Featured The Record Theory - Final Authority and Final Canonization

This thread reminds me of a sign seen outside a diner in a small town. The sign read "The Best Burgers in Town."

Says who? If you say it yourself, don't you have a vested interest?

The other burger shop on the other side of town, would they agree with you that your burgers are the best?

What if the guy on the other side of town learns how to cook his burgers better than you cook yours? Will you take your sign down after that?

Now, if there was a sign that said something like "Consumer Reports' taste testers ranked our burgers as the best in this town" then it comes with a degree of authority. You should be able to go to Consumer Reports' website and look the information up to verify it. (ok, I know Consumer Reports doesn't care whose burgers are best in a specific small town, but I'm making a point here).


If you wish to tell why you believe what you believe, that would be a constructive thing to do. Simply stating things without providing evidence to back it up doesn't help us much.

Meanwhile, I wouldn't mind a thought-provoking discussion of exactly how we do know whether the canon is complete, and how and why each book was selected for inclusion, and by whom, and what the criteria was. There were many other manuscripts back in those days. And for that matter, what proof is there that new works could not or will not be inspired by God in later times? I do not believe it will happen, but what do I point to for my reason that it could not be? How and when (or did?) God put His stamp of approval on the 66 books we call the Bible today?

I'm not trying to upset the apple cart, I just would like better answers for these questions than things like "We know there are only 66 books, and all of them are legitimate, because this is what has been in our Bible for the past X hundred years"
:tonofbricks:

 

Yeah, you can cuss, chew tobacco, get angry and yell at people, break the speed limit, but God forbid your hair touch your ears or even worse, read the New King James Version.....such are apostates, destined for judgment.

 

It is unlikely that the poster makahiya117 will define his terms and will support his vague, undefined accusations. He avoids answering proper questions. He also seems to avoid serious discussion and the facts that would conflict with his unsupported claims.

 

Partial Reply

One of the tests used to discern whether such and such a book should be included in the Bible is whether Jesus referenced it. Another test, I think, is whether God's people accepted it initially as scripture. The Cannon, i.e. list of books of the Bible, can be found on several sites, with general agreement, but with several differences.

I believe the Bible we have, i.e. 66 books, is sufficient for salvation and growth to become effective servants of God, they all are dynamic, they change lives.

So I do not spend time on the question of whether there may be more of God's inspired words out there, but I do spend a whole lot of time trying to learn and apply God's inspired words to my life.

 

That's silly?

I believe God is an objective reality, and therefore to diminish God because we (mankind comprised of various faiths) hold to flawed understandings of God is silly.

The twin pillars of our faith are God and His revelation. To assert Special Revelation is the final authority is silly. If God did not inspired what we believe He did, then what we believe about the Bible is errant.

The Koran, the Book of Mormon, and the KJV are said to be inspired by God. But if God did not inspire them, then they are the flawed work of men, perhaps based on God's inspired scripture, but certainly not close to the final authority.

 

Good question!

Ties into the concept of inspiration, as Jesus commisioned his Apostles with the HS act to be atwork ina nd thru them to accurately record all things that they penned down, without mistake/errors, and that those NT texts would be seen as being revelation of god, same way the already canonized OT scriptures were!

the early church had guidelines, checks to what they considered to be the real scriptures to include in the NT canon, as the Apostoles either had to write them, or else were involved in the writting, such as peter with mark, paul with Luke!

also, the HS Himself was leading/watching over the process, as he confirmed thatit spoke with "inspired authority", and there was by end of the life of John near end of First century, pretty much what we call the NT canon already agreed upon and circulating among the NT church!

john wrote last inspired book, Revelation, and NO writting since than met thestrict requirements to be received asbeing of the lord!

 

That all sounds good. It is a fairly satisfactory assessment for me.

Having said that, there are a number of other claims out there that I would like to be able to dismiss with easy reference.

For instance, I read a while back a piece where someone put forth the idea that the John of Patmos was a different John than John the son of Zebedee. They gave various reasons. One reason was that in their opinion, the book of Revelation does not have the same feel as the other writings of John. Also, in John's other writings, he never calls himself by name, as he does in Revelation. They had other reasons, too.

All my standard sources say that John the Divine of Revelation is the brother of James, and the son of Zebedee, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

 

It's not false witnessing if what he says is true, and it is.

 

You condemn yourself by the scripture you quote, sonny.

 

Was John John?

It is important to challenge assumptions such as the author of Revelation was John the Apostle of Christ. Cults stifle the search for truth by hounding those who question what others believe is true. Baptists listen and check what is said against scripture, and then endeavor to show by referencing scripture what is true and what is mistaken.

Whatever is the objective truth concerning authorship, we know that the early believers thought it was written by the Apostle, so Justin Martyr, circa AD 140. The book was challenged by some before being admitted to the NT, but the challenge was not based on authorship.

Here is a pretty good, in my opinion write-up on the controversy:

http://bible.org/seriespage/revelation-introduction-argument-and-outline

 

I love being ignored.

Can't handle the hard questions makahiya117?

Or are you are troll that is only here to insist that your views are the right views and the rest of us should believe like you do or risk being apostate?

I figured as much. It's the usual MO for folks who love to spout what they've heard but haven't bothered to really think the issues through for themselves.

 

Thank you. Great information, but it almost makes me retrogress and want to believe that Apostle John was not Apocalyptic John.

Mark, Luke, Acts, James and Jude (and possibly Hebrews) were written by men who were not apostles (from my best understanding). What are the problems (if any) if John the revelator were not John the Apostle of love?

 

There really is no problem unless, like the liberals, inspiration is dependent on eyewitness apostles, in which case not only Revelation but also Luke/Acts, Mark, Hebrews are merely good religious works and not the perfect Word of God.