U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-30-2013, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Florida -
8,767 posts, read 10,862,335 times
Reputation: 16645

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
There was no "Roman Catholic" Church at the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The bishops of the Christian Church assembled at the behest of Constantine the Great and given the task of assembling an authoritative canon of Christian writings.

Ironically, Constantine himself was baptized by a (heretic) Aryan bishop and his son and successor was an Aryan heretic.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the list of canonical books assembled at this council did not include Revelation, which was added later under the guidance of Augustine at the Council of Carthage decades after Nicaea.
This!
I'm not aware of a delay in adding Revelation, but, understand that the reasoning for not including the Apocryphal in the canon was: 1). The events of the Apocryphal are not referenced in the canon of scripture. 2). Neither Jesus or the Apostles referred to the Apocryphal writings/events 3). The Apocrypha is largely inconsistent with the rest of the scripture canon.

The Catholic church later included the Apocryphal in the Catholic Bible, but, it has never been accepted as part of the Protestant Bible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-30-2013, 04:08 PM
 
21,923 posts, read 16,727,596 times
Reputation: 8732
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
You have got to be kidding! Paul gave the practice of baptizing for the dead as one that was in opposition to the idea that there was no resurrection: what is the point of baptizing for the dead if there is no resurrection?
You miss the point and misunderstood what the Bible Knowledge Commentary was saying. The point is that Paul was not saying that the practice of baptism for the dead was legitimate in contrast with what you appear to be claiming in post #5. He was indeed saying that it was not logical for those who were engaging in that practice to do so if there was no resurrection of the dead. The fact that Paul made a comment about those who were practicing baptism for the dead does not mean that it was legitimate.

Last edited by Mike555; 09-30-2013 at 04:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2013, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
16,293 posts, read 7,672,020 times
Reputation: 1723
^Possibly I missed the meaning because the statement O bolded is just the opposite of what you say: " He merely held up the teaching of being baptized for the dead as a practice of some who denied the Resurrection."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2013, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,178 posts, read 3,903,496 times
Reputation: 2555
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton View Post
This!
I'm not aware of a delay in adding Revelation, but, understand that the reasoning for not including the Apocryphal in the canon was: 1). The events of the Apocryphal are not referenced in the canon of scripture. 2). Neither Jesus or the Apostles referred to the Apocryphal writings/events 3). The Apocrypha is largely inconsistent with the rest of the scripture canon.

The Catholic church later included the Apocryphal in the Catholic Bible, but, it has never been accepted as part of the Protestant Bible.
Thanks for the kudos.

Yes I did some research after writing my own post, and yes, Revelation was not included in the Canon by the Council of Nicaea . It was Augustine who ramrodded Revelation into the Western Church Canon some decades later. Revelation is STILL not included in the Eastern Christian Church Canon.

SOURCE

Canonical history[edit]
Main article: Development of the New Testament canon
Revelation was the last of the traditional books to be accepted as part of the Christian biblical canon, up to 100 years later than the other books. According to Denzinger, Revelation was accepted at the Council of Carthage of 397 AD;[30] according to McDonald & Sanders it was added at the later 419 council.[31] Revelation's place in the canon was not guaranteed, however, with doubts raised as far back as the 2nd century about its character, symbolism, and apostolic authorship.[32] These doubts have been regularly expressed through Church history.
Second century Christians in Syria rejected the book because it was relied heavily upon by Montanism, a sect which was deemed to be heretical by the mainstream church.[33] In the 4th century, Gregory of Nazianzus and other bishops argued against including Revelation because of the difficulties of interpretation and the risk of abuse. In the 16th century, Martin Luther initially considered it to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it,"[34] and placed it in his Antilegomena (his list of questionable documents), though he retracted this view in later life. In the same century, John Calvin believed the book to be canonical, yet it was the only New Testament book on which he did not write a commentary.[35] It remains the only book of the New Testament that is not read within the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, though it is included in Catholic and Protestant liturgies.
Merrill Unger and Gary N. Larson have argued that in spite of the objections that have been raised over the years, Revelation provides a logical conclusion, not just to the New Testament, but to the Christian Bible as a whole, and there is a continuous tradition dating back to the 2nd century supporting the authenticity of the document and indicating that it was generally included within the as yet unformalized canon of the early church.[36]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2013, 05:14 PM
 
19,950 posts, read 13,646,972 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
I read it in context and Paul is talking about the Christians' hope of resurrection, which some people were teaching was not true. Paul said that it was true and used the example of some who were apparently doing so to ask why then they would be performing a futile act.
I think Paul was saying "even those guys know there is one...."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2013, 06:36 PM
 
21,923 posts, read 16,727,596 times
Reputation: 8732
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
There was no "Roman Catholic" Church at the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The bishops of the Christian Church assembled at the behest of Constantine the Great and given the task of assembling an authoritative canon of Christian writings.

Ironically, Constantine himself was baptized by a (heretic) Aryan bishop and his son and successor was an Aryan heretic.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the list of canonical books assembled at this council did not include Revelation, which was added later under the guidance of Augustine at the Council of Carthage decades after Nicaea.
Actually, the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. had nothing to do with assembling the canon. That is a misconception. That was not its purpose. Rather, the primary purpose of that Council had to do with resolving the Arian controversy. There were a number of other issues addressed, but none of them involved which Books were canonical. What actually was addressed at that Council is listed here >> The Canons of the Council of Nicea

F. F. Bruce writes,
In 393 a church council held in Augustine's see of Hippo laid down the limits of the canonical books along the lines approved by Augustine himself. The proceedings of this council have been lost but they were summarized in the proceedings of the Third Council of Carthage (397), a provincial council. These appear to have been the first church councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon. When they did so, they did not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches of the west and of the greater part of the east. [The Canon of Scripture, F. F. Bruce, p. 97].
Long before that, the Muratorian fragment which is dated most probably to the end of the second century is a list of 21 of the NT Books recognized as authoritative by Christians at that time out of the total of 27 Books. Including Revelation (The Apocalypse of John). It also contains the names of some books such as the Shepherd which was rejected as authoritative because of having been written too recently though it could be read in church. Other writings, such as those of Arsinous or Valentinus , Miltiades and Maricion. The fragment can be read here >> The Muratorian Canon

Most of the NT Books were accepted at a very early date. The church did not and could not bestow or remove divine authority from a writing. It either had it be virtue of being God-breathed, or it did not have it because it was not God-breathed. The church could only recognize what was already inspired and authoritative.

Excerpt:

Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.


Read more: How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?

On the Book of Revelation, and its authorship and Canonicity, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, states;
'The question of the authorship of Revelation is the same as that of the authorship of the other Johannine writings (the Gospel and the Epistles). The earliest witnesses ascribe Revelation to John the apostle, the son of Zebedee (Justin Martyr [d. 165]; Clement of Alexandria [d.c.220]; Hippolytus [d.c. 236]; Origen [d.c.254]) (Swete, pp. clxxif.). Not until Dionysius, the distinguished bishop of Alexandria and student of Origen (d.c.264), was any voice raised within the church against its apostolic authorship. Dionysius questioned the apostolic origin of Revelation because the advocates of an earthly eschatological hope (''Chiliasts'), whom he opposed, appealed to Revelation 20.' . . . 'From the time of Dionysius, the apostolic origin of the book was disputed in the East until Athanasius of Alexandria (d.373) turned the tide toward its acceptance. In the West the story was different. From at least the middle of the second century, the book held its own, being widely accepted and listed in all the principal canon enumerations. The Reformation period witnessed a renewal of the earlier questions concerning tis apostolic authorship and canonical status. Thus Luther, offended by the contents of Revelation, declared that he regarded it as neither apostolic nor prophetic. [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 12, p. 404].
The Book of Revelation was accepted early by the church. Objections concerning it came at a later time.

Last edited by Mike555; 09-30-2013 at 07:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2013, 07:03 PM
 
21,923 posts, read 16,727,596 times
Reputation: 8732
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
^Possibly I missed the meaning because the statement O bolded is just the opposite of what you say: " He merely held up the teaching of being baptized for the dead as a practice of some who denied the Resurrection."
What I said which you think to be opposite is that Paul was not saying that the practice of baptism for the dead was legitimate. To put it another way, Paul did not endorse baptism for the dead. He simply mentioned that there were those who practiced it, but that if the dead are not resurrected then there was no point in being baptized for them.

It seems to me, based on post #5 that you are attempting to give validity to the false teachings that I mentioned in the Apocryphal books by appealing to Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians 15:29. Your argument is not valid.

I remind whoever is reading this, that in post #9, I provided the link to a class in which Pastor Dr. Robert Dean goes into detail on 1 Corinthians 15:29.

I think enough has been said on this.

Last edited by Mike555; 09-30-2013 at 07:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2013, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
16,293 posts, read 7,672,020 times
Reputation: 1723
And I was merely pointing out that the practice was in the New Testament and Paul raised no objection to it. Merit is another matter that is in dispute. Off hand pronouncements of heresy in the apocrypha should be taken with a grain of salt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2013, 09:08 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
2,819 posts, read 2,877,342 times
Reputation: 1246
Some dudes got together and made the choice. Now if someone mentions any type of book that is not the 66, suddenly that book is of demons. We know Paul wrote books that were never found. It would be nice to find the , I think they might contain some good info, that might turn the system on its head
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2013, 09:19 PM
 
9,877 posts, read 6,750,565 times
Reputation: 2487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Actually, the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. had nothing to do with assembling the canon. That is a misconception. That was not its purpose. Rather, the primary purpose of that Council had to do with resolving the Arian controversy. There were a number of other issues addressed, but none of them involved which Books were canonical. What actually was addressed at that Council is listed here >> The Canons of the Council of Nicea

F. F. Bruce writes,
In 393 a church council held in Augustine's see of Hippo laid down the limits of the canonical books along the lines approved by Augustine himself. The proceedings of this council have been lost but they were summarized in the proceedings of the Third Council of Carthage (397), a provincial council. These appear to have been the first church councils to make a formal pronouncement on the canon. When they did so, they did not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches of the west and of the greater part of the east. [The Canon of Scripture, F. F. Bruce, p. 97].
Long before that, the Muratorian fragment which is dated most probably to the end of the second century is a list of 21 of the NT Books recognized as authoritative by Christians at that time out of the total of 27 Books. Including Revelation (The Apocalypse of John). It also contains the names of some books such as the Shepherd which was rejected as authoritative because of having been written too recently though it could be read in church. Other writings, such as those of Arsinous or Valentinus , Miltiades and Maricion. The fragment can be read here >> The Muratorian Canon

Most of the NT Books were accepted at a very early date. The church did not and could not bestow or remove divine authority from a writing. It either had it be virtue of being God-breathed, or it did not have it because it was not God-breathed. The church could only recognize what was already inspired and authoritative.

Excerpt:

Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of Godís imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.


Read more: How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?

On the Book of Revelation, and its authorship and Canonicity, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, states;
'The question of the authorship of Revelation is the same as that of the authorship of the other Johannine writings (the Gospel and the Epistles). The earliest witnesses ascribe Revelation to John the apostle, the son of Zebedee (Justin Martyr [d. 165]; Clement of Alexandria [d.c.220]; Hippolytus [d.c. 236]; Origen [d.c.254]) (Swete, pp. clxxif.). Not until Dionysius, the distinguished bishop of Alexandria and student of Origen (d.c.264), was any voice raised within the church against its apostolic authorship. Dionysius questioned the apostolic origin of Revelation because the advocates of an earthly eschatological hope (''Chiliasts'), whom he opposed, appealed to Revelation 20.' . . . 'From the time of Dionysius, the apostolic origin of the book was disputed in the East until Athanasius of Alexandria (d.373) turned the tide toward its acceptance. In the West the story was different. From at least the middle of the second century, the book held its own, being widely accepted and listed in all the principal canon enumerations. The Reformation period witnessed a renewal of the earlier questions concerning tis apostolic authorship and canonical status. Thus Luther, offended by the contents of Revelation, declared that he regarded it as neither apostolic nor prophetic. [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 12, p. 404].
The Book of Revelation was accepted early by the church. Objections concerning it came at a later time.
The NT is the product of the early Church which was Catholic and Apostolic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top