- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hmmmm
You seem to be a bit of a paradox, Nick.
You don't quote from these extra-biblical books, however you are encouraging the study of them for TRUTH.
May I choose other book to look at for truth as well, or can they only be ones where it *seems* that certain biblical character's have quoted from their pages?
Hi not3,
Where did I say we should study them for truth?
The truth should be living in us imprinted on our hearts so we can test all thingsQuote (david @ Aug. 18 2006,10:17) Oh, is that what you are disagreeing with? So you don't think that God's spirit had a part in defining the conon of “God's Word.” I guess you woudn't, would you? Otherwise, why would these non-biblical books that you rely on not be included?
My point was not to “prove” that the holy spirit had defined the canon, but rather to point out that Catholicism only stated what was already generally believed, regarding canon.david
God told his people to test the spirit of what they heard and I am convinced that means even what is regarded as scripture.Scripture also states that the Beareans are considered noble for testing the message they heard from Paul. I seek to emulate that nobility.
I think CA has recently mentioned how Catholics decided the canon of the Bible.
But If I wanted to, I could put down a list of the books I considered to be God's Word. And if that list happens to match the ones people today considers to be inspired, does that mean I am the one who decided which books were Biblical?
Quote Hi David,
I am not saying you are wrong but surely you are making a claim here that cannot be substantiated?“The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit “
–Nick.
I'd like to bring up the post again, made on the first page (It has a chart, which is a bit garbled because of me transfering it to this.)
A – Accepted without query as Scriptural and canonical
D – Doubted in certain quarters
DA – Doubted in certain quarters, but cataloger accepted it as
Scriptural and canonical? – Scholars uncertain of the reading of the text or how a
book mentioned is viewed– A blank space indicates that the book was not used or
mentioned by that authorityName and Place
Muratorian Irenaeus, Clement of Tertullian,
Fragment, Asia Minor Alexandria N. Africa
ItalyApproximate
Date C.E. 170 180 190 207Matthew A A A A
Mark A A A A
Luke A A A A
John A A A A
Acts A A A A
Romans A A A A
1 Corinthians A A A A
2 Corinthians A A A A
Galatians A A A A
Ephesians A A A A
Philippians A A A A
Colossians A A A A
1 Thessalonians A A A A
2 Thessalonians A A A A
1 Timothy A A A A
2 Timothy A A A A
Titus A A A A
Philemon A A
Hebrews D DA DA
James ?
1 Peter A? A A A
2 Peter D? A
1 John A A DA A
2 John A A DA
3 John A?
Jude A
Revelation A A A A
Name and Place
Origen, Eusebius, Cyril of Cheltenham
Alexandria Palestine Jerusalem List,
N. AfricaApproximate
Date C.E. 230 320 348 365
Matthew A A A A
Mark A A A A
Luke A A A A
John A A A A
Acts A A A A
Romans A A A A
1 Corinthians A A A A
2 Corinthians A A A A
Galatians A A A A
Ephesians A A A A
Philippians A A A A
Colossians A A A A
1 Thessalonians A A A A
2 Thessalonians A A A A
1 Timothy A A A A
2 Timothy A A A A
Titus A A A A
Philemon A A A A
Hebrews DA DA A
James DA DA A
1 Peter A A A A
2 Peter DA DA A D
1 John A A A A
2 John DA DA A D
3 John DA DA A D
Jude DA DA A
Revelation A DA A
Name and Place
Athanasius, Epiphanius, Gregory Amphilocius,
Alexandria Palestine Nazianzus, Asia Minor
Asia MinorApproximate
Date C.E. 367 368 370 370
Matthew A A A A
Mark A A A A
Luke A A A A
John A A A A
Acts A A A A
Romans A A A A
1 Corinthians A A A A
2 Corinthians A A A A
Galatians A A A A
Ephesians A A A A
Philippians A A A A
Colossians A A A A
1 Thessalonians A A A A
2 Thessalonians A A A A
1 Timothy A A A A
2 Timothy A A A A
Titus A A A A
Philemon A A A A
Hebrews A A A DA
James A A A A
1 Peter A A A A
2 Peter A A A D
1 John A A A A
2 John A A A D
3 John A A A D
Jude A A A D
Revelation A DA D
Name and Place
Philaster, Jerome, Augustine, Third
Italy Italy N. Africa Council of
Carthage,
N. AfricaApproximate
Date C.E. 383 394 397 397
Matthew A A A
AMark A A A A
Luke A A A A
John A A A A
Acts A A A A
Romans A A A A
1 Corinthians A A A A
2 Corinthians A A A A
Galatians A A A A
Ephesians A A A A
Philippians A A A A
Colossians A A A A
1 Thessalonians A A A A
2 Thessalonians A A A A
1 Timothy A A A A
2 Timothy A A A A
Titus A A A A
Philemon A A A A
Hebrews DA DA A A
James A DA A A
1 Peter A A A A
2 Peter A DA A A
1 John A A A A
2 John A DA A A
3 John A DA A A
Jude A DA A A
Revelation DA DA A A
The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized.
A number of fourth-century catalogs of the Christian Scriptures, dated prior to the above-mentioned council, agree exactly with our present canon, and some others omit only Revelation. Before the end of the second century, there is universal acceptance of the four Gospels, Acts, and 12 of the apostle Paul’s letters. Only a few of the smaller writings were doubted in certain areas. Likely this was so because such writings were limited in their initial circulation for one reason or another and thus took longer to become accepted as canonical.
One of the most interesting early catalogs is the fragment discovered by L. A. Muratori in the Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy, and published by him in 1740. Though the beginning is missing, its reference to Luke as the third Gospel indicates that it first mentioned Matthew and Mark. The Muratorian Fragment, which is in Latin, dates to the latter part of the second century C.E. It is a most interesting document, as the following partial translation shows: “The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, wrote it in his own name . . . The fourth book of the Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. . . . And so to the faith of believers there is no discord, even although different selections are given from the facts in the individual books of the Gospels, because in all [of them] under the one guiding Spirit all the things relative to his nativity, passion, resurrection, conversation with his disciples, and his twofold advent, the first in the humiliation arising from contempt, which took place, and the second in the glory of kingly power, which is yet to come, have been declared. What marvel is it, then, if John adduces so consistently in his epistles these several things, saying in person: ‘what we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, those things we have written.’ For thus he professes to be not only an eyewitness but also a hearer and narrator of all the wonderful things of the Lord, in their order. Moreover, the acts of all the apostles are written in one book. Luke [so] comprised them for the most excellent Theophilus . . . Now the epistles of Paul, what they are, whence or for what reason they were sent, they themselves make clear to him who will understand. First of all he wrote at length to the Corinthians to prohibit the schism of heresy, then to the Galatians [against] circumcision, and to the Romans on the order of the Scriptures, intimating also that Christ is the chief matter in them—each of which it is necessary for us to discuss, seeing that the blessed Apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name in the following order: to the Corinthians (first), to the Ephesians (second), to the Philippians (third), to the Colossians (fourth), to the Galatians (fifth), to the Thessalonians (sixth), to the Romans (seventh). But though he writes twice for the sake of correction to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, that there is one church diffused throughout the whole earth is shown [?i.e., by this sevenfold writing]; and John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, yet speaks to all. But [he wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy; [and these] are held sacred in the honorable esteem of the Church. . . . Further, an epistle of Jude and two bearing the name of John are counted . . . We receive the apocalypses of John and Peter only, which [latter] some of us do not wish to be read in church.”—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1956, Vol. VIII, page 56.
Origen, about the year 230 C.E., accepted among the inspired Scriptures the books of Hebrews and James, both missing from the Muratorian Fragment. While he indicates that some doubted their canonical quality, this also shows that by this time, the canonicity of most of the Greek Scriptures was accepted, only a few doubting some of the less well-known epistles. Later, Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine acknowledged the conclusions of earlier lists by defining as the canon the same 27 books that we now have. (The Books and the Parchments, 1963, F. F. Bruce, page 112.)
The majority of the catalogs in the chart are specific lists showing which books were accepted as canonical. Those of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen are completed from the quotations they made, which reveal how they regarded the writings referred to. These are further supplemented from the records of the early historian Eusebius. However, the fact that these writers do not mention certain canonical writings does not argue against their canonicity. It is just that they did not happen to refer to them in their writings either by choice or because of the subjects under discussion.
But why do we not find exact lists earlier than the Muratorian Fragment?
It was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept. Marcion constructed his own canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Paul’s letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke. This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by then spreading throughout the world, was what led to statements by catalogers as to which books they accepted as canonical.
I was praying about this last night…..
I think God has left his follower's in quite a state of quandary regarding the bible.
Why?
Hi not 3,
So men would not depend solely on what is written lest their minds become their idol when such knowledge increases.
We need the Spirit to become as cunning as serpents.Perhaps….
But the “Spirit” means something different to the Native American than it does to you, for instance. The “Spirit” means something different to everyone on this board….
“We need the Spirit….” Perhaps we do. But where do you find it? How do you recognize it? How much?
Love,
Mandyhi not3,
Where is the North American indian spirit in the bible?
Does that Spirit elevate and explain the bible?
If not why do you give it space?Nick……….You try to expound SPIRIT and don't even know WHAT SPIRIT IS> GO back and read what Jesus said it was and believe it. It is WORDS (the expression of one intellect) If The native Indians expressed a GREAT SPIRIT as being in all Creatures , they may not be as wrong as you think. In there limited way they may have been expressing The Unseen GOD the best way they could. Judge nothing before the time. To whom much is given much is required and to whom little is given little is required. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………..gene
Quote I was praying about this last night….. I think God has left his follower's in quite a state of quandary regarding the bible.
Why?
I'm uncertain as to what the quandry is.
The Bible is by far the most widely distributed easy to find book on the planet. It is available in whole or in part almost everywhere.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 06 2009,13:02) hi not3,
Where is the North American indian spirit in the bible?
Does that Spirit elevate and explain the bible?
If not why do you give it space?
My point was just that you put a value on who and what the “Spirit” is. So do others. They don't match. Who is correct? How do you know fo sho?
Quote (david @ Sep. 06 2009,16:46) Quote I was praying about this last night….. I think God has left his follower's in quite a state of quandary regarding the bible.
Why?
I'm uncertain as to what the quandry is.
The Bible is by far the most widely distributed easy to find book on the planet. It is available in whole or in part almost everywhere.
David,What does availability have to do with understanding?
Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 06 2009,18:22) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 06 2009,13:02) hi not3,
Where is the North American indian spirit in the bible?
Does that Spirit elevate and explain the bible?
If not why do you give it space?
My point was just that you put a value on who and what the “Spirit” is. So do others. They don't match. Who is correct? How do you know fo sho?
Hi not 3,
We know the bible backs itself up so confusion comes when you pick one verse and build on it as the JWs do.Test the spirits.
The Spirit of God produces good fruit.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 06 2009,19:06) Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 06 2009,18:22) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 06 2009,13:02) hi not3,
Where is the North American indian spirit in the bible?
Does that Spirit elevate and explain the bible?
If not why do you give it space?
My point was just that you put a value on who and what the “Spirit” is. So do others. They don't match. Who is correct? How do you know fo sho?
Hi not 3,
We know the bible backs itself up so confusion comes when you pick one verse and build on it as the JWs do.Test the spirits.
The Spirit of God produces good fruit.
The JW's produce good fruit. I dare say better looking fruit than most Christian churches.So how does that gage who has the Spirit then?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 06 2009,19:55) Hi not3,
So good fruit is false teaching?
There you go again Nick – who determines “false” teaching? You? The Catholic church? Trinitarians?JW's have tons of great fruit. So can we judge who has the true Spirit by fruit then, as you said?
Hi not 3,
Out of your mouth comes what you heart is full of.Watchtower babble.
Jesus is Michael.
Falsehood.Hi not3,
So the spirit of the false religions is not the Spirit of God.
The Spirit of God is not divided and they divide more every day.
Any religion that preaches itself instead of Jesus as the way is not of God.David wrote:
Quote But If I wanted to, I could put down a list of the books I considered to be God's Word. And if that list happens to match the ones people today considers to be inspired, does that mean I am the one who decided which books were Biblical?
It really does not care whom created the biblical cannon if they were not led by the the Spirit of God in doing so. My question stands; “How do you know that scripture is from God unless you test its spirit?”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
