The Canon of the Bible

Posted in the Bassett Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 14 of14

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jun 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

God's providence gave us the 27 book New Testament Canon, not the church. God, not men decided the canon. This providence does not mean that church leaders were inspired in their selecting the canon, only that God had his eye on the scriptures the whole time and brought about His will to form the Bible we see today!

Click here > http://www.bible.ca/canon.htm
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

JesusCreed wrote:
God's providence gave us the 27 book New Testament Canon, not the church. God, not men decided the canon. This providence does not mean that church leaders were inspired in their selecting the canon, only that God had his eye on the scriptures the whole time and brought about His will to form the Bible we see today!
Click here > http://www.bible.ca/canon.htm
Is Providence the name of God's publishing department. You still don't know how the Bible was created.
Why did he "keep his eye" on scripture for 350 years after Jesus died?
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Bible is the Written inspired and inerrant word of God.

If you recognize Scripture for what it is, youíll see it wasnít intended to be an instructional tool for converts. In fact, not one book of the Bible was written for non-believers. The Old Testament books were written for Jews, the New Testament books for people who already were Christians.

The Bible is not a catechism or a full-scale theological treatise. Just look at the 27 books of the New Testament. You wonít find one that spells out the elements of the faith the way catechisms do or even the way the ancient creeds did. Those 27 books were written for the most part (excepting, for example, the Gospels and the general epistles such as James and, 1 and 2 Peter) as provisional documents addressed to particular audiences for particular purposes.

Most of the epistles,were written to local churches that were experiencing moral and/or doctrinal problems. Paul and most of the other New Testament writers sent letters to these local churches (e.g., 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in order to rectify these problems. There was no attempt on the part of the writers to impart a vast body of basic doctrinal instruction to non-believers nor even to simply summarize everything for the believers who received the letters.
Dave P

Nicholasville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jun 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Have you not read the gospel of John? John blows the cavalry's theory out of the water.
Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

What about the Mormon's 'Golden Bible'?;-)

Who gets credit for it?
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave P wrote:
Have you not read the gospel of John? John blows the cavalry's theory out of the water.
Did you what I wrote?. Nope.

The Gospel of John describes Catholicism perfectly. Real protestant ministers avoid John like the plague and deliberately lie to their congregation.

I like the word cavalry. That is what we are trying to do. Save people. Hopefully you when you try to disprove me , which honest research can't, you will be saved.
Barnsweb

Alliance, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mike Peterson wrote:
The Bible is the Written inspired and inerrant word of God.
If you recognize Scripture for what it is, youíll see it wasnít intended to be an instructional tool for converts. In fact, not one book of the Bible was written for non-believers. The Old Testament books were written for Jews, the New Testament books for people who already were Christians.
The Bible is not a catechism or a full-scale theological treatise. Just look at the 27 books of the New Testament. You wonít find one that spells out the elements of the faith the way catechisms do or even the way the ancient creeds did. Those 27 books were written for the most part (excepting, for example, the Gospels and the general epistles such as James and, 1 and 2 Peter) as provisional documents addressed to particular audiences for particular purposes.
Most of the epistles,were written to local churches that were experiencing moral and/or doctrinal problems. Paul and most of the other New Testament writers sent letters to these local churches (e.g., 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in order to rectify these problems. There was no attempt on the part of the writers to impart a vast body of basic doctrinal instruction to non-believers nor even to simply summarize everything for the believers who received the letters.
We can all tell you lack of understanding the Bible from what you've said here, also you lack of understanding or hearing what Jesus taught. You rely on someone else feeding you doctrinal statements instead of Jesus telling you how to live your life and what the real truth from God is. Even Luke, in writing his researched account, was for the purpose of instruction as a disciple of Jesus. All men are called to be His disciples, so you and I are equally capable to hear and follow Him through the words of God that He spoke.

Perhaps some of the variance in the texts results from the fact that recall in telling stories is not perfect, but can be largely correct to about 90%. It was the original disciples that Jesus said the Holy Spirit would enable them to recall everything He had taught them, so we'd be advised to take the word of Matthew where there may be differences.

The gospel records were sent out early to the Church then expanding in all directions from Jerusalem. One place it was collected and preserved as East. Rome was in the 'West', and received so many books that were not original and spurious that Jerome had to weed them out to avoid confusion and apostasy from the original revelations. The East didn't accept the additions and had no problem maintaining the truth. Rome did. So much for your 'infallible' RCC leadership to be a pillar of the truth in the early days of the Church:-)
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jun 21, 2013
 
Barnsweb wrote:
<quoted text>
We can all tell you lack of understanding the Bible from what you've said here, also you lack of understanding or hearing what Jesus taught. You rely on someone else feeding you doctrinal statements instead of Jesus telling you how to live your life and what the real truth from God is. Even Luke, in writing his researched account, was for the purpose of instruction as a disciple of Jesus. All men are called to be His disciples, so you and I are equally capable to hear and follow Him through the words of God that He spoke.
Perhaps some of the variance in the texts results from the fact that recall in telling stories is not perfect, but can be largely correct to about 90%. It was the original disciples that Jesus said the Holy Spirit would enable them to recall everything He had taught them, so we'd be advised to take the word of Matthew where there may be differences.
The gospel records were sent out early to the Church then expanding in all directions from Jerusalem. One place it was collected and preserved as East. Rome was in the 'West', and received so many books that were not original and spurious that Jerome had to weed them out to avoid confusion and apostasy from the original revelations. The East didn't accept the additions and had no problem maintaining the truth. Rome did. So much for your 'infallible' RCC leadership to be a pillar of the truth in the early days of the Church:-)
Exactly. It was written for the Church for instruction. They completely understood what they meant, If they didn't they could ask the author.

They did not say This is Paul. I am writing this letter to the Bishop of Corinth. You decide what it means.

Wherever the Bishop is there is the Catholic Church.
Dave P

Nicholasville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you what I wrote?. Nope.
The Gospel of John describes Catholicism perfectly. Real protestant ministers avoid John like the plague and deliberately lie to their congregation.
I like the word cavalry. That is what we are trying to do. Save people. Hopefully you when you try to disprove me , which honest research can't, you will be saved.
I read every word you wrote.

"The gospel of John describes catholicism perfectly"- laughable. Honest research and Bible reading proves catholicism is the first and oldest apostasy from the faith once delivered.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
I read every word you wrote.
"The gospel of John describes catholicism perfectly"- laughable. Honest research and Bible reading proves catholicism is the first and oldest apostasy from the faith once delivered.
That's where you go wrong. There is not honest bible reading if you try to interpret it yourself.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's where you go wrong. There is not honest bible reading if you try to interpret it yourself.
This is another assault on the integrity of scripture. Men can and do interpret the bible. The pope does it and he is only a mere man:-)
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
This is another assault on the integrity of scripture. Men can and do interpret the bible. The pope does it and he is only a mere man:-)
What Pope are you talking about?

The interpretation of the bible was done thousands of years ago.

Bobby, whatever you think it means today, is for your personal feelings only.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
What Pope are you talking about?
The interpretation of the bible was done thousands of years ago.
Bobby, whatever you think it means today, is for your personal feelings only.
There never has been a pope. If the scripture is left to interpretation of one man or one group, then if they get it wrong, then whole world has no hope.

The scripture only is the all sufficient guide to salvation, but the catholic church teaches that it is not.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jun 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
There never has been a pope. If the scripture is left to interpretation of one man or one group, then if they get it wrong, then whole world has no hope.
The scripture only is the all sufficient guide to salvation, but the catholic church teaches that it is not.
Jesus promised it would get it right, didn't he? He has so far and its been 2000 years.

We know Protestants can't get it right. There are millions of rights so we know some have it wrong. Who is right?

JC, BW, Dave, William or you? Johnny R whoever he is , is just as right as you.

Father Luther is just as right as you, but you protest him too.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 14 of14
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Bassett Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Bassett People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Bassett News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Bassett
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••