Freethought & Rationalism Archive

River · 07-10-2003, 04:39 PM

Hey, why is it ...........that the NT canon is praised as the word of G-d ....and the Apocrypha is deemed as fictitious by the general public?

Is there a methodology behind how (Luke, Mark, Matthew, John) made the final cut? Or was it haphazard? Or due to Political influence?

And whey is the NT "more real" than the Apocrypha and Nag Hammadi collections?

How does the average Christian defend the NT as REAL....and the Apochrypha as FAKE? ......

EstherRose · 07-10-2003, 05:23 PM

The church used 5 tests to determine the reliability of scripture.

1. Was the book written or backed by a prophet of God?

Deuteronomy 18
17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.

Galatians 1
11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2. Is the book authoritative?

Mark 1
22The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.

3. Does the book tell the truth about God as it is known by previous revelation?

Acts 11
11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Galatians 1
8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

4. Does the book give evidence of having the power of God?

Hebrews 4
12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

5. Was the book accepted by the people of God?

1 Thessalonians 2
13And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

Collosians 4
16After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

The Apocrypha refers to books the Catholics decided belonged in their bible after the Protestant Reformation. Protestants argue that no New Testament writer ever quoted from these books as Scripture nor gave them any semblance of being inspired books. Jesus ignored these books, which He wouldn�t have done if they were from God. Early church fathers like Origen and Jerome, and the Jewish Council of Jamnia rejected the Apocrypha as scripture. Besides some of the contra-doctrinal aspects of them, there are some historical errors in them. In none of the Apocrypha is there any claim of divine inspiration.

Doctor X · 07-10-2003, 09:55 PM

Hard to ignore books that had not been written yet.

--J.D.

Peter Kirby · 07-10-2003, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Hard to ignore books that had not been written yet.

The deuterocanonical books include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. Which of these do you think were written after circa 30 C.E.?

best,
Peter Kirby

Doctor X · 07-10-2003, 10:25 PM

Pssst! Just seeing if anyone is actually reading what I post here!

--J.D.

Soul Invictus · 07-13-2003, 08:39 PM

EstherRose or Maguss55,

In case you missed it, do either of you care to rebut my last post?

Doctor X · 07-13-2003, 09:19 PM

Apparently they are not interested in debate, only a confession of faith.

--J.D.

EstherRose · 07-14-2003, 01:47 AM

Yes I can see how you might think that, however I've been quite ill and have only sporadically checked this site when I've been out of the medicine fog. I am interested in debate and will get back to this. If you ever feel I've neglected a question, you can always PM me. Of course if I get several questions each day, I may have to limit them but I doubt that many people are interested in what I have to say.

RED DAVE · 07-14-2003, 02:18 AM

From EstherRose:

Quote:

I doubt that many people are interested in what I have to say.

We might be if you expressed an opinon differing from those of the sect you adhere to. Sorry to hear you haven't been well.

RED DAVE

Doctor X · 07-14-2003, 12:34 PM

Very well then, I withdraw my conclusion for now though I note that perhaps it takes considerable time to quote unrelated passages that may be best expended answering questions actually asked.

I must agree with River regarding the relevance of response; I see very little response to questions that challenge the basis of the opinion of the sect. However, it is a new day, and I imagine future questions will be addressed.

--J.D.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2003, 04:39 PM	#31
River Banned Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: NY Posts: 3,680	Hey, why is it ...........that the NT canon is praised as the word of G-d ....and the Apocrypha is deemed as fictitious by the general public? Is there a methodology behind how (Luke, Mark, Matthew, John) made the final cut? Or was it haphazard? Or due to Political influence? And whey is the NT "more real" than the Apocrypha and Nag Hammadi collections? How does the average Christian defend the NT as REAL....and the Apochrypha as FAKE? ......

07-10-2003, 05:23 PM	#32
EstherRose Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Arizona Posts: 183	The church used 5 tests to determine the reliability of scripture. 1. Was the book written or backed by a prophet of God? Deuteronomy 18 17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. Galatians 1 11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 1 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2. Is the book authoritative? Mark 1 22The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. 3. Does the book tell the truth about God as it is known by previous revelation? Acts 11 11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Galatians 1 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 4. Does the book give evidence of having the power of God? Hebrews 4 12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 2 Timothy 3 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness 5. Was the book accepted by the people of God? 1 Thessalonians 2 13And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. Collosians 4 16After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea. The Apocrypha refers to books the Catholics decided belonged in their bible after the Protestant Reformation. Protestants argue that no New Testament writer ever quoted from these books as Scripture nor gave them any semblance of being inspired books. Jesus ignored these books, which He wouldn�t have done if they were from God. Early church fathers like Origen and Jerome, and the Jewish Council of Jamnia rejected the Apocrypha as scripture. Besides some of the contra-doctrinal aspects of them, there are some historical errors in them. In none of the Apocrypha is there any claim of divine inspiration.

07-10-2003, 09:55 PM	#33
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Hard to ignore books that had not been written yet. --J.D.

07-10-2003, 10:25 PM	#35
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Pssst! Just seeing if anyone is actually reading what I post here! --J.D.

07-13-2003, 08:39 PM	#36
Soul Invictus Contributor Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin Posts: 15,576	EstherRose or Maguss55, In case you missed it, do either of you care to rebut my last post?

07-13-2003, 09:19 PM	#37
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Apparently they are not interested in debate, only a confession of faith. --J.D.

07-14-2003, 01:47 AM	#38
EstherRose Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Arizona Posts: 183	Yes I can see how you might think that, however I've been quite ill and have only sporadically checked this site when I've been out of the medicine fog. I am interested in debate and will get back to this. If you ever feel I've neglected a question, you can always PM me. Of course if I get several questions each day, I may have to limit them but I doubt that many people are interested in what I have to say.

07-14-2003, 12:34 PM	#40
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Very well then, I withdraw my conclusion for now though I note that perhaps it takes considerable time to quote unrelated passages that may be best expended answering questions actually asked. I must agree with River regarding the relevance of response; I see very little response to questions that challenge the basis of the opinion of the sect. However, it is a new day, and I imagine future questions will be addressed. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.