Types of inspiration

[Columcille]

Once could say that John Milton in writing "Paradise Lost" was "inspired."
We talk a lot about divine inspiration in regards to Scripture.

I have tried to discuss both the inspiration in regards to the transcribing of each book to its reception by the people of God. Can one exist without the other? Could God inspire a work divinely and it still be rejected by the people of God?

[MacG]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Once could say that John Milton in writing "Paradise Lost" was "inspired."
We talk a lot about divine inspiration in regards to Scripture.

I have tried to discuss both the inspiration in regards to the transcribing of each book to its reception by the people of God. Can one exist without the other? Could God inspire a work divinely and it still be rejected by the people of God?

Columcille,

At first blush, yes. In the parable of the Vinyard owner and his workers killing every messenger upto and including His Son. At second blush however we the beneficiaries of hindsight know who the son was in that parable. He said that those who held the keys to the Kingdom were the Devil's children and those leaders rejected Him so were they really God's people even though they were the keepers of the inspired texts? I guess that they accepted them but misunderstood them? Hmmm.

So the sister question is can God's people accept non-inspired text but mistake it for inspired?

MacG

Did that go anywhere? It's late and I'm tired,

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by MacG

Columcille,

At first blush, yes. In the parable of the Vinyard owner and his workers killing every messenger upto and including His Son. At second blush however we the beneficiaries of hindsight know who the son was in that parable. He said that those who held the keys to the Kingdom were the Devil's children and those leaders rejected Him so were they really God's people even though they were the keepers of the inspired texts? I guess that they accepted them but misunderstood them? Hmmm.

So the sister question is can God's people accept non-inspired text but mistake it for inspired?

MacG

Did that go anywhere? It's late and I'm tired,

What does history show in the Christian Church. The p***age you alude to is an apostate people of Israel that rejected their messiah. Prior to it, the LXX was the collected Jewish works that was used by Christ, the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, and by Jews throughout the Greek speaking world. Hence, the community as a whole up to the Reformation accepted Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Mac., Baruch, Wisdom, etc..

[Columcille]

But despite this aspect, and a huge aspect it is, I find the liberal mentality toward's inspiration to be rather lacking. The only difference between us is that you can quote from your 66 books to me which I accept, but I could not quote back to you from the whole 73 books when establishing doctrinal support or even of the prophecies of the Messiah that was fulfilled, nor its wisdom, nor its support of the Resurrection within the Deuterocanical books.

[Decalogue]

Columcille --- Hello.

I like the way you write your posts. You are very often w r o o o n n g g g ! , but you are able to post without sounding like a village dingbat. I like that.


To the above post , I would simply say that those extra books which the R.C. has in the R.C. approved Bibles are in there because Rome added them.

The Hebrew Bible ( aka; The Old Testament ) has the same books as the Protestant Bible does. In other words ... The Jews did NOT consider those Apocryphal books "inspired" by God.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Decalogue

Columcille --- Hello.

I like the way you write your posts. You are very often w r o o o n n g g g ! , but you are able to post without sounding like a village dingbat. I like that.


To the above post , I would simply say that those extra books which the R.C. has in the R.C. approved Bibles are in there because Rome added them.

The Hebrew Bible ( aka; The Old Testament ) has the same books as the Protestant Bible does. In other words ... The Jews did NOT consider those Apocryphal books "inspired" by God.

All evidence points to Protestants taking them out. The "Jews" that "did NOT consider" the books "'inspired' by God" rejected them at the supposed council or rabbinical school of Jamna around the 90s C.E., these books were part of the LXX (Septuagint) and have been a source of inspiration for the Jews in Alexandria prior to Christ and for the rest of the Jewish Disporia of the known world. The fact that 95% of the O.T. quotes cited in the N.T. proves that the Alexandrian collection of Jewish antiquity was the Scriptures. You need to look at the chronological order of events. The first time a canon that lists the books in agreement with the Palestanian Jewish community if found in Josephus around 95 C.E., and by this time they rejected the books in question because the Church was using them to demonstrate the resurrection and also of Christ. Wisdom 2 is a great read, you should read it.

The thing is these books have been part of the Church even through the Reformation, as it is found in the same binding of all bibles up until the King James Bible, and even they translated the very books. If they were not scripture, why even allow it to be in the same binding? Historically, the Council of Carthage was long before the Council of Trent, and there are plenty proofs of Christian antiquity that held these books as Scripture. The question is, what are you to do with these facts? It is a blot, an embarr***ment that some ***ume that the RC ADDED them. It goes to show you haven't really reflected much on the order of events. Even the term "apocrypha" was not descriptive of these books until Jerome's translation of the Latin Vulgate put them into an appendix due to his not having any Hebrew texts to translate directly into Latin. The appendix were only Greek m****cripts that he had. The Dead Sea Scrolls clearly shows many of these Greek texts also were written in Hebrew. The term, "aprocrypha," has therefore took on a new meaning based on faulty ***umptions. "Hidden" to many means "uninspired;" "hidden" to many means "gnostic" writings. The sense here in terms of 1+2 Mac. Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and the others in question is not used in with these insidious senses.

To demonstrate what I mean, take the following quotation into consideration:

"Treatise the Third: Holy Scripture; Chpt IV: The Canon; 149. The Rival CanonsThe Protestants give the name of Apocrypha to the Books of the Old Testament that they reject. But this word, by ecclesiastical usage, denotes what is of no authority, mere forgeries, the work of unknown authors who falsely ***umed the names of Prophets and Apostles. The seven disputed Books are not of this nature, for even they who deny that they are inspired Scripture, acknowledge that these Books had a respectable origin, and that they may be read for example of life and instruction of manners. But although the name Apocrypha is not fairly applicable to this group of Books, it is certainly necessary to have some name by which to distinguish them; for they stand apart from the other inspired Books in this, that at one time there was doubt in the Church concerning their authority. They might, if usage allowed, conveniently be termed the Disputed Books, as distinguished on the one hand from the Acknowledged Books and on the other from the Spurious. These cl***es are discussed by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3, 25; P.G. 30, 268–272), and were perhaps first established by him; the terms which he employs are: ὁμολογούμενοι for the Books that were always acknowledged; ἀντιλεγόμενοι for those to which objections were raised; and νόθοι for those which found no defenders. He is speaking of the New Testament, but his terminology is also applied to the Old. The terms at present in most use for the Books of the first cl*** is to say that they are protocanonical, while the second cl*** are deuterocanonical; these cumbrous and meaningless words were first used by Sixtus of Siena, a converted Jew who lived in the sixteenth century, and became first a Franciscan friar, but afterwards a Dominican. He was one of the first writers who treated Scripture in what would now be call a “critical” spirit, and his works, brought out under the patronage of St. Pius V., had wide circulation, and his language p***ed into common use. We may say then that Catholics admit to the Canon, and Protestants reject, the seven deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament.
In the New Testament also there are seven deuterocanonical Books: the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John, the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, and the Apocalypse; also, three p***ages from the Gospels fall into the same cl***; the last twelve verses of St. Mark, the history of the Agony and Bloody Sweat in St. Luke 22:43, 44, and the history of the woman taken in adultery, St. John 7:53–8:11. All these were at one time doubted in the Church, and therefore cannot be called protocanonical; the history of the controversy in their regard is however quite different from that which treats of the Old Testament. Catholics and Protestants alike receive the deuterocanonical parts of the New Testament, their Canons being identical.


Hunter, S. J. (1896). Vol. 1: Outlines of Dogmatic Theology (Third Edition) (204–206). New York: Benzinger Brothers.

To demonstrate the "disputed" writings of the N.T. as mentioned in the ODT, the words of Eusebius Pamphilus: The Church History of Eusebius: Book III: Chpt 25:



Chapter XXV. The Divine Scriptures that are Accept and Those that are Not.

1 SINCE we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles.218
2 After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter,221 must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John,223 concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings.225
3 Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized227 by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude,229 also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John,231 whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.4 Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul,233 and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter,235 and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles;237 and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others cl*** with the accepted books.239


Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I (155–156). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

So as you can see, the disputed books of the O.T. like the N.T. disputed books explained by Eusebius were considered Canonical. It is the Protestants who removed them, not the Catholic adding them.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Could God inspire a work divinely and it still be rejected by the people of God?

oh yes...its common.

While every Christian knows that the Bible is truly inspired by God, we tend to forget that in order for a person to put their faith in the message of the bible that person reading it must also have their heart inspired by God as well...