"My doctrinal opinion is true; you're doctrinal opinion is false." - Got it?

[Jim B]

How did the early church choose the bible canon for the New Testament? Did the bible fall out of the sky.?

Did the bible birth the church...or did the church birth the bible? The latter is true, of course.

So how did they choose what is scripture and what isn't? I believe it is by the testimony of those who experienced the life and power it testifies to.

The bible then can only be understood and interpreted correctly when that same life that was experienced by those who MADE the bible the bible ....is experienced the same way by modern readers/believers.

It's like finding an old recipe..but nobody remembers what the words that represent the ingredients are or the measurements represent. When those proper ingredients and measurements are discovered....you have the same meal that the original cooks had in mind.


When we EXPERIENCE the power of the gospel, and the life that is testified to therein...THEN we can understand what the bible is getting at.

Otherwise its just opinions and religious formulations that have no power or life in them.

Most of the Bible was in existence long, long before the early church. Clearly, the church did not "birth" the Bible. There was a council that decided which New Testament "books" were included in the canon of Scripture, but some apocryphal books were also included by some denominations.

Fortunately, one can buy, not only a complete Bible, but can also read new Bible "books" that have recently been added. I strongly recommend "A New, New Testament" edited by Hal Taussig.

He writes "Over the past century, numerous lost scriptures have been discovered, authenticated, translated, debated, celebrated. Many of these documents were as important to shaping early Christian communities and beliefs as what we have come to call the New Testament. These were not the work of shunned sects or rebel apostles, not alternative histories or doctrines, but part of the vibrant conversations that sparked the rise of Christianity. Yet these scriptures are rarely read in contemporary churches; they are discussed almost only by scholars or within the context only of gnostic gospels. Why should these books be set aside? Why should they continue to be lost to most of us? And don’t we have a great deal to gain by placing them back into contact with the twenty-seven books of the traditional New Testament—by hearing, finally, the full range of voices that formed the early chorus of Christians?"

Of course, if your mind is closed, you can't accept this, but if you believe that God still reveals His truth even today, you should read this New, New Testament.

 

[MatthewG]

Jim it was about 250 years after Christ, that they had a Bible fit together then, 1500 before an actual agreed upon bible was released.

So that information is accurate.

 

[Enoch111]

Jim it was about 250 years after Christ, that they had a Bible fit together...

That is incorrect. The Syriac Peshitta (complete Bible in Syriac) was already in existence in the second century.

 

[MatthewG]

Okay, thank you Enoch. Either way it took a while before they had gathered everything. I don’t know for a fact anyway but I assume that time due to the “early church fathers”.

 

[Wrangler]

God punishes mankind for not receiving His word at the lowest possible resolution...that of righteousness. The fact that the same words can speak on more than one level means that God is inviting us to come up higher into fellowship with Himself.

I have found this to be profoundly true. :)

 

[Episkopos]

Okay, thank you Enoch. Either way it took a while before they had gathered everything. I don’t know for a fact anyway but I assume that time due to the “early church fathers”.

If you listen to Enoch you will stumble into the same ditch he lives in. He is not speaking the truth.

"The earliest extant versions of the New Testament Peshitta date to the 5th century ce and exclude the Second Letter of Peter, the Second and Third Letters of John, the Letter of Jude, and the Revelation to John, which were not canonical in the Syrian church."

The only bible the early Christians had for hundreds of years was the OT. They understood BOTH righteousness AND holiness. The holiness portion was instruction from the gospels and letters being circulated among the churches. These were regarded and revered as a testimony to the holiness walk in Christ.

What we have now are armchair theologians who only have the carnal mind as their guide. These understand neither righteousness nor holiness.

 

[MatthewG]

If you listen to Enoch you will stumble into the same ditch he lives in. He is not speaking the truth.

"The earliest extant versions of the New Testament Peshitta date to the 5th century ce and exclude the Second Letter of Peter, the Second and Third Letters of John, the Letter of Jude, and the Revelation to John, which were not canonical in the Syrian church."

The only bible the early Christians had for hundreds of years was the OT. They understood BOTH righteousness AND holiness. The holiness portion was instruction from the gospels and letters being circulated among the churches. These were regarded and revered as a testimony to the holiness walk in Christ.

What we have now are armchair theologians who only have the carnal mind as their guide. These understand neither righteousness nor holiness.

I don’t care about who says what.

The truth be known to those who seek out God in spirit and truth.

There is no reason to side with anyone here other than to love one another if it is possible living in peace with every person.


Of course if no one does know that they haven’t been reading their bibles correctly by the spirit which leads to having love for God and others by the spirit.

 

[Episkopos]

I don’t care about who says what.

The truth be known to those who seek out God in spirit and truth.

There is no reason to side with anyone here other than to love one another if it is possible living in peace with every person.


Of course if no one does know that they haven’t been reading their bibles correctly by the spirit which leads to having love for God and others by the spirit.

Emphasis on "if possible". A lot of flesh is in a lot of rebellion against the truth based on self-interest and other more nefarious considerations.

 

[MatthewG]

Yes, you have read what Paul says about it, @Episkopos.

All of us with the flesh have fooked up and are in need of Him whom makes people right with God; and God is pleased with a person who has faith.

But look and read what Paul says about the flesh and the spirit.

“So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves. The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions. But when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses. When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭5‬:‭16‬-‭21‬ ‭NLT‬‬

Galatians 5:16-21 So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves. The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the | New Living Translation (NLT)

So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves. The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the

bible.com

No need for anyone to say anything about it after digesting and ingesting the word of God into one’s own soul.

It’s simply distinctly learning the flesh and the attribute of the heavenly allowing God to renew the mind and heart by hearing and seeing the word to help fortify faith, trusting in something you can’t see but are hopeful for. All while mortifying the earthly and submitting to the Father in prayer and supplications all by choice of a desire to do love him and praise and pray for all the people you know.

Seeking the truth is everything, and also Jesus said, God looks for people to worship him in spirit and truth.

 

[Wrangler]

Let's get real. ... If you hold to sound doctrine, no one in their right mind can (or will) object.

Trouble is, "sound doctrine" - beyond the basics - is likely to scratch our itchy ears. "Sound doctrine" to Atheists is there is no God and no one in their right mind could possibly believe in an invisible man in the sky. On these very boards, I've read many times those that proclaim one denomination or other believes in a different Jesus than in the Bible. <sigh>

 

[St. SteVen]

"My doctrinal opinion is true; you're doctrinal opinion is false." - Got it?
Say what?

Or worse...

"Who should I believe, you, or the Word of God?" (in reference to a man-made doctrinal opinion)
Basically, playing the "God card" to win a doctrinal argument. "How will you top that?"

Why do we treat each other this way?

]

 

[St. SteVen]

Do all Christians believe that Jesus is God? Absolutely.

You might want to rethink that.

Have you seen this video below of John MacArthur lamenting the sorry state of Evangelicalism in 2022.
Ligonier ministries had done a survey of Evangelicals. The findings, per MacArthur, were "shocking".

65% of Evangelicals agreed that everyone is born innocent.
55% agreed that the Bible is not literally true.
56% agreed that God accepts worship from all religions.
43% agreed that Jesus was a good teacher, but not God.

]

 

[JohnDB]

Fortunately, one can buy, not only a complete Bible, but can also read new Bible "books" that have recently been added. I strongly recommend "A New, New Testament" edited by Hal Taussig.

He writes "Over the past century, numerous lost scriptures have been discovered, authenticated, translated, debated, celebrated. Many of these documents were as important to shaping early Christian communities and beliefs as what we have come to call the New Testament. These were not the work of shunned sects or rebel apostles, not alternative histories or doctrines, but part of the vibrant conversations that sparked the rise of Christianity. Yet these scriptures are rarely read in contemporary churches; they are discussed almost only by scholars or within the context only of gnostic gospels. Why should these books be set aside? Why should they continue to be lost to most of us? And don’t we have a great deal to gain by placing them back into contact with the twenty-seven books of the traditional New Testament—by hearing, finally, the full range of voices that formed the early chorus of Christians?"

Of course, if your mind is closed, you can't accept this, but if you believe that God still reveals His truth even today, you should read this New, New Testament.

Ok....
I looked at the books that this guy is going on about. They ALL are forgeries and what is called "pseudopigrapha" or false writings. They all promote gnosticism.

Then there's a complete lack of citations in his book. Meaning that he cites "other scholars" works but does not give these people credit. (Because likely he is either making stuff up or these people aren't scholars) At any rate this guy thinks his readers are simpletons and incapable of fact checking.

I've read many of the works he cites. They are all 4th-8th century forgeries promoting gnosticism which nobility would purchase to license their orgies or some other sin they wished to perform.

The Gospel of Mary....ok...first century babies would not be bathed that often. Wiped down maybe but definitely not bathed the way this book describes (which is central to its thesis causing many miracles).

The theologies of these books is definitely gnostic in nature. It's complete crap. Some people are willing to sell their soul to Satan for a few thousand dollars....here is an example of just such a man.

 

[St. SteVen]

From the OP.

"My doctrinal opinion is true; you're doctrinal opinion is false." - Got it?
Say what?

Or worse...

"Who should I believe, you, or the Word of God?" (in reference to a man-made doctrinal opinion)
Basically, playing the "God card" to win a doctrinal argument. "How will you top that?"

Why do we treat each other this way?

[

 

[MatthewG]

From the OP.

"My doctrinal opinion is true; you're doctrinal opinion is false." - Got it?
Say what?

Or worse...

"Who should I believe, you, or the Word of God?" (in reference to a man-made doctrinal opinion)
Basically, playing the "God card" to win a doctrinal argument. "How will you top that?"

Why do we treat each other this way?

[

Because human.

In the spirit we keep peace.

In the flesh we raise hell.

But I’ll tell ya what, ain’t everyone right about everything that’s for sure, not even me.

It’s just perspectives… a lot of the times.
Religious manipulation, hard pressed parents, foster parents, or some “authority figure” like a cult leader and you have to do what he says..


There is a lot of factors.

 

[Taken]

"My doctrinal opinion is true; you're doctrinal opinion is false." - Got it?

Say what?

Or worse...

"Who should I believe, you, or the Word of God?" (in reference to a man-made doctrinal opinion)

Basically, playing the "God card" to win a doctrinal argument. "How will you top that?"

Why do we treat each other this way?

Why do we treat each other this way?

I would presume, Each individual BELIEVES they are right…so in a moderate sense, so to speak, the final say on the matter is not open to consider a different perspective.

Each individual KNOWS their OWN DEPTH of ( and IF ) reading and beyond of STUDY regarding particular topics.

So…to me…THE WHY one believes what they do, becomes of a curiosity to me.

When an other does not know WHY, or believes a point (particularly applies to them) simply because AN OTHER says so…even giving a list of WHO the other(S) are….
I am skeptical to lend much weight to their position.

THEN is the ground work established for DISAGREEMENT….and the Personal thoughts verbalized …. From nonsense to A-Z … of the TOPIC set aside the the Disagreement the new TOPIC.

To me: From my perspective;
* Natural Life is a Journey…
* Our Creator and Maker desires a one on one relationship with each of His manKIND creation.
* During every manKINDS individual Journey, he decides IF he desires a one on one relationship with his creator and maker.
* HERE, I pause, and consider a little lesson learned in 1st grade of school to Consider when reading & learning scripture;
Paramount APPLICATION;
WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHY, WHERE…
* HERE…regarding Scripture I Consider;
Paramount APPLICATION;
GODS ORDER, WAY, METHOD, OFFERING, WILL…

Point being the INTENT…
Desire to Establish a one on one relationship WITH He whom is my Creator and Maker according TO His Order, His Way, His Method, His Offering, His Will…

Because AN OTHER…(daddy, mommy, cleric, friend, teacher, whomever) believes this, says this, preaches this, teaches this, demands agreement, etc. Doesn’t IMPRESS ME to blindly jump onboard WITHOUT…
Consideration OF the “paramount APPLICATIONS” that apply to me.

I don’t Know what, or the depth, or the consideration an other reads, studies, to conclude their own established beliefs;
ONLY my own.

And by, many posts on this forum…regarding Religious Standings (and even Politics)….the “paramount APPLICATIONS” and “VERIFYING” (testing)…hinge on VERY STAND OUT OBVIOUS…
FROM IN DEPTH, to VAGUE, to VOID….
(With one common denominator….regardless of IN Depth, Vague, Void…understanding of Application and Verifying …. EACH holds to their own perspective of Correctness.)

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[St. SteVen]

New topic alert.

A Word for the church (four actually) concerning worship.

My wife shared a point from her devotional reading this morning. "You praise until the spirit of worship comes, you worship until the glory comes, then you stand in the glory." - Ruth Ward Heflin - Praise - Worship - Glory - Stand What it means to me. Praise is the obedient action that we use...

www.christianityboard.com

[

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Humanism - Sunday Sermons ‹ Fifth Street church of Christ

www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net

Below are excerpts from above link on humanism: (my emp)

“Many Humanists claim the words of Protagoras, a fifth century B.C. Greek philosopher, as the foundation of their creed: ‘Man is the measure of all things’

No deity will save us; we must save ourselves” (Humanist Manifestos I&2, Prometheus Books, pp. 13,16).

"A rejection of divinely inspired ethical and moral codes in favor of codes derived by reason from the human condition."

"Humanists are hostile to any notion of law that is external to man. This is one reason why they are so antagonistic to Christianity."

"Joseph Fletcher, the father of situation ethics, claimed, “Nothing is inherently good or evil, except love” (Moral Responsibility: Situation Ethics at Work, p. 38). Yet Fletcher did not mean “love” as defined in Scripture, which is always operating within the framework of divine truth (1 Corinthians 13:6). Once a person rejects any absolute truth or final standard, then “love” becomes nothing more than “sentiment”, “feelings” or how you feel at the moment. "

"Once a person had removed all external laws and the idea of absolute truth, then love without law is nothing more than human sentiment and it is always self-serving. When a person really wants to do something, “There will be no action so evil that it cannot and will not be said to be motivated by love”. Thus Humanism is the classic example of “lawlessness”"

--------------------------

To reject Bible doctrine, to reject the word of God is to reject God's standard, then what becomes "the standard" for man to follow? Man will then create his own standard by rejecting any doctrine that is "external to man". Man creates his own standard to save himself by his own doctrine derived by his own reasoning. Man rejects God's absolute truth to following self-serving feelings and sentiments creating a foolish, contradictory self-serving "doctrine". Then he thinks he can go and judge the world according to this hypocritical, dichotomy self-serving, self-created "doctrine".

2 Jn 1:9
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

 

[Gottservant]

"My doctrinal opinion is true; you're doctrinal opinion is false." - Got it?

Say what?

Or worse...

"Who should I believe, you, or the Word of God?" (in reference to a man-made doctrinal opinion)

Basically, playing the "God card" to win a doctrinal argument. "How will you top that?"

Why do we treat each other this way?

You aint seen nothing yet!

Imagine the disputes when Jesus returns!

 

[marks]

You aint seen nothing yet!

Imagine the disputes when Jesus returns!

Yep, that's when all this foolishness will be put to rest! Praise God!!

Much love!