The Canon of Scripture

Posted in the Fieldale Forum

Comments (Page 6)

Showing posts 101 - 120 of364
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110
Sep 11, 2013
 
In the early years after the resurrection of Christ there was no need for written records. Those who evangelized and taught were eye witnesses. They had seen and heard the Lord teach. There was no need for verification by written records. As more and more eyewitnesses died it became apparent written records were needed.

The Church always had doctrine and theology that was based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the earliest preaching of His followers. The Catholic Church did not come up with them, they were already in circulation. It [THE BIBLE] was NOT AN AUTHORIZED COLLECTION OF BOOKS, BUT A COLLECTION OF AUTHORIZED BOOKS. The books became canonical long after they were considered authoritative. All the books of the New Testament were revered by the early church even before the formation of the canon.

Peter asserts “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation”. This expression does not refer to the reading of Scripture but rather its authorship. This is true because “prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”.

The use of the plural personal pronouns makes it apparent this is applicable to the Old and New Testaments because they were written by holy men moved of the Holy Spirit who were eyewitnesses who had heard Christ teach.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
Sep 11, 2013
 
William wrote:
This place is like a college football message board.
"Your team sucks!"
"No, YOUR team sucks!"
I can truthfully say, my team sucks.
Kentucky, 2-10, 0-8 in the SEC. Book it.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Answering Catholics wrote:
In the early years after the resurrection of Christ there was no need for written records. Those who evangelized and taught were eye witnesses. They had seen and heard the Lord teach. There was no need for verification by written records. As more and more eyewitnesses died it became apparent written records were needed.
The Church always had doctrine and theology that was based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the earliest preaching of His followers. The Catholic Church did not come up with them, they were already in circulation. It [THE BIBLE] was NOT AN AUTHORIZED COLLECTION OF BOOKS, BUT A COLLECTION OF AUTHORIZED BOOKS. The books became canonical long after they were considered authoritative. All the books of the New Testament were revered by the early church even before the formation of the canon.
Peter asserts “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation”. This expression does not refer to the reading of Scripture but rather its authorship. This is true because “prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”.
The use of the plural personal pronouns makes it apparent this is applicable to the Old and New Testaments because they were written by holy men moved of the Holy Spirit who were eyewitnesses who had heard Christ teach.
This is complete anti-Catholic propaganda as demonstrated my his alias.

Ignorant of history and the use of the man made doctrine of SS to interpret the Bible.

What is your definition of Church? The COC which was started in 1800 by a former Baptist or whatever he was.
William

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113
Sep 11, 2013
 
"I can truthfully say, my team sucks. Kentucky, 2-10, 0-8 in the SEC. Book it."

Stoops is building a nice team. Patience.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
This is complete anti-Catholic propaganda as demonstrated my his alias.
Ignorant of history and the use of the man made doctrine of SS to interpret the Bible.
What is your definition of Church? The COC which was started in 1800 by a former Baptist or whatever he was.
The Ecclesia [Church] is not the building or an institution but the people.

The Bible says the Church; which are people, is the pillar and ground of truth. The people are supposed to declare the word of God, that is our authority, without upholding the inspired Scriptures a Church is no longer the pillar of truth.

1 Timothy 3:15:“but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Paul is conveying the purpose of the Church is to uphold the truth that was already given to her.

This is the main purpose of the church – to continue to teach the doctrine the apostles were given by Christ. The pillar is not the foundation, nor is it the truth but upholds the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15 is not saying it is the Church that is the truth, as often used by Roman Catholics.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Answering Catholics wrote:
<quoted text>
The Ecclesia [Church] is not the building or an institution but the people.
The Bible says the Church; which are people, is the pillar and ground of truth. The people are supposed to declare the word of God, that is our authority, without upholding the inspired Scriptures a Church is no longer the pillar of truth.
1 Timothy 3:15:“but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
Paul is conveying the purpose of the Church is to uphold the truth that was already given to her.
This is the main purpose of the church – to continue to teach the doctrine the apostles were given by Christ. The pillar is not the foundation, nor is it the truth but upholds the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15 is not saying it is the Church that is the truth, as often used by Roman Catholics.
Show me one Christian who believed what you just wrote between AD 100 and 1520.

I would love to read his writings.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me one Christian who believed what you just wrote between AD 100 and 1520.
I would love to read his writings.
This is the same question ask by the prophets to God whom answered and said that he had reserved for himself a people although the prophets did not see those people.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

JustChristian wrote:
<quoted text>This is the same question ask by the prophets to God whom answered and said that he had reserved for himself a people although the prophets did not see those people.
So your answer in plain english is there isn't one.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The books that now comprise the New Testament were recognized by different Christian communities. It wasn’t until 367 A.D. that the 27 books of the New Testament were listed in a letter written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.

Apart from Athanasius, Jerome, about 385 A.D., recognized the same 27 books in his translation of the Latin Vulgate. The councils of Hippo and Carthage
independently acknowledge the New Testament as now known as Canonical. This was not done at the Council of Nicea as some popular writers indicate.

Between 200 and 400 A.D., there were 10 independent catalogues of Canonical books published. Six of these agree with our New Testament and three omit only one book. The point is, there was general acceptance of the books that were eventually formally accepted long before the canon was confirmed officially.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The apostles wrote down the words inspired by the Holy Spirit through the entire New Testament. This is widely accepted, even Catholics accept this. Now, ask yourself, at what point did those words become the word of God? If you answered at the point God inspired them via the Holy Spirit, you are correct. The moment the Holy Spirit directed their words, their epistles because THE WORD OF GOD. In short, the Catholic Church has squat to do with original authorship. All the books of the New Testament were revered by the early church even before the formation of the canon.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Answering Catholics wrote:
The apostles wrote down the words inspired by the Holy Spirit through the entire New Testament. This is widely accepted, even Catholics accept this. Now, ask yourself, at what point did those words become the word of God? If you answered at the point God inspired them via the Holy Spirit, you are correct. The moment the Holy Spirit directed their words, their epistles because THE WORD OF GOD. In short, the Catholic Church has squat to do with original authorship. All the books of the New Testament were revered by the early church even before the formation of the canon.
Fist of all, Jesus started 1 Church. It has to be the CC because it was the only one for 1520.

Where does it say in the Bible, other than the Apocalypse of John, that it is the word of God?

It doesn't. The Church decided it. Couldn't be a Protestant Church. That heresy was 1.5 millennium away.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Answering Catholics wrote:
The books that now comprise the New Testament were recognized by different Christian communities. It wasn’t until 367 A.D. that the 27 books of the New Testament were listed in a letter written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.
Apart from Athanasius, Jerome, about 385 A.D., recognized the same 27 books in his translation of the Latin Vulgate. The councils of Hippo and Carthage
independently acknowledge the New Testament as now known as Canonical. This was not done at the Council of Nicea as some popular writers indicate.
Between 200 and 400 A.D., there were 10 independent catalogues of Canonical books published. Six of these agree with our New Testament and three omit only one book. The point is, there was general acceptance of the books that were eventually formally accepted long before the canon was confirmed officially.
Only the 4 Gospels and the episltes of Paul, and Acts were pretty much generally agreed upon, from the times there were written and read at Mass for those Churches who get a copy.

The rest that made the canon and the 6 or 7 that almost made and didn't was hotly dispute for a few hundred years.

Then there were hundreds more being circulated that were false, similar to all the protestant communities today, that were being read at Mass in some Churches.

The Council in Rome finally decided what books the Bible would contain and declared them inspired and inerrant.

The ones that didn't make it but was contested is still today considered valuable reading, like the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and more.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Answering Catholics wrote:
In the early years after the resurrection of Christ there was no need for written records. Those who evangelized and taught were eye witnesses. They had seen and heard the Lord teach. There was no need for verification by written records. As more and more eyewitnesses died it became apparent written records were needed.
The Church always had doctrine and theology that was based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the earliest preaching of His followers. The Catholic Church did not come up with them, they were already in circulation. It [THE BIBLE] was NOT AN AUTHORIZED COLLECTION OF BOOKS, BUT A COLLECTION OF AUTHORIZED BOOKS. The books became canonical long after they were considered authoritative. All the books of the New Testament were revered by the early church even before the formation of the canon.
Peter asserts “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation”. This expression does not refer to the reading of Scripture but rather its authorship. This is true because “prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”.
The use of the plural personal pronouns makes it apparent this is applicable to the Old and New Testaments because they were written by holy men moved of the Holy Spirit who were eyewitnesses who had heard Christ teach.
Dumb POS you are! Catholics could care less about asking you questions or answering any you might copy and paste from a cult website. By whose authority do you even come up with such preposterous nonsense? Cracks me up!

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Answering Catholics wrote:
The books that now comprise the New Testament were recognized by different Christian communities. It wasn’t until 367 A.D. that the 27 books of the New Testament were listed in a letter written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.
Apart from Athanasius, Jerome, about 385 A.D., recognized the same 27 books in his translation of the Latin Vulgate. The councils of Hippo and Carthage
independently acknowledge the New Testament as now known as Canonical. This was not done at the Council of Nicea as some popular writers indicate.
Between 200 and 400 A.D., there were 10 independent catalogues of Canonical books published. Six of these agree with our New Testament and three omit only one book. The point is, there was general acceptance of the books that were eventually formally accepted long before the canon was confirmed officially.
And your credentials to assert these statements are.....or did you just copy and paste from your usual cultic swamp?
ROMAN Catholic Sproul

Manassas, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124
Sep 11, 2013
 
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
And your credentials to assert these statements are.....or did you just copy and paste from your usual cultic swamp?
You must keep in mind this deranged fellow is confused as to who you are. He thinks I am using a different name. He is rather sad and confused.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125
Sep 11, 2013
 
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
And your credentials to assert these statements are.....or did you just copy and paste from your usual cultic swamp?
How about you answer what the other CAT couldn't. Stop chasing rabbits.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#126
Sep 11, 2013
 
Time for work CATs. I will check back here tomorrow.
Barnsweb

Louisville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#127
Sep 12, 2013
 
Answering Catholics wrote:
In the early years after the resurrection of Christ there was no need for written records. Those who evangelized and taught were eye witnesses. They had seen and heard the Lord teach. There was no need for verification by written records. As more and more eyewitnesses died it became apparent written records were needed.
The Church always had doctrine and theology that was based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the earliest preaching of His followers. The Catholic Church did not come up with them, they were already in circulation. It [THE BIBLE] was NOT AN AUTHORIZED COLLECTION OF BOOKS, BUT A COLLECTION OF AUTHORIZED BOOKS. The books became canonical long after they were considered authoritative. All the books of the New Testament were revered by the early church even before the formation of the canon.
Peter asserts “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation”. This expression does not refer to the reading of Scripture but rather its authorship. This is true because “prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”.
The use of the plural personal pronouns makes it apparent this is applicable to the Old and New Testaments because they were written by holy men moved of the Holy Spirit who were eyewitnesses who had heard Christ teach.
"All the books of the New Testament were revered by the early church even before the formation of the canon."?

Not really so, but I understand your zeal to support what you currently believe to be Scripture. The earliest Church was the Church in Jerusalem with the Apostles and James.. Matthew was the first addition to Scripture, as the record before the destruction of Jerusalem only included what of what the Twelve wrote, which in 67 AD was Matthew. Paul's writings were excluded.

The first heresy was to believe Paul had the gospel and subjugate what Jesus and the twelve said as secondary. It took till about 400 AD for the first 'Paulinists' to die off - only to be resurrected in our day of deceit and unfaithfulness. As Jesus said,'Will the Son of man find faith upon the earth when He returns?'(paraphrased)
Barnsweb

Louisville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128
Sep 12, 2013
 
I'm still learning more, but whatever date the records of the 'The Poor' were, they predated the fall of Jerusalem. Checking further, seems Revelation could also predate 70 AD. The principle was 'The Torah, Psalms, Prophets and the Lord.' They didn't equate themselves of any status, as they were only messengers of the Lord and doing what He told them to do. None of them was above another, but all put Jesus as the Master Teacher to be Redeemer, Lord and King.

Jesus did preach the kingdom of God. The kingdom of priests who serve their God faithfully and carefully and from their hearts - to do whatever the will of the King may be, which we should know as loving God as He desires of us and loving each other as Jesus exampled His love towards us - "as I have loved you".

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Barnsweb wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really so, but I understand your zeal to support what you currently believe to be Scripture. The earliest Church was the Church in Jerusalem with the Apostles and James.. Matthew was the first addition to Scripture, as the record before the destruction of Jerusalem only included what of what the Twelve wrote, which in 67 AD was Matthew. Paul's writings were excluded.
The first heresy was to believe Paul had the gospel and subjugate what Jesus and the twelve said as secondary. It took till about 400 AD for the first 'Paulinists' to die off - only to be resurrected in our day of deceit and unfaithfulness. As Jesus said,'Will the Son of man find faith upon the earth when He returns?'(paraphrased)
Yes really so. I was not saying all of the books of the NT were out from the outset. That took time. They were out before the Catholic Church claims to brithed them, however. That was all that I meant.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 101 - 120 of364
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

Other Recent Fieldale Discussions

Search the Fieldale Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Peter was not a Pope 4 hr Bobby 44
VA VA Property Tax Exemption for Veterans, Question 2 (Oct '10) 7 hr James 2,541
Transubstantiation is a Catholic lie 19 hr Mike_Peterson 16
Sola Scriptura (Jun '13) 19 hr Mike_Peterson 70
Origin of the Roman Catholic Church 20 hr Mike_Peterson 28
Chosen by God Fri Roman Catholic Sproul 37
Catholic Priest cannot forgive sins Fri Mike_Peterson 6
•••
•••
•••
Fieldale Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Fieldale Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Fieldale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Fieldale News, Events & Info

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

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••