Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith

[Albion]

Me.

That's interesting. I wonder why you would.

 

[Ironhold]

I still do not see a problem

The problem is that your assertion of there being "no dispute" is provably wrong, as is your assertion that everything was written by 70 AD.

This is why I want to see more mainline churches push Biblical literacy.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The problem is that your assertion of there being "no dispute" is provably wrong, as is your assertion that everything was written by 70 AD.

This is why I want to see more mainline churches push Biblical literacy.

But I see your information and I don't find it to be a problem for me.

You act like this is some big problem. So what if someone disputed 2 Peter, doesn't mean they were right or that it was valid.

I see why you would want to prove the Bible inerrant, but I don't think you've done that.

God made sure what He wanted was included in the canon. Period.

I don't care who objected to what, where and how. The cannon that closed is the canon of 66 books God wanted in the Bible.

 

[ToBeLoved]

That's interesting. I wonder why you would.

What does the 'me' quote go with? I don't see what you are responding too?

 

[Albion]

You said that you are one who believes that all the books of the New Testament were written before AD 70. That's the "me" in your reply.

Then, I notice, in your reply to Ironhold just above, that you pass this off altogether as though you'd never raised it. Naturally, this leaves the rest of us to wonder what, exactly, your point is.

 

[smaneck]

I still do not see a problem because the books that God wanted in the canon of 66 are in that canon. God knows what He is doing. In the end, the books God wanted to be in there are in there.

And your evidence that God wanted this is what?

 

[smaneck]

So what if someone disputed 2 Peter, doesn't mean they were right or that it was valid.

Only that you stated the opposite. In any case modern scholarship agrees with the many of the Early Church Fathers who disputed its authenticity.

I see why you would want to prove the Bible inerrant, but I don't think you've done that.

I think you just said the opposite of what you wanted to say.

God made sure what He wanted was included in the canon. Period.

Sounds to me like you are willing to ignore any and all evidence in order to preserve your preconceived notions of infallibility.

The cannon that closed is the canon of 66 books God wanted in the Bible.

No, the canon that closed in the Western church was 73 books. Then a thousand years later some Protestants threw out seven of those books. But what I want to know is why you are continuing to reiterate this fallacy after you've already admitted you haven't researched it?

 

[ToBeLoved]

And your evidence that God wanted this is what?

Because Gods Word tells us in Timothy that His Word is good for all training and correction and for equipping for all acts of righteousness

 

[ToBeLoved]

Only that you stated the opposite. In any case modern scholarship agrees with the many of the Early Church Fathers who disputed its authenticity.



I think you just said the opposite of what you wanted to say.



Sounds to me like you are willing to ignore any and all evidence in order to preserve your preconceived notions of infallibility.



No, the canon that closed in the Western church was 73 books. Then a thousand years later some Protestants threw out seven of those books. But what I want to know is why you are continuing to reiterate this fallacy after you've already admitted you haven't researched it?

And that's your opinion

 

[Jane_Doe]

I still do not see a problem because the books that God wanted in the canon of 66 are in that canon. God knows what He is doing. In the end, the books God wanted to be in there are in there.

1643 AD: That's the year the Bible canon was officially declared to be 66 books. That is, if you're following a tradition that traces back to the Westminster Confession of Faith. It's different if you come from a different branch of Christianity (Assyrian, Orthodox, Catholic, etc).

ToBeLoved: I know you wanted more time to look into the Apocrypha and history of the Biblical canon, but you can't ask for that and in the meantime keep incorrectly saying "the canon was closed in 70 AD" without people getting on your case about it.

 

[smaneck]

Because Gods Word tells us in Timothy that His Word is good for all training and correction and for equipping for all acts of righteousness

The text says scripture, which it doesn't define. You're arguing that God wanted the version of the Bible used only by a small minority of Christians namely some Protestants. By your logic it took God over a thousand years to figure out how many books He wanted in His Bible.

 

[smaneck]

And that's your opinion

It's my observation.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Because Gods Word tells us in Timothy that His Word is good for all training and correction and for equipping for all acts of righteousness

So Timothy doesn't need Revelation? Cause it wasn't written until 20 years later....

 

[smaneck]

So Timothy doesn't need Revelation? Cause it wasn't written until 20 years later....

Not really. Most scholars believe that the pastoral epistles are written second century, perhaps by Polycarp.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Not really. Most scholars believe that the pastoral epistles are written second century, perhaps by Polycarp.

I'm learning something new!

 

[ToBeLoved]

If John wrote circa 90 AD, then that means the canon was not closed in 70 AD.

You just undermined his own post.

I meant 90 AD, my bad, typo.

So what would have happened from the 70's AD to the 90's AD?

 

[withwonderingawe]

The following is a list of missing possible scriptures mentioned within the scriptures themselves.

• book of the covenant: Ex. 24:7 .
• book of the wars of the Lord: Num. 21:14 .
• book of Jasher: Josh. 10:13 . ( 2 Sam. 1:18 . )
• Samuel … wrote it in a book: 1 Sam. 10:25 .
• book of the acts of Solomon: 1 Kgs. 11:41 .
• book of Samuel the seer: 1 Chr. 29:29 .
• book of Nathan the prophet: 2 Chr. 9:29 .
• book of Shemaiah the prophet: 2 Chr. 12:15 .
• acts of Abijah … in the story of the prophet Iddo: 2 Chr. 13:22 .
• book of Jehu: 2 Chr. 20:34 .
• written among the sayings of the seers: 2 Chr. 33:19 .

• spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene: Matt. 2:23 .
• I wrote unto you in an epistle: 1 Cor. 5:9 .
• as I wrote afore in few words: Eph. 3:3 .
• read the epistle from Laodicea: Col. 4:16 .
• when I gave all diligence to write unto you: Jude 1:3 .
• Enoch also … prophesied of these: Jude 1:14 .

 

[ToBeLoved]

Not really. Most scholars believe that the pastoral epistles are written second century, perhaps by Polycarp.

This is why I don't trust a single thing that you say. "Most scholars", lol.

I might think about this scripture before putting a bunch of junk out on these forums. God doesn't take to it kindly.

Matthew 8:5-6
5 "And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

 

[ViaCrucis]

The following is a list of missing possible scriptures mentioned within the scriptures themselves.

Missing texts, that is, they existed but have not survived--or at least no copies have survived--but not missing scripture. That's not how canonicity works in mainstream Christianity.

If we somehow managed to unearth a copy of the book of Ido the Seer, or a 3 Corinthians and these were demonstrated to be, in fact, the real deal, they wouldn't Canonical Scripture. Because essential to what is Canonical Scripture is that it has been received and used down through history throughout the churches throughout the world. The Church catholic has never had a book of Ido the Seer in its Canon, it's never been part of the corpus of Sacred Scripture, so it would never be Scripture.

There are books that had, at one time, widespread use, such as the Shepherd or the Epistle of Clement, but even these are no longer accepted Canonical Scripture and they would be far deserving of canonical status then any long lost text unearthed today because they did get used in the past.

What makes the Bible the Bible is the received tradition of Scripture within the Church catholic. That's why new books will never be accepted as Canonical Scripture, it's why very old books still remain outside the Canon, even really good books like the aforementioned Clement or the Didache.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jane_Doe]

This is why I don't trust a single thing that you say. "Most scholars", lol.

I might think about this scripture before putting a bunch of junk out on these forums. God doesn't take to it kindly.

Rather than threatening with Godly wrath (sort of overkill), how about you simply bring in a scholarly articles to back up your position?