Question: 27 books...

The OP was not banned for being Catholic. You have been told that now by several people who were actually in on the decision making process and know exactly what happened. In light of your knowledge of the truth, and your continued repetition of falsehood, you are appearing to be dishonest. Please don't continue down that path. The decision has been made. It is time to drop it and move on. If you don't like the way our dear brother runs this board, then you may feel free to start your own.

There is no fear of Catholicism here. We need none. It has been soundly refuted from Scripture many times. But this board has a responsibility to the truth to handle false teachers with great caution. And that is a decision that has always been unpopular, even when Paul instructed Timothy and others to beware of false teachers and correct them, evening banning them from teh church if they will not listen to truth.

If you wish to get on with the topic, feel free. The guy who started the thread doesn't need to be here for that.

 

While I believe the Bible in it's 66 books to be the Word of God, and I also believe that if there were to be other books, then God would surely have made that known.

How do you overcome the objective of some people and their beliefs?

An example would be the Mormons, and their Book of Mormon. Or the other 7 books that were mentioned before in the thread.

Again, I believe that God has given us the 66 books, and that is all he wanted to give as Scripture, but playing "devil's advocate", what verse's or scripture do we have to know this to be true other than having faith in God and knowing that if he wanted it to be more, he would have made it more?

Sorry if it's a confusing question, but I didn't know how to ask it any other way.

Jamie

 

Incorrect. The Bible was always 66 books. The early church did not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture. The RCC departed from Scripture at that point. </font>[/QUOTE]I've heard both points in listening to debates between some non-denominational friends and two Orthodox friends that I have...

However, it always comes down to the fact that no one can provide any historical evidence for a canon held by a group of Christians except for the canon used by the Catholics and Orthodox... do you have any evidence that another Bible was in circulation at that time? How does a person demonstrate such a stance?

 

Read the early church, such as Augustine, who specifically delineated a difference between Scripture and the Apocrypha. The church has never really held this in doubt.

 

I wasn't aware that Augustine ever elaborated a canon of the Bible... was that in "Confessions" or "City of God"... or another of his writings?

It's clear that there are apocryphal writings, for sure, even the Orthodox and Catholics hold writings like the Gospel of Thomas and the Epistle of Barnabas to be "non-inspired" writings. What I'm looking for is something to that says "no, the Orthodox/Catholic canon of the Bible wasn't the only established canon before the Middle Ages"... is there anything?

 

Fiurst of all - the Apocrypha was never considered as part of the NT Text because it does not deal with the life of Christ or anything after the life of Christ.

 

Well, as early as the third century B.C. the Hebrew cannon was already being translated into Greek known as the Septuagint, which included the books of the Apocrypha and that this was widely accepted. There was no Roman Catholic Church in the third or first century B.C was there?

I have also studied that Athanasius of Alexandria in A.D. 367 prepared the earliest known listing of the NT cannon.

Don’t hold me to this, but I have read that the reason the Septuagint was preferred over the Hebrew cannon was because the Hebrew cannon seemed to diminish Christ, but I’m still verifying this.

Every source I can find has an overwhelming historical agreement that I can dig up is that Martin Luther decided upon the Hebrew cannon, rather than the Septuagint at the Reformation for obvious reasons.

 

Since PMR is now gone we will have to second-guess his answer which he expressed he would have shared with us.

Being a former Catholic, I believe I can accurately give the "Catholic" answer to the last part of the post "how do you know that Philemon or Luke is inspired"?

We accept it by faith but Catholics accept it as inspired by the authority of the Church of Rome.

But in reality it begs the question because it simply moves the question to them to be asked "how do you know the Church of Rome is the True Church receiving it's authority from God through the Pope, the Magisterium and Church Tradition"?

This flies in the face of the Protestant dogma of Sola Scriptura and the Baptist Distinction of the Final Authority of the Scriptures.

This is a pivotal issue of the Protestant movement and the Reformation.

Certainly Church Tradition enters into the picture.

But as indicated in another post it is not so easy to pinpoint where the leaven of pagan romanism completely overtook the Church of Rome with such doctrine of the "Pope", the "Pontifex Maximus" (the deification of the Caesars). inherited from the Roman Empire and incorporated into the dogma of the "Holy" Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church.

The biggest problem is that once the "bait" is taken, a hook comes along with it.

Once you accept the authority of Church Tradition being represented by the 21st century Church of Rome you are then "reeled in" so to speak.

I accept the 27 apostolic Books of the NT as the canon of NT Scripture by faith being those books given to the early Church by the authority of the Apostles of Jesus Christ apart from the so-called Magisterium or ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope or Church of Rome Tradition.

If one accepts the Church of Rome as the validator of the NT canon then they will move you along to the OT and the Apocrypha in particular.

HankD

 

In the Old Testament Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and by means of prefaces called the readers attention to the separate category of the apocryphal books. Subsequent copyists of the Latin bible, however, were not always careful to transmit Jerome’s prefaces

 

Ok so here is the deal. ALL agree that the NT saints had Bibles - had scripture and they all knew what it was.

We all agree that the 27 books of the NT were ALSO written IN the liftetime of John. We all agree that Peter, James, John, Paul were guiding and directing the church (along with the group in Jerusalem Acts 15) so "they knew" as the 27 letters of the NT were being written that they were inspired.

Any "spurious" books/letters would have been approved/rejected by the NT apostles IN Their liftime!

This is beyond dispute.

 

Only one problem with your theory, Bob - no evidence. No canon as we have today written down prior to 367.

I ask again - how do we know that the 27 books we have in our NT today are the correct ones?

 

Again, Matt, there has always been substantial agreement in the church at large about this matter. There have been minor disputes, but the church was never convinced. God in his providence arranged such recognition of the books he intended for us to have.

We accept it by faith.

 

Why stop there?

How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God?
How do we know there is a God?

Those who have are born of the Spirit have the witness within themselves, the indwelling Spirit, to confirm the record left by both man (apostles) and the Triune God.

1 John 5
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

HankD