Matthitjah Posted September 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted September 29, 2012 To all When someone reads a book, not good or bad because it was write Peter or Paul, that we will know when we finish reading the book. Who are these men who believe they have the authority to decide which books we read or not? If someone tells me that book to read and what not, and I accept, what kind of person am I? - Maybe I'm an idiot who does not know if I should or not? Are not putting a blindfold on my eyes ? And the Spirit of truth where we left off? canonical books of the Bible? - Who dares to censor God? John 16 13 When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth, he will not speak on his own, he will speak only what he hears, and will declare to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine. So I said will take what is mine and declare it to you. So the early church fathers were stupid and didn't know which books were inspired and which were not? Not all books that people want to call inspired are actually inspired, and no one is censoring God, in any way, shape of form. That is a false accusation. Apocryphal books, such as Sirach were not cannonized for a reason. And the reasons were because they did not enjoy widespread circulation and use within the church, had never been accepted as inspired in the first place because their origin could not be accertained, but in the majority of cases it was because some part of the book in question did not jive with something God had already said in another book. The Gospel message we have in the Bible is consistent throughout. It does not change and it does not contradict. God does not contradict Himself, so if you have a book contradicting what God has already said somewhere else, that is obviously a problem and it can't be inspired. No one is saying that these books cannot be read. I have read the Apocrypha myself, more than once. It is interesting, but none of those books can be used as bedrock or proof for anything because they are not inspired. Now, would you like to explain exactly what you are driving at by posting these particular verses? Because you have been asked that question a few times now and I can't help but notice that you have yet to answer the question. Church Fathers?? - Who are they? No man on earth can say that books are inspired by God or not You should read better, I'm writing Do you reject the Spirit of truth? John 16 13 When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth, he will not speak on his own, he will speak only what he hears, and will declare to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine. So I said will take what is mine and declare it to you. So then you reject Apostolic Authority? The Spirit does speak through such. That is why John say's in 1st John that they departed from us and the sure Word that (we) they not only saw, but touched, experienced, heard, and now Preach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7angel Posted September 29, 2012 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 76 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/20/2012 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 29, 2012 To all When someone reads a book, not good or bad because it was write Peter or Paul, that we will know when we finish reading the book. Who are these men who believe they have the authority to decide which books we read or not? If someone tells me that book to read and what not, and I accept, what kind of person am I? - Maybe I'm an idiot who does not know if I should or not? Are not putting a blindfold on my eyes ? And the Spirit of truth where we left off? canonical books of the Bible? - Who dares to censor God? John 16 13 When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth, he will not speak on his own, he will speak only what he hears, and will declare to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine. So I said will take what is mine and declare it to you. So the early church fathers were stupid and didn't know which books were inspired and which were not? Not all books that people want to call inspired are actually inspired, and no one is censoring God, in any way, shape of form. That is a false accusation. Apocryphal books, such as Sirach were not cannonized for a reason. And the reasons were because they did not enjoy widespread circulation and use within the church, had never been accepted as inspired in the first place because their origin could not be accertained, but in the majority of cases it was because some part of the book in question did not jive with something God had already said in another book. The Gospel message we have in the Bible is consistent throughout. It does not change and it does not contradict. God does not contradict Himself, so if you have a book contradicting what God has already said somewhere else, that is obviously a problem and it can't be inspired. No one is saying that these books cannot be read. I have read the Apocrypha myself, more than once. It is interesting, but none of those books can be used as bedrock or proof for anything because they are not inspired. Now, would you like to explain exactly what you are driving at by posting these particular verses? Because you have been asked that question a few times now and I can't help but notice that you have yet to answer the question. Church Fathers?? - Who are they? No man on earth can say that books are inspired by God or not You should read better, I'm writing Do you reject the Spirit of truth? John 16 13 When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth, he will not speak on his own, he will speak only what he hears, and will declare to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine. So I said will take what is mine and declare it to you. So then you reject Apostolic Authority? The Spirit does speak through such. That is why John say's in 1st John that they departed from us and the sure Word that (we) they not only saw, but touched, experienced, heard, and now Preach. What authority ? They established the canon? What do you think about this ? 1 - Corinthians 3 3. for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men? 4. For when one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apol'los," are you not merely men? 5. What then is Apol'los? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6. I planted, Apol'los watered, but God gave the growth. 7. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8. He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevenseas Posted September 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,373 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 683 Days Won: 22 Joined: 02/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted September 29, 2012 This type of thing does more to divide than anything else. There are no classes of Christian as has been noted. Who says? The Bible says and that is the Word of God I have heard people complaining and even writing in these forums, that we should be unified and we are all Christians Reading this thread, I don't wonder that we are not. First off, we are not all Christians and secondly, when an individual seems to prefer their denom over actually being a Christ one, then I must give pause, but I digress To the op: What do you think about this ? I think you already have the complete canon and need not go looking for more. That is, of course, if you actually want the complete version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted September 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.22 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted September 29, 2012 As I mentioned, the book of Sirach, written by Simeon ben Jeshua ben Elazar ben Sira, was rejected by the Hebrews. I suspect it was rejected after it was written sometime around 180 BC, far before the Council of Jamnia. If you wish to discuss the reasons why it was rejected, that is fine, but you may not promote it as part of scripture. Part of the sites Statement of Faith is as follows: "We believe that the 66 books of the Canon, from Genesis to Revelation are the exhaustive, inerrant and inspired word of God." If you wish to promote other books as scripture there are many other sites out there that will welcome the debate. Our brothers and sisters in Christ who belong to the Roman Catholic Church are welcomed here. We do not allow the bashing of their faith, nor will we allow teachings from their church. There is enough in scripture we can agree upon and discuss. RCC Apologetic threads are not allowed. That's fine by me, but note that the weblink I provided in my post is NOT Roman Catholic. It is also NOT even a Christian website. It is based on historical fact. It even mentions the Dead Sea Scrolls, which was uncovered by archaeologists in 1947. Your link is not the issue. You are aware of the issue I speak of. To bring in a book that has been rejected as if it is scripture is the issue. Those who belong to the RCC do not want to be attacked for their beliefs, so it would be wise not to bring them here is such a manner. If people want to discuss the book itself, then it should not be place it in the same light as scripture, calling it the "words of God". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted September 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted September 29, 2012 To all When someone reads a book, not good or bad because it was write Peter or Paul, that we will know when we finish reading the book. Who are these men who believe they have the authority to decide which books we read or not? If someone tells me that book to read and what not, and I accept, what kind of person am I? - Maybe I'm an idiot who does not know if I should or not? Are not putting a blindfold on my eyes ? And the Spirit of truth where we left off? canonical books of the Bible? - Who dares to censor God? John 16 13 When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth, he will not speak on his own, he will speak only what he hears, and will declare to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine. So I said will take what is mine and declare it to you. So the early church fathers were stupid and didn't know which books were inspired and which were not? Not all books that people want to call inspired are actually inspired, and no one is censoring God, in any way, shape of form. That is a false accusation. Apocryphal books, such as Sirach were not cannonized for a reason. And the reasons were because they did not enjoy widespread circulation and use within the church, had never been accepted as inspired in the first place because their origin could not be accertained, but in the majority of cases it was because some part of the book in question did not jive with something God had already said in another book. The Gospel message we have in the Bible is consistent throughout. It does not change and it does not contradict. God does not contradict Himself, so if you have a book contradicting what God has already said somewhere else, that is obviously a problem and it can't be inspired. No one is saying that these books cannot be read. I have read the Apocrypha myself, more than once. It is interesting, but none of those books can be used as bedrock or proof for anything because they are not inspired. Now, would you like to explain exactly what you are driving at by posting these particular verses? Because you have been asked that question a few times now and I can't help but notice that you have yet to answer the question. Church Fathers?? - Who are they? No man on earth can say that books are inspired by God or not You should read better, I'm writing Do you reject the Spirit of truth? John 16 13 When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth, he will not speak on his own, he will speak only what he hears, and will declare to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine. So I said will take what is mine and declare it to you. So then you reject Apostolic Authority? The Spirit does speak through such. That is why John say's in 1st John that they departed from us and the sure Word that (we) they not only saw, but touched, experienced, heard, and now Preach. What authority ? They established the canon? What do you think about this ? 1 - Corinthians 3 3. for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men? 4. For when one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apol'los," are you not merely men? 5. What then is Apol'los? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6. I planted, Apol'los watered, but God gave the growth. 7. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8. He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. I'm not exactly sure what one has to do with the other. Paul is not denying Apostolic Authority in that reference. Please expound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted September 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 1.99 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted September 29, 2012 I refer everybody to OneLight's post #21. Please take heed of his words. Blessings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted September 29, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.22 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted September 29, 2012 As I mentioned, the book of Sirach, written by Simeon ben Jeshua ben Elazar ben Sira, was rejected by the Hebrews. I suspect it was rejected after it was written sometime around 180 BC, far before the Council of Jamnia. If you wish to discuss the reasons why it was rejected, that is fine, but you may not promote it as part of scripture. Part of the sites Statement of Faith is as follows: "We believe that the 66 books of the Canon, from Genesis to Revelation are the exhaustive, inerrant and inspired word of God." If you wish to promote other books as scripture there are many other sites out there that will welcome the debate. Our brothers and sisters in Christ who belong to the Roman Catholic Church are welcomed here. We do not allow the bashing of their faith, nor will we allow teachings from their church. There is enough in scripture we can agree upon and discuss. RCC Apologetic threads are not allowed. That's fine by me, but note that the weblink I provided in my post is NOT Roman Catholic. It is also NOT even a Christian website. It is based on historical fact. It even mentions the Dead Sea Scrolls, which was uncovered by archaeologists in 1947. Your link is not the issue. You are aware of the issue I speak of. To bring in a book that has been rejected as if it is scripture is the issue. Those who belong to the RCC do not want to attacked for their beliefs, it would be wise not to bring them here is such a manner. If people want to discuss the book itself, then it should not be place it in the same light as scripture, calling it the "words of God". I wasn't the one who brought in the book. In fact, I never even quoted any scripture from that book. That was 7angels who did that. Just look at the very first post. The only thing I did was confirm what other posters have said because they said it came from the Douay-Rhimes, which is a Catholic Bible. And that is true. It came from a Catholic Bible, and I stated that only the Catholics believed that the books in the Alexandrian canon were inspired. but I was never the one who brought in the Book of Sirach in the first place. Now, why 7angels quoted from Sirach......only he can tell you that. But I can tell you for certain that 7angels is NOT Catholic. No Catholic would disregard apostolic authority, which is what he did. I never said you did. You stepped in and started the conversation with me after I posted a general statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7angel Posted September 29, 2012 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 76 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/20/2012 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 29, 2012 I'm not exactly sure what one has to do with the other. Paul is not denying Apostolic Authority in that reference. Please expound. 7. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted September 30, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted September 30, 2012 I'm not exactly sure what one has to do with the other. Paul is not denying Apostolic Authority in that reference. Please expound. 7. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth Based on what Foundation dear friend??????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7angel Posted September 30, 2012 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 76 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/20/2012 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 30, 2012 I'm not exactly sure what one has to do with the other. Paul is not denying Apostolic Authority in that reference. Please expound. 7. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth Why don't you actually answer a question for a change and tell us what your reason is for posting that particular stuff. You are the one denying Apostolic authority, because you have already said no one has the ability to say what is inspired and what is not, so you have already admitted there is no such thing as Apostolic authority. Where did we get the Bible from? How many books would you like to add to your Bible? I ask you, who are the fathers of the church and who arbitrarily imposed a canon of books But you did not name anyone The apostles did not determine any canon, in its time, the Catholic Church did not exist Peter was never in Rome, was Paul, who was for two years and preached in rented house The Bible says that Peter was sent to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Religions do not respect what is written in the Bible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts