Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A: No
#14 .... correct, even though the 14 books were incorrectly included doesn't change the fact that the balance are the inspired Word of God, which still both parties admit to and adhere to the fact of that the cannon was closed after the last remain Apostle died.
"Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
twin.spin let me simplify things a bit here. Let's take this familiar example of jumping to unfounded conclusions:
1.) The senior apostle Peter dies in Rome.
2.) Therefore the eventual Bishop of Rome (aka The Pope) is the legitimate successor to Peter.
3.) Therefore the Bishop of Rome has more authority than any other bishop.
4.) Therefore the Bishop of Rome is God's chosen spokesperson here on earth.
5.) Therefore the Bishop of Rome is incapable of error and is always right when exercising Papal infallibility.
Do you agree with that line of thinking? ....."
A: No
twin.spin I think you see the utter ridiculousness of this list. Just going from step 1 to step 2 requires an absolutely insanely large logical leap. By the time you get to step 5, you've abandoned all common sense completely. Like a, "Rabbits running for Congress, chickens overthrowing their human masters, orange juice is a terrifying weapon of mass destruction" abandonment of logic.
Quote:
"Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Now consider the following:
1.) The apostles and others (not all NT writers were apostles) were called by Jesus directly.
2.) Therefore everything they wrote was inspired by God.
3.) Eventually all of the apostles were killed off. 4.) Therefore God had nothing left to say to humankind.
5.) Therefore the scriptural canon was closed.
6.) Eventually, after hundreds of years of debate and changes in the list of canon, the leaders of the empire and Church establish a list of all OT and NT writings that are valid. 7.) God would never allow them to be wrong about their final conclusions.
8.) Therefore they were 100% right. Every book they established as valid was actually valid and inspired by God. Everything they left out ranged from completely heretical and evil to pious fabrications claiming to be written by apostles.
9.) Over 1000 years later, Martin Luther inadvertently begins Protestant Reformation. Because his 95 thesis are scripturally based, they (the Protestants) are right and the Catholic Church is wrong. 10.) Therefore when Martin Luther removes 14 books from the Bible, he is right.
11.) Therefore all 14 books are no longer inspired by God.
12.) Therefore the folks that established the canon in the first place were wrong.
13.) Now we have several divergent lists of scriptural canon 14.) But God would never allow human error to corrupt his Word.
15.) Therefore everybody is right and nobody is wrong.
Yeah the first list is a lot less confusing than the second one. "
#14 .... correct, even though the 14 books were incorrectly included doesn't change the fact that the balance are the inspired Word of God, which still both parties admit to and adhere to the fact of that the cannon was closed after the last remain Apostle died.
But you are saying that this list makes perfect logical sense?? It's even more nonsensical than the first list!
Steps 3 and 4 constitute mile long back-handspring leaps and jumps in logic. "Messengers from God were murdered, therefore God has nothing left to say to us."
You claim that God says, "When the last apostle dies, I'm going to stop communicating with humankind -- I won't ever have anything more to say that is worth writing down." The Bible never says that, yet you will undoubtedly find some scripture that you think indirectly hints that it might be sort of implied kind of.
To get from steps 7 & 8 to steps 10, 11 & 12, you have to accept that God allowed the Bible to be partially uninspired for 1000+ years and then changed his mind. That contradicts number 14. Either the Apocrypha is legitimate scripture or God must have let his Word be corrupted and allowed it to stay corrupted for 1000 years. If he never would let such a thing happen, then why did it happen?
In the end, I do understand the value of Sola Scriptura. It was and is an excellent litmus test to divide right and wrong for Protestantism. And I can see where having a completely open canon would be equally ridiculous because it would require us to accept anything and everything as the word of God. Obviously, that's not a good idea either. A very limited canon is a good thing and adding additional writings should be undertaken with the greatest of caution.
The line of thought going into this thread (spun off from another thread) was quite simple. Somebody put it right on the line and said to Katzpur, "If you believe in anything outside of the OT and NT, you are not a Christian." Now that's making quite the statement!! The validity of this is something that I've wondered about before at great length for many years now. But putting somebody's Christianity and possibly their salvation on the line over it hit home even harder. If the acceptance of anything outside of the scriptural canon voids your Christianity (and perhaps your salvation with it), then that's big! Huge! If that is true, then surely God must have made Himself very clear. If God was at some point going to stop talking to humanity, why wouldn't He have said so in the most clear and direct and explicit words possible? If this is a matter of such gravity, then why would He only leave us with a collection of passages that might or might not indirectly imply that the scriptural record was or would at some point be closed?
In short, if God really closed the canon, then surely He would have said, "I God will never have anything else to say to humankind that is worth writing down." Yeah, it would need to be that clear if it's being made into a cardinal rule for all of Christianity.
Last edited by godofthunder9010; 06-23-2013 at 01:04 AM..
I'm getting there very rapidly. It's starting to hurt my brain and I'm beginning to think that maybe 10 + 10 = Purple.
It's funny really. How many Christians have exactly the same notions of a closed canon, but are also completely puzzled by Jewish folk who refuse to accept the New Testament?
"Hello Mr Kettle. I am Mr Pot and I just wanted to let you know that you are black."
twin.spin I think you see the utter ridiculousness of this list. Just going from step 1 to step 2 requires an absolutely insanely large logical leap. By the time you get to step 5, you've abandoned all common sense completely. Like a, "Rabbits running for Congress, chickens overthrowing their human masters, orange juice is a terrifying weapon of mass destruction" abandonment of logic.
But you are saying that this list makes perfect logical sense?? It's even more nonsensical than the first list!
I never said that your desperate chain of eventually's and therefore's was logical sense ... to me it just read as something that would be argued in kangaroo court and yet thinks you should be taken seriously when you say
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
In the end, I do understand the value of Sola Scriptura. It was an excellent litmus test to divide right and wrong for Protestantism. And I can see where having a completely open canon would be equally ridiculous because it would require us to accept anything and everything as the word of God. Obviously, that's not a good idea either. A very limited canon is a good thing and adding additional works should be undertaken with the greatest caution.
and only to conclude with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
In short, if God really closed the canon, then surely He would have said, "I God will never have anything else to say to humankind that is worth writing down." Yeah, it would need to be that clear if it's being made into a cardinal rule for all of Christianity.
========================================
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
The line of thought going into this thread (spun off from another thread) was quite simple. Somebody put it right on the line and said to Katzpur, "If you believe in anything outside of the OT and NT, you are not a Christian." Now that's making quite the statement!! The validity of this is something that I've wondered about before at great length for many years now.
I agree, that's making quite the statement!! ..... and it happens to be the truth if taken into context (which includes the historical context).
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
But putting somebody's Christianity and possibly their salvation on the line over it hit home even harder. If the acceptance of anything outside of the scriptural canon voids your Christianity (and perhaps your salvation with it), then that's big! Huge! If that is true, then surely God must have made Himself very clear.
A JW's \ LDS or any other work righteous religion can self-proclaim themself to be a Christian yet:
Deny the Triune God ... you're not a Christian
Reject the message of the cross ... you're not a Christian
Reject that Jesus is on the same level as honor \ worship etc as the Father and the Holy Spirit .... you're not a Christian
Claim that other written works are "scripture" .... you're not a Christian
View Jesus as an example to follow rather than your substitute from sin .... you're not a Christian
I could go on and on about the differences but if 5 isn't enough, 50 won't either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
If God was at some point going to stop talking to humanity, why wouldn't He have said so in the most clear and direct and explicit words possible? If this is a matter of such gravity, then why would He only leave us with a collection of passages that might or might not indirectly imply that the scriptural record was or would at some point be closed?
First off ... the OT \ NT God is speaking to us. So in that sense it's simply inaccurate to say he has stopped talking. That is why op's like Adam and Eve is a myth has to be true to certain people ... for it is at the heart of this for the skeptics that desire an continuation of revelations.
Just as Adam and Eve showed their rebellion to be desiring more than what God spoke, so are the proponents of an "open canon". It's the satanical desire to think more is better ... and we better have more.
No man can stand in place of Jesus. Some will try but they cannot do what is finished by our High Priest who is interceding on our behalf. Why waste time trusting a man when we Christians have Jesus Christ!
All Christians have a responsibility to carry their cross in obedience to the Father. Jesus fell three times and picked it back up immediately. This is the Christians goal, to pick the cross back up as soon as it is possible. (Example).
Scripture clearly directs the group of Apostles , the obvious and known propagators of the belief at the last supper, ...Do this in Memory of Me.
To reject the directive and meaning would be... to be a mis-informed Christian or what could not be anything but an individual who pic's and choose's against self gain and interest/
I can see Christian Church's not representing the Last Supper or the Lords Prayer in every single gathering or for a monthly or even yearly recognition ....but to all together deny the moment, is to deny the resurrection. The representative is, if genuine with humility and of a contrite heart anointed by God and representing The Son alongside, man's unifying organization with God... It was a Supper...The Last Supper. This is a Focal in The Ship, The Christian Church.....otherwise there is no Christianity at all.
Last edited by stargazzer; 06-23-2013 at 04:03 AM..
Reject the message of the cross ... you're not a Christian
Reject that Jesus is on the same level as honor \ worship etc as the Father and the Holy Spirit .... you're not a Christian
Claim that other written works are "scripture" .... you're not a Christian
View Jesus as an example to follow rather than your substitute from sin .... you're not a Christian
Who are you to tell God how merciful He is allowed to be? Who are you to lay down requirements that other must meet to be "part of the club?" The extremely specific and detailed formula of the Nicene Trinity cannot be established Sola Scriptura. You can't establish it as an absolute without accepting the Council of Nicaea as a higher authority than the Bible itself. That is not to say that the Council of Nicaea got it wrong. Maybe they got it right. But going strictly Sola Scriptura, the Nicene Trinity cannot be established as an absolute. You are welcome to look for the passage that says "one substance" but I'll save you some time. It doesn't exist.
And getting back to the topic at hand, a closed canon also cannot be established as an absolute via Sola Scritpura alone. The Bible never establishes canon. Again, you have to venture outside of the Bible to do that. You have to rely on even more non-scriptural Ecumenical Councils to hammer out what is or isn't valid scripture and at no time does God say, "I'm going to stop speaking to mankind directly." Again, that doesn't mean that the notion isn't accurate to some extent or another. It might be. But it cannot be established as an absolute by the Bible alone.
Quote:
First off ... the OT \ NT God is speaking to us. So in that sense it's simply inaccurate to say he has stopped talking.
Just because God hasn't apparently had much to say for the last 2000 years does not mean He is incapable of speaking anymore. Just because he spoke 2000+ years ago does not mean God cannot speak with the same level of authority right now. And I'm not even saying he is or has. I'm saying He can if He wants to. Who are you to tell God what He can or cannot do? Who are you to put limits on his power to communicate with his children?
Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all stuck in the same trap: The "Word of God" must be at least 1000 years old or it is not really scripture. Why? Is there something about a messenger from God being dead for 1000 years that makes their words truer? Why is this such a popular idea? And if God did have something to say, would anybody even listen?
I could say that if you don't wear red socks, you are not a Christian. Just because I say it, doesn't mean its true. God is more merciful that you want to let him be. I promise you He isn't going to ask your permission.
I have recently read the Epistle of Barnabas and now see where the idea that God has thrown away the Jews and accepted the Gentiles solely...Many state this but, I do not see it in the Bible, however, I do see it in the Epistle of Barnabas almost word-for-word as one states it today even thought those exact words are not in the bible...The closest thing that I can see is the prophetic parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus...
Yup, if it were part of the canon today we'd have to toss it.
I think just like any other human being, that one can be on target in one area but in error in another...Did Barnabas actually understand what the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus imply?...Before I read the Epistle of Barnabas and noticed his statements regarding the Jews and Gentiles, I understood what that Parable was stating...It is funny that Paul seems to state the opposite of what Barnabas states in regards the Jew and Gentile, However, Barnabas' statements seem to be more in line with what the parable told by Yeshua states in regard the Jew and Gentile switching positions of honor...There is documentation on the rift between Paul and Barnabas and that they went seperate ways:
Act_15:37 But Barnabas purposed to take John with them, the one having been called Mark.
Act_15:39 Then there was sharp feeling, so as to separate them from each other. And taking Mark, Barnabas sailed away to Cyprus.
This is where they parted company...If one researches out the Epistles of Barnabas and the Epistles of Paul, how sharp is the difference in what each one had to say?...I remember reading the verse in the OT that a wolf would emerge from the tribe of Benjamin destroying the people, and Paul claims to be of the at tribe as for Barnabas, he is of the tribe of Levi, a Levite...I wonder when Paul says that he is all things to all people, did Barnabas ever state this or did he state that this is the Truth take it or leave it?..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. . . Give up yet, godofthunder?
