When was the finalized NT accepted?

In the previous thread " the doctrine by which the church stands and falls, I was asked by Doubting Thomas about some questions, but I was late by 1 minute to post my answer before it was closed since I was busy in the meantime.
So, I would continue some of the points at least on the issue of NT.
Throughout the churches, we may not have the sufficient evidence to claim any theory but the discussion may be useful to understand the whole truth.

My belief is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and the OT except Daniel and Malachi was compiled by Ezra and those two books were added later and accepted as the Bible as we read NT quotes them.
Now the main question is when the NT was complete and was accepted by the churches? Please note I don't use the word " canon " or canonized.

My belief is that Apostle John did it as he lived by the end of 1 century. Apostle John outlived Mary and took care of her, but never called her as Mother of God in his epistle, never mentioned she ascended after the death, etc.

Read the followings:


[FONT=바탕]The last of the apostles to pass away was John. His death is usually placed about 100 A. D. In his closing days, he cooperated in the collecting and forming of those writings we call the New Testament.fa16 An ordinary careful reading of Acts, Chapter 15, will prove the scrupulous care with which the early church guarded her sacred writings. And so well did Gods true people through the ages agree on what was Scripture and what was not, that no general council of the church, until that of Trent (1645) dominated by the Jesuits, dared to say anything as to what books should comprise the Bible or what texts were or were not spurious[/FONT]


[FONT=바탕]While John lived, heresy could make no serious headway. He had hardly passed away, however, before perverse teachers infested the Christian Church. The doom of heathenism, as a controlling force before the superior truths of Christianity, was soon foreseen by all. These years were times which saw the New Testament books corrupted in abundance.[/FONT]


[FONT=바탕]In southern France, when in 177 A.D. the Gallic Christians were frightfully massacred by the heathen, a record of their suffering was drawn up by the survivors and sent, not to the Pope of Rome, but to their brethren in Asia Minor Milman claims that the French received their Christianity from Asia Minor.[/FONT]


[FONT=바탕]These apostolic Christians in southern France were undoubtedly those who gave effective help in carrying the Gospel to Great Britain.f25 And as we have seen above, there was a long and bitter struggle between the Bible of the British Christians and the Bible which was brought later to England by the missionaries of Rome. And as there were really only two Bibles, the official version of Rome, and the Received Text, we may safely conclude that the Gallic (or French) Bible, as well as the Celtic (or British), were the Received Text. Neander claims, as follows, that the first Christianity in England, came not from Rome, but from Asia Minor, probably through France:[/FONT]


[FONT=바탕]The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A.D., from which date on, they passed down from father to son the teachings they received from the apostles.f39 The Latin Bible, the Italic, was translated from the Greek not later than 157 A.D.f40 We are indebted to Beza, the renowned associate of Calvin, for the statement that the Italic Church dates from 120 A.D. [/FONT]

[FONT=바탕]From the illustrious group of scholars which gathered round Beza, 1590 A.D., we may understand how the Received Text was the bond of union between great historic churches. [/FONT]

[FONT=&#48148]http://www.sdadefend.com/Living-Word/Wilkinson/AuthorizedBibleTOC.htm[/FONT]

Apostle Paul mentioned he preached the gospel up to Illyricum ( Yugoslavia) ( Romans 15:19) and we hear that China discovered the Christian monument dating back to Emperor Muje of Dynasty Han which means 86 AD. I am very sure that the Early Church believers were not so lazy as the modern believers are ( I believe today's believers are like Laodicean church). They were dilligently devoting themselves for the Lord Jesus Christ and carried the Bible to Alps even before 100AD, even earlier than 157AD.
I am sure there are some more documents on the Old Latin. If you have any more Info. Please try to share on this board.

 

When did the word " canon" start to be used?

That's why I didn't mention the matter of Canon.

But the real question is how did the Believers read the Gospel about Jesus Christ during 100 AD-350AD? Did they believe just the guesswork or conjectured about the verbal stories?

Paul encouraged the reading the episltes( Col 4:16). There was the teachings about what are the Epistles and Gospels.

 

This is why I do not trust ECF's.
As I have said, we are not sure whether they made such statement that the Bread and Wine were converted into Blood and Flesh( cooked or uncooked?) indeed.
Then even if they said such statement, if it contradicts the Bible, then they were wrong.
They must have emphasized the nature of the Lord's Supper and the importance of it by a certain statement, but the Satan would have often distorted such statement to mislead the people. Any opponents were treated as heretics like Gnosticists, Manaechuans....., which was the main tactic of the Satan.

 

Are the statements by the ECF's infallible?

Let's read the Anti-semitism by the ECF's.


Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho (Between 138A.D. and 161 A.D.)
We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart.
The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observence of the sabbath as a mark.


Please read other ECF's Anti-Semitism as well.

http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm

 

I think the first claimer for the Old Latin was Fredrik Scrivener who compiled the 3rd TR after Erasmus and Stephanus, but was one of the members of Revision committee.

http://www.keithhunt.com/Nt_tran5.html

Checking on the Nobla Leycon and Petrobrusians, I found Albigenes were involved in the Bible translations quite a lot. I wondered if RCC preserved any copy of Albi's Bible after they exterminated Albigenes.
I believe the first Bible Route was Antioch, Syria- Lombardia-Waldensians in Alps. The earliest record may be 157AD but th e actual may be as early as before the end of 1 century.

 

So do you agree to the Holocaust like this guy?

Augustine( 354-430) Confession 12.14

How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!


Is your Christianity still the religion of Hatred and Killing?

Where did Apostle John say that the Believers should kill Jews?

Jesus commented that the unbelieving Jews meetings are the meetings of Satan. Did He mean that the Believers should take the sword to kill them?

 

Anti-Semitism is wrong, no matter how early it was claimed.

Martin Luther was wrong, even though he might have been born again and correct in some other doctrines.

On this portion, one can still continue to explore the exact history on the texts. Beza claimed the same as well that the Latin NT was translated before 157AD.

 

This is why I say the history is difficult to prove, and therefore we should look at the Bible.

When we come to the Bible, you mentioned the LXX quoted in NT. I showed you the differences between LXX and Greek NT.
Thereby we can easily conclude your claim is WRONG.

Bring any verse, then I will show you the difference between Greek NT and Septuagint. Many people are cheated by the deception that NT quoted LXX, which can be easily disproven if one compares them closely.

Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls mostly support Masoretic Texts-KJV.