|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/29/2009 2:54:17 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
As a Lutheran I take the approach of Martin Luther, who did not let any earthly council or church father tell him what is the Word of God, nor did he put it anywhere in the Lutheran Confessions a list of the 66 books we must accept as the Bible. He looked for himself at the reasons why people have accepted or rejected the books, he listened to the church's forefathers but didn't let them dictate what must be, then he left the rest to faith.
Respectfully, if you are a modern Lutheran, you believe that Luther got it wrong. Or perhaps you have ripped a few Epistles out of your Bible.
Assuming you disagree about Luther's conclusions with James, Jude, Revelation, etc., are you saying that he wasn't placing his faith in God?
Your argument doesn't really make much sense to me. It sounds like you are saying "You just need to have faith in God, not any other human authorities." Okay. That's great. But that doesn't tell me or you which books are God-breathed and therefore contain the doctrine/teachings/applications/etc. that I should be believing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/29/2009 2:58:44 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Furthermore, as I stated before, please tell me how you know what essential Christian doctrine is WITHOUT the canon. Please tell me how you know that you are saved and going to heaven!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/29/2009 3:13:25 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
That's my point exactly.
I believe in Justification by Faith Alone, through Christ alone. However, this belief comes from many passages in Scripture that provide a clear and consistent teaching. However, this believe comes with an a priori assumption of the canon.
I created the thread and I asked a question. You can dodge my question all you want, provide your own questions, and belittle my concerns, but at the end of the day, I have questions. If you can provide answers, then post. If not, don't. That simple.
So back to my questions:
How do you know what Essential Christian Doctrine is without knowing what the Canon is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/29/2009 4:05:23 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is mysticism. Oh come on, Bt! I'll ask you the same questions - are there any contradictions written about Jesus in the 66 Books? Is there anything that contradicts Jesus' teachings written outside the Bible? The witnesses' credibility is unquestionably (except by rhpmike) verified by all their internal consistencies!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/29/2009 4:28:14 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2938
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
This is mysticism. Oh come on, Bt! I'll ask you the same questions - are there any contradictions written about Jesus in the 66 Books? Is there anything that contradicts Jesus' teachings written outside the Bible? The witnesses' credibility is unquestionably (except by rhpmike) verified by all their internal consistencies!
To be fair,rhpmike is not the only one who questions the current canon. I am rather comfortable with it myself, but I am secure enough in my faith to entertain questions. I also, have a ways of verfying what is and is not Scripture without resorting to blind faith.
Unfortunately, ther are many even in these forums who do believe Yeshua's teachings contradict other portions of Scripture. I believe these are misunderstandings of what the Scriptures actually say. Of course, one can not adequately deal with these questions, if one does not allow the Scriptures to be questioned.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/29/2009 9:12:45 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
Drmark,
You have been exceedingly unhelpful in every regard. To suggest I'm the only person who has ever had issues with the canon is to be ignorant of history or to simply lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance.
Frankman,
Thank you for your helpful words. Allow me to interact with your comments:
quote:
The entire N.T. is written by Apostles or (like Dr. Luke ) who knew an Apostle, thus giving them Apostolic authority because they were first hand witnesses to the fact of the resurrection of Christ.
Two immediate questions:
1) How do you know that the author of Hebrews was an apostle or knew an apostle, since we do not know who wrote the book.
2) How does knowing an apostle validate the writings as Scripture? What about other writings by people who knew apostles? Do those count?
quote:
Thus the added Catholic Church books (like the Apocryphal) and we can add for argument sake "The Book of Mormon" and the "Qur`an" to this list as not being inspired by God because
I thought we were talking about the NT canon? Furthermore, to put the apocryphal books on par with the book of mormon and the qur'an is amazing.
quote:
-they were not written by Apostles or Prophets during the 1st century who were eye-witnesses of the resurrection of Christ or who knew these Apostles personally.
Of course the apocryphal books weren't written by anyone in the 1st century. They were written BEFORE. Therefore, none of your NT criterion work here. Are you suggesting that every OT book was written by a Prophet??
quote:
-Their work was never confirmed by miracles.
-They have brought to light no new supernatural prophecies.
Are you saying every OT book was confirmed by miracles?? Esther? Ecclesiastes? I'm clearly confused here.
quote:
-Most of the major early Church fathers rejected them.
That is unquestionably false. Most Jews did indeed reject the apocrypha (at least the Palestinian school), but MANY MANY early Christians did accept these writings, including some of the same councils from which we first see our 27book NT described.
quote:
-They contain many false teachings and errors.
This is begging the question. For if we considered the book to be inspired, we'd have to accept the teachings as true and therefore they would no longer be false. Furthermore, there are historical books in the Apocrypha(1Macc., for example) that do not seem to have errors / false teachings.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/31/2009 11:13:14 AM
|
|
|
frankman
Posts: 240
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhpmike
Two immediate questions:
1) How do you know that the author of Hebrews was an apostle or knew an apostle, since we do not know who wrote the book.
2) How does knowing an apostle validate the writings as Scripture? What about other writings by people who knew apostles? Do those count?
 Very thoughtful questions. First of all remember the doctrine of the Christian faith is based on the foundation of the apostles and prophets teaching according to Eph..2:20. So the first criteria had to be that the writers were legitimate by being first hand witnesses to the resurrection of Christ, or people who knew the apostles who were first hand witnesses, like in the case of Dr. Luke. All N.T. writers fit this category to our knowledge, except Hebrews who`s authorship is in doubt.
At first the Book of Hebrews was never in question in the East because they considered it Pauline. The West was uncertain of its authorship so it took them a little longer to except it. However in the 4th century through the influence of the Jerome and Augustine the west finally recognized the epistle as canonical. Even though its authorship is uncertain it does meet the other correct tests of canonicity like
-These tests are to confirm the Book tells the truth about God, men, etc..
-That these Books were historically accepted by the people of God.
-came from the authority of God.
-Did have the power of God to change lives.
The Book of Hebrews apparently passed the test even though we`re not sure who wrote it.
The second criteria was were these apostles confirmed as from God by their miracles. (2 Cor.12:12) We know Peter. Paul and the other disciples did miracles. What miracles did Joseph Smith or Muhammed ever do?
The Apocrypha books were written between 250 B.C. and 150 A.D.. So you have both an O.T. and N.T. Apocrypha. The O.T. Apocrypha was never accepted by Judaism as inspired. Jesus accepted and confirmed the entire Jewish canon of our day O.T. by referring to the Law and the Prophets, but never once quoted from the O.T. Apocrypha.
Even though 11 of these books were accepted by some to be canonical, the testimony of the Church in general, as well as the final canonical decision reveals that their judgment was faulty. Perhaps mainly because they had as alleged apostolic authorship meaning "from the Apostolic Age" rather than from an Apostle giving them apostolic authority to be canonical.
As you mentioned 1 Maccabees may not contain errors, but that still doesn`t make it canonical. Some of these were books of good quality and integrity which had a local and temporary acceptance, although they were never widely nor finally considered to be canonical. However the book of 2 Maccabees does have errors as 2 Macc.12:46 speaks of prayers for the dead, which by the way Luther also opposed in his 95 theses. How convenient it was for the "Council of Trent" to approve Maccabees as canonical in 1546, but guess what, it did not fly. Isa.40:8 states "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of God stands forever."  I guess these books didn`t meet God`s forever test from a canonical point of view.
_____________________________
"Is not My word like fire,` declares the LORD, `and like a hammer that breaks a rock in peaces?" Jeremiah 23:29
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/31/2009 4:08:30 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
At first the Book of Hebrews was never in question in the East because they considered it Pauline. The West was uncertain of its authorship so it took them a little longer to except it. However in the 4th century through the influence of the Jerome and Augustine the west finally recognized the epistle as canonical. Even though its authorship is uncertain it does meet the other correct tests of canonicity like
Exactly. It was accepted based upon its alleged Pauling authorship. Now that this is strongly in doubt (I'd say impossible), I think it is more than fair to reconsider this.
So your remaining tests are very problematic for me:
quote:
-These tests are to confirm the Book tells the truth about God, men, etc..
I agree that it tells the truth about God, etc., but so does a John Piper sermon that I just finished.
quote:
-That these Books were historically accepted by the people of God.
Hebrews has been doubted quite a bit (especially in the western branch). Furthermore, as has been stated already, the early church accepted it primarily with a false understanding (namely, that Paul had written it).
quote:
-came from the authority of God.
And how are we to know this? It reads like a sermon, and so does carry an authoritative weight, but this is similar to many extra-biblical sermons.
quote:
-Did have the power of God to change lives.
Well I don't really know how we judge this. If I go to a college campus, I'm pretty sure that most people will tell me that "4 Spiritual Laws" has been used by God to change their lives more than Hebrews.
quote:
The second criteria was were these apostles confirmed as from God by their miracles. (2 Cor.12:12) We know Peter. Paul and the other disciples did miracles. What miracles did Joseph Smith or Muhammed ever do?
This is circular because we know of the miracles from the Bible and not from secondary sources. Second, I didn't ask about Smith or Muhammaed, but followers of both actually have claimed miracles. The same criterion that we use to invalidate their claims actually invalidates our own.
Further, what miracles did the author of Hebrews perform??
quote:
The Apocrypha books were written between 250 B.C. and 150 A.D.. So you have both an O.T. and N.T. Apocrypha. The O.T. Apocrypha was never accepted by Judaism as inspired. Jesus accepted and confirmed the entire Jewish canon of our day O.T. by referring to the Law and the Prophets, but never once quoted from the O.T. Apocrypha.
The NT apocrypha is irrelevant to me. The OT Apocrypha, however, is not. It is true that the Palestinian Jews (reflected in Josephus' writings) did not accept them, but does that seal the deal? Some Jews still accepted them. Further, we take the Early church's word on the NT but not the OT? This is peculiar to me.
quote:
Even though 11 of these books were accepted by some to be canonical, the testimony of the Church in general, as well as the final canonical decision reveals that their judgment was fault
Many of the Early church fathers and councils accepted these books. Augustine, whom you cited as an authority when talking about Hebrews, for example, accepted the Apocryphal writings. The same early councils that give us our 27 NT books also included/accepted the apocypha. Sure, some Early Fathers and Councils did not accept them, but it is misleading to suggest that the early church rejected them.
quote:
As you mentioned 1 Maccabees may not contain errors, but that still doesn`t make it canonical. Some of these were books of good quality and integrity which had a local and temporary acceptance, although they were never widely nor finally considered to be canonical. However the book of 2 Maccabees does have errors as 2 Macc.12:46 speaks of prayers for the dead, which by the way Luther also opposed in his 95 theses. How convenient it was for the "Council of Trent" to approve Maccabees as canonical in 1546, but guess what, it did not fly. Isa.40:8 states "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of God stands forever." I guess these books didn`t meet God`s forever test from a canonical point of view.
That is not a factual error but a theological error. The problem with theological error is that it is circular reasoning for a Protestant because correct doctrine comes from the Bible. If the book were in the bible, we would not call it a theological error. Luther also opposed James in his reformation. Wasn't it just as "convenient" for the Council of Trent to approve James as it was to approve Maccabees?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/31/2009 4:10:11 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think it is more than fair to reconsider this. Identify one passage in Hebrews that contradicts essential Christian doctrine and I will personally rip the Book out of my Bible.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/31/2009 4:23:09 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
I recently sewed the Nicene Creed into my Bible and called in Romans 17.
Identify one stanza that contradicts essential Christian doctrine and I will personally rip the passage out of my Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/31/2009 5:14:19 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I recently sewed the Nicene Creed into my Bible and called in Romans 17. Then you have a much more serious problem than worrying about the Canon of Scripture - Rev 22:18!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/31/2009 5:27:27 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
Wow.
I am going to respectfully ask you not to post in this thread anymore since you have been of absolutely no help and I genuinely believe you aren't even attempting to be helpful. Your antagonistic, sarcastic, belittling attitude is not Christ-like and I sincerely hope that nobody ever has to rely solely on you for their struggles with God's Word.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/31/2009 6:32:43 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4627
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
I'm sorry that you have taken offense at my comments, rhpmike. They were intended to be helpful, but I genuinely believe that you are not really interested in being helped with your perceived issue of canonicity. I will pray that others posting here may be able to provide what God would have you learn and understand about His Word. God bless!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/31/2009 7:13:54 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4575
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
Also, you are correct that the author of II Peter calls Paul's writings Graphe (which is a semi-technical term for Scripture). I'm willing to say that whoever the author is (90% of Scholars say it is not Peter) did believe that whatever Epistles of Paul that they had (certainly possible they did not have them all already) were Scripture.
The idea that 90% of scholars reject Peter's authorship of "2 Peter" is a gross exaggeration. There are many notable scholars who believe Peter to be the author and support an early date for this book.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 1/31/2009 7:43:38 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2938
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I recently sewed the Nicene Creed into my Bible and called in Romans 17. Then you have a much more serious problem than worrying about the Canon of Scripture - Rev 22:18!
The canon was not established at the time of the writing of the revelation, therefore this verse can not possibly be refering to the 66 books used in the KJV. It must be refering only to the book of the revelation.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/1/2009 2:06:21 AM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The idea that 90% of scholars reject Peter's authorship of "2 Peter" is a gross exaggeration. There are many notable scholars who believe Peter to be the author and support an early date for this book.
I do not believe this is an exaggeration.
First, the only scholars I've ever heard who argue this point are Evangelicals. Do you know of a non-Evangelical who holds to this view?
Second, even some Evangelicals reject Petrine authorship (or at the very least many allow for the possibility of non-pretrine authorship).
That being said, since there is at least a 9:1 ration of non-Evangelical Biblical scholars to Evangelical Biblical scholars, it seems very easy to argue for a 90% number.
Again, I'm not sure where it is you disagree.
Even if we say that 2Pet is by Peter (and then make the logical leap that it is therefore canonical) it still does not address issues with books with unknown authors (Hebrews is the obvious NT example).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/1/2009 2:08:07 AM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
but I genuinely believe that you are not really interested in being helped with your perceived issue of canonicity.
Yeah. That's why I came back to these forums for the first time in over 2 years ... so that I could talk about an issue that I was not interested in being helped with.
Perhaps I'm dying for answers that are convincing, but heartbroken that I don't get any.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/1/2009 4:25:26 AM
|
|
|
Aner
Posts: 23
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline
|
Mike,
I appreciated your frustration with the Dark poster - I felt the same spirit that you did.
More important - I feel the same sense of uncertainty that you do. After spending 30 years with the Bible, I have far more issues with it than I did when I was ignorant of it -fancy that.
As far as "Evangelical" goes - I don't think that is an identity that I want to maintain for myself - we are not called to identify with anyone except Christ.
I think there are legitimate issues concerning the texts that we are reading today on many levels. HOWEVER, I don't think that it is ultimately very relevant whether ANY of the NT texts are "canon" in God's eyes - Abraham, Melchizedek and Enoch all did VERY well walking with God - long before I,II,III Jn told us the exact same things we all should know anyway.
I will note that I believe if we are genuinely honest, there has to be a recognition that certain writers genuinely believed that Jesus was coming essentially in their life times - and did not reflect any waiting for 2,000 years. I know that those whose careers are vested in the Bible will try to explain away these statements - but I don't believe they are being honest with the plain meaning of the text.
Again - it does not matter - what matters is - is Jesus Christ alive. Period. Presumably this reality is something that the Holy Spirit has created within you and is not subjected to your convictions about the Bible. Likewise - have you fully submitted to Him.
Regardless of all this - I greatly enjoy and am benefited by reading the Bible (usually). Sometimes I do wonder about books - I have read through Jude a few times - and while I generally understand it, I find that it does not hold the same kind of meaningfulness as say some of the writing in Job. The fact is that there were MANY Christian and semi-Christian writing that has come down that is very good - and edifying.
I submit all these things to the Lord.
Best,
Aner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/1/2009 2:46:37 PM
|
|
|
Aner
Posts: 23
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Then you have a much more serious problem than worrying about the Canon of Scripture - Rev 22:18!
Hi Dr - I will get it straight - it was a lot of reading to get to this point.
To clarify my thought on Rev 22:18 - I believe that is specifically related to the Book of Rev (not the whole Bible - no reason to believe that). Additionally, I think this was kind of a common literary device that ancient authors used to try to protect what they thought were important words from being changed by subsquent transcription of the text.
Does this make sense?
Best,
Aner
_____________________________
I seek my integrity over my ideology.
Suspension of belief is essential for creation of truth - and genuine submission to Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/1/2009 3:50:46 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I believe that is specifically related to the Book of Rev
Yes. It must be limited to Revelation. If we can rule out the Nicene Creed because of Rev. then we'd probably have to rule out Rev. based on passages like Deut 4:2 and similar passages.
And Aner, thank you for your kind words and sympathies. To be honest, on a lot of days I wish I could go back to being ignorant. Some people think that having a degree in Biblical Studies from a well known Evangelical school must mean that I know all of the answers to all of the questions. To be perfectly honest, I have many more questions now than I did before I was educated.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/1/2009 5:02:11 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4575
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhpmike
quote:
The idea that 90% of scholars reject Peter's authorship of "2 Peter" is a gross exaggeration. There are many notable scholars who believe Peter to be the author and support an early date for this book.
I do not believe this is an exaggeration.
First, the only scholars I've ever heard who argue this point are Evangelicals. Do you know of a non-Evangelical who holds to this view?
Second, even some Evangelicals reject Petrine authorship (or at the very least many allow for the possibility of non-pretrine authorship).
That being said, since there is at least a 9:1 ration of non-Evangelical Biblical scholars to Evangelical Biblical scholars, it seems very easy to argue for a 90% number.
Again, I'm not sure where it is you disagree.
First, a 9:1 ratio of non-evangelical to Evangelical scholars is preposterous; second there are many non-evangelical scholars who still accept Peter's authorship. Most have religious backgrounds with other churches (like the Catholic church). Yes, there are many scholars who reject Petrine authorship, but there are many who do not. And I think it should be recognized that many of the scholars who have rejected Petrine authorship in the last couple of centuries are the same scholars who had claimed the the biblical books of the OT that we have today didn't take form until the 3rd or 4th Century CE. Some of these scholars died rejecting the validity of the DSS because that discovery contradicted a theory that they were positive could not be in error; history has shown that they were wrong.
quote:
Even if we say that 2Pet is by Peter (and then make the logical leap that it is therefore canonical) it still does not address issues with books with unknown authors (Hebrews is the obvious NT example).
You are correct, acceptance of Petrine authorship of 1 & 2 Peter does not resolve the difficulties with the authorship of books like Hebrews. Some amount of trust in the early church is required to accept the NT canon. I would encourage you to read more of the work from more conservative scholars as you read the arguments they have put forth in support of the canon we use today, I believe that you will find that not only can compelling arguments be made for accepting our canon, but you will also discover that there really are many more scholars who do trust the cannon we have compared to the small minority you now believe hold that view.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/1/2009 5:18:05 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
First, a 9:1 ratio of non-evangelical to Evangelical scholars is preposterous
Right. I get that you believe this, but I don't really see much support for this. Compare, for example, the scope of ETS conferences with SBL conferences, and you will see the overwhelming disparity.
quote:
Yes, there are many scholars who reject Petrine authorship, but there are many who do not.
Agreed. I think it is a 9:1 ratio, you might think it is 2:1. Either way, we agree that a lot reject it and some accept it. I find the majority view to be more persuasive, but you are within your right to find the other arguments more persuasive.
quote:
And I think it should be recognized that many of the scholars who have rejected Petrine authorship in the last couple of centuries are the same scholars who had claimed the the biblical books of the OT that we have today didn't take form until the 3rd or 4th Century CE. Some of these scholars died rejecting the validity of the DSS because that discovery contradicted a theory that they were positive could not be in error; history has shown that they were wrong.
You are correct about this, but its an informal fallacy to say that A) Because said scholars were wrong about 1 point B) there arguments for a second point are any less believable. They can be wrong about one thing and right about another. We still have to take their arguments at face value.
That being said, some of these same scholars did some good work. For example, although we can now confirm that Daniel had its form before 300CE, we also have compelling reasons to say that it did not take form until the 2nd century BCE. So, although the liberal scholars were wrong that it could not have taken form until later, they were correct that it did not take form in the 5th century BCE.
quote:
Some amount of trust in the early church is required to accept the NT canon.
Indeed. My Roman Catholic friends point this out frequently. Personally, I find it hard to trust their acceptance knowing that it was based primarily upon a falsehood. Secondly, since much of the early church accepted some/all of the OT apocrypha, I wonder if I should trust them in this regard.
quote:
I would encourage you to read more of the work from more conservative scholars as you read the arguments they have put forth in support of the canon we use today, I believe that you will find that not only can compelling arguments be made for accepting our canon, but you will also discover that there really are many more scholars who do trust the cannon we have compared to the small minority you now believe hold that view.
Unfortunately, I have read many of the conservative scholars out there... far more than I've read from the liberal scholars. That is the main issue for me... I've read their arguments and am just not persuaded.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/1/2009 11:53:14 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2938
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhpmike
quote:
I believe that is specifically related to the Book of Rev
Yes. It must be limited to Revelation. If we can rule out the Nicene Creed because of Rev. then we'd probably have to rule out Rev. based on passages like Deut 4:2 and similar passages.
And Aner, thank you for your kind words and sympathies. To be honest, on a lot of days I wish I could go back to being ignorant. Some people think that having a degree in Biblical Studies from a well known Evangelical school must mean that I know all of the answers to all of the questions. To be perfectly honest, I have many more questions now than I did before I was educated.
That is true, if you can get someone else to accept the Nicene Creed as authoritative, you have a source that you can use in a discussion with that person. There are some in this forum that will do so. However, I am not one of them. My point being canon is based on human concensus. A lot of what Adonai has revealed is not in the current canon. As John tells us, (Joh 21:25) "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
Now what is an apostle? Acts 1:22 tells us "For one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." Paul calls himself an Apostle in 1 Cor.15:8 as a witness of the resurrected Christ because he saw Jesus with his own eyes on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) thus qualifying him to be an Apostle. 
It's "drmark" and I follow 1 John 1:7 regarding His Light.