Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hello Bob.The N.T. Scriptures were immediately accepted as being the word of God. Paul quotes Luke 10:7 alongside Deut. 25:4 (1 Timothy 5:18), and Peter endorses Paul's letters in 1 Peter 3:15-16. The ECFs quote extensively from the N.T. showing that they regarded them as authoritative. For example, somewhere around AD 95, Clement of Rome wrote: 'Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos.....' Clement did not wait for any authority to tell him that 1 Corinthians was inspired Scripture. Clement also quoted from Psalm 118:18 and Hebrews 12:6 and described them both as the 'Holy Word.'
Polycarp, in his letter to the church at Philippi, quotes from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 2 Thes., 1 & 2 Tim., and Hebrews. He quotes 1 Peter so often and widely that Bruce Metzger suggests that he must have known it practically by heart. He introduces quotations by saying, "Remember what the Lord said in His teaching....." and "As the Lord said......" He also wrote, " I trust you are well versed in the sacred Scriptures and that nothing is hid from you." He assumed that his readers also has access to the N.T. Polycarp died in AD 155, long before the Roman Catholic Church reared its head.
The Latin Vulgate is a late 4th century document containing all of the OT and NT
The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament. The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in a 7th or 8th century codex from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 A.D.
The "NT unknown until 15th" century fiction -- died a horrible death - a long time ago.
The only way that you can cite Polycarp is if you are quoting from a letter written by Iraneaus.Polycarp, in his letter to the church at Philippi, quotes from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 2 Thes., 1 & 2 Tim., and Hebrews. He quotes 1 Peter so often and widely that Bruce Metzger suggests that he must have known it practically by heart.
Hello Bob.
You provided the following information to support your acceptance of the letters found in the New Testament.
The only way that you can cite Polycarp is if you are quoting from a letter written by Iraneaus.
I am not talking about the infallibility of any human author, they are all fallible. If you do your homework Bob, all these early authors had erroneous doctrines in their writing.There are certain "basics" we can all agree to "Iraneaus knew the son was up in the sky" or "Iraneus knew that Jesus was the Son of God".
That is not the same as "Iraneaus was infallible" or "all of Ignatius' corrupt document are still perfect and pure".
Majority does not mean all the letters, as I said before, there are seven letters written by Ignatius that are accepted as authentic.All scholars admit to the fact that the majority of the letters claimed for Ignatius are total fakes.
You need to cite the letters of Ignatius that you accept.That has not changed.
Hello Bob.
You made the following statement.
I am not talking about the infallibility of any human author, they are all fallible. If you do your homework Bob, all these early authors had erroneous doctrines in their writing.
If you accept Polycarp, then you have accepted Ireneaus.
Majority does not mean all the letters,
as I said before, there are seven letters written by Ignatius that are accepted as authentic.
You need to cite the letters of Ignatius that you accept.
Hello Bob.true. but they had to know certain basics like... "Do we just have the OT or do we also have the NT".
This is not rocket science. A great many almost illiterate today - yet can still tell you "The Christian Bible has both OT and NT in it". So when we look to these sources to tell us the basics that almost every child in Sunday school could tell you - we are not reaching very far into the realm of uncertainty.
I accept that they both existed but I don't have a doctrinal basis that is "sola-Polycarp" or "sola Bill Johnson" etc. The test as Acts 17:11 and 2 Tim 3:16-17 reminds us .. is "sola scriptura".
Bible details matter - no matter how much one things he is personally friends with Poly Carp or Bill Johnson or whoever.
True. "Majority of the food is poisoned at that store - but not all" .. Yet with the Bible - it is all trustworthy.
Not accepted as valid by Calvin or Luther and one reason is that the "source" is the great unchallenged forgery-engine that we call the RCC. It gave us the "Donation of Constantine" which was accepted for many centuries as Gospel truth - only to be found to be forged.
Why do I "need" to accept any of them? Why not start first by "accepting the Bible"? Why "reach" for sources known to be corrupt? What's the incentive leading to such desperate actions?
The idea that Calvin and Luther knew nothing about the NT - does not go very far.
Hello Bob.
I don't know why you refer to Luther?
Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide)
(wikipedia)
From CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Ignatius of Antioch
The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters written by Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome; These letters were addressed to the Christians
We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius (Church History III.36) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius
- of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);
- of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);
- of Tralles (Trallianois);
- of Rome (Pros Romaious);
- of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);
- of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and
- to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).
It is extremely probable that the interpolation of the genuine, the addition of the spurious letters, and the union of both in the long recension was the work of an Apollinarist of Syria or Egypt, who wrote towards the beginning of the fifth century. Funk identifies him with the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions, which came out of Syria in the early part of the same century. Subsequently there was added to this collection a panegyric on St. Ignatius entitled, "Laus Heronis". Though in the original it was probably written in Greek, it is now extant only in Latin and Coptic texts. There is also a third recension, designated by Funk as the "mixed collection". The time of its origin can be only vaguely determined as being between that of the collection known to Eusebius and the long recension. Besides the seven genuine letters of Ignatius in their original form, it also contains the six spurious ones, with the exception of that to the Philippians.
- to Mary of Cassobola (Pros Marian Kassoboliten);
- to the Tarsians (Pros tous en tarso);
- to the Philippians (Pros Philippesious);
- to the Antiochenes (Pros Antiocheis);
- to Hero a deacon of Antioch (Pros Erona diakonon Antiocheias). Associated with the foregoing is
- a letter from Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius.
In this collection is also to be found the "Martyrium Colbertinum". The Greek original of this recension is contained in a single codex, the famous Mediceo-Laurentianus manuscript at Florence. This codex is incomplete, wanting the letter to the Romans, which, however, is to be found associated with the "Martyrium Colbertinum" in the Codex Colbertinus, at Paris. The mixed collection is regarded as the most reliable of all in determining what was the authentic text of the genuine Ignatian letters.
There is also an ancient Latin version which is an unusually exact rendering of the Greek. Critics are generally inclined to look upon this version as a translation of some Greek manuscript of the same type as that of the Medicean Codex. This version owes its discovery to Archbishop Ussher, of Ireland, who found it in two manuscripts in English libraries and published it in 1644. It was the work of Robert Grosseteste, a Franciscan friar and Bishop of Lincoln (c. 1250). The original Syriac version has come down to us in its entirety only in an Armenian translation. It also contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters. This collection in the original Syriac would be invaluable in determining the exact text of Ignatius, were it in existence, for the reason that it could not have been later than the fourth or fifth century. The deficiencies of the Armenian version are in part supplied by the abridged recension in the original Syriac. This abridgment contains the three genuine letters to the Ephesians, the Romans, and to Polycarp. The manuscript was discovered by Cureton in a collection of Syriac manuscripts obtained in 1843 from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Desert of Nitria. Also there are three letters extant only in Latin. Two of the three purport to be from Ignatius to St. John the Apostle, and one to the Blessed Virgin, with her reply to the same. These are probably of Western origin, dating no further back than the twelfth century.
Hello Bob.Are you saying that rejecting a source that is known and confirmed by all scholars to be at best totally corrupt in over half of its supposedly-true-letters is "the same" as rejecting the book of James??
Hello Bob.It is hard to believe that with the purity of the Bible right in front of you - you want to circle back to a corrupt source like the supposed letters of Ignatius.
Here is what your own RCC says about them.
Hello Bob.
If you read your extract from the RCC more carefully, you will notice the following paragraph.
There is also a third recension, designated by Funk as the "mixed collection". The time of its origin can be only vaguely determined as being between that of the collection known to Eusebius and the long recension. Besides the seven genuine letters of Ignatius in their original form, it also contains the six spurious ones, with the exception of that to the Philippians.
Following your tradition of misquoting and applying non intended meanings to a select group of words. Moody didn't keep the 7th day sabbath and can't be supporting it with his sermon.
None of those scholars teach or practice the sabbath. Genesis 2 says nothing about a day of worship. We both know it.
No DL Moody doesn't agree and practice the 7th day sabbath.
Hello Bob.
You were referring to Luther and I am not sure why. Luther was not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?