The unchanging word?????? Which word??????

[Soma-Sight]

The following is a list of many "inerrant canons" of the early Bible!

Notice the VAST amounts of books that have been circulating throughout the last 2000 years and the NUMBER of times the "objective" canon has been "revised"!

Below are the lists of the books drawn that were drawn by various Church authorities showing, in their opinion, what constituted the extent of New Testament. The list is till the end of 4th century.

The Muratorian Canon

The Canon Of Origen (A.D. c. 185 - 254)

The Canon Of Eusebius Of Caesarea (A.D. 265 - 340)

A Canon Of Uncertain Date And Provenance Inserted in Codex Claromontanus

The Canon Of Cyril Of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 350)

The Cheltenham Canon (c. A.D. 360)

The Canon Approved By The Synod Of Laodicea (c. A.D. 363)

The Canon Of Athanasius (A.D. 367)

The Canon Approved By The 'Apostolic Canons' (c. A.D. 380)

The Canon Of Gregory Of Nazianzus (A.D. 329 - 89)

The Canon Of Amphilochius Of Iconium (d. 394)

The Canon Approved By The Third Synod Of Carthage (A.D. 397)

The Canons Of The Old Testament & The New Testament Through The Ages

 

[Free]

All you have done is proved that since the process of canonization took about 200 years, it wasn't done to the likes of a certain group of people in a certain time period for certain political reasons. It was a long and difficult process which involved many different people from different times.

 

[John the Baptist]

I suggest that he is walking on a slippery slope? (good post Free. what a waste of ones study time!) ---John

 

[John the Baptist]

All you have done is proved that since the process of canonization took about 200 years, it wasn't done to the likes of a certain group of people in a certain time period for certain political reasons. It was a long and difficult process which involved many different people from different times.

*******
You know though Free, if one understood what 'works' went into Salvation, they might do a retake on the term, works? Each has a talent & each have gifts. And we hear that it was all finished at the cross? That subject surely need's more work, huh? :

---John

 

[Soma-Sight]

I suggest that he is walking on a slippery slope? (good post Free. what a waste of ones study time!) ---John

I am surprised at this statement John!

I thought that researching the ROOTS of ones faith is a prerequisite for any one BOLD enough to Evangelize what they believe to be objective Truth?

If the canon was a "work in process" and took 100's of years to complete......

How can you say that it is inerrant?

Did not sinful man have the authority to choose what he would in regards to the Holy writ?

There were MANY different Christian groups in the 1st and 2nd century THAT ALL CLAIMED TO BE GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. Some used only the Gospel of Mark, or Matthew.....

Some used the Gospel of Thomas, others of John......

There were charismatics and other groups that differed from the modernly accepted paradigms of todays Church........

But I guess Iraneus wins out in the hearts of all.........

 

[John the Baptist]

I suggest that he is walking on a slippery slope? (good post Free. what a waste of ones study time!) ---John

I am surprised at this statement John!

I thought that researching the ROOTS of ones faith is a prerequisite for any one BOLD enough to Evangelize what they believe to be objective Truth?

If the canon was a "work in process" and took 100's of years to complete......

How can you say that it is inerrant?

Did not sinful man have the authority to choose what he would in regards to the Holy writ?

There were MANY different Christian groups in the 1st and 2nd century THAT ALL CLAIMED TO BE GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. Some used only the Gospel of Mark, or Matthew.....

Some used the Gospel of Thomas, others of John......

There were charismatics and other groups that differed from the modernly accepted paradigms of todays Church........

But I guess Iraneus wins out in the hearts of all.........

********
Hi, some where along the pathway one of us are taking different forks! I use the King James Bible & Virgin Adventist doctrines. I looked for these Virgin doctrines years ago, until I was sure that I found them. (and E.G.W. and I agree with each other, or I would have dumped her)

The Word itself is its OWN hermenetics. 1 Corinthians 14:32. And, I for one believe that the testing of all, & EVERYTHING is by the Written Word of God alone, as in Isaiah 8:20! ETERNAL COVENANT in table's of stone!! Hebrews 13:20

Notice that the BIBLE (testimony part) is mentioned SECOND. (written in man own descriptive wordings) If I found any contradiction in the TESTIMONY part by man? (and there is very little) There would be a need of the 'individual' (me) to see what the 3 time vision of Peter really meant, huh? Acts 10:13-17.

Then friend, there is the Word of God in 1 John 4:6 for finding TRUTH! And then there is ALSO the Hebrews 6:1-6 verse. If one will look at the positives alone. These were MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY GHOST!!

Where one started was not important, it is where they finished. (see John 9:41)
If one was 'totally' sincere as in Romans 2:14-15, they arrived there by the Romans 8:14 verse. 'Led of the Holy Ghost'. The New Birth! Unless you have another verse than that which is seen in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14?

James 4:17 includes eternity! (Everlasting Gospel & Everlasting Covenant!) But how much does one really know? But surely sincere men always were convicted of the Holy Ghost (Genesis 6:3's STRIVING) to do as they BELIEVED??

James says:
"Therefore to him that KNOWEST to do good, and DOETH IT NOT, TO HIM IT IS SIN." As was stated by the previous poster, the Word of God came as He saw fit! 2 Peter 1:20-21

---John

PS: There have always been other false 'folds' who had Christ's OWN in them! The folds stink, but what can one do when these ones can't smell yet?? That is why we see John 10:16, Revelation 17:1-5 & the LAST FATAL WARNING in Revelation 18:4!! That is Christ's work of Revelation 14:6-10, not this stuff!! And surely there will be a huge number of the saved who did the best that they knew how!! (just not you & me in todays setting!) The 666 testing is to bring ALL 'IGNORANT' PROFESSED FOLK to a quick finish, so as the end can come.

And now we had to lay it aside for the shaking of Virgin Adventism's last 'seven times' of their probation as seen in Leviticus 16:14-15 day of Atonement. 1 Peter 4:17 was history repeated, and required in God's Word, and came before the 666 worlds testing!

 

[Gary]

There were MANY different Christian groups in the 1st and 2nd century THAT ALL CLAIMED TO BE GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. Some used only the Gospel of Mark, or Matthew.....

Some used the Gospel of Thomas, others of John......

I knew it... Soma HAD to get to the Gospel of Thomas! Strange that no early church father quoted from it!

Read more:
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/bible/thomas.htm

 

[Orthodox Christian]

There were MANY different Christian groups in the 1st and 2nd century THAT ALL CLAIMED TO BE GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. Some used only the Gospel of Mark, or Matthew.....

Some used the Gospel of Thomas, others of John......

I knew it... Soma HAD to get to the Gospel of Thomas! Strange that no early church father quoted from it!

Read more:
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/bible/thomas.htm

True- but there were vast numbers of Christian Gnostics- at one point, the number of Christian Gnostics outnumbered the 'orthodox' Christians.' Because Christian Gnosticism did not become the 'orthodoxy,' there are no surviving writings of Church 'fathers' which support their position.

There are, of course, surviving Gnostic writings, including what we believe to be spurious gospels and epistles.

I completely believe that we were right, and they wrong, for they ultimately cut off the branch (us NT Christians) from the root (Israel). But we must understand that our claims of authenticity could easily be understood as circular, specifically because the gnostics were so early in the history of the Church that both their documentation and ours are primarily secondary and centuries removed.

 

[Gary]

True- but there were vast numbers of Christian Gnostics- at one point, the number of Christian Gnostics outnumbered the 'orthodox' Christians.'

Proof please that "Christian Gnostics outnumbered the 'orthodox' Christians.' " at one point.

:-?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

True- but there were vast numbers of Christian Gnostics- at one point, the number of Christian Gnostics outnumbered the 'orthodox' Christians.'

Proof please that "Christian Gnostics outnumbered the 'orthodox' Christians.' " at one point.

:-?

I do not have a link to give you at this time. Realize what a struggle it was for early Christians to reconcile the 'punishing God' of the OT with the mercy God of the NT. We in the 21st century have untold volumes of apologetics to explain this seeming contrast/contradiction, but the early Gnostics did not have such. Our apologetics came to exist because of their departure from what we now consider 'biblical' Christianity.

I can only advise that you go out and get a good glimpse at what was going on in second century Christianity. There were essentially three groups:

gnostics
Jewish (Torah) Christians
proto-orthodox

Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants are all, essentially, descendants of the proto-Orthodox. We were not always the majority- nor did that matter. Each of us called upon apostolic origins and biblical truth (sounds alot like today). Ultimately, we won the day. People who favor a more Torah-based Christianity today assure us that the Gentiles stamped out the Jews and Jewish sensibility from the Church. Those who favor a Gnostic approach tell us that we persecuted those poor Gnostics into extinction.

There is some objective truth to the Gnostic's claim of persecution from the orthodox Christians, at least in the 5th- 7th century.

The claims of the Gnostics and so-called Torah-keeping, Messianic camps must be considered now on the merits of their arguments.

Shall we take seriously the arguments of the Gnostics, who claim that there are two Gods, and that all matter is essentially evil? I think not.

Shall we take seriously the return to Jewish cultural practices and the establishment of a second parallel Church to what they call the 'Gentile Church' (actually, they call it Constantine's Church, in an homage to the same horrible ahistoricity and lamentable scholarship found among Landmarkists, Open Church adherents, etc)?
I think not.

 

[John the Baptist]

True- but there were vast numbers of Christian Gnostics- at one point, the number of Christian Gnostics outnumbered the 'orthodox' Christians.'

Proof please that "Christian Gnostics outnumbered the 'orthodox' Christians.' " at one point.

:-?

****
Christian???
Anyway, it started in Genesis 3:15 after the fall of perfectly created man. Then in Genesis 4:7 we see the still professed one Cain choose a new leader. And who his desire turned to. (same as today's history, huh?) Read the King James & see if you can catch this?? :

This is where the 'lost' of the pre/flood ones went astray at the start. And the number is seen to be only eight souls that entered the Ark of Christ. And proof? See Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15, if one truly believes God?

satan has always had a fold from there on. Not Christian, but a church of worshipers just the same. Ephesians 6:12 & Matthew 4:9. And after the flood? he added the real stuff of today, the babbling of Babylon! A lot of noise, hollering & shouting, clapping & total doctrinal confusion!! And what some claim is real excitement! :

And the Word of God? Surely one does not believe that it had a beginning?? Everlasting Gospel & Everlasting Covenant is just that. ETERNAL!

Was all of the writen Word together for mankind, at the same time? Who believes that??? Yet, was all of the Word pre/existing? Surely! Including the Ecclesiastes verses!! Unless one brings in the devil to 'create' a false Christ.

---John [/b]

 

[Soma-Sight]

I knew it... Soma HAD to get to the Gospel of Thomas! Strange that no early church father quoted from it!

Did you forget Origen?

Hippolytus and Origen refer to a Gospel of Thomas, but it is unclear whether they knew the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the sayings Gospel of Thomas. But there is an earlier reference from Irenaeus, as Cameron notes: "In his citation, Irenaeus first quotes a non-canonical story that circulated about the childhood of Jesus and then goes directly on to quote a passage from the infancy narrative of the Gospel of Luke (Luke 2:49). Since the Infancy Gospel of Thomas records both of these stories, in relative close proximity to one another, it is possible that the apocryphal writing cited by Irenaeus is, in fact, what is now known as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Because of the complexities of the manuscript tradition, however, there is no certainty as to when the stories of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas began to be written down."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/i ... homas.html

 

[Soma-Sight]

However, certain church leaders from the second through the fourth centuries rejected many of these sources of revelation and constructed instead the New Testament gospel canon of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which has defined Christianity to this day. The Gospel of John is of special importance in church dogma, and its basic tenets seem to be in direct opposition to Thomas. John says that he writes “so that you may believe, and believing may have life in [Jesus’] name.†Thomas’s gospel, however, encourages us not so much to believe in Jesus, as John demands, as to seek to know God through one’s own, divinely given capacity, since all are created in the image of God. “For Christians of later generations, the Gospel of John helped provide a foundation for a unified church, which Thomas, with its emphasis on each person’s search for God, did not.â€Â



According to Pagels, John is the only evangelist who actually states that Jesus is God incarnated. But not only Pagels says so. In one of his commentaries on John, Origen – a church father, (c.240) - writes that while the other gospels describe Jesus as human, “none of them clearly spoke of his divinity, as John does.†One may object that the other three, synoptic (“seeing togetherâ€Â) gospels call Jesus “son of Godâ€Â, and this is virtually the same thing. But such titles (son of God, messiah) in Jesus’ time designated human, not divine roles. When translated into English fifteen centuries later, these were capitalized – a linguistic convention that does not occur in the original Greek. When all four gospels, together with Paul’s letters, were united in the New Testament (c. 160 to360) most Christians had come to read all four through John’s lens, that Jesus is “Lord and Godâ€Â.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I like the NIV myself.

 

[reba]

old stand by KJV

 

[Willie T]

I was raised on the KJV... switched to the NIV... and now I prefer God's Word.

 

[Gary]

2 Timothy 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[jasonc]

did jesus come to the thread and raise it?

 

[Willie T]

did jesus come to the thread and raise it?

"Time", as we know it, doesn't exist for God. (I guess it's kind of the way that we spend hours and hours here discussing an old book that hasn't been added to for a couple of thousand years.)

 

[jasonc]

"Time", as we know it, doesn't exist for God.

I know but this thread is so old that it is at least 5 years old