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.
You are aware that the no person can produce enough proof to satisfy a skeptic. So to expect someone to provide enough "proof" is impossible.
And it would be the same for anyone to expect "proof" from you....unless you actually think you can. I respect the concept of believing in something without proof, and I hope that sentiment is mutual.
Of course I can believe in something without proof. Anyone today who believes that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is believing it without proof. As a matter of fact, when Jesus Christ finally showed Thomas the wounds in His hands and feet, and Thomas at last believed, the Savior specifically called to his attention the fact that those who can believe without proof are more blessed than those who require proof in order to believe.
That, however, is not the issue here. When someone makes a claim and then says that he is providing proof for that claim, he darned well better do just that. I would much prefer to hear someone say, "I don't believe God has revealed anything that is not in the Bible," than to hear someone insist that a bunch of verses say the canon is closed when they don't say that at all.
Quote:
Just the same, the Bible never even suggests the need (the emphesis is on the need) for anything additional either. In fact John ( who of anyone that admitted there was more available that could be written) revealed that what was written at the time was enough.
Okay, but suppose we had only Matthew's and John's gospels, and didn't even know about Mark's and Luke's. In that case, the Bible wouldn't suggest that we really need what's in those two missing gospels. It wouldn't suggest the need for what they include that's not included in Matthew and John. But having read Matthew and John, don't you find them beautiful and important to the message that's found in the Bible? Sure, we could be saved without them, but why would we settle for less than we might be able to have? You don't seem to be considering that none of the writers of the biblical texts was thinking in terms of what a "complete Bible" might contain.
Once again, what's "enough"? I believe that salvation is possible without 99% of what's in the Bible. That doesn't mean that I believe the 99% is worthless. It's not worthless; it's wonderful. And if there's even more, I want to know it. We know for a fact that the Bible mentions by name books and epistles that cannot be found in it. Some of Paul's epistles, for instance, are mentioned but are not there. Presumably, if Paul referred to one epistle in another epistle, the one he mentioned would have been just as authoritative as the other. When John admitted that more could be written, he was likely assuming that everything that was written -- and accepted as inspired by the people of his day -- would end up being included. Some writings were simply lost. Also, there is absolutely no record whatsoever of what Jesus taught His followers during the 40 days He was with them after His resurrection. You may believe that He taught them nothing new; I disagree. Neither of us can "prove" our position. My gripe is not that people believe differently than I do. My gripe is that they insist that the scriptures say something they don't really say.
for the books to be accepted as Canonical, they had to be universally received by the local churches as authentic as of the time of their writing..
You've got multiple problems with that statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The purpose of the Apostle and prophets was to communicate doctrine to the church during the time that the New Testament Scriptures were still being produced. With the completion of those Scriptures, it now falls to the pastor and evangelists to teach God's word. The vast majority of Christians will never advance to spiritual maturity and will remain spiritual infants. .
I wonder why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Nothing in God's word has been lost. Nothing needs to be reintroduced. Many doctrines of the word of God were ignored and forgotten about during the dark ages but began to be recovered beginning with the Remormation. But none of the contents of the word of God were ever lost. God has preserved His word down though history.
They were recovered in the form the Catholic church wanted them to be recovered in and with many pagan teachings mixed in. Use the Spirit, Mike. That's why you have him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And the apostasy in the churches began very soon after the church-age began.
Hmmmm.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Since you are a Mormon, you doubtless will disagree with all of this. Religion was introduced into the world by Satan to confuse the issue and obscure the truth so that man might be led astray. .
I wonder why you can't see...........???
Nevermind
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Most people will believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts.
This is true about yourself, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Oh! PS. I care very much about what the word of God says. And I always will.
Nothing in God's word has been lost. Nothing needs to be reintroduced. Many doctrines of the word of God were ignored and forgotten about during the dark ages but began to be recovered beginning with the Remormation. But none of the contents of the word of God were ever lost. God has preserved His word down though history.
Honestly, I can't believe you are as naive about the Christian canon as you are coming across.
So what about Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans? Where is it today?It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. If it's not lost, where is it? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Where is it?
What is the "Christian" Bible to begin with? Historically, that question is far more difficult to answer than you might suppose. For instance, in 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
Quote:
There are no prophets today giving any further revelation from God. God's completed message is contained in the Bible. Not the book of Mormon or any other book.
Yes, I realize that's what you believe. You are entitled to your own opinions, Mike, but you are not entitled to your own facts. You can't say that nothing was ever lost when I've specifically named several writings that were once considered authoritative and inspired but are not longer to be found -- anywhere. That does nothing more than make you look flat out foolish!
Insist that what you believe is true, but don't post opinions and call them facts, particularly when they can be disproven.
Honestly, I can't believe you are as naive about the Christian canon as you are coming across.
So what about Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans? Where is it today?It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. If it's not lost, where is it? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Where is it?
What is the "Christian" Bible to begin with? Historically, that question is far more difficult to answer than you might suppose. For instance, in 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
Yes, I realize that's what you believe. You are entitled to your own opinions, Mike, but you are not entitled to your own facts. You can't say that nothing was ever lost when I've specifically named several writings that were once considered authoritative and inspired but are not longer to be found -- anywhere. That does nothing more than make you look flat out foolish!
Insist that what you believe is true, but don't post opinions and call them facts, particularly when they can be disproven.
Where is he getting this mess?
Mike wrote ...
Quote:
for the books to be accepted as Canonical, they had to be universally received by the local churches as authentic as of the time of their writing..
It is so obvious that Mike has never studied church history or the history of the canon for that matter, he is merely pulling all this poopy out of his rear, proving his lack of education in these things.
Its so sad to see people put there foot in their mouth and then act like they are THE authority on things they actually know nothing about to begin with.
Maybe he should do some research next time before you go talking about things you know nothing about?
Quote:
For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.
I've found that those who refuse to conform their confessions of faith to the words God chose to make His revelation known (which is to say, those who believe the traditions of those surrounding them rather than Scripture itself,) also tend to deny the Holy Spirit in all His gifts and in all His operations, dispensations and manifestations. Anti-Bible plus anti-Holy Spirit go hand-in-hand!!!
I've found that those who refuse to conform their confessions of faith to the words God chose to make His revelation known (which is to say, those who believe the traditions of those surrounding them rather than Scripture itself,) also tend to deny the Holy Spirit in all His gifts and in all His operations, dispensations and manifestations. Anti-Bible plus anti-Holy Spirit go hand-in-hand!!!
It is tantamount to blasphemy of the holy spirit. When Mike hears of or sees someone operating in the gifts of the spirit he deems inoperable in our time he says that whoever does these things does them by the spirit of Satan. It is the exact same thing that the Pharisees said when they saw Christ working miracles by the power of the spirit.
Mike is in fact guilty of the one sin he believes will never be forgiven and which will cause people who sin in this way to be damned for ever ... How ironic ...
Here is an excellent website that deals with our NT Canon. An interesting table gives information for each NT book with supporting evidence of when it was universally accepted into the Church.
I'm not sure what Mike is trying to get at, but he's obviously wrong on the dates. The NT was developed over a period of several hundred years before a universal consensus was reached. Even Luther, during the early beginnings of the Protestant Reformation had doubts about the epistle of James.
In my own mind, James, as well as 2nd Peter, and II & III John could also be called into question, if put to the test.
Each person needs to study and research the subject under the guidance and leading of the Holy Spirit, and draw their own informed conclusions.
It seems true as you say Ironmaw, even though I don't want to believe it. All my life I've felt very fearful for the men who seem to disregard their commiting the "sin against the Spirit" while they revile the Spirit whenever it is claimed He manifests in and through Jesus' present day disciples. This is one very important reason I try to help dipSinsational funDAMmentalists to consider the mercy they need themselves when dealing with things like the lake of fire. They think it is for all those bad people out there, never themselves. The day they wake up to realize their loved ones, and specially themselves, are the ones dangling over the pit, they're going to need some help. Some can enter years of spiritual and mental torment. Some have been hopitalized and even commited suicide over these things.
Here is an excellent website that deals with our NT Canon. An interesting table gives information for each NT book with supporting evidence of when it was universally accepted into the Church.
I'm not sure what Mike is trying to get at, but he's obviously wrong on the dates. The NT was developed over a period of several hundred years before a universal consensus was reached. Even Luther, during the early beginnings of the Protestant Reformation had doubts about the epistle of James.
In my own mind, James, as well as 2nd Peter, and II & III John could also be called into question, if put to the test.
Each person needs to study and research the subject under the guidance and leading of the Holy Spirit, and draw their own informed conclusions.
James wasn't the only book Luther had doubts about. He wasn't fond of Revelation, either. But, you are right. Using the Spirit as our guide (love, joy, peace, gentleness, kindness) helps decipher some of it.
It seems true as you say Ironmaw, even though I don't want to believe it. All my life I've felt very fearful for the men who seem to disregard their commiting the "sin against the Spirit" while they revile the Spirit whenever it is claimed He manifests in and through Jesus' present day disciples. This is one very important reason I try to help dipSinsational funDAMmentalists to consider the mercy they need themselves when dealing with things like the lake of fire. They think it is for all those bad people out there, never themselves. The day they wake up to realize their loved ones, and specially themselves, are the ones dangling over the pit, they're going to need some help. Some can enter years of spiritual and mental torment. Some have been hopitalized and even commited suicide over these things.
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that Scripture is revealed to us in such away that it reveals the inner intents and hidden treasures of our own heart. If the reader sees hell, damnation, fire and brimstone (ie: evil) from God upon His creation, it's that their own hearts and minds are filled with evil things. Those that see God's grace upon His creation have God's grace reigning in their hearts.
Mat 12:35 The good man out of the good treasure of the heart doth put forth the good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure doth put forth evil things.
Mat 12:36 `And I say to you, that every idle word that men may speak, they shall give for it a reckoning in a day of judgment;
Mat 12:37 for from thy words thou shalt be declared righteous, and from thy words thou shalt be declared unrighteous.'
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.
