Posted on 07/14/2013 3:02:43 PM PDT by NYer
Here's a non-rhetorical answer....
Acts 17:10-12 10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
Hmmm, now if they had no Scripture written down yet, how could they have examined the Scripture DAILY to see if these things were so? Or rather WHAT were they examining daily to see if these things were so? (not a rhetorical question)
Sure they did. It's called the Law and the Prophets.
They most certainly had what they recognized as Scripture. Jesus Himself used it to validate His mission and teachings. He used it against Satan when tempted in the wilderness.
He didn't start a religion.
Matter of fact, I don't have a religion. I have Jesus, a relationship.
Prophecy foretold Jesus.
*It is written.....* appears in many places in the NT.
How do you think you guys can discuss or critique the bible when you don't even know what the bible says???
Luther decided good works are useless for salvation??? Where did Luther get that idea??? Do you even have a clue???
Their credibility is taking a beating due to their rabid hatred of Luther.
LDS - Luther Derangement Syndrome.
Thanks for the encouragements.
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. (II Cor. 4:3-5)
“
Next thing is you will claim that he existed before space.”
Ha!
So let me get this straight. A guy changes his mind and decides he needs to say something and you consider him “untrustworthy”. Yet here you are trying to change people’s minds so that they will believe something they have said they would not. If they then begin to believe like the Catholics believe I suppose those people by your definition would then be “untrustworthy”. Why would you spend your time here trying to make people “untrustworthy”?
“One thing I will not do with it is go along with Luther just because he decided good works are useless for salvation when James says otherwise (Faith without works is dead”
James makes the correct observation tha the kind of faith that saves cannot be seen. Saving faith is always accompanied by good works.
I agree with James and Luther agrees with James and I.
To: Rashputin
Please don’t ping me again. I will return the favor.
1,891 posted on Friday, December 21, 2012 12:38:42 by CynicalBear
People who cannot keep their word are by definition untrustworthy.
I don’t think I’ve ever pinged you... But for future reference, sure!
If Luther has authority, than anyone has authority and then it is a free for all.
Luther Agreed with Jerome that the deuterocanonical were OK for reading but were not God Breathed Scripture.
Deuterocanonical means second Canon for a reason.
For up to 30 years after Christ’s crucifixion, no new testament was written yet, and ALL information about him was transmitted orally. So at least those Christians couldn’t say- it’s in the bible -so what did they do?
They had most of the Apostles still living and telling them what Jesus said. Much of the NT was penned before the 30 years your talking about.
Roman Church did declare via fiat what the New Testament included! For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.
The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit:
1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle?
2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large?
3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching?
4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?
Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided.
The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html#ixzz2ZdSNDWbp
Neither one had authority to unilaterally edit the received Scriptures.
Only a Church Council, or the pope, had the authority to determine the canon of Scripture.
Luther Believed Jerome, who did not believe the deuterocanonicals were inspired.
They both believed they were fine to read in church, just not scripture.
Pope Gregory the Great, did not believe Maccabees was scripure
Pope Gregory the Great In his commentary on Job, Book 19, chapter 34, he says that it is not irregular to quote for the church’s edification the books of the Apocrypha, as long as it is understood that they are not canonical. He then immediately retells the story from 1 Macc. 6:42-47 concerning the death of Eleazar Savaran, who killed an elephant, though being killed in the process. Gregory’s exact words are these: “De qua re non inordinate agimus, si ex libris, licet non canonicis, tamen ad aedificationem ecclesiae editis, testimonium proferamus” (emphasis added). The translation already linked renders it: “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.” What immediately follows is from Maccabees. So, if Trent is correct in anathematizing all who reject the Apocrypha, then they have retroactively anathematized one of their own popes:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/a-pope-rejects-maccabees/
I read up on this, and the problem is an equivocal use of the term, "canonical." The Church did, and does, consider the "deuterocanonical books" of the Bible as the "second canon," just as the Epistles could be said to be held in lesser esteem than the Gospels, even though both are part of the canon of Scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.