Which books belong in the New Testament?

[drich0150]

If being close to the events is important, why do you not accept the lists that were earlier than the list you use?

As I have said many times to this point. Those books were not given to the church to use as the primary tool to get to know God.

The Didache and the Shepard of Herman appeared in the lists before your list.

The 1.0 version of anything is rarely the final version of it. Your "list" was what was needed or simply what was available to those brothers. They are responsible to what was given them like we are responsible to what was given to us.

The people who compiled your list lived 300 years after the apostles, and had no first hand knowledge of who wrote what.

This is a large assumption solely based on faith. It is difficult next to impossible for one man to represent the intentions or Heart of another, even if that man is standing next to him. Let alone if these two people stood 1700 years apart.

Not to mention these "men" were just the tools used to compile scripture. What may have been trivial or even random to them was intended or was purposefully directed by the Holy Spirit. As the Bible is a work of the Holy Spirit, that was assembled by man. That is what makes it God's responsibility for what the bible contains, not ours/this generation.

They didn't even know anybody who had known anybody who had known the apostles.

Again, this is just a slighted conjecture and/or speculation to the nature of a man or a group of men who lived nearly 1700 years ago. None of which matters to anything, because they did not write or compile scripture...

And they have selected books that were apparently not even written by apostles.

See previous comment

Did the compilers of the NT use careful scrutiny, or did they resort to politics and faulty reasoning?

Is it any less miraculous if or when God uses simple circumstance, or a well intentioned person to intervene in a desperate situation? You seem to want to remove God's involvement in all of this. Do you think God to be powerless in the compilation of His own story?

Irenaeus argued there must be four gospels, because there are four winds. Others argued that the Apocalypse of Peter should not be allowed, because people were disturbed by its teaching. With reasoning like this, one might think they could end up with a faulty list.

Indeed, if they were the ones who had the final say.

My point has been that we have no way of knowing that certain books were selected of God to be in the New Testament. So no, I am not presupposing that we can know such things.

So then you agree, no matter what list we wish to live by, it is a matter of Faith, that we live by it? If all of your belief and effort is only a matter of faith, then why not have faith in God to be God, and deliver us a book that will allow us to find Him through the great work He has done?

Or Again, do you think God foolish to allow His son to be beaten and crucified on the cross to only be able to reach out to a few generations of people, because some blind guides (in your estimation) messed up the compilation of the only resource that was made available to the Church.. and now God just waits till someone can "fix" what you apparently think He is unable to do for Himself.

I do not follow your logic here. It is like you look at the biased evidence that you are prepared to present, but refuse to look at anything else. Like the practical application of the Gospel to the generations of subsequent believers through what you believe to be a flawed bible, and yet God can not or will not do anything about it, despite the Great effort that was made from the beginning to Christ death..

I have asked you several times how you know the books compiled into the New Testament are the ones that God chose. Unless you can prove that God chose your list, you have no proof that the books in your list contain the Mind of God.

If you are looking for the type of proof you have presented then you do not understand the most basic principle outlined in scripture (NT & OT) And you seem to be more than willing to over look the faith you must have to believe in your own preferred compilation of the bible.

My "proof" lies in everything I have witnessed to you up to this point.. Re read this post if you missed it.

God may have had the power to select books. The point is that we have no clear way of knowing which books God selected.

Again that is why we must be faithful to all that we have been given. Did you read the parable I left from Mt?

If God exists and created the universe, than I would think he could select and change books. Do you have any means of knowing which books he selected?

See above.

No, I do not think I am an instrument of God to make changes.

If not looking for change are you simply looking to shake another's faith?

What changes did God make to the RCC? Are you referring to the reformation?

In part yes.

Not everybody agrees that God caused the reformation, but even if he did, that was a long time after the 4th century.

Not "everybody" agrees that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but that doesn't make it any less so. Also the second half of your thought presupposes that God had a problem with the RC church from the beginning.

If God can wait a long time to fix the church, why couldn't he wait a long time to fix the Bible?

One "we" don't know that God waited a long time to "fix" anything. In the case of the RC church I would say He didn't fix that particular denomination, Because they still fill a great need in the role of the over all Church. In the case of the reformation however, God preserved His church and allow those of us who were ready and able to grow past the confines of that specific denomination the ability to do so. Why because some of us were ready and needed to express our faith accordingly.

As to why God waited to give us a different opportunity for organized worship, because "we" as the collective members of the Church or Members of the Body, needed our time in the desert.

As many members of the faith can attest we all spend time away from God to proof or strengthen our resolve. Peter's denial, Paul Spent several years after meeting Christ on the road to Damascus, before he started His ministry, Christ Himself spent forty days in the actual desert being tempted.

Our over all experience as a church is shaping up much like an individual's personal walk. we start out as infants of the word and need milk or the most basic spiritual nourishment. Then we Grow and test our faith, till one day like the prodigal son we wish to take our inheritance and leave. When and if we return, our relationship to the one we left will have been fortified. I believe the reformation was our return. God did necessarily make the change, we simply came home.

Why God couldn't do the same with the bible? Because there would be nothing to come home to... Not to mention what of the millions who died between the last utterance of the "true gospel" (Found in your NT) and the return to it? Does this description of God match the one found in any account of Scripture New or Old or even yours?

God is accountable for the content of His bible Because He said He would be. We are accountable to what we have been given Because He told us we are... The Actual content is a secondary issue, to the faithfulness we are supposed to have to what is given..

Remember, before you write up another personally righteous dissertation on the foolishness of blind faith. No matter what account you hold to be "truth" it is still an exercise using the same type of faith. So again why not use the faith when and where God wants us to use it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

drich0150, when it comes down to it, I see little more than a request to believe that your list of books is right and that other lists are wrong. Other people have a completely different list of holy books, such as including the Book of Mormon, or ending the list of holy books with Daniel. How do you know your list is right and their list is wrong? I see little more than a plea to have faith, which is, of course, nothing different than what other religions ask us to do.

why do you not accept the lists that were earlier than the list you use?

As I have said many times to this point. Those books were not given to the church to use as the primary tool to get to know God.

How do you know that the list of books from the 4th century is a primary tool to get to know God, but the previous lists were not? Another Christian here had quoted a previous list of books. Are you telling him that this list--which is very close to your list--was not intended to help people know God?

The 1.0 version of anything is rarely the final version of it. Your "list" was what was needed or simply what was available to those brothers. They are responsible to what was given them like we are responsible to what was given to us.

OK, so the 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, etc. versions of the canon were preliminary.

Perhaps your 2.0 version is also preliminary. Could it be time for 3.0?

The people who compiled your list lived 300 years after the apostles, and had no first hand knowledge of who wrote what.

This is a large assumption solely based on faith. It is difficult next to impossible for one man to represent the intentions or Heart of another, even if that man is standing next to him. Let alone if these two people stood 1700 years apart.

Uh, no, it is not an asertion based on faith that the folks in the 4th century had no first hand knowledge of an event that happened 300 years previous. It is a fact that it is impossible to have firsthand knowledge of an event that happened 300 years earlier.

I am not talking about the intentions of their heart. I am talking about the limited length of their life. They could not possibly have had first hand knowledge of the apostles.

They didn't even know anybody who had known anybody who had known the apostles.

Again, this is just a slighted conjecture and/or speculation to the nature of a man or a group of men who lived nearly 1700 years ago. None of which matters to anything, because they did not write or compile scripture...

No, it is not conjecture or speculation. If somebody tells you that he knows the Pilgrims did something on the Mayflower because he knows somebody who knew somebody who knew the pilgrims, than that man is lying.

The folks in the 4th century who selected your canon did not know somebody who knew somebody who knew the apostles.

Besides, knowing somebody who knows somebody who knows another person is hearsay of hearsay and is almost completely worthless in terms of evidence.

Do you think God to be powerless in the compilation of His own story?

I thought I answered this once before: If God exists and created the universe, then I would think he could compile a story.

My point has been that we have no way of knowing that certain books were selected of God to be in the New Testament. So no, I am not presupposing that we can know such things.

So then you agree, no matter what list we wish to live by, it is a matter of Faith, that we live by it? If all of your belief and effort is only a matter of faith, then why not have faith in God to be God, and deliver us a book that will allow us to find Him through the great work He has done?

I agree that if anybody chooses to follow a list of books as the Word of God without evidence, that it is a matter of faith.

But as I said, I have no way of knowing that a certain list of books was chosen by God (unless, of course, the list should be given through an undeniable miracle such as stars spelling it out in the sky).

I do not think we need to pick a list of books and claim they are God's word. We don't know. Why not say, "I don't know"?

Or Again, do you think God foolish to allow His son to be beaten and crucified on the cross to only be able to reach out to a few generations of people, because some blind guides (in your estimation) messed up the compilation of the only resource that was made available to the Church.. and now God just waits till someone can "fix" what you apparently think He is unable to do for Himself.

If God wanted to forgive me, why wouldn't he just do that without first allowing his son to be beaten up?

But even if God chose not to forgive us until his son was beaten up, why would he force me to believe that event before forgiving me?

And if he demands I believe a certain historical event happened before he can forgive me, why wouldn't he reveal that fact using clearly documented history?

I do not follow your logic here. It is like you look at the biased evidence that you are prepared to present, but refuse to look at anything else. Like the practical application of the Gospel to the generations of subsequent believers through what you believe to be a flawed bible, and yet God can not or will not do anything about it, despite the Great effort that was made from the beginning to Christ death..

Oh, I understand the lives that have been changed by Christianity, but I am not sure that the change that happened is a result of the particulars of the Christian faith.

Even if it is true that certain books change lives, that does not prove that the New Testament consists of exactly 27 books.

If you are looking for the type of proof you have presented then you do not understand the most basic principle outlined in scripture (NT & OT) And you seem to be more than willing to over look the faith you must have to believe in your own preferred compilation of the bible.

I have no preferred compilations of the Bible.

No matter what account you hold to be "truth" it is still an exercise using the same type of faith. So again why not use the faith when and where God wants us to use it?

I choose reason over faith. If I don't know, then I say "I don't know".

 

[razeontherock]

The problem for your position is that every list before 360 AD

The problem with your position is thinking G-d is somehow concerned with our "lists."

G-d is not a list. He is Love, He is Spirit, and He seeks those who worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

 

[razeontherock]

And yet modern scholarship shows that many of the books they selected for the New Testament were most like written by imposters.

Authorship is irrelevant, as is "modern scholarship." Divine inspiration is both the author and the current applicable validity.

Modern scholarship can't recognize Divine inspiration even with a flashing neon sign.

 

[razeontherock]

The problem is that the Sheherd of Hermas was often treated by early Christians as being equal to books that later made it into the New Testament. In fact, one of the oldest copies of the New Testament that we have found includes the Shepherd of Hermas (as well as the Epistle of Barnabas) right there in the New Testament.

Again, what specific content of the Shepherd of Hermas is troubling you? I have
a quote from Barnabas in my tagline. Whether it's "Scripture" or not, I challenge anyone to defend a position that that statement is erroneous. It stands on it's own merit.

 

[drich0150]

drich0150, when it comes down to it, I see little more than a request to believe that your list of books is right and that other lists are wrong. Other people have a completely different list of holy books, such as including the Book of Mormon, or ending the list of holy books with Daniel. How do you know your list is right and their list is wrong? I see little more than a plea to have faith, which is, of course, nothing different than what other religions ask us to do.

When it comes down to it, no matter what you believe whether it be the God of the Bible, the Quran, the God found in the book of mormon, or if you don't believe in anything, one ultimately bases that belief on "Faith." Faith is one's personal belief based on the evidence that person excepts as truth. So again if what ever we do is based on faith why not "do" what God tells us to do..

Which brings us to your next question:
Question: "How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and not the Apocrypha, the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, etc.?"

Answer: The question of which (if any) religious text is the true word of God is of utmost importance. To avoid circular reasoning, the first question we must ask is: how would we know if God communicated in the first place? Well, God would have to communicate in a manner that people could understand, but that also means that people could make up their own messages and simply claim that they came from God. So, it seems reasonable to think that if God wanted to authenticate His communication He would have to verify it in a manner that could not be duplicated by mere humans - in other words, by miracles. This narrows the field considerably.

Beyond the evidence for the Bible's correctness (manuscript evidence) and its historicity (archeological evidence), the most important evidence is that of its inspiration. The real determination of the Bible's claim to absolute inspired truth is in its supernatural evidence, including prophecy. God used prophets to speak and write down His Word and God uses miracles like fulfilled prophecy to authenticate His messengers. For example, in Genesis 12:7, God promises that the land of Israel was to be for Abraham and his descendants. In 1948 Israel was returned back to the Jewish people for the second time in history. This may not seem so astonishing until you realize that no nation in the history of the world has been scattered from its homeland and returned! Israel has done it twice. The book of Daniel predicts with accuracy the coming of the four great kingdoms from Babylon, to Medo-Persia, to Greece, to Rome centuries before some of those kingdoms came on the scene (a time span of over 1,000 years!) with details concerning how they would rule and be broken. This includes the reigns of Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanies.

In Ezekiel 26 we can see in astonishing detail how the city of Tyre was to be destroyed, how it would be torn down, and how its debris would be thrown into the sea. When Alexander the Great marched on that area, he encountered a group of people holed up in a tower on an island off the coast near there. He could not cross the sea, so he could not fight those in the tower. Rather than wait them out, the proud conqueror had his army throw stones into the sea to build a land bridge to the tower. It worked. His army crossed the sea and overthrew the occupants of the stronghold. But where did he get so much stone? The rocks that were used for the land bridge were the leftover rubble from the city of Tyre . . . its stones cast into the sea!

There are so many prophecies concerning Christ (over 270!) that it would take more than a few screens worth of space to list them all. Further, Jesus would have had no control over many of them such as His birthplace or time of birth. Second, the odds of one man accidentally fulfilling even 16 of these are 1 in 10^45. How many is that? For comparison, there are less than 10^28 atoms in the entire universe! And Jesus, who affirmed the Bible as the Word of God, proved His reliability and deity by His resurrection (an historical fact not easily ignored).

Now consider the Quran - its author, Muhammad, performed no miracles to back up his message (even when he was asked to by his followers - Sura 17:91-95; 29:47-51). Only in much later tradition (the Hadith) do any alleged miracles even show up and these are all quite fanciful (like Muhammad cutting the moon in half) and have zero reliable testimony to back them up. Further, the Quran makes clear historical errors. Muslims believe the Bible is inspired but with some errors from editing (Sura 2:136 as well as Suras 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25). The question they cannot adequately answer is: "When was the Bible corrupted?" If they say before 600 A.D. then how can the Quran admonish believers to read it? If they claim it was after 600 A.D., then they have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire, for we have absolutely no doubt as to the accuracy of biblical manuscripts from at least the 3rd century forward. Even if Christianity were false, the Quran still has an insurmountable problem because it makes judgments against Christians for believing things that they do not (nor have they ever) believed. For example, the Quran teaches that Christians believe the Trinity is the Father, the Mother (Mary), and the Son (Sura 5:73-75, 116), and the Quran also teaches that Christians believe that God had sex with Mary to have a son (Suras 2:116; 6:100-101; 10:68; 16:57; 19:35; 23:91; 37:149-151; 43:16-19). If the Quran is really from God, then it should at least be able to accurately report what Christians believe.

Joseph Smith, the author of the Book of Mormon, tried to do some miracles such as prophecy (a test for a true prophet in Deuteronomy 18:21-22) but failed several times. He foretold of Christ's second coming in History of the Church (HC) 2:382. Joseph Smith preached that the coming of the Lord would be in 56 years (about 1891). The second coming did not occur in 1891, and the Mormon Church does not claim that it did. Nor has it occurred since. He also prophesied that several cities would be destroyed in Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 84:114-115. New York, Albany and Boston were to be destroyed if they rejected the gospel according to Smith. Joseph Smith himself went to New York, Albany, and Boston and preached there. These cities did not accept his gospel, yet they have not been destroyed. Another famous false prophecy of Joseph Smith was his "END OF ALL NATIONS" in D&C 87 concerning the rebellion of South Carolina in the war between the states. The South was supposed to call on Great Britain for aid, and as a result war would be poured out upon all nations; slaves would revolt; the inhabitants of the earth would mourn; famine, plague, earthquake, thunder, lightning, and a full end of all nations would result. The South finally did revolt in 1861, but the slaves did not rise up, war was not poured out upon all nations, there was no worldwide famine, plague, earthquake, etc., and there was no resulting "end of all nations."

The collection of writings that Protestants call the Apocrypha (hidden writings), Roman Catholics call the deuterocanonical (later or second canon) books. These books were written between 300 B.C. and 100 A.D., the Intertestamental Period between the inspired writings of God's Prophets in the Old Testament and those of the Apostles and their contemporaries in the New Testament. These were "infallibly" accepted into the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 at the Council of Trent. Now the Apocrypha would be covered under the evidence for the Bible if these writings were truly inspired - but evidence seems to indicate that they are not. In the Bible we find prophets of God whose messages are ratified by miracles or prophecy that comes true, and whose message is immediately accepted by the people (Deut 31:26; Josh. 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25; Daniel 9:2; Col. 4:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16). What we find in the apocrypha is just the opposite - no apocryphal book was written by a prophet; in fact one book specifically states that it is not inspired (1 Maccabees 9:27)! None of these books were included in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no ratification of the authors of any apocryphal book. No apocryphal book is cited as authoritative by later Biblical writers. There is no fulfilled prophecy in any apocryphal book. Finally, Jesus, who quoted from every section of Old Testament Scripture, never once quoted from the apocrypha. Neither did any of His disciples.

The Bible so far outshines every competing source for being God's revelation that if it is not God's Word, it would seem impossible to choose among the leftovers. If the Bible is not God's Word, then we have been left with no clear criteria by which to know what might be.

Gotquestions.org

 

[doubtingmerle]

The problem with your position is thinking G-d is somehow concerned with our "lists."

G-d is not a list. He is Love, He is Spirit, and He seeks those who worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

Ah, so if does matter if one's New Testament consists of 26 books, 27 books, 100 books, or 3 books? It doesn't matter if the list includes the Shepherd of Herman or the Didache? And it doesn't matter if it includes the Book of Mormon? And it doesn't matter if it excludes Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Very interesting.

 

[drich0150]

How do you know that the list of books from the 4th century is a primary tool to get to know God, but the previous lists were not? Another Christian here had quoted a previous list of books. Are you telling him that this list--which is very close to your list--was not intended to help people know God?

Simply because God Left us the New testament and because He took the others back.

Perhaps your 2.0 version is also preliminary. Could it be time for 3.0?

We are told the "Next version" will be at the second coming.. For your own sake, you better hope not.

Uh, no, it is not an assertion based on faith that the folks in the 4th century had no first hand knowledge of an event that happened 300 years previous.

Then by all means give us a list of your reference material.

It is a fact that it is impossible to have firsthand knowledge of an event that happened 300 years earlier.

Unless said event had been purposefully recorded earlier..

I am not talking about the intentions of their heart. I am talking about the limited length of their life. They could not possibly have had first hand knowledge of the apostles.

See above comment.

No, it is not conjecture or speculation. If somebody tells you that he knows the Pilgrims did something on the Mayflower because he knows somebody who knew somebody who knew the pilgrims, than that man is lying.

There is indeed much conjecture and much speculation to your personal beliefs that all who were involved in the compilation of the NT were corrupt. Because you would have to take all of the available evidence to the contrary and disregard it. There by giving you an opportunity to substitute your personal beliefs for facts that have been looked at and scrutinized by the subsequent generations of the church. Your personal disdain for what seems to be "all things catholic" will attest to your personal level of corruption, and would nullify any "evidence" to the contrary in your personal belief. The fact that you hang on to this desire to nullify the work of the early church because you have labeled them "catholic" despite documented Church History, places your beliefs well with in the realm of Speculation and conjecture.

The folks in the 4th century who selected your canon did not know somebody who knew somebody who knew the apostles.

So what? They sifted through hundreds if not thousands of original, or copied manuscripts to compile scripture. These scripts were (By tradition) what the early church Identified as the works of the Apostles.

Besides, knowing somebody who knows somebody who knows another person is hearsay of hearsay and is almost completely worthless in terms of evidence.

From A Modern western/Anglo perspective, maybe. But, We are not talking about such a culture. This conversation would benefit greatly if you would take the time to familiarize yourself better with the culture in which you have taken so many liberties with.

I thought I answered this once before: If God exists and created the universe, then I would think he could compile a story.

If He could do so, then why is it that you believe that He could not maintain that story, and protect it from the foolishness of man?

I agree that if anybody chooses to follow a list of books as the Word of God without evidence, that it is a matter of faith.

Even if you don't follow a book it is still a matter of the same faith.

But as I said, I have no way of knowing that a certain list of books was chosen by God (unless, of course, the list should be given through an undeniable miracle such as stars spelling it out in the sky).

That is my point over, and over, and over, and over, and over again... You Do Not Have To Know. Where in your books, or the New testament is it written that God expects us to know without a shadow of a doubt which books should be included in the worship of Him? Then why does your personal sense of righteousness demand to know? Do you not know of the freedom that the books you so readily condemn speak???

I do not think we need to pick a list of books and claim they are God's word. We don't know. Why not say, "I don't know"?

Because "we" don't have to. We can stand behind what was left because God said we could. We also can take what we have been given as the word of God because Again God said we could..

If God wanted to forgive me, why wouldn't he just do that without first allowing his son to be beaten up?

Because as the OT will attest, Above all, God is righteous. Righteousness in this case demands an atonement for sin.

But even if God chose not to forgive us until his son was beaten up, why would he force me to believe that event before forgiving me?

If you made a tremendous personal sacrifice to allow for another's life, would you not want some kind of acknowledgment for what you have done?

For example, if you took a man in off of the street and invited him into your house, would you not expect Him to obey your rule? would you not expect him to respect you way of living? Or would it be OK for the homeless man to poop where ever he liked because he was accustomed to doing so? Would it be OK for him to have his way with your spouse, your children, with you, because on a whim he had a "need" he wanted to fill? Or again would there be rules? would there be some kind of need for some kind of acknowledgment for what was done? What if it cost you your son to bring this man into your house? What then? could he continue to do as he pleased like he were still on the street?
-or- would there be rules?

And if he demands I believe a certain historical event happened before he can forgive me, why wouldn't he reveal that fact using clearly documented history?

He did, He just did not use a "Documented History" that suits Modern western culture. He used what we had available at the time.

Even if it is true that certain books change lives, that does not prove that the New Testament consists of exactly 27 books.

It does because that is what we have. I'm not saying there may not have been better choices. I am saying it does, because this is what we have. Also know it is what we will be held accountable to or judged by.

I have no preferred compilations of the Bible.

Then why is there 5 pages of disagreement?

I choose reason over faith. If I don't know, then I say "I don't know

Then why are you so sure about what you could not possible know anything about? The hearts and minds of men who lived 1700 years ago?

My confused brother, reason is faith. It is faith that has been certified through statements that can be either be proved or disproved. Your faith comes in the belief that those "statements/facts" are true. Never the less it is still faith.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Again, what specific content of the Shepherd of Hermas is troubling you?

Same answer as the last time you asked. There is nothing specific about the Shepherd that I have in mind.

And if you ask again, my answer will be the same.

I have
a quote from Barnabas in my tagline. Whether it's "Scripture" or not, I challenge anyone to defend a position that that statement is erroneous. It stands on it's own merit.

Yes, I agree, statements stand on their own merits. Whether the statement comes from Matthew or Hebrews or Barnabas, the statement stands on its own merits.

For there is no divinely inspired list of infallible books for which we can assume that every statement in that set of books is infallible.

 

[doubtingmerle]

When it comes down to it, no matter what you believe whether it be the God of the Bible, the Quran, the God found in the book of mormon, or if you don't believe in anything, one ultimately bases that belief on "Faith." Faith is one's personal belief based on the evidence that person excepts as truth.

That is a very unusual definition of faith.

What evidence do I accept? I accept careful observation and reason. What evidence do you accept?

So again if what ever we do is based on faith why not "do" what God tells us to do..

Because I have no reliable way of knowing what God wants. Yes, I know, you will assert that the books of the New Testament tell us what God wants, but I don't see your evidence that God chose those 27 books, and only those 27 to be in the New Testament.

Beyond the evidence for the Bible's correctness (manuscript evidence) and its historicity (archeological evidence), the most important evidence is that of its inspiration. The real determination of the Bible's claim to absolute inspired truth is in its supernatural evidence, including prophecy.

I'm sure we could have an interesting discussion on Bible prophecy. Perhaps we can discuss that in another thread later.

Whether Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled is completely irrelevant to the question of how many books belong in the post-OT set of divinely inspired books. I mentioned 3 very different religions that all accept the Old Testament, but accept a different count of sacred books after the Old Testament. The Jews accept 0, most Christians today accept 27, and most Mormons accept 28 books after the Old Testament. So arguing about the validity of OT prophecy does not to tell us whether the correct count is 0, 27, 28, or some other number.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Wow, drich0150, where do I begin?

Lets begin with the apparent breakdown in communication here. You keep writing that I am saying things that have absolutely nothing to do with what I actually write. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are not deliberately making up false statements, but can I ask you to please read more carefully?

The following statements from your last post are complete misrepresentations, and have absolutely nothing to do with what I am actually saying:

1. "There is indeed much conjecture and much speculation to your personal beliefs that all who were involved in the compilation of the NT were corrupt."

2. "Your personal disdain for what seems to be 'all things catholic'"

3. "Where in your books, or the New testament is it written that God expects us to know without a shadow of a doubt which books should be included in the worship of Him? Then why does your personal sense of righteousness demand to know?"

4. "Then why are you so sure about what you could not possible know anything about? The hearts and minds of men who lived 1700 years ago?"

For the record, I never said that all who were involved in the compilation of the NT were corrupt. I never expresssed anything close to a personal disdain for all things Catholic. I know many good Catholics, and can be fascinated by their religion, even though I disagree on many points. I never demand that I must know things beyond a shadow of a doubt. I never said I am sure about the hearts and minds of men who lived 1700 years ago.

Please go back and read what I have actually written. I think if you will do that, you will see that the above statements have absolutely nothing to do with what I have actually written.

 

[doubtingmerle]

How do you know that the list of books from the 4th century is a primary tool to get to know God, but the previous lists were not? Another Christian here had quoted a previous list of books. Are you telling him that this list--which is very close to your list--was not intended to help people know God?

Simply because God Left us the New testament and because He took the others back.

And so you go around in an endless circle. How do you know that God selected the NT of the 4th century? Because he selected the NT of the 4th century!

We are told the "Next version" will be at the second coming.. For your own sake, you better hope not.

Where specifically were we told that the next version after the 4th century version will be the second coming?

Uh, no, it is not an assertion based on faith that the folks in the 4th century had no first hand knowledge of an event that happened 300 years previous.

Then by all means give us a list of your reference material.

Sir, I do not need to document that people who lived in the 4th century had a lifespan less than 150 years. If they and the apostles all lived less than 150 years, than it was impossible for people living in 350 AD to personally have known the apostles.

It is a fact that it is impossible to have firsthand knowledge of an event that happened 300 years earlier.

Unless said event had been purposefully recorded earlier..

You realize, of course, that reading something in a book does not count as first hand knowledge?

The fact that you hang on to this desire to nullify the work of the early church because you have labeled them "catholic" despite documented Church History, places your beliefs well with in the realm of Speculation and conjecture.

It is well known that the church councils of the 4th century were foundational to the modern Catholic church. Those councils made decisions concerning Catholic doctrine.

Once more, the church councils that met in 393, 397, and 419 AD established that the canon would have the 27 books we now recognize, and other foundational doctrines of the Catholic Church. You apparently insist that God agreed with their selection of the canon, but recognize that they made mistakes in the rest of their decisions.

How do you know they were infallible in their selection of books? Your answer seems to be that God could have made their decision infallible, therefore their decision was infallible. That is not a logical conclusion.

So what? They sifted through hundreds if not thousands of original, or copied manuscripts to compile scripture. These scripts were (By tradition) what the early church Identified as the works of the Apostles.

Please document this assertion. How do you know the 4th century church sifted through thousands of documents to make their decision? Do you have a single ancient source that verifies your claim?

As has been discussed throughout this thread, there was enormous controversy in the early church as to which documents were apostolic. Every list we have before 350 AD differs significantly from the current list.

From A Modern western/Anglo perspective, maybe. But, We are not talking about such a culture. This conversation would benefit greatly if you would take the time to familiarize yourself better with the culture in which you have taken so many liberties with.

I am well aware that the ancients did not use modern standards of doucmentary evidence. Because of this, ancient documents are notoriously unreliable. You can read one account of a war in one place, and a completely contradictory account in another place. When we see that, we know that at least one account was false. Ancient records are filled with such provably unreliable statements.

We use modern standards of verification, not because we happen to choose that over an equally valid ancient standard, but because we know that ancient standards did not work well.

If He could do so, then why is it that you believe that He could not maintain that story, and protect it from the foolishness of man?

So you are asking, If I believe God could do it, why do I believe he couldn't do it? Your question makes no sense at all.

I have told you repeatedly that if a God exists who created the universe, that he could probably compile a book.

The problem is that you appear to jump from "He could" to "He did" to "He did it in the way that the church said he did" without evidence.

Even if you don't follow a book it is still a matter of the same faith.

Oh no, my confidence is quite different from those who have confidence in faith without evidence. I have confidence in careful observation and reason, not in blind faith.

But as I said, I have no way of knowing that a certain list of books was chosen by God (unless, of course, the list should be given through an undeniable miracle such as stars spelling it out in the sky).

That is my point over, and over, and over, and over, and over again... You Do Not Have To Know.

I agree. I do not have to know.

Buf if I don't know, then I say, "I don't know".

You and I have no way of knowing that a certain list of books was chosen by God. Is it OK to say we don't know that God selected these 27 books to be the books of the New Testament?

But even if God chose not to forgive us until his son was beaten up, why would he force me to believe that event before forgiving me?

If you made a tremendous personal sacrifice to allow for another's life, would you not want some kind of acknowledgment for what you have done?

For example, if you took a man in off of the street and invited him into your house, would you not expect Him to obey your rule? would you not expect him to respect you way of living? Or would it be OK for the homeless man to poop where ever he liked because he was accustomed to doing so? Would it be OK for him to have his way with your spouse, your children, with you, because on a whim he had a "need" he wanted to fill? Or again would there be rules? would there be some kind of need for some kind of acknowledgment for what was done? What if it cost you your son to bring this man into your house? What then? could he continue to do as he pleased like he were still on the street?
-or- would there be rules?

If you live in a person's house then you should follow his rules, regardless of whether that person let his son be killed. Whether or not your host left somebody kill his son has nothing to do with the fact that you should respect your host's house.

But I think you might have trouble sleeping in that house, if you knew your host had allowed his own son to be killed for such an unusual reason.

And if he demands I believe a certain historical event happened before he can forgive me, why wouldn't he reveal that fact using clearly documented history?

He did, He just did not use a "Documented History" that suits Modern western culture. He used what we had available at the time.

If you would like to prove to me that the ancient method of documenting history was as reliable as modern standards, be my guest. I'll listen to your case.

I choose reason over faith. If I don't know, then I say "I don't know

Then why are you so sure about what you could not possible know anything about?

Can you quote back a paragraph from my writings where I stated with confidence that I knew something that I couldn't possibly have reliably known?

 

[drich0150]

Where specifically were we told that the next version after the 4th century version will be the second coming?

In the final Revelation of the NT. (If you want more, then simply take the time to fully answer my questions.)

Sir, I do not need to document that people who lived in the 4th century had a lifespan less than 150 years. If they and the apostles all lived less than 150 years, than it was impossible for people living in 350 AD to personally have known the apostles.

So.. Your just making things up as you go along?

You realize, of course, that reading something in a book does not count as first hand knowledge?

I have first hand knowledge of God through what I have read in the Bible.. So I guess it does.

Once more, the church councils that met in 393, 397, and 419 AD established that the canon would have the 27 books we now recognize, and other foundational doctrines of the Catholic Church. You apparently insist that God agreed with their selection of the canon, but recognize that they made mistakes in the rest of their decisions.

Like what? What mistakes do I agree that they made?

How do you know they were infallible in their selection of books?

Again they did not have to be.

Your answer seems to be that God could have made their decision infallible, therefore their decision was infallible. That is not a logical conclusion.

If this is an accurate representation of the argument that you believe I am representing, then truly i am wasting my time here.

One LAST Time, It does not matter which books were included in the new testament, or which books were left out. We are responsible for the NT no matter what it looks like. God is responsible for it's content not us.

Please document this assertion. How do you know the 4th century church sifted through thousands of documents to make their decision? Do you have a single ancient source that verifies your claim?

I have asked you in a couple of spots now to verify your claims, and the best i have got was "It's common knowledge" or "Common sense would tell you..." If you want any more than that from me then i suggest that you make the effort to verify the claims you have made, that I had asked verification for..

I am well aware that the ancients did not use modern standards of documentary evidence. Because of this, ancient documents are notoriously unreliable.

By your standards perhaps, but many Historians would disagree.

You can read one account of a war in one place, and a completely contradictory account in another place.

Reference material please.

When we see that, we know that at least one account was false. Ancient records are filled with such provably unreliable statements.

Documented instances please

We use modern standards of verification, not because we happen to choose that over an equally valid ancient standard, but because we know that ancient standards did not work well.

Which is a foolish endeavor to hold something to a standard in which it can not possible hold up to, as it was "proofed" by different means altogether.. Perhaps this is why you have such a difficult time accepting the most simple percepts.

Oh no, my confidence is quite different from those who have confidence in faith without evidence. I have confidence in careful observation and reason, not in blind faith.

Faith in Evidence is still faith, or do you not see that because you have labeled any "faith" not proofed by your preferred method "blind?"

If you live in a person's house then you should follow his rules, regardless of whether that person let his son be killed. Whether or not your host left somebody kill his son has nothing to do with the fact that you should respect your host's house.

Then know brother you are in God's house and also know that it is by "those rules" that demanded atonement for your sins.. This is why you will not just be "forgiven." or allowed to poop where you want, just because you are accustom to doing so.

But I think you might have trouble sleeping in that house, if you knew your host had allowed his own son to be killed for such an unusual reason.

Actually I sleep very well in the knowledge that Jesus died for my sins. I would think the opposite would be true.. In that One would have a hard time sleeping if one knew God demanded a sin sacrifice, and that person did not accept the one offered in his behalf.

Perhaps it would even drive one to pointlessly argue a "faith" not his own, demanding answers to percepts he has no hope in understanding or taking to heart with out the Holy Spirit, in a foolish way that demands accountability for a 2000 year old religion to meet or exceed modern methods of record keeping...

If you would like to prove to me that the ancient method of documenting history was as reliable as modern standards, be my guest. I'll listen to your case.

I don't have to prove anything, because I did not say one was better than another. I simply point out the foolish nature in judging something out of it's proper context.

Can you quote back a paragraph from my writings where I stated with confidence that I knew something that I couldn't possibly have reliably known?

Yes I can, but as you seem to be in a lazy habit of making unsubstantiated claims and representing them as "Fact" I have decided to adopt the same method of writting... It make for quicker responses!!



I hope you have noticed that I simply pick and chose at what I wanted to respond to. If you want to be engaged in a more adult conversation where you are taken seriously then i ask that you first extend that courtesy to me. I have gone through great lengths to prepare my answers to you, and if you can not, or simply will not address my work as a whole then i will also treat you in a similar fashion, in hopes to get you to show me some level of respect here.. This is the 2nd or 3rd time I have asked you to bring your efforts up to an adult level, I can not proceed if you will not process or participate with what is written.

For an example there is an entire post you simply chose to ignore, you also seem to ignore anything that you can not process into furthering your side of the argument.. In addition, You also seemed to have turned from arguing facts to trying to start, or fuel an incident of flaming, which i will not be apart of, and is the reason why i will not address the post prior to the one I am currently responding to.

This behavior is not consistent with any type of known exploration. However as you well know it is consistent with a debate or a simple fool's argument, which is not allowed in the Exploration of Christianity section of this site. If this is the direction you are going then i ask that you be honest and own up to misdeed. thereby saving us both the time and effort.

Otherwise if you wish to continue, know that i will be holding your work to a higher standard. If you can not meet this standard then I will withdraw from this conversation.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Where specifically were we told that the next version after the 4th century version will be the second coming?

In the final Revelation of the NT. (If you want more, then simply take the time to fully answer my questions.)

Oh, please, where does the book of Revelation say that the set of books selected in the 4th century will be the final edit? Where does Revelation say anything about there being 26 and only 26 other books in the New Testament canon?

Sir, I do not need to document that people who lived in the 4th century had a lifespan less than 150 years. If they and the apostles all lived less than 150 years, than it was impossible for people living in 350 AD to personally have known the apostles.

So.. Your just making things up as you go along?

No sir, I am not making things up when I assert that lifespans back then were less than 150 years.

Are you seriously suggesting that lifespans were longer than 150 years in apostalic times? If you are seriously suggesting that, I will seek out evidence that they lived less than 150 years. But if we both agree that lifespans were less than 150 years, then why not just stipulate that this is true and move on?

One LAST Time, It does not matter which books were included in the new testament, or which books were left out. We are responsible for the NT no matter what it looks like. God is responsible for it's content not us.

How do you know that we are responsible to the New Testament that was chosen by the church councils in the 4th century? How do you know that we are not responsible for a different set of books that might form a different New Testament?

For an example there is an entire post you simply chose to ignore, you also seem to ignore anything that you can not process into furthering your side of the argument

I thought I responded to all your posts. If you have a particular post you want me to respond to, please give me the post number that you want my comments on.

In addition, You also seemed to have turned from arguing facts to trying to start, or fuel an incident of flaming, which i will not be apart of, and is the reason why i will not address the post prior to the one I am currently responding to.

Sir, where in this thread have I fueled an incident of flaming? Please print the offending paragraph here. I have tried my best to treat you with respect. If I have said anything that could be interpeted as fueling a flame, then I will certainly apologize. But first, I would need to know what I am apologizing for. If you would like me to apologize for anything I actually said, then please copy the actual words of the offending text here, so I can apologize.

 

[drich0150]

Oh, please, where does the book of Revelation say that the set of books selected in the 4th century will be the final edit? Where does Revelation say anything about there being 26 and only 26 other books in the New Testament canon?

No sir, I am not making things up when I assert that lifespans back then were less than 150 years.

Are you seriously suggesting that lifespans were longer than 150 years in apostalic times? If you are seriously suggesting that, I will seek out evidence that they lived less than 150 years. But if we both agree that lifespans were less than 150 years, then why not just stipulate that this is true and move on?

How do you know that we are responsible to the New Testament that was chosen by the church councils in the 4th century? How do you know that we are not responsible for a different set of books that might form a different New Testament?


I thought I responded to all your posts. If you have a particular post you want me to respond to, please give me the post number that you want my comments on.

Sir, where in this thread have I fueled an incident of flaming? Please print the offending paragraph here. I have tried my best to treat you with respect. If I have said anything that could be interpeted as fueling a flame, then I will certainly apologize. But first, I would need to know what I am apologizing for. If you would like me to apologize for anything I actually said, then please copy the actual words of the offending text here, so I can apologize.

So you choose to pretend that i am not asking you to "proof" or simply answer any of the questions I have posted?

I have asked many questions. Couple that with your apparent ability to go line by line, and speak to what you wish. I assume that you are flat out ignoring the questions that do not further your personal argument. As said I will not argue to feed your vanity. So unless your next response actually addresses questions that i have posted in this thread i will leave this fruitless argument with you.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So you choose to pretend that i am not asking you to "proof" or simply answer any of the questions I have posted?

I have asked many questions. Couple that with your apparent ability to go line by line, and speak to what you wish. I assume that you are flat out ignoring the questions that do not further your personal argument. As said I will not argue to feed your vanity. So unless your next response actually addresses questions that i have posted in this thread i will leave this fruitless argument with you.

You have asked for documentation that is a side trail from this thread. For instance, I said, "You can read one account of a war in one place, and a completely contradictory account in another place," and you responded by saying, "reference mateiral please." I do remember reading of such contradictory accounts in history, but as I could not find it with a quick search of the web, and cannot remember where I read it, can we simply agree to disagree on that point? I think ancient accounts often disagreed with each other. If you choose to dispute that claim, than fine, let's agree to disagree on that point and move on.

Now let's get back to the point at hand. We have not a single record of anybody treating the 27 books of the New Testament as a set of books that belong together until Athanasius did in 367 AD. That is 300 years after the books are reported to have been written. If those 27 books are unique, and belong together as the Word of God, then why is it that we find nobody agreeing with that list for 300 years after the apostles? We find other lists, such as the Muratorian canon discussed in this thread, but all those lists differ significantly with the 27 books in your list.

For instance, the oldest surviving copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, has the 27 books in your New Testament plus Barnabas and the Shepherd of Herman. It also includes the books known as the apocrypha, and much of the Old Testament, although unfortunately, the beginning of that Bible has been separated from the binding and is lost. This Bible is dated to be from about the time that Athansius published his list of 27 NT books. So how would anyone know that Athansius was right with his 27 books, and the compilers of the Codex Siniaticus were wrong with their choice of 29 New Testament books? (They may have chosen more: The manuscript ends abruptly in the middle of a book, so there may have been other books that are now lost.)

You have suggested the folks that picked 27 books are right because they are close to the apostles, but the Codex Sinaiticus was just as close, and differs with you. And other lists were closer to the time of the apostles. Besides, 300 years is not really that close, for the apostles had died long before 367 AD.

So I see your assertion that God chose your 27 books and only your 27 books to be nothing more than an assertion. I see no convincing evidence that this is so.

 

[drich0150]

..

 

[drich0150]

Now let's get back to the point at hand. We have not a single record of anybody treating the 27 books of the New Testament as a set of books that belong together until Athanasius did in 367 AD. That is 300 years after the books are reported to have been written. If those 27 books are unique, and belong together as the Word of God, then why is it that we find nobody agreeing with that list for 300 years after the apostles?

Because according to church history these books were or the individual manuscripts were unique to specific congregations. The "church" didn't have a unified standard or bible to teach from. Some had the teaching of Paul some had teachings of John and so one and so fourth.

One of the reasons the New testament was complied was To bring unity to the church because every community or region of believers had their own cannon to follow. Preservation of the works of the apostles was another.

I have been taught around the 3rd century a great call went out to the various congregations to see what books or letters the various churches had. It is from this list and through research and effort that the "27 book" were complied.

You have suggested the folks that picked 27 books are right because they are close to the apostles, but the Codex Sinaiticus was just as close, and differs with you.

Actually no, (this is the 2nd time i have corrected your misunderstand of my primary message.)

I am not saying the NT (27books) are "Right." I have never said this. your argument depends on it, and you have simply grafted this principle into what I am actually saying so that you evidently can argue what it is you are prepared to argue.

What I am saying:
I say despite the Historical accuracy of the NT, these 27 books have been Given to the Church by God, and it is to these 27 book we are accountable. We know these books have been given to the church because, these are the books that are represent by the church, as the word of God.
This is my message not what you have changed to fit your argument.

And other lists were closer to the time of the apostles. Besides, 300 years is not really that close, for the apostles had died long before 367 AD.

One more time, Accuracy is not a primary concern.

So I see your assertion that God chose your 27 books and only your 27 books to be nothing more than an assertion. I see no convincing evidence that this is so.

we are continually going in circles.. It is time to stop. Either you don't get it, or you believe that you are smart enough to drag me into an argument that you seem desperate to flourish.. Either way I have far more pressing matters to attend to. so unless you show me a willingness to progress in this conversation, I will be content in just reading you build your judgment day defense strategy.

Good luck

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because according to church history these books were or the individual manuscripts were unique to specific congregations. The "church" didn't have a unified standard or bible to teach from. Some had the teaching of Paul some had teachings of John and so one and so fourth.

I agree that the early churches did not have a unified standard of biblical books. Some had mostly the writings of Paul; some included the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and other books that did not make the final cut; others stressed the four gospels; others collected Christian books that were very different, such as the Nag Hammadi collection ( Nag Hammadi library - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

That is why one cannot simply take a passage from Revelation that says not to add anything to this book and claim that John is referring to the New Testament. He was not referring to the New Testament. He was referring to the book of Revelation.

One of the reasons the New testament was complied was To bring unity to the church because every community or region of believers had their own cannon to follow.

Choosing a list of books that brings unity is not the same thing as specifying a list of all the inspired New Testament books. If the list was based on what can bring unity, then it could turn out, for instance, that Hebrews is an unispired book that was added for political reasons, and that the Epistle of Barnabas, for instance, is an inspired book that was excluded for the same reasons.

So when your pastor reads from Matthew, for instance, it could be that he is reading from an unispired book that was included simply to get other bishops go along with the list.

Preservation of the works of the apostles was another.

Here we have a big problem. For there are serious doubts that any of the books in the New Testament are the works of the apostles other than 10 of the epistles of Paul. All other books of the New Testament are either anonymous or highly doubtful in authorship.

I have been taught around the 3rd century a great call went out to the various congregations to see what books or letters the various churches had. It is from this list and through research and effort that the "27 book" were complied.

I think you are off be a century. Serious work in collecting the canon did not begin until the 4th century.

You refer to their research, but what evidence do you have that there was significant research put into the canon? Could they not have simply been accepting those books that were the most politically expedient?

Also, as I have pointed out before, some of the reasons given for selecting books represent very poor reasoning.

You have suggested the folks that picked 27 books are right because they are close to the apostles, but the Codex Sinaiticus was just as close, and differs with you.

Actually no, (this is the 2nd time i have corrected your misunderstand of my primary message.)

I am not saying the NT (27books) are "Right." I have never said this. your argument depends on it, and you have simply grafted this principle into what I am actually saying so that you evidently can argue what it is you are prepared to argue.

By the expression "suggested the folks that picked 27 books are right " I refer to the claim that those folks have picked the exact list of 27 books that God wants to be in the New Testament.

Does God want the New Testament to consist of the 27 books in your New Testament? Or does God want the New Testament to include the 29 in the surviving portion of the Codex Sinaiticus? Or does God want some other list? If you think God wants the list to consist of the 27 books that the church picked, then I cannot understand why that is not the same as saying you think the church picked the right books.

What I am saying:
I say despite the Historical accuracy of the NT, these 27 books have been Given to the Church by God, and it is to these 27 book we are accountable. We know these books have been given to the church because, these are the books that are represent by the church, as the word of God.
This is my message not what you have changed to fit your argument.

OK, but how does the fact that the church represents certain books as the word of God prove that those books are the word of God? I am well aware that the church now claims those 27 books represent the New Testament, and are the word of God.

But how do you know that the church is correct when it says these 27 books are the word of God? After all, the church is sometimes mistaken, isn't it?

And other lists were closer to the time of the apostles. Besides, 300 years is not really that close, for the apostles had died long before 367 AD.

One more time, Accuracy is not a primary concern.

Excuse me, but the other lists I refer to differ significantly from the list that the church now uses. If accuracy of the list is not a concern, can I select any list I want? Why must I select your list, if accuracy of the list is not imporant?

I have far more pressing matters to attend to. so unless you show me a willingness to progress in this conversation, I will be content in just reading you build your judgment day defense strategy.

Good luck

Good idea for a new topic! When this thread is over, perhaps we can have another thread on the best defense strategy for judgement day.

 

[razeontherock]

That is why one cannot simply take a passage from Revelation that says not to add anything to this book and claim that John is referring to the New Testament. He was not referring to the New Testament. He was referring to the book of Revelation.

What John may or may not have been referring to is only of secondary importance, at best. Moses and Isaiah certainly had little idea of the meaning of much of what they wrote.

Choosing a list of books that brings unity is not the same thing as specifying a list of all the inspired New Testament books.

Christianity makes absolutely NO claim that there is nothing inspired outside of it's own Canon.

For there are serious doubts that any of the books in the New Testament are the works of the apostles other than 10 of the epistles of Paul. All other books of the New Testament are either anonymous or highly doubtful in authorship.

You a funny guy! Have you ever looked into this? I mean, seriously? If you want to remove a virus from your PC, don't call a plumber.

Why must I select your list, if accuracy of the list is not imporant?

I think this is actually a better question than you give it credit for. You can find the Truth of G-d in a rainstorm, (just as one random example) lists are not such a primary concern.