The Devil's work

[jacobtaylor]

[font="tahoma][size="2"] [/size][/font]
[font="tahoma][size="2"]This is not an explicit teaching in the Bible. However, if you meditate on the characteristics of a redeemed soul - humility, obedience, and love; the characteristics of the narcissistic citizen of Hell become evident - a soul who feels cheated out of salvation and believes they are their own God.[/size][/font]
[font="tahoma][size="2"] [/size][/font]
[font="tahoma][size="2"]There is nothing sinful about moving beyond simply memorizing scripture - we are also called to meditate, as well - and this involves thinking about it.[/size][/font]

Hey didn't I see you on Opreh?

I have to point this out. In the first part of your statement you are acting like God.
[font="tahoma][size="2"]This is not an explicit teaching in the Bible.
[/size][/font]And you end the same sentence pointing out narcissistic people think they are god
[font="tahoma][size="2"] the characteristics of the narcissistic citizen of Hell become evident - a soul who feels cheated out of salvation and believes they are their own God.

By forming your own opinion, by your own ambition its not biblical, are you not a [/size][/font][font="tahoma][size="2"]:blink: narcissistic citizen :blink:

[/size][/font]This is not an explicit teaching in the Bible. However, if you meditate on the characteristics of a redeemed soul - humility, obedience, and love; the characteristics of the narcissistic citizen of Hell become evident - a soul who feels cheated out of salvation and believes they are their own God.

 

[aspen]

Hey didn't I see you on Opreh?

I have to point this out. In the first part of your statement you are acting like God.

[font="tahoma][size="2"]This is not an explicit teaching in the Bible.
[/size][/font]And you end the same sentence pointing out narcissistic people think they are god
[font="tahoma][size="2"] the characteristics of the narcissistic citizen of Hell become evident - a soul who feels cheated out of salvation and believes they are their own God.

By forming your own opinion, by your own ambition its not biblical, are you not a [/size][/font][font="tahoma][size="2"]:blink: narcissistic citizen :blink:

[/size][/font]This is not an explicit teaching in the Bible. However, if you meditate on the characteristics of a redeemed soul - humility, obedience, and love; the characteristics of the narcissistic citizen of Hell become evident - a soul who feels cheated out of salvation and believes they are their own God.

So, let me get this right; you are claiming that it is narcissistic to have personal thoughts? Wow! I have to say, I do not think I have ever heard a more anti-intellectual idea in my life...

I have so many questions for you

Do you know what Narcissism is?


Have you ever read anything from Eckhart Tolle?


Do you know what the serpent tempted Eve with concerning the fruit in the Garden? That she would be like God....remember? So wouldn't it follow that unredeemed souls would still be under the illusion that they are god? Especially since they only follow their own desires, not God's? And where are unredeemed souls going to end up, Jacob? Hell. Therefore, is it such a leap in logic to make the statement that citizens of Hell will believe they are their own gods? I think it is quite reasonable.

Are you afraid of your own thoughts?
Do you know the meaning of explicit and implicit?
Do you read commentaries on the Bible?
Do you think about what you are reading in the Bible or do you simply repeat verses?
Do you believe it is sinful to have any skills besides memorization of scripture?
Do you only pray scripture to God? Your own thoughts must be evil, right?
Do you even understand what Tolle was saying on Oprah?
Do you know what makes Tolle's theology unchristian, besides some guy on youtube telling you to watch out?
Do you read the Bible in it's original language? If you do not, you are trusting the commentary of the translator.
Do you actually think that you can possess truth in it's pure form or are you a human being who can only comment on truth? If you believe you can posses truth - you are the person play God, not me.

Make sure you only answer me with verses from the Bible from now on - I am not interested in your evil thoughts.....unbelievable.

Before you compare me to Eckhart Tolle - I think you better understand what he is teaching.

 

[aspen]

..........................

 

[jacobtaylor]

Do you know what Narcissism is?

You provied your own definition of narcissism
a soul who feels cheated out of salvation and believes they are their own God.

Your oxymoron sentence shows you suffer from the very condition you described. I didn't do anything but look at your own words.

[font="tahoma][size="2"]This is not an explicit teaching in the Bible. However, if you meditate on the characteristics of a redeemed soul - humility, obedience, and love; the characteristics of the narcissistic citizen of Hell become evident - a soul who feels cheated out of salvation and believes they are their own God.[/size][/font]
[font="tahoma][size="2"] [/size][/font]
[font="tahoma][size="2"]There is nothing sinful about moving beyond simply memorizing scripture - we are also called to meditate, as well - and this involves thinking about it.[/size][/font]

I have to point this out. In the first part of your statement you are acting like God.
[font="tahoma][size="2"]This is not an explicit teaching in the Bible.
[/size][/font]And you end the same sentence pointing out narcissistic people think they are god
[font="tahoma][size="2"]the characteristics of the narcissistic citizen of Hell become evident - a soul who feels cheated out of salvation and believes they are their own God.

By forming your own opinion, by your own ambition its not biblical, are you not a [/size][/font][font="tahoma][size="2"]:blink: narcissistic citizen :blink:
[/size][/font]

As far as the Eckhart Tolle videos from Opera I would say I hit the nail on head. Sounds like you have read his book as well as agree with him.

Have you ever read anything from Eckhart Tolle?
Do you even understand what Tolle was saying on Oprah?
Do you know what makes Tolle's theology unchristian, besides some guy on youtube telling you to watch out?

Im simply trying to help you, by pointing out your error in leaning on your own understanding. It leads to a dead end aspen thats why we need to accept sola scripture. Without it we wonder off the path. And heres the verse to back up what I just said.

Make sure you only answer me with verses from the Bible from now on - I am not interested in your evil thoughts.....unbelievable.

Proverbs 3:5-6
[sup]5[/sup] Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
[sup]6[/sup] In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.

 

[aspen]

You provied your own definition of narcissism
a soul who feels cheated out of salvation and believes they are their own God.


So I see you are refusing to answer my question? I want to know what the clinical meaning of Narcissism is and how it can be applied to citizens of Hell. If you think I am wrong, I want to know how I am wrong and why citizens of Hell are not Narcissistic. I also want to know where, explicitly in the Bible it says that we are not allowed to think about the verses we read in the Bible and draw logical conclusions, based on the scripture.

Your oxymoron sentence shows you suffer from the very condition you described. I didn't do anything but look at your own words.


Do you know what the word oxymoron means?

As far as the Eckhart Tolle videos from Opera I would say I hit the nail on head. Sounds like you have read his book as well as agree with him.


So you have decided that I have not only read Tolle's books, but I agree with them? And you think I am making assumptions about people in Hell? Wow! All I am asking you to do is to stick to topics you know and understand - Tolle is not one of them. Your statements sounds like you are relying on your own understanding to me. I would not compare you to Pol Pot because I only know basic information about his education, philosophy and dictatorship, but I bet I know more about him then you do about Tolle.

Im simply trying to help you, by pointing out to you your error in leaning on your own understanding.


Where am I leaning on my own understanding? Did I compare you to an author I have never read, or a person on a 2 minute youtube clip that I can not even understand? And then make the assumption that you must agree with his doctrine?


It leads to a dead end aspen thats why we need to accept sola scripture. Without it we wonder of the path. And heres the verse to back up what I just said. Like you asked.


Ok, so the answer to not leaning on my own understanding is to rely totally on the Bible alone, ignoring the fact that the doctrine of sola scriptura is non supported by the Bible we are supposed to be relying completely on? That in fact sola scriptura is an extra-biblical idea, which condemns all extra-biblical sources? That in fact, the very Bible we are supposed to be relying on was assembled by a Catholic Council and therefore relies on sacred tradition for it's very existence in it's present form? Umm.....no thanks.

Proverbs 3:5-6
[sup]5[/sup] Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
[sup]6[/sup] In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.


That is a great Psalm!

So when are you going to tell my what explicit and implicit mean? and how theologian use these words to describe Biblical ideas? Since you know so much about me and my TV persona, why not explain how my doctrine of sanctification compares with Tolle's teaching of the role of living in the Now as it relates to self-awareness?


This outta be good......

 

[jacobtaylor]

Do you know what the word oxymoron means?

Of course I do.
Here's how it applies to you.
You tell people to beware of others that think their god. You begin the same sentence speaking like you are a god.
Quote aspen: This is not an explicit teaching in the Bible.

Thats an oxymoron. And thats what makes you like Eckhart Tolle as well

I did however misspell admission with ambition, hit the wrong word in the spell check.

 

[Anastacia]

If we listen and obey His quiet, convicting, loving voice, we will realize that He is actually using our own voice to convict ourselves!

God's voice is not simply our own voice, as you say. Unless of course you hear your own voice repeating to you the words of God, the words of God from the Bible.

 

[Anastacia]

Ok, so the answer to not leaning on my own understanding is to rely totally on the Bible alone, ignoring the fact that the doctrine of sola scriptura is non supported by the Bible we are supposed to be relying completely on? That in fact sola scriptura is an extra-biblical idea, which condemns all extra-biblical sources? That in fact, the very Bible we are supposed to be relying on was assembled by a Catholic Council and therefore relies on sacred tradition for it's very existence in it's present form? Umm.....no thanks.

I don't use the word sola scriptura, it is from Luther, correct? Luther did a lot and exposed the truth about the Catholic religion, but he did not go far enough. Luther still believed in real blood and body in the bread and wine, also, I think he still exalted Mary, and practiced infant baptisms.

You keep insisting that the Catholic council assembled the Bible, that is not true. The council you speak of merely confirmed what the Christians were using from the beginning.

Why don't you understand that Bible only believers look only to the written Word of God? We don't go by what someone says after the the message of salvation has been given. The message of salvation was testified to by God by signs and wonders....and there are no signs and wonders accompanying what the Catholic leaders from the past have added.

The Bible says that God will prove a liar out of those who add or subtract to what the word of God says. And we see that at work when we read the excuses given by the Catholic popes for many extra biblical teachings, examples are the explanations for the veneration of Mary, Saints, relics, etc., etc., ect...

 

[Nomad]

That in fact sola scriptura is an extra-biblical idea, which condemns all extra-biblical sources?

No, Sola Scriptura does not "condemn" extra-biblical sources unless those sources contradict, add to, or attempt to supersede the Scriptures. Tradition, early Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, etc., can all have value, but only as they conform to the Bible as the ultimate standard.

Also, Sola Scriptura is not a Reformation invention. The early-medieval church supported an unarticulated and undeveloped doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Consider the following:

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they
did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of
God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar
of our faith.”

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not
desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from
the Scriptures themselves.”

Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395)
“On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth
will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the
Divine words.”

Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3

“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the
proclamation of the truth.”

Basil the Great (ca.329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers.
What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the
Scripture.”

Ambrose (340–397 A.D.)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102

“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy
Scriptures?”

St. Augustine (354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10

“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in
anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical
Scriptures of God.”

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
Summa Theologiae, Question 1, art. 8

“For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and
Apostles who wrote the canonical books.”

That in fact, the very Bible we are supposed to be relying on was assembled by a Catholic Council and therefore relies on sacred tradition for it's very existence in it's present form? Umm.....no thanks.

The first ecumenical council to define the extent of the canon of Scripture was Trent in the 16th century. All other councils were regional and therefore, according to your own RC faith, were not binding on the whole Church. Only an ecumenical council, again according to your own faith, has that power and authority. Scripture, as we have it, had been recognized and utilized by the Church long before Trent or any regional council set pen to paper. A look at the various ante-Nicene writers will make this clear.

So no, Rome didn't give us Scripture. God did, and it didn't take the ruling of any council for the Church at large to recognize it very early on.

 

[Robbie]

As soon as someone tells me that I can't hear God's voice except through a book I pretty much see them trying to kill my relationship with God through His Spirit... when Jesus died on the cross a book didn't fly out from behind the veil.. the veil was torn in two so we could now have direct relationship with God... to me denying that and continuing to say that we can only know God through scriptures is denying the power of the cross... Jesus didn't die so we could have more stuff to read... Jesus died for our sins that seperates us from God so we could enter the presence of God by His Spirit within ourselves... His Spirit and His Word are Him... when His Spirit is in us, Christ is in us, God is in us... They're all One...

 

[Anastacia]

As soon as someone tells me that I can't hear God's voice except through a book I pretty much see them trying to kill my relationship with God through His Spirit... when Jesus died on the cross a book didn't fly out from behind the veil.. the veil was torn in two so we could now have direct relationship with God... to me denying that and continuing to say that we can only know God through scriptures is denying the power of the cross... Jesus didn't die so we could have more stuff to read... Jesus died for our sins that seperates us from God so we could enter the presence of God by His Spirit within ourselves... His Spirit and His Word are Him... when His Spirit is in us, Christ is in us, God is in us... They're all One...

You misunderstand a lot of what people say. Jesus can speak to us in his voice, this I know. But what I was saying is that Jesus isn't going to contradict what he says in the Bible!

 

[jacobtaylor]

No, Sola Scriptura does not "condemn" extra-biblical sources unless those sources contradict, add to, or attempt to supersede the Scriptures. Tradition, early Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, etc., can all have value, but only as they conform to the Bible as the ultimate standard.

Also, Sola Scriptura is not a Reformation invention. The early-medieval church supported an unarticulated and undeveloped doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Consider the following:

The first ecumenical council to define the extent of the canon of Scripture was Trent in the 16th century. All other councils were regional and therefore, according to your own RC faith, were not binding on the whole Church. Only an ecumenical council, again according to your own faith, has that power and authority. Scripture, as we have it, had been recognized and utilized by the Church long before Trent or any regional council set pen to paper. A look at the various ante-Nicene writers will make this clear.

So no, Rome didn't give us Scripture. God did, and it didn't take the ruling of any council for the Church at large to recognize it very early on.

Before aspen or others try to say that scripture needed to be defined. I want to post the number of manurscriptes that were in circulation. With all these letters testifying to the same account 99.5% word for word, its hard for me to believe editing or selective choice was needed. The people of the time right after Jesus felt it was urgent to record the account. NT 5600 letters

 

[Robbie]

You wrote,

"God's voice is not simply our own voice, as you say. Unless of course you hear your own voice repeating to you the words of God, the words of God from the Bible."

Let me first say that I agree that God's voice is not our own voice... it's His voice in us...

But as far as the rest you meaning something other than what you wrote isn't me not understanding you... it's you meaning something other than what you wrote... it's not possible for me to know that you mean something other than what you wrote as I do my best not to think beyond what people write.

So my point was God's voice doesn't have to be something quoted from the bible... it just has to be Him... we know it's Him when we test the Spirit and it's in agreement with His commandment to love one another...

As far as Jesus not contradicting what the bible says... He contradicts a lot of what is said in the old testiment... as we've been talking about in Ecclesiastes...

The one thing I do believe is His Spirit in us will never contradict what Jesus said.

Like the people that try to tell me that God doesn't really care that much about love when Jesus said His command was to love... haha... when people disagree with Jesus is when the red flags go up for me...

 

[aspen]

Of course I do.
Here's how it applies to you.
You tell people to beware of others that think their god. You begin the same sentence speaking like you are a god.
Quote aspen: This is not an explicit teaching in the Bible.

Thats an oxymoron. And thats what makes you like Eckhart Tolle as well

I did however misspell admission with ambition, hit the wrong word in the spell check.

Jacob - you are accusing me of hypocrisy - it's not an example of an oxymoron. An oxymoron is an impossible statement - like dehydrated water or sola scriptura - so now you know. Now you can get started comparing me to more people on youtube that scare you and you know nothing about. Happy surfing!

 

[aspen]

God's voice is not simply our own voice, as you say. Unless of course you hear your own voice repeating to you the words of God, the words of God from the Bible.

It might help you to read my entire post slowly, Anastacia. When you do,you will notice that I am talking about two voices - God's voice John 10:27 who is using our own inner voice to convict us and teach us. I know it is popular in the last few days to accuse me of believing I am God, but this isn't FOX News, Anastacia - the more you and Jacob continue to falsely accuse me isn't going to make it true. I do not believe I am God, nor am I teaching others do so no matter how warped Jacob's reasoning seems to be.

At least you are not derailing the thread by making accusations - it is the Devil's work.

blessings

You misunderstand a lot of what people say. Jesus can speak to us in his voice, this I know. But what I was saying is that Jesus isn't going to contradict what he says in the Bible!

Wow - I can safely say, I agree.

 

[Anastacia]

It might help you to read my entire post slowly, Anastacia. When you do,you will notice that I am talking about two voices - God's voice John 10:27 who is using our own inner voice to convict us and teach us. I know it is popular in the last few days to accuse me of believing I am God, but this isn't FOX News, Anastacia - the more you and Jacob continue to falsely accuse me isn't going to make it true. I do not believe I am God, nor am I teaching others do so no matter how warped Jacob's reasoning seems to be.

At least you are not derailing the thread by making accusations - it is the Devil's work.

blessings

I never said you think you are God. Maybe you need to do what you tell me to do? And that is "read my entire post slowly." You falsely accused me of something I didn't say. Did you just derail this thread with false accusations to me?

You wrote,



Let me first say that I agree that God's voice is not our own voice... it's His voice in us...

But as far as the rest you meaning something other than what you wrote isn't me not understanding you... it's you meaning something other than what you wrote... it's not possible for me to know that you mean something other than what you wrote as I do my best not to think beyond what people write.

So my point was God's voice doesn't have to be something quoted from the bible... it just has to be Him... we know it's Him when we test the Spirit and it's in agreement with His commandment to love one another...

As far as Jesus not contradicting what the bible says... He contradicts a lot of what is said in the old testiment... as we've been talking about in Ecclesiastes...

The one thing I do believe is His Spirit in us will never contradict what Jesus said.

Like the people that try to tell me that God doesn't really care that much about love when Jesus said His command was to love... haha... when people disagree with Jesus is when the red flags go up for me...

Robbie,
You understand wrong what I wrote.

And, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say God doesn't really care that much about love!

 

[aspen]

No, Sola Scriptura does not "condemn" extra-biblical sources unless those sources contradict, add to, or attempt to supersede the Scriptures. Tradition, early Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, etc., can all have value, but only as they conform to the Bible as the ultimate standard.

Also, Sola Scriptura is not a Reformation invention. The early-medieval church supported an unarticulated and undeveloped doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Consider the following:

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they
did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of
God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar
of our faith.”

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not
desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from
the Scriptures themselves.”

Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395)
“On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth
will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the
Divine words.”

Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3

“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the
proclamation of the truth.”

Basil the Great (ca.329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers.
What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the
Scripture.”

Ambrose (340–397 A.D.)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102

“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy
Scriptures?”

St. Augustine (354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10

“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in
anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical
Scriptures of God.”

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
Summa Theologiae, Question 1, art. 8

“For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and
Apostles who wrote the canonical books.”





The first ecumenical council to define the extent of the canon of Scripture was Trent in the 16th century. All other councils were regional and therefore, according to your own RC faith, were not binding on the whole Church. Only an ecumenical council, again according to your own faith, has that power and authority. Scripture, as we have it, had been recognized and utilized by the Church long before Trent or any regional council set pen to paper. A look at the various ante-Nicene writers will make this clear.

So no, Rome didn't give us Scripture. God did, and it didn't take the ruling of any council for the Church at large to recognize it very early on.

I agree - Sacred Tradition cannot contradict the Bible. Sacred Tradition was already affirmed in the NT.

[font="arial][color="#333366"][font="arial][size="2"]"He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

[/size][/font][/color]

[font="arial][size="2"]Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.

1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

[/size][/font]

[font="arial][size="2"]"As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.[/size][/font]

[font="arial][size="2"] [/size][/font]

[font="arial][size="2"]In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:[/size][/font]


"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).

Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).[/font]
[font="arial]
[/font]
[font="arial]blessings[/font]

 

[aspen]

Before aspen or others try to say that scripture needed to be defined. I want to post the number of manurscriptes that were in circulation. With all these letters testifying to the same account 99.5% word for word, its hard for me to believe editing or selective choice was needed. The people of the time right after Jesus felt it was urgent to record the account. NT 5600 letters

So if scripture defines itself - why was there such disagreement between the Early Church Fathers? Why do you not accept the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache?


Earliest Christian communities
Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX),[sup][13][/sup] the apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the New Testament developed over time.

The first major figure to codify the Biblical canon was Origen of Alexandria. He was a scholar well educated in the realm of both theology and pagan philosophy. Origen decided to make his canon include all of the books in the current Catholic canon except for four books: James, 2nd Peter, and 2nd and 3rd epistles of John.[sup][15][/sup] He also included the Shepherd of Hermas which was later rejected. The religious scholar Bruce Metzger described Origen's efforts, saying “The process of canonization represented by Origen proceeded by way of selection, moving from many candidates for inclusion to fewer.”[sup][16][/sup] This was one of the first major attempts at the compilation of certain books and letters as authoritative and inspired teaching for the Early Church at the time although it is unclear whether Origen intended for his list to be authoritative itself.The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the "memoirs of the apostles," which Christians called "gospels" and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament.[sup][14][/sup]

Needless to say there were various theologians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries that wrote a great deal of works and used the letters of the apostles as foundation and justification for their own personal beliefs. However, there was still the problem of the Roman Empire, and while the persecutions of the Roman Empire were many and extreme, the persecution still occurred and influenced the initial canonization of the New Testament. This period in church history writings is known as the "Edificatory Period" and was followed by the "Apologetic", "Polemical" and "Scientific" Periods. Some of the Christian writers of this edificatory Period are: Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Polycarp, Tertullian, Cyprian, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria. This stagnation of official writings led to a sudden explosion of discussions afterConstantine I legalized Christianity in the early 4th century. Thus, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today), and by the 5th century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon

There was considerable debate on which books belonged in the new Testament for centuries - so where was this closed canon you claim magically appeared, Jacob?

 

[aspen]

God's voice is not simply our own voice, as you say. Unless of course you hear your own voice repeating to you the words of God, the words of God from the Bible.

So you are not claiming that I am saying that our inner voice is the same as God? If this is true then I apologize.

blessings

 

[Anastacia]

As soon as someone tells me that I can't hear God's voice except through a book I pretty much see them trying to kill my relationship with God through His Spirit... when Jesus died on the cross a book didn't fly out from behind the veil.. the veil was torn in two so we could now have direct relationship with God... to me denying that and continuing to say that we can only know God through scriptures is denying the power of the cross... Jesus didn't die so we could have more stuff to read... Jesus died for our sins that seperates us from God so we could enter the presence of God by His Spirit within ourselves... His Spirit and His Word are Him... when His Spirit is in us, Christ is in us, God is in us... They're all One...

Who told you, Robbie, that the only way you can hear God's voice is through a book? And who in the world is trying to kill your relationship with God. That is just evil talk....you insinuating that Christians want to kill your relationship with God. That is strange analogy you give, saying "when Jesus died on the cross a book didn't fly out from behind the veil." Jesus' body is the curtain. You would NOT know about God, if first you did not hear from Him from the scriptures. The Bible tells us consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ (see Romans 10:17). But you seem to want to put the Bible down. Tell me, how would you know that Jesus died for our sins and that we can receive His Spirit, if you did not hear it from someone who read about it, or if you did not read about it yourself?