JFJ Forums

wk~



Are you trying to cast doubt on canon?

I am really confused by your statements. It seems you are taking a stand, or going in a direction, that no canon is reliable.

Ripleys - It depends on which canon you are talking about.  Chafer has asserted that since the last of the Hebrew scripture was written c. 500 B.C., that this was when the O.T. canon was established.  I’m providing facts that indicate otherwise.  I’m pointing out that the O.T. canon accepted by Protestants in the 15th/16th century was established by a Jewish Council some 60 years after Jesus established his Church.  The canon used by Ethiopian Jews is more consistent with the canon of O.T. scriptures established in the Christian Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo in the 4th century.  

I’m not trying to make the point that no canon is reliable.  I’m merely providing historical facts.  The question is, how did God reveal the canon of scripture to the Church?  Was it through the Council of Jamnia, the various Christian Councils, or are we each to discern our own canon?  I do not believe the Council of Jamnia had the authority to reject the scriptures that the early church considered inspired.  This includes both the N.T. writings and the deuterocanonical books.  I believe the canon of scripture was revealed to us by God, through the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Bride of his Son at the various Christian Councils.  

The gospels and epistles were in circulation ALREADY...long before 400-something AD. From the very times they were written. They were KNOWN to be authentic.

My thought is that the codification of canon was to rule out forgeries, rather than to rule in known authoritative scripture. (Much like the writings of Paul that deal with "forgeries" of the gospel: gnosticism, legalism, etc. He didn't write about them just for the heck of it, in other words. They were infiltrating the early church, and he wrote for the purpose of correction, not preemptively.)

But I also realize that your purpose in this thread, as in all others relating to RCC doctrine, is to impose RCC authority over the catholic/universal church. What you are trying to argue is that without the RCC there would be no canon. And, in fact, that the RCC canon is the "true canon". Correct?

Ripley's -
I'm merely presenting facts here.  You can draw your own conclusions.

There is no argument on when things were written, their inspiration, or authenticity.  What is being discussed is when the respective canons were realized, under whose authority, and who accepted or rejected them.

There is no Christian Council, ecumenical or otherwise, that affirms the Protestant Canon. Prior to the Reformation, the only Council that affirms the Protestant Canon was the Jewish Council held in 90 A.D..  This same council rejected all of the writings of the disciples of Jesus as well as the deuterocanonical books that were in use by the Jews of the Diaspora and the followers of Jesus.  I'm sure this isn't what you mean by "ruling out forgeries".

It was not the RCC that determined the canon of scripture as I'm sure you know. Nor was it the Pharisees gathered at the Council of Jamnia.  The canon was determined by the author himself and revealed to the Bride of his Son, the Church.  We have listings of this revelation from the Church in Hippo, the Church in Carthage, and the Church in Rome. Whether these churches comprised the RCC or not is irrelevant to the discussion.  These listings contain the same books used by the Jews of the Diaspora and the early Christians.  The Canon of scripture used today by the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Jews contain these same books. The original KJV of scripture contained these same books.

So no one is trying to impose any sort of authority on anyone.  I'm just presenting facts.  You are free to choose your O.T. canon from the Council of Jamnia which rejected the deuterocanonical books as well as all of the writings of the disciples of Jesus, or from the canon of one of the early Christian Councils, or you can even make up your own.

Gospel of Thomas, etc...those books.




No, it really isn't irrelevant, because you go on to say:




That IS your point. The RCC canon is the only "true canon." Just as the RCC is the only "true and visible church."

The central problem is that you take the word "church" to mean a denomination, or one body of believers. I take it to mean ALL believers, of ALL denominations, who know the Truth. We may disagree on some unclear things in the Bible, but on the "basics" we all agree, and are brothers/sisters.

You will notice that in the Jerusalem Council not one of the leaders said, "OK, we need to be all on the same page here. So, gentiles now must be Jews first, then baptized as Christians." Neither did they say, "Jews, the Torah is obsolete. From now on no more circumcision, kashrut, etc." There was room for DIFFERENCES, yet ONE BODY. The Gospel is the important message that we need to be on the same page with one another...the rest is under Phil. 2:12: "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." To be obedient to the Holy Spirit as He leads YOU, personally, without condemnation of others who aren't YOU, and have a different path to walk in the LORD, because even though united, we are still individuals with different gifts and different ministries, etc. Together perfection.

-cont-

-cont-

As for authority, as I have quoted many times, Paul says, "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Cor 1:12,13

There is no, "Yeah, OK, but..."  No "lesser thans" and "greater thans" (1 Cor. 12, Rom. 12:5, Gal. 3:28, Phil. 1:27, and many others) In fact, I would put the Apostolic Succession doctrine under "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do." 1 Tim 1:4
-emphasis mine-

So, why do you, or RCC proper, assert that we must be "of Cephas/Kefa/Peter"? If there is "no Jew or Greek", there CERTAINLY isn't "lesser" parts of His body: the church.

That IS the crux of the matter here, that you are trying to show through canon and councils: Sacred Authority of the RCC, alone.

Ripley’s –
What message are you trying to get across with your post?  Are you saying that what is and what is not sacred scripture is something that we are free to disagree on? That God allows for differences in this area as long as we agree on the “basics”?  Are you saying that if I insist that God’s revelation of scripture was made to the Christian Councils of the 4th century and not to the Jewish Councils of the first century that I’m practicing denominationalism or being divisive?

This discussion is about the canon of scripture.  Your post detracts from the purpose of this thread.  If you want to discuss your opinions on the “true church”, what the “basics” of our faith are, or how unified the Body of Christ is or is not, you should start a separate thread.

Otherwise, feel free to participate in the discussion here.  What are your thoughts on the fact that there is no Christian Council that affirms the Protestant O.T. canon?  What are your thoughts on the fact that many of the Jews of the Diaspora, the present day Jews of Ethiopia, the RCC, the Eastern Orthodox, the early Christians, and many of the early Church Fathers, all consider the deuterocanonical books as inspired scripture? What are your thoughts on the fact that all Christian Councils prior to the Reformation that list a canon of scripture, include the deuterocanonical books? How can one make the claim that the RCC “added to” scripture at the Council of Trent when these books were already listed as scripture by the Church in Hippo, the Church in Carthage, and the Church in Rome?  Isn’t it more likely that the Reformers “subtracted from” scripture since their new canon was not consistent with any prior Christian canon?

http://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-de...nical.html


you find that israel it self did not accpet these books as  inspire but they treated them with respect.


so It More the RCC wants to add something that very few thought to be inspire.



Also The deuterocanonical books were also being written between the times of the OLd and new NT and yet Not one apostle ever refers to these books.

http://www.carm.org/questions/lost_books.htm

Also one Big thing the apocrypha contains doctrines that Go Against what the original apostles them self taught.


That the main reason I do not consider them part of the bible for the errors t hey have that go directing against the NT