Featured Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism?

BOTH the OT prophets/NT Apostles were inspired by God , so when they wrote doctrine and spoke doctrine/practice, it was God Himself going thru them unto us!

Are you claiming that aspect did NOTcease when John died, that RCC papcy have same inspiration they had from God?

 

It is clear you have not understood what you think you read. Try again.

 

When were the canonized books in the bible written by?

Does anyone have Apostolic inspiration since john passed away?

To God, the Bible was completed when revelation was penned, when do you say it was completed as per the books in it?

 

the final book was written around 90 AD or so.

Are their current apostles? No.

God didn't give us a list of what books were to be in canon. To God all required information for salvation was given orally not reliant on the written word. The Gospel was first proclaimed by word of mouth. As is evident not only when we consider that Jesus died in 33 AD and the first gospel was written around 55 AD but also we see how it was in the book of Acts.

 

orally by the Apostles, who were inspired by god JUST as the OT prophets were!

Do you hold that there was not a recognized collection of NT books seen as inspired.used for doctrines in early Church untill the RCC codified them?

 

Not until the 4th Century as history points out.

 

Strange, as the Apostolic Church were already agreeing to their use as inspired scriptures touse, on par with the OT texts, and by end of the second century, virtually ALL of what would be known as the canon was quoted and refernced to by nearly all Church fathers!

It has been shown that even IF there were no canon of the NT Books, based upon the early church fathers, they were alluded to and quoted as scripture already!

 

Ah.... Now you get that Canon wasn't established until later! What the early church relied on was the confession of the Apostles and the text that they wrote was only believed because it came from the Apostles. Yet there was no single codified bible at that point. Not until much later as once again a protestant authority points out... a lot of people had different pieces of what they considered scripture but didn't canonize it until much later. .

The early Church relied primarily on the LXX for th OT and the oral teachings of the apostles of which some were written down

 

Apostolic Church were relying upon the actual bood written by the Apsotles that started to circulate during their lifetimes!

 

You're wrong. The apostolic writins started at the earliest 20 years after Jesus death and resurrection. Two whole decades before pen to parchment. The churches were already established. Tradition was already taught. And Teachings were solidified before the first word of the NT was begun to be written. The NT was written in the atmosphere of an already established faith which already had its Tradition and Teaching. This is before the written NT! And then canon wasn't set until centuries later!

 

No one is denying that oral tradition preceded that tradition being permenantly transcribed into written scriptures. But the whole New Testament was written and in circulation by the death of the apostle John and replaced the oral traditions as final authority of what they actually taught and substitution of oral testimony was by command of Peter and Paul (2 Pet. 1:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:16-17) in keeping with prophetic scriptures - Isa. 8:16-20.

 

I think Yeshua might be.

Note how Geisler explains the issue.

 

He is simply wrong and Tetrullians langauge proves it. Tertullian concluded that "we" cannot "add" to the "whole volume" received "from the beginning" but such ADDITION is the sole work of HERETICS! He said this about 100 years after the apostolic period.

No clearing house was needed. The Apostolic churches were the depository of scritpure and John had nearly 50 years among them to verify the true apostolic writings and all 27 necessarily had to have been already written and received by the depository of truth - the church which is the pillar and ground of truth and such churches were anti-Roman Catholic.

 

Geisler isn't wrong. Neither is Metzger and many other regarded protesant biblicists. We can assertain from Tertullian that his "volume" was different than yours as he left out some books we now know as canon and he included books not considered canon. Of the books he had and his community, which btw apostated through false prophesies and fanatical charismatic nonsense, He felt he knew which books he accepted but clearly it isn't the same as your volume. In which case, all he does is prove the point that there were early differences over what books were actually scripture.

 

He was not attempting to make any content page and so you cannot assume that at all. He said "we" and other writers had gone before him listing those books that he did not list demonstrating the whole 27 books had been received.

Quoting extra canonical works is no different than Protestants quoting Luther and Calvin's writings and proves nothing.

 

Thats a two way street applied to you as well. Tertullian doesn't support your position therefore.

 

They had the Inspired OT writtings to go to for doctrines/practices, AND had the inpired words of BOTh NT Apostles and prophets operating in the NT churches, as the Holy Spirit was giving revelation to thechurches via those offices of Apostles/prophets in spoken form, then went down as written form!

key point is "traditions" were either OT scriptures, or inspired revealtion spoken and then wriiten down by Apostles...

ALL of the NT books in canon completed by death of John!

And were already being circulated around and used in Apsotolic times!

 

I dont dispute that. I dispute that all churches had all books of the NT and thought of them as canonized in the 1st Century. At the end of the first century there wasn't a book called the bible including OT and NT. There were collections of scrolls not all the collections were the same some missed some of what is now canon some had other books than what is now canon. Some of the scrolls were used in their services others were not. Creating a codex of Scripture happened much later and canon wasn't established until centuries later.

But the Apostles 1) didn't write down everything Jesus said as John attest too. and 2) the apostles didn't write down everything they said either. The NT was written in an already established body of believer with an already established Tradition set. The writings of the NT take this Tradition for granted as it was already being practiced. But more importantly the NT as in the OT has a singular focus "salvation history".

I haven't disputed that either. But the NT wasn't canonized at that time.

But not all the churches had all the writings of all the Apostles or even just the ones in the NT. And some had writings from respected pastors included with apostolic writings as well. The need for canon emerged with Marcion. Before that everyone followed the same Traditions.

 

the early Church "traditions" they used were the OT scriptures, and the inspired teachings/doctrines both written and orally of NT prophets/Apostles!

jesus promised to preserve and guide His church into all truth, and he did through NT prophets Apostles!