|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/2/2009 12:04:38 AM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
which humans?
there are more humans who do not accept 66books than those who do.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/2/2009 1:11:22 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2940
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhpmike
which humans?
there are more humans who do not accept 66books than those who do.
It doesn't matter which ones or how many. What matters is that one understands what the person one is talking to considers canon. I may insist that the Guiness Book of World Records is Scripture, but if you do not, the burden of proof is on me to establish it as Scripture. The primary reason that the bible has 66 books is because the majorioty of those who follow Rabbi Yeshua accept that to be the case. Now, various people have various justifications of why each of the books belongs in the current canon. However, it is geenrally presumed by those of this rabbinic school that these 66 are indeed Scripture. Followers of other spiritual leaders consider other works to be scripture and some minority sects of the school of Yeshua accept some less or some more.
The primary point I am making is that it is important to determine at the outset what the person you are talking to considers authoritative so that you can find some common ground for discussion. One need not agree with me on what constitutes canon for me to have have a profitable discussion with that person. Paul does this with phylosophers of Athens. These people did not accept the Tanach as authoritative, if they were even aware of it. He simply began by noting that they were very religious people and that he was religious also. He then found a tenent of their belief system (tolerance) that he could use to explain his view of the world.
So,you see the canon of 66 books is merely the concensus opinion of this forum that permits those who accept that concensus to avoid rehashing well worn ground that would need to be established in another forum that does not accept the 66 book canon.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/2/2009 1:17:26 AM
|
|
|
Aner
Posts: 23
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
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.
Mike,
I think this is a great point. It does not take much reading to realize that the early church was in massive ideological chaos. Most of this is sanitized by simply ignorance of what say a Tertullian actually wrote (some amazining things indeed!). Sort of like Calvin and his belief in witches - and murder of the same. No one takes about these fundamental inconsistencies with the santized Calvin that has been sainted by the Evangelical community.
Indeed, I am certain that those without scripture were literally all over the map. Thus the Roman Catholic theory of trusting the early church falls flat on its face so fast it makes one head spin (and that assumes that the few texts that we have even begin to accurately portray what in fact was going on between say 75 and 200 AD - a time of great chaos when the church was under frequent persecution - fled Jerusalem in its destruction, lived in catacombs, etc., etc..
The reality is that I would not trust much of anything that came out of the early church - I have read too much of the writings of some of these fellows and know better. The only congruence we have is that we both recognize that there is a God in heaven and the Jesus of Nazareth was His Son - and that He is alive. Frankly, I don't really care about much more than that....
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) - 2/2/2009 4:19:49 PM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 871
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
rhpmike,
can i ask what books if any you believe are canonical and why? i understand your questioning of building doctrine on books that you feel might not be God's word as a legitimate concern so i am not provoking an argument, just wanting to understand what makes a book canonical from your prespective
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/2/2009 4:42:23 PM
|
|
|
frankman
Posts: 240
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhpmike
[
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?
James= As you know the Council of Trent accepted some of the Apocryphal books because 2 Macc.12:45-46, which favors prayers for the dead, supporting the Roman Catholic position against Luther. However Luther also sought to oppose James because it seemed to him that James was opposing Paul`s (and Luther may I add) doctrine of faith as set out in the Book of Galations. However historically James has been vindicated by the Church and its canonicity recognized after realizing that the teachings of James must be harmonized with the rest of the body of Scripture. (I say this is still a problem with some today who do not believe we`re saved by grace through faith in Christ alone.)
2 Peter= Written around A.D.67 by "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ." (1:1) and the writer claims to "have the Word of the prophets made more certain" (1:19), and given prophetic pronouncements about the future in 2 Peter 3:10-13. Jude may also of had excess to 2 Peter from what Jude quoted in verses 6+7. Also Clement of Rome quoted 2 Peter 2:6-9 as Scripture in 97 A.D..
Hebrews= Written by some body before 70 A.D. because of its many references to the Jewish sacrifices and ceremonies in this Book. In 97 A.D. "Clement of Rome" who wrote his epistle of Corinthians refers to Hebrews as Scripture in his book. I guess this proves that the writer could have been an eye-witness of Christ`s resurrection, as Clement`s book was written in 97 A.D.. Heb.1:2 is an interesting verse. "but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe." meaning what Jesus gave the Apostles to teach are His full and final revelation to us. Jesus chose, commissioned and credentialed the Apostles to deliver His final testamony to us in these last days. (Eph.2:20) This means the Book of Revelation in the canon of the N.T. will be God`s final revelation to us until His return to earth, which will end the last day period and begin the new age. So until then let the Pope and others speek for they are but the voices of men and not the voice of God at all.  The Canon is now closed.
_____________________________
"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) - 2/3/2009 2:13:11 AM
|
|
|
Aner
Posts: 23
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Canon is now closed.
Why?
_____________________________
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) - 2/3/2009 3:38:13 PM
|
|
|
frankman
Posts: 240
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aner
quote:
The Canon is now closed.
Why?
The Canon is now closed. Glad you asked because I figured I should have explained this one a little bit better.
First of all the 27 Books of the N.T. were written around A.D.50-90. These Books were written by Apostles or friends of the Apostles (like Dr. Luke) who were eye-witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus. According to Acts 1:22 this was one of the qualifications that had to be met in order to be a qualified Apostle. In 2 Cor.9:1 Paul claimed to be a qualified Apostle as one who met Jesus face to face as a result of his Damsacus experience. All the Apostles of Jesus who saw Jesus alive died in the first century. Anybody who claimed to write Scrpture after the first century could not have been a qualified Apostle. As a result the Bible describes these apostles as "false apostles" in 2 Cor.11:13. "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ."
Jesus said in Matt.5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets. The Book of Hebrews teaches that Jesus is the full and final revelation of God to us in the last days. The last days meaning prophetic revelation has now received its final end-time climax through God`s Son Jesus. Last days are it. Nothing comes after the word last. In Heb.1:1-2 we read "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these LAST DAYS He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe." Jesus spoke to us in these last days through the teachings of His Apostles on which the foundational teachings of our Church is build on according to Eph.2:20. "built on the foundation of the aposltles and the prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone." After Jesus ascented into heaven the Holy Spirit came to give the Apostles the inspired thoughts of what they were to write as God-inspired teaching for the Church today. John 14:26 states "But the COUNSELOR, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." By the way, this same Counselor hepled the early Church fathers in choosing which Books belonged to the Canon of Scriptures and which books were but good for information reading only.
After Jesus` chosen, commissioned and cretential Apostles died there was no one left in earth who would have qualified to continue on to write the Canon of Scriptiure. If this were not the case and canon writing is still possible today then obviously what I just posted is a big lie. Also if the Apostles of Jesus did not teach and record for us the completed revelation of God, then Jesus would also have been wrong.  The good news is the Son of God can`t be wrong because He is God. As a result the full and final revelation of God`s Word to men in Jesus Christ was given by the quilified eye-witnesses and miracle-working Apostles of the first century.
_____________________________
"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) - 2/3/2009 3:51:36 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2940
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: frankman
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aner
quote:
The Canon is now closed.
Why?
The Canon is now closed. Glad you asked because I figured I should have explained this one a little bit better.
First of all the 27 Books of the N.T. were written around A.D.50-90. These Books were written by Apostles or friends of the Apostles (like Dr. Luke) who were eye-witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus. According to Acts 1:22 this was one of the qualifications that had to be met in order to be a qualified Apostle. In 2 Cor.9:1 Paul claimed to be a qualified Apostle as one who met Jesus face to face as a result of his Damsacus experience. All the Apostles of Jesus who saw Jesus alive died in the first century. Anybody who claimed to write Scrpture after the first century could not have been a qualified Apostle. As a result the Bible describes these apostles as "false apostles" in 2 Cor.11:13. "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ."
Jesus said in Matt.5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets. The Book of Hebrews teaches that Jesus is the full and final revelation of God to us in the last days. The last days meaning prophetic revelation has now received its final end-time climax through God`s Son Jesus. Last days are it. Nothing comes after the word last. In Heb.1:1-2 we read "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these LAST DAYS He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe." Jesus spoke to us in these last days through the teachings of His Apostles on which the foundational teachings of our Church is build on according to Eph.2:20. "built on the foundation of the aposltles and the prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone." After Jesus ascented into heaven the Holy Spirit came to give the Apostles the inspired thoughts of what they were to write as God-inspired teaching for the Church today. John 14:26 states "But the COUNSELOR, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." By the way, this same Counselor hepled the early Church fathers in choosing which Books belonged to the Canon of Scriptures and which books were but good for information reading only.
After Jesus` chosen, commissioned and cretential Apostles died there was no one left in earth who would have qualified to continue on to write the Canon of Scriptiure. If this were not the case and canon writing is still possible today then obviously what I just posted is a big lie. Also if the Apostles of Jesus did not teach and record for us the completed revelation of God, then Jesus would also have been wrong. The good news is the Son of God can`t be wrong because He is God. As a result the full and final revelation of God`s Word to men in Jesus Christ was given by the quilified eye-witnesses and miracle-working Apostles of the first century.
If this means that there is can not be credable direct revelation today, why should we accept what Paul says. If we are told that we have complete revelation through Yeshua, should what Yeshua said and did at least have priority in interpreting what Paul says. Also, if Adonai's Spirit leading us into all the truth means we can not have verifiable revelation, what is it that Adonai's Spirit is doing. Finally, if we accept Paul's teaching simply because of His testimony regarding the Damascus road experience. Why aren't other similar testimonies like that of Joseph Smith not sufficient for validation of their testimony.
Now I am not syaing that Paul is not authoritative or that Joseph Smith is. What I am saying is the reason for accepting teaching as Scripture needs to be more sufficient than what you have presented.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/3/2009 8:35:43 PM
|
|
|
rhpmike
Posts: 196
Joined: 7/26/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
some minority sects of the school of Yeshua accept some less or some more.
That is quite an inaccurate way to describe both the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Unless you wouldn't describe them as followers of Jesus/Yeshua.
quote:
can i ask what books if any you believe are canonical and why? i understand your questioning of building doctrine on books that you feel might not be God's word as a legitimate concern so i am not provoking an argument, just wanting to understand what makes a book canonical from your prespective
Good question. I accept the 66 books of the protestant canon, but I just fear that I do not have good reason to do so.
quote:
Also Clement of Rome quoted 2 Peter 2:6-9 as Scripture in 97 A.D..
I have heard this claim before, but I have not seen it thoroughly supported. If you have access to such support, would you demonstrate it? Personally, I'd only give about 60% chance that IIPet was written before AD97.
quote:
Hebrews
You gave no argument as to the inclusion of Hebrews in the canon except one Patristic's opinion. The fact that it is not written by an apostle and is not necessarily even known/approved by the Apostles seems like a very-near-to-damning fact, especially in light of the path which Protestants usually take towards getting to canonicity.
quote:
Jesus chose, commissioned and credentialed the Apostles to deliver His final testamony to us in these last days. (Eph.2:20)
If a Non-Apostle can write Scripture in the 1st or 2nd century CE, why can't a non-apostle write scripture in the 4th, 16th, or 21st century?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/4/2009 10:11:40 AM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 871
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhpmike
quote:
can i ask what books if any you believe are canonical and why? i understand your questioning of building doctrine on books that you feel might not be God's word as a legitimate concern so i am not provoking an argument, just wanting to understand what makes a book canonical from your prespective
Good question. I accept the 66 books of the protestant canon, but I just fear that I do not have good reason to do so.
is the fear based on the idea that in the end if one is to accept the 66 books, that tradition, and/or church fathers have to be relied upon as authoritative?
< Message edited by john_mark -- 2/4/2009 3:59:31 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/4/2009 11:45:41 AM
|
|
|
AboundinginHisGrace
Posts: 269
Joined: 4/28/2008
Status: offline
|
I know this is going to change the course of the conversation a little but please let me say somthing. Ok, all History and other peoples proof or lack there of aside (not saying that we do not have this or that it isn't important). I post one question. Ok do you think God, the God that loves us and wants a relationship with us would allow a false bible that only had a few of the books that were intended for us and the rest of them false? I know there are false religions with other writings that support their religion, Mormons etc, even the Catholic books (not saying Catholics can't be Christians, however I do disagree with a lot of their teachings). But my Faith is in Christ not man. So I trust my God to give us what we need. I can't tell you exactly how our total bible was put together, I know a little, but I think if we live through life trying to totally prove everything, we will go crazy. That is where faith comes in. It is ultimately up to us to put faith in God and what He has given us. You might ask well what about the mormons and all that, as others has stated if it contradicts the bible (66books) then I will not accept it as divinly inspired.
_____________________________
Some want to live within the sound of church or chapel bell; I want to run a rescue shop within a yard of hell."
- C.L. Studd
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/4/2009 3:55:48 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2940
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhpmike
quote:
some minority sects of the school of Yeshua accept some less or some more.
That is quite an inaccurate way to describe both the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Unless you wouldn't describe them as followers of Jesus/Yeshua.
The canon used by the KJV is the most published and distributed anthology of Scripture if you include all translations. Now it may not account for more than half of all piblished anthologies. However, white anglo-saxon males are not more than 50% of the population in the US, but all other groups are afforded minority status while they are considered the privoleged minority. However, that may be because there are distinct advantages to being a minority in the latter case.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 2/5/2009 4:04:20 PM
|
|
|
frankman
Posts: 240
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
If this means that there is can not be credable direct revelation today, why should we accept what Paul says. If we are told that we have complete revelation through Yeshua, should what Yeshua said and did at least have priority in interpreting what Paul says. Also, if Adonai's Spirit leading us into all the truth means we can not have verifiable revelation, what is it that Adonai's Spirit is doing. Finally, if we accept Paul's teaching simply because of His testimony regarding the Damascus road experience. Why aren't other similar testimonies like that of Joseph Smith not sufficient for validation of their testimony.
Now I am not syaing that Paul is not authoritative or that Joseph Smith is. What I am saying is the reason for accepting teaching as Scripture needs to be more sufficient than what you have presented.
"Rhpmike" finally I can answer your question about why I keep bringing up "The Book of Mormon" and linking it with the Apocrypha books. Strange bed partners indeed. I just knew sooner or later somebody would ask a question about Joseph Smith. It never fails.
The writers of the Bible were inspirit by God as God gave them thoughts and they put those thoughts into their own style of writing, thus making the message of our Bible the Word of God. The word for this is inspiration. 2 Tim.3:16 states "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." You may also read 2 Peter 1:20+21. In other words it was the Holy Spirit that inspirit the writers to write what they did. Today Adonai`s Spirit is leading us to all truth by the process known as illumination as the Holy Spirit now helps us to uncover or unveil the meaning of God`s Holy Words. 1 Cor.2:10 states "but God has revealed it to us by His Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God."
Paul`s Words and Yeshua`s Words are both Scripture. In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul`s letters as Scripture. Please read "Esra`s" post#19. because he explained this so beautufully, so I won`t repeat what he has already posted.
Now concerning our friend Joseph Smith; the gospel he presents is a gospel of works which is totally contrary to Paul`s Gospel of being saved by grace through faith in Christ. Also some (not all) of the Apocryphal books contradict Scripture. One is wrong and one is right. They can`t both be right. Also Smith says he received his revelation from an angel. Now was he hallucinating? I don`t know. I wasn`t there. He may not have been because Paul, who received his mesage from God by the Holy Spirit, warns us of the Smith`s of this world in Gal.1:8 by saying "But even if we or an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!"  Books written by angels that contradict the Gospel that Paul preached are a no, no.
Rhpmike;
No Apostle or non-apostle that were close associates of Apostles that were witnesses of the risen Christ were alive after the 1st century. I`m glad you`re giving 2 Peter at least a 40% chance of being written around 67A.D. by the Apostle Peter. Many others have disputed its authorship and the year of writing. That is why it became the last Book to be received into the Canon of Scripture. However they now have positive internal evidence that the author is Peter because of the similarities to 1 Peter both linguistically and doctrinally. They say that the "Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas (A.D.70-79), a Pseudepigrapha epistle, may have alluded to 2 Peter 3:8 in his epistle. At least so says the information I have on this from Moody Bible Institute`s old book called "A General Introduction to the Bible" by Geisler and Nix.  If others have more information about 2 Peter please post. I`m sure "rhpmike" will appreciate it.
If we really believe Matt.19:26 "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." then why is it so hard to accept what "AboundinginHisGrace" wrote about God and His Word in Post#61? Eventually this is the point at which we will all have to arrive at sooner or later.  Christianity is a life of faith and trust in what is unseem and sometimes unprovable to our finite minds.
_____________________________
"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) - 2/6/2009 4:35:03 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2940
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: frankman
Now concerning our friend Joseph Smith; the gospel he presents is a gospel of works which is totally contrary to Paul`s Gospel of being saved by grace through faith in Christ. Also some (not all) of the Apocryphal books contradict Scripture. One is wrong and one is right. They can`t both be right. Also Smith says he received his revelation from an angel. Now was he hallucinating? I don`t know. I wasn`t there. He may not have been because Paul, who received his mesage from God by the Holy Spirit, warns us of the Smith`s of this world in Gal.1:8 by saying "But even if we or an ANGEL from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" Books written by angels that contradict the Gospel that Paul preached are a no, no.
Good, you have added the test of internal consistancy. This was lacking in the prior tests. This principle is not an invention of Paul, but was established in HaTorah(the old testiment) as a test for a prophet. In other words, if Yeshua or Paul had said anything contrary to Torah they were not to be believed. This test has been used for evaluating all extrabiblical sources(prophecies, commentaries, creeds, etc.), though some may appear to ignore it with regard to interpreting those books they believe to be Scripture.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 10/12/2009 9:02:33 PM
|
|
|
firstmode
Posts: 5
Joined: 10/12/2009
Status: offline
|
What are everyone's thoughts on the writings of Polycarp and Ignatius, both men who studied under direct apostleship as John was their teacher?
How much value do you put on their writings as they were close to an Apostle, one who had known Christ and seen him risen, much like Luke who wrote based on Paul's teaching and his own research and Mark who wrote his gospel from the preaching of Peter.
Also, what do you guys think of these books:
The Pseudo-Epistle of Barnabas (listed as spurious (Disputed or recognized by some churches but not by others) by Eusebius (along with Revelations))
The Apocalypse of Peter (Very Early, listed as cannon to some on the Muratorian Cannon, listed along with Revelations as spurious (Disputed or recognized by some churches but not by others) by Eusebius)
The Shepherd of Hermes (listed as valuable reading on the Muratorian Cannon but not CANNON, said "to be read to those who have recently come to the faith and wish to be instructed in the word of piety" but not cannon by Athanasius, and listed as spurious (Disputed or recognized by some churches but not by others) by Eusebius (along with Revelations))
The Book of Wisdom or Solomon's Wisdom ("and the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honor." - Muratorian Cannon, "to be read to those who have recently come to the faith and wish to be instructed in the word of piety" but not cannon by Athanasius )
The Didache ("to be read to those who have recently come to the faith and wish to be instructed in the word of piety" but not cannon by Athanasius, and listed as spurious (Disputed or recognized by some churches but not by others) by Eusebius (along with Revelations))
The Wisdom of Sirach ("to be read to those who have recently come to the faith and wish to be instructed in the word of piety" but not cannon by Athanasius)
Esther ("to be read to those who have recently come to the faith and wish to be instructed in the word of piety" but not cannon by Athanasius)
Judith ("to be read to those who have recently come to the faith and wish to be instructed in the word of piety" but not cannon by Athanasius)
Tobit ("to be read to those who have recently come to the faith and wish to be instructed in the word of piety" but not cannon by Athanasius)
The Gospel according to the Hebrews (listed as spurious (Disputed or recognized by some churches but not by others) by Eusebius (along with Revelations) "But some people also number among these the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is particularly celebrated among those who have accepted Christ from among the Hebrews" - Eusebius)
The Acts of Paul (listed as spurious (Disputed or recognized by some churches but not by others) by Eusebius (along with Revelations))
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 10/12/2009 9:51:22 PM
|
|
|
firstmode
Posts: 5
Joined: 10/12/2009
Status: offline
|
What do you guys think about the Ethiopian Orthodox Cannon?
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/ethiopican.html
The Biblical Canon Of The Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today
R. W. Cowley
Ostkirchliche Studien, 1974, Volume 23, pp. 318-323.
The Biblical corpus is recognised in Ethiopia as a limited group of writings, and is generally called 'the 81 books'.[1] However, the canon lists found in Ethiopian MSS and printed books present many variations, and the study of the history of the canon offers a wide field for investigation.[2] This present study is concerned with the lesser problem of establishing the canon list considered to be normative today by the authorities most respected by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
The following difficulties were encountered in the course of the study: -
[Edited by moderator - posting entire article]
< Message edited by ta_mosquito -- 10/12/2009 10:07:52 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 10/12/2009 10:07:15 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 10987
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Posting entire articles is against our Terms of Service #8, even if permission has been granted by the copyright holder. Therefore your post has been edited. You may post a small portion of an article, then provide the link to the entire passage.
If you receive the article via email and cannot find a web link for it, then you cannot post it as it's still a copyright violation.
Please email community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments or concerns.
Please do not respond to this message within the Community, or via PM as I am not authorized to discuss it further.
Thank you!
Tricia
Forums Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 11/4/2009 2:32:02 PM
|
|
|
katabole
Posts: 1
Joined: 11/4/2009
Status: offline
|
rhpmike,
I've read through this entire post and I'm amazed how closely my own struggle mirrors yours. I grew up in a conservative evangelical home and am very grateful for the thorough bible teaching I received. I teach teenagers myself now and I feel it is difficult to lead a study without either compromising my struggles or my responsibility to the guys (in that I am teaching in association with my church).
I want a firm reference point again - yet I can't fully trust the 66 books the way I did. Yet I can look back at innumerable instances when I have been spoken to by God (I still assume) through the bible. And I have a strong faith in the God of the bible, based on what I've learned of Him through the bible. So are my "experiences" all in my mind? I don't believe so.
Is there no-one out there who has found their way through this maze and come out the other side secure?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonicity (protestant perspective only please) - 11/4/2009 3:59:21 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6723
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhpmike
Roman Catholics have a person/position that they believe can speak infallibly from God. Therefore, all that is necessary for them is for the Pope to speak ex cathedra and Bingo! they can know for certain what is the true and authoritative Word of God.
Unfortunately, as Protestants, we don't have that luxury.
First I would say you err in considering having a person (who changes ever few years) to speak for God is not a luxury, but bondage.
(Heb 13:8) Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
I will address the rest of your post a little later when I have more time.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
 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
