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.
In the beginning and when Adam was still in a harmonious relationship of righteousness with God, God told him to be take dominion, be fruitful and multiply on the earth long before Eve and Adam's sin. Also the law of the seed reproducing the same tree it came from was already in effect before Adam whose seed in the beginning would have passed on the righteousness of God up until the time Adam sinned.
Once Adam sinned with Eve and subsequently got the boot from the garden, the same law of the seed that earlier would have passed on the righteousness of God through Adam, now and by law passed on the unrighteousness of Adam's sin unto all offspring including his
Because sin is the cause of death, both curses were passed on to all future generations and are the cause of newborn babies being born under a curse of death even though they have not yet committed any sin themselves. ........... so Paul said the following words...........
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Your make believe doctrine we were all born without sin and Christ in our hearts meaning all we have to do is believe it is a total farce and a hersey of a origin that is not God. Therefore by law your your pet doctrine is a sin that all comes from father of all sin and evil................. any guess who that is
Thems the facts
Romans 2:1-3
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?
My question to you is bolded.
The reason I'm asking, is a lot of you who condemn others to judgment seem to forget that you also will be judged. So don't get uppity.
In the beginning and when Adam was still in a harmonious relationship of righteousness with God, God told him to be take dominion, be fruitful and multiply on the earth long before Eve and Adam's sin. Also the law of the seed reproducing the same tree it came from was already in effect before Adam whose seed in the beginning would have passed on the righteousness of God up until the time Adam sinned.
Once Adam sinned with Eve and subsequently got the boot from the garden, the same law of the seed that earlier would have passed on the righteousness of God through Adam, now and by law passed on the unrighteousness of Adam's sin unto all offspring including his
Because sin is the cause of death, both curses were passed on to all future generations and are the cause of newborn babies being born under a curse of death even though they have not yet committed any sin themselves. ........... so Paul said the following words...........
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Your make believe doctrine we were all born without sin and Christ in our hearts meaning all we have to do is believe it is a total farce and a hersey of a origin that is not God. Therefore by law your your pet doctrine is a sin that all comes from father of all sin and evil................. any guess who that is
Thems the facts
Get behind me, Satan! (HUGE GRIN)
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekigurl
Romans 2:1-3
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?
My question to you is bolded.
The reason I'm asking, is a lot of you who condemn others to judgment seem to forget that you also will be judged. So don't get uppity.
In the beginning and when Adam was still in a harmonious relationship of righteousness with God, God told him to be take dominion, be fruitful and multiply on the earth long before Eve and Adam's sin. Also the law of the seed reproducing the same tree it came from was already in effect before Adam whose seed in the beginning would have passed on the righteousness of God up until the time Adam sinned.
Once Adam sinned with Eve and subsequently got the boot from the garden, the same law of the seed that earlier would have passed on the righteousness of God through Adam, now and by law passed on the unrighteousness of Adam's sin unto all offspring including his
Because sin is the cause of death, both curses were passed on to all future generations and are the cause of newborn babies being born under a curse of death even though they have not yet committed any sin themselves. ........... so Paul said the following words...........
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Your make believe doctrine we were all born without sin and Christ in our hearts meaning all we have to do is believe it is a total farce and a hersey of a origin that is not God. Therefore by law your your pet doctrine is a sin that all comes from father of all sin and evil................. any guess who that is
Thems the facts
Mankind (Adam) and his Soul (Eve) have lost their way.
Now, abides the doctrines of men with all their variations.
Actually, I know quite a bit about how textual criticism is conducted. But I doubt very much that you do. Textual scholars by the way use both internal and external evidence.
I don't go with the majority just because the majority says something is true. Modern scholarship at times has a herd mentality often not based on valid assumptions. I believe the early church regarding the authorship of Revelation.
You said that the same scholars that I use to defend my view of Scripture don't all believe that the apostles wrote the books of the New Testament. And that is true. Many of them don't. But the early church believed that they did, and they did not knowingly accept any forgeries into the canon. And again, Dr. Wallace agrees with the early church on that as you've been shown.
Nor have I ever said that people shouldn't think for themselves. And I have never, ever said that God hates gay people. You will never find any such comment made by me anywhere on the forum. You keep making false accusations. You on the other hand once submitted a thread in which you said that God hates sinners. That thread is posted below.
And He does--especially when we try to fool others into being the kind of fool we have become. I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm suggesting they don't swallow the denominationally approved stuff that you do. And you are very good at presenting the view of the winners--the Catholic Church--which set the tone for everything that followed. But your bringing this up is to deflect away from the battle for the Bible which you are losing. But we sinners keep on trying don't we! (P.S. Does your biblical literalism NOT see God as hating sinners?). The difference between your view of sinners (others) and my view (all of us) is that you use it to separate people. I use it to describe EVERYBODY--that's why "God hates us"--from the Pope all the way down to me at the bottom of the barrel.
Now stop throwing out red herrings. I insist we get on with a proper lunch! I, and those who agree with me on much except how God feels about us sinners (there is dichotomy in that) know that you are a deflector and that is what you are attempting here!
The early church did NOT believe what you do. They had completely diverse views, perhaps more widely diverse than what exists now. Lots of forgeries in the name of an apostle or two have been found. And the same method to discover them has been used to discover the forgeries existing in our own NT.'
In fact, in the fourth century a book was written entitled Apostolic Constitutions, a book giving instructions about Christian belief and practice in the name of the twelve disciples. It warns readers not to read books "claiming" to be written in the name of others. It is, in fact, a forgery itself--but is warning us about previous forgeries in the name of John or Peter or others supposedly with first hand knowledge of Jesus.
2nd Thessalonians, a letter supposedly penned by Paul, warns against a letter allegedly written by Paul--so there were already forgeries taking place at the same time letters you claim are divine were being written:
Quote:
--we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come--
2nd Thessalonians 2:2
Where is your great exegesis that should be looking at both internal and external sources? Paul, or more likely his follower in 2nd Thessalonians, states outright that not everything penned under his name is his.
The winners at the Nicene Council simply rewrote history--as all winners do--and the competing ideas and beliefs were squashed. Their literature, just as revered, became rejected, maligned, attacked, and burned, in the true way of fundamentalism. It remained that way until the last 75 years when we've begun to uncover a few of the competing Jesus ideas.
It was only in the nineteenth century that some scholars began to question the objectivity of orthodox christian writer Eusebius, who kept account of the conflicts among from his point of view. Scholars today question how reliable his accounts are based on what has now been discovered as "new" apocryphal literature.
What apocalyptical literature was first followed by 2nd century Christians? Not the Revelation of John, but the Shepherd of Hermas. From the same Christian Writings site from which you quoted the Muratorian, claims the early christians knew of the Shepherd also--attributing it to the brother of Bishop Pius of Rome:
Says the scholarly author on this topic:
Quote:
The Shepherd of Hermas, a strange allegory written sometime in the second century, had a great vogue in orthodox circles and was even included in some copies of the New Testament (it is found in the Sinaitic Codex). The theology of the Church must have been very elastic at a time when such a book could enjoy popularity and implicit, if not explicit, ecclesiastical sanction, for its Christology does not seem to square with any of the Christologies of the New Testament, or with those of contemporary theologians whose occasional documents have reached us.
So don't try to make us believe anything was decided about what really was in the NT prior to 325 CE. It didn't happen. The late second century has Christians more in tune with the apocalypse of Hermas than that of John.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 03-13-2016 at 09:17 PM..
He does--especially when we try to fool others into being the kind of fool we have become. I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm suggesting they don't swallow the denominationally approved stuff that you do. And you are very good at presenting the view of the winners--the Catholic Church--which set the tone for everything that followed. But your bringing this up is to deflect away from the battle for the Bible which you are losing. But we sinners keep on trying don't we! (P.S. Does your biblical literalism NOT see God as hating sinners?). The difference between your view of sinners (others) and my view (all of us) is that you use it to separate people. I use it to describe EVERYBODY--from the Pope all the way down to me at the bottom of the barrel.
Now stop throwing out red herrings. I insist we get on with a proper lunch!
No, I didn't bring it up to deflect from anything. I brought it up because you falsely accused me of saying that God hates sinners which I have never done. You on the other hand believe that God hates everybody.
The only one who is deflecting is you because you will not admit that the New Testament was completed in the first century, and you have gone off on a number of tangents.
Quote:
The early church did NOT believe what you do. They had completely diverse views, perhaps more widely diverse than what exists now. Lots of forgeries in the name of an apostle or two have been found. And the same method to discover them has been used to discover the forgeries existing in our own NT.'
In fact, in the fourth century a book was written entitled Apostolic Constitutions, a book giving instructions about Christian belief and practice in the name of the twelve disciples. It warns readers not to read books "claiming" to be written in the name of others. It is, in fact, a forgery itself--but is warning us about previous forgeries in the name of John or Peter or others supposedly with first hand knowledge of Jesus.
2nd Thessalonians, a letter supposedly penned by Paul, warns against a letter allegedly written by Paul--so there were already forgeries taking place at the same time letters you claim are divine were being written:
2nd Thessalonians 2:2
Where is your great exegesis that should be looking at both internal and external sources? Paul, or more likely his follower in 2nd Thessalonians, states outright that not everything penned under his name is his.
The winners at the Nicene Council simply rewrote history--as all winners do--and the competing ideas and beliefs were squashed. Their literature, just as revered, became rejected, maligned, attacked, and burned, in the true way of fundamentalism. It remained that way until the last 75 years when we've begun to uncover a few of the competing Jesus ideas.
It was only in the nineteenth century that some scholars began to question the objectivity of orthodox christian writer Eusebius, who kept account of the conflicts among from his point of view. Scholars today question how reliable his accounts are based on what has now been discovered as "new" apocryphal literature.
What apocalyptical literature was first followed by 2nd century Christians? Not the Revelation of John, but the Shepherd of Hermas. From the same Christian Writings site from which you quoted the Muratorian, claims the early christians knew of the Shepherd also--attributing it to the brother of Bishop Pius of Rome:
So don't try to make us believe anything was decided about what really was in the NT prior to 325 CE. It didn't happen. The late second century has Christians more in tune with the apocalypse of Hermas than that of John.
The only thing the church counsel did was to simply formally recognize the books that had already long been accepted by the church as canonical.
As I said, the early church did not knowingly accept forgeries into the canon. No forgery was admitted into the New Testament Scriptures. Forgeries were rejected and those who wrote them condemned. As proof, Wallace, Sawyer, and Komoszewski make the following comments.
First, there are examples of forgeries coming to light in the early church, and the church's response to them is illuminating. For example, 3 Corinthians, a document that circulated both by itself and as part of the Acts of Paul, was discovered to be a forgery. The author, an elder who wrote the work because of his love for Paul, was defrocked by Tertullian for this fabrication. In about 200, when Serapion, bishop of Antioch, learned that the gospel of Peter was not written by the Apostle, he declared, ''For our part brethren, we receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but the writings which falsely bear their names we reject, as men of experience, knowing that such were not handed down to us.
[Reinventing Jesus, How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture, Komoszewski, Sawyer, Wallace, p. 145]
That quotation is from Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.12.3.
3. For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.
Do you understand that? Writings which falsely bore the names of the apostles were rejected.
Here is another example. This is from the Muratorian Canon which is dated to c. A.D 175.
[Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred (62-3) in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [6b] [and] another to the Alexandrians, [6c] [both] forged in Paul's (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others (66) which cannot be received into the catholic Church (67)— for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. (68) [Bolding mine]
The letter to the Laodiceans, and the letter to the Alexandrians could not be received into the catholic (universal) church because they were forgeries.
There are no forgeries in the New Testament. As shown from the above examples, the church simply did not allow forgeries into the canon.
Furthermore, I already stated that the Shepherd of Hermas was read, though not publically to the people in church, but it was not accepted as part of the Canon, as is plainly stated in the Muratorian Canon.
We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) [7b] though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. (73) But Hermas wrote the Shepherd (74) very recently, [7c] in our times, in the city of Rome, (75) while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome. [7d] (77) And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but (78) it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among (79) the Prophets, whose number is complete, [8] or among (80) the Apostles, for it is after [their] time. [Bolding mine]
And as you can see, contrary to your claim, the book of Revelation (the Apocalypse of John) was received by the 2nd century church.
Also contrary to your claim, twenty-one books of the New Testament were recognized as canonical by the second century church as shown by the Muratorian Canon. Those twenty-one books were a part of the canon which is why they are on that list.
And to quote Wallace once again,
The early church never knowingly accepted any books for the canon if they believed such books were forgeries. I agree with you that the Pastorals, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Peter, etc. are authentic. One who is consistently in line with the ancient church’s view of the canon also accepts that these books are authentic. A New New Testament: Are You Serious? – Daniel B. Wallace
Now, you have been clearly shown above, not only from Eusebius, but from the Muratorian canon as well, that the church did not accept known forgeries into the canon. You have no valid reasons for denying that fact.
You also have no valid reason for denying that the twenty-one New Testament documents were written before the end of the first century A.D.
Also, Paul in 2 Thessalonians stated that there were forgeries claiming to be from him (2 Thess. 2:2). He did not say or imply that any of the letters in the New Testament which bear his name weren't his. Again, all of the letters attributed to Paul which are in the New Testament were accepted as authentic by the early church.
Last edited by Michael Way; 03-13-2016 at 10:47 PM..
No, I didn't bring it up to deflect from anything. I brought it up because you falsely accused me of saying that God hates sinners which I have never done. You on the other hand believe that God hates everybody.
<snip>
God hates no one and nothing. Hatred is a human psychological weakness and God has NONE. Warden does not accuse God of hating anyone. He simply acknowledges that there are negative consequences for some of our actions. But they are not punishments by God anymore than the consequences of violating God's law of gravity is a punishment.
Everyone, whether believer or unbeliever is judged for his works. For believers the issue regarding works relates to rewards both in the Millennial kingdom and in eternity (1 Cor. 3:12-15). For unbelievers the issue concerning works is as follows.
It is only by the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ having been imputed to those who believe in His finished redemptive work on the cross that anyone obtains eternal life. We can't obtain eternal life by our own imperfect righteousness. The unbeliever's deeds or works cannot save him. If a person dies without having received Jesus as Savior, then at the judgment, whether it be the judgment of the nations when Jesus returns at the end of Tribulation (Matthew 25:31-46) to judge the Tribulational survivors, or at the great white throne judgment at the end of the Millennium where all other unbelievers will be judged (Revelation 20:11-15), the works of the unbeliever, having been produced by his imperfect human righteousness will be the basis for his condemnation. In having rejected the finished work of Christ on the cross and therefore not having received the righteousness of Jesus, the unbeliever by default has only his own works which were produced by his own imperfect righteousness to stand on. And so he remains under condemnation forever.
In Matthew 25:31-46, it is Tribulational survivors who are being addressed. In the Tribulation, because of the increased lawlessness at that time (Matthew 24:12) most people's love will grow cold. Therefore, during the Tribulation, a believer in Jesus Christ will be characterized by his attitude toward, and willingness to help the Jews. On the other hand, the unbeliever will be characterized by his unwillingness to help the Jews. Having rejected Jesus Christ as Savor, the Tribulational unbeliever will be judged at the judgment of the nations and sentenced to eternal punishment.
As for babies who die without receiving Jesus as Savior, or for that matter, anyone, regardless of age, who because of severe mental retardation, dies without having been able to understand the issue, they are automatically saved because of Jesus' finished work on the cross. Since God has made a person's volition with regard to Jesus the issue in salvation, it would be unfair for God to leave in condemnation anyone who simply cannot understand the issue. When a person, at whatever his age, first becomes aware that some kind of a Supreme Being must exist, he becomes accountable to God for his attitude regarding that awareness. If that person has positive volition at that point, then God will ensure that he has an opportunity to hear the gospel message concerning Christ Jesus so that he can either receive Jesus as Savior or reject Him. But for any person who dies never having had the mental capability to come to an awareness of the existence of God (a baby or anyone of any age who lacks mental capacity) his condemnation is lifted and he will go to be with the Lord.
For everyone who has come to the point of 'God consciousness,' the issue with regard to obtaining eternal life, in being delivered from the penalty of sin which is eternal separation from God is whether or not you have believed in Jesus; whether or not you have placed your faith in Him and Him alone for eternal life. Your works have nothing whatsoever to do with being saved from eternal separation from God.
Your works after having been saved are the basis for eternal rewards. God expects the believer to produce good works, but those works have nothing to do with receiving the righteousness of Jesus which is credited to the account of anyone who has simply placed his faith in Christ Jesus.
If you have never simply trusted in Jesus Christ alone, realizing your total inability to do anything to save yourself, to earn or merit eternal life through your own efforts, then you have not been saved, and you remain under condemnation. Eternal salvation, deliverance from the penalty of sin which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire, is by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. Not by our works.
Try not to dissuade. God will call us all, likely in many different ways. We are all his children, kicked outside after showing we are not ready but hoping to go home. Everything we give to one another was given to us via God, created with talents given to us by God....our actions determine when we are ready. Good works alone may not prove ourselves to God, but they get our mind in the right place. It might afford opportunity for a non-traditional intervention. A hunger for more may develop internally, or it may wither. Truly good works are difficult to continue doing without some sort of affirmation.
I'm not sure how God reaches someone, but God does. Encourage the good, forgive the bad and trust that God will take care of and judge the rest.
No, I didn't bring it up to deflect from anything. I brought it up because you falsely accused me of saying that God hates sinners which I have never done. You on the other hand believe that God hates everybody.
Deflecting from the topic--again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The only one who is deflecting is you because you will not admit that the New Testament was completed in the first century, and you have gone off on a number of tangents.
I simply stated that since we do not have a single document, fragment of document, piece of parchment or any other kind of paper from earlier than 125 CE, that it is at best speculation about when it actually WAS written. Most scholars DO place most writings in the current Bible in the first century.
That in no way authenticates them. There are textual reasons why some of Paul's gospels are easier to accept, and very good reason to see several as penned far after he had departed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The only thing the church counsel did was to simply formally recognize the books that had already long been accepted by the church as canonical.
As I said, the early church did not knowingly accept forgeries into the canon. No forgery was admitted into the New Testament Scriptures. Forgeries were rejected and those who wrote them condemned. As proof, Wallace, Sawyer, and Komoszewski make the following comments.
First, there are examples of forgeries coming to light in the early church, and the church's response to them is illuminating. For example, 3 Corinthians, a document that circulated both by itself and as part of the Acts of Paul, was discovered to be a forgery. The author, an elder who wrote the work because of his love for Paul, was defrocked by Tertullian for this fabrication. In about 200, when Serapion, bishop of Antioch, learned that the gospel of Peter was not written by the Apostle, he declared, ''For our part brethren, we receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but the writings which falsely bear their names we reject, as men of experience, knowing that such were not handed down to us.
[Reinventing Jesus, How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture, Komoszewski, Sawyer, Wallace, p. 145]
I will agree that most likely they didn't KNOWINGLY accept forgeries into Scripture. What's the point? It's already been proven that they DID accept forgeries in the name of both Paul and Peter. Besides Serapion, when he first learned of the Gospel of Peter accepted it. After he learned there were verses that might be misinterpreted in what he felt were an unorthodox manner, he changed his mind and rejected it, although he admitted it was theologically sound.
But how did those early church father's identify a forgery? Did textual criticism exist? Was it the habit of early fathers to review each gospel/epistle to determine if known events were recorded? What criteria did they have? They had none at all other than word of mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
That quotation is from Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 6.12.3.
3. For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.
Do you understand that? Writings which falsely bore the names of the apostles were rejected.
Here is another example. This is from the Muratorian Canon which is dated to c. A.D 175.
[Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred (62-3) in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [6b] [and] another to the Alexandrians, [6c] [both] forged in Paul's (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others (66) which cannot be received into the catholic Church (67)— for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. (68) [Bolding mine]
The letter to the Laodiceans, and the letter to the Alexandrians could not be received into the catholic (universal) church because they were forgeries.
There are no forgeries in the New Testament. As shown from the above examples, the church simply did not allow forgeries into the canon.
But there are forgeries and Eusebius had doubts himself about 2nd Peter along with quite a few others:
Quote:
One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon;yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures
He, and others, admit to accepting Scripture as canonized because "it has appeared profitable to many."
So he wasn't the pure and accepting soul you'd like to portray him as--and he was basically a lackey for the church doing what they bid--In that respect it shows just how questionable 2nd Peter's authorship truly is. It wasn't set in stone. (As an aside, the document you prize most, the Muratorian, does not mention 2nd Peter at all, let alone as a generally accepted authentic epistle).
If it had been all you hold it to be were then we would be calling everything Holy Scriptures of the Muratorian Document. Instead every single bit of it is traced to the Council of Nicene and THEIR decision.
(1)There would have been no reason for Constantine to plead with 1800 bishops to come to one spot to talk about Scripture if canonization had all been settled. As a politician he wanted to limit internal conflicts.
(2) There were huge arguments over that three months, revolving around both beliefs and literature. If it had been settled 50 years earlier there would have been no debate.
(3)The Council effectively sealed off a large segment of christians who were following their influential priest, Arius, who believed Jesus to have been a creation of God and not co-eternal with God. He even reached out to one bishop with a charge of persecution:
Quote:
We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that he is of the non-existent. And this we say, because he is neither part of God, nor of any essential being.
The council's decision did not immediately stop Arianism, however, as its proponent quickly returned to the Emperor's favor. Even Arius' death, followed one year later by that of Constantine, did not lay the controversy to rest; that came about—in the Church, at least—through the teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers and the actions of the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. Arianism continued to linger in some Gothic and Vandal kingdoms of the West until it was finally suppressed in the seventh century
The first Council was certainly an attempt to bring Christians, widely separated by many gospels, letters, and acts onto the same page:
Quote:
--the Council is also significant as the first attempt to achieve a consensus among all Christians through a debate between representatives from the opposing sides. It set a precedent for holding councils to decide other doctrinal and practical church matters, and for turning these decisions into creeds and canon law.
So a SECOND Council was needed because of ongoing controversies about what books belonged in the Bible. Held over fifty years later it was every bit as contentious as the first although biblical canon was settled, church canon was not:
Quote:
[Emperor] Theodosius' strong commitment to Nicene Christianity involved a calculated risk because Constantinople, the imperial capital of the Eastern Empire, was solidly Arian. To complicate matters, the two leading factions of Nicene Christianity in the East, the Alexandrians and the supporters of Meletius in Antioch, were "bitterly divided ... almost to the point of complete animosity"
Furthermore, I already stated that the Shepherd of Hermas was read, though not publically to the people in church, but it was not accepted as part of the Canon, as is plainly stated in the Muratorian Canon.
We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) [7b] though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. (73) But Hermas wrote the Shepherd (74) very recently, [7c] in our times, in the city of Rome, (75) while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome. [7d] (77) And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but (78) it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among (79) the Prophets, whose number is complete, [8] or among (80) the Apostles, for it is after [their] time. [Bolding mine]
And as you can see, contrary to your claim, the book of Revelation (the Apocalypse of John) was received by the 2nd century church.
Also contrary to your claim, twenty-one books of the New Testament were recognized as canonical by the second century church as shown by the Muratorian Canon. Those twenty-one books were a part of the canon which is why they are on that list.
And to quote Wallace once again,
The early church never knowingly accepted any books for the canon if they believed such books were forgeries. I agree with you that the Pastorals, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Peter, etc. are authentic. One who is consistently in line with the ancient church’s view of the canon also accepts that these books are authentic. A New New Testament: Are You Serious? – Daniel B. Wallace
Now, you have been clearly shown above, not only from Eusebius, but from the Muratorian canon as well, that the church did not accept known forgeries into the canon. You have no valid reasons for denying that fact.
You also have no valid reason for denying that the twenty-one New Testament documents were written before the end of the first century A.D.
Also, Paul in 2 Thessalonians stated that there were forgeries claiming to be from him (2 Thess. 2:2). He did not say or imply that any of the letters in the New Testament which bear his name weren't his. Again, all of the letters attributed to Paul which are in the New Testament were accepted as authentic by the early church.
1) 21 books does not make up 27
2) the 21 were included among numerous other books that were admittedly circulating in early christianity.
3) Early church leaders had no methodology for determining a forgery.
Finally, let's be very clear. Your apology is for the books of the Protestant Bible. As late as Martin Luther there were still arguments about canon. Luther wanted to exclude Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation. In 1563 the Church of England issued Thirty-Nine Articles. In it all the books of the OT are named--not one from the NT.
The Eastern Orthodox Church which is pretty much a combination of fundamentalism and church tradition explains their understanding of how Scripture was arrived at:
Quote:
The Church is NOT Based on the Bible. Rather, the Bible is a product of the Church.For the first few centuries of the Christian era, no one could have put his hands on a single volume called "The Bible." In fact, there was no one put his hands on a single volume called "The Bible." In fact, there was no agreement regarding which "books" of Scripture were to be considered accurate and correct, or canonical.
Looking back over history, there were various "lists" of the canonical "books" comprising the Bible:
The Muratorian Canon (130 AD) cities all the books we considered as parts of the Bible today, except for Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation/Apocalypse
Canon 60 of the local Council of Laodicea (364 AD) cited Revelation/Apocalypse
A festal Epistle by Saint Athanasius (369 AD) lists all of them.
Even so, there was no official, authoritative "canon" listing all the books until the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople in 680 AD. Canon II of that Council ratifies the First through the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, as well as the local councils at Carthage (255 AD), Ancyra (315 AD), Neocaesaria (315 AD), Gangra (340 AD), Antioch (341 AD), Laodicea (364 A), Sardica (347 AD), Constantinople (394 AD), and Carthage (419 AD).
The point is simply to unhorse the foolish idea that cannon was all engraved in stone at some early point in history. In fact, it is STILL not completely settled with much of the OT in dispute among Western and Eastern traditions.
While I don't believe the Bible is a product of the Church--portions of it are--particularly the known additions to Scripture that Dan Wallace has written about.
God hates no one and nothing. Hatred is a human psychological weakness and God has NONE. Warden does not accuse God of hating anyone. He simply acknowledges that there are negative consequences for some of our actions. But they are not punishments by God anymore than the consequences of violating God's law of gravity is a punishment.
He came right out and said that God hates us. It's there for all to see.
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.
(P.S. Does your biblical literalism NOT see God as hating sinners?). The difference between your view of sinners (others) and my view (all of us) is that you use it to separate people. I use it to describe EVERYBODY--that's why "God hates us"--from the Pope all the way down to me at the bottom of the barrel. 
