t go along with the thoughts of some scholars that Eusebius was a master forger? :-p