Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 151

Thread: Does The Biblical Canon Presuppose the Catholic Church?

  1. #1

    Does The Biblical Canon Presuppose the Catholic Church?

    "Catholic Church" can be replaced with any apostolic hierarchical church (i.e. Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy) from which the canonization process occurred. Does one find the Protestant justification for the canon weak, when the Canon's development was intrinsically an extra-biblical occurrence? One that was hotly debated for several centuries, with no consensus until Church authority spoke up on the matter? Where is the infallible, divine revelation for 2 Peter being in the canon under the Sola Scriptura worldview? How does one who holds scripture alone as their final authority reconcile the scriptures themselves being declared canonical by external means?


    With respect to Protestantism, this seems to be one of the weakest links of their theology. I echo the words of Daniel Wallace:

    ...... Third, a book by David Dungan called
    Constantine’s Biblemakes an astounding point about the shape of the canon in the ancient church. ... Dungan mentions that for Eusebius to speak of any books [of Scripture] as homolegoumena—those twenty books that had universal consent in his day as canonical—he was speaking of an unbroken chain of bishops, from the first century to the fourth, who affirmed authorship and authenticity of such books. What is significant is thatfor the ancient church, canonicity was intrinsically linked to ecclesiology. It was the bishops rather than the congregations that gave their opinion of a book’s credentials. Not just any bishops, but bishops of the major sees of the ancient church. Dungan went on to say that Eusebius must have looked up the records in the church annals and could speak thus only on the basis of such records. If Dungan is right, then the issue of the authorship of certain books (most notably the seven disputed letters of Paul) is settled. And it’s settled by appeal to an ecclesiological structure that is other than what Protestants embrace. The irony is that today evangelicals especially argue for authenticity of the disputed letters of Paul, yet they are arguing with one hand tied behind their back. And it has been long noted that the weakest link in an evangelical bibliology is canonicity.

    ....

    I’m not sure of the solution, or even if there is one. But we can take steps toward a solution even if we will never get there in this world. First of all, we Protestants can be more sensitive about the deficiencies in our own ecclesiology rather than think that we’ve got a corner on truth. We need to humbly recognize that the two other branches of Christendom have done a better job in this area. Second, we can be more sensitive to the need for doctrinal and ethical accountability, fellowship beyond our local church, and ministry with others whose essentials but not necessarily particulars don’t line up with ours. Third, we can begin to listen again to the voice of the Spirit speaking through church fathers and embrace some of the liturgy that has been used for centuries. Obviously, it must all be subject to biblical authority, but we dare not neglect the last twenty centuries unless we think that the Spirit has been sleeping all that time.


    [note: quote broken up despite fixing the HTML, just read it as one quote]
    Source
    Last edited by Traditionalist; 02-12-2015 at 06:11 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    The canon used by all Churches and denominations presupposes the prescriptive views of scripture held by members of the respective Churches/ecclesiastical communities.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  4. #3
    On what basis did the apostles not accept the Old Testament pseudepigrapha? Because Rome told them not to? Because there was some infallible Old Testament church to tell them not to?

    No. The prophets and apostles did not utilize the same standard that you are proposing.

  5. #4
    On what basis did the apostles not accept the Old Testament pseudepigrapha?


    Not sure what you're getting at here. The NT authors do recognize, quote, and allude to OT apocryphal literature. The best example is Enoch being quoted in Jude. There was no defined canon in the times of the Apostles and it wasn't the most important thing to first century Jews to be honest. It's interesting how the more controversial books are scarcely quoted or just completely ignored, such as Esther.

    Because there was some infallible Old Testament church to tell them not to?


    The OT system was infallible but never defined a canon, probably feeling no need for one. The Jewish canon was bottle-necked sometime during the 2nd century, seemingly as a response to Christianity. The prophets and authors of the OT didn't seem to view scripture as one's final and only authority, so there was no need for a set canon. As NT Wright points out, oral traditions in that time period would have been of a greater value, just due to literacy rates and the culture alone.



  6. #5
    Besides, the argument is circular. If you are proposing that an infallible authority must validate the books of the Bible, you must prove that your authority is infallible...and you can't do it. This is the unending circularity of Rome.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditionalist View Post
    Not sure what you're getting at here. The NT authors do recognize, quote, and allude to OT apocryphal literature. The best example is Enoch being quoted in Jude. There was no defined canon in the times of the Apostles and it wasn't the most important thing to first century Jews to be honest. It's interesting how the more controversial books are scarcely quoted or just completely ignored, such as Esther.



    The OT system was infallible but never defined a canon, probably feeling no need for one. The Jewish canon was bottle-necked sometime during the 2nd century, seemingly as a response to Christianity. The prophets and authors of the OT didn't seem to view scripture as one's final and only authority, so there was no need for a set canon. As NT Wright points out, oral traditions in that time period would have been of a greater value, just due to literacy rates and the culture alone.


    [/COLOR]
    You never answered the questions in that post. On what basis did the apostles reject the Old Testament pseudepigrapha? What central authority told them to reject some works as non-canonical?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Besides, the argument is circular. If you are proposing that an infallible authority must validate the books of the Bible, you must prove that your authority is infallible...and you can't do it. This is the unending circularity of Rome.
    This isn't to prove the infallibility of any church, but my argument for Catholicism isn't circular it's transcendent. I rely upon external & internal evidence. The problem for you guys is that Sola Scriptura by necessity has to deal with the issue of the canon. It's one of many problems with the doctrine but this is the most prominent. That's why Protestantism at its core is illogical. Protestants aren't able to deal with the argument so they attempt to change the subject to Catholicism or Mormonism.

    On what basis did the apostles reject the Old Testament pseudepigrapha? What central authority told them to reject some works as non-canonical?


    I don't believe the Apostles had rejected or accepted books into an official canon, there remains no evidence of such. The idea of an official canon didn't form in the Jewish world until the 2nd century and Christians didn't canonize their books until the 4th century. It wasn't an issue that was crucial to the faith, Sadducees and Pharisees themselves seem to be able to cooperate despite the Sadducees only using 5 or so books.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditionalist View Post
    This isn't to prove the infallibility of any church, but my argument for Catholicism isn't circular it's transcendent. I rely upon external & internal evidence. The problem for you guys is that Sola Scriptura by necessity has to deal with the issue of the canon. It's one of many problems with the doctrine but this is the most prominent. That's why Protestantism at its core is illogical. Protestants aren't able to deal with the argument so they attempt to change the subject to Catholicism or Mormonism.
    The title of your thread is Does The Biblical Canon Presuppose the Catholic Church? Why do you assume that the Catholic Church is infallible...or the true church at all? You are faulting the Protestant for their "deficiency" when the circular nature of your authority has an even more glaring one.

    [/COLOR]I don't believe the Apostles had rejected or accepted books into an official canon, there remains no evidence of such. The idea of an official canon didn't form in the Jewish world until the 2nd century and Christians didn't canonize their books until the 4th century. It wasn't an issue that was crucial to the faith, Sadducees and Pharisees themselves seem to be able to cooperate despite the Sadducees only using 5 or so books.
    Great. You don't believe that there was an official church-declared canon for the apostles. Why do you say that Christians need Rome to officially define a canon today?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    The title of your thread is Does The Biblical Canon Presuppose the Catholic Church?


    Yes, because the existence of the Bible itself was due to a canonization process that occurred in the 4th century, through varying traditions affirming the texts apostolicity. So far you have failed to provide even the slightest response to this because you know it's impossible. So again, how do you decide the canon while still holding true to sola scriptura?

    Why do you assume that the Catholic Church is infallible


    For the sake of discussion it doesn't have to be proven. The question is on the canon of the bible and the assumption that has to be made while forming the canon. That's why I listed three hierarchical churches in the first sentence of the post.


    Great. You don't believe that there was an official church-declared canon for the apostles.


    Me and every single scholar, yeah.

    Why do you say that Christians need Rome to officially define a canon today?


    I'm not sure of the question, why historically or why Christians needed the Catholic Church in particular? If it's the latter, it was needed because without ecclesiastical authority the issue of the canon would have pretty much been subject to local congregations. Probably new "discovered" texts being included as the years went on. Once we hit the secular era I could see major Christian denominations rejecting the more controversial texts contained in the New Testament. Prior to the canon being declared, we had instances of gnostic work floating about in the church, along with a host of forgeries. The canonization process was due to pre-existing tradition (Orthodoxy) and the need for said tradition to be protected. I recall Bart Ehrman listing the 4 criterias for the books of the canon, and 3 out of 4 had to do with Tradition.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditionalist View Post
    [/COLOR]

    Yes, because the existence of the Bible itself was due to a canonization process that occurred in the 4th century, through varying traditions affirming the texts apostolicity. [COLOR=#111111] So far you have failed to provide even the slightest response to this because you know it's impossible. So again, how do you decide the canon while still holding true to sola scriptura?
    Here is your man-centered view: "Rome decides what books to include in the canon". Here is my God-centered view: "God's people discover God's Words and reject everything else that comes after the apostles". You haven't provided the slightest response as to why this central authority you propose has the authority or infallibility needed to determine anything, let alone a canon.

    I'm not sure of the question, why historically or why Christians needed the Catholic Church in particular? If it's the latter, it was needed because without ecclesiastical authority the issue of the canon would have pretty much been subject to local congregations. Probably new "discovered" texts being included as the years went on. Once we hit the secular era I could see major Christian denominations rejecting the more controversial texts contained in the New Testament. Prior to the canon being declared, we had instances of gnostic work floating about in the church, along with a host of forgeries. The canonization process was due to pre-existing tradition (Orthodoxy) and the need for said tradition to be protected. I recall Bart Ehrman listing the 4 criterias for the books of the canon, and 3 out of 4 had to do with Tradition.
    Did the apostles need a central "ecclesiastical authority" to determine what they knew were the words of God? You already said they didn't. Why do God's people need one today?

    I accept the rejection of those gnostic texts, but my rejection is not based on Rome's imprimatur. It is based on a rejection of Gnosticism, which the apostles rejected in their own epistles.

  13. #11
    Traditionalist, ask Sola about the many 'Biblical Christians' of the first centuires who were involved in defending and elucidating the major Christological issues of the day. He won't reveal who they are to me, but perhaps he will to you.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    Traditionalist, ask Sola about the many 'Biblical Christians' of the first centuires who were involved in defending and elucidating the major Christological issues of the day. He won't reveal who they are to me, but perhaps he will to you.
    TER,

    I said when you deal with the doctrine of imputed righteousness in the epistle to Diognetus, we can go on to others.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    TER,

    I said when you deal with the doctrine of imputed righteousness in the epistle to Diognetus, we can go on to others.
    Just give one name of those 'Biblical Christians' who participated in the Christological debates of the third through fifth centuries and we can talk about imputed righteousness all night.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Here is your man-centered view: "Rome decides what books to include in the canon". Here is my God-centered view: "God's people discover God's Words and reject everything else that comes after the apostles".
    Here is your man-centered view: "I arbitrarily declare the canon based upon man's faulty traditions." Here is my God-centered view: God infallibly works through Men to write the Bible and God infallibly operates through Man (the church) to provide the canon." That is the difference between my Christian worldview and your pagan one. Two can play the low-brow bumpersticker polemic game. Yours is less convincing, though.


    You haven't provided the slightest response as to why this central authority you propose has the authority or infallibility needed to determine anything, let alone a canon.
    You haven't responded in the slightest to the issue of why and how you have determined what the Bible and what the Canon are. So far you've just played the dodge game, just like the other three threads, where you go on about "God's people" somehow magically knowing the Bible. And I already explained why the Church needed to determine the canon, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove the Church's infallibilty. It's for you to prove how the Biblical canon doesn't presuppose a hierarchical church. So far nothing you've said has been convincing.



    Did the apostles need a central "ecclesiastical authority" to determine what they knew were the words of God? You already said they didn't.
    I said the Apostles didn't form a canon or see the necessity of having a canon, just like the Jewish population at large during the time. Nothing about them developing a canon independent from a central authority. You have obviously not read my post, or are having issues comprehending it.

    Why do God's people need one today?
    A Central authority or a central authority to define the canon? If it's the latter, are you saying we can live with a central authority that doesn't have a canon? How on earth does that support your position of sola scriptura? If you're suggesting the Apostles and pre-Christian Jews lacked a central authority then I suggest taking a basic history course. Either way you're wrong.

    I accept the rejection of those gnostic texts, but my rejection is not based on Rome's imprimatur. It is based on a rejection of Gnosticism, which the apostles rejected in their own epistles.
    You reject gnosticism due to your presuppositions of Orthodoxy, based solely upon preeconceived tradition which you then, in turn, formed an arbitrary canon while holding to your extrabiblical sola scriptura tradition. It's become evident now that we're embarking on page 2 of this thread and still have yet to receive an answer as to how one has a Canon without presupposing an external authoritative body of equal authority.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    You never answered the questions in that post. On what basis did the apostles reject the Old Testament pseudepigrapha? What central authority told them to reject some works as non-canonical?
    They didn't.
    And they had Christ as a teacher and the Holy Spirit as a guide.
    The fact that Enoch was quoted,,and described as a prophet by Jude is enough for me. (YMMV)

    I only learned of the books recently,, and have not "studied" them. But I do find them highly edifying.

    1. The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect ⌈⌈and⌉⌉ righteous, who will be living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked ⌈⌈and godless⌉⌉ are to be removed. 2. And he took up his parable and said--Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, ⌈which⌉ the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come.
    I believe it is relevant to our day.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    They didn't.
    And they had Christ as a teacher and the Holy Spirit as a guide.
    The fact that Enoch was quoted,,and described as a prophet by Jude is enough for me. (YMMV)

    I only learned of the books recently,, and have not "studied" them. But I do find them highly edifying.



    I believe it is relevant to our day.
    Paul quoted Epimenides in Acts 17:28. Is that "enough for you" to start believing paganism now?

    Or is the fact that an apostle quotes something from a book not necessarily an indication it's from God?



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Paul quoted Epimenides in Acts 17:28. Is that "enough for you" to start believing paganism now?

    Or is the fact that an apostle quotes something from a book not necessarily an indication it's from God?
    Truth is truth.
    Truth is from God.. Lies are from the devil.
    But he did not call a poet a prophet. Enoch was called a prophet,, and is mentioned prominently elsewhere.
    The astrologers from the east came to honor Christ at his birth. while the Jews who had scripture tried to kill Him.

    And though we don't follow astrology,, there is still truth in it..
    For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.…
    I am not in favor of censorship.. There was great error in destroying and suppressing knowledge.

    Fortunately,, the scripture that remains in what we have is sufficient for preaching salvation.
    And what we have is also good for judging other writings.
    Last edited by pcosmar; 02-13-2015 at 07:20 AM.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  21. #18
    So let me see if I understand the argument. Because the Christian church collectively decided that some books were too over the top ridiculous to include in the canon, that means that Protestants should take whatever the Catholic church says now as dogma? That's seriously your argument? Because..well...it's silly. That's like saying because Christians now accept the scientific view that the earth is not the center of the universe Christians should blindly accept everything that there is, supposedly, a consensus regarding science as well. In fact, secularists often make that very argument.

    Also Eduardo, what are you doing to do about the fact that various apostolic churches have different cannons? The Roman church cannon differs from the Greek Orthodox cannon and both differ from the Ethiopian orthodox cannon. So which authority must one recognize?

    Here is the bottom line. There is enough scripture in the Protestant Bible to understand salvation. Reading other books are fine and dandy. Reading them can be enlightening. But if I'm going to start doing things like taking my petitions in prayer to saints or angels based on something not in the Bible, when the Bible says nothing about praying to saints or angels and specifically warns against worshiping angels....well...I'm not going to do that. Yes I know you don't feel your worshiping saints or angels when you do that, and I'll take your word on it. But we are told repeatedly to take our petitions to God in prayer. Now maybe there's some writing by some church father that advocates the practice. So what? If Jesus told me to pray directly to my Father in heaven and gave me a model prayer and went so far as to say "Don't use vain repetitions because your Father already knows what you need" then there is no reason for me to pray to a saint or an angel to get them to pray to my Father on my behalf.

    Anyway, pray to whom you wish to pray. Believe what you will about
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Besides, the argument is circular. If you are proposing that an infallible authority must validate the books of the Bible, you must prove that your authority is infallible...and you can't do it. This is the unending circularity of Rome.
    You are quite fixated on Rome.(and it does have significance)
    There was error before that,, Old errors that that lead to Rome.

    The errors of Nimrod. Some of those errors written in the bible. Some of them written in other books. They were still errors.

    Same error that led to the Golden Calf. There are many such errors in the past,, by following men.
    Last edited by pcosmar; 02-13-2015 at 09:04 AM.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditionalist View Post
    Does one find the Protestant justification for the canon weak, when the Canon's development was intrinsically an extra-biblical occurrence?
    What is this extra-biblical occurrence that you're talking about and calling "the Canon's development"?

  24. #21
    Eagles' Wings
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    So let me see if I understand the argument. Because the Christian church collectively decided that some books were too over the top ridiculous to include in the canon, that means that Protestants should take whatever the Catholic church says now as dogma? That's seriously your argument? Because..well...it's silly. That's like saying because Christians now accept the scientific view that the earth is not the center of the universe Christians should blindly accept everything that there is, supposedly, a consensus regarding science as well. In fact, secularists often make that very argument.

    Also Eduardo, what are you doing to do about the fact that various apostolic churches have different cannons? The Roman church cannon differs from the Greek Orthodox cannon and both differ from the Ethiopian orthodox cannon. So which authority must one recognize?

    Here is the bottom line. There is enough scripture in the Protestant Bible to understand salvation. Reading other books are fine and dandy. Reading them can be enlightening. But if I'm going to start doing things like taking my petitions in prayer to saints or angels based on something not in the Bible, when the Bible says nothing about praying to saints or angels and specifically warns against worshiping angels....well...I'm not going to do that. Yes I know you don't feel your worshiping saints or angels when you do that, and I'll take your word on it. But we are told repeatedly to take our petitions to God in prayer. Now maybe there's some writing by some church father that advocates the practice. So what? If Jesus told me to pray directly to my Father in heaven and gave me a model prayer and went so far as to say "Don't use vain repetitions because your Father already knows what you need" then there is no reason for me to pray to a saint or an angel to get them to pray to my Father on my behalf.

    Anyway, pray to whom you wish to pray. Believe what you will about
    These are valid questions. We know that God is not a God of confusion. We know that the authority of the bible is of God, and not the RCC or EOC. All knowledge that we gain from Scripture is inspired by the Spirit of God for true believers.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    The canon used by all Churches and denominations presupposes the prescriptive views of scripture held by members of the respective Churches/ecclesiastical communities.
    Yup, , but, what if they were wrong,, or misguided? The known/accepted bibles are only collections of translations (or originals in some cases)

    Men decided to exclude some, others choose to retain some,, and some knowledge was lost only to be found later (survived the purge).

    Ask?? ask why were some books excluded?

    ok,, some may have been random writings or the musings of some guy with writing utensils. Some were accepted scripture,,truths known. History revealed.

    Why were the Book of Enoch removed?
    Was it just too uncomfortable for some?
    I am sure there were some reasons, and pages of attempted justification,,,
    But I see no good reason for it.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  26. #23
    Random musings of a guy with writing utensils.
    1The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity." 3What advantage does man have in all his work Which he does under the sun?…
    But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body. The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.
    For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.…
    And he said to the human race, "The fear of the Lord--that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding."
    He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
    All of the books are one story. even the musings of guys.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  27. #24
    Eagles' Wings
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Yup, , but, what if they were wrong,, or misguided? The known/accepted bibles are only collections of translations (or originals in some cases)

    Men decided to exclude some, others choose to retain some,, and some knowledge was lost only to be found later (survived the purge).

    Ask?? ask why were some books excluded?

    ok,, some may have been random writings or the musings of some guy with writing utensils. Some were accepted scripture,,truths known. History revealed.

    Why were the Book of Enoch removed?
    Was it just too uncomfortable for some?
    I am sure there were some reasons, and pages of attempted justification,,,
    But I see no good reason for it.
    http://wscal.edu/blog/entry/4105



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditionalist View Post
    Here is your man-centered view: "I arbitrarily declare the canon based upon man's faulty traditions." Here is my God-centered view: God infallibly works through Men to write the Bible and God infallibly operates through Man (the church) to provide the canon." That is the difference between my Christian worldview and your pagan one. Two can play the low-brow bumpersticker polemic game. Yours is less convincing, though.




    You haven't responded in the slightest to the issue of why and how you have determined what the Bible and what the Canon are. So far you've just played the dodge game, just like the other three threads, where you go on about "God's people" somehow magically knowing the Bible. And I already explained why the Church needed to determine the canon, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove the Church's infallibilty. It's for you to prove how the Biblical canon doesn't presuppose a hierarchical church. So far nothing you've said has been convincing.





    I said the Apostles didn't form a canon or see the necessity of having a canon, just like the Jewish population at large during the time. Nothing about them developing a canon independent from a central authority. You have obviously not read my post, or are having issues comprehending it.



    A Central authority or a central authority to define the canon? If it's the latter, are you saying we can live with a central authority that doesn't have a canon? How on earth does that support your position of sola scriptura? If you're suggesting the Apostles and pre-Christian Jews lacked a central authority then I suggest taking a basic history course. Either way you're wrong.




    You reject gnosticism due to your presuppositions of Orthodoxy, based solely upon preeconceived tradition which you then, in turn, formed an arbitrary canon while holding to your extrabiblical sola scriptura tradition. It's become evident now that we're embarking on page 2 of this thread and still have yet to receive an answer as to how one has a Canon without presupposing an external authoritative body of equal authority.
    Okay, I need a history lesson.

    What church infallibly defined the books of the canon for Paul? He quoted them confidently. How could he do that without a church telling him that they were Scripture?

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Okay, I need a history lesson.

    What church infallibly defined the books of the canon for Paul? He quoted them confidently. How could he do that without a church telling him that they were Scripture?
    Paul was a Pharisee,, Studied and well versed on all of the law and prophets. What we now call the Old Testament. as well all the current writings at the time.

    The same books that others have cited when they say "It is Written".
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Why were the Book of Enoch removed?
    Was it just too uncomfortable for some?
    I am sure there were some reasons, and pages of attempted justification,,,
    But I see no good reason for it.
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Paul was a Pharisee,, Studied and well versed on all of the law and prophets. What we now call the Old Testament. as well all the current writings at the time.

    The same books that others have cited when they say "It is Written".
    Put these two posts together and you have the answer to your earlier question.

    The books of Enoch weren't "removed." They were never among the scriptures of the Pharisees to begin with.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Put these two posts together and you have the answer to your earlier question.

    The books of Enoch weren't "removed." They were never among the scriptures of the Pharisees to begin with.
    They were known though.. They were known in Christ's time. as well as being known to those that walked and Talked with Jesus.
    Jude quoted a prophet as if it were scripture.. It was known for generations before Paul was born.

    And it was hidden and protected by at least one sect.

    And they were removed from "cannon" by the Counsel of Laodicea.

    Now one can either believe that they were correct,, or that it was error. I think it was error..and that makes me question the whole of that counsel.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    They were known though.. They were known in Christ's time. as well as being known to those that walked and Talked with Jesus.
    Jude quoted a prophet as if it were scripture.. It was known for generations before Paul was born.

    And it was hidden and protected by at least one sect.

    And they were removed from "cannon" by the Counsel of Laodicea.

    Now one can either believe that they were correct,, or that it was error. I think it was error..and that makes me question the whole of that counsel.
    Pete,

    Paul quoted pagan philosophers. Does his quoting them make their proclamations Scripture? Obviously not. Right?

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Pete,

    Paul quoted pagan philosophers. Does his quoting them make their proclamations Scripture? Obviously not. Right?
    I never paid attention to who he was quoting,, He did not call him a prophet.
    Very possibly that Pagan was quoting God. And Paul recognized it as truth. Truth is truth. It comes from God.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Mary and the Catholic Church
    By TaftFan in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 135
    Last Post: 08-07-2013, 10:44 AM
  2. Corruption of The Catholic Church
    By Warlord in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-24-2013, 10:05 PM
  3. Separation of Church and State is neither Biblical nor Christian
    By Confederate in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-30-2012, 04:11 PM
  4. Obama and the Catholic Church
    By Frank DeMartini in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-01-2012, 10:38 AM
  5. Where's the Catholic Church when...
    By BUSHLIED in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-11-2012, 04:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •