• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The Canonization of the New Testament a Deeper Look!

FollowingHim said:
@AbrahamSolomon, at this point I must remind you that this is a discussion forum. It is not a blog site for one person to use to preach all their own personal views to the world. It is for discussions.

You are welcome to post thoughts and questions here, and engage in discussion on those thoughts and questions. It is through such debates that we learn through "iron sharpening iron".

You are not welcome to use this forum to publish screeds and screeds of information. If you want to publish this sort of volume of material, you need to get your own website, or write a book. The site rules clearly state:

Answer people's questions and objections to your statements, or refrain from posting. You could begin by actually answering the question you had posed to you days ago - why do you write "g-d" instead of "god" - to which you have given no better answer than "it's a habit".
Click to expand...
You have personal issues with me and you need to let that go, I have answered everything and I welcome debates but you and them do not debate. You need to fix your issues and not try to bully me just because you have hurt feelings. Attacking me non-stop with faults statements due to lack of understanding and just taking time to read. If we come to our Brother in Love to Correct this okay as I have done, but when you Attack because you have hurt feeling is just wrong.
 
AbrahamSolomon said:
You have personal issues with me and you need to let that go,
Click to expand...
Not true. And I certainly don't have "hurt feelings".
AbrahamSolomon said:
Attacking me non-stop with faults statements due to lack of understanding and just taking time to read.
Click to expand...
I am not attacking you. I have chosen some very narrow things to question you on (as it is impossible to address the vast bulk of the material you have posted in the last few days), and have been pressing for adequate answers to those few specific questions. I have yet to see you clearly answer the specific questions I have raised, you have posted responses but the responses do not answer the questions.
 
FollowingHim said:
Not true. And I certainly don't have "hurt feelings".

I am not attacking you. I have chosen some very narrow things to question you on (as it is impossible to address the vast bulk of the material you have posted in the last few days), and have been pressing for adequate answers to those few specific questions. I have yet to see you clearly answer the specific questions I have raised, you have posted responses but the responses do not answer the questions.
Click to expand...
Then when I go to the gathering in January you can ask in person, I respect G-d and because I respect G-d I write it this way. Yes, He is The Great I AM and I understand that. But I am just careful when I write not to break any laws. I do everything out of Love, when I said to your wife and you about Christmas was because I care for your souls and not out of anything else. You believe that I am someone who condemns yet I cry out to G-d to have mercy on us all. If it sounds otherwise then that isn't my mission as my mission is of Love and Salvation for everyone.
 
AbrahamSolomon said:
Then when I go to the gathering in January you can ask in person, I respect G-d and because I respect G-d I write it this way. Yes, He is The Great I AM and I understand that. But I am just careful when I write not to break any laws. I do everything out of Love, when I said to your wife and you about Christmas was because I care for your souls and not out of anything else. You believe that I am someone who condemns yet I cry out to G-d to have mercy on us all. If it sounds otherwise then that isn't my mission as my mission is of Love and Salvation for everyone.
Click to expand...
@FollowingHim most likely can’t make that trip. He lives as far away as it’s possible to get. I will be there though and I look forward to having a long conversation with you.

We’ll be focusing our chat on a few key areas.

1. The lunacy of the gnostic gospels.
2. Why you seem so hell bent on casting doubt on the real gospels.
3. Your fascination with cultural Judaism.

You should be prepared to defend these things in an actual conversation with actual reasons not just protestations that you didn’t say what you just said and will say again almost immediately.
 
Last edited:
The Revolting Man said:
@FollowingHim most likely can’t make that trip. He lives as far away as it’s possible to get. I will be there though and I look forward to having a long conversation with you.

We’ll be focusing our chat on a few key areas.

1. The lunacy of the gnostic gospels.
2. Why you seem so hell bent on casting doubt on the real gospels.
3. Your fascination with cultural Judaism.

You should be prepared to defend these things in an actual conversation with actual reasons not just protestations that you didn’t say what you just said and will say again almost immediately.
Click to expand...
You can believe anything you want as everyone else here, but because I'm at a disadvantage or an unbalanced footage I will be limiting my replies due to this. I will be at the Gathering in January if you have questions ask me then and I won't be under this situation.
 
AbrahamSolomon said:
Mark's and John's Gospels
The opening chapter of Mark says that Jesus is from “Nazareth of Galilee.” This is repeated throughout the Gospel on several occasions, and Bethlehem is never mentioned.
Click to expand...

I was born in Honolulu, but I grew up in San Diego. I say I am from San Diego, never Honolulu.
 
AbrahamSolomon said:
Can you post this reference? Thanks
Click to expand...
Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1.

But Theophilus didn't exactly "authorise" Luke to do it. Luke wrote it for Theophilus.

The account was not authorised prior to being written, it was approved by the apostles and other church leaders after being written. Traditionally, it is understood that Peter gave his approval of Luke's Gospel on his trip to Rome, and it was that approval that contributed to it being spread widely and accepted widely. Being approved by every church that agreed to use it, it was ultimately approved enough to end up in the New Testament.
 
cnystrom said:
I was born in Honolulu, but I grew up in San Diego. I say I am from San Diego, never Honolulu.
Click to expand...
Maybe that is why, I'm just asking and people are welcome to reply. I am posting this stuff so Elder can stand up and discuss all this and use it to teach.
 
cnystrom said:
I was born in Honolulu, but I grew up in San Diego. I say I am from San Diego, never Honolulu.
Click to expand...
Maybe that is why, I'm just asking and people are welcome to reply. I am posting this stuff so Elder can stand up and discuss all this and use it to teach
FollowingHim said:
Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1.

But Theophilus didn't exactly "authorise" Luke to do it. Luke wrote it for Theophilus.

The account was not authorised prior to being written, it was approved by the apostles and other church leaders after being written. Traditionally, it is understood that Peter gave his approval of Luke's Gospel on his trip to Rome, and it was that approval that contributed to it being spread widely and accepted widely. Being approved by every church that agreed to use it, it was ultimately approved enough to end up in the New Testament.
Click to expand...
This is good information and when I have time I will look into it, this believe it or not is what I was hoping for so we might show evidence one way or the other testing everything we think we know.
 
Luke was an eyewitness himself from the early days of Jesus ministry (Luke 1:3), a close companion of Paul, and had a lot to do with Peter also, hence the dominant position of Peter in the first half of Acts and Paul in the second. Luke accompanied Paul to Rome (note the use of the word "we" during the voyage, e.g. Acts 27:1 - this is a first-hand account). He was with Paul in Jerusalem prior to this, where he had contact with the other apostles, and was in Rome later when Peter came there. Paul mentions Luke as his companion in both Colossians and 2 Timothy. He was the closest thing there was to an "official historian" among the early church, and his gospel was compiled from interviews with first-hand witnesses in Jerusalem and elsewhere - including Mary, which is why Luke gives more detail from her perspective than anybody else, even mentioning her thoughts (Luke 2:19).

This is why both of his books became central to the New Testament - they are the central, well-researched history that gives context to everything else.
 
FollowingHim said:
Luke was an eyewitness himself from the early days of Jesus ministry (Luke 1:3), a close companion of Paul, and had a lot to do with Peter also, hence the dominant position of Peter in the first half of Acts and Paul in the second. Luke accompanied Paul to Rome (note the use of the word "we" during the voyage, e.g. Acts 27:1 - this is a first-hand account). He was with Paul in Jerusalem prior to this, where he had contact with the other apostles, and was in Rome later when Peter came there. Paul mentions Luke as his companion in both Colossians and 2 Timothy. He was the closest thing there was to an "official historian" among the early church, and his gospel was compiled from interviews with first-hand witnesses in Jerusalem and elsewhere - including Mary, which is why Luke gives more detail from her perspective than anybody else, even mentioning her thoughts (Luke 2:19).

This is why both of his books became central to the New Testament - they are the central, well-researched history that gives context to everything else.
Click to expand...
Again, this is good information and adds to its accreditation.
I knew Luke study and got information from people who knew but this is good insight. Thanks
 
@AbrahamSolomon, I'll just point you to something I said in a previous thread about the selection of the New Testament canon, which you may find helpful also:
FollowingHim said:
I do understand your concern about us relying on the decisions of the Roman Catholic church. However, I don't believe this is the case with the New Testament books. The New Testament was not established solely by edict from the Catholic church, but rather formed through consensus over the first few centuries. Only a small number of books were in dispute, and yes those were established by church councils eventually - but they were not the Pauline letters.

The vast majority of the New Testament was accepted and used throughout the church by about 200AD. The books in dispute were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation (ultimately accepted), along with 1 Clement, the Didache, Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas (ultimately rejected). Frankly, all of these are worth reading, including the ones that were rejected - there are good reasons they were accepted for so long. I don't mind someone disputing the precise line drawn here between which should be in or out, because it was contentious and different opinions may well be reasonably held.

But the letters of Paul were universally accepted from the early days of the church, so were not established by edict.

If any books could be said to have been imposed by edict of the Catholic church, it is the more Hebraic books that they imposed - the very books that you yourself would be least likely to dispute @Mark C! If they hadn't defined what books were in the New Testament, we might not have Hebrews or James in the Bible!

Which goes to show that in the very early days of the established Church, they truly were genuinely trying to follow the right track. The rot set in over time, but it would be very wrong to reject the early church's opinions just because a millennium later their successors had become corrupt.
Click to expand...
 
The canonisation process of both the Old and New Testaments is summarised very well in this article:

The Canonization of Scripture | Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles

www.lacopts.org www.lacopts.org
This article is written from a Coptic Orthodox perspective.
The first half, on the Old Testament, is written from a very soundly Orthodox bias - a perspective you may find valuable to consider, but obviously there are other ways to look at that issue, I'm not saying to just believe it uncritically. It does explain that the Jews cut down the length of the Tanach in AD90, removing books that the church was using particularly successfully to win converts from Judaism, which is an important historical event to be aware of.
But I am mainly pointing you to it with regard to the section on the New Testament, which is soundly historical and not written to push the views of any one denomination.
 
FollowingHim said:
@AbrahamSolomon, I'll just point you to something I said in a previous thread about the selection of the New Testament canon, which you may find helpful also:
Click to expand...
Thanks
FollowingHim said:
The canonisation process of both the Old and New Testaments is summarised very well in this article:

The Canonization of Scripture | Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles

www.lacopts.org www.lacopts.org
This article is written from a Coptic Orthodox perspective.
The first half, on the Old Testament, is written from a very soundly Orthodox bias - a perspective you may find valuable to consider, but obviously there are other ways to look at that issue, I'm not saying to just believe it uncritically. It does explain that the Jews cut down the length of the Tanach in AD90, removing books that the church was using particularly successfully to win converts from Judaism, which is an important historical event to be aware of.
But I am mainly pointing you to it with regard to the section on the New Testament, which is soundly historical and not written to push the views of any one denomination.
Click to expand...

My point is on books that might just be historical might have meaning we don't see, The Jews did not see a humble Redeemer who would die for our sins. They wanted a King to take of The Romans and that did not happen. What if in one of The Books is information we are overlooking.

BRB, I am always busy.
 
AbrahamSolomon said:
Thanks


My point is on books that might just be historical might have meaning we don't see, The Jews did not see a humble Redeemer who would die for our sins. They wanted a King to take of The Romans and that did not happen. What if in one of The Books is information we are overlooking.

BRB, I am always busy.
Click to expand...
Because that would mean we have an imperfect God who is unable to deliver or protect His Word. If the gospel is incomplete or missing portions then that means God isn’t omnipotent. He wouldn’t even be able to publish a book in that scenario.

Why would you waste your time worshipping a God not even capable of clearly and consistently communicating with you? Your much maligned pagans can competently run a publishing company. Your God can’t get one complete book out there?

Again, you don’t think through the ideas you’re putting out there.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Because that would mean we have an imperfect God who is unable to deliver or protect His Word. If the gospel is incomplete or missing portions then that means God isn’t omnipotent. He wouldn’t even be able to publish a book in that scenario.

Why would you waste your time worshipping a God not even capable of clearly and consistently communicating with you? Your much maligned pagans can competently run a publishing company. Your God can’t get one complete book out there?

Again, you don’t think through the ideas you’re putting out there.
Click to expand...

The Word of G-d is and has been under attack for awhile, you say that G-d will protect His Word and keep it from being destroyed but you need to open your eyes and see just how many "Bibles" that are not G-ds Word. Women/Gay People are now Pastors and The Truth of G-d is slowly losing Traction.

The Queen James Bible Paperback – November 27, 2012​

by God (Author)

List of Gay Churches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_affirming_LGBT_people
I would post them here so people can easily see them and come back as they need but people would much rather me post links so here it one.
 
It is attacked, but not destroyed. Perverted versions may be made, but the truth is always preserved and available for those who want it. He protects His word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top