bible canon?

[miseretur]

Joh 8:44 You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and has never stood by the truth, since there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie he speaks in character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Although Jesus speaks here Pharisees, so it fits all of the rest of those who deny Christ. And belive Satans lies, just as Adam in paradise.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

Do you understand that these are basick gnostic belives.
Have you ever read gnostic text, or talking whit them, try to speak them good news abot Jesus our Lord and the gospel.
Do you know that they belive, in immortal soul.
And they teach that, human will eventually become the god.
I have talking whit them ofthem, I have go their lecture, and in they little shop here in oulu. Have you ever thought to believe that, when they say that yes they believe in Jesus, but they do not believe what Jesus taught and was.Jesus is their only someone enlightened type.
Have you ever realized the fact how great was the threat of early parish, abot gnostic teachings. do you know gnostic cult, Carpocrates.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpocrates

--------------------------------------------------------------------

2Co 2:11 so that we may not be outsmarted by Satan. After all, we are not unaware of his intentions.

2Co 11:14 And no wonder, since Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ? The person who denies the Father and the Son is the antichrist.

2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world. They refuse to acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. Any such person is a deceiver and an antichrist.

2Ti 3:13-16.
But evil people and impostors will go from bad to worse as they deceive others and are themselves deceived.

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and found to be true, because you know from whom you learned it.

From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures that are able to give you the wisdom you need for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

This is not a question of who is a hundred percent right and who is not.
I understand that you are a Muslim? Muslims, Jesus is also lower than the value of Mohammed.
Am I right, is just one prophet.
It is no wonder that you do not consent to listen to the Christian declaration of the fact that I say what the Bible says.
Sharia law will deny me of your refusal, or brothers.
The Koran is wrong, it is denying God's son existence.
Islamic religion is a mixed-religion, which has emerged so late that it already. Mohammed tours of war and the murders were political and his wives quantity referred more harem, and forced the offspring than a love.
Biblical authority, I weigh what is wrong and what is not, and if someone claims of Jesus something other than what the Bible says and the early tradition, it is clear that anyone who believes, would make the same.
If the Bible says something antichrist, so what am I to believe in things differently.
I would be a liar then.I do not try to please someone if hi is wrong and it is useless to try to blame me to the fundamentalists, because the Bible says that not me.Don 't you believe in the Koran, or do you belive it only when it suits you. I have also the right to tell here what the Bible says, and if you want, so perhaps the Muslim forum, you can say what the Koran says.
I do not will never agree to anything which is related gnostilaiseen worship of satan. Christianity's oldest enemy is Gnosticism, precisely because it disguised as Christianity.

2Co 10:3-5.
Of course, we are living in the flesh, but we do not fight in a fleshly way.

For the weapons of our warfare are not those of the flesh. Instead, they have the power of God to demolish fortresses. We tear down arguments

and every proud obstacle that is raised against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive in order to obey Christ.

Eph 6:17 also take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

[Jesus John]

First thanks for your answer.

I want to declare that I have got no problem with any people what he believe in. This is his choice, everyone has a free will and mind, we have to respect.

In my earlier time I had no respect for the choices and tried to change their opinion. But now I have changed, the words of Jesus are in my heart as he said;

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5)

I see that I have got a a big tree in my eye, therefore I stopped to judge people.

Also this verse from the Qur'an is in my heart;

"Do you bid other people to be pious, the while you forget your own selves and yet you recite the divine writ? Will you not, then, use your reason?" (2:44)

Yes I am a Muslim but you can also call me Christian or Jew in its real meaning. Jesus is not lower than Muhammad, this is wrong. Yes, maybe there is a believe around Muslims like you said but this isnt what the Qur'an say, it is false and this fault cant be presented as the view of Islam. Muhammad is only the last prophet of God, there were lots before, like Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus etc.

Of course there is a difference between us in Jesus. But I think we are close and have lots of similar features.

I appreciate your faith, you are devout in your believe and defending it. There is no problem for me.

Unfortunately, Islam is realy understood wrong today, but the greatest fault belongs to the Muslims. We couldnt present us like Muhammad and his companions did in the earlier time. We mostly gone astray, do not read the Qur'an right. There are still people who kill lots of innocent people (while it is forbidden) and call themselve as Muslim. I do not support them, therefore I also am a heretic in their sight and maybe can be murdered.

The word Islam has a wide meaning, one of them is peace. Salaam and Islam are same in origin. We use "salaam alaikoum" to salut eachother, we say "as-salaamou alaikoum wa rahmatoullah" to our right and left side (reference to our circle) to finish our prayer. These all means "I am in peace, be in peace"

Peace is good and as I remember Jesus said;

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9)

By the way I think that Jesus mean the inner peace, because a person who is not comfortable in his skin cant make peace at the outside. First inside, after this the outside.

What you say about Muhammad is really wrong. Muhammad had 12 wives.
He didnt have any sex with a woman till he married a widow with a age of 40 when he was 25. He didnt marry with anyone else while this marriage continued. When he became to the age of 50 his wife died. After this death he married with another widow and keep going on with only one wife till 3 years passed. When he was 53 he married with a virgin girl which was around 19 years old, presented like 7 (as a child) today. In the Arabic countries a girls age is counted when she become adolescent (a stage between childhood and adulthood) She was called 7 but the physical age was 19. Only one wive was virgin and young, the others were widow and had childs. His poly marriages were between the ages of 53-63. What a great age to be hot isnt it?

As we know a person is mostly hot at his youth. Now, if Muhammad was a slave to his sexual will, why did he marry with a 40 age widow when he could marry with a younger and virgin girl? Why did he keep going on with one wife while it was very normal to marry with many woman in his society?

By the way why to they insult Muhammad for being poly married? Didnt Abraham had 2 wive at the same time (3 totall) ? What about Isaac, Jacob and Moses? Are they aware that they are insulting the others when they say words against Muhammad?

It is clear that Muhammad had poly marriages for political issues, there is no evidence for a sexual will. This is really dishonest and immoraly.

When Muhammad began to preach Islam when he was 40 years old (a young age) and choosen as the last prophet, the famous leaders of his society came to him and asked to stop preaching Islam around the land. They offered him the most beautiful women to stop it. But do you know what he said?

"I swear on God who holds my life in His hand, if you will put the sun on my right, the moon on my left I will never give up"

Love,

Oguzhan

[miseretur]

Jesus observed: “Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning.” (Matthew 19:8)
The same can be said of polygamy. It was not “the case from the beginning.” “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”—Matthew 19:4-6.

Jesus thus confirmed the original standard for marriage. (Matthew 19:3-8) The Bible further shows that an overseer in the Christian congregation must, if married, be “a husband of one wife.” Likewise, the “widow” should also have been the “wife of one husband.”

This is further evidence that monogamy is the standard for all Christians. Overseers, as “examples to the flock,” cannot claim that their position of oversight entitles them to a standard for marriage different from the one for others in the congregation. (1 Timothy 3:2; 5:9; 1 Peter 5:3) So Christian options are clearly either singleness or monogamy.
Either is perfectly acceptable to God.
(1 Corinthians 7:8, 9) Polygamy, though, is quite out of the question.

This divine standard gives dignity to both men and women.
Married women need not anxiously fear that their husbands will take secondary wives.
Nor does a single Christian woman contemplate becoming someone’s secondary wife—even when there are few unmarried men locally. She waits until she can “have her own husband.
” (1 Corinthians 7:2) Yes, marriage mates truly belong to each other.
They can unitedly provide a wholesome and balanced family life for their children.—1 Peter 3:7; Ephesians 5:21-31; 6:1-4.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Polygamy in the Bible

God allowed polygamy for a time, as it contributed to the fulfillment of his promise to Abraham: “I shall make a great nation out of you.” (Genesis 12:2; Exodus 1:7) At that time, Abraham’s wife, Sarah, was childless.
Eventually, she pleaded with Abraham to produce offspring by her slave girl, Hagar. Interestingly, the Bible clearly describes the problems that this brought upon Abraham’s household.—Genesis 16:5, 6; 21:8-10.

As for Jacob, Abraham’s grandson, he intended to marry only one woman, Rachel. (Genesis 44:27) It was Jacob’s father-in-law, Laban, who tricked him into marrying both of Laban’s daughters, Rachel and Leah. (Genesis 29:21-28) And it was upon the urging of these wives that Jacob produced offspring by having relations with their maidservants, Bilhah and Zilpah. Again, the Bible does not hide the many problems polygamy brought upon Jacob’s large household.—Genesis 29:30, 31; 30:1-3, 15, 16, 20; 37:2-4; 44:20-29.

The Bible also records the story of Elkanah, who was the father of Samuel the prophet, and Elkanah’s two wives, Hannah and Peninnah. Hannah was treated so unkindly by Peninnah that she would often cry and lose her appetite. Peninnah, for her part, was apparently jealous because Elkanah showed more love for Hannah.—1 Samuel 1:4-7.

Indeed, the custom of polygamy has caused hardship. While it was tolerated among God’s ancient people, the Bible clearly shows whether God originally intended that man should be polygamous.

[miseretur]

yes I am aware of the importance of Islam.I can not know everything because I am not a Muslim, and my interest in religion as such has not been very high.
Yes I own the Koran, though it is not Arabic, but translated into Finnish, that is not the Koran, which some Muslims say
Is not the Muslim confession of faith make the difference, that over the allah is just one prophet.
Koran yes to defend Jesus, as opposed to what are doing Jewish texts such as Talmud, etc., etc.
The Jews really hate Jesus. a friend of mine was beaten up in Israel, when he spoke there, about Jesus.
And one friend of mine was beaten up in Turkey where he became a Christian, now he is a refugee with no homeland.

I apologize for the deliberately provocative to you.
I wanted to find out how to easily can Muslim get angry if I tell them the disadvantages of Mohammed.
In fact I get "mad" when someone common people explain me , how he has found the Bible secrets, when he has read the Dan Brown book da vinci code,
Here in Finland, almost half the Lutheran believes gnostilaisiin delusional doctrines and re incarnation.
Gnosticism has really come here to these new age movements involved.

When I did study as a book mentioned an interesting question.
if arian interpretation would be won, so the church would then be changed only in philosophical debate club.
Sometimes I wonder, could it be right that, what is question also about this forum?
In fact, I am concerned about the st john divine church, what that is doing in arian communion?
That movement is dangerous, I tell you...
but still dear muslim friend, bible tell us:
Rom 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live in peace with all people.

Lord be with you

[Hermes]

Originally Posted by miseretur

yes I am aware of the importance of Islam.I can not know everything because I am not a Muslim, and my interest in religion as such has not been very high.
Yes I own the Koran, though it is not Arabic, but translated into Finnish, that is not the Koran, which some Muslims say
Is not the Muslim confession of faith make the difference, that over the allah is just one prophet.
Koran yes to defend Jesus, as opposed to what are doing Jewish texts such as Talmud, etc., etc.
The Jews really hate Jesus. a friend of mine was beaten up in Israel, when he spoke there, about Jesus.
And one friend of mine was beaten up in Turkey where he became a Christian, now he is a refugee with no homeland.

I apologize for the deliberately provocative to you.
I wanted to find out how to easily can Muslim get angry if I tell them the disadvantages of Mohammed.
In fact I get "mad" when someone common people explain me , how he has found the Bible secrets, when he has read the Dan Brown book da vinci code,
Here in Finland, almost half the Lutheran believes gnostilaisiin delusional doctrines and re incarnation.
Gnosticism has really come here to these new age movements involved.

When I did study as a book mentioned an interesting question.
if arian interpretation would be won, so the church would then be changed only in philosophical debate club.
Sometimes I wonder, could it be right that, what is question also about this forum?
In fact, I am concerned about the st john divine church, what that is doing in arian communion?
That movement is dangerous, I tell you...
but still dear muslim friend, bible tell us:
Rom 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live in peace with all people.

Lord be with you

We've apparently read the same book. That man who wrote the question has been one of the most horrible sources on Arianism that I've seen, and if I remember correct, he's supposed to be a Lutheran ex-bishop. A bishop of the same church of which you said that almost half the members are mostly gnostic. Talk about the irony!

If he believes the early church was a "philosophical debate club" (which he doesn't, but rather calls his newer doctrine "tradition", even though it wasn't even taught in the early church), then he would be correct. Then again if the early church was a "philosophical debate club", then Lutherans are certainly on the correct path!

Then again, to be serious for a moment, people are criticizing the doctrines that have been spoon fed to them. I say that it's a very healthy thing. If people hadn't started it, then we would be worshipping Mary the Mother of God as a goddess and paying indulgences to Rome. We as human beings should never stop searching for what is true, even if the truth would lead us away from Christianity altogether. Otherwise we might as well give up our capability to observe and become parts of a mindless mass. There is a threat on the search to be lead away from what is true, but it's better rather than stay out of the truth by just being forced to believe whatever some feudal lord or a powerhungry religious leader wants you to believe.

[miseretur]

Seems to be the same book (Fredrik Nielsen. Church History 1913)
Lutheran was a time and a place in history. I think the faith cleaning was a good catalyst for future events.(reformation).
Lutheran theological weakest link is, the so-called two-regiment doctrine, the church has committed it's own hands and gave them to devil this world god, who is satan.
Joh 14:30 I will not talk with you much longer, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me

2Co 4:4 In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God.

Mainstream Christianity is like POLICY party that seeks only to keep the power which it is delivered, even if people are lost.
Many priests today do not differ in any way, a child who speaks only the angels and God
How stupid they are thinking that ordinary people are.
This responsibility is rotated until the end.
The same bug is Greek Orthodox and Catholic.
Sheep without shepherds , but who is the sheep here
The last scandalized what the Lutheran church did, it was that the Campaign logo was chosen, the picture which makes a woman's sex organ

Rev 17:5 On her forehead was written a secret name: "Babylon the Great, the Mother of Prostitutes and Detestable Things of the Earth."

all religions are exactly the same harlot.
but false christianity is the worst. I think....

[miseretur]

Studies on the Inspired Scriptures and Their Background

The Bible and Its Canon

The origin of the word “Bible”; determining which books rightfully belong in the Divine Library; rejection of the Apocrypha.

SINCE the inspired Scriptures are commonly referred to as the Bible, it is of interest to inquire into the origin and meaning of the word “Bible.” It is derived from the Greek word bi·bli´a, which means “little books.”
This, in turn, is derived from bi´blos, a word describing the inner part of the papyrus plant from which, in ancient times, a “paper” for writing was produced. (The Phoenician port of Gebal, through which papyrus was imported from Egypt, came to be called Byblos by the Greeks. See Joshua 13:5,) Various written communications upon this type of material became known by the word bi·bli´a. Thus, bi·bli´a came to describe any writings, scrolls, books, documents, or scriptures or even a library collection of little books.

2 Surprisingly, the word “Bible” itself generally is not found in the text of English or other-language translations of the Holy Scriptures. However, by the second century B.C.E., the collection of the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures was referred to as ta bi·bli´a in the Greek language. At Daniel 9:2 the prophet wrote: “I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books . . . ” Here the Septuagint has bi´blois, the dative plural form of bi´blos. At 2 Timothy 4:13, Paul wrote: “When you come, bring . . . the scrolls [Greek, bi·bli´a].” In their several grammatical forms, the Greek words bi·bli´on and bi´blos occur more than 40 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures and are usually translated “scroll(s)” or “book(s).” Bi·bli´a was later used in Latin as a singular word, and from the Latin, the word “Bible” came into the English language.

3 It Is God’s Word. While various men were used in the inspired writing of it and still others have shared in translating it from the original tongues into the written languages of today, the Bible is, in the fullest sense, God’s Word, his own inspired revelation to men. The inspired writers themselves viewed it this way, as is evidenced by their use of such phrases as “expression of Jehovah’s mouth” (Deut. 8:3), “sayings of Jehovah” (Josh. 24:27), “commandments of Jehovah” (Ezra 7:11), “law of Jehovah” (Ps. 19:7), “word of Jehovah” (Isa. 38:4), ‘utterance of Jehovah’ (Matt. 4:4), and “Jehovah’s word” (1 Thess. 4:15).

THE DIVINE LIBRARY

4 What man knows today as the Bible is in fact a collection of ancient divinely inspired documents. These were composed and compiled in written form over a period of 16 centuries. All together this collection of documents forms what Jerome well described in Latin as the Bibliotheca Divina, or the Divine Library. This library has a catalog, or official listing of publications, which is limited to those books pertaining to the scope and specialization of that library. All unauthorized books are excluded. God is the Great Librarian who sets the standard that determines which writings should be included. So the Bible has a fixed catalog that contains 66 books, all products of God’s guiding Holy spirit.

5 The collection, or list, of books accepted as genuine and inspired Scripture is often referred to as the Bible canon. Originally, the reed (Hebrew, qa·neh´) served as a measuring rod if a piece of wood was not at hand. The apostle Paul applied the Greek word ka·non´ to a “rule of conduct” as well as to the “territory” measured out as his assignment. (Gal. 6:16, footnote; 2 Cor. 10:13) So canonical books are those that are true and inspired and worthy to be used as a straightedge in determining the right faith, doctrine, and conduct. If we use books that are not “straight” as a plumb line, our “building” will not be true, and it will fail the test of the Master Surveyor.

6 Determining Canonicity. What are some of the divine indications that have determined the canonicity of the 66 books of the Bible? First of all, the documents must deal with Lord’s affairs in the earth, turning men to his worship and stimulating deep respect for his name and for his work and purposes in the earth. They must give evidence of inspiration, that is, that they are products of Holy spirit. (2 Pet. 1:21) There must be no appeal to superstition or creature worship but, rather, an appeal to love and service of God. There would have to be nothing in any of the individual writings that would conflict with the internal harmony of the whole, but, rather, each book must, by its unity with the others, support the one authorship, that of God. We would also expect the writings to give evidence of accuracy down to the smallest details. In addition to these basic essentials, there are other specific indications of inspiration, and therefore of canonicity, according to the nature of each book’s contents, and these have been discussed herein in the introductory material to each of the Bible books. Also, there are special circumstances that apply to the Hebrew Scriptures and others to the Christian Greek Scriptures that help in establishing the Bible canon.

THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES

7 It should not be thought that acceptance of what constituted inspired Scripture had to wait till the completion of the Hebrew canon in the fifth century B.C.E. The writings of Moses under the direction of God’s spirit were from the very beginning accepted by the Israelites as inspired, of divine authorship. When completed, the Pentateuch constituted the canon up to that time. Further revelations concerning Lord’s purposes given to men under inspiration would need to follow logically and be in harmony with the fundamental principles concerning true worship that are set forth in the Pentateuch. We have seen this to be true when we considered the different Bible books, especially as these deal directly with that grand theme of the Bible, the sanctification of Jehovah’s name and the vindication of his sovereignty by means of the Kingdom under Christ, the Promised Seed.

8 The Hebrew Scriptures, especially, abound with prophecy. God himself, through Moses, provided the basis for establishing the genuineness of prophecy, whether it was really from God or not, and this helped to determine the canonicity of a prophetic book. (Deut. 13:1-3; 18:20-22) An examination of each of the prophetic books of the Hebrew Scriptures along with the Bible as a whole and secular history establishes beyond doubt that “the word” they spoke was in Jehovah’s name, that it did “occur or come true,” either completely or in a miniature or partial way when it had to do with things yet future, and that it turned the people toward God. Meeting these requirements established the prophecy as being genuine and inspired.

9 Quotations by Jesus and the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures provide a direct way of establishing the canonicity of many of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures, although this measure is not applicable to all, for example, the books of Esther and Ecclesiastes. In considering the matter of canonicity, then, one other most important factor must be kept in mind, one that applies to the entire Bible canon. Just as God inspired men to write down his divine communications for their instruction, upbuilding, and encouragement in his worship and service, so it logically follows that Lord would direct and guide the collating of the inspired writings and the establishing of the Bible canon. He would do this so that there would be no doubt as to what made up his Word of truth and what would constitute the enduring measuring line of true worship. Indeed, only in this way could creatures on earth continue to be given ‘a new birth through the word of God’ and be able to testify that “the saying of Lord endures forever.”—1 Pet. 1:23, 25.

10 Establishing the Hebrew Canon. Jewish tradition credits Ezra with beginning the compiling and cataloging of the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, and it says that this was completed by Nehemiah. Ezra was certainly well equipped for such a work, being one of the inspired Bible writers himself as well as a priest, scholar, and official copyist of sacred writings. (Ezra 7:1-11) There is no reason to doubt the traditional view that the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was fixed by the end of the fifth century B.C.E.

11 We today list 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures; the traditional Jewish canon, while including these same books, counts them as 24. Some authorities, by putting Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah, counted the number of books as 22, though still holding to exactly the same canonical writings. This made the number of inspired books equal the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The following is the list of the 24 books according to the traditional Jewish canon:

The Law (The Pentateuch)

1. Genesis

2. Exodus

3. Leviticus

4. Numbers

5. Deuteronomy

The Prophets

6. Joshua

7. Judges

8. Samuel (First and Second together as one book)

9. Kings (First and Second together as one book)

10. Isaiah

11. Jeremiah

12. Ezekiel

13. The Twelve Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as one book)

The Writings (Hagiographa)

14. Psalms

15. Proverbs

16. Job

17. The Song of Solomon

18. Ruth

19. Lamentations

20. Ecclesiastes

21. Esther

22. Daniel

23. Ezra (Nehemiah was included with Ezra)

24. Chronicles (First and Second together as one book)

12 This was the catalog, or canon, that was accepted as inspired Scripture by Christ Jesus and the early Christian congregation. It was only from these writings that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted, and by introducing such quotations with expressions like “as it is written,” they confirmed these as being the Word of God. (Rom. 15:9) Jesus, in speaking of the complete inspired Scriptures written up till the time of his ministry, referred to the things recorded in “the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms.” (Luke 24:44) Here “Psalms,” as the first book of the Hagiographa, is used to refer to this whole section. The last historical book to be included in the Hebrew canon was that of Nehemiah.

That this was under the direction of God’s spirit is seen in that this book alone provides the starting point for reckoning Daniel’s outstanding prophecy that “from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem” until the coming of the Messiah there would be a period of 69 prophetic weeks. (Dan. 9:25; Neh. 2:1-8; 6:15) The book of Nehemiah also provides the historical background for the last of the prophetic books, Malachi. That Malachi belongs in the canon of the inspired Scriptures cannot be doubted, since even Jesus, the Son of God, quoted it a number of times. (Matt. 11:10, 14) While similar quotations are made from the majority of the books of the Hebrew canon, all of which were written prior to Nehemiah and Malachi, the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures make no quotations from any so-called inspired writings written after the time of Nehemiah and Malachi down to the time of Christ. This confirms the traditional view of the Jews, and also the belief of the Christian congregation of the first century C.E., that the Hebrew Scripture canon ended with the writings of Nehemiah and Malachi.

APOCRYPHAL BOOKS OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES

13 What are the Apocryphal books? These are the writings that some have included in certain Bibles but that have been rejected by others because they do not bear evidence of having been inspired by God. The Greek word a·po´kry·phos refers to things “carefully concealed.” (Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17; Col. 2:3) The term is applied to books of doubtful authorship or authority or those which, while considered to be of some value for personal reading, lacked evidence of divine inspiration. Such books were kept apart and not read publicly, hence the thought of “concealed.” At the Council of Carthage, in 397 C.E., it was proposed that seven of the Apocryphal books be added to the Hebrew Scriptures, along with additions to the canonical books of Esther and Daniel. However, it was not until as late as 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church definitely confirmed the acceptance of these additions into its catalog of Bible books. These additions were Tobit, Judith, additions to Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, three additions to Daniel, First Maccabees, and Second Maccabees.

14 The book of First Maccabees, while not in any way to be reckoned as an inspired book, contains information that is of historical interest. It gives an account of the struggle of the Jews for independence during the second century B.C.E. under the leadership of the priestly family of the Maccabees. The rest of the Apocryphal books are full of myths and superstitions and abound with errors. They were never referred to or quoted by Jesus or the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

15 The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, of the first century C.E., in his work Against Apion (I, 38-41 [8]), refers to all the books that were recognized by the Hebrews as sacred. He wrote: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of our 39 today, as is shown in paragraph 11], and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. . . . From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.” Thus Josephus shows that the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures had been fixed long before the first century C.E.

16 Biblical scholar Jerome, who completed the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible about 405 C.E., was quite definite in his position on the Apocryphal books. After listing the inspired books, using the same counting as Josephus, numbering the 39 inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures as 22, he writes in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings in the Vulgate: “Thus there are twenty-two books . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.”

[miseretur]

THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES

17 The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then, that is, not by the decree of any council, but by the direction of God’s holy spirit—the same spirit that inspired the writing of those books in the first place. The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized.

18 The Evidence of Early Catalogs. A glance at the accompanying chart reveals that a number of fourth-century catalogs of the Christian Scriptures, dated prior to the above-mentioned council, agree exactly with our present canon, and some others omit only Revelation. Before the end of the second century, there is universal acceptance of the four Gospels, Acts, and 12 of the apostle Paul’s letters. Only a few of the smaller writings were doubted in certain areas. Likely this was so because such writings were limited in their initial circulation for one reason or another and thus took longer to become accepted as canonical.

19 One of the most interesting early catalogs is the fragment discovered by L. A. Muratori in the Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy, and published by him in 1740. Though the beginning is missing, its reference to Luke as the third Gospel indicates that it first mentioned Matthew and Mark. The Muratorian Fragment, which is in Latin, dates to the latter part of the second century C.E. It is a most interesting document, as the following partial translation shows: “The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, wrote it in his own name . . . The fourth book of the Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. . . . And so to the faith of believers there is no discord, even although different selections are given from the facts in the individual books of the Gospels, because in all [of them] under the one guiding Spirit all the things relative to his nativity, passion, resurrection, conversation with his disciples, and his twofold advent, the first in the humiliation arising from contempt, which took place, and the second in the glory of kingly power, which is yet to come, have been declared. What marvel is it, then, if John adduces so consistently in his epistles these several things, saying in person: ‘what we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, those things we have written.
’ For thus he professes to be not only an eyewitness but also a hearer and narrator of all the wonderful things of the Lord, in their order. Moreover, the acts of all the apostles are written in one book. Luke [so] comprised them for the most excellent Theophilus . . . Now the epistles of Paul, what they are, whence or for what reason they were sent,
they themselves make clear to him who will understand.

First of all he wrote at length to the Corinthians to prohibit the schism of heresy, then to the Galatians [against] circumcision, and to the Romans on the order of the Scriptures, intimating also that Christ is the chief matter in them—each of which it is necessary for us to discuss, seeing that the blessed Apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name in the following order: to the Corinthians (first), to the Ephesians (second), to the Philippians (third), to the Colossians (fourth), to the Galatians (fifth), to the Thessalonians (sixth), to the Romans (seventh). But though he writes twice for the sake of correction to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, that there is one church diffused throughout the whole earth is shown [?i.e., by this sevenfold writing]; and John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, yet speaks to all. But [he wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy; [and these] are held sacred in the honorable esteem of the Church. . . . Further, an epistle of Jude and two bearing the name of John are counted . . . We receive the apocalypses of John and Peter only, which [latter] some of us do not wish to be read in church.”—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1956, Vol. VIII, page 56.

20 It is noted that toward the end of the Muratorian Fragment, mention is made of just two epistles of John. However, on this point the above-mentioned encyclopedia, page 55, notes that these two epistles of John “can only be the second and third, whose writer calls himself merely ‘the elder.’ Having already treated the first, though only incidentally, in connection with the Fourth Gospel, and there declared his unquestioning belief in its Johannine origin, the author felt able here to confine himself to the two smaller letters.” As to the apparent absence of any mention of Peter’s first epistle, this source continues: “The most probable hypothesis is that of the loss of a few words, perhaps a line, in which I Peter and the Apocalypse of John were named as received.

” Therefore, from the standpoint of the Muratorian Fragment, this encyclopedia, on page 56, concludes: “The New Testament is regarded as definitely made up of the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, the Apocalypse of John, probably three epistles of his, Jude, and probably I Peter, while the opposition to another of Peter’s writings was not yet silenced.”

21 Origen, about the year 230 C.E., accepted among the inspired Scriptures the books of Hebrews and James, both missing from the Muratorian Fragment. While he indicates that some doubted their canonical quality, this also shows that by this time, the canonicity of most of the Greek Scriptures was accepted, only a few doubting some of the less well-known epistles. Later, Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine acknowledged the conclusions of earlier lists by defining as the canon the same 27 books that we now have.

22 The majority of the catalogs in the chart are specific lists showing which books were accepted as canonical. Those of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen are completed from the quotations they made, which reveal how they regarded the writings referred to.

These are further supplemented from the records of the early historian Eusebius. However, the fact that these writers do not mention certain canonical writings does not argue against their canonicity.

It is just that they did not happen to refer to them in their writings either by choice or because of the subjects under discussion. But why do we not find exact lists earlier than the Muratorian Fragment?

23 It was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept. Marcion constructed his own canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Paul’s letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke.
This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by then spreading throughout the world, was what led to statements by catalogers as to which books they accepted as canonical.

24 Apocryphal Writings. Internal evidence confirms the clear division that was made between the inspired Christian writings and works that were spurious or uninspired. The Apocryphal writings are much inferior and often fanciful and childish. They are frequently inaccurate. Note the following statements by scholars on these noncanonical books:

“There is no question of any one’s having excluded them from the New Testament: they have done that for themselves.”—M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, pages xi, xii.

“We have only to compare our New Testament books as a whole with other literature of the kind to realize how wide is the gulf which separates them from it. The uncanonical gospels, it is often said, are in reality the best evidence for the canonical.”—G. Milligan, The New Testament Documents, page 228.

“It cannot be said of a single writing preserved to us from the early period of the Church outside the New Testament that it could properly be added to-day to the Canon.”—K. Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon, page 24.

25 Inspired Penmen. This further point is of interest. All the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures in one way or another were closely associated with the original governing body of the Christian congregation, which included apostles personally selected by Jesus. Matthew, John, and Peter were among the original 12 apostles, and Paul was later selected as an apostle but was not reckoned as one of the 12.

Although Paul was not present at the special outpouring of spirit at Pentecost, Matthew, John, and Peter were there, along with James and Jude and probably Mark. (Acts 1:14) Peter specifically counts the letters of Paul in with “the rest of the Scriptures.” (2 Pet. 3:15, 16) Mark and Luke were close associates and traveling companions of Paul and Peter. (Acts 12:25; 1 Pet. 5:13; Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11) All these writers were endowed with miraculous abilities by holy spirit, either by special outpouring as occurred at Pentecost and when Paul was converted (Acts 9:17, 18) or, no doubt as in the case of Luke, by the laying on of the apostles’ hands. (Acts 8:14-17) All the writing of the Christian Greek Scriptures was completed during the time that the special gifts of the spirit were operative.

26 Faith in the almighty God, who is the Inspirer and Preserver of his Word, makes us confident that he is the one who has guided the gathering together of its various parts.
So we confidently accept the 27 books of the Christian Greek Scriptures along with the 39 of the Hebrew Scriptures as the one Bible, by the one Author, Lord. His Word in its 66 books is our guide, and its entire harmony and balance testify to its completeness.
All praise to Lord, the Creator of this incomparable book! It can equip us completely and put our feet on the way to life.
Let us use it wisely at every opportunity.


Outstanding Early Catalogs of the Christian Greek Scriptures

A - Accepted without query as Scriptural and canonical

D - Doubted in certain quarters

DA - Doubted in certain quarters, but cataloger accepted it as
Scriptural and canonical

? - Scholars uncertain of the reading of the text or how a
book mentioned is viewed

- A blank space indicates that the book was not used or
mentioned by that authority

Name and Place

Muratorian Irenaeus, Clement of Tertullian,Fragment, Asia Minor Alexandria N. Africa Italy

Approximate Date C.E. 170 180 190 207

Matthew A A A A

Mark A A A A

Luke A A A A

John A A A A

Acts A A A A

Romans A A A A

1 Corinthians A A A A

2 Corinthians A A A A

Galatians A A A A

Ephesians A A A A

Philippians A A A A

Colossians A A A A

1 Thessalonians A A A A

2 Thessalonians A A A A

1 Timothy A A A A

2 Timothy A A A A

Titus A A A A

Philemon A A

Hebrews D DA DA

James ?

1 Peter A? A A A

2 Peter D? A

1 John A A DA A

2 John A A DA

3 John A?

Jude A

Revelation A A A A

Name and Place

Origen, Eusebius, Cyril of Cheltenham Alexandria Palestine Jerusalem List, N. Africa

Approximate Date C.E. 230 320 348 365

Matthew A A A A

Mark A A A A

Luke A A A A

John A A A A

Acts A A A A

Romans A A A A

1 Corinthians A A A A

2 Corinthians A A A A

Galatians A A A A

Ephesians A A A A

Philippians A A A A

Colossians A A A A

1 Thessalonians A A A A

2 Thessalonians A A A A

1 Timothy A A A A

2 Timothy A A A A

Titus A A A A

Philemon A A A A

Hebrews DA DA A

James DA DA A

1 Peter A A A A

2 Peter DA DA A D

1 John A A A A

2 John DA DA A D

3 John DA DA A D

Jude DA DA A

Revelation A DA A

Name and Place

Athanasius, Epiphanius, Gregory Amphilocius, Alexandria Palestine Nazianzus, Asia Minor Asia Minor

Approximate Date C.E. 367 368 370 370

Matthew A A A A

Mark A A A A

Luke A A A A

John A A A A

Acts A A A A

Romans A A A A

1 Corinthians A A A A

2 Corinthians A A A A

Galatians A A A A

Ephesians A A A A

Philippians A A A A

Colossians A A A A

1 Thessalonians A A A A

2 Thessalonians A A A A

1 Timothy A A A A

2 Timothy A A A A

Titus A A A A

Philemon A A A A

Hebrews A A A DA

James A A A A

1 Peter A A A A

2 Peter A A A D

1 John A A A A

2 John A A A D

3 John A A A D

Jude A A A D

Revelation A DA D

Name and Place

Philaster, Jerome, Augustine, Third Italy Italy N. Africa Council of Carthage, N. Africa

Approximate Date C.E. 383 394 397 397

Matthew A A A A

Mark A A A A

Luke A A A A

John A A A A

Acts A A A A

Romans A A A A

1 Corinthians A A A A

2 Corinthians A A A A

Galatians A A A A

Ephesians A A A A

Philippians A A A A

Colossians A A A A

1 Thessalonians A A A A

2 Thessalonians A A A A

1 Timothy A A A A

2 Timothy A A A A

Titus A A A A

Philemon A A A A

Hebrews DA DA A A

James A DA A A

1 Peter A A A A

2 Peter A DA A A

1 John A A A A

2 John A DA A A

3 John A DA A A

Jude A DA A A

Revelation DA DA A A

[Postulare42]

I came across this site a few weeks ago. Interesting, I think.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

[miseretur]

Originally Posted by Postulare42

I came across this site a few weeks ago. Interesting, I think.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

These skeptics are allways doupting the Bible. Thanks for the Link still.
Here finland they are called "Free thinkers" yeah right, they thinking is so close to marxsism. It is nice allways to hear them, bacause, they accept all kind of thinks but not a Christian faith... Hmmm some where in bible these kind of guys are called, anti christ, and devils childs
These are the children of wrath and are the enemies of all good.
they claim to love, but at the same time they accept the murders of children (abortion) and they hate marriage. All what they say about love, is secular love (earthly) they love money, and pleasures more than God, who is also they Father, but they have reject him, and follow act´s of satan.
They look like good peoples, they do not have criminal record. They vote every election and they have liberal ideas, that all must be Equal. They give poors only because they have so much to give, but they give only what eyes see, thet not comes from heart, because they heart is empty, there is no love. If you do good but you dont have Jesus in your hearts your acts are empty, what you show God in the Judgement day? Your deeds?
Hah, Christians show only Christ, bacause we dont have eneyone else to show... am i right? this is basick steps of road of faith.


1.Co 2:12-15.
Now, we have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who comes from God, so that we can understand the things that were freely given to us by God.

We don't speak about these things in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, as we explain spiritual things to spiritual people.

A person who isn't spiritual doesn't accept the things of God's Spirit, for they are nonsense to him. He can't understand them because they are spiritually evaluated.

The spiritual person evaluates everything but is subject to no one else's evaluation.

2.Co 4:3-4.
So if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are dying.
In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God.

1.Jn 2:22. Who is a liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ? The person who denies the Father and the Son is the antichrist.