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.
The canon at the time was Genesis to Zechariah. So he was referencing the canon.
What happened to Malachi?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
The Apocryphal books were in their own section. They were not part of the Canon.
Do you mean that they were their own section of the Septuagint? Which Canon are you referring to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Many also consider the RCC to be heretical. Do you? We can play this "many people think" game all day. But it isn't a good way to debate a topic.
But you made absolute statements that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
...but it's never been considered "God-breathed" as the rest of Scripture
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
It was not considered Scripture.
I was merely countering your absolute statements to say that it has indeed been considered Scripture dating from very early on in the Church. You can argue that those people were wrong, but to say that it has "never been considered Scripture" is just false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
And the Apocryphal books were not Scripture.
But you said the books were not added until Trent. That's historically false, as the books were included as early as Hippo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
And they added the books in.
???
What is your view on Hippo and Carthage? Trent didn't just come up with a list out of thin air. Trent was drawing on longstanding Tradition when it promulgated its canon.
It was there. They were just in a different order.
Quote:
Do you mean that they were their own section of the Septuagint? Which Canon are you referring to?
In Jerome's Bible they were grouped separately. I'm honestly not sure of the Septuagint
Quote:
But you made absolute statements that:
and
I was merely countering your absolute statements to say that it has indeed been considered Scripture dating from very early on in the Church. You can argue that those people were wrong, but to say that it has "never been considered Scripture" is just false.
Show me a canon that considered the Apocrypha to be Scripture. I'm not aware of one. They were never a part of Scripture.
Quote:
But you said the books were not added until Trent. That's historically false, as the books were included as early as Hippo.
Yes. Jerome did include them as an appendix in his translation.
Quote:
???
What is your view on Hippo and Carthage? Trent didn't just come up with a list out of thin air. Trent was drawing on longstanding Tradition when it promulgated its canon.
[/quote]
Trent codified them as part of the Canon. They weren't prior to that.
[quote]
Show me a canon that considered the Apocrypha to be Scripture. I'm not aware of one. They were never a part of Scripture.
Quote:
Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.
Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.
The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.
There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible.
The subject of forming a canon is interesting. It does have an impact upon every individual's life. When we are new, we look at those sorts of things. We continue in a tradition, after that we have learned it. Some of us aren't satisfied with that. I think, when we aren't, the first thing we tend to do is consult another way, that also has this sort of thinking built into it. We can't escape it.
It's about trying to find wisdom. We are trying to find something that we can take at its word. We want solidity. It's just like science, in that when you do a thing a certain way every time you should get a corresponding result. Today, we have learned to conduct experiments to find truth. When they were in the garden, they said they were naked because they suddenly didn't have any wisdom. They had gotten that from the indwelling Spirit, Yahweh. When they ate from the tree, He left them. He didn't think He was an "experiment."
So, the finding of a word of God, a bible, to help us with wisdom is not unexpected. I think we can lean too heavily upon it, though. Is the written word actually equal to God? Imagine being God in some circles. You could never say anything.
There are three sides to every argument. The two sides involved, and the truth. I think, when we have a bible that is made up mostly of interpretation, it can be difficult to see which side you are on.
Establishing a relationship with the Holy Spirit is difficult. You do that with faith. Reading is a work. Understanding the nature of God, and, therefore, ourselves, takes faith. It especially takes not coming at God with your own point of view, except when He asks for it. He will ask you for all kinds of different reasons. He usually asks me when he knows I am wrong, and he wants to use our conversation about it to prove it to me. I usually listen to Him, but I can be stubborn. Parts of me are "programmed" and always come back with the same basic position that, by now, I know is wrong. For faith is about seeing God for who He is. Yahweh's actions demonstrated that. It is usually that His answers are all of gentleness and loving kindness put out in such a manner that it is perplexing how He did that. I just couldn't see how that could be done, and thought some much tougher implementation was necessary. The word is not violated simply because we can't see how it could possibly be fulfilled.
Last edited by Am I a Prophet; 10-13-2021 at 04:14 AM..
Reason: the writing process
Then what they believed is irrelevant, as those were God's words. Since the earth is not flat, obviously He meant something else right?
You won't understand this but the ancient Hebrews believed that the earth was flat, was supported on pillars, and that the firmament was a solid dome over the flat earth. That was the general belief in the ancient Near East. This is reflected in the Bible. God didn't bother to correct their cosmology and it wasn't necessary to do so. He communicated to the ancient Hebrews what was important for them to know without having to give them a correct understanding of the cosmos.
For all you Protestants out there, how do you know that the Bible is of divine inspiration? I am not talking about literal inerrancy here, although if you do believe that, you can also say why you believe that.
I just read a debate among ELCA Lutheran ministers on this subject. One insisted that only parts of the Bible were divinely-inspired — the meaningful parts, the parts that contain the core of God’s message — and the rest is just human. But then, we have humans deciding what the core of God’s message is — what is divinely inspired and what is not — which seems odd and logically-flawed to me.
Thanks!
The Holy Spirit (God's network) shows us this.
Without God, life is a dirty trick.
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.
