Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Yeshua1, May 20, 2013.
If so, what was it?
Again, what is your purpose for continuing this stream of one line questions that you know will bring about division among the members of this board?
If you believe this has happened, state your case.
If you believe this has not happened, state your case.
Then, with either position, be prepared to defend your stance.
With the number of posts you've made since you came back under your current identify, you should by now, have formed your own viewpoints on most subjects discussed here. So, Brother, you are not one newly in Christ, who is truly seeking to grow in His word.
Can you show as much desire to bring about unity as you do division within the membership of the body of Christ?
The truth though always divides, for the One who IS the truth, stated that he came to bring and cause division !
Just stating that the Bible when rightly understood and practiced, WOULD bring unity to us, as much of what is here would have moved along to seek greener pastures!
I will quote this passage:
Ephesians 1 ESV
15 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, 16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might
I will say this: I think that this quotation has an eschatological feature to it, because of the following scripture after the emboldened text (viz. the "hope"). I think that this passage is pertinent today.
Yes every sunday morning there are thousands of inspired revelations being preached. Now there are no new ones coming from God.
good! So would you this as saying that the HS will reveal what was already written to us, illumination to us, or that he gives new revelations apart from what was already written?
the Truth doesn't cause division--Division is already in people--God's people will hear the truth and by the Holy Spirit say Amen!!!
May take some study in scriptures--but when the truth is presented and looked into--God's people will accept it--those who reject it are like the Religious leaders of Christ's day--caught in tradition !!!
There is really a lot of emphasis on the canon. If we agree that the last book written in either the Bible or the RCC Bible with its few added books is about 100 AD, how many years was it from that point until the men who decided the canon did so? All the books in the Bible, or the writings that were rejected were written long before the first canon was formed.
Christ gave an outline for the OT:
First, with regard to the Old Testament we have the testimony of Jesus to the existing books. He confirmed the accepted three-fold division of our canonical books.
These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me (Luke 24:44).
And the NT
As far as the New Testament is concerned, we have the promise of Jesus.
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you (John 14:26).
So, the focus of the question should be the men that met to form the canon. Were these men being guided by the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the men who wrote the original books?
There are no guarantees recorded, but the men deciding the canon were wise, Christian men. I do believe they were being guided by the Lord. To me, nothing happens by chance.
Another reason we can be assured the correct books in the Bible is the nature of God. It has been estimated there are a quintillion stars in the universe and the Bible says God calls them by their names. If God is able to do this, He certainly is able to preserve intact His Word for the benefit of mankind.
Since we have the testimony of Jesus that God preserved the Old Testament for His people, we can also be assured that God took the same care in preserving the New Testament books. When the evidence is examined, we find it consistent and credible.
These are the books in the Catholic Bible rejected by the Protestants
The Book of Wisdom
Sirach (also called Ecclesiaticus)
Seven chapters in the book of Esther
Two chapters and a prayer in the book of Daniel
Here is a brief history of canons I came across.
There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul's time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church.
Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.
Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.
The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.
There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church--her leadership, faithful people--guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.
Catholic Christians together with Protestant and Evangelical Christians hold the same canon of the New Testament, 27 books, all having been originally written in the Greek language.
Catholic Christians accept the longer Old Testament canon, 46 books, from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Alexandrian Canon.
Protestant and Evangelical Christians, from the Reformers onward, accept the shorter Old Testament canon, 39 books, from the Hebrew Palestinian Canon. Jews have the same canon as Protestants.
Canonical books are those books which have been acknowledged as belonging to the list of books the Church considers to be inspired and to contain a rule of faith and morals. Some criteria used to determine canonicity were
special relation to God, i.e., inspiration;
used in Church services, i.e., used by the community of believers guided by the Holy Spirit.
Other terms for canonical books should be distinguished: the protocanonical books, deuterocanonical books, and the apocryphal books.
The protocanonical (from the Greek proto meaning first) books are those books of the Bible that were admitted into the canon of the Bible with little or no debate (e.g., the Pentateuch of the Old Testament and the Gospels)
The deuterocanonical (from the Greek deutero meaning second) books are those books of the Bible that were under discussion for a while until doubts about their canonicity were resolved (e.g. Sirach and Baruch of the Old Testament, and the Johannine epistles of the New Testament).
The apocryphal (from the Greek apokryphos meaning hidden) books have multiple meanings:
complimentary meaning - that the sacred books were too exalted for the general public;
pejorative meaning - that the orthodoxy of the books were questioned;
heretical meaning - that the books were forbidden to be read; and lastly
neutral meaning - simply noncanonical books, the meaning the word has today.
Another word, pseudepigrapha (from the Greek meaning false writing) is used for works clearly considered to be false.
It seems the difference in the Protestant and Catholic Bibles have to do with doctrine that Protestants and Baptists reject, such as angel worship, Mary worship, purgatory, confession of sins to priests, etc.
If one trusts God, this whole history was in His hands, and by faith, we trust that the books that should have been in Scripture are in Scripture. I am not certain what year the last canon was decided upon after the Reformation, but to get back to the op, I do not believe there are any more written revelations coming from the Lord. We have all we need for a close relationship with Him, salvation, and telling others about the Gospel.
The Apostolic church had pretty much agreed on what would be in the NT canon during times of the Apsotles, as there were already some letters/epistles being circulated about, and if you too k the references made to the holy scriptures by early chuch fathers, you could find references oassages/verses from nearly all what would later be called Canon!
belive that early on all but 4 Canon books had already had universal use/approval int he church, only hebrews/quesion on pauline writting it, james/Questionif taught saved by works, and 2 peter, question on if he wrote it..
So the Council did NOT create the canon, merely formally ratified what had for a long time already been seen and used and received as being sacred texts!
The Apocrpha and Deutocanonical books were never reeceived as sacred texts in early churches, as they lack the Apostlesolic backing and lack sign of being inspired by the HS!
I've heard that the book of Jude was under a great deal of scrutiny as to whether it was legit or not.
A friend of mine who was a missionary in Ethiopia for many years told me that Revelation is not in their Bibles. Other countries have Bibles which contain some different books.
Ethiopia and Egypt are home to the Coptic Christians. I do not know a lot about them. Makes me want to do a little more research though.
I am a "no, none" too.
This excludes a sizeable portion of so-called Christianity. "That which is perfect(complete)" arrived circa 96 AD. Millions are misled by corrupted leaders teaching for doctrines the commandments of men/women using latter day prophecies, written and spoken. See the testimony of Joseph Smith Jr. There are millions who follow him. Check out the holdings of Deseret.
This is all fulfillment of scripture. Watch and pray.
Are we ready?
Even so, come Lord Jesus.
There is a list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible
Thanks, that was the 4th book in dispute!
Jude was disputed, due to him quoting and using non canon books in his letter!
The references in Jude are a little spooky to me. Makes me wish I knew exactly what he was thinking, and/or what the Holy Spirit means by including the references.
The first direct quote in Jude is from the non-canonical book of Enoch, so called. This book was well known at the time of Christ and was found among the dead sea scrolls. Peter also seems to make references to this book in each of his epistles, though not necessarily direct quotations. There are things in the book of Enoch that could not possibly true, as far as I can see. But the way Jude quotes it directly without apology or qualification seems odd.
The second quotation, last I knew, was a reference to a source unknown to us at this time. The part about Michael the archangel disputing with Satan about the body of Moses. That whole quotation is odd since we do not seem to know anything more about this source document or the event it refers to.
paul also quoted to use of the the pagan philosophers in Acts, so would appear that the HS inspired them to quote and use JUST hte specific part of those books that were actually true, as though not inspired, still ahd some truth!
Yes, but I see a difference between Paul's quotations of the pagans and Jude's quotation. Paul always makes explanation of the source, and proceeds to explain or to state that the source is not always trustworthy. However, in quoting the old testament, it is assumed that the listeners will take the OT books as trustworthy. This is done by Christ, Paul, and the other writers. When Jude quotes Enoch, it is in the same assumption that the reader is familiar with it, and accepts it. At least that is the feel I get while reading it.
Think the HS allowed him to quote that part, and the part of Micheal and satan disputing over Moses to reveal to us truth, at least that part of the source was accurate, even if not inspired!