Council Conflicting, Take One

[tulc]

Sons of Thunder. What was written by eyewitnesses from the first through the death, burial, and resurrection to ascension; that is, between the first and last apostles to die.

So, no Paul the Apostle?
tulc(just wondering)

 

[Standing Up]

So, no Paul the Apostle?
tulc(just wondering)

Lk. 1:1-4 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Acts 26:15-16 "And I (the Apostle Paul) said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 'But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you;

Things which you have seen--the death, and burial of Christ? And now the resurrected Living Son of God.

OTOH, Joseph Smith, for example, claimed that Jesus appeared to him, perhaps He did, but what is the difference? Why are we not Mormon? Saul/Paul was a witness, living between the times of the Sons of Thunder. Canon written and closed.

Here was Peter's requirement: Acts 1:21 "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- " (to replace Judas). Which is what you questioned. Here was Jesus' Acts 22:14-15 "And he (Ananias) said, 'The God of our fathers has appointed you (Paul) to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth. 'For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard.

We are witnesses too, having the written record.

 

[Standing Up]

You have the idea that a Church MUST ACCEPT something from a council.

That just isn't so.

Here's from the 4th Euchemencial (sic) Council:

The XXX Canons of the Holy and Fourth Synods, of Chalcedon.
Canon I.
We have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force.
Notes.
Ancient Epitome of Canon I.
The canons of every Synod of the holy Fathers shall be observed.
Hefele.
Before the holding of the Council of Chalcedon, in the Greek Church, the canons of several synods, which were held previously, were gathered into one collection and provided with continuous numbers, and such a collection of canons, as we have seen, lay before the Synod of Chalcedon. As, however, most of the synods whose canons were received into the collection, e.g. those of Neo268cæsarea, Ancyra, Gangra, Antioch, were certainly not Ecumenical Councils, and were even to some extent of doubtful authority, such as the Antiochene Synod of 341, the confirmation of the Ecumenical Synod was now given to them, in order to raise them to the position of universally and unconditionally valid ecclesiastical rules. It is admirably remarked by the Emperor Justinian, in his 131st Novel, cap. j.; “We honour the doctrinal decrees of the first four Councils as we do Holy Scripture, but the canons given or approved by them as we do the laws.”
It seems quite impossible to determine just what councils are included in this list, the Council in Trullo has entirely removed this ambiguity in its second canon.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars II., Causa XXV., Quæst. 1, can. xiv.


Sorry, it does not look like a choice, if you're part of that body. Many reject it though.

 

[E.C.]

It is nice to hope that, but that's not what they say. They say, it seemed good to the council. If they wanted us to think otherwise, they should have wrote as you say.

Obviously (at least to me), we can see what's happening. Other's in history (Tertullian?) said, paraphrasing very loosely, no more Spirit, He is in the Book/Bible. But it's not just that, there were folks at that time 325ad doing both and had they looked in scripture they'd see what the practice was. Instead they decided against that. And maybe it was still just those folks at home following scripture. We don't know. But they decided against it.

They set up the dichotomy, the schism. Before you reply too quickly, keep in mind they did not say, it seemed good to the Spirit and us.

Tertullian was a heretic.

The Bible canon was not composed until the early 5th century.

And yes, at Nicaea they did say "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" or else there would be no Council.

 

[Standing Up]

The Bible canon was not composed until the early 5th century.

And yes, at Nicaea they did say "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" or else there would be no Council.

Where?

 

[Standing Up]

Good question...
The good answer is...
SCRIPTURE

And what is the plumbline for who decides what is scripture?

Forgive me...

Sons of Thunder. What was written by eyewitnesses from the first through the death, burial, and resurrection to ascension; that is, between the first and last apostles to die.

Originally Posted by tulc

So, no Paul the Apostle?
tulc(just wondering)
​

Originally Posted by E.C.

The Bible canon was not composed until the early 5th century.

​

In thinking some more about this, James the brother of Jesus who wrote the book of James was the same type of example as Paul. They both went from unbelievers to believers. They knew of Jesus before and during His death and burial. Jesus appeared to them both after resurrection.

So, I'll say again about the plumbline. Sons of Thunder were the first and last apostles to die. Between those times was canon written. It may not have been assembled as we know it today, but it was written.

This is why, for example, the letter of Clement of Rome that was read in many assemblies was not considered scripture. This is why some folks may reject Joseph Smith. This is why some folks may reject later council decisions, especially ones that CONTRADICT the written word given by eyewitnesses to Christ Jesus.

 

[simonthezealot]

And what is the plumbline for who decides what is scripture?

Forgive me...

Scripture not the author was inspired the moment it was penned, and furthermore God would never be denied in having His word be recognized.
For example James was writing his own book and called it scripture. He says, "Do you think the scripture speak to no purpose" in James 4:5. He know's he is penning something that is inspired by the HS
He calls his own book James, scripture.

Paul reading the OT the law of God, said the law is holy, just and good. He affirms the; holiness and perfection of the Old Testament.

Jude quotes Peter as scripture.
Peter quotes Paul as scripture.
And John quotes himself as scripture.
John after he pens the letters in Revelation he says let the churches hear what the Spirit says.
John knew he was writing what the Spirit was saying, not what he was saying.

 

[Standing Up]

About the blood clot, babies are born without vitamin K, the blood-clotting agent. So, from the mother's milk, they receive vitamin K and thus it goes. (I'd wondered the same thing many years ago when my first was born and if I recall correctly that was the doctor's explanation.)