Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why has the Bible not been added to? | Bible general Archive 2 | kandrews | 108601 | ||
I had a question posed to me recently that I couldn't really answer. Why has the Bible not been added to in recent years. Who decided that that was the end of all word that is "God breathed?" | ||||||
2 | Why has the Bible not been added to? | Bible general Archive 2 | Emmaus | 108602 | ||
kandrews, "Who decided that that was the end of all word that is "God breathed?" " The bishops of the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, (John 16:3) in Councils which determined which books were of Apostolic origin and and constituted divinely insired revelation and were therefore Sacred Scripture. Other contending manuscripts were rejected as not divinely inspired revelation. The earliest list of the Canon of Scripture as we know it today was given at the Council of Hippo in North Africa in 393 A.D. Public Revelation ended with the death of the last of Apostles who were eye witnesses to Jesus Christ who is the Rvelation of God. Emmaus |
||||||
3 | Why has the Bible not been added to? | Bible general Archive 2 | context | 108622 | ||
You state:"Public Revelation ended with the death of the last of Apostles who were eye witnesses to Jesus Christ who is the Rvelation of God." For your information this is not true. Mark was an apostle of Peter and never met Christ. Luke never met Christ and was not one of the original Twelve he was a desciple of Pauls. Most importantly the majority of "orthodox" thought is based upon the words of Paul,a man who claimed a vision and wrote his views via letters to already established churches. Paul came some time after Christ death and was never truly accepted by the 12. Paul and Peter were in considerable conflict on many issues the major being the law and subsequently grace. |
||||||
4 | Why has the Bible not been added to? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 108624 | ||
For your information, most of your assertions are not true. That Mark or Luke had never met Christ does not alter the fact that after the death of the last apostle there was no new revelation. The canon of the New Testament and of the entire Bible was complete. Paul didn't claim a vision. According to the Bible, he had a vision. Paul did not write his "views" to any churches. The churches he wrote to were churches he himself had established. They were not already established. If you're saying that the writings of Paul were in conflict with the writings of Peter, you couldn't be more mistaken. God's Word is never in conflict with itself. |
||||||
5 | Why has the Bible not been added to? | Bible general Archive 2 | context | 108631 | ||
Yet again you speak without knowledge on this issue. Paul rebukes Peter in Antioch. Soon after the Jerusalem Conference mentioned in Act 15:1-35, Paul chastised Peter (Cephas) in Antioch for his hypocrisy. At the time both Peter and Paul had been in Antioch, and both Peter and Paul had been eating together with the Gentiles, which was contrary to Jewish law but consistent with Christian justification by living faith rather than justification by ritual acts. When the disciples of James (Jesus' brother) arrived in Antioch, Peter disassociated himself from his earlier unprejudiced acceptance of the Gentiles of the Antioch church. In Gal 2:12 Paul said that Peter "drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles, because he was afraid" of the more Jewish-oriented followers of James who favored circumcision and strict adherence to Jewish law. Paul then publicly rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy. As Paul stated in Gal 2::11 (TEV), "I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong." In Gal 2:13 (TEV) Paul also expressed disappointment that "even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly action." | ||||||
6 | Why has the Bible not been added to? | Bible general Archive 2 | EdB | 108633 | ||
I'm not sure what you accusing Kalos of doing. He never said Paul and Peter didn't have an argument. They did but in later writings by both we see the matter settled. Your accusation that Mark never saw Jesus is without proof. In fact early church fathers stated Mark was the young man that fled when Jesus was arrested as reported in Mark 14:51-52. While your right to some extent about Luke his book was written and completed within the life time of all the Apostles. Luke declared his writing to be a testimony of eye witnesses not his account. Had that not been the case any one of the apostles could have said as much. As for Paul your right at the time of Jesus he was not an Apostle though is possible he was a witness to much that occurred. In any case scripture attests to his Apostleship and if again if any had objected I’m sure ;they would have said as much. By the way are you our old friend Chochma? EdB |
||||||
7 | Why has the Bible not been added to? | Bible general Archive 2 | justme | 108660 | ||
EdB: This has a very fimular ring, and I think you may well be right about the idenity change. Perhaps it's a personality change? Most would say Mark was the one who took off naked. Jesus hinmself called Luke, this is some wild uneducated person who knows how to type and spell. At least I have som "learning", I may not spell at the top of my class but I know when I am right! Just ask me! Blessings Ed. justme |
||||||