# The "word of God"



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2011)

Anyone know when this term and idea came about? The authors of the bible write about miracles, histories, visions, prophecies, etc but I'm not aware of any that claim to be inerrant or the inspired word of God. Seems like at least some of them would have claimed it if they thought and wanted others to know that they were writing on behalf of the creator of the universe. Seems an important detail an author would include right?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2011)

To put it another way, why do people claim the bible to be the word of God when the bible itself doesn't even make that claim?


----------



## dawg2 (Jun 22, 2011)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Anyone know when this term and idea came about? The authors of the bible write about miracles, histories, visions, prophecies, etc but I'm not aware of any that claim to be inerrant or the inspired word of God.



You've never read this before?

2 Timothy 3:16

_All scripture is given by inspiration of God ..._


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> You've never read this before?
> 
> 2 Timothy 3:16
> 
> _All scripture is given by inspiration of God ..._



Nope, hadn't seen that one before. I went and read the full passage. I could see two different understandings of that verse. One would be essentially that scripture is a means of conveying a verbatim message from God, ie the word of God. Another slightly different interpretation would be God gave a man some information to pass on and the scripture is that mans understanding of the information given in his words and in his fallible human way. Does that make sense? Word for word dictation with no distortion from going through the human mind the words of God. Or words "inspired" by God but still being conveyed by the best effort of the messenger. Assuming the former meaning, my question is then how does one identify what qualifies as scripture? Are there extra-biblical scriptures? Would all divinely inspired writing be scripture or is scripture a subset of all divinely inspired writing and if so how would someone make the distinction?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

People are "inspired" by many different things. The thought of a god could inspire someone to write down a story in the way they think it would have been written by their god, or to please their god or just use the "inspired" wording to hook the readers. Because they are inspired does not mean that god whispered each word into their ear and they wrote it down. People see a TV commercial for a weight loss machine and are inspired to work out....


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> You've never read this before?
> 
> 2 Timothy 3:16
> 
> _All scripture is given by inspiration of God ..._



All scripture was voted on by man as to what and what order it will make the bible and THEN was said to have been inspired by god. The similar writings written at the same time that told different outcomes than what the bible organizers wanted to say oddly didn't make it in. Man chose what was God inspired.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I could see two different understandings of that verse.



How do you think the Christians and the Jews interpreted this passage (and similar passages in the OT)?

Obviously, God used men to record His words, but the people recognized that they were _His_ words.  Look at this passage from 2 Kings 23:

_1 Then the king called together all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. 2 He went up to the temple of the LORD with the people of Judah, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests and the prophets—all the people from the least to the greatest. He read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant, which had been found in the temple of the LORD. 3 The king stood by the pillar and renewed the covenant in the presence of the LORD—to follow the LORD and keep his commands, statutes and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, thus confirming the words of the covenant written in this book. Then all the people pledged themselves to the covenant._

Or just read Psalm 119 to see what David thought about scripture.  In particular, look at verses 138, 152, and 160.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> People are "inspired" by many different things. The thought of a god could inspire someone to write down a story in the way they think it would have been written by their god, or to please their god or just use the "inspired" wording to hook the readers. Because they are inspired does not mean that god whispered each word into their ear and they wrote it down. People see a TV commercial for a weight loss machine and are inspired to work out....



That's a separate issue.  I was just answering atlashunter's question about where this "word of god" concept came from.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> All scripture was voted on by man as to what and what order it will make the bible ...



Again, this is a separate issue, and it's just not true.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> ... my question is then how does one identify what qualifies as scripture?



I don't think the Hebrews had a problem distinguishing what was scripture.  It was the writings of Moses and the prophets.  For the early church, it was the writings of the apostles or their associates (like Luke, for example.)


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Again, this is a separate issue, and it's just not true.



Hmmm, news to me...

from:http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-of-Scripture.html

"Most questions about which books belong in the Bible dealt with writings from the time of Christ and forward. The early church had some very specific criteria in order for books to be considered as part of the New Testament. These included: Was the book written by someone who was an eyewitness of Jesus Christ? Did the book pass the “truth test”? (i.e., did it concur with other, already agreed-upon Scripture?). The New Testament books they accepted back then have endured the test of time and Christian orthodoxy has embraced these, with little challenge, for centuries."


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't think the Hebrews had a problem distinguishing what was scripture.  It was the writings of Moses and the prophets.  For the early church, it was the writings of the apostles or their associates (like Luke, for example.)



Once the New Testament surfaced the OT was thought of as outdated Mosaic Law. Which is what I would have done if I started a "new" religion, tell all that will follow that the "old" stuff no longer applies. And there you have the difference between what the Christians and Jews believe.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

This:



bullethead said:


> "Most questions about which books belong in the Bible dealt with writings from the time of Christ and forward. The early church had some very specific criteria in order for books to be considered as part of the New Testament. These included: Was the book written by someone who was an eyewitness of Jesus Christ? Did the book pass the “truth test”? (i.e., did it concur with other, already agreed-upon Scripture?). The New Testament books they accepted back then have endured the test of time and Christian orthodoxy has embraced these, with little challenge, for centuries."



... is not the same as this:



bullethead said:


> All scripture was voted on by man ....



Your statement in post # 7 is incorrect, but I have no problem with the link you posted.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

http://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't think the Hebrews had a problem distinguishing what was scripture.  It was the writings of Moses and the prophets.  For the early church, it was the writings of the apostles or their associates (like Luke, for example.)



Yet you think Jews have a problem identifying the books of the New Testament as scripture. How can that be? If they could get it wrong on the NT then how is it not possible that they got it wrong with the OT and how is it not possible that you got it wrong on the book of Mormon? Or that the gnostics had it right on some points that have since been rejected? The muslims think that Mohammed was given scripture from God and that this was the final word. But you reject those scriptures. If there were an all powerful being with such a hugely important message to convey to humanity do you think they would do it in such a messy and confusing way?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

From here; http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/bible/bernstein_who_gave_nt.htm

"Sometimes it is easy to overlook the obvious. Take, for instance, the New Testament. Even though every Christian really knows better, it is easy to forget that the New Testament was not written as one continuous book. Rather, it is a collection of twenty-seven shorter writings which were penned by a variety of authors at differing times and geographical locations and compiled much later. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find a list of what books belong in the New Testament. The “canon” of Scripture is, of course, not “scriptural.”

This brings up anther important question which may not be so obvious. Who, then, decided which books should be included in the New Testament canon and which ones left out?

As a Jewish convert to Christianity via evangelical Protestantism, I once refused to acknowledge that the Church had anything to do with compiling the New Testament. I wanted to believe God chose and collected these books without human involvement. The books, I assumed, somehow validated themselves beyond all reasonable doubt, and early Christians merely recognized their obvious scriptural status.

Though there is some degree of truth in this position, it is by itself naive and unbalanced. The history of early Christianity clearly reveals that God used His Church, composed of flesh-and-blood Christians, as active participants in the process of selecting and establishing the New Testament canon, just as He used real people—with feelings, emotions, unique backgrounds and perspectives—to write the twenty-seven separate books."


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Once the New Testament surfaced the OT was thought of as outdated Mosaic Law.



Then why was the Septuagint the "bible" of the early church?  Paul and others like Apollos preached from the OT to prove that Jesus was the Messiah.  The NT is the fulfillment of the OT.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

This:



bullethead said:


> http://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html



... is not this:



bullethead said:


> All scripture was voted on by man ...



From the article:

_Once the Nicea Council meeting was underway Constantine demanded that the 300 bishops make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is_

Nicea had nothing to do with the canon of Scripture.  It was about Arianism which had to do with the identity of Jesus.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yet you think Jews have a problem identifying the books of the New Testament as scripture.



No, I think the Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah foretold in _their_ scriptures.


----------



## pbradley (Jun 22, 2011)

2 Peter 1:20 - 21

20 - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 - For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


Revelation 1:1 - a clear claim of divine communication:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.

Jeremiah 30:1 - 2

1 - The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,

2 - Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> This:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If they had to get together to define WHO Jesus was then that has me thinking hmmmmmmmm.

But here is this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm
See: Origins


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

This:



bullethead said:


> From here; http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/bible/bernstein_who_gave_nt.htm
> 
> "Sometimes it is easy to overlook the obvious. Take, for instance, the New Testament. Even though every Christian really knows better, it is easy to forget that the New Testament was not written as one continuous book. Rather, it is a collection of twenty-seven shorter writings which were penned by a variety of authors at differing times and geographical locations and compiled much later. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find a list of what books belong in the New Testament. The “canon” of Scripture is, of course, not “scriptural.”
> 
> ...



... is not this:



bullethead said:


> All scripture was voted on by man ....



Again, I have no problems with that article.  I am very familiar with Fr. Bernstein and think quite highly of him.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> If they had to get together to define WHO Jesus was then that has me thinking hmmmmmmmm.



There was no controversy on Jesus' identity until Arius began teaching that there was a time when He was a created being.  This teaching spread and Nicea was convened to refute it.



bullethead said:


> But here is this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm
> See: Origins



What about "this"?  It's a big article.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

"The history of early Christianity clearly reveals that God used His Church, composed of flesh-and-blood Christians, as active participants in the process of selecting and establishing the New Testament canon, just as He used real people—with feelings, emotions, unique backgrounds and perspectives—to write the twenty-seven separate books."

Now this was written by a Christian so he is going to say that God chose these people to do it, but the fact is that those people were man and THEY were the deciding factor on what made it in and what did not.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> There was no controversy on Jesus' identity until Arius began teaching that there was a time when He was a created being.  This teaching spread and Nicea was convened to refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> What about "this"?  It's a big article.



Hence the see: ORIGINS !


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> you are very confused concerning the Bible



No actually, not at all


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Now this was written by a Christian so he is going to say that God chose these people to do it, but the fact is that those people were man and THEY were the deciding factor on what made it in and what did not.



That's not what you said before.  You said they took a vote, and they did not.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Hence the see: ORIGINS !



I see it and agree with it.  What's the "gotcha" that I'm obviously missing?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> That's not what you said before.  You said they took a vote, and they did not.



It was DECIDED by man any way you want to look at it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> It was DECIDED by man any way you want to look at it.



So you take back your previous comment that:



bullethead said:


> All scripture was voted on by man


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't think the Hebrews had a problem distinguishing what was scripture.  It was the writings of Moses and the prophets.  For the early church, it was the writings of the apostles or their associates (like Luke, for example.)



 Let's try this again. I agree with the above but I'm not sure why you said "No" to what I said. Jews do not consider the NT to be divinely inspired scripture just as you don't consider (I assume) the book of Mormon or the Koran to be divinely inspired scripture. Do we agree on that point?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Jews do not consider the NT to be divinely inspired scripture ...



... because they do not consider Jesus to be the Messiah.  The Messiah is foretold in the OT.  The Jews do not believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecies about the Messiah.  Therefore, they reject Him and the writings of His followers.  That's why I said "no".


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> So you take back your previous comment that:



I'll take it back if you can show me that it was not voted on.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I'll take it back if you can show me that it was not voted on.



You're asking me to prove a negative? 

If it was voted on, it should be easy for you to produce some details.  So who voted on it?  When?  Where?  How many voted?  What was the talley on each book that made the cut?  What was the talley on each book that got the axe?


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Jun 22, 2011)

Bothers me when the ignorant and unlearned make false claims and assert them to be factual professing little other than their own lack of study of the Word of God itself. Read the first book of the Bible,(Genesis), and the Gospel of John.In both cases the first chapter. "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD  was God."


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> ... because they do not consider Jesus to be the Messiah.  The Messiah is foretold in the OT.  The Jews do not believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecies about the Messiah.  Therefore, they reject Him and the writings of His followers.  That's why I said "no".



Right. Just like you reject Mohammed and Joseph Smith. How is it that Jews, Muslims, and Mormons can't properly identify truly God inspired scripture but you and your Christian brethren can? And why has there been so much disagreement in the christian church, particularly in the early days, on the same point?

I also missed the answer to my question about a perfect God delivering such an important message for humanity in such a haphazard and confusing way.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I also missed the answer to my question about a perfect God delivering such an important message for humanity in such a haphazard and confusing way.



God chose to work through people who are haphazard and confusing by nature.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> And why has there been so much disagreement in the christian church, particularly in the early days, on the same point?



What are you referring to?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 22, 2011)

Michael F. Gray said:


> Bothers me when the ignorant and unlearned make false claims and assert them to be factual professing little other than their own lack of study of the Word of God itself. Read the first book of the Bible,(Genesis), and the Gospel of John.In both cases the first chapter. "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD  was God."



So the bible was there before creation of the earth?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> You're asking me to prove a negative?
> 
> If it was voted on, it should be easy for you to produce some details.  So who voted on it?  When?  Where?  How many voted?  What was the talley on each book that made the cut?  What was the talley on each book that got the axe?



So how did they come together in to one binding? I'm not up to date on that subject. 

Aside from them being together, how were they organized in to the order we have? 

Both of these seem to me that they were "voted" on, or chosen by someone or group.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Right. Just like you reject Mohammed and Joseph Smith.



No, not just like I reject Mohammed and Joseph Smith.  It's interesting that you picked those two since they both basically said the same thing:  

1) that the groups who came before them became corrupt and twisted the meanings of the scriptures ...

2) ... therefore we need a new set of scriptures ...

3) ... and an angel of the Lord appeared to me alone and gave me those new scriptures.

No Christian believes anything like that.  Christians reject Mohammed and Joseph Smith because they both came up with a new gospel and a new Jesus.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> So you take back your previous comment that:



As it pertained to man voting or deciding? Is there a difference between the two that has any bearing on which one is used for this situation?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> So how did they come together in to one binding? I'm not up to date on that subject.
> 
> Aside from them being together, how were they organized in to the order we have?
> 
> Both of these seem to me that they were "voted" on, or chosen by someone or group.



The entire 27 books of the NT were mentioned in their entirety by St. Athanasius in 367.  Virtually all of these books had been used by the church long before that, though.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> As it pertained to man voting or deciding? Is there a difference between the two that has any bearing on which one is used for this situation?



"Voting" implies a group of guys sat around and said, "OK, boys -- the gospel of Matthew:  legit or not?  Let's see ... one, two, three ... OK, that's 42 votes "for" and 37 votes "against".  Congratulations to Matthew! 

Now ... the gospel of Thomas?   Let's see ... one, two, three ... OK, that's 33 votes "for", 46 votes "against", and St. Obama votes "present".  Tough luck, Thomas."

_That _did not happen.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> The entire 27 books of the NT were mentioned in their entirety by St. Athanasius in 367.  Virtually all of these books had been used by the church long before that, though.



That doesn't answer my question. So who put those "most" together, then who added the rest?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> "Voting" implies a group of guys sat around and said, "OK, boys -- the gospel of Matthew:  legit or not?  Let's see ... one, two, three ... OK, that's 42 votes "for" and 37 votes "against".  Congratulations to Matthew!
> 
> Now ... the gospel of Thomas?   Let's see ... one, two, three ... OK, that's 33 votes "for", 46 votes "against", and St. Obama votes "present".  Tough luck, Thomas."
> 
> _That _did not happen.



How did it happen then? Is there another theory that seems more legitimate?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> No, not just like I reject Mohammed and Joseph Smith.  It's interesting that you picked those two since they both basically said the same thing:
> 
> 1) that the groups who came before them became corrupt and twisted the meanings of the scriptures ...
> 
> ...



You don't need to explain to me the reason you've got it right and the other religions got it wrong. I'm sure they could do the same. And that's the point. You think you can differentiate which scriptures are inspired by a deity from those that aren't and so do they. The fact that people come to such disparate results in that effort tells me the chances of any of them getting it right are slim to none and the most likely explanation is that they are all full of baloney.

I do stand corrected on my original post though and I appreciate that.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> You're asking me to prove a negative?
> 
> If it was voted on, it should be easy for you to produce some details.  So who voted on it?  When?  Where?  How many voted?  What was the talley on each book that made the cut?  What was the talley on each book that got the axe?



Best I can do but it clearly states what made it and what did not was decided by the church leaders (man). Take the split between Catholics and Protestants and you have the bible go from 72 down to 66 books...who decided that? God?

Here is a good read. Since these councils took place over hundreds of years and the Protestant version of the bible was not present until the 1500's, I'm sticking with that during discussions between many church leaders, votes were made to see if the scripture met the criteria to be included. Being that the writings had to be ratified by the councils it was up to them to allow or disallow those writings.

Source: http://users.rcn.com/lanat/biblehistory.htm

"In the Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) this same Canon was officially stated and adopted for all the Church. This was the entire Church - East and West - there was not yet any split or schism in the heart of Christ yet. All of Christianity had one Holy Book. And it was this scripture that it maintained, whole, and unblemished, until the 16th century.

However, it is evident that the initial canon in the 4th century found many opponents in Africa, since it took three ratifying councils there at brief intervals -  Hippo in A.D. 393, and Carthage in AD 397 and then again in A.D. 419 -  to reiterate the official catalogs. This canon was once again ratified by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787; and then again confirmed and ratified by the Council of Florence in 1442.  But if was first officially declared, for all time, as the official canon of the entire Church at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, and has never changed."


----------



## JFS (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> 2) ... therefore we need a new set of scriptures ...
> 
> 3) ... and an angel of the Lord appeared to me alone and gave me those new scriptures.
> 
> No Christian believes anything like that.




I don't know, sounds kind of like Moses to me.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> "Voting" implies a group of guys sat around and said, "OK, boys -- the gospel of Matthew:  legit or not?  Let's see ... one, two, three ... OK, that's 42 votes "for" and 37 votes "against".  Congratulations to Matthew!
> 
> Now ... the gospel of Thomas?   Let's see ... one, two, three ... OK, that's 33 votes "for", 46 votes "against", and St. Obama votes "present".  Tough luck, Thomas."
> 
> _That _did not happen.



HOW was it decided? Being that the writings had to meet certain criteria the church leaders had to give some sort of acknowledgement of either Ay or Nay(those words are examples only...don't ask me where they had to say either!!!!!) whether or not that criteria was met. Did it have to be unanimous? Majority? How was it decided?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

JFS said:


> I don't know, sounds kind of like Moses to me.



I'm sure you could find a Jewish outdoor forum you could use as a sounding board.


----------



## JFS (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm sure you could find a Jewish outdoor forum you could use as a sounding board.



I don't follow you.  Do Chrisitans not believe the Book of Exodus?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> HOW was it decided? Being that the writings had to meet certain criteria the church leaders had to give some sort of acknowledgement of either Ay or Nay(those words are examples only...don't ask me where they had to say either!!!!!) whether or not that criteria was met. Did it have to be unanimous? Majority? How was it decided?



Go back and read your own posts.  The canon was settled by the church as a whole through common use of the scriptures.  There was no vote, and they didn't draw straws.  The gospel of Thomas was never removed from the NT.  It was never included in the first place.  The same goes for the gospel of Barnabas, the shepherd of Hermas, etc.  The church never doubted the authenticity of the gospels.  If you read the early church fathers, they quote NT passages left and right.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

JFS said:


> I don't follow you.  Do Chrisitans not believe the Book of Exodus?



I'm saying I disagree with you.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> How did it happen then? Is there another theory that seems more legitimate?



See post #55.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> ... the writings had to be ratified by the councils it was up to them to allow or disallow those writings.



The writings had been ratified by the people long before any councils.  Read the anti-Nicene fathers and see for yourself.


----------



## JFS (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> There was no vote, and they didn't draw straws.



That's interesting.  They voted at the Council of Nicaea didn't they?  How do we know they didn't vote at the Council of Laodicea?  Seems odd they wouldn't.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Being that the writings had to be ratified by the councils it was up to them to allow or disallow those writings.
> 
> Source: http://users.rcn.com/lanat/biblehistory.htm
> 
> ...



They did not, and the dates of those councils proves it.  By the late 2nd century (at most), there was only a handful of books that anybody doubted.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 22, 2011)

JFS said:


> They voted at the Council of Nicaea didn't they?



Yes, but not on the canon of Scripture, as I pointed out way back in post #19.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> They did not, and the dates of those councils proves it.  By the late 2nd century (at most), there was only a handful of books that anybody doubted.



Which books? Who doubted them? What happened to those books?

How did the 72 books go to 66 when the Protestants broke away...who decided that?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> They did not, and the dates of those councils proves it.  By the late 2nd century (at most), there was only a handful of books that anybody doubted.



James was not confirmed as a canonical epistle in the New Testament by a series of councils until the 4th century. It was included in the original 27, but not confirmed until later.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

From:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Muratorian_fragment

""The Muratorian fragment, also known as the Muratorian canon, is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. One of the most important documents to scholars interested in reconstructing the development of the New Testament canon, the Muratorian fragment lists and describes most, but not all, of the current New Testament scriptures. It thus helps humans understand the process by which early Christians decided which books they would include or omit from the collection of texts accepted as holy scripture.

The author notably omits the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, and the letters of Peter, but he mentions favorably the Wisdom of Solomon, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter, which were omitted by the later church. He specifically rejects works by Marcion and gnostic teachers such as Valentinius and Basilides.

The document is a seventh or eighth century Latin manuscript that came from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio, northern Italy. It contains internal cues which suggest that the original was written about 170 C.E., probably in Greek, although some regard it as later.

The fragment, from which the beginning is missing and which ends abruptly, was discovered Father Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672–1750), the pre-eminent Italian historian of his generation, and published in 1740.""


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

JFS said:


> That's interesting.  They voted at the Council of Nicaea didn't they?  How do we know they didn't vote at the Council of Laodicea?  Seems odd they wouldn't.



At Nicaea they had to get the story straight about Jesus and decide how to depict him.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 22, 2011)

Wow... That's a lot of stuff I didn't know. At least I have an idea now. More perfect evidence...


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If there were an all powerful being with such a hugely important message to convey to humanity do you think they would do it in such a messy and confusing way?



Anyone want to take a stab at this one?

I'm also curious to know if it's possible for any new divinely inspired scripture to be written today? Are God's lips really sealed from here on out?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

> Originally Posted by atlashunter View Post
> If there were an all powerful being with such a hugely important message to convey to humanity do you think they would do it in such a messy and confusing way?





> Anyone want to take a stab at this one?
> 
> I'm also curious to know if it's possible for any new divinely inspired scripture to be written today? Are God's lips really sealed from here on out?



If all these "scriptures" or writings were found in an organized fashion, already put together in order and written so that no matter who reads it could understand it(call it universally divine script), beautifully written on a type of material that could not decompose yet is older than anything ever dated, and it left no question unanswered or misunderstood....then I'd believe it. If there were exact copies unearthed in every part of the earth that were universally accepted, then I'd believe it. Surely believers think he is capable of such work right????  Now as it stands, to slap bits and pieces of ancient writings found in bits and pieces over hundreds and thousands of years to concoct into a version that man decided was "right" and it talks of people ONLY found in a small region on an entire earth that have the only unique monopoly with the divine creator and it is so chock full of error, inconsistency and contradiction yet is proclaimed to be the work of a divine being...no, no THE ONE and ONLY A#1 creator of everything........Naw, I don't think so.

New divine script? Not since the church stopped ruling the world. People have since wised up.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Which books? Who doubted them? What happened to those books?



Read your "Muratorian canon" post.  James was not accepted universally.  To a lesser extent, that is also true for Hebrews and some of the other books (2 & 3 John, 2 Peter.)




bullethead said:


> How did the 72 books go to 66 when the Protestants broke away...who decided that?



The Protestants.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> From:
> http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Muratorian_fragment
> 
> ""The Muratorian fragment, also known as the Muratorian canon, is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. One of the most important documents to scholars interested in reconstructing the development of the New Testament canon, the Muratorian fragment lists and describes most, but not all, of the current New Testament scriptures. It thus helps humans understand the process by which early Christians decided which books they would include or omit from the collection of texts accepted as holy scripture.
> ...



Yes, I'm familiar with the MC.  I don't disagree with any of this.  Again, what's the "gotcha" that I'm missing?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 23, 2011)

I don't think its correct to say that no Christian believes anything like that.



centerpin fan said:


> No, not just like I reject Mohammed and Joseph Smith.  It's interesting that you picked those two since they both basically said the same thing:
> 
> 1) that the groups who came before them became corrupt and twisted the meanings of the scriptures ...
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Yes, I'm familiar with the MC.  I don't disagree with any of this.  Again, what's the "gotcha" that I'm missing?



The gotcha is what was omitted by the author, what was not , and then what the church later omitted.

All decisions of man.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Read your "Muratorian canon" post.  James was not accepted universally.  To a lesser extent, that is also true for Hebrews and some of the other books (2 & 3 John, 2 Peter.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Right and Right.

So who later accepted James? .....Man

Martin Luther, MAN, dropped a couple books and called it a day.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> All decisions of man.



I've been saying that all along -- just waiting for you to admit nobody voted on the canon.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The gotcha is what was omitted by the author, what was not , and then what the church later omitted.



You've read too much Dan Brown and too little actual church history.


----------



## JFS (Jun 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Are God's lips really sealed from here on out?



For some reason talking bushes seem more plausible if they occurred in the past.  

It's like the people who say god told them to kill their kids.  If you claim 3700 yrs ago it happened you are a father of a religion.  Do it now and you end up in a mental institution.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> You've read too much Dan Brown and too little actual church history.



never read Dan Brown, saw the Divinci code once and never any sequels.

What I posted came right from the story.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> never read Dan Brown, saw the Divinci code once and never any sequels.
> 
> What I posted came right from the story.



Dan Brown's take on church history (and that of the people he plagiarized) is all over the internet.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

Never took the time.


----------



## JFS (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I've been saying that all along -- just waiting for you to admit nobody voted on the canon.



I don't see why you still contend there was no vote.  Not that the exact method of conflict resolution matters, voting, dictate, rock-paper-scissors, or whatever, but there were plenty of councils to decide which matters of doctrine including which books were legit and which were not.  They voted at some.  

Yes, it's a lazy Wikipedia reference, so feel free to debunk but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Trent#cite_note-0

Though many canons or canon laws were formulated as a result of the 16th century Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church known as the Council of Trent, *the phrase Canon of Trent usually refers to the list of biblical books that were from then on to be considered canonical. This was a decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council's fourth session, of 4 April 1546, which passed by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain)*[1]. With its decision, the Council of Trent confirmed the identical list already locally approved in 1442 by the Council of Florence (Session 11, 4 February 1442)[2]


----------



## JFS (Jun 23, 2011)

Some more history here:  http://www.gnte.org/ecopub/apocrypha.htm  Still quibbling over this stuff in the 16th Century.

In reaction to Protestant criticism of the disputed books, on April 8, 1546, the Council of Trent gave what is regarded by Roman Catholics as the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the canon of the Holy Scriptures. After enumerating the books, which in the Old Testament include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and the two books of Maccabees, the decree pronounces an anathema upon anyone who "does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition" (trans. by Father H. J. Schroeder). The reference to "books in their entirety and with all their parts" is intended to cover the Letter of Jeremiah as chapter 6 of Baruch, the Additions to Esther, and the chapters in Daniel concerning the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. It is noteworthy, however, that the Prayer of Manasseh and 1 and 2 Esdras, though included in some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, were denied canonical status by the Council. In the official edition of the Vulgate, published in 1592, these three are printed as an appendix after the New Testament, "lest they should perish altogether."


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

JFS said:


> I don't see why you still contend there was no vote.  Not that the exact method of conflict resolution matters, voting, dictate, rock-paper-scissors, or whatever, but there were plenty of councils to decide which matters of doctrine including which books were legit and which were not.  They voted at some.
> 
> Yes, it's a lazy Wikipedia reference, so feel free to debunk but:
> 
> ...



Things that make you go Hmmmmmm.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I've been saying that all along -- just waiting for you to admit nobody voted on the canon.



Grab a snickers, your gonna be a while.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Grab a snickers, your gonna be a while.



Do you guys read anything that you post?  I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't.

What was the date of the fourth session of the Council of Trent?  1546.  Now I'm neither a historian nor a mathematician, but I'm pretty confident that 1546 is about 1,300 years after the second and third century fathers listed the books that were commonly accepted as canonical.

Trent was something entirely different.  It was the Catholic counterpunch to the assertions of the Protestant Reformation.  (Hence, the "Counter Reformation.")


----------



## JFS (Jun 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Do you guys read anything that you post?  I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't.



You said nobody voted, that seems to be incorrect.  And you never answered my question about Laodicea.  Not endorsing the source, but see for example:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Do you guys read anything that you post?  I'm getting the distinct impression that you don't.
> 
> What was the date of the fourth session of the Council of Trent?  1546.  Now I'm neither a historian nor a mathematician, but I'm pretty confident that 1546 is about 1,300 years after the second and third century fathers listed the books that were commonly accepted as canonical.
> 
> Trent was something entirely different.  It was the Catholic counterpunch to the assertions of the Protestant Reformation.  (Hence, the "Counter Reformation.")



Until then they were accepted as canon but not until those late councils(and votes) were the 27 official. It was a work in progress . In the first 3 centuries no NT canon was universally recognized.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 24, 2011)

Whether it was voted on or not is beside the point. It's a product of man both in writing and compilation, just like any other book. So since all we have are man made texts how does one identify writings as being the work of a god? Especially when there isn't even any evidence that any god exists?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 24, 2011)

It seems to me the mere fact that people are reduced to attempting to sift through man made works and call them the work of a god is in itself an indication that there is no such thing. An all knowing god would know that even if he puts out a text through men it will be indistinguishable from the counterfeits. An all powerful god could do better. A caring god would do better.


----------



## dawg2 (Jun 24, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Whether it was voted on or not is beside the point. It's a product of man both in writing and compilation, just like any other book. So since all we have are man made texts how does one identify writings as being the work of a god? Especially when there isn't even any evidence that any god exists?



If you base the existence of a deity on the ratification of inspired paper, then you are truly confused.  Anyone can poke pin holes in any topic.  It is no feat of great skill.

I have a challenge for you.  

Why don't you pray.  Pray hard for 7 days straight for guidance and for God to give you something to believe in.  It won't hurt anything and you have nothing to lose.


----------



## dawg2 (Jun 24, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It seems to me the mere fact that people are reduced to attempting to sift through man made works and call them the work of a god is in itself an indication that there is no such thing. An all knowing god would know that even if he puts out a text through men it will be indistinguishable from the counterfeits. An all powerful god could do better. A caring god would do better.


Our forefathers thought the same about the Constitution.  It was so simple...


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 24, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> If you base the existence of a deity on the ratification of inspired paper, then you are truly confused.  Anyone can poke pin holes in any topic.  It is no feat of great skill.
> 
> I have a challenge for you.
> 
> Why don't you pray.  Pray hard for 7 days straight for guidance and for God to give you something to believe in.  It won't hurt anything and you have nothing to lose.



What exactly should happen in or after those 7 days? Want to be sure I know what to expect. Shall I also sacrifice a goat?




dawg2 said:


> Our forefathers thought the same about the Constitution.  It was so simple...



Thought what?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 24, 2011)

It's funny that you would respond to my post about distinguishing a divinely inspired work out of a pile of religious texts by suggesting I pray. Don't you realize muslims pray 5 times a day? How many of them are there? Why didn't prayer do it for them?


----------



## JFS (Jun 24, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> Pray hard for 7 days straight for guidance and for God to give you something to believe in.



I call your prayer and raise you The Power of Attraction. 

http://www.applying-the-law-of-attraction.com/

Let us know how your 7 day trial goes.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It seems to me the mere fact that people are reduced to attempting to sift through man made works and call them the work of a god is in itself an indication that there is no such thing. An all knowing god would know that even if he puts out a text through men it will be indistinguishable from the counterfeits. An all powerful god could do better. A caring god would do better.



All hail to the almighty atlashunter who declares what is and what isn't "better"


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It's funny that you would respond to my post about distinguishing a divinely inspired work out of a pile of religious texts by suggesting I pray. Don't you realize muslims pray 5 times a day? How many of them are there? Why didn't prayer do it for them?



You could pray to a cow in a field if you wanted to, it will not get you anywhere.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Until then they were accepted as canon but not until those late councils(and votes) were the 27 official. It was a work in progress . In the first 3 centuries no NT canon was universally recognized.



Second and early third century writers Clement of Alexandria, Origin, Tertullian, and Irenaeus quoted from almost the entire NT.  The only books they left out were three or four I mentioned above.

The councils just formally recognized what was commonly understood.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 24, 2011)

JFS said:


> That's interesting.  They voted at the Council of Nicaea didn't they?  How do we know they didn't vote at the Council of Laodicea?  Seems odd they wouldn't.



See post #96.

Also, if they voted on the canon, where's the record of it?  Why didn't anybody mention this epic vote?  We know exactly what happened at Nicea, which was absolutely the most important church council.  We know who attended, how many attended, where they came from, where it was held, who won, and who lost.

A vote on the canon would be equally well-documented.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 24, 2011)

If a council of men is called together for the purpose of officially establishing "something", and "something" is established by those men, then it was either established by majority vote of man or it was dictated by man.  Unless a talking, burning, bush appeared and directed the establishment of the "thing", it was done by man.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> You could pray to a cow in a field if you wanted to, it will not get you anywhere.



You're absolutely right. It will get you exactly the same results as praying to Jesus. You're catching on string.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 24, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> See post #96.
> 
> Also, if they voted on the canon, where's the record of it?  Why didn't anybody mention this epic vote?  We know exactly what happened at Nicea, which was absolutely the most important church council.  We know who attended, how many attended, where they came from, where it was held, who won, and who lost.
> 
> A vote on the canon would be equally well-documented.



Answer this:

Why would they record it?

If a vote took place, would it be in the best interest of the church to advertise it? It kinda would put a damper on the whole divinely inspired word thing.  I'm mean it just doesn't sound all that good if they had to admit the heavily edited the word of god. I would think it loses its power of persuasion. 

Just a thought.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Why would they record it?



Why wouldn't they?  They recorded everything else.  The ante-Nicene fathers collection fills ten volumes with over 6,000 pages.  They clearly had no problem recording Nicea, which was arguably the most important church council in history.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 24, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Why wouldn't they?



I gave you plenty of reasons why they wouldn't.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You're absolutely right. It will get you exactly the opposite results as praying to Jesus. You're catching on string.



fixed it for ya'


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> I gave you plenty of reasons why they wouldn't.



I see one reason:



TheBishop said:


> I'm mean it just doesn't sound all that good if they had to admit the heavily edited the word of god.



... and there's no evidence of that.  If you believe otherwise, please provide examples.


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 24, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I see one reason:



It's a good one though.



> ... and there's no evidence of that.  If you believe otherwise, please provide examples.



Is ommiting a better word for you?

How about this:



> I'm mean it just doesn't sound all that good if they had to admit they heavily ommitted and arranged the word of god


.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> fixed it for ya'



Tell you what. I'll flip a coin 10 times and pray to the cow that it will come up heads each time. Then I'll do the same but pray to Jesus each time. You do the same and then we'll compare results. Deal?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Tell you what. I'll flip a coin 10 times and pray to the cow that it will come up heads each time. Then I'll do the same but pray to Jesus each time. You do the same and then we'll compare results. Deal?



Jesus is not in the coin flipping business. Don't get me wrong, I think many things are left up to chance and nature.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Jesus is not in the coin flipping business. Don't get me wrong, I think many things are left up to chance and nature.



Since Jesus is not in the coin flipping business, name something that a prayer to Jesus should effect in a measurable way.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Jesus is not in the coin flipping business. Don't get me wrong, I think many things are left up to chance and nature.



Neither is the cow.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Neither is the cow.



Well, we agree that praying to anything about flipping a coin is pretty pointless, we are making some headway here.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Since Jesus is not in the coin flipping business, name something that a prayer to Jesus should effect in a measurable way.



Whatever He wants it to effect.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Well, we agree that praying to anything about flipping a coin is pretty pointless, we are making some headway here.



We agree that praying to Jesus on a coin flip will have the same results as praying to the cow. As was previously asked can you think of a prayer for anything measurable where that wouldn't be the case?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Whatever He wants it to effect.



Except for coin flips...


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Whatever He wants it to effect.



Well since Jesus clearly stated that all it takes is prayer and belief for a mountain to be picked up and dropped into the sea, lets start with that.  You pray to Jesus for a mountain to be picked up and dropped into the sea and atlas will pray to a cow for the same thing and we'll measure the results.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 24, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> It's a good one though.



As I said before:



centerpin fan said:


> please provide examples.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Except for coin flips...



Unless He wants to affect the outcome...... I dont think He does.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Well since Jesus clearly stated that all it takes is prayer and belief for a mountain to be picked up and dropped into the sea, lets start with that.  You pray to Jesus for a mountain to be picked up and dropped into the sea and atlas will pray to a cow for the same thing and we'll measure the results.



If I prayed for a mountain to be moved and it did not happen, I would put it on myself and my faith, not Jesus. What if I prayed for that mountain to be moved and Jesus moved it 1532 years from now?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> If I prayed for a mountain to be moved and it did not happen, I would put it on myself and my faith, not Jesus. What if I prayed for that mountain to be moved and Jesus moved it 1532 years from now?



If you prayed for a mountain to be moved and it did not happen, and you accepted that your prayer was not answered because you do not have enough faith and belief, just like the disciples did not have enough faith and belief to move mountains, shouldn't you then stop praying, since you know that you don't have enough faith and belief to get your prayer answered?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> If you prayed for a mountain to be moved and it did not happen, and you accepted that your prayer was not answered because you do not have enough faith and belief, just like the disciples did not have enough faith and belief to move mountains, shouldn't you then stop praying, since you know that you don't have enough faith and belief to get* your prayer *answered?



..... maybe just the mountain prayer


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> ..... maybe just the mountain prayer



Nope.  Jesus didn't make exceptions for the type of prayer.  Jesus only limited the granting of any prayer on the faith and belief of the one praying.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> If I prayed for a mountain to be moved and it did not happen, I would put it on myself and my faith, not Jesus. What if I prayed for that mountain to be moved and Jesus moved it 1532 years from now?



Maybe thats the same reason your prayer to the cow doesn't work. You just don't believe it strongly enough.

Is there any measurable thing you have enough faith to produce through prayer that couldn't be produced with a prayer to the cow? I'm trying to give you every opportunity to substantiate your claim that praying to Jesus gets better results than praying to a cow.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Second and early third century writers Clement of Alexandria, Origin, Tertullian, and Irenaeus quoted from almost the entire NT.  The only books they left out were three or four I mentioned above.
> 
> The councils just formally recognized what was commonly understood.



Those writers "left out" 3 or 4 books.  "quoted from ALMOST the entire NT".....

What was commonly understood had changes and challenges until 1545. They voted and made it official then.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe thats the same reason your prayer to the cow doesn't work. You just don't believe it strongly enough.
> 
> Is there any measurable thing you have enough faith to produce through prayer that couldn't be produced with a prayer to the cow? *I'm trying to give you every opportunity to substantiate your claim that praying to Jesus gets better results than praying to a cow.*



Why, you would wouldn't accept it


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Why, you would wouldn't accept it



I would.  And I think millions of other lost souls would too.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Those writers "left out" 3 or 4 books.  "Almost the entire NT".....



Yes, as I said previously, 2 Peter, John II and III, and James were disputed (or at least ignored) by some.

That _is_ almost the entire NT.  Go count the pages if you don't believe me.




bullethead said:


> What was commonly understood had changes and challenges until 1545. They voted and made it official then.



That's just not true.  I can't believe you're actually bringing up Trent again, as if that had anything do with it.  Seriously, have you read anything about Trent other than the stuff you C&P?  (And, as I said, I'm not positive you read that.)


----------



## JFS (Jun 24, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I would.  And I think millions of other lost souls would too.



Me too.  I can see Kennesaw Mountain from my window.  Can you pray for that one so I can keep tabs on the results?  I don't want to waste a minute on the conversion process waiting for some kind of news release.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I would.  And I think millions of other lost souls would too.



If you dont believe now, you wouldn't believe if it happened. You'd probably chalk it up to some type of hallucination.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

JFS said:


> Me too.  I can see Kennesaw Mountain from my window.  Can you pray for that one so I can keep tabs on the results?  I don't want to waste a minute on the conversion process waiting for some kind of news release.



see post #127


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> If you dont believe now, you wouldn't believe if it happened. You'd probably chalk it up to some type of hallucination.



Then why did the disciples perform miracles when they were spreading Christianity?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Yes, as I said previously, 2 Peter, John II and III, and James were disputed (or at least ignored) by some.
> 
> That _is_ almost the entire NT.  Go count the pages if you don't believe me.
> 
> ...



Because you question what I read or do not read does not somehow make what you have read (or not) any more credible. YES I have read about all those councils. In those readings I have found enough information to show that the councils decided on what was accepted and what was not. How it goes is, I read the text, find what I want conveyed to you, and C&P that so you can see it.

"almost" implies that it is not the ENTIRE! Leave 3 or 4 out, add 3 or 4 books...that went on for centuries UNTIL....wait for it.....they V O T E D on what was the absolute official canon( among other things). Due to the reformation they wanted to be specific about what was official and what was not.

If you want to know why earlier councils did not keep accurate records of votes it is because they were very small councils compared to the later ones and until much later when the church was growing( and when the church, it beliefs, and practices) and started to be challenged, they got larger councils together and kept accurate records of it's decisions.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 24, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Then why did the disciples perform miracles when they were spreading Christianity?



You'll have to ask someone besides me. It seems Huntinfool is giving yourself and Atlashunter very articulate and Biblical answers in the other thread.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 24, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> You'll have to ask someone besides me. It seems Huntinfool is giving yourself and Atlashunter very articulate and Biblical answers in the other thread.



I agree that's a more appropriate thread for this topic.  Come on over there and continue.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> In those readings I have found enough information to show that the councils decided on what was accepted and what was not.



Will you at least grant me that 1546 AD comes after 200 AD?  Will you further grant me that whatever canon debate came up at Trent, it was solely in response to Protestant theology?




bullethead said:


> "almost" implies that it is not the ENTIRE!



Yeah, I get that.  If it'll make you feel better, buy a Bible and tear out James, 2 Peter, and II & III John.  You'll be holding about ten pages in your hand.  Then, tell me one Christian doctrine that would change.




bullethead said:


> Leave 3 or 4 out, add 3 or 4 books...that went on for centuries...



Absolutely, positively not true.  St. Athanasius listed every NT book in 367.




bullethead said:


> If you want to know why earlier councils did not keep accurate records of votes it is because they were very small councils compared to the later ones and until much later when the church was growing( and when the church, it beliefs, and practices) and started to be challenged, they got larger councils together and kept accurate records of it's decisions.



Over 300 bishops attended Nicea to deal with the most important issue of the day ... and we have records of it.  There is absolutely no reason to believe they would not have done the same if there was a council on the canon.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

I'll grant this:

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/The Catholic Church and the Bible.htm


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I'll grant this:
> 
> http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/The Catholic Church and the Bible.htm



Then we agree.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2011)

Yes, you to your parts and me to mine.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 24, 2011)

String, if your original statement about praying to Jesus having the opposite results of praying to a cow were really true it wouldn't be difficult to substantiate. It was a cute retort but wrong all the same.


----------

