Saang talata sa biblia nakasulat na ang salita ng Dios binubuo ng 66 na libro?

[SmartDessa]

Thanks for your honesty that you GOT IT FROM US CATHOLICS and not from Scripture. So it is clear that you didn't get it from scripture.

the way or the method to discern which books are inspired is written in the scriptures.

but there was no direct verse in the Bible that says it was only 66 or it is 73.

it's not about exacting how many books should be added, the reason why it came to 66 is because the 66 which were taken out from the 73 were considered inspired, the other 7 deuteros are just not inspired.

we thank the catholic church (not the religion) that they gave us these 66 books, and indeed these 66 books in turn shows us coherence with each other, and can give an impact to our salvation. the deuteros just doesn't have the Spirit in them to inspire and bring us to God, it's just mere text and history.

We don't have to justify our answer through scripture alone - we aren't sola scriptura practitioners. We hold on to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church founded by Christ which established for us the canon of scripture at 73 books.

well, you are instead sola tradisyonalista.
and what does the Bible tells about tradition of men?

So a follow-up question - where did you get in scripture that 7 books should be subtracted from the 73 catholic canon of scripture of the catholics? What is your biblical basis? What verse?

this is just the same question with the first, refer to my answer above.

This doesn't answer the question and this is contrary to what you were saying previously - you got it from catholics.

I am not proving anything, by mentioning about Isaiah's 66 chapters. It is just interesting to know some facts. Like take for example Malachi, the ending of Malachi is also about John the baptist.

anyway, let me dive in to your deuteros and I will pray to the Spirit to guide me, hopefully these deuteros would inspire my spirit and has the power to change and save souls.

So it is clear that you have no biblical basis for your 66 book canon of scripture and this goes against the principle of sola scriptura. Your teaching/doctrine therefore should be discarded by your own principles since doctrines for you should be at all times supported by scripture - and there isn't any in this case.

first, avoid stereotyping people, not all non-catholics subscribe to the common description of sola scriptura.

we not only need the accurate truth without, but also the living sense within.

secondly, determine the real definition of sola scriptura, sola scriptura does not entail us to limit God in the Word.

lastly, try to understand that it is erroneous to say that discerning which is inspired book of the Bible is entirely confined in what the scriptures say, but what the Spirit say as well. The scriptures serves as a validation whether what we say we received from the Spirit, is really from Him, because the Spirit and the Word are ONE.

[flewen]

the way or the method to discern which books are inspired is written in the scriptures.

but you did not tell to us where in the Bible that the official list must be 66?

but there was no direct verse in the Bible that says it was only 66 or it is 73.

amen!, you admitted the fact that there's no direct verse in the bible about the numbering of books to be put on it, but then why you still adhered to Luther's denial of those books?

it's not about exacting how many books should be added, the reason why it came to 66 is because the 66 which were taken out from the 73 were considered inspired, the other 7 deuteros are just not inspired.

who said that the deuterocanonicals are not inspired. The Bible did not even mention their incapability of being inspired.

we thank the catholic church (not the religion)

you cannot separate the True Church from being a religion.

that they gave us these 66 books, and indeed these 66 books in turn shows us coherence with each other, and can give an impact to our salvation. the deuteros just doesn't have the Spirit in them to inspire and bring us to God, it's just mere text and history.

what you said about 66 books is a mere shadow of ignorance. The Catholic Church did not limit the canon of the books into 66-alone, the final list of books were even not on that counting, only protestants followed the initial numbering, but not the final list of it.

well, you are instead sola tradisyonalista.
and what does the Bible tells about tradition of men?

Catholics are not sola-tradition. We (Catholics) are Sola Verbum Dei---meaning Only God's Word (both Oral and written). The Bible itself is clear " (2 Thess. 2:14-15). How about sola scriptura? none!

this is just the same question with the first, refer to my answer above.

I am not proving anything, by mentioning about Isaiah's 66 chapters. It is just interesting to know some facts. Like take for example Malachi, the ending of Malachi is also about John the baptist.

so you are just concocting events that are not related, isn't it?

anyway, let me dive in to your deuteros and I will pray to the Spirit to guide me, hopefully these deuteros would inspire my spirit and has the power to change and save souls.

then read it.

first, avoid stereotyping people, not all non-catholics subscribe to the common description of sola scriptura.

so the question for you: What is your personal description of sola scriptura?

Is your definition about that practice biblical and historical? please provide resources.

we not only need the accurate truth without, but also the living sense within.

that's why it is better to get your facts straight.

secondly, determine the real definition of sola scriptura, sola scriptura does not entail us to limit God in the Word.

but sola-scriptura in the literal sense means "SCRIPTURE-ALONE" meaning, anything that goes written-alone. Tell me, where can we find the real meaning of sola scriptura?

lastly, try to understand that it is erroneous to say that discerning which is inspired book of the Bible is entirely confined in what the scriptures say, but what the Spirit say as well. The scriptures serves as a validation whether what we say we received from the Spirit, is really from Him, because the Spirit and the Word are ONE.

so in that case, why did you reject the 7 deuteros, did the Bible says they aren't inspired?

[froshie1]

nagkakaalaman na!

[nikeairviturin]

O mga evangelicals, asan na ang talata?

kala ko ba sola scriptura?

[ElCid]

the way or the method to discern which books are inspired is written in the scriptures.

Which verses? And could you prove that these would point to the 66 book canon of the evangelicals and protestants?

but there was no direct verse in the Bible that says it was only 66 or it is 73.

So how could you then assert that the bible is only 66 books instead of 73?

it's not about exacting how many books should be added, the reason why it came to 66 is because the 66 which were taken out from the 73 were considered inspired, the other 7 deuteros are just not inspired.

Where in scripture do we find that the 7 books you took out from the 73 original books that the church considered as inspired aren't inspired?

we thank the catholic church (not the religion) that they gave us these 66 books, and indeed these 66 books in turn shows us coherence with each other, and can give an impact to our salvation. the deuteros just doesn't have the Spirit in them to inspire and bring us to God, it's just mere text and history.

The catholic church didn't give you only 66 books - it gave you 73 and you TOOK OUT 7 BOOKS. If Luther had his way he would've taken four more books out of the NT and you would be here arguing for 23 book N.T. canon:

Martin Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists — such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus — and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

well, you are instead sola tradisyonalista.and what does the Bible tells about tradition of men?

Ironically, the same tradition of men you despise is the same tradition of men which you used to establish your own canon of scripture so please spare me this tirade against tradition such is just hypocrisy on the part of evangelicals and protestants. And this is a strawman argument. We are not sola traditionalistas. Our authority as regards our faith is the scriptures, tradition and the teaching authority of the body of Christ - the church.

this is just the same question with the first, refer to my answer above.

I am not proving anything, by mentioning about Isaiah's 66 chapters. It is just interesting to know some facts. Like take for example Malachi, the ending of Malachi is also about John the baptist.

Irrelevant and pure conjecture.

anyway, let me dive in to your deuteros and I will pray to the Spirit to guide me, hopefully these deuteros would inspire my spirit and has the power to change and save souls.

Now you seem to imply that inspiration is dependent on how the book strikes you. Does that mean that the book's inspiration depends on how it affects you? Have you arrogated for yourself the authority of the entire body of Christ?

first, avoid stereotyping people, not all non-catholics subscribe to the common description of sola scriptura.

So are you now telling me that you have your own description of sola scriptura which isn't common? :P. How many versions of SS are there? On whose or what authority do you define your own version of SS?

we not only need the accurate truth without, but also the living sense within.

secondly, determine the real definition of sola scriptura, sola scriptura does not entail us to limit God in the Word.

So where do you find that in scripture? How can you now tell us the Scripture is YOUR FINAL AND SUPREME authority when you now say otherwise? So where else do we find God's teachings aside from Scripture?

lastly, try to understand that it is erroneous to say that discerning which is inspired book of the Bible is entirely confined in what the scriptures say, but what the Spirit say as well. The scriptures serves as a validation whether what we say we received from the Spirit, is really from Him, because the Spirit and the Word are ONE.

First, so now you're telling me that Sola Scriptura is wrong? Since you now state that IT IS ERRONEOUS TO SAY THAT DISCERNING WHICH IS INSPIRED BOOK OF THE BIBLE IS ENTIRELY CONFINED IN WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY?

Second, are you saying that there is another source of teaching which you claim come from your discernment of the 'spirit' and this may or may not be coming from God and needs validation of scripture? If such is the case, how could you now 'trust' this discernment to determine what books composes scripture if you need scripture in the first place to validate the discernment?

[ElCid]

Masama daw ang tradition ng tao lalo na tradition catolica. Fine. Sa biblia lamang dapat umasa at ang biblia lamang ang TANGI, SUPREME AT FINAL AUTHORITY - hooookey :P.

Sige paki labas kung saang talata mababasa na ang Salita ng Dios 66 books tulad ng tinitindigan ng mga ebanghelico protestante. Huag maging hipocrito - gamitin ang aral at gamitin ang biblia sa pagsagot tulad ng inyong paniniwala at paninidigan.

[ElCid]

Sa mga ebanghelico, protestante, at kaanib ng iba't iba pang mga sectang cristiano na gumagamit ng biblia lamang bilang prinsipyo sa pananampalataya baket di niyo sagutin ang tanong nitong thread na ito?

[Ateo]

ElCid's position here is unassailable and the pro-Sola-Scriptura position appears wobbly. If the Bible is the highest, nay, the ONLY authority on faith here on Earth, where in the Bible did it say what it should contain? There is a crucial questions between the canonical list is unsettled, with the Catholic and Protestant, and even the Jewish list of the OT all different from each other. It turns out the the Protestant basis for its canon is not from the Bible from their own tradition and discernment. They used their tradition and analysis to produce a list of supremely authoritative books. They did something that is impossible in logic and in physics -- they made water to rise higher than its source.

[SmartDessa]

Which verses? And could you prove that these would point to the 66 book canon of the evangelicals and protestants?

So how could you then assert that the bible is only 66 books instead of 73?

Where in scripture do we find that the 7 books you took out from the 73 original books that the church considered as inspired aren't inspired?

again, there is no verse that says its 66, so is there a verse that says 73?

goodness, this argument is pointless, i don't even understand why you keep on asking it.

The catholic church didn't give you only 66 books - it gave you 73 and you TOOK OUT 7 BOOKS. If Luther had his way he would've taken four more books out of the NT and you would be here arguing for 23 book N.T. canon:

Martin Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists — such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus — and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola scriptura and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

yeah, well that's history, we have to look at what is now instead of were.

Ironically, the same tradition of men you despise is the same tradition of men which you used to establish your own canon of scripture so please spare me this tirade against tradition such is just hypocrisy on the part of evangelicals and protestants.

yeah, hypocrisy on the part of evangelicals and protestants.

And this is a strawman argument. We are not sola traditionalistas. Our authority as regards our faith is the scriptures, tradition and the teaching authority of the body of Christ - the church.

oh? even if you just put tradition as part of a 3, still the other 2 is rooted on tradition.

authority that is based on tradition
assembly that is based on tradition

one can't deny that tradition is so precious to the RC that even the the word sacrament is just another word for tradition.

Irrelevant and pure conjecture.

yet compelling and edifying.

Now you seem to imply that inspiration is dependent on how the book strikes you. Does that mean that the book's inspiration depends on how it affects you? Have you arrogated for yourself the authority of the entire body of Christ?

how else?
but then you have to misrepresent me by saying that I am the only one arrogant to have the right to say which book is which.

authority is meaningless if it does not save souls, if it does not bring us to righteosuness, if it does not teach us, edify us, build the church.

maybe that's what Luther didnt saw in his time, how the church was degraded and abused its authority.

the sole authority is from the Spirit passed on to the church. and you and I am a member of this church.

So are you now telling me that you have your own description of sola scriptura which isn't common? :P. How many versions of SS are there? On whose or what authority do you define your own version of SS?

heck I don't even give so much of a deal about Sola Scriptura, why don't you tell me what is SS to you, and how it agrees with protestant SS?

all I'm saying, I am more of a Spirit person, instead of a Bible only person.
the inspiration comes from the Spirit, and the Bible just tells us if it's authentic and agrees with what was passed on (not necessarily tradition)

So where do you find that in scripture? How can you now tell us the Scripture is YOUR FINAL AND SUPREME authority when you now say otherwise? So where else do we find God's teachings aside from Scripture?

I didn't say those BOLDED WORDS. goodness, how you Romans love to stereotype non-Romans

First, so now you're telling me that Sola Scriptura is wrong? Since you now state that IT IS ERRONEOUS TO SAY THAT DISCERNING WHICH IS INSPIRED BOOK OF THE BIBLE IS ENTIRELY CONFINED IN WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY?

if that is the argument, yeah sure, given that you have clearly defined what SS means.

Second, are you saying that there is another source of teaching which you claim come from your discernment of the 'spirit' and this may or may not be coming from God and needs validation of scripture? If such is the case, how could you now 'trust' this discernment to determine what books composes scripture if you need scripture in the first place to validate the discernment?

bro, without the Spirit in the spirit, the scriptures are dead, how can one be inspired in a living way if not be filled by the Spirit and proved by the Word?

if the Spirit is in the spirit, it follows that the "teaching" is biblical.
if the teaching is not "biblical", then the teaching is not from the Spirit.

even if the teaching came from the Bible, and yet does not edify, does not inspire, does not save, that teaching is dead. The Spirit was given to us to comfort us, to continue what the Lord Jesus did for the building of the church.

a doctrine, even if it is full proof biblical, but does not save, does not build up, is dead doctrine. biblical, but dead.

God has no part in deadness.

[SmartDessa]

Masama daw ang tradition ng tao lalo na tradition catolica. Fine. Sa biblia lamang dapat umasa at ang biblia lamang ang TANGI, SUPREME AT FINAL AUTHORITY - hooookey :P.

Sige paki labas kung saang talata mababasa na ang Salita ng Dios 66 books tulad ng tinitindigan ng mga ebanghelico protestante. Huag maging hipocrito - gamitin ang aral at gamitin ang biblia sa pagsagot tulad ng inyong paniniwala at paninidigan.

indeed, some prots and denoms say that tradition is wrong, and yet the Bible became their tradition, they even had their own traditional creeds.

we can't say that tradition is wrong, or watching TV is wrong, or cheering for the Askals is wrong.

heck you can have all the watchamakolit tradition you want, but the important thing to consider here is that these tradition is not needed.

Christ have replaced these traditions.

[ElCid]

again, there is no verse that says its 66, so is there a verse that says 73?

goodness, this argument is pointless, i don't even understand why you keep on asking it.

That is exactly the point! Thank you for the frank admission. How can you now say that it isn't 73 books when it is clear that there is nothing in scripture which says that the bible is 66 books?

Ironically, the protestant/evangelical 66 book canon has no scriptural basis. And there is also no scriptural warrant for the protestants/evangelical taking out 7 books out of the 73 catholic canon of scriptures which has been used by the christian communities around the world for more than 1,500 years until Luther came.

yeah, well that's history, we have to look at what is now instead of were.

That's history THAT CLEARLY SHOWS how ARBITRARY, WHIMSICAL and how UNBIBLICAL the actions of protestants/evangelicals like Martin Luther could be since they have no biblical warrant for taking out 7 books out of the O.T. and how they almost took out 4 more books from the N.T.! How can you now trust the 66 book canon of scripture of the prots?

yeah, hypocrisy on the part of evangelicals and protestants.

What? Another frank admission? No defense? :P

oh? even if you just put tradition as part of a 3, still the other 2 is rooted on tradition.

authority that is based on tradition
assembly that is based on tradition

one can't deny that tradition is so precious to the RC that even the the word sacrament is just another word for tradition.

We aren't denying it - we are actually proud of it. It is by our tradition for example that you had knowledge of the 27 book N.T. canon - what's so bad about that? I don't know how and why the word sacrament and tradition became a bad word for protestants and evangelicals. The bible is a tradition itself - it is something which is passed down from one generation to the next and sacrament is just a word for visible signs of invisible grace - what's wrong about that as well? Tradition therefore should be PRECIOUS to a christian of other denominations and not only to the Roman Catholics. But how could newly invented sects treasure traditions that they don't have simply because they can't have traditions by virtue of their novelty?

yet compelling and edifying.

And sad to say - useless since it doesn't answer the question.

how else?
but then you have to misrepresent me by saying that I am the only one arrogant to have the right to say which book is which.

authority is meaningless if it does not save souls, if it does not bring us to righteosuness, if it does not teach us, edify us, build the church. maybe that's what Luther didnt saw in his time, how the church was degraded and abused its authority.

the sole authority is from the Spirit passed on to the church. and you and I am a member of this church.

[/quote]

I never said you were ARROGANT. I said how come you have ARROGATED FOR YOURSELF the authority which belongs to the entire body of Christ?

heck I don't even give so much of a deal about Sola Scriptura, why don't you tell me what is SS to you, and how it agrees with protestant SS?

Obviously we don't subscribe to the heresy you call sola scriptura. It is self refuting and useless as has been demonstrated. No orthodox christian ever practiced it prior to the heresy of Martin Luther. It never was practiced by Christ nor the apostles. No ECF ever subscribed to it. So now tell me how it agrees with your protestant SS?

all I'm saying, I am more of a Spirit person, instead of a Bible only person.
the inspiration comes from the Spirit, and the Bible just tells us if it's authentic and agrees with what was passed on (not necessarily tradition)

You aren't making any sense. How can you rely on the inspiration of the 'spirit' when you need the bible to discern if the inspiration is authentic? But how would you know what comprises the bible in the first place? By inspiration? Which in turn needs the bible to authenticate it? Do you now see that your position is untenable? That you need scripture to validate if your spiritual discernment is from God. But how could you validate it if you don't know what composes scripture in the first place? You cannot therefore use your 'discernment' of the spirit in determining the canon of scripture since it will need the very thing it is trying to prove.

I didn't say those BOLDED WORDS. goodness, how you Romans love to stereotype non-Romans

So now are you saying that there are other sources of authority and doctrine for christians aside from scripture? And are you saying that scripture isn't your final and supreme authority?

if that is the argument, yeah sure, given that you have clearly defined what SS means.

Now it is clear you aren't sure what your authority is as far as doctrine and faith is concerned.

bro, without the Spirit in the spirit, the scriptures are dead, how can one be inspired in a living way if not be filled by the Spirit and proved by the Word?

if the Spirit is in the spirit, it follows that the "teaching" is biblical.
if the teaching is not "biblical", then the teaching is not from the Spirit.

even if the teaching came from the Bible, and yet does not edify, does not inspire, does not save, that teaching is dead. The Spirit was given to us to comfort us, to continue what the Lord Jesus did for the building of the church.

a doctrine, even if it is full proof biblical, but does not save, does not build up, is dead doctrine. biblical, but dead.

God has no part in deadness.

You aren't interacting with my argument. So let me break it down for you:

First you were talking about a 'discernment' of the spirit apart from scripture which may or may not come from God.

Second, you need scripture to validate that discernment.

The question is: how could you now 'trust' this discernment to determine what books composes scripture if you need scripture in the first place to validate the discernment?

Let me make it easy for you - you cannot trust your discernment since you need scripture to validate the discernment. So your pre-requisit is scripture. You cannot therefore use your discernment even if it comes from spirit to determine what scripture is since you need the latter to validate the discernment.

First, it is clear therefore that you have no basis for accepting and for teaching a 66 book canon of scripture since you have already admitted that it isn't in scripture - the only, final and supreme authority for protestants and evangelicals.

Second, you cannot validate your discernment of your spirit to determine what scripture is since you can't determine what scripture is in the first place. You therefore 'trust' the TRADITION of men that you despise to determine what scripture is thus making THE SAME TRADITION that you despise AN AUTHORITY other than scripture since it is TRADITION which validates and determines for you what scripture is and thus breaking the leg of Sola Scriptura since obviously, scripture now can't be the only authority since you rely on others to determine what scripture is. How can the bible now be the only, final and supreme authority when there are other authorities required to know what the Bible is in the first place?

Third, how can something despised and 'fallible' like human tradition give rise to something infallible like the canon of scripture? In short, how can something fallible give rise to something infallible? Tell me.

[ElCid]

Ngayon lumalabas napaka subjective talaga ng evangelicalismo/ protestantismo. Ngayong di nila madepensahan ang 66 book canon gamit ang biblia - sa espirito naman ng Dios ang takbo na parang may personal access sila sa espirito santo. Sabagay 'spirit' lang naman ang termino ginagamit :P

Ngayon malinaw personal interpretation lang talaga ang sinusunod nila. Hindi totoo na ang biblia ang only, final at supreme authority ng mga ebanghelico/protestante sa mga bagay na may kinalaman sa pananampalataya. Marami pa silang autoridad sa labas ng biblia pangunahin na yung sarili nilang pagkakaunawa at yung sarili nilang discernment ng tinatawag nilang 'spirit' na di naman sila nakasisiguro kung sa Dios. Di ba kayo kinikilabutan?

So ano dapat natin matutunan dito? Dapat pagtiwalaan niyo mga iglesia na apostolica o galing sa mga apostol. Dahil dito malalaman ang aral galing kay Cristo. Yun ang sukatan ng mga unang cristiano kung dapat paniwalaan ang aral o hindi dahil yung banal na kasulatan mismo hindi naman malalaman kung ano gamit lang ang biblia. Kaya kayo mag-ingat sa kung ano anong espirito na ang aral nasa labas na ng katawan ni Cristo. Wala din sa biblia.

[OrionPax]

Question: What AUTHORITY does Luther have in coming up with 66 books?

Answer: NONE

Ergo: 66 list of books is a "PSEUDO" canon based on FENCE SITTING

Its just a choice of 73 books (Christian) or 24 OT books (Jews)

So are you a Christian (73 books) or a Jew (24 books)??

66 books does NOT make you any of the TWO

[thoth]

makisingit lang po. Ilan po ba talaga ang ginamit na holy books nung mga naunang kristyano? Sinu sino ba nag desisyon para maging 73 books ang tamang bilang?

[OrionPax]

In about 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was finally approved by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD, and was formally approved by the Church Council of Rome in that same year. Later Councils at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) ratified this list of 73 books.

The Council of Hippo refers to the synod of 393 which was hosted in Hippo Regius in northern Africa during the early Christian Church.

For the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a canon of Sacred Scripture that corresponds to the modern Roman Catholic canon

This canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage pending the ratification of the "Church across the sea", that is, Rome.


In 405 AD, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse reaffirming this canon of 73 books.

In 419 AD, the Council of Carthage reaffirmed this list, which Pope Boniface agreed to. The Council issued a canon of the Bible quoted as, "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and one book of the Apocalypse of John."

The Council of Trent, in 1546, in response to the Reformation removing 7 books from the canon, reaffirmed the original St. Athanasius list of 73 books that were previously approved in the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage

makisingit lang po. Ilan po ba talaga ang ginamit na holy books nung mga naunang kristyano? Sinu sino ba nag desisyon para maging 73 books ang tamang bilang?

[thoth]

In about 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was finally approved by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD, and was formally approved by the Church Council of Rome in that same year. Later Councils at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) ratified this list of 73 books.

The Council of Hippo refers to the synod of 393 which was hosted in Hippo Regius in northern Africa during the early Christian Church.

For the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a canon of Sacred Scripture that corresponds to the modern Roman Catholic canon

This canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage pending the ratification of the "Church across the sea", that is, Rome.


In 405 AD, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse reaffirming this canon of 73 books.

In 419 AD, the Council of Carthage reaffirmed this list, which Pope Boniface agreed to. The Council issued a canon of the Bible quoted as, "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and one book of the Apocalypse of John."

The Council of Trent, in 1546, in response to the Reformation removing 7 books from the canon, reaffirmed the original St. Athanasius list of 73 books that were previously approved in the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage

Salamat OrionPax.

So meron palang mga pinagpilian bago nakapag desisyon ng 73 books. Meron ba nakaka alam kung ilan ang mga pinagpilian at ilan ang binale walang mga libro?

Tanong ko sa mga Protestante, aling mga aral dun sa 7 books ang hindi nyo matanggap?

Sa mga INC, ilang books ba ng bibliya ang ginagamit nyo sa pangangaral nyo? Yung 73 o yung 66?

Salamat sa mga sasagot.

[OrionPax]

Books excluded from the Canon??
These books almost made the canon but were later were relegated and classified as part of the "Patristic" Writings

• Shepherd of Hermas
• The Letter of Clement I (Pope Clement)
• The Didache or the Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations
• First Apology by Justin Martyr

Books NOT in the Catholic Canon but included in Orthodox and Ethiophian Orthodox Canons

• 1 Esdras
• 2 Esdras
• Prayer of Manasseh
• Psalm 151
• 3 Maccabees
• 4 Maccabees
• Odes
• 1-3 Meqabyan
• Paralipomena of Baruch

The list below are the books deemed GNOSTIC, heretical or Semetic in content

• Q Source
• The Acts of Paul
• The Acts of Pilate
• The Gospel of the Hebrews
• The Life of Adam and Eve
• The Book of Jubilees
• The Gospel of Mani
• The Gospel of Basilides
• The Book of Enoch
• The Gospel of Thomas
• The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
• The Gospel of Mary
• The Gospel of Nicodemus
• The Apocalypse of Peter
• The Gospel of Judas

and many more

Salamat OrionPax.

So meron palang mga pinagpilian bago nakapag desisyon ng 73 books. Meron ba nakaka alam kung ilan ang mga pinagpilian at ilan ang binale walang mga libro?

[bobbycc]

There are also other books not mentioned here like ... "The Book of Jasher".

This was twice mentioned in the Bible Joshua 10:13 "Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?" and Samuel II 1:18 "Behold it is written in the Book of Jasher".

There are also what they call the Pseudepigrapha books like the "Books of Adam and Eve", the "Book of the Cave of Treasures", the "Apocalypse of Adam" ... among others.

Here are also some books mentioned in the present Bible but are not part of the Canon.

a) Book of the Wars of the Lord – mentioned in Numbers 21:14
b) The Annals of King David – mentioned in I Chronicles 27:24
c) Book of Samuel the Seer – mentioned in I Chronicles 29:29
d) Book of Nathan the prophet – mentioned in II Chronicles 9:29

[aida]

Ngayon lumalabas napaka subjective talaga ng evangelicalismo/ protestantismo. Ngayong di nila madepensahan ang 66 book canon gamit ang biblia - sa espirito naman ng Dios ang takbo na parang may personal access sila sa espirito santo. Sabagay 'spirit' lang naman ang termino ginagamit :P

Iba ang espiritu ng Dios, sa Espiritu Santo. Ang Dios ay may katawan, kaluluwa at espiritu gaya sa tao (ito kung paanong tayo ay literal na nilalang sa larawan ng Dios). Ang Kaniyang espiritu ay ang kaniyang espiritu, at ang Espiritu ay tumutukoy sa Dios na di nakikita.

Ang Dios ay Espiritu. Espiritu na di nakikita, Siya ay may kaluluwa at espiritu. NGAYON (simula sa Araw ng Pentecostes) ang Panginoong Jesucristo ang siyang Espiritu (o ang Dios na Espiritu) na di nakikita (2 Corinto 3:17), at ang Espiritu (o Dios na di nakikita na may espiritu) ang siyang Espiritu Santo.

Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Ang Espiritu (na di nakikita) ang siyang Espiritu Santo, at Siya ay si Jesucristo - ang tunay na Dios.

Acts 20:28 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Hindi sa espiritu ng Dios tumatakbo o lumalapit ang tao kundi sa halip ay sa Espiritu Santo. Tungkol sa Espiritu Santo at sa espiritu ng Dios, ganito: Si Jesuscristo na siyang Espiritu Santo, ang Kaniyang espiritu dapat ay sumasa tao.

Romans 8:9 "u... Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

Kapag hindi nakikilala ng tao ang TUNAY NA JESUS (ang Ama na may gawa ng TIPAN), ang mangyayari nga ay ang isangkalan na lang nila ng isangkalan ang Ama, ang Anak at ang Espiritu Santo sa kanilang pamamahayag. Ang hindi nila alam, ang tatlong ito ay iisa dahil tumutukoy sa tatlong sangkap, at tatlong kapahayagan ng iisang Dios.

1John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father (or SPIRIT), the Word (or BODY or flesh of Jesus), and the Holy Ghost (or SOUL): and these three are one."

Ngayon malinaw personal interpretation lang talaga ang sinusunod nila. Hindi totoo na ang biblia ang only, final at supreme authority ng mga ebanghelico/protestante sa mga bagay na may kinalaman sa pananampalataya. Marami pa silang autoridad sa labas ng biblia pangunahin na yung sarili nilang pagkakaunawa at yung sarili nilang discernment ng tinatawag nilang 'spirit' na di naman sila nakasisiguro kung sa Dios. Di ba kayo kinikilabutan?

Tama ka diyan. Sa halip na pabayaan nilang ang Dios mula sa kaniyang mga salita ang magpaliwanag sa Kaniya ring mga salita (o sa talinghaga), sila ay may kani-kaniyang interpretasyon sa Biblia. Ang tamang pamamahayag ay ganito nga: Kung ano ang paliwanag ng Dios sa isang titik o paksa, dapat ay maging iyon, at ganoon na nga. Sa madaling salita, dapat ay eksakto lang sa sinasabi ng Dios ang dapat nilang ipinahahayag. Ang problema tungkol dito ay ito. Hindi nauunawaan ng mga tao ang espirituwal na wika ng Panginoon.

So ano dapat natin matutunan dito? Dapat pagtiwalaan niyo mga iglesia na apostolica o galing sa mga apostol. Dahil dito malalaman ang aral galing kay Cristo.

Tungkol sa mga salita ng Dios at pagkakaroon ng espirituwal na karunungan, ang sabi ng Biblia ay ganito. Sa mismong Dios tayo lumapit.

James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom (SPIRITUAL WISDOM), let him ask of God...and it shall be given him."

[ElCid]

Iba ang espiritu ng Dios, sa Espiritu Santo. Ang Dios ay may katawan, kaluluwa at espiritu gaya sa tao (ito kung paanong tayo ay literal na nilalang sa larawan ng Dios). Ang Kaniyang espiritu ay ang kaniyang espiritu, at ang Espiritu ay tumutukoy sa Dios na di nakikita.

Ang Dios ay Espiritu. Espiritu na di nakikita, Siya ay may kaluluwa at espiritu. NGAYON (simula sa Araw ng Pentecostes) ang Panginoong Jesucristo ang siyang Espiritu (o ang Dios na Espiritu) na di nakikita (2 Corinto 3:17), at ang Espiritu (o Dios na di nakikita na may espiritu) ang siyang Espiritu Santo.

Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Ang Espiritu (na di nakikita) ang siyang Espiritu Santo, at Siya ay si Jesucristo - ang tunay na Dios.

Acts 20:28 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Hindi sa espiritu ng Dios tumatakbo o lumalapit ang tao kundi sa halip ay sa Espiritu Santo. Tungkol sa Espiritu Santo at sa espiritu ng Dios, ganito: Si Jesuscristo na siyang Espiritu Santo, ang Kaniyang espiritu dapat ay sumasa tao.

Romans 8:9 "u... Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

Kapag hindi nakikilala ng tao ang TUNAY NA JESUS (ang Ama na may gawa ng TIPAN), ang mangyayari nga ay ang isangkalan na lang nila ng isangkalan ang Ama, ang Anak at ang Espiritu Santo sa kanilang pamamahayag. Ang hindi nila alam, ang tatlong ito ay iisa dahil tumutukoy sa tatlong sangkap, at tatlong kapahayagan ng iisang Dios.

1John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father (or SPIRIT), the Word (or BODY or flesh of Jesus), and the Holy Ghost (or SOUL): and these three are one."

I'm not arguing about the Trinity here. I'm arguing about the cop-out of smartdessa and her reliance on the 'spirit' aside from scripture.

Tama ka diyan. Sa halip na pabayaan nilang ang Dios mula sa kaniyang mga salita ang magpaliwanag sa Kaniya ring mga salita (o sa talinghaga), sila ay may kani-kaniyang interpretasyon sa Biblia. Ang tamang pamamahayag ay ganito nga: Kung ano ang paliwanag ng Dios sa isang titik o paksa, dapat ay maging iyon, at ganoon na nga. Sa madaling salita, dapat ay eksakto lang sa sinasabi ng Dios ang dapat nilang ipinahahayag. Ang problema tungkol dito ay ito. Hindi nauunawaan ng mga tao ang espirituwal na wika ng Panginoon.

So ano paliwanag ng Dios sa biblia ukol sa bumubuo ng biblia? Ano yung eksaktong pinahahayag ng salita ng Dios? 66 na aklat nga ba ang bumubuo sa biblia? Ano sitas?

Tungkol sa mga salita ng Dios at pagkakaroon ng espirituwal na karunungan, ang sabi ng Biblia ay ganito. Sa mismong Dios tayo lumapit.

James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom (SPIRITUAL WISDOM), let him ask of God...and it shall be given him."

So ibig mo sabihin hindi mo na kailangan ang biblia? Sa Dios ka na lalapit? So hihingin mo na lang ang karunungan pag tinanong kita paano nakuha ng protestante/ebanghelico ang bilang na 66 aklat ang biblia? Yun ba gusto mo sabihin?