the wise men came to worship him, Jesus. not her, Mary

[Der Alte]

What do you consider evidence that the other 66 books are God-breathed?

I come to the garden alone while the dew is still on roses and the voice I hear falling on my ear
The son of God discloses. And he walks with me and he talks with me and he tells me I am his own
And the joy we share as we tarry there none other has ever known. I have been a Christian for 58 years.

 

[Jipsah]

So, the only "evidence" we have that "God-breathed" books were removed from the canon is "The Catholic Church decreed those books God-breathed."

That's exactly how I feel about the Revelation. IMO it's purely a cuckoo in the nest, and as Martin Luther said:
"My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1[:8], “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely."

Now your mileage may vary, and I suspect that it does. But just because a lot of Protestants apparently think it's more important than the Gospels doesn't make me hold it in any higher esteem. So as long as we're constructing our own personal canons of scripture, the Revelarion doesn't make the cut in mine, You, or course, and free to construct a canon of your very own, and declare whatever you think best to be "God breathed".

I am sorry I don't consider the Catholic church to be infallible.

And since neither is anyone else, one "canon" is as good, or bad, as another.

Here is what I believe God intended for mankind to have sufficient knowledge to ensure their salvation and since He is omnipotent He caused that to happen. I cannot believe that all mankind has been lost since the 1800s because some books were removed from the canon.

I don't think anyone has suggested any such thing, but a little scenery-chewing now and then is to be expected, innit?

 

[Jipsah]

I come to the garden alone while the dew is still on roses and the voice I hear falling on my ear
The son of God discloses. And he walks with me and he talks with me and he tells me I am his own
And the joy we share as we tarry there none other has ever known. I have been a Christian for 58 years.

There ya go! The Bible is what we say it is! This is America, and there ain't nobody can tell me what should be in the Bible and what ain't!

 

[jas3]

I come to the garden alone while the dew is still on roses and the voice I hear falling on my ear
The son of God discloses. And he walks with me and he talks with me and he tells me I am his own
And the joy we share as we tarry there none other has ever known. I have been a Christian for 58 years.

"Perhaps you could cite a few credible sources written by some people with letters after their names." Why do you hold others to this standard if you don't use it for yourself? Not that defining the canon of Scripture on what people with letters after their names say is a good standard, but you're the one who suggested it.

 

[prodromos]

I come to the garden alone while the dew is still on roses and the voice I hear falling on my ear
The son of God discloses. And he walks with me and he talks with me and he tells me I am his own
And the joy we share as we tarry there none other has ever known. I have been a Christian for 58 years.

I sincerely doubt anyone considers the voice you hear in your head is infallible.

 

[ozso]

That's exactly how I feel about the Revelation. IMO it's purely a cuckoo in the nest, and as Martin Luther said:
"My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1[:8], “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely."

Now your mileage may vary, and I suspect that it does. But just because a lot of Protestants apparently think it's more important than the Gospels doesn't make me hold it in any higher esteem. So as long as we're constructing our own personal canons of scripture, the Revelarion doesn't make the cut in mine, You, or course, and free to construct a canon of your very own, and declare whatever you think best to be "God breathed".

I think personal preference is probably what it often comes down to for many, no matter what church they are a member of.

 

[timothyu]

I think personal preference is probably what it often comes down to for many, no matter what church they are a member of.

In the end that is what most choose to defend over the Kingdom, yes.

 

[ozso]

Who is "they"?

The church magisterium in the 4th/5th century.

 

[ozso]

In the end that is what most choose to defend over the Kingdom, yes.

I don't know what that means. Like I said, when you become enmeshed in a minority view, most others don't get what you're talking about.

 

[ozso]

How did this become a conversation about 39 vs 46 Old Testament books, when the topic is about the New Testament?

 

[Der Alte]

"Perhaps you could cite a few credible sources written by some people with letters after their names." Why do you hold others to this standard if you don't use it for yourself? Not that defining the canon of Scripture on what people with letters after their names say is a good standard, but you're the one who suggested it.

Unlike the person I addressed, I have not made the unsupported claim that God breathed scripture has been removed from the Bible. If you want to challenge people you should pay attention instead of taking one comment out of context and challenging me. But since you butted in, I often cite credible scholars with letters after their name. But as I told the other guy I don't accept the unsupported opinions of such scholars. One such unsupported quote I see frequently, "Scholar 'X' said that "aionios" never means "eternal." That is an unsupported opinion.
Here is how I counter such comments.

John 3:15-16​

(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionios] life.​

(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionios] life.​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion life” with “should not perish,” twice! Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionios life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

 

[Der Alte]

I sincerely doubt anyone considers the voice you hear in your head in infallible.

Do you even know what the subject was? The voice I hear causes me to accept the books in the Bible are God breathed and are sufficient for the salvation of mankind. Do you wish to challenge that or just get in my face?

 

[Jipsah]

The church magisterium in the 4th/5th century.

Forget 'em. Make up your own canon.

Now me, I'm gonna include the standard 4 Gospels, and Acts, most of the Pauline letters, and Hebrews. Revelation goes in the bin,, and maybe James. I'll probably add selected writings of various popular saints, notably St. Gregory of Nyssa , St. Andrew Tae-Gon Kim., and the Lady Julian of Norwich. The OT I'll leave alone, since it belongs to the Jews anyway.

 

[jas3]

Unlike the person I addressed, I have not made the unsupported claim that God breathed scripture has been removed from the Bible.

You've made the claim that you know certain books are divinely inspired. Their inclusion or removal from the biblical canon is independent of that claim, and you know that, which is why when @Valletta provided, in good faith, a quick history of the canon through the Reformation in response to your multi-part question, you proceeded to ignore it and repeated your frankly bizarre request for scholarly evidence of the divine inspiration of the Scripture you reject.

But since you butted in, I often cite credible scholars with letters after their name.

And yet, you haven't here, and I doubt you will, because somehow "it's different" when you make the claim.

 

[prodromos]

The church magisterium in the 4th/5th century.

That's a very Rome centric view. The Church was much more than Rome in the 4th-5th centuries.

 

[prodromos]

Do you even know what the subject was?

The Canon of Scripture.

The voice I hear causes me to accept the books in the Bible are God breathed and are sufficient for the salvation of mankind. Do you wish to challenge that or just get in my face?

I just found it hypocritical that you demand scholarly sources for the canon held to by Catholics, whereas all you have to offer as the basis for your canon is the voice in your head. Forgive me if you found that to be in your face.

 

[ozso]

That's a very Rome centric view. The Church was much more than Rome in the 4th-5th centuries.

Whoever was calling the shots and making the rules. I've read a lot of the details, but don't remember them off the top of my head.

 

[prodromos]

Whoever was calling the shots and making the rules. I've read though a lot of the details, but don't remember them off the top of my head.

Catholics make a lot of claims about that period, but they have a tendency to read their post schism theology back into the Church prior to the schism.