John3;16 Posted May 21, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 274 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/09/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/16/1955 Share Posted May 21, 2006 michael333 But how can it be since the Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written? The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament. And that brings up another point. How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon? How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in the New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament? And how do you know for certain that maybe some inspired books haven’t been left out of the canon? ******************************************************************************** ********************** I find this troubling on so many levels, if you can not trust what the bible teaches as truth, then it has no more value than any other book written, it no longer can be viewed as the word of God, the way of salvation can no longer be found in its volumes, it then becomes at best a guide on how to live your life, but not the path to a relationship with God, and not the path to eternal life. You asked a question: How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon? This I believe can best be answered by the fact that the Gospels and epistles were written by the Apostles and eye witnesses of Christ and his ministries, the 27 books were accepted by the early church, disciples of the Apostles throuhout the second century quoted from scripture in thier writings, and listed the books that comprise our New Testament, the books were completed before the end of the first century, again within the life time of the eye witnesses, extrainies writtings from Government officials, and others that spoke of Christ his disciples and scripture. and there remains over five thousand manuscripts from the second cetury, from many regions including Egypt, Europe, and the Middle East. This was not the Catholic Church and the nostics as the author of the DeVinci code would lead you to believe, first descriptency with this theory is the Catholic church was not in existance until constantine 306-337: Emperor Constantine the Great: although they lay claim to orgins back to the Apostles, throughout the Roman Empire there was a rollercoast effect between the Empire and Christanity, it was persucuted or ignored depending on which emporer was in office, it even expirenced some freedom, but the Roman Empire as vast as it was at its zineth, did not control even half of Europe, and only small portions of the middle east, and northern affrica, but Christanity flurished throughout Europe, the middle east and affrica. And our perspective of the Catholic Church being the only church functioning during the first fifteen hundred years of church history, is not accurate. but you would need to study church history to discover the truth. There are many books written on why the books of the New Testament were recieved as sacred scripture, one is: New Evidence That Demands A Verdict : by Josh McDowell The reason that many of the books of the Apocrypha were not included in the canon is that they did not meet the standards of scripture, they were not written by the Apostles, they were not written by eyewitnesses of Christ, there is no continuity in them, they are not referenced as scripture by the disciples of the Apostles as the accepted twenty seven books are, there are many examples and references to resources in the book: New Evidence That Demands A Verdict , search for the truth, don't just accept this latest onslaught against the foundation of Christanity and against Christ Himself. If you remove the deity of Christ then you remove his power to save you. Even if you believe that the Apostle's did not write the Gospels or the epistles until much latter in the first century, do you think they would write something different than what they preached????????????? do you believe that the accounts that they gave would depart from what Christ did? and since these books were written during the Apostolic age, the people who heard the Apostles preach also recieved thier writtings, if there were descrepencies they would have been noticed. The evidence that supports the books of the new testament is overwelming. read the whole article please: <http://www.probe.org/content/view/678/77/> this is another website that provides resources: The DaVinci Hoax http://petragrail.tripod.com/hoax.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael333 Posted May 21, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 35 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/18/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 21, 2006 John 3:16 -- Please read my previous post(s). I answered the questions of "How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon? How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in the New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament? And how do you know for certain that maybe some inspired books haven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael333 Posted May 21, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 35 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/18/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 21, 2006 Simply put, while it does not hold celibacy as a dogma, the RCC holds to the standard put forth by Paul: I Cor. 1:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. Priests imitate Christ in their vow of celibacy. In Scripture celibacy is set forth as the ideal for one in service to the Lord: , I Cor 7: 32-35 I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction. Well put Fiosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael333 Posted May 21, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 35 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/18/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 21, 2006 This I believe can best be answered by the fact that the Gospels and epistles were written by the Apostles and eye witnesses of Christ and his ministries, the 27 books were accepted by the early church, disciples of the Apostles throuhout the second century quoted from scripture in thier writings, and listed the books that comprise our New Testament, the books were completed before the end of the first century, again within the life time of the eye witnesses, extrainies writtings from Government officials, and others that spoke of Christ his disciples and scripture. and there remains over five thousand manuscripts from the second cetury, from many regions including Egypt, Europe, and the Middle East. This was not the Catholic Church and the nostics as the author of the DeVinci code would lead you to believe, first descriptency with this theory is the Catholic church was not in existance until constantine 306-337: Emperor Constantine the Great: although they lay claim to orgins back to the Apostles, throughout the Roman Empire there was a rollercoast effect between the Empire and Christanity, it was persucuted or ignored depending on which emporer was in office, it even expirenced some freedom, but the Roman Empire as vast as it was at its zineth, did not control even half of Europe, and only small portions of the middle east, and northern affrica, but Christanity flurished throughout Europe, the middle east and affrica. And our perspective of the Catholic Church being the only church functioning during the first fifteen hundred years of church history, is not accurate. but you would need to study church history to discover the truth. John3:16 -- I would be more than happy to discuss church history with you! Maybe we can both learn a thing or two from each other. But I'll save that for a whole new discussion topic. Also, I would just like to say that I am in no way trying to force Catholic beliefs or anything like that. This is an apologetics forum and I am just stating what I believe to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John3;16 Posted May 21, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 274 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/09/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/16/1955 Share Posted May 21, 2006 michael333 John 3:16 -- Please read my previous post(s). I answered the questions of "How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon? How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in the New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament? And how do you know for certain that maybe some inspired books haven’t been left out of the canon? I am in no way saying that I can not trust what the bible teaches as truth. Please read my previous 3 posts. ******************************************************************************** ******************************************* I quoted what you wrote, but let me disect your last post, taking the last part of the paragraph first, "And how do you know for certain that maybe some inspired books haven’t been left out of the canon?" what if there were some books left out of the canon? would this change the validity of the other twenty seven books? if there were other books left out, would the other twenty seven not be inspired by the Holy Spirit? would those books over rule Christ's deity?, would they contradict the way you recieve salvation? now for the first part of your paragraph: " Please read my previous post(s). I answered the questions of "How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon? How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in the New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament?" I answered this question, there is more evidence of the authentification of scripture than any other historical documents, the shear number of manuscripts and the vast geographical area from which these manuscripts were discovered, and the consistancy of them give weight to thier authenticity, these manuscripts were accepted by the early church long before the canonization of them, they were listed and quoted by disciples of John, and other Aposle's disciples, and exclusively mentioned as holy scripture before the canonization. ******************************************************************************** ****************************************** ******************************************************************************** ****************************************** But how can it be since the Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written? The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament. ******************************************************************************** ****************************************** ******************************************************************************** ****************************************** the fact that the books were writen decades after Christ ascended into heaven gives fact that they were written by eye witnesses, and the fact that they were written by the Apostles/disciples of Christ, Who He trained, also adds weight to thier validity, as far as taking centuries for them to be accepted, that does not line up with historical fact, the canonization of the twenty seven books of the New Testament did not bring them online with the Church, because the Church had been using them for the prevous centuries, it just agreed with the authenticity of the twenty seven books, and excluded other books that were being considered as to thier validity. I recomend that you read the book I referenced, and chek out the websites. ******************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************** *** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael333 Posted May 21, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 35 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/18/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted May 21, 2006 (edited) ... there is more evidence of the authentification of scripture than any other historical documents, the shear number of manuscripts and the vast geographical area from which these manuscripts were discovered, and the consistancy of them give weight to thier authenticity, these manuscripts were accepted by the early church long before the canonization of them, they were listed and quoted by disciples of John, and other Aposle's disciples, and exclusively mentioned as holy scripture before the canonization. ******************************************************************************** ****************************************** ******************************************************************************** ****************************************** But how can it be since the Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written? The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament. ******************************************************************************** ****************************************** ******************************************************************************** ****************************************** the fact that the books were writen decades after Christ ascended into heaven gives fact that they were written by eye witnesses, and the fact that they were written by the Apostles/disciples of Christ, Who He trained, also adds weight to thier validity, as far as taking centuries for them to be accepted, that does not line up with historical fact, the canonization of the twenty seven books of the New Testament did not bring them online with the Church, because the Church had been using them for the prevous centuries, it just agreed with the authenticity of the twenty seven books, and excluded other books that were being considered as to thier validity. I recomend that you read the book I referenced, and chek out the websites. ******************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************** *** I believe you are misunderstanding my point I am trying to make. I am not questioning the validity of the 27 books. I believe the 27 books are inspired by the Holy Spirit. I am not saying that the manuscipts were not accepted before canonization. AND I fully agree with what you said that "...the canonization of the twenty seven books of the New Testament did not bring them online with the Church, because the Church had been using them for the prevous centuries, it just agreed with the authenticity of the twenty seven books..." Did the Holy Spirit lead them to this agreement? Sure the Holy Spirit did, but only over a pretty long period of time, and a study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled. Some early Christians said the book of Revelation didn't belong in the canon. Others said Pope Clement's Letter to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd, an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?" We know by examining the contents of the books. Some books Edited May 21, 2006 by IslandRose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John3;16 Posted May 21, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 274 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/09/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/16/1955 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Did the Holy Spirit lead them to this agreement? Sure the Holy Spirit did, but only over a pretty long period of time, and a study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled. Some early Christians said the book of Revelation didn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stray bullet Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Tradition you say. The Bible clearly spells out that Peter was married but according to the Catholic church, all priests are to be single. Reconcile that one since Peter was obviously married! That's not true. Most priests are celibate, not all of them. Within the western part of the Catholic Church, virtually all priests are celibate. However, in the east, there are both celibate and married priests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric Posted May 21, 2006 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 2 Topic Count: 50 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,073 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/02/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/10/1923 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Are the married priests allowed to use contraceptives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiosh Posted May 22, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,663 Content Per Day: 0.52 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted May 22, 2006 Are the married priests allowed to use contraceptives? The use of contraceptives is considered to be sin by the RCC for anyone --- married priests or laity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts