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.
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.
Revelation was also one of the few books that Calvin did not write a commentary on. Both Calvin and Luther avoided the book in their writings, though I believe both held it to be Scripture.
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?
The Epistle we call Ephesians may very well be the letter refered to by Paul in Colossians 4:16. Rather than saying that the letter was to the Laodiceans he simply said ''and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea''. Some ancient manuscripts don't contain the words 'at Ephesus,' and without the city being mentioned in Eph. 1:1, nothing links this letter to Ephesus.
Here is what C. I. Scofield wrote about the book of Ephesians...
Ephesians is the most impersonal of Paul's letters. Indeed the words, ''to the Ephesians,'' are not in the best manuscripts. Colossians 4:16 mentions an epistle to the Laodiceans. It has been conjectured that the letter known as Ephesians is really the Laodicean letter. Possibly it was sent to Ephesus and Laodicea without being addressed to any specific church. The letter would then be ''to the saints and the faithful in Christ Jesus'' anywhere.
The doctrine of the Epistle confirms this view. It contains the highest Church truth, but has nothing about Church order. The Church here is the true Church, ''His body,'' not the local church, as in Philippians, Corinthians, etc. Essentially, three lines of truth make up this Epistle (1) The Christian's exalted position through grace; (2) the truth concerning the body of Christ; and (3) a life lived in accordance with that position.'' (Emphasis mine)
[New Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1272.]
Marcion, who though a 2nd century heretic, believed that the Ephesian letter was in fact "The epistle to the Laodiceans." Being a heretic doesn't mean that everything he believes is wrong.
Some think that it is the book of Philemon.
Excerpt: The historical importance of Paul's final instructions is well known. On the basis of this single verse, a case has been made (first by Marcion around A.D. 150) that the letter of Ephesians is really this letter from Laodicea--a letter first written by Paul for Laodicean Christians and received from them by the Colossians, who passed it on to the Ephesians. This ancient opinion has received its modern draft by the eminent British scholar J. B. Lightfoot in the late 1800s and has since been widely accepted by others (see Wright 1987:160-61). On the other hand, Schweizer speculates that the Laodicean letter, rather than an edited book of Ephesians, might actually be the New Testament book of Philemon (1972:242), which I think is closer to the truth.
If a letter which had been inspired by God the Holy Spirit had fallen by the wayside and become lost, then the words of Peter would be found to be untrue. He said
...the word of God lives and abides forever ... the word of the LORD endures forever. (1 Peter 1:23-25)
Quote:
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.
It is unimportant what the opinions of those at some later date were. The issue is that the letters had to be universally received by the local churches as authentic and therefore having divine authority AT THE TIME OF THEIR WRITING.
And NONE of the apocryphal books were Canonical. They are full of errors and contradict the Canonical books.
Excerpt 1:
There is a difference between the canonicity of a book and the authority of that book. A book's canonicity depends upon its authority. When Paul, for example, writes to the Corinthians, his letter is to be acknowledged as possessing divine authority (I Cor. 14:37) . This letter had authority from the moment he wrote it, yet it could not be referred to as canonical until it was received in a list of accepted writings formed sometime later. At a later time it was accepted as canonical because of its inherent authority. A book first has divine authority based on its inspiration, and then attains canonicity due to its general acceptance as a divine product. No church council by its decrees can make the books of the Bible authoritative. The books of the Bible possess their own authority and indeed had this authority long before there were any councils of the church. The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church completely ignore this important point. (emphasis mine)
Excerpt 2:
As to the New Testament books, not long after they were written they were being read regularly in the church assemblies. They were held in high esteem by early Christians - the words of Jesus and His apostles could not be less authoritative than the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
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.
Facts are facts. Nothing in the word of God has been lost. God has preserved His written word down though the centuries. What we have today is what God intended for us to have.
...the word of God lives and abides forever ... the word of the LORD endures forever. (1 Peter 1:23-25)
As I said, evidence suggests that what we call Ephesians is the letter referred to in Col 4:16. But if it was a different book, it is one of the other letters in the New Testament. Or it was an uninspired letter and not included in the Canon.
Now, I understand that in order to bolster your belief that the book of Mormon is another testament of Christ (and that is blasphemy), you might be inclined to push the idea that God was not able to preserve His word and had to present new revelation at a later time (also blasphemous), but the fact is that the Old and New Testaments are God's completed message to man, and there is no new revelation from God during the church-age.
The books that went into the New Testament Canon were completed as of 96 A.D with the completion of the book of Revelation. I didn't say that the books were all assembled together as we have them today, I said that all of the books which were to be assembled together and which were in circulation shortly after they were written, and which were recognized as having divine authority had been written by 96 A.D. And as of that time, no new Scripture was produced.
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-22-2010 at 12:25 AM..
If the article is true, scripture would have this to say concerning him:
1Ti 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.
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.
Hi Katspur,
Got links to a site(s) with the missing Epistles you mentioned? I'd like to see them..!
Now in order to wriggle out of his dilemma, Mike again refers to the teachings of his God, i mean his authority, the man Scofield.
Here we see mike saying that Ephesians(or Philemon, he cant actually make up his mind about what he believes concerning this) is actually the letter to the Laodiceans, and he seeks to prove it by making another reference to the dualist Heretic Marcion, who taught that the God of the old testament was a separate deity from the God of the new testament. And then he says that not everything taht and heretic believes in necessarily untrue(so long as said belief concurs with his own paradigm).
And he doesn't even try to explain why Paul mentions having written a letter to the Corinthians that preceded the letter we have in the canon known as 1st Corinthians. Obviously there is a letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthians that is no longer extant, and which as far as i know, no one in church history ever even mentions ...
So he uses the argument of the heretic Marcion to establish his explanation for the letter of the Laodiceans, and he completely disregards the mention of an earlier letter to the Corinthians, and then he goes on to act like he has proven something other than the fact that he is flopping around like a fish out of water to make up excuses for the misinformation he is throwing out there to try and prove his argument.
The Epistle we call Ephesians may very well be the letter refered to by Paul in Colossians 4:16. Rather than saying that the letter was to the Laodiceans he simply said ''and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea''. Some ancient manuscripts don't contain the words 'at Ephesus,' and without the city being mentioned in Eph. 1:1, nothing links this letter to Ephesus.
Here is what C. I. Scofield wrote about the book of Ephesians...
Ephesians is the most impersonal of Paul's letters. Indeed the words, ''to the Ephesians,'' are not in the best manuscripts. Colossians 4:16 mentions an epistle to the Laodiceans. It has been conjectured that the letter known as Ephesians is really the Laodicean letter. Possibly it was sent to Ephesus and Laodicea without being addressed to any specific church. The letter would then be ''to the saints and the faithful in Christ Jesus'' anywhere.
This is why God has saved the world. The scriptures are for everyone!
Facts are facts. Nothing in the word of God has been lost. God has preserved His written word down though the centuries. What we have today is what God intended for us to have.
Who says?
...the word of God lives and abides forever ... the word of the LORD endures forever. (1 Peter 1:23-25)
The Bible is the complete word od God, and he did not forget anything from it. That being the case, there is no need for anyone to reveal anything else though prophecy. It's all in the Bible.
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.
...
Thank you!