http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/NewTestamentCanon.htmlHow and in what way happened the birth of the New Testament and the Canon? There are various teaching and comprehension about it. The birth of the Canon is very interesting and also very often understood insufficiently. I bring forth issues which show that common teaching for the birth of New Testament is an erroneous conclusion. I challenge you to read and look over this writing very carefully, because it can lead you from the tradition to the truth. The Bible says that prove (test) all things, hold fast that which is good. Test this writing with the Bible and hold fast to the good and reject that which is not Biblical.
The New Testament Canon
- Thread starter PetriFB
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
am not sure how to reject (or accept) something on the basis that it is "not Biblical" when everything presented to suggest I either accept or reject it is not in the Bible.IOW you made your "proof" as to what canon we should accept from sources outside the Bible, then asked us to reject "that which is not Biblical" which logically must also include your sources. I personally do reject that those sources should lead one to the conclusion that website makes in regards to the canon.
(waquinas;62748)
am not sure how to reject (or accept) something on the basis that it is "not Biblical" when everything presented to suggest I either accept or reject it is not in the Bible.IOW you made your "proof" as to what canon we should accept from sources outside the Bible, then asked us to reject "that which is not Biblical" which logically must also include your sources. I personally do reject that those sources should lead one to the conclusion that website makes in regards to the canon.
I agree a webite full of false conclsions.
am not sure how to reject (or accept) something on the basis that it is "not Biblical" when everything presented to suggest I either accept or reject it is not in the Bible.IOW you made your "proof" as to what canon we should accept from sources outside the Bible, then asked us to reject "that which is not Biblical" which logically must also include your sources. I personally do reject that those sources should lead one to the conclusion that website makes in regards to the canon.
I agree a webite full of false conclsions.
Long before existence of Roman Catholic Church the canon was already used in Early Church. Roman Catholic Church has not borne the canon, but began to use letters, which Early Church has canonized and used long before Roman Catholic Church. Remarkable is that year 1546 Roman Catholic Church canonized some old testament books of Apocrypha, they called them as 'Deuterocanonical', which means 'secondary canon.' Roman Catholic Church has accepted books as canonical, which are not canonical.Roman Catholic Church resisted heretic doctrines, however they also taught heretic doctrines such as:- 375 A.D. began worship of the angels and dead saints.- 378 A.D. Roman bishop Damascus inherited as a religious leader the names Pontifex Maximum and Vicarius Christi from Caesar. Like this way from the seat of the Pope became heir of Babylonian high priest cult.- 381 A.D. began unofficial prayers to Virgin Mary, to mother of God and the Queen of the Heaven. Mary is not Queen of the Heaven and not mother of God, but she was mother of Jesus the Son of God, but not mother of Father God.- 394 A.D. began the daily mass in Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholic Church teach that the mass of Christ must carry out daily and that in the mass of Christ Catholic priests continuously sacrifice Jesus with a bloodless way. Roman Catholic Church teach also that this sacrifice is the most powerful sin offering in the Church.With those heretic doctrines Roman Catholic Church is also heretic sect, and the gospel of Roman Catholic Church is non-biblical gospel. The Third Church Council in 397 A.D represented and accepted the official canon, in which was taken all 27 New Testament books (which are in current NT). Roman Catholic Church canonized officially 397 A.D. it what has been existed in the Early Church already few centuries. Representatives of Roman Catholic Church are proud that they have given the New Testament to Christians and to the world. However, the fact is that Roman Catholic Church canonized that which had been existed and use already in the Early Church. Roman Catholic Church got its canon from those who had been lived long before them and used and believed all 27 New Testament books. Roman Catholic Church gave to order about content of the Bible in 1546, in which they decided that Jerome's Latin Vulgate is official canon of the Church. Like this way Roman Catholic Church took to the Bible old testament era Apocrypha books, which are not Biblical books. Roman Catholic Church's Bible contains books that are not Biblical. This is also indication an attitude of the Catholic Church and how it continuously adds non-biblical things inside the Church.Concept Catholic Church was born in 150 A.D. when believers begin to call Church meaning by that Church is general and universal (katolikos). In the Bible (Greek) is not the word katolikos, it means that Jesus Christ and apostles and Early Church didn't call Church as Catholic Church and this means that we shouldn't either.Roman Catholic Church with Popes (word Pope is not in the Bible, but is man made doctrine and title in RCC) and archbishops begin to form after 312 A.D. when emperor Constantine converted for a Christian. Years 380-381 Caesar declared Christianity for the religion of the Rome and so finally formed officially Roman Catholic Church, which was and is false imitation for the real Church, which is the body of Christ; real Jesus' disciples who are born again in the Holy Spirit from the grace of God.The truth is that Roman Catholic Church didn't give us canon of the New Testament, but God did it by the apostles and Early Church and Roman Catholic Church confirmed it. Which had been already existed and used in the Early Church.
PetriFB, I'd be curious to know why you posted this link, because what it contains is actually pretty commonly known.For Waquinas and Christina, I'd be curious to know what you find so objectionable and "full of lies" about it. The criteria, by which the Canon of Scripture was determined, involved far more than just the words that were written. Thanks!
(ffbruce;62823)
PetriFB, I'd be curious to know why you posted this link, because what it contains is actually pretty commonly known.For Waquinas and Christina, I'd be curious to know what you find so objectionable and "full of lies" about it. The criteria, by which the Canon of Scripture was determined, involved far more than just the words that were written. Thanks!
I have seen that Roman Catholic Church has taken too much credit for the Canon and presents things thus that for earnings of the Canon it has a monopoly in the faith and the Bible. Although the truth is that RCC is mixture of Babylonian-Christianity, which heretic and not according to the gospel of Jesus Christ.Too many Christians don't want to see and understand that what RCC stands for and what it is, not the Church of Jesus Christ.Purpose was also that we could see that the canon has been existed long before RCC and RCC only confirmed it what others have been used few centuries before RCC.The beast and spirit of antichrist have borne RCC as purpose to decieve and best way to do this is by monopolizing the Bible.So Jesus' disciples should know that what is going on this world.
PetriFB, I'd be curious to know why you posted this link, because what it contains is actually pretty commonly known.For Waquinas and Christina, I'd be curious to know what you find so objectionable and "full of lies" about it. The criteria, by which the Canon of Scripture was determined, involved far more than just the words that were written. Thanks!
I have seen that Roman Catholic Church has taken too much credit for the Canon and presents things thus that for earnings of the Canon it has a monopoly in the faith and the Bible. Although the truth is that RCC is mixture of Babylonian-Christianity, which heretic and not according to the gospel of Jesus Christ.Too many Christians don't want to see and understand that what RCC stands for and what it is, not the Church of Jesus Christ.Purpose was also that we could see that the canon has been existed long before RCC and RCC only confirmed it what others have been used few centuries before RCC.The beast and spirit of antichrist have borne RCC as purpose to decieve and best way to do this is by monopolizing the Bible.So Jesus' disciples should know that what is going on this world.
(PetriFB;62830)
I have seen that Roman Catholic Church has taken too much credit for the Canon and presents things thus that for earnings of the Canon it has a monopoly in the faith and the Bible. Although the truth is that RCC is mixture of Babylonian-Christianity, which heretic and not according to the gospel of Jesus Christ.Too many Christians don't want to see and understand that what RCC stands for and what it is, not the Church of Jesus Christ.Purpose was also that we could see that the canon has been existed long before RCC and RCC only confirmed it what others have been used few centuries before RCC.The beast and spirit of antichrist have borne RCC as purpose to decieve and best way to do this is by monopolizing the Bible.So Jesus' disciples should know that what is going on this world.
Okay, gotcha. I'm not agreeing 100%, but thanks for clarifying!
I have seen that Roman Catholic Church has taken too much credit for the Canon and presents things thus that for earnings of the Canon it has a monopoly in the faith and the Bible. Although the truth is that RCC is mixture of Babylonian-Christianity, which heretic and not according to the gospel of Jesus Christ.Too many Christians don't want to see and understand that what RCC stands for and what it is, not the Church of Jesus Christ.Purpose was also that we could see that the canon has been existed long before RCC and RCC only confirmed it what others have been used few centuries before RCC.The beast and spirit of antichrist have borne RCC as purpose to decieve and best way to do this is by monopolizing the Bible.So Jesus' disciples should know that what is going on this world.
Okay, gotcha. I'm not agreeing 100%, but thanks for clarifying!
(ffbruce;62831)
Okay, gotcha. I'm not agreeing 100%, but thanks for clarifying!
Ok, may God bless you!
Okay, gotcha. I'm not agreeing 100%, but thanks for clarifying!
Ok, may God bless you!
tomwebster
New Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 2,041
- 107
- 0
- 76
The early church fathers did a lot of good work early in the life of the church sorting through documents and other information and doing their best to preserve the truth and sort out the false. It wasn't until later; don't remember my church history well enough to say when, that pride and a desire for power crept in.
(tomwebster;62844)
The early church fathers did a lot of good work early in the life of the church sorting through documents and other information and doing their best to preserve the truth and sort out the false. It wasn't until later; don't remember my church history well enough to say when, that pride and a desire for power crept in.
Right. One of the criteria whereby documents were deemed authentic is whether or not the earliest Christians accepted them. For instance, those who knew the apostle John would immediately be able to spot writing that was totally against his character. And there were a lot of writings like that.While the Roman Catholic Church - as a Johnny Come Lately - may have "officially" declared certain books authentic, their inspiration and canonical nature had long-since been established.
The early church fathers did a lot of good work early in the life of the church sorting through documents and other information and doing their best to preserve the truth and sort out the false. It wasn't until later; don't remember my church history well enough to say when, that pride and a desire for power crept in.
Right. One of the criteria whereby documents were deemed authentic is whether or not the earliest Christians accepted them. For instance, those who knew the apostle John would immediately be able to spot writing that was totally against his character. And there were a lot of writings like that.While the Roman Catholic Church - as a Johnny Come Lately - may have "officially" declared certain books authentic, their inspiration and canonical nature had long-since been established.
(ffbruce;62823)
PetriFB, I'd be curious to know why you posted this link, because what it contains is actually pretty commonly known.For Waquinas and Christina, I'd be curious to know what you find so objectionable and "full of lies" about it. The criteria, by which the Canon of Scripture was determined, involved far more than just the words that were written. Thanks!
I did not say full of lies. I do think there are some distorted facts and half truths presented in an intentional attempt to reinforce the case with those not as familar with how we got the canons we have today. And I do think it is wrong to do that.What I was trying to communicate is that it makes no sense to tell me one must object anything "non-biblical" then present a case for support of the use of a particular canon using non-biblical sources/quotes. From some perspective, no matter which canon one supports, it was a "non-biblical" process that arrived at it. One could certainly claim guidance of the Spirit, and of course allowing for such guidance is "biblical". That claim is also a difficult claim to refute, but obviously both sides cannot be led by the Spirit because they reach different conclusions. One side is correct and one is incorrect, but neither side can point to the Bible as being its' own source, so by definition anything else could be labled "non-biblical". So if I explained my point well, it would be that one cannot look to the Bible itself to explain why the one we each read contains the books it does or does not have. The reasons for each being different are also far less sincester and convuluted than many on both sides would have us believe.
PetriFB, I'd be curious to know why you posted this link, because what it contains is actually pretty commonly known.For Waquinas and Christina, I'd be curious to know what you find so objectionable and "full of lies" about it. The criteria, by which the Canon of Scripture was determined, involved far more than just the words that were written. Thanks!
I did not say full of lies. I do think there are some distorted facts and half truths presented in an intentional attempt to reinforce the case with those not as familar with how we got the canons we have today. And I do think it is wrong to do that.What I was trying to communicate is that it makes no sense to tell me one must object anything "non-biblical" then present a case for support of the use of a particular canon using non-biblical sources/quotes. From some perspective, no matter which canon one supports, it was a "non-biblical" process that arrived at it. One could certainly claim guidance of the Spirit, and of course allowing for such guidance is "biblical". That claim is also a difficult claim to refute, but obviously both sides cannot be led by the Spirit because they reach different conclusions. One side is correct and one is incorrect, but neither side can point to the Bible as being its' own source, so by definition anything else could be labled "non-biblical". So if I explained my point well, it would be that one cannot look to the Bible itself to explain why the one we each read contains the books it does or does not have. The reasons for each being different are also far less sincester and convuluted than many on both sides would have us believe.
All things has not recorded to the history and we have very one-sided Church history, because Roman Catholic Church killed its opponents as heretic and destroyed their works and have given a name of heretic the opponents of Catholic Church. Testimony of the Roman Catholic Church is not trustworthy in all, because it has been destroyed many books, which it has hold as heretical books. But maybe were not!RCC used power of the beast and furiously killed and disposed its opponents from which many was also Jesus' disciples, who didn't want to yield themselves with mixture of Babylonian-Christianity church (RCC).So the history might not be such as it looks like. Ac 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.Wolves came and didn't spare the flock, but killed them, disgraced them by a name of heretic and burn their books and so on.If we from the grace of God can someday know the truth about hidden things and events what happened in the world; I'm sure that history is not in all cases similar as it looks like now.For me is important to believe in Jesus Christ and see that the Holy Spirit works in my life and that word of God and its promises fulfilled in my life and in the world.So we have the word of God among us by written edition and in the Holy Spirit.Mt 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.May God bless you!I have seen that Roman Catholic Church has took too much credit for the Canon and presents things thus that for earnings of the Canon it has monopoly in the faith and the Bible. Although the truth is that RCC is mixture of Babylonian-Christianity, which is heretic and not according the gospel of Jesus Christ.Too many Christians don't want to see and understand that what RCC stands for and what it is, not the Church of Jesus Christ.Purpose of my text was also that we could see that the canon has been existed long before RCC and RCC only confirmed it what others have been used few centuries before RCC.The beast and spirit of antichrist have borne RCC as purpose to decieve and best way to do this is by monopolizing the Bible.So Jesus' disciples should know that what is going on this world.I meant that RCC has destroyed some books and could (very possible) have hold some men as heretic by twisting that they are heretics, even if they weren't. We have in history recorded that RCC has also destroyed manuscripts and so on. So who knows what they have been done. They could also arrange this canon mess that it looks like that there has been a mess in it and that they handled the case by canonizing the right books and like so they have got monopoly to the faith and the Bible, but they have not it in my heart.
(waquinas;62870)
I did not say full of lies. I do think there are some distorted facts and half truths presented in an intentional attempt to reinforce the case with those not as familar with how we got the canons we have today. And I do think it is wrong to do that.What I was trying to communicate is that it makes no sense to tell me one must object anything "non-biblical" then present a case for support of the use of a particular canon using non-biblical sources/quotes. From some perspective, no matter which canon one supports, it was a "non-biblical" process that arrived at it. One could certainly claim guidance of the Spirit, and of course allowing for such guidance is "biblical". That claim is also a difficult claim to refute, but obviously both sides cannot be led by the Spirit because they reach different conclusions. One side is correct and one is incorrect, but neither side can point to the Bible as being its' own source, so by definition anything else could be labled "non-biblical". So if I explained my point well, it would be that one cannot look to the Bible itself to explain why the one we each read contains the books it does or does not have. The reasons for each being different are also far less sincester and convuluted than many on both sides would have us believe.
Right. It's kind of like using Bible verses to witness to an atheist who simply refuses to believe that the Bible is anything but a fairy tale. There have to be evidences outside the Bible (which there are).Like I said in an earlier post, the Canon of the Bible was well established long before the Roman Catholic Church became the organized entity it has been for the last 1700 years.
I did not say full of lies. I do think there are some distorted facts and half truths presented in an intentional attempt to reinforce the case with those not as familar with how we got the canons we have today. And I do think it is wrong to do that.What I was trying to communicate is that it makes no sense to tell me one must object anything "non-biblical" then present a case for support of the use of a particular canon using non-biblical sources/quotes. From some perspective, no matter which canon one supports, it was a "non-biblical" process that arrived at it. One could certainly claim guidance of the Spirit, and of course allowing for such guidance is "biblical". That claim is also a difficult claim to refute, but obviously both sides cannot be led by the Spirit because they reach different conclusions. One side is correct and one is incorrect, but neither side can point to the Bible as being its' own source, so by definition anything else could be labled "non-biblical". So if I explained my point well, it would be that one cannot look to the Bible itself to explain why the one we each read contains the books it does or does not have. The reasons for each being different are also far less sincester and convuluted than many on both sides would have us believe.
Right. It's kind of like using Bible verses to witness to an atheist who simply refuses to believe that the Bible is anything but a fairy tale. There have to be evidences outside the Bible (which there are).Like I said in an earlier post, the Canon of the Bible was well established long before the Roman Catholic Church became the organized entity it has been for the last 1700 years.
(ffbruce;62923)
Like I said in an earlier post, the Canon of the Bible was well established long before the Roman Catholic Church became the organized entity it has been for the last 1700 years.
Right and this is the point! The Canon was well established long before RCC!
Like I said in an earlier post, the Canon of the Bible was well established long before the Roman Catholic Church became the organized entity it has been for the last 1700 years.
Right and this is the point! The Canon was well established long before RCC!
(PetriFB;62796)
Long before existence of Roman Catholic Church the canon was already used in Early Church. Roman Catholic Church has not borne the canon, but began to use letters, which Early Church has canonized and used long before Roman Catholic Church. Remarkable is that year 1546 Roman Catholic Church canonized some old testament books of Apocrypha, they called them as 'Deuterocanonical', which means 'secondary canon.' Roman Catholic Church has accepted books as canonical, which are not canonical.Roman Catholic Church resisted heretic doctrines, however they also taught heretic doctrines such as:- 375 A.D. began worship of the angels and dead saints.- 378 A.D. Roman bishop Damascus inherited as a religious leader the names Pontifex Maximum and Vicarius Christi from Caesar. Like this way from the seat of the Pope became heir of Babylonian high priest cult.- 381 A.D. began unofficial prayers to Virgin Mary, to mother of God and the Queen of the Heaven. Mary is not Queen of the Heaven and not mother of God, but she was mother of Jesus the Son of God, but not mother of Father God.- 394 A.D. began the daily mass in Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholic Church teach that the mass of Christ must carry out daily and that in the mass of Christ Catholic priests continuously sacrifice Jesus with a bloodless way. Roman Catholic Church teach also that this sacrifice is the most powerful sin offering in the Church.With those heretic doctrines Roman Catholic Church is also heretic sect, and the gospel of Roman Catholic Church is non-biblical gospel. The Third Church Council in 397 A.D represented and accepted the official canon, in which was taken all 27 New Testament books (which are in current NT). Roman Catholic Church canonized officially 397 A.D. it what has been existed in the Early Church already few centuries. Representatives of Roman Catholic Church are proud that they have given the New Testament to Christians and to the world. However, the fact is that Roman Catholic Church canonized that which had been existed and use already in the Early Church. Roman Catholic Church got its canon from those who had been lived long before them and used and believed all 27 New Testament books. Roman Catholic Church gave to order about content of the Bible in 1546, in which they decided that Jerome's Latin Vulgate is official canon of the Church. Like this way Roman Catholic Church took to the Bible old testament era Apocrypha books, which are not Biblical books. Roman Catholic Church's Bible contains books that are not Biblical. This is also indication an attitude of the Catholic Church and how it continuously adds non-biblical things inside the Church.Concept Catholic Church was born in 150 A.D. when believers begin to call Church meaning by that Church is general and universal (katolikos). In the Bible (Greek) is not the word katolikos, it means that Jesus Christ and apostles and Early Church didn't call Church as Catholic Church and this means that we shouldn't either.Roman Catholic Church with Popes (word Pope is not in the Bible, but is man made doctrine and title in RCC) and archbishops begin to form after 312 A.D. when emperor Constantine converted for a Christian. Years 380-381 Caesar declared Christianity for the religion of the Rome and so finally formed officially Roman Catholic Church, which was and is false imitation for the real Church, which is the body of Christ; real Jesus' disciples who are born again in the Holy Spirit from the grace of God.The truth is that Roman Catholic Church didn't give us canon of the New Testament, but God did it by the apostles and Early Church and Roman Catholic Church confirmed it. Which had been already existed and used in the Early Church.
I don't think such blatently anti-Catholic and erroneous views are helpful in this discussion
Long before existence of Roman Catholic Church the canon was already used in Early Church. Roman Catholic Church has not borne the canon, but began to use letters, which Early Church has canonized and used long before Roman Catholic Church. Remarkable is that year 1546 Roman Catholic Church canonized some old testament books of Apocrypha, they called them as 'Deuterocanonical', which means 'secondary canon.' Roman Catholic Church has accepted books as canonical, which are not canonical.Roman Catholic Church resisted heretic doctrines, however they also taught heretic doctrines such as:- 375 A.D. began worship of the angels and dead saints.- 378 A.D. Roman bishop Damascus inherited as a religious leader the names Pontifex Maximum and Vicarius Christi from Caesar. Like this way from the seat of the Pope became heir of Babylonian high priest cult.- 381 A.D. began unofficial prayers to Virgin Mary, to mother of God and the Queen of the Heaven. Mary is not Queen of the Heaven and not mother of God, but she was mother of Jesus the Son of God, but not mother of Father God.- 394 A.D. began the daily mass in Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholic Church teach that the mass of Christ must carry out daily and that in the mass of Christ Catholic priests continuously sacrifice Jesus with a bloodless way. Roman Catholic Church teach also that this sacrifice is the most powerful sin offering in the Church.With those heretic doctrines Roman Catholic Church is also heretic sect, and the gospel of Roman Catholic Church is non-biblical gospel. The Third Church Council in 397 A.D represented and accepted the official canon, in which was taken all 27 New Testament books (which are in current NT). Roman Catholic Church canonized officially 397 A.D. it what has been existed in the Early Church already few centuries. Representatives of Roman Catholic Church are proud that they have given the New Testament to Christians and to the world. However, the fact is that Roman Catholic Church canonized that which had been existed and use already in the Early Church. Roman Catholic Church got its canon from those who had been lived long before them and used and believed all 27 New Testament books. Roman Catholic Church gave to order about content of the Bible in 1546, in which they decided that Jerome's Latin Vulgate is official canon of the Church. Like this way Roman Catholic Church took to the Bible old testament era Apocrypha books, which are not Biblical books. Roman Catholic Church's Bible contains books that are not Biblical. This is also indication an attitude of the Catholic Church and how it continuously adds non-biblical things inside the Church.Concept Catholic Church was born in 150 A.D. when believers begin to call Church meaning by that Church is general and universal (katolikos). In the Bible (Greek) is not the word katolikos, it means that Jesus Christ and apostles and Early Church didn't call Church as Catholic Church and this means that we shouldn't either.Roman Catholic Church with Popes (word Pope is not in the Bible, but is man made doctrine and title in RCC) and archbishops begin to form after 312 A.D. when emperor Constantine converted for a Christian. Years 380-381 Caesar declared Christianity for the religion of the Rome and so finally formed officially Roman Catholic Church, which was and is false imitation for the real Church, which is the body of Christ; real Jesus' disciples who are born again in the Holy Spirit from the grace of God.The truth is that Roman Catholic Church didn't give us canon of the New Testament, but God did it by the apostles and Early Church and Roman Catholic Church confirmed it. Which had been already existed and used in the Early Church.
I don't think such blatently anti-Catholic and erroneous views are helpful in this discussion
(PetriFB;62917)
All things has not recorded to the history and we have very one-sided Church history, because Roman Catholic Church killed its opponents as heretic and destroyed their works and have given a name of heretic the opponents of Catholic Church. Testimony of the Roman Catholic Church is not trustworthy in all, because it has been destroyed many books, which it has hold as heretical books. But maybe were not!RCC used power of the beast and furiously killed and disposed its opponents from which many was also Jesus' disciples, who didn't want to yield themselves with mixture of Babylonian-Christianity church (RCC).So the history might not be such as it looks like. Ac 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.Wolves came and didn't spare the flock, but killed them, disgraced them by a name of heretic and burn their books and so on.If we from the grace of God can someday know the truth about hidden things and events what happened in the world; I'm sure that history is not in all cases similar as it looks like now.For me is important to believe in Jesus Christ and see that the Holy Spirit works in my life and that word of God and its promises fulfilled in my life and in the world.So we have the word of God among us by written edition and in the Holy Spirit.Mt 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.May God bless you!I have seen that Roman Catholic Church has took too much credit for the Canon and presents things thus that for earnings of the Canon it has monopoly in the faith and the Bible. Although the truth is that RCC is mixture of Babylonian-Christianity, which is heretic and not according the gospel of Jesus Christ.Too many Christians don't want to see and understand that what RCC stands for and what it is, not the Church of Jesus Christ.Purpose of my text was also that we could see that the canon has been existed long before RCC and RCC only confirmed it what others have been used few centuries before RCC.The beast and spirit of antichrist have borne RCC as purpose to decieve and best way to do this is by monopolizing the Bible.So Jesus' disciples should know that what is going on this world.I meant that RCC has destroyed some books and could (very possible) have hold some men as heretic by twisting that they are heretics, even if they weren't. We have in history recorded that RCC has also destroyed manuscripts and so on. So who knows what they have been done. They could also arrange this canon mess that it looks like that there has been a mess in it and that they handled the case by canonizing the right books and like so they have got monopoly to the faith and the Bible, but they have not it in my heart.
You seem to have a giant anti-Catholic chip on your shoulder. Can I suggest a little Christian charity might not come amiss.
All things has not recorded to the history and we have very one-sided Church history, because Roman Catholic Church killed its opponents as heretic and destroyed their works and have given a name of heretic the opponents of Catholic Church. Testimony of the Roman Catholic Church is not trustworthy in all, because it has been destroyed many books, which it has hold as heretical books. But maybe were not!RCC used power of the beast and furiously killed and disposed its opponents from which many was also Jesus' disciples, who didn't want to yield themselves with mixture of Babylonian-Christianity church (RCC).So the history might not be such as it looks like. Ac 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.Wolves came and didn't spare the flock, but killed them, disgraced them by a name of heretic and burn their books and so on.If we from the grace of God can someday know the truth about hidden things and events what happened in the world; I'm sure that history is not in all cases similar as it looks like now.For me is important to believe in Jesus Christ and see that the Holy Spirit works in my life and that word of God and its promises fulfilled in my life and in the world.So we have the word of God among us by written edition and in the Holy Spirit.Mt 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.May God bless you!I have seen that Roman Catholic Church has took too much credit for the Canon and presents things thus that for earnings of the Canon it has monopoly in the faith and the Bible. Although the truth is that RCC is mixture of Babylonian-Christianity, which is heretic and not according the gospel of Jesus Christ.Too many Christians don't want to see and understand that what RCC stands for and what it is, not the Church of Jesus Christ.Purpose of my text was also that we could see that the canon has been existed long before RCC and RCC only confirmed it what others have been used few centuries before RCC.The beast and spirit of antichrist have borne RCC as purpose to decieve and best way to do this is by monopolizing the Bible.So Jesus' disciples should know that what is going on this world.I meant that RCC has destroyed some books and could (very possible) have hold some men as heretic by twisting that they are heretics, even if they weren't. We have in history recorded that RCC has also destroyed manuscripts and so on. So who knows what they have been done. They could also arrange this canon mess that it looks like that there has been a mess in it and that they handled the case by canonizing the right books and like so they have got monopoly to the faith and the Bible, but they have not it in my heart.
You seem to have a giant anti-Catholic chip on your shoulder. Can I suggest a little Christian charity might not come amiss.
(winsome;63084)
I don't think such blatently anti-Catholic and erroneous views are helpful in this discussion
I think you might be missing the forest for the trees, and I'm guessing it might be because you're Catholic (though I could very well be wrong).What I see in this thread, and the OP, is the assertion that the New Testament Canon - indeed the entire Bible - was firmly established before the RCC gave it's official stamp of approval. And that assertion is correct.
I don't think such blatently anti-Catholic and erroneous views are helpful in this discussion
I think you might be missing the forest for the trees, and I'm guessing it might be because you're Catholic (though I could very well be wrong).What I see in this thread, and the OP, is the assertion that the New Testament Canon - indeed the entire Bible - was firmly established before the RCC gave it's official stamp of approval. And that assertion is correct.
(ffbruce;63130)
I think you might be missing the forest for the trees, and I'm guessing it might be because you're Catholic (though I could very well be wrong).What I see in this thread, and the OP, is the assertion that the New Testament Canon - indeed the entire Bible - was firmly established before the RCC gave it's official stamp of approval. And that assertion is correct.
That may well be an interesting discussion. But how do comments like these relate to that?Roman Catholic Church resisted heretic doctrines, however they also taught heretic doctrines such as:- 375 A.D. began worship of the angels and dead saints.- 378 A.D. Roman bishop Damascus inherited as a religious leader the names Pontifex Maximum and Vicarius Christi from Caesar. Like this way from the seat of the Pope became heir of Babylonian high priest cult.- 381 A.D. began unofficial prayers to Virgin Mary, to mother of God and the Queen of the Heaven. Mary is not Queen of the Heaven and not mother of God, but she was mother of Jesus the Son of God, but not mother of Father God.- 394 A.D. began the daily mass in Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholic Church teach that the mass of Christ must carry out daily and that in the mass of Christ Catholic priests continuously sacrifice Jesus with a bloodless way. Roman Catholic Church teach also that this sacrifice is the most powerful sin offering in the Church.With those heretic doctrines Roman Catholic Church is also heretic sect, and the gospel of Roman Catholic Church is non-biblical gospel.The beast and spirit of antichrist have borne RCC as purpose to decieve and best way to do this is by monopolizing the Bible.So Jesus' disciples should know that what is going on this world.I meant that RCC has destroyed some books and could (very possible) have hold some men as heretic by twisting that they are heretics, even if they weren't. We have in history recorded that RCC has also destroyed manuscripts and so on. So who knows what they have been done. They could also arrange this canon mess that it looks like that there has been a mess in it and that they handled the case by canonizing the right books and like so they have got monopoly to the faith and the Bible, but they have not it in my heart.This stuff is just a cut & paste from Lorraine Boetner's anti-Catholic polemic "Roman Catholicism".
I think you might be missing the forest for the trees, and I'm guessing it might be because you're Catholic (though I could very well be wrong).What I see in this thread, and the OP, is the assertion that the New Testament Canon - indeed the entire Bible - was firmly established before the RCC gave it's official stamp of approval. And that assertion is correct.
That may well be an interesting discussion. But how do comments like these relate to that?Roman Catholic Church resisted heretic doctrines, however they also taught heretic doctrines such as:- 375 A.D. began worship of the angels and dead saints.- 378 A.D. Roman bishop Damascus inherited as a religious leader the names Pontifex Maximum and Vicarius Christi from Caesar. Like this way from the seat of the Pope became heir of Babylonian high priest cult.- 381 A.D. began unofficial prayers to Virgin Mary, to mother of God and the Queen of the Heaven. Mary is not Queen of the Heaven and not mother of God, but she was mother of Jesus the Son of God, but not mother of Father God.- 394 A.D. began the daily mass in Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholic Church teach that the mass of Christ must carry out daily and that in the mass of Christ Catholic priests continuously sacrifice Jesus with a bloodless way. Roman Catholic Church teach also that this sacrifice is the most powerful sin offering in the Church.With those heretic doctrines Roman Catholic Church is also heretic sect, and the gospel of Roman Catholic Church is non-biblical gospel.The beast and spirit of antichrist have borne RCC as purpose to decieve and best way to do this is by monopolizing the Bible.So Jesus' disciples should know that what is going on this world.I meant that RCC has destroyed some books and could (very possible) have hold some men as heretic by twisting that they are heretics, even if they weren't. We have in history recorded that RCC has also destroyed manuscripts and so on. So who knows what they have been done. They could also arrange this canon mess that it looks like that there has been a mess in it and that they handled the case by canonizing the right books and like so they have got monopoly to the faith and the Bible, but they have not it in my heart.This stuff is just a cut & paste from Lorraine Boetner's anti-Catholic polemic "Roman Catholicism".
First off- The Roman Catholic Church didn't exist until 1054 at the Great schism. There was a general agreement on what is cannon, but it wasn't official until the Church canonized it. Mainly to protect against heresy's and Gnostic gospels. This is my understanding.
(waquinas;62748)
am not sure how to reject (or accept) something on the basis that it is "not biblical" when everything presented to suggest i either accept or reject it is not in the bible.Iow you made your "proof" as to what canon we should accept from sources outside the bible, then asked us to reject "that which is not biblical" which logically must also include your sources. I personally do reject that those sources should lead one to the conclusion that website makes in regards to the canon.
exactly....
am not sure how to reject (or accept) something on the basis that it is "not biblical" when everything presented to suggest i either accept or reject it is not in the bible.Iow you made your "proof" as to what canon we should accept from sources outside the bible, then asked us to reject "that which is not biblical" which logically must also include your sources. I personally do reject that those sources should lead one to the conclusion that website makes in regards to the canon.
exactly....
Similar threads
