Compiling of the New Testament

[jriccitelli]

One point I made was; 'Who kept the Old Testament together?'

I am not 'trusting man' to keep Gods word, I am 'trusting God' to keep His Word.
I worship God because 'He' has made the Sun to rise every morning, because 'He' has made it so that the earth stays in orbit, because 'He alone' has made it so that I am still alive. Man is not my 'Ever present help', man is not my 'Shelter' and 'Assurance', man is not my 'Strong Tower' or 'Confidence', man is not my 'Guide' or 'Keeper'. My God is my Holy Father (John 17:11), and no man is my Rock (Romans 9:33, Isaiah 8:14).

"There is no one holy like the LORD, Indeed, there is no one besides You, nor is there any rock like our God. (1 Samuel 2:2)

How can people not know that God is our Holy Father and our Rock?
How is it that people do not know the God of the Bible, of Israel?
How can we miss the biblical 'emphasis' and 'command' to put our confidence in God, and not in man?
It happens when man 'ignores' the Command, and 'trusts in man' and himself.
This is what 'all' other religions teach; trust in ourselves as humans, trusting in an arm of flesh. This is the opposite of what the Word says; God's word 'demands' that we do not devote our confidence to man (or his religions and inventions) Why do Catholics not know this?
Over and over from Genesis to Malachi God warns us by Israel's example that we cannot trust ourselves (as humans) to not fall into idolatry (Idolatry; is trusting in, or giving devotion to anything but God). As humans our tendency is to ignore God and put our confidence in Kings, princes, Popes and chariots, all to failure and judgment. How can one miss this, when only a basic reading of scripture would reveal this?
It would be easy to miss if your leaders 'didn’t teach' you this, but how could they teach us, if they don’t know or believe it themselves. Can we trust man to tell us the truth? ('Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar' Romans 3:12)

The Catholic church had for centuries withheld the teaching of scriptures from their audiences (and in Latin for Pete's sake!). And don’t let them tell you 'the murals expressed their desire to teach', they were just elaborate decorations. If they wanted to teach they had all the opportunity in the world to do so but they 'continued' not to teach the scriptures. Even up to our modern day, literate highly educated Catholics know very little or nothing of their Bible, does this sound like a good 'mother' or 'father' to you?
The Catholic leaders have built a system where the confidence and trust ends up in them, rather than in God and Gods word. Are there not motives to cause man to do this for himself? Are we not warned that man would attempt this?

"Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Peter," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided?" (1Cor 1:12)
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; (Galatians 1:6)

Is it not obvious that God allows man to follow his own ways?
He allowed the Israelites to wander in the desert for 40 years. God allowed Israel to stray over and over again 'proving' our own disobedience. The religious leaders could not be trusted to shepherd the people, and the leaders put Jesus up on a cross (and may I add that some keep him there today). But Christ is risen and alive, and 'within Him' we live and breathe. There have always been believers and His Church, but the real Church is not wearing fine linens and seated in fancy chairs, his real body is not held up in a building somewhere, He is where He said He would be 'Behold I am with you always' (Matt 28)

[darinhouston]

I have heard no one respond to this thread with any evidence that anyone could verify the correct books of the Bible without the direct intervention of the RCC. Have you ever questioned if the list of books is accurate? If not, why not? I can clearly rely on the RCC, but as you cannot, why do you accept this list of books as valid? This was the whole point of this thread.

There's much in your posts for others to respond to, but on this point did you not see my post? I didn't go into lengths of specific evidential consideration for each book of the bible, but I did give you the approach we would take and direct you to as good an authority on the protestant view of the canon as I can think of (FF Bruce). Here's are some specific texts for you to consider if you're truly interested:

This one is fairly inexpensive and is available for Kindle...

The Canon of Scripture -- FF Bruce
http://www.amazon.com/The-Canon-Scriptu ... 083081258X

This one is a bit expensive but should be available in many libraries or second hand book stores...

The Books and The Parchments -- FF Bruce
http://www.amazon.com/The-Books-Parchme ... 860&sr=1-1

By approaching the subject with an open and seeking mind, and much the same way I discern any given truth such as principles of physics or whatever. Examine the evidence, respect the tradition and history but question it – cling loosely to what I think to be true, but explore the reasons for their general acceptance. Who seems to have written them – to whom – how were they transmitted – what do they say – how faithfully have they been maintained, etc. Are they attested to by early witnesses. The list is long and you could read almost anything by FF Bruce on the subject. I’m pretty familiar with Sungenis and though I haven’t read the book have familiarity through its critics.

[darinhouston]

And don’t let them tell you 'the murals expressed their desire to teach', they were just elaborate decorations. If they wanted to teach they had all the opportunity in the world to do so but they 'continued' not to teach the scriptures.

I'll give them that they intended these to teach and to glorify. However, that shouldn't detract from the larger criticisms of the RCC and its (especially medieval) attempts to withhold certain teaching from the masses.

[jriccitelli]

I wrote my opinion of the murals from as much as I have gleaned from reading about the great Painters and artists of the time (and the money spent on the elaborate decorations of the buildings) as I am quite a fan of ancient art.
You might notice that I also am not going down an endless line of quotes from Church 'fathers' (although I have done the same in the past, and I find doing so is educational) but at the end of the day it seems 'all' the church fathers had some different and various opinions. Much of which I agree with, but each one seems to have his 'own' leanings (much like every man) and you can glean alot from them (I would recommend F.F. Bruce and others too).
I would rather use scripture (because Jesus did), because many will assemble a quote from one here, and one there, to say practically 'anything', and lose everyone in the process. Profitable, sure, Holy Scripture? No. And if we cannot put confidence in Scripture why should we put 'more' confidence in the church fathers?

Our foundation is the Old Testament is it not?
If you do not esteem Moses and the Prophets as the foundation you have something other than what Jesus and the Apostles taught. The Apostles were all verified by miracles and having been with Christ (unlike Popes). But all the real verification for Jesus and the majority of the whole New Testament doctrine comes from the 'First' Testament.
So are we to say it was the Israelites who kept and compiled the Old Testament?
They certainly can't be accused of being faithful, unstained by sin, and in unceasing devotion to God, they went into exile twice at least, they lost the book of the Law in the Temple, and they lost the Ark of Covenant once to the Philistines, it seems to me the ark did just fine on its own without mans help. Do we think God needs man to keep things together for Him?
If we think God is relying on man to hold His own Word together as a canon - we haven’t 'read what it' is we are assuming we have helped God put together.

'He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be greatly shaken…6 He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be shaken…7 On God my salvation and my glory rest; The rock of my strength, my refuge is in God' (Psalms 62:2-7)
'Be to me a rock of habitation to which I may continually come; You have given commandment to save me, for You are my rock and my fortress' (Psalms 71:3)
'He brought forth streams also from the rock and caused waters to run down like rivers…20 "Behold, He struck the rock so that waters gushed out, and streams were overflowing; Can He give bread also? Will He provide meat for His people?"… And they remembered that God was their rock, And the Most High God their Redeemer' (Psalm 78:16-35)
"He will cry to Me, 'You are my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.' (Psalm 89:26)

God holds the whole Universe together. Do we really think God needed 'man' to decide on His Canon?
'Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation' (Psalm146:3)

[Homer]

Maybe -- let's see -- "three priests go up to a bar..." -- pretty funny if you ask me...

I've heard that where two or three are gathered together there is sure to be a fifth.

[darinhouston]

Maybe -- let's see -- "three priests go up to a bar..." -- pretty funny if you ask me...

I've heard that where two or three are gathered together there is sure to be a fifth.

Now, THAT's funny!

[jriccitelli]

Sorry to be such a sourgrape, but I feel should explain my rant again.

If we really want to discuss why certain books and certain scriptures should, or should not, be included in the Canon of scripture that is a interesting and great endeavor; why or why not second Peter, Tobit, or John chap.8, or 1 John 5:8's longer reading (a Latin homily?)?

But If someone is going to Justify the RCC simply on the grounds that the 'Roman' Catholic church 'presumably' authorized Gods Word and made it official, because the RCC claims that 'Gods Word' says Peter was the Rock, then that is a completely different approach to reason, and it deserves the crown of circular reasoning if there was such a crown. That's like saying a mountain is a mountain because man says so. Or a tree is supported by its branches. Or a horse can run because of the saddle.

[Jon]

Jon,

I have a very specific criticism of your latest post.

It appears that on the one hand, you are suggesting that protestants are tacitly acknowledging the authority of the RCC by accepting the cannon of scripture...

... [the RCC] did, without a doubt, document which books would be included, most likely inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. I have heard no one respond to this thread with any evidence that anyone could verify the correct books of the Bible without the direct intervention of the RCC. Have you ever questioned if the list of books is accurate?

And then, on the other hand, you're criticizing protestants for not accepting the authority of the RCC for its cannon of scripture...

… and eventually led to Protestants removing books from the Bible that didn't support their view of the Truth.

Do you see any inconsistency in your reasoning here?

Hi Perry,

I wasn't attempting to suggest what Protestants are doing. I'm more asking why Protestants were accepting this list since it was documented formally by the RCC. They have made no changes to the NT, but I suppose the OT they have removed books originally listed in the Canon. Where is the inconsistency you see?

[Jon]

I have heard no one respond to this thread with any evidence that anyone could verify the correct books of the Bible without the direct intervention of the RCC. Have you ever questioned if the list of books is accurate? If not, why not? I can clearly rely on the RCC, but as you cannot, why do you accept this list of books as valid? This was the whole point of this thread.

There's much in your posts for others to respond to, but on this point did you not see my post? I didn't go into lengths of specific evidential consideration for each book of the bible, but I did give you the approach we would take and direct you to as good an authority on the protestant view of the canon as I can think of (FF Bruce). Here's are some specific texts for you to consider if you're truly interested:

This one is fairly inexpensive and is available for Kindle...

The Canon of Scripture -- FF Bruce
http://www.amazon.com/The-Canon-Scriptu ... 083081258X

This one is a bit expensive but should be available in many libraries or second hand book stores...

The Books and The Parchments -- FF Bruce
http://www.amazon.com/The-Books-Parchme ... 860&sr=1-1

By approaching the subject with an open and seeking mind, and much the same way I discern any given truth such as principles of physics or whatever. Examine the evidence, respect the tradition and history but question it – cling loosely to what I think to be true, but explore the reasons for their general acceptance. Who seems to have written them – to whom – how were they transmitted – what do they say – how faithfully have they been maintained, etc. Are they attested to by early witnesses. The list is long and you could read almost anything by FF Bruce on the subject. I’m pretty familiar with Sungenis and though I haven’t read the book have familiarity through its critics.

Thanks for reposting. I should reread the earlier pages of the thread when I come back to it after being gone for a while. Sorry if I missed the original post. I'll probably pick up a copy of the book and have a read of it.

[Jon]

Oh John,

Your misconceptions about the RCC are so many I couldn't possibly address them now. All I can say in short is that you're looking at it the wrong way with the wrong perspective, and we'll just have to end the discussion for now. One thing I did find interesting in your post was this:

Over and over from Genesis to Malachi God warns us by Israel's example that we cannot trust ourselves (as humans) to not fall into idolatry (Idolatry; is trusting in, or giving devotion to anything but God). As humans our tendency is to ignore God and put our confidence in Kings, princes, Popes and chariots, all to failure and judgment. How can one miss this, when only a basic reading of scripture would reveal this?
It would be easy to miss if your leaders 'didn’t teach' you this, but how could they teach us, if they don’t know or believe it themselves. Can we trust man to tell us the truth? ('Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar' Romans 3:12)

And if we cannot trust ourselves, then how can we trust our own personal interpretation of scripture? Your comment is intended to support your claim that you should not trust in another man, but if you cannot even trust yourself per God's teaching and you believe it, why do you trust yourself in scripture interpretation?

Jon