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)
 
Old 08-21-2018, 08:27 AM
 
21,857 posts, read 16,696,582 times
Reputation: 8681

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
"Canon" does NOT exist without canon law. The various books existed and councils decided how to limit their inclusion within their law, which excluded such popular letters as "The Shepherd of Hermas."
The canon in principle existed as soon as the last of the New Testament books were written. That's on the divine side. On the human side, it took time for the canon to form. But it did form, and not as the result of any council. The book of Shepherd of Hermas was rejected long before the first of the councils was ever held.


The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the Church. It was held in AD 325. And canonicity was not even a topic of discussion at the council of Nicaea. However, the Shepherd of Hermas was stated in the Muratorian canon as not being canonical. And the Muratorian canon is dated to c. AD 175. AD 175 came before AD 325. Furthermore, 21 of the 27 NT books were listed in the Muratorian canon. The vast majority of the NT canon was therefore established before the end of the 2nd century.

No church council created the NT canon. The councils at Hippo and Carthage simply endorsed what was already the general consensus of the churches of the west and of the greater part of the east. They made a formal pronouncement concerning the canon which already existed apart from the councils.

Last edited by Mike555; 08-21-2018 at 08:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-21-2018, 09:02 AM
 
Location: New England
32,225 posts, read 21,111,453 times
Reputation: 2274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Correct. He still wants people to come to Him.
If you mean wake up to the reality that he is in all and never left the all, then i agree with you. Unless of cause you believe he's separated himself from us... Like "i will have nothing to do with you unless you believe in the son i sent".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2018, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,286 posts, read 5,495,693 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
What you think about it is actually quite irrelevant, as are you yourself. Oh, as for calling people names, that's not being a hypocrite. Calling a spade a spade, calling someone what they are is simply being honest. The person I called a fool is exactly that. And I stand by that. As for you, you're a drama queen who blows things out of proportion. Well, be a drama queen. Eventually you will get tired of it. You aren't worth any further attention.
Thank you for adding to my arsenal.

Now PLEASE, PLEASE, report me. Calling people "irrelevant' is anti-Jesus. And you have now bragged about calling someone a fool and have added to that by making me a drama queen!

You are so far from God even by fundamentalist standards!! Some on here would see the silliness you post about other people and would know exactly what you are.


Hmmmmm, hardnosed fundamentalist---the poster I quoted says the Bible is inerrant and infallible but intentionally, INTENTIONALLY ignores some of its most fundamental teachings with regard to how he conducts his life.

Saying God's Word is perfect while scoffing and making fun of its teachings is the epitome of hypocrisy. You could teach the "devil" more than one thing, you "bible-believer!"

No one in their right mind would consider your "religious" posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2018, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
16,273 posts, read 7,657,119 times
Reputation: 1718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The canon in principle existed as soon as the last of the New Testament books were written. That's on the divine side. On the human side, it took time for the canon to form. But it did form, and not as the result of any council. The book of Shepherd of Hermas was rejected long before the first of the councils was ever held.


The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the Church. It was held in AD 325. And canonicity was not even a topic of discussion at the council of Nicaea. However, the Shepherd of Hermas was stated in the Muratorian canon as not being canonical. And the Muratorian canon is dated to c. AD 175. AD 175 came before AD 325. Furthermore, 21 of the 27 NT books were listed in the Muratorian canon. The vast majority of the NT canon was therefore established before the end of the 2nd century.

No church council created the NT canon. The councils at Hippo and Carthage simply endorsed what was already the general consensus of the churches of the west and of the greater part of the east. They made a formal pronouncement concerning the canon which already existed apart from the councils.
Prior to the votes there was no "the canon" there were various listings of what people considered "canon."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2018, 10:35 AM
 
Location: New England
32,225 posts, read 21,111,453 times
Reputation: 2274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
Thank you for adding to my arsenal.

Now PLEASE, PLEASE, report me. Calling people "irrelevant' is anti-Jesus. And you have now bragged about calling someone a fool and have added to that by making me a drama queen!

You are so far from God even by fundamentalist standards!! Some on here would see the silliness you post about other people and would know exactly what you are.


Hmmmmm, hardnosed fundamentalist---the poster I quoted says the Bible is inerrant and infallible but intentionally, INTENTIONALLY ignores some of its most fundamental teachings with regard to how he conducts his life.

Saying God's Word is perfect while scoffing and making fun of its teachings is the epitome of hypocrisy. You could teach the "devil" more than one thing, you "bible-believer!"

No one in their right mind would consider your "religious" posts.
Of cause i am a fool in Mike's eyes for not bowing down to and accepting he is right on all things about anything concerning God, and dare not question his stance on the bible, you get the full force of his wrathful words.

Mike is a real man of genuis when it comes to bible fundamentalism, he's an hero of all on here that have not given their time into studying and delivering the packaged deal of "Reject this message at your peril".

Camps the fool for Christ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2018, 12:16 PM
 
21,857 posts, read 16,696,582 times
Reputation: 8681
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
Prior to the votes there was no "the canon" there were various listings of what people considered "canon."
A canon is a collection of books. The NT canon existed in its various stages of completion long before its final form as we have it today. Very early in the church, the core books of the NT, the core of the NT canon - the four Gospels and the majority of Paul's writings had been recognized and accepted as canonical. That was the NT canon at that point. In time, the rest of the NT books were added to an already existing canon.

I again quote F.F. Bruce. This is from post #397.
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 htey 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. [Bolding mine]

The Canon of Scripture, F.F. Bruce, p. 97
The historical reality is that the early church possessed an authoritative corpus of books long before the forth century, and long before the existence of the ecumenical church councils. All any council did was to endorse the canon that already existed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2018, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,286 posts, read 5,495,693 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcamps View Post
Of cause i am a fool in Mike's eyes for not bowing down to and accepting he is right on all things about anything concerning God, and dare not question his stance on the bible, you get the full force of his wrathful words.

Mike is a real man of genuis when it comes to bible fundamentalism, he's an hero of all on here that have not given their time into studying and delivering the packaged deal of "Reject this message at your peril".

Camps the fool for Christ.
Naw, pcamps. Even most fundamentalists are ashamed of someone who claims the Bible to be inerrant and infallible but ignores clear warnings by Jesus. My own sister is a fundamentalist but she would vomit over the idea of someone "believing" the Bible, but making no attempt to live it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2018, 02:39 PM
 
25,740 posts, read 25,385,522 times
Reputation: 24346
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
If Jesus was either God or the son of God how could he not have known he was starting a new religion?
Hello?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2018, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
16,273 posts, read 7,657,119 times
Reputation: 1718
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
Hello?
Oh He knew one would be formed, and He warned about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2018, 03:53 PM
 
20,402 posts, read 9,831,311 times
Reputation: 1677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
Naw, pcamps. Even most fundamentalists are ashamed of someone who claims the Bible to be inerrant and infallible but ignores clear warnings by Jesus. My own sister is a fundamentalist but she would vomit over the idea of someone "believing" the Bible, but making no attempt to live it.
What? Does your sister vomiting have to do with anything?
I sure hope she didn't get any on your best garments.


LMAO
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