jaybird
Member
would Jesus the Son of the Most High use a teaching that was the same a false book teaching?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
the bible canon
- Thread starter jaybird
- Start date
would Jesus the Son of the Most High use a teaching that was the same a false book teaching?
jaybird
Member
why do you keep going back to "harmony" ? you realize the books of the bible are not chapters in a bigger book we call the bible? each book is its own unique book. i think your confusing the gospels books with the bible books. the gospels are in harmony with each other, this is important as they are 4 books accounting the same events, this does not apply ith the rest of the books, how can acts be in harmony with exodus etc?
Jaybird : I have also been waiting for URAVIP2MEs' answer to your question. His unwillingness to answer itself indicates the answer adversely affects his theory.
URAVIP2ME said : " Doesn't the book of Sirach 25:23 place the blame on the first eater of the forbidden fruit as being Eve ? _______
1 Timothy 2:14; Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 1 Corinthians 15:45 all agree it was Adam's fault."
URAVIP2ME : Why are you are interpreting this verse in this way? Other than an attempt to to justify your personal rejection of the apocrypha as a source of profit for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16), why interpret this verse as a reference to eve eating the forbidden fruit?
Do you really think Ben Sirach is trying to say what you are reading into this text?
Do you think the actual readers of the text anciently would share your interpretation?
Clear
τυειειακω
URAVIP2ME said : " Doesn't the book of Sirach 25:23 place the blame on the first eater of the forbidden fruit as being Eve ? _______
1 Timothy 2:14; Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 1 Corinthians 15:45 all agree it was Adam's fault."
URAVIP2ME : Why are you are interpreting this verse in this way? Other than an attempt to to justify your personal rejection of the apocrypha as a source of profit for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16), why interpret this verse as a reference to eve eating the forbidden fruit?
Do you really think Ben Sirach is trying to say what you are reading into this text?
Do you think the actual readers of the text anciently would share your interpretation?
Clear
τυειειακω
Last edited:
Aren't the gospel accounts in harmony with the rest of Scripture ? _______
Since you mentioned Exodus, didn't the gospel accounts reference Exodus?______
For example:
Matthew 4:2 with Exodus 34:28
Matthew 5:27 with Exodus 20:14
Matthew 5:38 with Exodus 21:24
Mark 2:27 a with Exodus 20:10
Luke 1:9-10 with Exodus 30:7; Exodus 40:5
John 1:17 with Exodus 31:18;
John 1:18 with Exodus 33:20
Jesus was Not referring to the Christian Scriptures when he prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written".
Wasn't Jesus referencing the old Hebrew Scriptures ? _______
For starters this is how Acts is in harmony with Exodus:
Acts of the Apostles 1:12 with Exodus 16:29
Acts of the Apostles 2:5 with Exodus 23:17
Acts of the Apostles 2:10 with Exodus 12:48
Acts of the Apostles 3:13 with Exodus 3:6
Acts of the Apostles 3:19 with Exodus 33:11
Acts of the Apostles 4:24 b with Exodus 20:11
Acts of the Apostles 5:9 with Exodus 17:2
Last edited:
Please post Sirach 25:23 for us to read as to who Ben Sirach places the blame.
URAVIP2ME :
You are the one proposing to use the concept of "harmony" as a rule upon which you decided that a text is going to be in your canon or not.
To support your point, You made a claim as to the meaning of a text. YOU should be the one to quote the text you are referring to and explain why it supports your theory. (I think you are actually referring to Sirach 25:24 instead of 25:23, but still, your theory is for you to establish.)
The question still stands as to why you are interpreting this verse in this way.
Why do you think it is a reference to Eve eating the forbidden fruit?
Do you think Ben Sirach was trying to say what you are reading into the text?
Do you think the actual ancient readers of the text would share your interpretation?
Also, I am guessing that there are several of us who are waiting for you to answer Jaybirds question to you.
Clear
τωειδρφυω
You are the one proposing to use the concept of "harmony" as a rule upon which you decided that a text is going to be in your canon or not.
To support your point, You made a claim as to the meaning of a text. YOU should be the one to quote the text you are referring to and explain why it supports your theory. (I think you are actually referring to Sirach 25:24 instead of 25:23, but still, your theory is for you to establish.)
The question still stands as to why you are interpreting this verse in this way.
Why do you think it is a reference to Eve eating the forbidden fruit?
Do you think Ben Sirach was trying to say what you are reading into the text?
Do you think the actual ancient readers of the text would share your interpretation?
Also, I am guessing that there are several of us who are waiting for you to answer Jaybirds question to you.
Clear
τωειδρφυω
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
That's what they claimed, sure. But, just because they claimed it doesn't make it true. I think the OP is looking to the reasoning behind believing their claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. What is your reasoning?
jaybird
Member
when people say a book is in harmony they mean one book telling the same as another book such as Luke and Mark telling same accounts of Jesus, they are in harmony. same as chronicles and kings.
acts is the Apostles going into the world and teaching the msg of Jesus, exodus is the Jews leaving egypt and wandering in the desert. the books are not the same and have different stories. they are not in harmony and not meant to be. this does not mean one of the books is wrong or contradicts the other. they may support one another but that would not make them in harmony with one another. or at least not the same harmony such as Luke and Mark.
Yes, Not the same story account, but the scriptural verses and passages do support each other.
As far as the gospel of John, that was the last gospel account to be written at the end of the first century, so John could fill in, so to speak, of what was Not covered in the other three. There would have been No need to repeat everything because the other three accounts were already in circulation for some time.
It is because since 2nd to 3rd centuries that the false gospels (books of false witnessing) start to populate the whole Roman kingdom that drives the need for the canonization of the Bible. The canonization is done around mid to end of 3rd century. However, the legitimate original Bible used for canonization is lost possibly due to a Roman empire-wide persecution of Christians and the burning of Christian documents. Relative, Egypt is a place less affected and thus all kinds of religious documents backdated to the 4th century can be found here. Including 2 artifact books which believed to be very close to the original Canon copy of the Bible. The NIV stream Bibles are all based on these 2 artifacts found.
On the other hand, one of the churches in Greek happens to conserve another copy of the Bible, no one knows how original this copy is as existing ancient scrolls can only be backdated to 6th to 7th century. So it's up to individuals to decide which is more authenticated.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
First of all, it was in the 4th century that the canon was chosen and, secondly, it the "legitimate original Bible" was "lost", then how do you know anything about this, including its contents?
jaybird,
The canon of the Holy Bible was determined by the apostles of the first century. The apostles that were picked and named by Jesus, were the authority about all Scripture, to all Christians of the first century. The apostles knew which writings were inspired by God, and which were not. Some of the other writings were used for information, and may have been accurate, but we're not inspired by God, so did not belong in the Bible canon.
Since the Bible was inspired by The Almighty God, it is only from the Bible that we can find truth about doctrines!!!
Augustus
…
I wouldn't say it was ever 'chosen', it developed organically in various forms over a period of time. Even if they had wanted to, no one had the ability to effectively enforce compliance based on a centralised edict. Consensus grew over time until there was a high degree of acceptance within each individual tradition, although not necessarily between the traditions.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
When I refer to the "canon" in the context that I have, I'm referring to the Bible that the vast majority of Christians use today. This canon was decided upon in the 4th century by the CC with the exception of the Apocrypha.
Augustus
…
Although it could be argued that they didn't decide upon it, but acknowledged that the canon was already closed in its existing format. Confirming something old, rater than deciding on something new.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well, in order to take that position then I guess it would have to be concluded that God is a schizophrenic since the selection of the canon was very contentious with some of the books (Apocrypha) being left undecided.
Secondly, if one believes that God ordained the selection, then logically He must have worked through the organization that chose it, and that clearly was the CC.
jaybird
Member
and where in the bible do the Apostles name these books that we use today? pretty sure its not there. however we do have a passage in acts where the local Jews tested Pauls teachings against the holy scriptures and most agree the books of the Septuagint were those books (the holy scriptures of pauls day) which is quite different than the books we have today.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Are we still arguing the canon and why? I can think of a half-dozen reason to accept the 66 and reject all known apocrypha.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The previous post was over a month ago.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Jaybird
In short, the church officially listed the cannon after the fact
criteria was the books had to be written by an apostle (like Peter Paul or John) or eyewitness closely associated with an apostle (like Luke)
Various churches unofficially had the books and recognized them in parts and the collection was officially recogniced although unofficially recognized much ealrier
The successor to the successor of John said as there were 4 corners of the earth (4 compass directions ) there are 4 gospels... and that was quite early (sorry Davinci code)
In short, the church officially listed the cannon after the fact
criteria was the books had to be written by an apostle (like Peter Paul or John) or eyewitness closely associated with an apostle (like Luke)
Various churches unofficially had the books and recognized them in parts and the collection was officially recogniced although unofficially recognized much ealrier
The successor to the successor of John said as there were 4 corners of the earth (4 compass directions ) there are 4 gospels... and that was quite early (sorry Davinci code)