What church is the true church?

[InChrist]

I believe God was capable of moving in the minds of humans to bring about the canon of scripture to include the books He desired.


"Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible."

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?

 

[gnostic]

I believe God was capable of moving in the minds of humans to bring about the canon of scripture to include the books He desired.


"Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible."

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?

Again, it is not so simple.

The 1st century Christians, made no distinction between what were canons and what weren't, as can be seen in the epistle of Jude, who recorded something that wasn't considered "canonical" by the late 4th century (eg Council of Carthage, 397).

Revelation nearly didn't make it to the canonical bin, and some would still argue it shouldn't have been included as canonical.

What was considered to canonical and what weren't were all decided by men, not God.

 

[InChrist]

What was considered to canonical and what weren't were all decided by men, not God.

That is easy for you to say because you don't know or believe in the power of God.

 

[Pegg]

Just because John didn't list exactly all 12 tribes, with only one mistake, hardly mean that it wasn't talking about the 12 tribes of Israel. It is obvious a mistake.

there are two differences

and how do you know it wasnt deliberate?

And when you considered that the Roman Pauline church of the 4th century was the one who arranged the canonical, and the Revelation had barely made it into the bible, and if I was a Christian, I would think twice in taking Revelation seriously or literally.

but you take the 12 tribes literally

we dont.

 

[Pegg]

Citations/proof? This contradicts everything I've read about the historicity of the canonical gospels.

the proof is in the logic. Jesus chose 12 apostles. They laid down the foundation of Christian belief before they died.

After they died, no one had the authority to add anything new to the teachings of the apostles.

So a true apostolic church needs only the writings of the NT because they have come from the authority of the 12 apostles.

 

[gnostic]

but you take the 12 tribes literally

we dont.

I see what I read...I don't necessarily believe what I read.

You're the one who is taking a leap. I am just comparing literature.

I'll ask you again, are any of the NT authors "perfect"? Are they infallible? Do they not make mistake?

Let's look at Paul. Paul never met Jesus.

How can we be sure that Paul didn't have his own interpretation of what the church should be, was different from that of Jesus?

 

[Shermana]

the proof is in the logic. Jesus chose 12 apostles. They laid down the foundation of Christian belief before they died.

After they died, no one had the authority to add anything new to the teachings of the apostles.

So a true apostolic church needs only the writings of the NT because they have come from the authority of the 12 apostles.

Except Luke and Mark?

Oh wait, you're discluding Paul from that I see, because he wasn't a member of the original 12 apostles. Excellent! (And as we all know, Matthias was Judas's replacement).

Anyways, how do you plan on proving that no one had the authority except the Disciples he originally picked?

 

[Shermana]

I believe God was capable of moving in the minds of humans to bring about the canon of scripture to include the books He desired.


"Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible."

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?

Ah, so what makes you think he didn't preserve them in the Ethiopian Canon instead? Appealing to majority?

And also, where was this official collection before the finalized orthodox canon, because apparently Clement and Iraneus and others never got this memo.

 

[gnostic]

That is easy for you to say because you don't know or believe in the power of God.

Don't be so naive, InChrist.

Church documents and church dogma may be boring to me, but there are no doubt in my mind, that it was men that decided what were canonical or not, and whether to include the Apocrypha or not.

I actually have no problem with this whole canonical rubbish.

I would read almost about everything, whether they are canonical or not, for I have read the bible, the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Gnostic literature of Nag Hammadi. As well as other forms of ancient literature (both of religious or of mythological natures), like the Pyramid Text, the Coffin Text, the Book of the Dead, Sumerian-Akkadian literature, Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, Hesiod's Theogony, the Athenian tragedies (and the comedies). Need I go on.

My point is that I read literature, whether they be historical, mythological or religious subject (or any combination of two or three).

Like I said to Pegg:

I see what I read...I don't necessarily believe what I read.

You're the one who is taking a leap. I am just comparing literature.

Just because I am not a Christian (or Jew) or believer, doesn't mean I can't discern the context of what the writings have to say.

 

[Pegg]

Except Luke and Mark?

Oh wait, you're discluding Paul from that I see, because he wasn't a member of the original 12 apostles. Excellent!

Anyways, how do you plan on proving that no one had the authority except the Disciples he originally picked?

Paul was taught about Christ by the Apostle Peter... So Paul did learn from a firsthand eyewitness....not only that, but Christ appeared from heaven to Paul and directly chose him to become an apostle. No one doubted Pauls vision of Christ because another Christian named Ananias had also received a vision about Paul and Christ told Ananias what had happened to him. This is why Paul was accepted by the Apostles as someone with authority from Jesus himself. Its the reason why they sent Paul with letters, from themselves, to deliver to congregations.


The choosing of the 12 apostles occured while Jesus was alive. Seeing he was dead 3 years later, no one else but Paul can claim to have been selected by him. And the apostles were given miraculous power that went along as evidence of their authority.

 

[Shermana]

Paul was taught about Christ by the Apostle Peter... So Paul did learn from a firsthand eyewitness....not only that, but Christ appeared from heaven to Paul and directly chose him to become an apostle. No one doubted Pauls vision of Christ because another Christian named Ananias had also received a vision about Paul and Christ told Ananias what had happened to him. This is why Paul was accepted by the Apostles as someone with authority from Jesus himself. Its the reason why they sent Paul with letters, from themselves, to deliver to congregations.


The choosing of the 12 apostles occured while Jesus was alive. Seeing he was dead 3 years later, no one else but Paul can claim to have been selected by him. And the apostles were given miraculous power that went along as evidence of their authority.

So now you're changing your story from only the 12 apostles to those who LEARNED under the apostles. So that could include anyone of the 70 disciples as well too?

Paul was accepted according to the Pauline writings. By that logic, we should also include the Epistle of Barnabas.

And it's also most likely that Paul didn't write the Pastoral Epistles. Or Ephesians. Why still include those?

How do we know that the "Christ" Paul heard from wasn't one of the false Christs who Jesus warned about?

How do we know the Shepherd of Hermas didn't receive such instruction from the Apostles? How do we know the Acts of Peter weren't written by Peter, Clement seemed to think so.

 

[McBell]

So now you're changing your story from only the 12 apostles to those who LEARNED under the apostles. So that could include anyone of the 70 disciples as well too?

Paul was accepted according to the Pauline writings. By that logic, we should also include the Epistle of Barnabas.

And it's also most likely that Paul didn't write the Pastoral Epistles. Or Ephesians. Why still include those?

How do we know that the "Christ" Paul heard from wasn't one of the false Christs who Jesus warned about?

How do we know the Shepherd of Hermas didn't receive such instruction from the Apostles? How do we know the Acts of Peter weren't written by Peter, Clement seemed to think so.

Um...
Because the Bible says...

 

[no-body]

the proof is in the logic. Jesus chose 12 apostles. They laid down the foundation of Christian belief before they died.

After they died, no one had the authority to add anything new to the teachings of the apostles.

So a true apostolic church needs only the writings of the NT because they have come from the authority of the 12 apostles.

Oh ok so you have no real proof, just checking.

 

[Pegg]

So now you're changing your story from only the 12 apostles to those who LEARNED under the apostles. So that could include anyone of the 70 disciples as well too?

Paul was accepted according to the Pauline writings.

No, the account of Pauls conversion is in the book of Acts....written by Luke.

 

[InChrist]

Ah, so what makes you think he didn't preserve them in the Ethiopian Canon instead? Appealing to majority?

And also, where was this official collection before the finalized orthodox canon, because apparently Clement and Iraneus and others never got this memo.

So you do not believe in God's ability to preserve His Word?

 

[InChrist]

Don't be so naive, InChrist.

Church documents and church dogma may be boring to me, but there are no doubt in my mind, that it was men that decided what were canonical or not, and whether to include the Apocrypha or not.

I actually have no problem with this whole canonical rubbish.

I would read almost about everything, whether they are canonical or not, for I have read the bible, the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Gnostic literature of Nag Hammadi. As well as other forms of ancient literature (both of religious or of mythological natures), like the Pyramid Text, the Coffin Text, the Book of the Dead, Sumerian-Akkadian literature, Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, Hesiod's Theogony, the Athenian tragedies (and the comedies). Need I go on.

My point is that I read literature, whether they be historical, mythological or religious subject (or any combination of two or three).

Like I said to Pegg:



Just because I am not a Christian (or Jew) or believer, doesn't mean I can't discern the context of what the writings have to say.

I don't doubt that you are very experienced in the study of literature, but that does not necessarily mean you have all knowledge concerning the work of God through the affairs of humans in preserving His Word.

 

[Shiranui117]

shiranui117, you of all people, being of Eastern Orthodox Christian and all, should know better (than Pegg, and even me) that it is not that simple.

Before the canon of the bible, by the Roman church, the OT Septuagint Bible also included the Apocrypha, and not all churches included Apocryphal texts. Of the time, when the Septuagint being translated and written, there was no distinction between what are now considered canonical from that of the Apocryphal literature.

And the distinction between OT and "Apocrypha" is still absent in the Orthodox Church today, Eastern and Oriental alike.

And during the 1st century, some authors included knowledge of the Pseudepigrapha, like that of Book of Jubilees and Book of Enoch. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls, which included some Aramaic fragments, included both of these books.

And both of those are still included in the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which is Oriental Orthodox.

Depending on what types of the churches (Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc) we are talking, some included the Apocrypha, as "Apocrypha", and some don't, and each could have different canonical requirements than yours, such as Pegg's JW.

I'm aware of that.

What I am trying to say, is that there is no easy solution to the whole canonical shebang, because there is just one canonical selection.

The Ethiopians have a slightly different canon than the rest of their Oriental Orthodox brethren, but that introduces no problems in the OO communion. It doesn't seem to bother any Eastern Orthodox I know, either.

Didn't say it did. But there were commonality between East and West, before the division, completely divided the two. Both East and West (include Vatican), had divided what was canonical and what wasn't in the Council of Carthage, 397 CE. Later translations either keep or omit the non-canonical Apocrypha. And I am not going to really argue with you the question of canonical of which church accepted what, because church history is far more complex (because of all the different sects), and it is really boring to me.

As you know, the canon established by the Council of Carthage isn't entirely the same as the canon presently used by the Orthodox. In fact, the Council of Trullo accepted as authoritative numerous councils containing different Biblical canons.

 

[InChrist]

If John didnt use the literal list of 12 tribes, why should it be viewed as a literal list of the 12 tribes? It quite clearly is not a literal list.

I' believe that the tribes are listed differently in Revelation because at different times, for various reasons, the Bible will list the 12 Tribes of Israel but will include or exclude two of Jacob's sons and replace them with two sons (Ephraim and Manasseh) of Joseph (one of Jacob's sons). So even in the OT the lists of 12 tribes shows variation.


It does not appear to be proper interpretation to say that the number, 144.000 is a literal number but then to say the very next part of the sentence... the tribes of the children of Israel... Is not literal. The text seems to especially emphasis the literalness when the scriptures so specifically list 12.000 from each tribe. Every time the Bible uses the expression..."the children of Israel", it always means the literal descendents of Jacob and no place else in scripture is the tribes of the children of Israel ever in reference to the church.


And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed: Rev. 7:4

 

[gnostic]

I don't doubt that you are very experienced in the study of literature, but that does not necessarily mean you have all knowledge concerning the work of God through the affairs of humans in preserving His Word.

There are many things I don't know. What I don't know, I don't know. And what I don't know, I would ask questions.

For example. I am comfortable at reading scriptures, then I do with customs, rituals and dogma on the inner working of the church that are not found in the scriptures.

But even when reading scriptures, I am far more interested in the stories - the narratives - than I am with reading laws, poems, wisdom, etc.

And as for prophecies and signs, it often based on interpretations. In some cases, especially with the "messianic" prophecies, you would have totally different interpretations than that of the Jews. Jews have different concept of the Garden of Eden story, for example. Another example, is that the Jews view Satan as a servant of God, with specific duties, while you (and most other Christians) view Satan as God's enemy. Jews don't in any rebellion in heaven, because angels don't have free will.

And I surely don't that much about church history. There are too many different sects, too many different doctrines and interpretations. It's too complicated and downright boring.

Christians sometimes don't even agree among themselves. Some view the creation narrative and the Flood story as being historical and literally true, but others don't, because they see these stories in Genesis as allegories, probably they are more aware that it neither historical nor scientifically possible.

The difference between you and I, is that I don't have excess baggage of faith or belief that come with reading and analyzing the scriptures. I'd question everything.

But I think you approach things differently from me. You would probably take everything written at its face value. You are more likely take your scriptures for granted, because you are most likely to believe whatever you read on faith or whatever clergy have taught you, rather than look for evidences to prove it is true.

If I am wrong with your ability, then I'd often sincere apologies for misjudging you.

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe God was capable of moving in the minds of humans to bring about the canon of scripture to include the books He desired.


"Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible."

How and when was the canon of the Bible put together?

The apostolic paton was passed down through the Catholic Church, right? No, they dropped the ball. The Catholic Church was the "inspired" Christians that compiled the canon. If they were inspired then, when did they go bad? When did the one "true" Church lose its status? If the "true" church is the body of believers, then believers in what? There are thousands of fragmented little pieces of Jesus' body that can't agree on the "true" meaning of the New Testament. That's the true state of the Church. Pretty pitiful. It makes Jesus, the Bible, the Church all relative. Whatever you think it is, becomes the truth.