My church defined your church's bible

[orthodox]

I see the KJVO debate rages on here.

As an Orthodox Christian, I have to ask the question to KJVOs. Since my church proclaimed and declared the NT canon that you now accept... if there's any proclaiming to be done about an authoritative version of the bible, for consistency's sake, aren't you going to have to wait until my church declares that too?

 

[gekko]

hahaha.
---

this is like sayin: "my church can beat up your church any day!"

or this one - this one's great: "my cat can beat up your dog ANY day!"
---
hahha.
---

God's the author of the scriptures - leave it at that.

 

[orthodox]

"BaptistBoard.com" <baptistboard@gmail.com> wrote:



> God's the author of the scriptures - leave it at that.


Who told you what the scriptures are?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Actually, you might say we have the KJV despite what was done, in the past, to keep the bible away from people.

All scripture is inspired by God himself, and he really doesn't need any human help to make sure it never goes away.

But claim it if it makes you feel better.

 

[gekko]

Who told you what the scriptures are?

uh. the scriptures themselves...
---

i agree with you bro. curtis.

 

[Jim1999]

I have many versions of scripture, including some written by theological liberals, ie: the Moffatt New Testament, J. B Phillips and even the very different Cockney Bible. There isn't one I don't get something from and contains the truth of salvation.

I honestly think some have too many hang ups on translations, and looking beyond what God has to say to us in this century.

I remember the controversy when the RSV was first published, and its infamous "young maiden" in place of "virgin". The first a true translation of the Hebrew word, but overall, so is "virgin" in context........so, why the controversy? The essence of God's word is there. As the famous writer said, :"Much ado about nothing."

If a translation gets people reading the Bible, I am all for it. God will tell us His truth in His Word; the Lord Jesus.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Chemnitz]

I just love watching people claim credit for God's work. If it would have been left up to men to determine the canon of the Bible we would be reading the Gospel of Thomas and Mary Magdelene instead of the Gospel of John.

 

[orthodox]

canon

Who told you that... oh say 3 John is scripture? Did God tell you directly, or did someone else tell you?

 

[BobRyan]

Contrary to the pipe dreams of the Orhodox and RCC members here - the NT saints of Acts 17:11 were not WAITING AROUND for an Orthodox church or and RC church to "evolve" before they began "searching the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

Why does this keep escaping you guys - as YOU claim to be the authors of scripture??!!

 

[Helen]

The books accepted as being inspired were pretty much finalized at least a hundred years before the Catholic church in any form came into being. They were the books written by the original eyewitnesses and Luke, who travelled with the Apostles, as we see in Acts. The Councils of Laodicea in 364 and Carthage in 400 simply confirmed the accepted canon.

Other books were not accepted for a variety of reasons: spurious authorship, unsubstantiated material, late arrival, etc.

As early as 150 AD the Gospels had been collected, as well as Paul's letters. Polycarp and Ignatius both quoted from the Gospels and Paul's letters as Scripture. In the Bible itself, Peter declares Paul's letters to be Scripture.

The Roman Catholic church, which preceded the Orthodox, was not formed until Constantine in the 300's. That is simple history, regardless of any propaganda the RC or other churches choose to teach.

 

[orthodox]

The books accepted as being inspired were pretty much finalized at least a hundred years before the Catholic church in any form came into being.

Huh? When did the catholic church come into being, and please document your answer.

They were the books written by the original eyewitnesses and Luke, who travelled with the Apostles, as we see in Acts. The Councils of Laodicea in 364 and Carthage in 400 simply confirmed the accepted canon.

Uh huh, the "accepted canon", which is a part of Tradition is it not?

Other books were not accepted for a variety of reasons: spurious authorship, unsubstantiated material, late arrival, etc.

And who determines spurious authorship? There's a lot of people running around today saying 2Peter wasn't written by Peter, and Timothy wasn't written by Paul. I guess it's all up for re-evalutation?

As early as 150 AD the Gospels had been collected, as well as Paul's letters. Polycarp and Ignatius both quoted from the Gospels and Paul's letters as Scripture. In the Bible itself, Peter declares Paul's letters to be Scripture.

In 2 Peter which itself was heavily debated for several centuries. How do you know 2 Peter is scripture?

The Roman Catholic church, which preceded the Orthodox, was not formed until Constantine in the 300's.

Huh? The orthodox church was formed at pentacost. You seem to have some major gaps in your history.

 

[orthodox]

Contrary to the pipe dreams of the Orhodox and RCC members here - the NT saints of Acts 17:11 were not WAITING AROUND for an Orthodox church or and RC church to "evolve" before they began "searching the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

Uh huh, because they knew about Tradition. You know - holding fast to the traditions which you are taught whether by word of mouth or in writing?

 

[Eric B]

And that passage doesn't say that these "traditions" were any separate body of teaching beyond what was written (at least in principle). In fact, it says "word OR epistle" which shows that what was written was apart of it. You would have to show a reason why a totally different set of teachings would be withheld from the epistles and spoken only. There is no reason for any such thing, so the same teachings would be both spoken and written, and in whichever form you receive it, hold fast to it.

 

[orthodox]

Tradition

And that passage doesn't say that these "traditions" were any separate body of teaching beyond what was written (at least in principle).

You're right that it doesn't specify whether they are different or not. All it says is to "hold to them".

In fact, it says "word OR epistle" which shows that what was written was apart of it.

Yes, what was written was a part of what was authoritative.

You would have to show a reason why a totally different set of teachings would be withheld from the epistles and spoken only.

Why do I have to show why it was done? All I have to show is that the traditions were authoritative. The speculators can speculate about why.

There is no reason for any such thing, so the same teachings would be both spoken and written, and in whichever form you receive it, hold fast to it.

Well now you're into speculation land. You're right that the scripture says to hold fast to both the traditions and the written, but now you're into an extra-scriptural speculation about what is in the oral traditions.

The fact is, scripture says to hold to the oral traditions, but you won't do it. That seems strange since you claim to follow scripture.

 

[bound]

The books accepted as being inspired were pretty much finalized at least a hundred years before the Catholic church in any form came into being. They were the books written by the original eyewitnesses and Luke, who travelled with the Apostles, as we see in Acts. The Councils of Laodicea in 364 and Carthage in 400 simply confirmed the accepted canon.

Other books were not accepted for a variety of reasons: spurious authorship, unsubstantiated material, late arrival, etc.

As early as 150 AD the Gospels had been collected, as well as Paul's letters. Polycarp and Ignatius both quoted from the Gospels and Paul's letters as Scripture. In the Bible itself, Peter declares Paul's letters to be Scripture.

The Roman Catholic church, which preceded the Orthodox, was not formed until Constantine in the 300's. That is simple history, regardless of any propaganda the RC or other churches choose to teach.

Grace and Peace,

Amen! Thank you! God Bless Sister!

 

[bound]

Grace and Peace,

Actually, with the usurping of the Empire's Throne by Constantine bloody seizure he also institutionalized an empirical church which drove many of the most saintly into the deserts to escape the innovations of this worldly church. Read the Desert Fathers.

The Church of the Living God continued ‘in spite’ of the errors of the worldly church, both east and west, not because of them. The Inspired Scriptures were read throughout the House Churches and Congregations throughout the world and was first recognized by the Gnostic Marcion before anyone else began to acknowledge a particular canon but the canon was recognized by those whom possessed the eyes to see and the hears to hear the message of the Lord. The worldly church only followed along what was already manifesting within the Body of Christ all along. I see no reason for anyone to lay claim to it but the Prophetic Hand of God. No tradition of man even recognizes a ‘common’ canon even between RCC and OC so I’m interested in trying to figure out when the OC even canonized the Scriptures?

Regardless Peace.

 

[orthodox]

Actually, with the usurping of the Empire's Throne by Constantine bloody seizure he also institutionalized an empirical church

Empirical?? Are you sure you meant to use that word?

which drove many of the most saintly into the deserts to escape the innovations of this worldly church. Read the Desert Fathers.

Who would have thunk baptists would be supporting monastic hermits in the desert as the location of the only christians. Of course, a hermit is by definition not a church.

The Church of the Living God continued ‘in spite’ of the errors of the worldly church, both east and west, not because of them.

Assuming there were errors in the church, and Christ got it wrong when he said the church would be led into all truth and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

The Inspired Scriptures were read throughout the House Churches and Congregations throughout the world and was first recognized by the Gnostic Marcion

The scriptures were first recognized by the gnostic Marcion? So why aren't you following the Marcion canon?

before anyone else began to acknowledge a particular canon but the canon was recognized by those whom possessed the eyes to see and the hears to hear the message of the Lord.

And who were those? You seem quite enamoured with Marcion, yet you reject his canon in favour of the one of the recognized church.

The worldly church only followed along what was already manifesting within the Body of Christ all along.

There was no other "body of Christ" besides what you choose to call the worldly church, unless you want to hitch your wagon to gnostics and other heretics like Marcion.

I see no reason for anyone to lay claim to it but the Prophetic Hand of God.

The hand of God EXPRESSED THROUGH HIS CHURCH. Not through heretics like Marcion who had a different canon.

No tradition of man even recognizes a ‘common’ canon even between RCC and OC so I’m interested in trying to figure out when the OC even canonized the Scriptures?

The Orthodox church just follows the traditions passed down to us. It has never changed any teaching, doctrine or practice.

 

[El_Guero]

Helen,

What became the Orthodox and RCC were 'formed', if you have to call it that, by Constantine.

The books accepted as being inspired were pretty much finalized at least a hundred years before the Catholic church in any form came into being. They were the books written by the original eyewitnesses and Luke, who travelled with the Apostles, as we see in Acts. The Councils of Laodicea in 364 and Carthage in 400 simply confirmed the accepted canon.

Other books were not accepted for a variety of reasons: spurious authorship, unsubstantiated material, late arrival, etc.

As early as 150 AD the Gospels had been collected, as well as Paul's letters. Polycarp and Ignatius both quoted from the Gospels and Paul's letters as Scripture. In the Bible itself, Peter declares Paul's letters to be Scripture.

The Roman Catholic church, which preceded the Orthodox, was not formed until Constantine in the 300's. That is simple history, regardless of any propaganda the RC or other churches choose to teach.

 

[orthodox]

Helen,

What became the Orthodox and RCC were 'formed', if you have to call it that, by Constantine.

I hope this isn't a forum where you can make up total nonsense and not have to document it. Please document this.

 

[Darron Steele]

First of all, I am grateful to the Orthodox of ages past for helping keep the Scriptures copied. Hand copying is hard work. It would be even harder under medieval conditions.

I consider Catholicism to be a rebellion against Orthodoxy. It seems to have been made final when the bishop of Rome decided that he had enough of the rest of the church's refusal to make his `primacy of honor among equals' into `absolute primacy.'

The problems of Orthodoxy and Catholicism stem from earlier than Constantine's era. The church quickly started innovating and doing whatever it wanted as soon as the apostles were dead. 3 John indicates that an individual was seeking preeminence, opposing an apostle, yet had a following within the church.

However, I take exception to the following claims sometimes made:
1) That either the Catholic or the Orthodox church gave us the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16 gives God credit for that. In light of that, I personally would be terrified to claim credit for something explicitly stated to be God's work.

2) Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism decided what is Scripture. What is "breathed out by God" 2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV) is Scripture whether or not recognized by us or no. What is not "breathed out by God" is not Scripture regardless of whoever says it is. God decided what is Scripture when He gave it to us individual book by individual book.

3) In the decades after the apostles, there was some confusion on what was Scripture. This is because the church was doing whatever it wanted. This confused what was Scripture. Fourth century church councils were called to authoritatively settle the confusion.

4) We can get a good idea of what is Scripture by looking at the citations of authors up to about the year 150. What was cited in more than one geographical area was probably Scripture at that time. Writings that seem to be by the same authors as those cited were probably also considered Scripture at that time. If it was considered Scripture then, very soon after the apostles and before most of the period of corruption, it is our best evidence for what was Scripture in New Testament times and should be considered Scripture now.

We do not need fourth century Orthodoxy or Catholicism to know what Scripture is. However, we should be grateful that fourth century Orthodoxy put a cap on further confusion and put a dampener on further attempted additions.