01-18-2008, 05:13 AM
Shlama Akhi Dave,
They have, and there are several canons. That's the point. There isn't just one. You may feel your 27 book canon is the right one, like the author of the Murotanian canon thought his was the right one.
The point is, there's never been a consensus.
Of course it was preserved orally. When Meshikha first spoke those words, they weren't written down. When the authors of the Gospels were writing these books, it was after the fact. It was only later written down.
That's an even sillier question, of course not. Who would deny that? Again, I said that having a written record of our doctrines and our Lord's teachings was important in many ways. I only said that the Church, the Bride of Christ, came first, and is more important than scripture. That the Church existed without any book of the NT is undeniable. The Church decided what became scripture and what didn't make the cut.
What I do question is that Jude or Revelation is part of the "All scripture", that's where we differ. Our definition of "All scripture" excludes these books, which we call "Pious Books". That's because there are serious doubts as to the apostolic authorship of these books. We don't, and never have used the book of Revelation for doctrine, reproof, correction, or instruction in righteousness.
I respect your zeal, but why attack a straw man all the time, Akhi? Here's another example: I say "Revelation isn't scripture", and you come back with "But Paul said ALL scripture...."
OK Dave, Paul said "All Scripture", I grant you that - now give me Paul's list. He didn't leave one, did he? He would have helped us a whole lot if he had.
By "All scripture", was he aware of Revelation that hadn't been penned yet?
Look, we've always held to a 22-book canon, the matter was settled very early on.
Right now, in Africa there's someone in an Ethiopian church wondering why you don't consider Clement as part of "All scripture". Someone in Ethiopia right now is probably thinking that you, Rev. David Bauscher, are depriving your congregation of Divine Wisdom and benefit by not allowing them to recognize Clement as inspired and canonical.
I hope you can see now what I'm getting at.
sheesh. <!-- s:rockedover: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rockdover.gif" alt=":rockedover:" title="Rocked Over" /><!-- s:rockedover: -->
Quote:The people of any church should have the opportunity to decide for themselves by careful and prayerful consideration and reading if they believe a book that may be scripture is indeed scripture.
They have, and there are several canons. That's the point. There isn't just one. You may feel your 27 book canon is the right one, like the author of the Murotanian canon thought his was the right one.
The point is, there's never been a consensus.
Quote:The gospel was not preserved orally. It was written for all time and eternity.
Of course it was preserved orally. When Meshikha first spoke those words, they weren't written down. When the authors of the Gospels were writing these books, it was after the fact. It was only later written down.
Quote:"All scripture of The Spirit was written for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness."
Do you deny that?
That's an even sillier question, of course not. Who would deny that? Again, I said that having a written record of our doctrines and our Lord's teachings was important in many ways. I only said that the Church, the Bride of Christ, came first, and is more important than scripture. That the Church existed without any book of the NT is undeniable. The Church decided what became scripture and what didn't make the cut.
What I do question is that Jude or Revelation is part of the "All scripture", that's where we differ. Our definition of "All scripture" excludes these books, which we call "Pious Books". That's because there are serious doubts as to the apostolic authorship of these books. We don't, and never have used the book of Revelation for doctrine, reproof, correction, or instruction in righteousness.
I respect your zeal, but why attack a straw man all the time, Akhi? Here's another example: I say "Revelation isn't scripture", and you come back with "But Paul said ALL scripture...."
OK Dave, Paul said "All Scripture", I grant you that - now give me Paul's list. He didn't leave one, did he? He would have helped us a whole lot if he had.
By "All scripture", was he aware of Revelation that hadn't been penned yet?
Look, we've always held to a 22-book canon, the matter was settled very early on.
Right now, in Africa there's someone in an Ethiopian church wondering why you don't consider Clement as part of "All scripture". Someone in Ethiopia right now is probably thinking that you, Rev. David Bauscher, are depriving your congregation of Divine Wisdom and benefit by not allowing them to recognize Clement as inspired and canonical.
I hope you can see now what I'm getting at.
sheesh. <!-- s:rockedover: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rockdover.gif" alt=":rockedover:" title="Rocked Over" /><!-- s:rockedover: -->