I agree… All of this culminates in the gospel which was delivered by the apostles.
1 Like
In context, the word for Scripture (graphe) is something written, so would not include oral tradition (even from Jesus or the apostles). Note the previous verse about “sacred writings (gramma).” I think the evidence favors a closed OT by this point. While we don’t have a list of books, we do have, from Philo and Josephus, e.g., a recognizable tripartite structure (which Jesus seems to affirm in Luke 24) and number (though the exact number of “books” fluctuates a bit b/c some books were combined). It’s pretty straightforward to get to our OT.
How we got the OT canon is a mystery, but likely involves major factors like the exile to prompt the faith community to make some decisions (e.g., about which books were worth dying for). Thankfully we seem to have the confirmation of Jesus and consistent mainstream Jewish tradition.
The NT canon is obviously different. On another thread @jongarvey gave some background on much of the consistency of early church usage. We also know the criteria the church used to make some final decisions (e.g., apostolicity, wide usage, analogy of faith, etc.) Of the 27 books, there was never any disagreement about the Gospels, Acts, and the 13 letters attributed to Paul. Of the rest, the disagreement was fairly minimal, though some rumblings about Revelation and the little epistles of John. The Shepherd of Hermes was one that didn’t make it in, but was used by many fathers.
We do know the fathers often found useful some Second Temple texts, but it would be a stretch to blow this into a big argument about the OT canon. E.g., only a couple advocated for 1 Enoch (which isn’t even in the Apocrypha).
6 Likes
You’re getting mixed up between Jude and Hebrews. In Hebrews, we learn that Jesus offered himself up once for all as a sacrifice. That’s true. But I wasn’t referring to that.
Jude says the faith has been delivered to the saints once for all, and he urges us to contend earnestly for that faith. Jude was not talking about Jesus’ sacrifice, he was talking about the true doctrines of the Bible as opposed to heresy.
And this is where the discussion comes to a screeching halt.
To say that the same Spirit who inspired this:
“Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,” Gen 1:26
“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Gen 2:7
…also inspired this:
Now in the Garden, God selected primate Adam and primate Eve from a horde of beasts who had long since branched from the great apes and bestowed on them his image
…is a heinous spiritual act. It is to presume on the Spirit of God and the holy Text in a manner unparalleled in the history of the Church.
And here is where you as a Bible revisionist and evolutionist will try and draw a parallel with Galileo and the Catholic church. And here you will fail because in Galileo’s day there was no real Bible text that heliocentrism was trying to alter or overturn. In short, the Catholic elites only had inferences, and the Catholic view was wrong.
There are limits to your progressive view of spiritual revelation in the Church and this is where it hits the brick wall.
And here is where you as a Bible revisionist and evolutionist will try and draw a parallel with Galileo and the Catholic church. And here you will fail because in Galileo’s day there was no real Bible text that heliocentrism was trying to alter or overturn. In short, the Catholic elites only had inferences, and the Catholic view was wrong.
Today, the roles are reversed. We fundamentalists are the ones who have the very real and very clear text regarding the creation of Man in the Garden and it is the evolutionist who only has the inferences.
There are limits to your progressive view of spiritual revelation in the Church and this is where it hits the brick wall.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation on the Lausanne Covenant I was having with @PDPrice. Please read the posts if you want to contribute to the actual conversation.
2 Likes
I am not mixed up, I just interpret what Jude is saying differently. I do not see that verse about scripture, but about Jesus, although I do see them both as truth and sometimes interchangeable.
However, in this instance, I believe Jude is doing the same and using that term on purpose to make a point about Jesus. “The faith” is in Jesus and the encouragement is to follow the truth that is in Jesus. Jude lines up with 2 Peter in its harsh description of false teachers. Peter also prefaces his warnings about the destructive teaching by exhorting followers to “contend earnestly for their faith” so that they will understand the Word of Life (Jesus) that offers salvation. The bible does not offer salvation, Jesus does. The bible was not given to us “once for all”, Jesus was. This seems like hermeneutics 101 to me.
2Peter 1:5-11 - But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control [d]perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither [e]barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I encourage you to read the whole letter in context. This letter is not about people who deny “the person of Jesus”, whatever that might mean. It is written about people who are causing division in the church by teaching false doctrines. The scoffers of 2 Peter 3 are also mentioned specifically. The faith once for all delivered refers to true doctrine.
Certainly it was, because the Scriptures cannot be changed or broken.
I’ve understood “according to Scripture” in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 to mean according to the OT prophecies, not the Gospels per se. Is that the correct understanding?
1 Like
I guess we just disagree…scripture was not given once for all, in fact Jude was written before the compilation of the new testament, and before other scripture, specifically before revelation, so if the book was referencing scripture “once for all” he could have only meant the law and prophets, which also were not given “once for all” they were compiled over time and passed on separately.
2 Likes
Conservative scholars date Jude between 60 and 90 ad. Clearly it had to come after 2 Peter, since it quotes from 2 Peter. Peter was killed in 68 ad by Nero. So that means we can narrow Jude down to somewhere in the 70 to 90 ad range on that basis.
None of the Gospels reference the destruction of the Temple in 70 ad, which is noteworthy since several of them quote Jesus at predicting it would happen. I would think if they had been written after it happened, they would have noted Jesus’ successful prophecy here.
The only book I’m willing to concede may have been written after Jude’s letter is the book of Revelation.
Do we get any new doctrines of the faith from Revelation? It’s a book of prophecy, not of doctrines. So I have no problem saying that when Jude talked about “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” he was talking about the doctrines revealed in both the Old and the New testaments, with the possible exception of the prophecies in Revelation. The divisions that Jude was referring to in the letter would not have had anything to do with the book of Revelation in any case.
Would “different cultures” include Jewish culture?
Related question, I wonder if @PDPrice has had the opportunity to spend a significant time living in another country yet.
1 Like
Except the “evolutionists” now also have the creation of the Man in the Garden. You keep forgetting the GAE…
And I agree with @cwhenderson, you are off topic.
2 Likes
Exactly.
And this thread’s topic is “What is meant by a ‘perfect’ Bible?”, as we have been reminded.
The motivations for doubling-down on a “perfect” Bible appear similar to those which fuel the tradition of the “perfect” creation—even though Genesis says nothing about the creation being “perfect”. It is described as TOV (good, fitting, appropriate, as intended) and “very TOV.” But I’ve seen some people go nearly apoplectic at the suggestion that the original creation wasn’t “perfect”, even though it wasn’t at all clear what that would mean. (More than one such individual insisted that manure in that perfect creation certainly didn’t stink and may even have smelled as pleasant as roses.)
Just as the Pharisees were determined to go well beyond what was written in the Torah, some are prone similarly in applying detailed (and sometimes almost hyperbolic) descriptions of the scriptures which go well beyond what the Bible actually says about itself. I have even observed instances of “inerrancy creep”, such as the layperson author of self-published books (who nevertheless had a significant following) who aggressively promoted his own personal brand of dictation theory which nevertheless worked hard to deny that label (because he knew it had a bad reputation.) Apparently he believed that anything less than divine dictation could not be sufficiently “perfect.”
At times some of the inerrancy debates appear little more than “My brand of inerrancy is far more detailed and emphatic than your brand —so it is obvious that I’m a True Christian™ and you are not.”
1 Like
Quite a bit. I’ve lived in Japan, Korea, and Russia. And traveled to many others besides those.
6 Likes
I doubt it. I would suggest that he move to Kerala, as they have a fascinating and strong Christian tradition centering on the disciple Thomas.
They also have the world’s only democratically elected communist governments and have done a far better job than the US (and the rest of India AFAIK) in controlling SARS-CoV-2, even after a recent spike.
He has, hasn’t he? From his bio:
After graduating from the University of Georgia with a B.A. in International Affairs, he spent several years living abroad with his wife Amanda as an English language instructor in South Korea and Russia.
Edit: and from his own reply above; turns out @PDPrice responded before I did.
5 Likes
Don’t concede just yet 
Jude 17
“17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold”
…successfully ties the apostles - of whom was John - with prophetic revelations.
Thank’s for clarifying. I did not mean to accuse you of any thing, but was honestly wondering. When you spent time in churches in these places, did you see different emphases or notice any ways they saw their faith differently than yours?
3 Likes