The Truth About the Christian Canon

[Marilyn C]

8 hours ago, RealPresence said:

Thank you for responding.  However, this does not tell us where you got your Canon of Scripture.
It is also extremely inaccurate.  Coming from Matt Slick and CARM.org, I'm not surprised.

First of all - the Jewish canon of Scripture during the life of Jesus was an open Canon.  They didn't close the canon until long after He ascended into Heaven and after the destruction of the Temple because of the influence it was having on Hellenized Jews - that isGreek-influenced Jews.  they blamed these books for causing many to convert to Christianity.  

 

As a matter of fact, in the NT, we see over 150 direct references and allusions to the Deuterocanonical Books that were thrown outby this non-authoritative POST-Christ, POST-Temple rabbinical school.

As to the Catholic Church having "not always" accepted these Books until the Council of Trent - that is a 100% manufacturedLIE.

 

During a period of 37 years at the turn of the 5^th century, the Canon of Scripture was formally declared and confirmed FIVE times. It is the same canon of Scripture that was around during the Reformation and that is STILL in use today by the Catholic Church. 

 

-  The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified. 

 

-  It was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo eleven years later (393).  

-  At the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed.  The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon".  There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document. 

 

-  7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.  

-  14 years later, at the 2^nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

At the Council of Trent in the 16th century - the Canon was formally CLOSED.
The Deuterocanonical books had ALWAYS been part of the Christian Canon.

 

It was during the Reformation and subsequent periods that Protestant men had problems with the canon and decided that some of the books were uninspired.  As I stated earlier, Luther wanted to remove several books including Hebrews, James, Jude andRevelation. Calvin and Zwingli did not believe Revelation to be inspired and wanted to remove it as well.  Had it not been for the pleading of their contemporaries - YOUR Bible would be a lot smaller.

ALL of what I just stated can be proven by history.
Matt Slick's version cannot.

Now - I will ask again:
WHERE did the Protestant Canon of Scripture come from - if NOT from the Canon declared by the Catholic church in the 4th century?


PS - I fully expect this thread to be closed like the last one was - or somebody to report me to the Mods and have me banned from the thread.

 

 

 

Hi RealPresence,

Just found where you are now. So as I`m listening & interested, can you tell me why it is important for people to believe that the Canon of scriptures was identified & later confirmed by (as you stated) - 

`The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified. 

-  It was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo eleven years later (393).`  

Does it prove some important doctrine or thought to you?

regards, Marilyn.

BTW. Trust you had a good time at your daughter`s birthday party.  

 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

On 12/23/2016 at 1:21 PM, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

You are misunderstanding me yet again. I know Revelation was written about AD 90 or thereabouts. I am saying that one proof of the FACT that all the others were written before AD 70 was the fact that none of them speak of the destruction of Jerusalem. And its well known that all the other apostles, Luke and Mark too, all save John were dead by AD 69 at the latest.

YOU are talking about books that were either written CENTURIES or longer after the fact, like Enoch, or books that were available in their originals in OT times, like the Book of Jasher, but have long since decayed to nothing. So though they might have been reliable then (if unnecessary) you cant trust that anything we have NOW is reliable since those that have published such books are not relying on the originals or anything even close to them.

WHY would you be interested in such books anyway when we have all we need in the Holy Bible and don't need anything else.

How many times so I have to explain myself over a perfectly simple matter?

And I would like to know what you mean by End Time false doctrines. I don't believe in revisionist history.

Speak the truth once unambiguously, is all that is required.  I've corrected you on the existence of the book of Jasher, the book of Jubillees both quoted in the Bible, and corrected your dating of Revelation.  It seems a shame you can't get this simple thing correct.  This is not a debate where points are scored.  I assume we are both looking for the truth of God's word; to the Jew first, then the Gentiles.  It's a simple matter.

[Hoddie]

2 hours ago, Davida said:

It would seem for some any post that disagrees with Catholic doctrine and uses scripture to reprove it is called a "bash" now?  Is that a constructive contribution to the discussion?   I'm beginning to find it very negative & censoring when every time someone is following the Bible teaching of 2 Tim 4: 2  they are attacked for "bashing."  It is just a pc false criticism and does absolutely nothing for truth, understanding or Peace.

Far as 2Tim.4:2.....The gravity of the obligation incumbent on Timothy to preach the word can be gauged from the solemn adjuration: in the presence of God, and of Christ coming as universal judge, and by his appearance and his kingly power. Patience, courage, constancy, and endurance are required despite the opposition, hostility, indifference, and defection of many to whom the truth has been preached

To quote RealPresence....

"Tell me - in your own words and not by links - WHERE the Protestant Canon of Scripture came from if it was NOT from the Catholic Church.

WHEN was it declared?

WHO declared it?

WHO had the Authority to do so?"

　

Like he and I have been asking over and over again in as many different threads to all Protestants/non-Catholics, and no one has yet to address it. Why not?

　

Peace

[simplejeff]

Those / that which is unspiritual and untrue cannot direct those who are alive in Y'SHUA , nor can they receive

what those who are alive in Y'SHUA have to give.

i.e.  there's a whole other system,  not based in Scripture,  operating, 

and the believers are not deceived by it nor are we subject to it.   Our answers likewise are not able to be accepted nor even understood.    Same as throughout the NEW TESTAMENT.

People make a choice,  one system or the other.   They cannot choose both.

[RealPresence]

On 12/23/2016 at 7:03 PM, Marilyn C said:

Hi RealPresence,

Just found where you are now. So as I`m listening & interested, can you tell me why it is important for people to believe that the Canon of scriptures was identified & later confirmed by (as you stated) - 

`The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified. 

-  It was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo eleven years later (393).`  

Does it prove some important doctrine or thought to you?

regards, Marilyn.

BTW. Trust you had a good time at your daughter`s birthday party.  

 

I was simply showing that the Canon of Scripture was compiled and declared by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the holy spirit (John 16:12-15). this is a historical fact that cannot be denied.

My questions to Protestants thus far on this forum has been:
Where the the 66 Book Protestant Canon come from if NOT from the Catholic Church original 72 Book Canon?
WHO declared it?
WHO had the authority to do so?

So far - nobody has been able to answer this on FOUR threads now.
Two of the threads have been closed and I have been thrown off of two other threads and have been given two warning points.  Instead of doing a little research and answering the question - the cowardly response has been to simply report me to the Mods to have me thrown off.   As a matter of fact - entire threads have been closed because of this question.

This speaks VOLUMES to the accepted ignorance of many on this forum.

This should shake every Protestant on this forum to their very foundation.  If you don't know WHERE you go t your Bible - how can you possible know that it is your SOLE rule of faith?

PS - I already know that my days on this forum are numbered because of the cowardice of many who would rather have me banned than answer these questions.  they also want to continue their little uninterrupted anti-Catholic party that was going on before I arrived.

Edited December 27, 2016 by RealPresence

[RealPresence]

On 12/23/2016 at 10:57 AM, kwikphilly said:

There you go again getting personal,I'm not "dancing" around anything,I simply am not motivated to entertain you or debate,i....I don't feel compelled to answer questions when anyone orders me to do so ,that is not the kind of conversation that is inviting to me......what,may I ask is your point? Actually,never mind,I really don't care to know what your point is.......

Face it - you don't "feel compelled" to answer the questions because you can't.
NONE of you have been able to answer what should be very simple.  

ALL of you should know where you got your Bible.  It didn't just fall out of the sky one day and land on Martin Luther's head.
If you don't know - you had better find out.  Your very soul is at stake . . .

[RealPresence]

On 12/25/2016 at 2:12 PM, Davida said:

It would seem for some any post that disagrees with Catholic doctrine and uses scripture to reprove it is called a "bash" now?  Is that a constructive contribution to the discussion?   I'm beginning to find it very negative & censoring when every time someone is following the Bible teaching of 2 Tim 4: 2  they are attacked for "bashing."  It is just a pc false criticism and does absolutely nothing for truth, understanding or Peace. 

And that's where you're dead wrong.

I have stated repeatedly that simply "disagreeing" with Catholic teaching doesn't bother me one bit.  Yhat's your business.
It's when people around here LIE and tell all manner of vile falsehoods and try to pass them off as "fact".  That is not only unfair - it is a sin to bear false witness, in case you forgot.

The final act of cowardice is when I expose you guys for it and you go running to the Mods to report me for being "rude".
Do your homework and fight your own battles.

There is nothing more "rude" than lying . . .

[RealPresence]

On 12/23/2016 at 10:21 AM, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

You are misunderstanding me yet again. I know Revelation was written about AD 90 or thereabouts. I am saying that one proof of the FACT that all the others were written before AD 70 was the fact that none of them speak of the destruction of Jerusalem. And its well known that all the other apostles, Luke and Mark too, all save John were dead by AD 69 at the latest.

I don't know where you get your "well known" facts but - Jesus spoke pf the destruction of the Temple in the Gospels (Matt. 24:2, Mark 13:2, Luke 21:6).

It also strikes me as interesting when Protestants reject Tradition when they want to disagree with Catholics - yet they USE it when it suits them.  It is NOT a "well known" fact that ALL of the Apostles except for John were dead by AD 69.  For instance - can YOU tell me when Andrew or Thomas or Jude died and HOW??  

We rely on Tradition for these answers - NOT Scripture . . .

[kwikphilly]

Quote

I was simply showing that the Canon of Scripture was compiled and declared by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the holy spirit (John 16:12-15). this is a historical fact that cannot be denied.

And? Well ,I guess I just have to go here....

Quote

 

I keep hearing over & over,,,,,By whos Authority was the canonoization of the Bible,,,,,if not from the 4th Century church.......

 Now - I will ask again:
WHERE did the Protestant Canon of Scripture come from - if NOT from the Canon declared by the Catholic church in the 4th century?

 

 

And?So,what is your point?Please,l do tell us......we have denied nothing & lied about nothing,,,,,,what is your point?

Let me pose a question,because I have no problem with the Word of God & by the 3rd Century mostly every Christian accepted the major writings & the discrepencies came about by the early church(& still-lol) But what I & most Christians have a problem with is none of that,what is it you want to hear,the rcc canonized the bible?" What does any of this have to do with the traditions of the rcc? That is where the rubber hits the road,,,,so lets get down to it,the very hear of the matter,what is important,Oh how I do wish all those who call themselves catholic w4ould just stick to the Bible instead of "the Bible AND tradition".....

The question is where did these traditions come from if not from Ancient Babylon & pagnism? Please,do tell me?

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_end-time_paganism_Catholic_Mithraism

I don't care if you want to post a link,it does not matter to me.......Show me how these rituals & traditions are NOT from paganism

[Marilyn C]

5 hours ago, RealPresence said:

I was simply showing that the Canon of Scripture was compiled and declared by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the holy spirit (John 16:12-15). this is a historical fact that cannot be denied.
 

 

Hi RealPresence,

Thank you for replying amid all the others. Now you said to Kwikphilly that `your very soul is at stake,` in relation to your question. So.....can you please explain this further. How is her soul or mine or other`s souls at stake if we don`t know or accept where the Bible was compiled & declared?

BTW I don`t have trouble knowing where the Bible was formally compiled & declared if it is as you say. Really haven`t looked into it & didn`t know my soul would be at stake if I didn`t know that historic fact.

regards, Marilyn.