What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

    Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

    Read The Gospel Online.

Did Jesus not validate Book of Enoch?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,038.00
Goal
$1,038.00
Donate View
Jim Parker said:
Where does Paul use the word "canon"? I was not aware of that. ( Learn something new every day!)

I seems to me that even being grounded is not infallible protection considering the widespread acceptance of the teachings of Calvin and Darby.
Click to expand...
Post 137 sums it up fairly well. Please mind the formatting. I think we were either on Phpbb or had just moved to Vbullitin when I posted. It's been through a few migrations lol!

http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/universal-church.16298/page-7#post-242129
 
StoveBolts said:
Post 137 sums it up fairly well. Please mind the formatting. I think we were either on Phpbb or had just moved to Vbullitin when I posted. It's been through a few migrations lol!

http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/universal-church.16298/page-7#post-242129
Click to expand...
To further drive home what Canon is, it comes from the Greek word Kanon and is used in the NT six times by Paul. It is found in 2 Cor 10:13, 15 and 16 translated as rule or line. In Galatians 6:16, it is used twice and is translated as, “According to†and Rule. In Philippians 3:16, it is once more translated as rule. Take these usages of Kanon in context, and our current Canon will make more sense.
Click to expand...
2Co 10:13-16 (NKJV)
We, however, will not boast beyond measure, but within the "limits of the sphere" (KJV "rule") which God appointed us—a sphere which especially includes you. For we are not overextending ourselves (as though our authority did not extend to you), for it was to you that we came with the gospel of Christ; not boasting of things beyond measure, that is, in other men’s labors, but having hope, that as your faith is increased, we shall be greatly enlarged by you in our sphere, to preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man’s sphere of accomplishment.
Only the KJV uses the word "rule" so you are basing your argument of an archaic form of English (Late Middle English) which is no longer spoken.
In that Late Middle English, the referenced passage is talking about the geographic areas where Paul preached and the foundational work of other evangelists and apostles, not the "canon of scripture."

Gal 6:15-16 (KJV) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
Retaining the context of verse 16, it becomes apparent that Paul is talking about the principle that circumcision had been rendered irrelevant by the Gospel. It is not used as the word "canon" would be applied to a set of of books.

With reference to Phil 3:16, once again, it needs to be read in context.
Phl 3:12-16
Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

Again, this use of the word "rule", taken in context, is not used with reference to a set of books. It is with reference to a principle of behavior..

A word's meaning is not separate from the context in which it is used.

Using the Late Middle English of the KJV is prone to error because of misunderstanding the meaning of the word as it was used 500 years ago.

To me, it appears that Paul's use of the word "rule" has nothing to do with fixing a specific set of books as the "rule" by which all other writings are measured.

Maybe I missed the point?
 
Jim Parker said:
2Co 10:13-16 (NKJV)
We, however, will not boast beyond measure, but within the "limits of the sphere" (KJV "rule") which God appointed us—a sphere which especially includes you. For we are not overextending ourselves (as though our authority did not extend to you), for it was to you that we came with the gospel of Christ; not boasting of things beyond measure, that is, in other men’s labors, but having hope, that as your faith is increased, we shall be greatly enlarged by you in our sphere, to preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man’s sphere of accomplishment.
Only the KJV uses the word "rule" so you are basing your argument of an archaic form of English (Late Middle English) which is no longer spoken.
In that Late Middle English, the referenced passage is talking about the geographic areas where Paul preached and the foundational work of other evangelists and apostles, not the "canon of scripture."

Gal 6:15-16 (KJV) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
Retaining the context of verse 16, it becomes apparent that Paul is talking about the principle that circumcision had been rendered irrelevant by the Gospel. It is not used as the word "canon" would be applied to a set of of books.

With reference to Phil 3:16, once again, it needs to be read in context.
Phl 3:12-16
Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

Again, this use of the word "rule", taken in context, is not used with reference to a set of books. It is with reference to a principle of behavior..

A word's meaning is not separate from the context in which it is used.

Using the Late Middle English of the KJV is prone to error because of misunderstanding the meaning of the word as it was used 500 years ago.

To me, it appears that Paul's use of the word "rule" has nothing to do with fixing a specific set of books as the "rule" by which all other writings are measured.

Maybe I missed the point?
Click to expand...
I think It flew right over your head.... lol

You said, Again, this use of the word "rule", taken in context, is not used with reference to a set of books. It is with reference to a principle of behavior..

Does our current cannon lay out the principals of thought and behavior?

What does the bible say on homosexual behavior? How about bearing false witness? Murder?
 
StoveBolts said:
I think It flew right over your head.... lol
Click to expand...
Is THAT what that was?
StoveBolts said:
Does our current cannon lay out the principals of thought and behavior?
Click to expand...
If you mean the "canon of scripture" then the answer is "no."

A "canon" is "a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine."
The focus of that use of the word "canon" is which books belong in the accepted set.

Another meaning of the word "canon" is "a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged." The focus of that definition is the method by which we determine which books belong in the accepted set and which do not.

In fact, the canon does not "lay out the principals of thought and behavior." It lays out the names of the accepted books which we may consult to find the principals of thought and behavior.

The word "canon" identifies the documents but not what is contained in the documents.

And a "cannon" is an artillery piece.
Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.
Screen Shot 2018-09-24 at 4.08.57 PM.png
 
Jim Parker said:
Is THAT what that was?

If you mean the "canon of scripture" then the answer is "no."

A "canon" is "a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine."
The focus of that use of the word "canon" is which books belong in the accepted set.

Another meaning of the word "canon" is "a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged." The focus of that definition is the method by which we determine which books belong in the accepted set and which do not.

In fact, the canon does not "lay out the principals of thought and behavior." It lays out the names of the accepted books which we may consult to find the principals of thought and behavior.

The word "canon" identifies the documents but not what is contained in the documents.

And a "cannon" is an artillery piece.
Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.
View attachment 6400
Click to expand...
More like a hole were the fight once was.
 
Jim Parker said:
Is THAT what that was?

If you mean the "canon of scripture" then the answer is "no."

A "canon" is "a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine."
The focus of that use of the word "canon" is which books belong in the accepted set.

Another meaning of the word "canon" is "a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged." The focus of that definition is the method by which we determine which books belong in the accepted set and which do not.

In fact, the canon does not "lay out the principals of thought and behavior." It lays out the names of the accepted books which we may consult to find the principals of thought and behavior.

The word "canon" identifies the documents but not what is contained in the documents.

And a "cannon" is an artillery piece.
Artillery lends dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.
View attachment 6400
Click to expand...
Ha, gotta love auto-correct lol! Boom!

Btw, it's not a matter of me being right and you being wrong or viceversa. Not everyone is edumacated and in principal, we are saying the same thing.
 
jasonc said:
More like a hole were the fight once was.
Click to expand...
Fight?
Why does everyone feel like they have to fight and find holes to blow into other people?

As far as Canon, Paul used the word several times in Scripture which I provided. From the Greek word Kanon, we can easily see its meaning in the biblical texts. Within Paul's usage, we see that it agrees with both what I said, and what Jim Parker said that it is a means to measure, aka rule and principal.

When the early church brought all of the writings concerning what had transpired through Christ, they had set standards in which to measure each writing that was considered to be contained within the "New Testament". In other words, they had a kanon to create the kanon and may I not dare to omit the Holy Spirit who guided them.

When most think of the Bible aka kanon, they do not understand the process in which many writings were considered to which many were rejected as kanon. Some becausectheycwere downright wrong, and others that held biblical value, but not enough to be elevated as a ruler in which to measure other writing etc with. I'll leave it up to the educated with more time than I to lay these principals out. But I will say the kanon they used was the Jewish kanon we understand as the Old Testament and each rule and principal (kanon) agreed with NT Christiology.

Jim Parker and I are not in disagreement, nor have we been on this matter and honestly, I'm disapointed if you, or he thought we were.
 
StoveBolts said:
Ha, gotta love auto-correct lol! Boom!

Btw, it's not a matter of me being right and you being wrong or viceversa. Not everyone is edumacated and in principal, we are saying the same thing.
Click to expand...
Well, pretty close, anyway.
Closed enough to get folk confused.
 
Jim Parker said:
Well, pretty close, anyway.
Closed enough to get folk confused.
Click to expand...
Yes, I suppose that taking one snipit from a post 8 years ago without including the entire context of the previous discussion could be a bit confusing for some....

Perhaps the keyword you snipped which said, "To further drive home...." was a clue that other ground was previously covered. It was not the only thread in 2008 where we discussed the canon.

But my bad... I dont have the time I once did to site and articulate as to avoid the pitfalls of miscommunication that occur on Christian forums such as our own. And shame on me for thinking you knew me well enough to think I could say to you that it went over your head. I now suspect that struck a nerve with you. Life is too short to be serious all the time, so I'll apologize and hope you understand it was in good humor.
 
StoveBolts said:
Fight?
Why does everyone feel like they have to fight and find holes to blow into other people?

As far as Canon, Paul used the word several times in Scripture which I provided. From the Greek word Kanon, we can easily see its meaning in the biblical texts. Within Paul's usage, we see that it agrees with both what I said, and what Jim Parker said that it is a means to measure, aka rule and principal.

When the early church brought all of the writings concerning what had transpired through Christ, they had set standards in which to measure each writing that was considered to be contained within the "New Testament". In other words, they had a kanon to create the kanon and may I not dare to omit the Holy Spirit who guided them.

When most think of the Bible aka kanon, they do not understand the process in which many writings were considered to which many were rejected as kanon. Some becausectheycwere downright wrong, and others that held biblical value, but not enough to be elevated as a ruler in which to measure other writing etc with. I'll leave it up to the educated with more time than I to lay these principals out. But I will say the kanon they used was the Jewish kanon we understand as the Old Testament and each rule and principal (kanon) agreed with NT Christiology.

Jim Parker and I are not in disagreement, nor have we been on this matter and honestly, I'm disapointed if you, or he thought we were.
Click to expand...
he mentioned a piece of artillery and showed one being lit to end some ugly battle,..as you can go look I posted this meme on by wall

infantry wins firefights, tanks win battles but the artillery wins the war.

a canon is a piece of artillery and that is what I meant,a 120mm round will impact and leave a 50 ft wide crater of where it hit and exploded.
 
jasonc said:
he mentioned a piece of artillery and showed one being lit to end some ugly battle,..as you can go look I posted this meme on by wall

infantry wins firefights, tanks win battles but the artillery wins the war.

a canon is a piece of artillery and that is what I meant,a 120mm round will impact and leave a 50 ft wide crater of where it hit and exploded.
Click to expand...
Regardless, Enoch is not canon, nor should it be elevated to the state where it is used to redefine our canon with it's own set of rules in which to measure the biblical texts.
 
StoveBolts said:
Regardless, Enoch is not canon, nor should it be elevated to the state where it is used to redefine our canon with it's own set of rules in which to measure the biblical texts.
Click to expand...
you have no disagreement with me on that. I don't buy that book and im not afraid to read it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top