[Blogger]

I find this all highly hypocritical and ridiculous. You deny that OT Deuts based on the interpretation of a few Fathers and the Peshitta Syriac bible, but when these SAME sources either deny or do not verify the NT Deuts, this you sweep under the carpet? This logic stands upon sand.

First, I have to correct an assumption of yours. You are assuming that I am basing my belief in what is in my Bible as canonical based upon what some men said it was. This is an incorrect assumption. I could care less what some council set in stone some 1500 years after Christ in their collective hissy fit against Luther. Rather, my acceptance of the Canon of Scripture as found in the Protestant Bible is based on my faith in the Lord to preserve His Word and the logic that He has given His children to determine the truth from the counterfeit. This Word does not contain the apocrypha because the apocrypha does not bear the marks of divine inspiration. Yet, ultimately, I rest in the faith in my Lord to lead me and that faith is bolstered by the harmony I see within the pages of my Bible. Same story throughout. Same God throughout. Same salvation throughout. It is God's Word.

Now. If this is the case, why would I appeal to Jerome et al in discussing the Canon? I was speaking to you from a list of authorities I thought you would recognize (a technic Paul perfected at Mars Hill). After I did this you made certain claims that I rebutted in a rather lengthy post which followed.

These authorities did not settle the Canon. These authorities had no say in what was truly Canonical. Only God did. I believe that the Canon was settled when John wrote the last letter in the book of Revelation. By faith I believe God has preserved for me what He wishes for me to receive. Again, this doesn't mean that there is blind faith or no logic in all of this process. Logically, I have received a theological education and have been schooled enough in the GENUINE Word of God that I recognize the counterfeit when I see it. I know true doctrine and I know with a teaching contradicts it. But still, I accept the Canon as found in my Bible as being the true Canon by faith - not because some council somewhere said it was so.

As one interested in and schooled in history (by secular and religious authorities), I am also keenly aware of the distortion of history through the years and am adamant that it be recorded correctly . I pointed out the historical fact (in answer to your truth claim about Jerome) that various fathers didn't believe the apocrypha was Scripture. Pointing this out was not "a smear on the church". It was a statement of historical fact backed up by relevant quotes and explanations. Valuable, but not Scripture. That was their stance.

And lest we forget what brought up the subject to begin with - namely, the latent, and I would now say BLATANT anti-semitism in this thread - in spite of my explicit and repeated statements regarding non-support of the council of Jamnia's views and explanation of how the Jews were led of God in the Old Testament Canon PRIOR TO CHRIST I am attacked for supporting people John called "anti-Christ." So, I guess, since I was explicit that I wasn't talking about the Council of Jamnia, you must mean ALL JEWS are people John would call anti-Christ and shouldn't be considered even in the determination of what was considered Scripture by Jesus Christ, Himself a Jew. Jew-Hatred and selective Jew-bashing using specific Scripture out of context is anti-Scriptural and anti-Christ. Paul wished he himself were accursed for the Jews- such was his love for them and desire for them to be saved. Paul also said that those same Jews would one day come to know their messiah as Savior and Lord and warned the Gentiles to not be so arrogant. The Jews were the original chosen of God. We have been grafted in. There will be a day when the age of the Gentiles will end. And then all of that remnant of Israel that God speaks of in Romans WILL BE SAVED.

Facts are, God chose a people. They were the physical offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were beloved by Him and still are. Christ wept over them. Paul would go to Hell for them. Your selective comments concerning them show a complete lack of love towards these people and your rejection of God's leadership of them in the establishment of a Canon prior to Christ is Roman-Centric Anti-semitism. Jesus referred to something as "the Scriptures." It isn't reading into anything to say that that meant that there were books that were solidly considered Canonical during that day. Still, it appears a group wants to claim that there was no Scripture until the church called it Scripture. That is a ludicrous assertion. The formation of Scripture was divinely inspired. Even when it was written by those pesky Jews. But wait! ALL OF IT was written by the Jews except for Luke and Acts. Again, bless them, Jo Kus. Do not curse them. God is not through with them yet.

[jo kus]

my acceptance of the Canon of Scripture as found in the Protestant Bible is based on my faith in the Lord to preserve His Word and the logic that He has given His children to determine the truth from the counterfeit.

God did this long before Martin Luther came on the scene and decided on his own initiative to deprive other Christians of the entire Word of God in Scriptures.

These authorities had no say in what was truly Canonical. Only God did.

It should be quite obvious that God spoke through men to determine the Canon, since God didn't leave a book a la Koran. Thus, the Christian Church recognized the various Councils' determinations of what was Scripture, to include St. Jerome. Even HE recognized that God had spoken through the Catholic Church's Councils on the subject. He obeyed what he saw as God speaking through men to determine the Canon.

Again, your logic makes no sense. Why on earth should anyone believe Luther was right on this subject?

After I did this you made certain claims that I rebutted in a rather lengthy post which followed.

I don't see where your "rebuttal" refuted anything I wrote.

Logically, I have received a theological education and have been schooled enough in the GENUINE Word of God that I recognize the counterfeit when I see it.

St. Irenaeus wrote against the Gnostics who used the very same Scripture to "prove" their own disturbing theological theories. St. Irenaeus showed that only the Church gives the correct interpretation - since a book cannot speak for itself on matters it only describes vaguely. Thus, God gave man a Sacred Book and a Sacred Body of believers to interpret correctly this book.

Your argument totally ignores the fact that MANY books claimed to be "Scriptures". It was the Church, with its Apostolic Traditions and teachings, that were able to discern what was truly Scripture - which coincided with what they had been taught by the Apostles. Thus, the Gospel of Thomas was left out, because it disputed what they had been taught. You would have us believe you would recognize the Gospel of Thomas as non-Scriptural WITHOUT this body of teachings?

And lest we forget what brought up the subject to begin with - namely, the latent, and I would now say BLATANT anti-semitism in this thread

The only anti-semitism here is in your imagination. In your effort to cover your tracks, you try to call us names? I am telling you that the Jews of "Jamnia" were in no position to accurately tell us the Canon, since they couldn't determine that the Crucified One was the Messiah, nor did they recognize that the writings about Him were from God. I have said nothing anti-semetic. You are merely trying to direct the attention away your lack of logic by claiming we are calling Jews names. That is ridiculous and really sad that you have to stoop to such a level... Now, if you want to continue to side with the Jewish determination of what the Scriptures are, to include the removal of the Gospels, that is your perogative. But then you can no longer be considered Christian.

Regards