Rocky
Rocky

January 6th, 2013, 3:11 pm #21

Since the Bible does not tell us that THE complete canon consists of Genesis to Revelation, then we must face the possibility that other books are indeed inspired, but MAN decided to ignore them, based on his biases.
Question: "How do we decide which books belong in the Bible since the Bible does not say which books belong in the Bible?"

Answer: If Scripture is to be our sole authority, on what authority do we know which books belong in the Bible - since the Bible does not state which books should be in the Bible? This is a very important question, because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In the chain of communication from God to humanity, is there a weak link? If so, then the whole chain fails, and the communication ultimately cannot be trusted.

Consider the various "links" comprising God's communication to us: first came God's desire to communicate. This was rooted in His love, for the most loving thing a good God can do is reveal Himself to His creation. Next came the actual transmission of God's Word through human writers. This involved a process the Bible calls "inspiration," in which God breathed the words that the human agents recorded (2 Timothy 3:16). After that came dissemination, as the Word was delivered to its audience through preaching or other means. Then came recognition, as God's people distinguished Holy Scripture from other religious writings. And then, preservation, through which God's Word has survived to the present day, despite many attempts to destroy it. And finally, illumination, as the Holy Spirit opens the believer's understanding to receive the Word.

And that's the "chain"--the demonstration of God's love in the inspiration, dissemination, recognition, preservation, and illumination of His Word. We believe that God was involved in each step of the process, for why would God go to such lengths to inspire His Word and then not preserve it? Why would He speak to us and then fail to guide us in recognizing His speech?

This recognition of God's Word is usually called "canonization." We are careful to say that God determined the canon, and the church discovered the canon. The canon of Scripture was not created by the church; rather, the church discovered or recognized it. In other words, God's Word was inspired and authoritative from its inception--it "stands firm in the heavens" (Psalm 119:89)--and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it.

The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:

1) Was the book written by a prophet of God?
2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message?
3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction?
4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered?

Of these criteria, the one of most importance was the first one--was the book written by a prophet? Its corollary, did the book receive apostolic approval?, was the chief test of canonicity in the early church. This criterion is a logical result of knowing what an "apostle" was. The apostles were gifted by God to be the founders and leaders of the church, so it is reasonable to accept that through them came the Word governing the church.

The apostles were promised the Spirit of truth who would bring to their remembrance what Christ had said (John 14:26) and guide them into "all truth" (John 16:13). After the ascension of Christ, the apostles received supernatural gifts to enable their work and confirm their message (Acts 2:4). God's household is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 2:20). Given the apostles' special commission, it only makes sense that the church made apostolicity the number-one test of canonicity. Thus, the Gospel of Matthew was considered canonical (it was written by an apostle); and the Gospel of Mark, with its close association with the Apostle Peter, was also accepted.

When the New Testament was being written, the individual books and letters were immediately accepted as God's Word and circulated for the benefits of others. The church of Thessalonica received Paul's word as the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Paul's epistles were circulating among the churches even during apostolic times (Colossians 4:16). Peter recognized Paul's writings as inspired by God and equated them with "the rest of the Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Paul quoted the Gospel of Luke and called it "Scripture" (1 Timothy 5:18). This widespread acceptance stands in stark contrast to the few debated books, eventually rejected as non-canonical, that enjoyed a limited favor for a time.

Later, as heresy increased and some within the church began clamoring for the acceptance of spurious religious writings, the church wisely held a council to officially confirm their acceptance of the 27 New Testament books. The criteria they used allowed them to objectively distinguish what God had given them from that of human origin. They concluded that they would stay with the books that were universally accepted. In so doing, they determined to continue in "the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42).


http://www.gotquestions.org/canonicity-scriptural.html
Quote
Share

B
B

January 6th, 2013, 5:34 pm #22

B,
Since you believe that the men who translated the Word were fallible and since you believe God didn't direct these men to ably translate His Word for Him, then certainly you can add Enoch....and take out Mark, and put in your own thoughts.....whatever you want to do.

For me, I will take the 66 complete Word of God.

=============================

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]David Fields, be proud of your message -- claim it.[/color]
Surely you don't think the men who decided which books would comprise the canon were infallible. If you do, then you might as well join the Catholics and kneel to the "infallible" Pope. You say the canon is "complete" and that satisfies you. Fine. You can certainly believe that if you wish, but your "belief" in that area is based simply on the "decision" of a bunch of MORTAL MEN. They died and went to their graves like all mortals do. They had no power to perform miracles, and they certainly did not miraculously ascend to heaven as perhaps some may think.

Show me exactly (BCV) where the Bible states that Genesis through Revelation is THE COMPLETE canon.

Show me exactly (BCV) where the Bible states that mortal men centuries later would be given divine inspiration to choose which books, out of all the many books they translated, would make up the canon.

You cannot do it and never will be able to do it, because nothing like that exists in the Bible. You ASSUME that we have the "complete" canon based on the word of mortal, FALLIBLE men. Yet for all we know, there are many other books like Enoch that could also be part of the canon, but FALLIBLE men rejected them.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

January 6th, 2013, 6:27 pm #23

For instance, Moses does not write a history of the universe but a history of the Hebrew People. It is absolutely certain that two things happened.

First, that after the fall into musical idolatry and God sentenced Israel to "beyond Babylon" {meaning no return} the land flowing with milk and honey would be a land flowing with innocent blood because they were left to their own devices. Therefore, Moses wrote an inverted version which you can read on clay tablets defining the nature of Babylonianism to which they would be returned.

Or, second, Moses just copied the Babylonian accounts of everything.

Because of the care of the scholars, you can say that this is what Moses wrote over time. However, you cannot say that Genesis is INSPIRED in the sense that the token genealogy of the HEBREW people means that you can use the NATIONAL descent to say that God created the whole universe at 9 in the morning, November 23, 4004BC as Ussher joked.

The story of the God-abandoned Monarchy and its practices is "accurately recorded." However, the SCRIBES (hypocrites, speakers, singers, instrument players) recorded the history of the MONARCHY which had been abandoned. The practice of the Levites is NOT INSPIRED as a pattern for Rick Atchley and the ACUers to promote musical worship teams: a permission to David does not constitute a PATTERN for the church: the Spirit OF Christ defined the future REST DAY both inclusively and exclusively. He also DENIED that the Scribe's favorable account of the curse of animal sacrifices was God's command for them or us.

The BIBLE is a library: it includes those texts which described the good, bad and ugly. Those contemporaneous documents (clay tablets etal) CONFIRM the ugly story contained in the BOUND BOOK.

The Bound Book is FOR OUR LEARNING: Because the command was to use one mind and one mouth to speak that which is written for our learning, there is no role and no dole for preachers or theologians to ABSTRACT what they want.

The command was to PREACH the Word by READING the Word. In the synagogue and the ONLY command of Paul was to publically READ the word, to exort or comfort, and explain the doctrine or teaching. For instance, the letters of Paul are for our learning but not all of them define the Doctrine of Christ.

There are several types of literature in the Bible. Parables for instance were used to "hide the truth from the foundation of the world." That was the make blind and deaf the Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites meaning self-preachers, singers and instrument players.

Parallelism is COMMON. If you read the singing passages to command SINGING then you missed reading 101a: the command is to TEACH that which is written. The blind Scribes and Pharisees promote the ACT OF SINGING and do not care in the least whether Twila Paris or the praise singers SANG and twang to titillate God and the Layers By in Storers.

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


Quote
Like
Share

Donnie Cruz or B
Donnie Cruz or B

January 6th, 2013, 7:25 pm #24

Did Jesus have to supply wine for the wedding for the wedding to be a success? Was He fulfilling the desire to continue a tradition of having wine at the marriage celebration?
Which leads one to another thought.....considering the above dilemma and thought....would Jesus object to the tradition of instrumental music (compared to the tradition of voice only)? We don't need instruments to worship God (no more than they needed wine for a Marriage celebration), but the instruments would not preclude a meaningful worship to God (no more than wine would hinder a meainingful marriage celebration)......now would they???





HAPPY NEW YEARS!!!

=========================

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]David Fields, let's be honest and unashamed: claim [ ]the message you authored.[/color]
B sais "Show me exactly (BCV) where the Bible states that Genesis through Revelation is THE COMPLETE canon."

and also he said....

Show me exactly (BCV) where the Bible states that mortal men centuries later would be given divine inspiration to choose which books, out of all the many books they translated, would make up the canon."

Cannot show exactly what you claim, nor do I believe that these men were inspired. They didn't have to be inspired. They didn't WRITE....they translated. I do....HOWEVER....Believe in the Power of God to direct these men to do His Will and interpret His COMPLETE Word. Looking over all 66 books, nothing else is needed. It is PERFECT!
Again, you do as you will. Add anything that YOU you feel to be inspired....
Just keep it to yourself and don't try to push your agenda on a lost world, nor the brotherhood that has already faithfully received the Beautiful, Complete, Word of God which lacks for nothing.
2 Timothy 3
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

"All Scripture".....doesn't mean anything you so choose to add.


=============================

[color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]Dave Fields now appears to be discombobulated. He identified himself as <b>"Donnie Cruz or B" in "Your Name ______________" rather than as himself.

... leaving the poster's name as it is for the reader to see. It proves that Dave is "capable" of knowing and understanding instructions but is being defiant by continuing to identify himself as "Anonymous" [a.k.a. Annie Mouse].

Sorry, Dave, that you can edit your name, message title or message text ONLY BEFORE submitting your post -- not after it's published.

Why continue to play this game when we KNOW who you are?</b> [/color]
Last edited by Donnie.Cruz on January 6th, 2013, 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

January 6th, 2013, 10:52 pm #25

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Dave,

You may be getting certain terminologies confused: CANONIZED, TRANSLATED, INTERPRETED, INSPIRED.

I have a few questions for you:

(1) When was the formation of the New Testament canon and by whom? (Also of the Old Testament?)

(2) You said: "Believe in the Power of God to direct these men [the mortal canonizers] to do His Will and interpret His COMPLETE Word." Interpret? You may need to clarify that assertion.

(3) So, based on that assertion, don't you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is correct in accepting certain books in the Old Testament as canonical? Tobit, Judith [I know someone named "Judith"], 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Sirach, etc.

(4) Don't you ever quote from the writings of the early church fathers for historical purposes and evidences? (I already know that you wouldn't hesitate for a moment to quote the change agent's denominationally-canonized interpretation of certain teachings from the Scripture.)[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

January 7th, 2013, 2:40 am #26

These books were in the original KJV: the one written in holy ghost language.

The preface promised JAIL TIME for anyone who removed these books.

Very late the publishers DID remove the books because they could save money and the Bible buyers would not notice.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

January 7th, 2013, 7:20 am #27

Did Jesus have to supply wine for the wedding for the wedding to be a success? Was He fulfilling the desire to continue a tradition of having wine at the marriage celebration?
Which leads one to another thought.....considering the above dilemma and thought....would Jesus object to the tradition of instrumental music (compared to the tradition of voice only)? We don't need instruments to worship God (no more than they needed wine for a Marriage celebration), but the instruments would not preclude a meaningful worship to God (no more than wine would hinder a meainingful marriage celebration)......now would they???





HAPPY NEW YEARS!!!

=========================

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]David Fields, let's be honest and unashamed: claim [ ]the message you authored.[/color]
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]This thread, originally intended by the author David Fields to be a discussion of instrumental music in the assembly (Dave's favorite and somewhat his primary "biblical" specialty), has turned into a discussion of the canonicity of the Bible. That's fine. And it's worth the discussion further.

But for now, I'd like to revert to Dave's original premise or question: "... but the instruments would not preclude a meaningful worship to God (no more than wine would hinder a meainingful marriage celebration)...."

Dave's fallacious premise is that "not operating a musical device in the assembly of saints" is a tradition. I disagree -- a no-activity cannot be a tradition. "Not inhaling MJ during the assembly of saints" is a not a tradition.

The reverse side is true. When "inhaling MJ during the assembly" is in place, it becomes a tradition. Likewise, "operating a musical device during singing in the assembly [even by one professional individual] is a tradition. And if one instrumental player "enhances" his worship, can you imagine when each member brings and plays his favorite instrument at the assembly?

Dave, be careful. Some may prefer inhaling the stuff to drinking the wine.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

B
B

January 7th, 2013, 2:18 pm #28

B sais "Show me exactly (BCV) where the Bible states that Genesis through Revelation is THE COMPLETE canon."

and also he said....

Show me exactly (BCV) where the Bible states that mortal men centuries later would be given divine inspiration to choose which books, out of all the many books they translated, would make up the canon."

Cannot show exactly what you claim, nor do I believe that these men were inspired. They didn't have to be inspired. They didn't WRITE....they translated. I do....HOWEVER....Believe in the Power of God to direct these men to do His Will and interpret His COMPLETE Word. Looking over all 66 books, nothing else is needed. It is PERFECT!
Again, you do as you will. Add anything that YOU you feel to be inspired....
Just keep it to yourself and don't try to push your agenda on a lost world, nor the brotherhood that has already faithfully received the Beautiful, Complete, Word of God which lacks for nothing.
2 Timothy 3
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

"All Scripture".....doesn't mean anything you so choose to add.


=============================

[color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times]Dave Fields now appears to be discombobulated. He identified himself as <b>"Donnie Cruz or B" in "Your Name ______________" rather than as himself.

... leaving the poster's name as it is for the reader to see. It proves that Dave is "capable" of knowing and understanding instructions but is being defiant by continuing to identify himself as "Anonymous" [a.k.a. Annie Mouse].

Sorry, Dave, that you can edit your name, message title or message text ONLY BEFORE submitting your post -- not after it's published.

Why continue to play this game when we KNOW who you are?</b> [/color]
When Dave's beliefs about the "complete" canon were challenged, he got so upset that he actually forgot who he was. Is that a "first"? Oh, I think not.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

January 7th, 2013, 4:04 pm #29

Did Jesus have to supply wine for the wedding for the wedding to be a success? Was He fulfilling the desire to continue a tradition of having wine at the marriage celebration?
Which leads one to another thought.....considering the above dilemma and thought....would Jesus object to the tradition of instrumental music (compared to the tradition of voice only)? We don't need instruments to worship God (no more than they needed wine for a Marriage celebration), but the instruments would not preclude a meaningful worship to God (no more than wine would hinder a meainingful marriage celebration)......now would they???





HAPPY NEW YEARS!!!

=========================

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]David Fields, let's be honest and unashamed: claim [ ]the message you authored.[/color]
Donnie said....."not operating a musical device in the assembly of saints" is a tradition. I disagree -- a no-activity cannot be a tradition."

A capella, or singing only, is considered "a no-activity?" Strange indeed. Singing is not an activity?

Donnie, I just don't play your game....never have. So you just play the game with you, B, Ken....and be happy with it. You can call me Annie Mouse, JJ, Dave (David) Fields, Piney, Oakley, or whatever you like. I will not give any credence to your questioning of my identity as I never have given such credence to any of this websites' evil ways and immoral gossip. I come here for one reason and one reason only....that is to dispel any rumors of what you consider to be the truth. You interpret the Gospel to fit and suit your needs, likes and desires. You put down churches of our Lord who hold Him close. There may be some members of those churches that you list who are doing wrong (as in every congregation), but when actual names and locations of congregation are mentioned then you also condemn those who are trying to do God's Will and more inclusively.....you condemn Christ, which you will dearly pay for one day, unless you change and repent.

Revelations 2
18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

Donnie, the above church, addressed by our Lord, was he not saying that this church was doing good for our Lord. REMEMBER this....this is also the same church that Jezebel attended.

In Matthew Henry's commentary of Revelation 2 he says this....."2. A faithful reproof for what was amiss. This is not so directly charged upon the church itself as upon some wicked seducers who were among them; the churchs fault was that she connived too much at them."

YOU, DONNIE, and the others here, have take it upon yourself to heartily condemn, by NAME, congregations of our Lord Jesus. Even with Thyatira, the Lord complimented those who were working to do His Will. You and your legions of evil here have, again, taken it upon yourself, to TRY and put down these churches of our Lord. Do you believe that you have the same right as Jesus to condemn congregations of our Lord Jesus?

As for the men who translated the KJV.....there had to be some sort of INTERPRETING for them to go from Greek and Hebrew. This interpreting would NOT change the meaning of the original Scriptures. Would that suffice for your "You may need to clarify that assertion."?

Donnie, if God would have wanted the Apocryphya to be included with the 66 books, then it would have been. However, God's Word is complete with the 66 books. The whole point here is that you and many others do not believe that God, in His Power and Majesty, has brought and guarded His Word to the point where it is today. That would be.....COMPLETE....and LACKING OF NOTHING.

Everything we do in worship is a tradition. Some were started by the first century church, some were not.
Using a pitch pipe and a PA system is man-made (non-first century), but not wrong. They do not come in conflict with Scripture.
A piano is a man-made tradition also, but not wrong as it is also doesn't come in conflict with Scripture.
Is a capella a man-made tradtion? Just because we were told that the first century church sung we aren't told if they employed the use of any instruments to accompany their singing. We also aren't told if the apostles ever exercised, but ASSUME that they did.

1 Corinthians 9:24
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.

Can we assume that the first century church, then, also used instruments? No, but that is not what needs to be seen here. What is evident....is that to speak that instrumental music is wrong just because the first century church didn't employ them isn't the key here. We are told to sing......whether we sing a capella or with instruments....then we do what God has told us. So B, your " do EXACTLY what Jesus tells you to do" doesn't apply here....never will. Did Jesus instruct all men to wear a beard and a mustache? By your reasoning, if Jesus didn't tell you to do this, then one who wears a beard or mustache is in error.

Galatians 5
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5
3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for Gods holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

In either Galatians or Ephesians or any NT passage.....note that instrumental music is not listed as sinful. If it isn't listed or inferred as sinful....then if man makes it a sin.....then he has added to the Word of God.

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]Dave Fields[/color]
Last edited by Donnie.Cruz on January 8th, 2013, 2:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Rocky
Rocky

January 7th, 2013, 5:36 pm #30

Surely you don't think the men who decided which books would comprise the canon were infallible. If you do, then you might as well join the Catholics and kneel to the "infallible" Pope. You say the canon is "complete" and that satisfies you. Fine. You can certainly believe that if you wish, but your "belief" in that area is based simply on the "decision" of a bunch of MORTAL MEN. They died and went to their graves like all mortals do. They had no power to perform miracles, and they certainly did not miraculously ascend to heaven as perhaps some may think.

Show me exactly (BCV) where the Bible states that Genesis through Revelation is THE COMPLETE canon.

Show me exactly (BCV) where the Bible states that mortal men centuries later would be given divine inspiration to choose which books, out of all the many books they translated, would make up the canon.

You cannot do it and never will be able to do it, because nothing like that exists in the Bible. You ASSUME that we have the "complete" canon based on the word of mortal, FALLIBLE men. Yet for all we know, there are many other books like Enoch that could also be part of the canon, but FALLIBLE men rejected them.
"B", I would ask that you look up the faith passages in the Bible. I think you will find the answer to your dilemma.

The dictionary defines faith as belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof. It also defines faith as belief in and devotion to God. The Bible has much more to say about faith and how important it is. In fact, it is so important that, without faith, we have no place with God, and it is impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6). Faith is belief in the one, true God without actually seeing Him.

"Peace" and let's move on.

Quote
Share