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

[OrionPax]

Sola scriptura adherents relying on an "infallible" Bible that was canonized by "'fallible" men based on tradition and Apostolic authority?

Ironic?? NO, its an oxymoron

[ElCid]

^ Masakit man sabihin hindi nga lang ironic - downright hypocrisy. Baket? Eh kita mo naman kung paano nila laitin ang tradition. Yun pala ang salita ng Dios para sa kanila - galing din sa tradition. Ang mas masaklap pa - hindi traditiong cristiano kungdi tradisyong hudyo. Ang pinaka masaklap pa hindi lang basta tradisyong hudyo - tradisyon ng hudyong pariseo na kung tawagin ni Cristo mga hipocrito lols.

Tapos tayo paaakusahan dinagdagan daw natin ang biblia samantalang sila itong nagbawas sa bilang ng mga aklat? Eh pano nila ngayon tatanggapin mismo ang biblia ayon na din sa pamantayan nila. Pag wala sa biblia dapat ibasura. Eh paano mo ngayon tatanggapin yung 66 book na aklat na salita daw ng Dios ayon sa mga protestante - WALA SA BIBLIA? Kaya nakapagtataka kung baket yang mga yan gumagamit ng biblia eh dahil ayon sa SS pag wala ang aral sa biblia dapat ibasura - so asan ang aral sa biblia na ang mga aklat nito 66 books? So ano dapat gawin sa aral protestante/ ebanghelico na ang biblia eh 66 na aklat? Sa sarili nilang pamantayan dapat ibasura.

So kung ako sa inyo mga kababayan, gamitin niyo yung canon ng mga Catolico. Baket? Eh yun naman talaga ginagamit ng mga sinaunang Cristiano. Pati sa panahon ng mga apostol - SEPTUAGINT ang ginagamit na siya naman ginamit din ng Iglesia Catolica. Huag magtiwala sa mga nagbabawas sa salita ng Dios. Pinagtangkaan din nilang bawasan ang Bagong Tipan, ito ebidensiya sa kapangahasan nitong mga repormistang nagpapakunwaring sa Dios:

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.[32] In addition, Luther moved the books that later became the Deuterocanonicals into a section he called the Apocrypha.

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

Malinaw na ebidensiya pangahas yang mga repormista na kalunan tinawag na mga protestante/ebanghelico. Baket daw ginagawa yan ng mga repormista? Kakontra kase ng aral nila na Sola Fide at Sola Scriptura. So baket nila tinanggal yung 7 aklat sa Lumang Tipan? Ganun din ang dahilan dahil kakontra ng aral nilagn Sola Fide at Sola Scriptura.

So para kanino yung warning at parusa sa biblia sa mga taong nagbabawas sa salita ng Dios? Eh di kanino pa - sa mga pangahas na protestante/ebanghelico. Documentado may magagawa ba kayo?

[gad_moon1]

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

Salamat sa mga sasagot.

LOLZ. wag mo na kami idamay dyan dahil sigurado garantisado hindi nyo kakayanin. kayo na lang isa lang naman pinang galingan nyo.

besides, last year gumawa ako ng thread ukol dito wala naman naglakas loob sumagot.

[froshie1]

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.

Kahit anong bibliiya ang ginagamit nila basta swak sa turo ng "sugo".

[ic3mint]

LOLZ. wag mo na kami idamay dyan dahil sigurado garantisado hindi nyo kakayanin. kayo na lang isa lang naman pinang galingan nyo.

besides, last year gumawa ako ng thread ukol dito wala naman naglakas loob sumagot.

Natawa naman ako dito ahihihi

[thoth]

LOLZ. wag mo na kami idamay dyan dahil sigurado garantisado hindi nyo kakayanin. kayo na lang isa lang naman pinang galingan nyo.

besides, last year gumawa ako ng thread ukol dito wala naman naglakas loob sumagot.

bakit naman ayaw nyo madamay eh di ba bibliya ginagamit nyo para mangaral? may iba pa ba ba kayong bibliya?

At alin naman ang hindi namin kakayanin? Masyado naman mataas pagtingin mo sarili mo. Maayos naman ang pagtatanong ko.

Isa lang pinanggalingan namin? Eh kayo ba saan nangggaling? sa ibang planeta?

kung may ginawa kang thread eh di lagyan mo dito ng link.

[ElCid]

LOLZ. wag mo na kami idamay dyan dahil sigurado garantisado hindi nyo kakayanin. kayo na lang isa lang naman pinang galingan nyo.

besides, last year gumawa ako ng thread ukol dito wala naman naglakas loob sumagot.

Asan ang link bigay mo saken - lalakasan ko loob ko

[thoth]

gad_moon you should respond on the question in order for you to prove that your Bible is not defective and doctorize.

_________
"With great looks comes great responsibility"

Eh sir, bakit iba ispeling ng name nyo ni sir Mod?

[gad_moon1]

bakit naman ayaw nyo madamay eh di ba bibliya ginagamit nyo para mangaral? may iba pa ba ba kayong bibliya?

At alin naman ang hindi namin kakayanin? Masyado naman mataas pagtingin mo sarili mo. Maayos naman ang pagtatanong ko.

Isa lang pinanggalingan namin? Eh kayo ba saan nangggaling? sa ibang planeta?

kung may ginawa kang thread eh di lagyan mo dito ng link.

Asan ang link bigay mo saken - lalakasan ko loob ko

sa palagay mo isang ALMIGHTY GOD kakailanganin nya PARTICULAR na tao, i.e, so-called "church fathers", para makarating ang Salita Niya sa kung kanino Nya ito gusto iparating? lalo ka na confuse? kasi hindi mo tarok ang WISDOM ng Panginoong Diyos.

hindi sa mataas ang tingin ko sa sarili ko. SURE lang ako sa sinasabi ko kasi SURE ang itinuro sa amin.

Yah. i trace mo pinaggalingan ng lahat ng major "Christian" religion ngayon, makikita mo galing sa RCC. In fact, iisa ang diyos ninyo trinity.

i search nyo na lang. maraming beses na rin napag usapan yan dito sa ROT. paikot ikot lang kayo wala namang nagbabago. kaya nga, wag nyo na idamay ang INC. ang wish ko sa ROT, wala ng topic ukol sa INC dahil nakaka umay na ang paulit ulit. may magandang topic ngayon yun "theology" dun nyo gamitin ang galing nyo

[thoth]

sa palagay mo isang ALMIGHTY GOD kakailanganin nya PARTICULAR na tao, i.e, so-called "church fathers", para makarating ang Salita Niya sa kung kanino Nya ito gusto iparating? lalo ka na confuse? kasi hindi mo tarok ang WISDOM ng Panginoong Diyos.

hindi sa mataas ang tingin ko sa sarili ko. SURE lang ako sa sinasabi ko kasi SURE ang itinuro sa amin.

Yah. i trace mo pinaggalingan ng lahat ng major "Christian" religion ngayon, makikita mo galing sa RCC. In fact, iisa ang diyos ninyo trinity.

i search nyo na lang. maraming beses na rin napag usapan yan dito sa ROT. paikot ikot lang kayo wala namang nagbabago. kaya nga, wag nyo na idamay ang INC. ang wish ko sa ROT, wala ng topic ukol sa INC dahil nakaka umay na ang paulit ulit. may magandang topic ngayon yun "theology" dun nyo gamitin ang galing nyo

kung anu ano pa mga sinasabi mo eh simple lang naman yung tinatanong ko.

a) bakit hindi kayo pwde idamay? Iba pa ba ang bibliya nyo sa bibliya ng mga katoliko at protestante?
b) Alin ba ang ginagamit nyo na bibliya, yung 73 o yung 66 books?
c) Nasaan na yung link na sinasabi mo?

Mahirap ba sagutin etong mga eto kung SURE ka na at TAROK mo na ang WISDOM ng Panginoong Diyos?

Bakit takot ka yata na ibigay ang link dun sa sinasabi mong thread?

Lalakasan na nga daw ni ElCid ang loob nya basta bigay mo ang link.

[SmartDessa]

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?

I can say that it isn't 73 nor is it 66, because the scripture did not say any number.

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.

prots and evngelicals aside, the basis of 66 books is the Spirit, not in any scripture or mundane authority. the same Spirit the saints in the early saints had, who passed on the 66 books, but the early saints are not perfect and thus mistakenly chose the other 7 books.

"having been used by christians", is traditional in essence, like I said, tradition makes us dead. It's not forbidden, you can say they are holy, but they are not needed, Christ is already there.

for what's it worth, these DC are authentic and historical, there is no compelling reason that we should forbid reading it. was it the practice of early Jews to give alms for the dead? sure, just like their practice of eating kosher food, and stoning people to death.

IIRC, the only main reasons that it was excluded is because it does not give any prophecy about Jesus (correct me if I'm wrong) or any type of Jesus. It does not nourish our spirit nor does it give any salvation to us when read in the spirit.

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?

whimsical? when we say "according to the Spirit", there's nothing whimsical there. Actually, I can say that the RC chose other books and practices according to traditional whims. That some of these traditions is very irresponsible, instead of Christ replacing traditions, these traditions replaced Christ, the spirit of man exercised based on traditions instead of the Spirit.

Luther is also man, he can make mistakes.
let anyone with no mistakes cast the first stone?

what is important is the 66 books we have now, are very useful for the building up the church

What? Another frank admission? No defense? :P

do you think that I am defending a religion here? you have mistaken me.
or do you also think that I am defending the 66 books canon here?

no ElCid, 66 is just a number, I have no problem of having a 67th book provided that it bears the same quality and content of the 66 books.

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?

ok. thank you for your honesty.
1.) you say that you got the 27 NT books because of tradition
2.) that the scripture which contains the living Word is tradition
3.) that these traditions are representation of grace.
4.) that your traditions are treasures that christians should be proud of.

now let me be honest to you as well.
1.) that I believe the 27 books chosen, was chosen by the early saints because of the Spirit that gave them authority.
2.) that the scripture is not tradition breathed, but God breathed and thus living.
3.) that Christ was the only physical representation of God, who is also God, and through His resurrection produced His duplication, the corporate representation and expression of God, the church. not traditions.
4.) that traditions made here on earth are useless and will pass away, we should keep treausres in heaven, and this treasure is none other than Christ, the man in heaven.

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

ah, but what is more important? that which edifies the church? or your question that seeks division of the church?

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?

arrogating yourself the authority of the whole church is arrogant for me.
I am also a human, I make mistakes. I just am thankul to the Lord that He gave the Spirit to us, giving us the authority to discern spiritual things, like the Word in this case.

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?

my protestant SS?

I don't really and exactly know what is protestant SS, but after seeing prots and evangelicals defending this doctrine, I can see that they have limited the Word of God in 66 books. In fact I believe that when the RC strongly imposes 73 books to be the only official scripture, it just shows that they also subscribe to a type of SS, limiting the Word in 73 books.

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.

the Spirit and the Word are inseperable. where the Spirit is, the Word is, what the Spirit says, the Word says. All scriptures are God breathed, but not all God breath is scripture. If a teacher stands up and admonish the saints to gain Christ, his words are the Word of God, how? if it brings the Spirit to us and if it is not different from what is passed on or what is in the scriptures, not different in the sense that it can be a continuation or a deeper meaning of the scriptures we have now.

God is a speaking God, not a written God, we need to hear God in us, and hear God from other people, like the scriptures written by people inspired by God.

the Spirit validates the scriptures, like how the Spirit validates our spirit. and where else can we find the Spirit if not in our spirit, our spirit and the Spirit is mingled, one.

I don't understand why it is so hard for you Elcid to understand how the Spirit validates scripture, and the scripture validates our spirit if it has the Spirit. or do you not agree that the Spirit is one with the Word and both validates each other?

might I suggest to remove tradition in the picture, I think that's what keeps you from touching the Spirit in the scriptures and in the saints.

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?

God in the scriptures is the authority.
God in our spirit is the authority.

I don't think God is in traditions though....

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

how so? what I'm not clear about is why you still think that SS is the authority I have.

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.

yes
and discernments which is of the Spirit that may not be "exactly" in the scriptures, but is founded on scriptures, or cooperates with the scriptures or an elaboration of the scriptures.

just like how Jesus referred to the scriptures and gave a somewhat "upgrade" of the law

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?

I did not say that God is limited in the scriptures, did I?
where else can we know that we have a spirit and that by having faith we have the Spirit, if not in the scriptures?

how can we know that a book is inspired with Christ if we do not see Christ in it?

how can we say that a book is inspired if it does not provide us the central economy of God?

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.

The Spirit is not limited in the scriptures, but what the Spirit tells us that is not "exactly" in the scriptures does not mean it always contradicts the scriptures and thus, not authentic.

we must first identify the basis of the writers how they wrote the scriptures, was it based on tradition, or of being divinely inspired?

the fact that all scriptures are God breathed, proves that for us to discern scripture is to discern if it is breathed by God, if it is divinely inspired by the Spirit, how else can one discern Spirit if not with the help of the Holy Spirit?

now discerning which is scripture and which is of the Spirit goes both ways, to discern the Spirit one can use the scripture to discern if whether our spirits is inspired by the Spirit, but it is not limited to the scripture, the Spirit is in the church, in the believers.

But the most important part of discerning which is scripture is not only the Spirit, but also Christ and His gospel of salvation, a scripture must have the gospel of salvation, that saves tells us about Jesus and His Body, the centrality of God's economy, that is fueled with life, that bring us to Him from death. And the enjoyment of Christ as our everything.

The whole scriptures points to Christ. It also follows that the Spirit will always speak of Christ.

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.

to be clear, the no. 66 is not in scriptures.
but the way for us to discern which is scriptures is in the scriptures also

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?

on the contrary, we should not trust the tradition of men, we can use it, but not trust in it, the Spirit should come first, and time and again, tradition failed to be one with the Spirit. We can rely with what was passed on to us or handed down to us, and this is not tradition, when we say tradition then nothing new may come out or modify what was passed on, to take something that was handed down is to build on it, just like how the Lord passed on to His disciples and what was passed on is builded upon by His followers. And who is passed on if not Christ Himself? Tradition does not build something, what was practiced is the same exact thing practiced again and again.

is tradition more important than Christ?

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.

there's no way something fallible can produce something infallible.

you tell me.

[ElCid]

You must bear in mind that this thread is for protestants and evangelicals who hold on to the 66 book canon of scripture as the word of God and hold on to it as the ONLY, FINAL AND SUPREME AUTHORITY in matters of faith and doctrine. This thread is also for those other sects but nevertheless practice the same Sola Scriptura.

I can say that it isn't 73 nor is it 66, because the scripture did not say any number.

If you cannot say then can you still confidently believe that you have the word of God in its entirety? Can something which is lacking save if you're only using 66 books?

prots and evngelicals aside, the basis of 66 books is the Spirit, not in any scripture or mundane authority. the same Spirit the saints in the early saints had, who passed on the 66 books, but the early saints are not perfect and thus mistakenly chose the other 7 books.

"having been used by christians", is traditional in essence, like I said, tradition makes us dead. It's not forbidden, you can say they are holy, but they are not needed, Christ is already there.

for what's it worth, these DC are authentic and historical, there is no compelling reason that we should forbid reading it. was it the practice of early Jews to give alms for the dead? sure, just like their practice of eating kosher food, and stoning people to death.

IIRC, the only main reasons that it was excluded is because it does not give any prophecy about Jesus (correct me if I'm wrong) or any type of Jesus. It does not nourish our spirit nor does it give any salvation to us when read in the spirit.

First, you're telling us that the early 'saints' who lived closer to the time of the apostles erred in including 7 more books to scripture and Luther and the Reformers, who were more than 1,500 years removed from the apostles, were correct in excluding them?

Second, your opinion isn't based on actual fact but on conjecture. The 66 book canon of scripture of the protestants and evangelicals isn't based on the 'spirit'.

The First Christian Bible
At the time the Christian Bible was being formed, a Greek translation of Jewish Scripture, the Septuagint, was in common use and Christians adopted it as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. However, around 100 A.D., Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was a group of 15 late Jewish books, written during the period 170 B.C. to 70 A.D., that were not found in Hebrew versions of the Jewish Scripture. Christians did not follow the revisions of Judaism and continued to use the text of the Septuagint as the Old Testament.

Protestant Bibles
In the 1500s, Protestant leaders decided to organize the Old Testament material according to the official canon of Judaism rather than the Septuagint. They moved the Old Testament material which was not in the Jewish canon into a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha. So, Protestant Bibles then included all the same material as the earlier Bible, but it was divided into two sections: the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until the mid 1800s, and the King James Version was originally published with the Apocrypha. However, the books of the Apocrypha were considered less important, and the Apocrypha was eventually dropped from most Protestant editions. The books of the Apocrypha are also known as the deuterocanonical books.
http://www.twopaths.com/faq_bibles.htm

It is obvious that it was the Jews who were responsible for revising and excluding some portions of the Greek Septuagint which was used by the early christians. The most glaring fact that these men weren't inspired by the 'spirit' is that they failed to recognize the inspiration of the 27 book of the N.T. It is therefore not surprising that they removed as well the parts of the bible which they considered - uninspired just like the N.T. How could any christian therefore follow these same Jews who do not recognize the inspiration of the N.T.?

whimsical? when we say "according to the Spirit", there's nothing whimsical there. Actually, I can say that the RC chose other books and practices according to traditional whims. That some of these traditions is very irresponsible, instead of Christ replacing traditions, these traditions replaced Christ, the spirit of man exercised based on traditions instead of the Spirit.

It is whimsical simply because you have no biblical warrant for excluding the 7 books which was included in the septuagint which was used by the early christians during the time of the apostles. Traditional whims you say? It is the same 'whimsical' tradition which you used to determine your canon of scripture especially as regards the N.T. Canon. Such statement is not only irresponsible - it is filled with hypocrisy. And again your argument is begging the question - you first have to prove your accusations.

Luther is also man, he can make mistakes. let anyone with no mistakes cast the first stone?

Then why follow Luther and the reformers if such is the case? Why not follow the ancient early christian belief regarding the use of the Septuagint which is also the same used by the RCC?

what is important is the 66 books we have now, are very useful for the building up the church

No. It didn't build up your churches - THERE ARE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF SECTS all claiming to be biblical with equally contradictory teachings. What we see today is not the building up of the church - but it's division into smaller and smaller sects and thus dividing the body of Christ.

do you think that I am defending a religion here? you have mistaken me.
or do you also think that I am defending the 66 books canon here?

no ElCid, 66 is just a number, I have no problem of having a 67th book provided that it bears the same quality and content of the 66 books.

Then there is no basis for you to hold on to the 66 book canon of the protestants/evangelicals.

ok. thank you for your honesty.

Since we aren't hypocrites - we give credit were credit is due.

1.) you say that you got the 27 NT books because of tradition

It isn't in scripture in the first place - it is in tradition.

2.) that the scripture which contains the living Word is tradition

Tradition is both oral and written and the two form one deposit of faith.

3.) that these traditions are representation of grace.

As far as determining the canon of scripture is concerned - let us limit it to that for the purposes of this thread.

4.) that your traditions are treasures that christians should be proud of.

Again, as far as the canon of scripture is concerned, we can proudly state that tradition has been the source for determining the correct canon of scripture.

Now let me be honest to you as well.

Should we assume otherwise?

1.) that I believe the 27 books chosen, was chosen by the early saints because of the Spirit that gave them authority.

You are now contradicting yourself. You say that the Spirit gave the authority to the early saints that's why they are correct in determining the 27 books of the but wrong in determining the 46 books of O.T.?

the same Spirit the saints in the early saints had, who passed on the 66 books, but the early saints are not perfect and thus mistakenly chose the other 7 books.

The saints could make mistakes since they aren't perfect even if they are being guided by the spirit? You're not making any sense. How could you now trust the 27 books of the N.T. from the saints when they can be mistaken in determining the O.T. canon despite having the Holy spirit as guide?

2.) that the scripture is not tradition breathed, but God breathed and thus living.

Strawman. I never claimed that scripture is tradition breathe. But your problem here is that YOU CAN'T DETERMINE SCRIPTURE IN THE FIRST PLACE! How can you now tell me that it is GOD BREATHE? Which book is God breath when you can't even decide if the bible is 66 or 73 books?

3.) that Christ was the only physical representation of God, who is also God, and through His resurrection produced His duplication, the corporate representation and expression of God, the church. not traditions.

Irrelevant. And how would you have knowledge of Christ without the bible? And how would you have the bible without tradition?

4.) that traditions made here on earth are useless and will pass away, we should keep treausres in heaven, and this treasure is none other than Christ, the man in heaven.

My dear, you don't know what tradition is since if you knew, you wouldn't argue like that. The bible itself is a tradition. Tradition is something which is passed down from generation to generation. If you say traditions are useless and will pass away - are you now saying that the very words of God in scripture will pass away as well?

ah, but what is more important? that which edifies the church? or your question that seeks division of the church?

what is important is the TRUTH not a LIE. How can a lie EDIFY the church?

arrogating yourself the authority of the whole church is arrogant for me. I am also a human, I make mistakes. I just am thankul to the Lord that He gave the Spirit to us, giving us the authority to discern spiritual things, like the Word in this case.

So are you now telling us that you have the spirit of God which DETERMINES the correct canon of scripture for us all? But how come you can't discern the correct number of books which is God breathe or inspired?

my protestant SS?

I don't really and exactly know what is protestant SS, but after seeing prots and evangelicals defending this doctrine, I can see that they have limited the Word of God in 66 books. In fact I believe that when the RC strongly imposes 73 books to be the only official scripture, it just shows that they also subscribe to a type of SS, limiting the Word in 73 books.

Then I reiterate that this thread is not for you if you don't know what Sola Scriptura is and it's implication on the canon of Scripture. Since if SS is correct, you have no basis for following a 66 canon scripture even a 73 canon scripture for that matter. You wouldn't have scriptures in the first place! Why? simply because there is NO VERSE IN SCRIPTURE WHICH STATES WHICH BOOKS ARE INSPIRED BY GOD AND HENCE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE BIBLE.

the Spirit and the Word are inseperable. where the Spirit is, the Word is, what the Spirit says, the Word says. All scriptures are God breathed, but not all God breath is scripture. If a teacher stands up and admonish the saints to gain Christ, his words are the Word of God, how? if it brings the Spirit to us and if it is not different from what is passed on or what is in the scriptures, not different in the sense that it can be a continuation or a deeper meaning of the scriptures we have now.

Inadvertently, you admit catholic teaching that the word of God is not confined alone in Scriptures - that it also can be found in the teaching authority of the church which in catholic parlance is the magisterium. But in taking out the magisterium - you substitute your own obviously.

God is a speaking God, not a written God, we need to hear God in us, and hear God from other people, like the scriptures written by people inspired by God.

Do you hear God telling you how many books should be included in scripture?

the Spirit validates the scriptures, like how the Spirit validates our spirit. and where else can we find the Spirit if not in our spirit, our spirit and the Spirit is mingled, one.

So how come you can't determine which is the correct canon - the 66 or the 73 if the spirit of God is co-mingled with yours?

I don't understand why it is so hard for you Elcid to understand how the Spirit validates scripture, and the scripture validates our spirit if it has the Spirit. or do you not agree that the Spirit is one with the Word and both validates each other?

What is unintelligible here is you. At one instance you say you need scripture to validate your discernment of the spirit which may or may not come from God. In this instance you say it is the spirit which validates scripture. I believe that it is clear that you do not know what you are talking about and it is useless in determining with CERTAINTY the correct canon of scripture. You're merely playing with words. I can do that too you know lols :P.

might I suggest to remove tradition in the picture, I think that's what keeps you from touching the Spirit in the scriptures and in the saints.

You can't remove what is essential in determining what scripture is. The funny thing here is you ASSUME without proof that the 66 book canon is the very words of God. You admit having no basis. How can you now tell us to discard the very same tradition which determines for us the words of God? Even with the guidance of the 'spirit' you can't determine which is the correct canon: 73 or 66? You aren't very credible.

I can say that it isn't 73 nor is it 66, because the scripture did not say any number.

God in the scriptures is the authority.
God in our spirit is the authority.

Now you are telling us you have one more authority aside from scripture? God within you? Which is the supreme and final authority if the two happen to contradict?

I don't think God is in traditions though....

Your opinion doesn't matter in this instance.

how so? what I'm not clear about is why you still think that SS is the authority I have.

If you have other authorities aside from SCRIPTURE ALONE then this thread is not for you. My questions are very clear in my first post - that these are for protestants and evangelicals who hold scripture as the ONLY, FINAL AND SUPREME AUTHORITY in matters of faith and doctrine.

yes
and discernments which is of the Spirit that may not be "exactly" in the scriptures, but is founded on scriptures, or cooperates with the scriptures or an elaboration of the scriptures.

just like how Jesus referred to the scriptures and gave a somewhat "upgrade" of the law

So are you saying that SCRIPTURE ISN'T SUFFICIENT for you and it needs UPGRADES even up to our time?

I did not say that God is limited in the scriptures, did I?
where else can we know that we have a spirit and that by having faith we have the Spirit, if not in the scriptures?

how can we know that a book is inspired with Christ if we do not see Christ in it?

how can we say that a book is inspired if it does not provide us the central economy of God?

Again you aren't making any sense or any semblance of reasoning. You say that you need scripture to validate your discernment. But how can you now use your discernment to determine what scripture is since you need scripture to validate your discernment. You cannot build on top of something which isn't there in the first place.

The Spirit is not limited in the scriptures, but what the Spirit tells us that is not "exactly" in the scriptures does not mean it always contradicts the scriptures and thus, not authentic.

we must first identify the basis of the writers how they wrote the scriptures, was it based on tradition, or of being divinely inspired?

the fact that all scriptures are God breathed, proves that for us to discern scripture is to discern if it is breathed by God, if it is divinely inspired by the Spirit, how else can one discern Spirit if not with the help of the Holy Spirit?

now discerning which is scripture and which is of the Spirit goes both ways, to discern the Spirit one can use the scripture to discern if whether our spirits is inspired by the Spirit, but it is not limited to the scripture, the Spirit is in the church, in the believers.

But the most important part of discerning which is scripture is not only the Spirit, but also Christ and His gospel of salvation, a scripture must have the gospel of salvation, that saves tells us about Jesus and His Body, the centrality of God's economy, that is fueled with life, that bring us to Him from death. And the enjoyment of Christ as our everything.

The whole scriptures points to Christ. It also follows that the Spirit will always speak of Christ.

All this doesn't make any sense. Do you know why? Since you cannot determine which canon is correct: the 66 or the 73 despite your claim that you are guided by the 'spirit'.

to be clear, the no. 66 is not in scriptures.

Then those who practice sola scriptura has no basis for using scriptures since it isn't in scripture and only what is found in scripture can only be the norm of faith.

but the way for us to discern which is scriptures is in the scriptures also

How can that be? How can you use something which isn't there in the first place? In order to use 'scripture' YOU MUST FIRST ESTABLISH what scripture is and what composes scripture. How do you validate your discernment with scripture which according to you is necessary to determine if the discernment is from God?

on the contrary, we should not trust the tradition of men, we can use it, but not trust in it, the Spirit should come first, and time and again, tradition failed to be one with the Spirit. We can rely with what was passed on to us or handed down to us, and this is not tradition, when we say tradition then nothing new may come out or modify what was passed on, to take something that was handed down is to build on it, just like how the Lord passed on to His disciples and what was passed on is builded upon by His followers. And who is passed on if not Christ Himself? Tradition does not build something, what was practiced is the same exact thing practiced again and again.

We can use tradition but not trust it? Lols. Why use it in the first place if you doubt it? And again you aren't interacting with what I have said. You despise Tradition but use the same Tradition to determine for you the canon of scriptures since you admit the canon of scripture isn't in scripture. So where did you find your version of the canon? The protestants/evangelicals used the Jewish/Pharisaical canon - which is a tradition of men. Why use the very thing you despise? Isn't that tantamount to HYPOCRISY?

is tradition more important than Christ?

I never implied nor this thread implies that tradition is more important than Christ. This is way off the thread topic.

there's no way something fallible can produce something infallible.

you tell me.

That is why you can't tell us that your version of scripture are the INFALLIBLE WORDS OF GOD. You need an INFALLIBLE guide which could tell you INFALLIBLY what is the word of God. And this INFALLIBLE GUIDE is the BODY OF CHRIST - THE CHURCH. LAUDATE DOMINUM!

[ElCid]

Pagtanggol niyo naman itong pangunahing aral niyo. Sabi kayo ng sabi yang 66 book niyo na biblia eh Salita ng Dios - nasaan ang katibayan sa biblia?

[OrionPax]

Tradition and the Spirit guided the Church in compiling and canonizing the Bible..

Tapos bale wala daw ang tradisyon at ang Simbahan?

yan ba ang bulong ng "spirit"?

Wahahahaha

[ElCid]

^ Tapos yung 'spirit' di nila sigurado kung galing sa Dios - kelangan daw ng biblia to verify kung kasuato ng aral ng biblia. Eh pano mo ngayon pagtitiwalaan yung sinasabi ng 'spirit' kung di sila sure kung ito galing sa Dios kung wala ang biblia? Lols. Yun nga ang kailangang tukuyin in the first place eh yun ang gagamiting batayan? Pano mangyayari yun?

Mga banat nila - biblical ba yang aral na yan? Ibinabalik lang namin sa inyo pangunahing aral niyo ipagtanggol niyo: BIBLICAL BA YUNG ARAL NA 66 NA AKLAT ANG BUMUBUO SA BIBLIA NA SINASABI NIYO SALITA NG DIOS? Eh di ba pag wala sa biblia dapat itapon ang aral? lolz. Eh di itapon yang aral na 66 na aklat ang bumubuo sa biblia? Wala bang papalag na ebanghelico/protestante at iba pang mga sectang naninindigan na 66 aklat lamang ang bumubuo sa salita ng Dios?

Pano nila titindigan ngayon yang aral na yan? Samantalang sinasabi din nila ang biblia ang TANGI, PINAKAHULI AT PINAKAMATAAS NA AUTORIDAD UKOL SA ARAL NA DAPAT TANGGAPIN NG ISANG CRISTIANO? So dapat mahanap yang aral na yan sa biblia - ang tanong nasaan? Wala lols. So ano conclusion? IBASURA yang aral protestante/ebanghelico AYON SA SARILI NILANG PAMANTAYAN DAHIL WALA NAMAN SA BIBLIA!

[ElCid]

Yung mga mahilig gumamit ng 66 aklat na biblia - tindigan niyo naman yung iniaaral niyo sa tao na ito eh salita ng Dios ayon sa prinsipyo ng Sola Scriptura na pangunahing aral niyo din.

Di ba kailangan lahat ng aral biblical ayon sa mga turo niyo? Asan sa biblia ngayon mahahanap na ang biblia na sinasabi niyong salita ng Dios eh binubuo ng 66 na aklat? Verse please.

[SmartDessa]

You must bear in mind that this thread is for protestants and evangelicals who hold on to the 66 book canon of scripture as the word of God and hold on to it as the ONLY, FINAL AND SUPREME AUTHORITY in matters of faith and doctrine. This thread is also for those other sects but nevertheless practice the same Sola Scriptura.

parang sinabi mo na rin na tumahimik na ko.
sige, last post.


why 66 books? because in this 66 books can you see Christ prophesied, Christ typified. The Spirit can be touched in this 66 books. Christ and His disciples used the 39 books as reference. Our spirit is nourished when we read these books.

the DCs just doesn't have all of these that's why they are considered as apocryphal.

If you cannot say then can you still confidently believe that you have the word of God in its entirety? Can something which is lacking save if you're only using 66 books?

so the saints before Paul are not saved?
bro. Christ only saves, and it is not in the Bible's completeness does a person is saved. But every words of the Bible count as a basis for salvation. And I think the apocryha does not have this saving value.

First, you're telling us that the early 'saints' who lived closer to the time of the apostles erred in including 7 more books to scripture and Luther and the Reformers, who were more than 1,500 years removed from the apostles, were correct in excluding them?

Second, your opinion isn't based on actual fact but on conjecture. The 66 book canon of scripture of the protestants and evangelicals isn't based on the 'spirit'.

The First Christian Bible
At the time the Christian Bible was being formed, a Greek translation of Jewish Scripture, the Septuagint, was in common use and Christians adopted it as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. However, around 100 A.D., Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was a group of 15 late Jewish books, written during the period 170 B.C. to 70 A.D., that were not found in Hebrew versions of the Jewish Scripture. Christians did not follow the revisions of Judaism and continued to use the text of the Septuagint as the Old Testament.

Protestant Bibles
In the 1500s, Protestant leaders decided to organize the Old Testament material according to the official canon of Judaism rather than the Septuagint. They moved the Old Testament material which was not in the Jewish canon into a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha. So, Protestant Bibles then included all the same material as the earlier Bible, but it was divided into two sections: the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until the mid 1800s, and the King James Version was originally published with the Apocrypha. However, the books of the Apocrypha were considered less important, and the Apocrypha was eventually dropped from most Protestant editions. The books of the Apocrypha are also known as the deuterocanonical books.
http://www.twopaths.com/faq_bibles.htm

It is obvious that it was the Jews who were responsible for revising and excluding some portions of the Greek Septuagint which was used by the early christians. The most glaring fact that these men weren't inspired by the 'spirit' is that they failed to recognize the inspiration of the 27 book of the N.T. It is therefore not surprising that they removed as well the parts of the bible which they considered - uninspired just like the N.T. How could any christian therefore follow these same Jews who do not recognize the inspiration of the N.T.?

this is what happens when we delve in too much to authority.
just because some group of people were the first doesn't mean that they are the right ones. doesn't mean they have the authority.

in fact authority comes from who is to come. we are in the age of grace, our lives are based on grace, meaning we are relying on God, not on human authority, or traditional authority.

what happened to the Jews? because they "came first", they were given "last", because they are the "traditional" ones, that they rejected the "new One" covenant who is Christ.

I beseech you and advice you not to be so traditionalized, you might lose grasp on Christ because of tradition.

It is whimsical simply because you have no biblical warrant for excluding the 7 books which was included in the septuagint which was used by the early christians during the time of the apostles. Traditional whims you say? It is the same 'whimsical' tradition which you used to determine your canon of scripture especially as regards the N.T. Canon. Such statement is not only irresponsible - it is filled with hypocrisy. And again your argument is begging the question - you first have to prove your accusations.

again, canon is just dessert, the main course is just the Spirit. It's also great to know that the 66 books were used in the early churches.

Then why follow Luther and the reformers if such is the case? Why not follow the ancient early christian belief regarding the use of the Septuagint which is also the same used by the RCC?

do you think that we follow Luther? follow people? follow Paul?

we only follow the Spirit in them, like spirits can easily mingle and cooperate, by such does God use us to carry out His desire.

No. It didn't build up your churches - THERE ARE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF SECTS all claiming to be biblical with equally contradictory teachings. What we see today is not the building up of the church - but it's division into smaller and smaller sects and thus dividing the body of Christ.

really? are you now saying that the Word of God divides His people?
perhaps what you mean is the opinion of people that divides the Body of Christ. And the Roman church is not exempted to this, because of its opinion that Rome should be the seat of power divided the west from the east.

Then there is no basis for you to hold on to the 66 book canon of the protestants/evangelicals.

why on earth would you say there is NO basis when I have emphasized again and again the basis why it ends up to 66?

Since we aren't hypocrites - we give credit were credit is due.

credit to tradition. got it.

It isn't in scripture in the first place - it is in tradition.
Tradition is both oral and written and the two form one deposit of faith.
As far as determining the canon of scripture is concerned - let us limit it to that for the purposes of this thread.
Again, as far as the canon of scripture is concerned, we can proudly state that tradition has been the source for determining the correct canon of scripture.

site scriptural basis on the 4 points

Should we assume otherwise?
You are now contradicting yourself. You say that the Spirit gave the authority to the early saints that's why they are correct in determining the 27 books of the but wrong in determining the 46 books of O.T.?

the same Spirit the saints in the early saints had, who passed on the 66 books, but the early saints are not perfect and thus mistakenly chose the other 7 books.

The saints could make mistakes since they aren't perfect even if they are being guided by the spirit? You're not making any sense. How could you now trust the 27 books of the N.T. from the saints when they can be mistaken in determining the O.T. canon despite having the Holy spirit as guide?

do you think that authority is a one time matter? That it is some kind of license to canon, or to rule?
when the Spirit descended upon us, we can boldly say that we have authority, but when we turn to ourselves then we misuse authority.

read the entire Bible and all great figures from Moses, David, Solomon, they all became instrumental for God, but they weren't perfect, they fell, each of them.

do I have the authority? do we have it? if we turn to our spirit and rely fully on the Lord then yes we have authority.

again, try not to be legalistic and traditional. Don't try to simplify this very important matter concerning the Word of God, and shove it off to traditions and geneologies, that's lazy and irresponsible. Try to exercise your spirit, not your position.

Strawman. I never claimed that scripture is tradition breathe. But your problem here is that YOU CAN'T DETERMINE SCRIPTURE IN THE FIRST PLACE! How can you now tell me that it is GOD BREATHE? Which book is God breath when you can't even decide if the bible is 66 or 73 books?

and your determination is based on tradition? God's breath give life, that's why the Word is called living Word. you determine which books are because of tradition's breath, when it should based on God's breath, it should be whether the books contains God's breath, if the books contain life in it, that gives life.

i will not be surprised if you reject a preacher who preaches Christ and overflows rivers of life to people, just because she is not traditionally Roman Catholic.

parang colonial mentality.

Irrelevant. And how would you have knowledge of Christ without the bible? And how would you have the bible without tradition?

we have Christ and the church, traditions are just flowers and leaves of the tree who is Christ, the brnaches who are the church.

are you saying that Christ can only be found and can be had in the Bible?

My dear, you don't know what tradition is since if you knew, you wouldn't argue like that. The bible itself is a tradition. Tradition is something which is passed down from generation to generation. If you say traditions are useless and will pass away - are you now saying that the very words of God in scripture will pass away as well?

the Word of God shall never pass away. so no need to make it a tradition.
the purpose of tradition is to establish an ordinance or a law to make sure that the old ways are not forgotten, to make sure that what was done will not change.

tradition is like hewing broken cisterns that holds no water.

people change, traditions are made by people.
the Spirit does not change, why don't we rely on the Spirit instead of our own petty traditions.

and God have mercy, how can you say that the Word of God is mere human tradition? this is heresy.

what is important is the TRUTH not a LIE. How can a lie EDIFY the church?

but the Spirit is the truth!

traditions always fail, didn't the Lord Jesus rebuked those who hold dear to their traditions?

So are you now telling us that you have the spirit of God which DETERMINES the correct canon of scripture for us all? But how come you can't discern the correct number of books which is God breathe or inspired?

no I am not telling that, what I am telling you is to turn to your spirit while reading the Bible and your DCs. Do not read it like a historical book, read it with the appetite and desire to be filled with life, to save you organically. If you find that in the DCs then I will be more than happy. In the end, it doesn't matter whether we should have 66 or 73 books, what matters is that we learn to exercise our spirit when reading the Word of God which is Spirit.

Then I reiterate that this thread is not for you if you don't know what Sola Scriptura is and it's implication on the canon of Scripture. Since if SS is correct, you have no basis for following a 66 canon scripture even a 73 canon scripture for that matter. You wouldn't have scriptures in the first place! Why? simply because there is NO VERSE IN SCRIPTURE WHICH STATES WHICH BOOKS ARE INSPIRED BY GOD AND HENCE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE BIBLE.

so I think it's your turn to define how you understood SS in the most direct and complete portion of your post. Just to see whether you exactly know what you are hitting.

you never know, maybe what you've heard about SS came from somebody who also really do not know the real meaning of SS.

Inadvertently, you admit catholic teaching that the word of God is not confined alone in Scriptures - that it also can be found in the teaching authority of the church which in catholic parlance is the magisterium. But in taking out the magisterium - you substitute your own obviously.

see how nicolaitan thought veer you away from the real authority that is the Spirit? if the "magisterium" had this revelation, and I share the same revelation, aren't we suppose to celebrate our common spirit? instead of accusing people of stealing ideas?

tell me, is it because the "magisterium" is the ruler of the church or is it the Spirit that told the "magisterium" of His revelations. Are you saying that the Spirit will ONLY speak to your heirarchy?

I for one holds the belief of deification, which was lost in protestantism, I am thankful to the Lord for giving Anastasius and revealing "God was made man for man to be made God."

Do you hear God telling you how many books should be included in scripture?

when I read the 66 books, I know the Lord is speaking to me.
do I think the 66 books is God breathed= yes.

don't you?

So how come you can't determine which is the correct canon - the 66 or the 73 if the spirit of God is co-mingled with yours?

I clearly have stated that I recognize 66 books of the Bible.

What is unintelligible here is you. At one instance you say you need scripture to validate your discernment of the spirit which may or may not come from God. In this instance you say it is the spirit which validates scripture. I believe that it is clear that you do not know what you are talking about and it is useless in determining with CERTAINTY the correct canon of scripture. You're merely playing with words. I can do that too you know lols :P.

well, it's just how it is, it's like the Father is in Christ and Christ is in the Father. or that Christ is in us, and we are in Christ.

does that make sense to you?

The Word is in the Spirit and the Spirit is in the Word.

That is why I am amazed why you still use opinion instead of your spirit to dive in to the Word and the Spirit.

You can't remove what is essential in determining what scripture is. The funny thing here is you ASSUME without proof that the 66 book canon is the very words of God.

nope, I don't assume that the 66 books are the Word of God.
why? you don't think the 66 books are the Words of God?

You admit having no basis. How can you now tell us to discard the very same tradition which determines for us the words of God?

putting words in my mouth,
when did I say that I have no basis?

Even with the guidance of the 'spirit' you can't determine which is the correct canon: 73 or 66? You aren't very credible.

I can say that it isn't 73 nor is it 66, because the scripture did not say any number.

hey, that's misrepresenting me.

what is meant there is that the scriptures did not say it is 66 or 73 in number.

grabe ElCid, that's very low of you.

Now you are telling us you have one more authority aside from scripture? God within you? Which is the supreme and final authority if the two happen to contradict?

God and His Word are one, how can they contradict?

Your opinion doesn't matter in this instance.

give me scripture that says God is in traditions

If you have other authorities aside from SCRIPTURE ALONE then this thread is not for you. My questions are very clear in my first post - that these are for protestants and evangelicals who hold scripture as the ONLY, FINAL AND SUPREME AUTHORITY in matters of faith and doctrine.

fine, you don't like me here.

So are you saying that SCRIPTURE ISN'T SUFFICIENT for you and it needs UPGRADES even up to our time?

ops,
sufficient in what manner?

the scrioture as a written text and record of history, is not sufficient.

Again you aren't making any sense or any semblance of reasoning. You say that you need scripture to validate your discernment. But how can you now use your discernment to determine what scripture is since you need scripture to validate your discernment. You cannot build on top of something which isn't there in the first place.

and you cannot put Someone in another that is inside that Someone.

All this doesn't make any sense. Do you know why? Since you cannot determine which canon is correct: the 66 or the 73 despite your claim that you are guided by the 'spirit'.

there are a lot of canons, 73, 66 and whatnots.

the 66 books is what I consider God breathed, the DCs are not. if they are then evangelize us why it is by showing us Christ in them.

Then those who practice sola scriptura has no basis for using scriptures since it isn't in scripture and only what is found in scripture can only be the norm of faith.

again? goodness, enough already, you sound like a cry baby.

How can that be? How can you use something which isn't there in the first place? In order to use 'scripture' YOU MUST FIRST ESTABLISH what scripture is and what composes scripture. How do you validate your discernment with scripture which according to you is necessary to determine if the discernment is from God?

I said "THE WAY" not "THE NUMBER"

We can use tradition but not trust it? Lols. Why use it in the first place if you doubt it? And again you aren't interacting with what I have said. You despise Tradition but use the same Tradition to determine for you the canon of scriptures since you admit the canon of scripture isn't in scripture. So where did you find your version of the canon? The protestants/evangelicals used the Jewish/Pharisaical canon - which is a tradition of men. Why use the very thing you despise? Isn't that tantamount to HYPOCRISY?

well, we can drink plain water, but not trust in it that it will make us not thirsty anymore.

I use the DCs especially Macabees, because it's historical, but I do not trust that it can give me life, because Christ is our only life.

I never implied nor this thread implies that tradition is more important than Christ. This is way off the thread topic.

praise the Lord! much Grace to you.
Let the Lord renew you and wash away the old traditions that keeps you from Him.

That is why you can't tell us that your version of scripture are the INFALLIBLE WORDS OF GOD. You need an INFALLIBLE guide which could tell you INFALLIBLY what is the word of God. And this INFALLIBLE GUIDE is the BODY OF CHRIST - THE CHURCH. LAUDATE DOMINUM!

the church is fallible without Christ.
Christ is the infallible source of the church.

we need Christ in the church that composes every believer in this world.

[ElCid]

parang sinabi mo na rin na tumahimik na ko.
sige, last post.

You are free to post but you have to address the question of the thread and you just can't ignore it. Di ba ganun ang rules? You are already making a digression from the topic. If you don't hold on to sola scriptura and it doesn't matter to you if the books are 66 or 73 - then I will make another question for you since you're not answering the question of this thread: If the basis for your canon is not scripture - then what is your basis? The SPIRIT? Answer this please.

why 66 books? because in this 66 books can you see Christ prophesied, Christ typified. The Spirit can be touched in this 66 books. Christ and His disciples used the 39 books as reference. Our spirit is nourished when we read these books.

But you've already told us that it doesn't matter to you whether the books are 66 and 73. And besides - we are back to the fundamental question of this thread - where do you find that verse that the bible should be composed of 66 books?

the DCs just doesn't have all of these that's why they are considered as apocryphal.

Again you aren't answering the fundamental question - where in the bible do we find justification that the 7 books taken out by the protestants from the septuagint which was used for more than 1,500 years from the early christians are apocryphal?

so the saints before Paul are not saved? bro. Christ only saves, and it is not in the Bible's completeness does a person is saved. But every words of the Bible count as a basis for salvation. And I think the apocryha does not have this saving value.

Again that's exactly the point. How can you then say the 66 book canon is the only authority in terms of faith and doctrine when you can be saved without scripture according to you?

And again, where do we find in scripture that the 7 books taken out by protestants belong to the apocrypha? On whose authority did they took them out?

this is what happens when we delve in too much to authority. just because some group of people were the first doesn't mean that they are the right ones. doesn't mean they have the authority.

The problem is you RELY ON YOUR OWN understanding without basis from fact. You say that the basis for the 66 book canon is the SPIRIT. And your opinion actually runs counter against the facts of history. And in despising authority - you only substitute yours. But you don't have any AUTHORITY as against the early christians which lived closer to the time of Christ and the apostles - they of course know better since they lived closer to the source and hence have first hand information.

in fact authority comes from who is to come. we are in the age of grace, our lives are based on grace, meaning we are relying on God, not on human authority, or traditional authority.

You talk as if God doesn't work with the body of Christ and that there isn't any authority in the body of Christ.

what happened to the Jews? because they "came first", they were given "last", because they are the "traditional" ones, that they rejected the "new One" covenant who is Christ.

They were last but they aren't out. Again you aren't answering the basic question of this thread: What verse is the basis for the protestant/evangelical 66 book canon of scripture?

I beseech you and advice you not to be so traditionalized, you might lose grasp on Christ because of tradition.

Ironically, you use the same tradition as basis for your 66 book canon of scripture since it isn't in scripture. What would be your basis if not for tradition for your 66 book canon? Tell me? The spirit whispered in your ear?

again, canon is just dessert, the main course is just the Spirit. It's also great to know that the 66 books were used in the early churches.

It is also GREATER TO KNOW THAT THE 73 BOOKS were originally used by the EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. AND Yes of course - the spirit. So you're telling us that the early christians erred in including 7 books from the septuagint and hence doesn't have the guidance of the spirit which was promised by christ to the church? And the JEWS WHO CRUCIFIED CHRIST has the spirit since they were the ones who were primarily responsible for taking out 7 books out of the septuagint which was then being used by the early christians as canonical?

do you think that we follow Luther? follow people? follow Paul?

Sure you do follow luther. You follow his canon, you follow his teachings: sola scriptura and sola fide which aren't in scripture.

we only follow the Spirit in them, like spirits can easily mingle and cooperate, by such does God use us to carry out His desire.

Well actually you don't follow any of them - you follow only your own selves - as dictated by your own 'spirit'. If there was only one spirit that you follow, there would only be one GOD, ONE CHURCH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE DOCTRINE AND ONE FAITH. How come there are thousands? It just doesn't make sense.

really? are you now saying that the Word of God divides His people? perhaps what you mean is the opinion of people that divides the Body of Christ. And the Roman church is not exempted to this, because of its opinion that Rome should be the seat of power divided the west from the east.

You say the 66 books build your churches. But such is not the case. We only see divisions and more divisions from your churches.

Rome and the East share the same fundamental doctrines. There is no comparison.

why on earth would you say there is NO basis when I have emphasized again and again the basis why it ends up to 66?

But I'm not asking for your opinion. What I'm asking for is your basis in scripture. Again we come back to the fundamental question of the thread - where in scripture do we find that the bible is composed of 66 books? Sabi mo wala di ba? Tapos na discusyon eh. It's not in scripture so it's not authoritative since the bible is the only thing that is GOD BREATHE for protestants. Hence they don't have basis for holding to a 66 book canon of scripture.

Credit to tradition. got it.

Of course. Where did you get the 66 book canon? From scripture? Of course not! YOU AND I GOT IT FROM TRADITION. Church tradition.

site scriptural basis on the 4 points

I don't have to. We don't adhere to the heresy of sola scriptura. And you have to answer those question and not the other way around lols.

do you think that authority is a one time matter? That it is some kind of license to canon, or to rule?
when the Spirit descended upon us, we can boldly say that we have authority, but when we turn to ourselves then we misuse authority.

Because you are contradicting yourself. You are saying that the saints were correct in determining the N.T. Canon because of the 'spirit'. But they were wrong in determining the O.T. canon? And the Jews who crucified Christ had it right that's why you adopted their canon? Lolz.

It is obvious that you substituted your own authority over that of the ancient christian church and claim as your license - inspiration of the spirit.

read the entire Bible and all great figures from Moses, David, Solomon, they all became instrumental for God, but they weren't perfect, they fell, each of them.

That's not the point. Why would you say that the early christians were guided by the spirit in determining the correct N.T. canon and they were wrong in determining the O.T. canon? So the spirit only guided them once for the N.T. and left them alone for the O.T.? That just doesn't make sense.

do I have the authority? do we have it? if we turn to our spirit and rely fully on the Lord then yes we have authority.

Now it is clear where your 'authority' comes from - you have arrogated it for yourself.

again, try not to be legalistic and traditional. Don't try to simplify this very important matter concerning the Word of God, and shove it off to traditions and geneologies, that's lazy and irresponsible. Try to exercise your spirit, not your position.

I'm not being legalistic nor traditional - JUST FACTUAL. Your faith should be based on what is real and not just on whims and conjecture.

and your determination is based on tradition? God's breath give life, that's why the Word is called living Word. you determine which books are because of tradition's breath, when it should based on God's breath, it should be whether the books contains God's breath, if the books contain life in it, that gives life.

We've already been through this. The fact is the protestants and evangelicals ADOPTED the jewish canon made the the pharisees at the council of Jamnia. Such cannot just be ignored. This mumbo jumbo regarding the spirit just doesn't wash since you cannot argue against FACTS. And tradition isn't a bad word biblically speaking. Paul admonished us to hold on to it actually on 2 Thess 2:15.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

i will not be surprised if you reject a preacher who preaches Christ and overflows rivers of life to people, just because she is not traditionally Roman Catholic.

parang colonial mentality.

There are many who would come in his name and deceive many.

we have Christ and the church, traditions are just flowers and leaves of the tree who is Christ, the brnaches who are the church.

are you saying that Christ can only be found and can be had in the Bible?

Then you aren't a sola scriptura practitioner. You have other authorities outside of SCRIPTURE. You call it the church - but which church? Your own? Or any church which happens to agree with your opinion? So if scripture is not your only authority - what is your other source? The spirit? How can you be sure that what your 'spirit' tells you comes from God? Isn't scripture SUFFICIENT for you and you have to add your own teachings coming from the 'spirit'? Isn't that the same principles used by CULTS?

the Word of God shall never pass away. so no need to make it a tradition. the purpose of tradition is to establish an ordinance or a law to make sure that the old ways are not forgotten, to make sure that what was done will not change.

At one point you imply that Christ and the word's of God aren't confined in scripture alone. If such is the case, where do you find such if not in tradition?

And again you contradict yourself. If the purpose of tradition is to establish continuity with the past - shouldn't we UPHOLD TRADITION since it will establish our continuity with Christ and the Apostles and the early christian church?

tradition is like hewing broken cisterns that holds no water.

You invent your own doctrines? Where do you get these things?

people change, traditions are made by people. the Spirit does not change, why don't we rely on the Spirit instead of our own petty traditions.

If the spirit is all you need, then why defend the 66 book canon of scripture? Why don't you throw that away as well along with tradition so you can have COMPLETE RELIANCE ON THE SPIRIT?

and God have mercy, how can you say that the Word of God is mere human tradition? this is heresy.

but the Spirit is the truth!

traditions always fail, didn't the Lord Jesus rebuked those who hold dear to their traditions?

Again you use the same tradition that you despise. That's what hypocrites do. Whether you believe it or not, the 66 canon of scripture's basis is TRADITION OF THE JEWS AND PROTESTANTS since it isn't in scripture. So don't be a hypocrite.

no I am not telling that, what I am telling you is to turn to your spirit while reading the Bible and your DCs. Do not read it like a historical book, read it with the appetite and desire to be filled with life, to save you organically. If you find that in the DCs then I will be more than happy. In the end, it doesn't matter whether we should have 66 or 73 books, what matters is that we learn to exercise our spirit when reading the Word of God which is Spirit.

Then it is of no use in answering the question - the basis for the 66 book canon which isn't in scripture.

so I think it's your turn to define how you understood SS in the most direct and complete portion of your post. Just to see whether you exactly know what you are hitting.

You never defined your own and obviously you're not a sola scriptura adherent since you have OTHER authorities aside from scripture. I have already defined SS in this thread many times. Just backread.

you never know, maybe what you've heard about SS came from somebody who also really do not know the real meaning of SS.

You don't believe in SS, and there is no official definition of SS, so now are you telling that you who don't believe in SS know better?

see how nicolaitan thought veer you away from the real authority that is the Spirit? if the "magisterium" had this revelation, and I share the same revelation, aren't we suppose to celebrate our common spirit? instead of accusing people of stealing ideas?

tell me, is it because the "magisterium" is the ruler of the church or is it the Spirit that told the "magisterium" of His revelations. Are you saying that the Spirit will ONLY speak to your heirarchy?

It is enough that you admit that there are other authorities aside from scripture.

I for one holds the belief of deification, which was lost in protestantism, I am thankful to the Lord for giving Anastasius and revealing "God was made man for man to be made God."

Irrelevant to the topic.

when I read the 66 books, I know the Lord is speaking to me. do I think the 66 books is God breathed= yes.

don't you?

So you think the basis is your feelings? When the muslim reads the quran he thinks the same thing. There must be a more OBJECTIVE way of knowing the words of God. What if I tell you when I read the bible i know that the 73 books is God breathe since I know the lord is speaking to me. So how do we determine who among the two of us has the 'spirit'?

That is why we have to go back in history - to the time of the apostles and see what are the books used by the early christians. And what we see is that the early christians used the septuagint as the O.T. and the 27 books of the N.T. both of which is held by the Roman Catholic Church. The innovation only happened when the protestants adopted the O.T. of the pharisees from the council of Jamnia - that isn't even christian tradition, but the tradition of those who had Christ crucified. Kilabutan naman kayo!

I clearly have stated that I recognize 66 books of the Bible.

On what basis? Your own understanding? Shall we tell the world that it is the word of God simply because you SAID SO?

well, it's just how it is, it's like the Father is in Christ and Christ is in the Father. or that Christ is in us, and we are in Christ.

does that make sense to you?

The Word is in the Spirit and the Spirit is in the Word.

That is why I am amazed why you still use opinion instead of your spirit to dive in to the Word and the Spirit.

Again the one who is using opinion here is you - just you who insist on her own discernment of the 'spirit'. You sound so occult. You yourself aren't even sure if your spirit comes from God without scripture. How then can we trust your discernment in determining scripture without scripture? It just doesn't make sense.

nope, I don't assume that the 66 books are the Word of God. why? you don't think the 66 books are the Words of God?

You are assuming without basis that the 66 books are the words of God. You just tell me the spirit tells you so. Nice. We can tell the whole world about that.

What I think is irrelevant. What is relevant is the FACTS which seems to be unimportant to you.

putting words in my mouth,
when did I say that I have no basis?

You don't. You only have your own opinion and your own discernment of the spirit to rely on. You aren't even sure which canon is correct:

I can say that it isn't 73 nor is it 66, because the scripture did not say any number.

hey, that's misrepresenting me.

what is meant there is that the scriptures did not say it is 66 or 73 in number.

grabe ElCid, that's very low of you.

Misrepresenting you when I quoted your own words? How can that be possible?

God and His Word are one, how can they contradict?

You aren't answering the question. You claim you have another authority aside from scripture which is the spirit within you. So if the two happen to contradict each other - which one is correct? The scripture or your discernment of the spirit? So you mean to say you are always correct and never wrong? Wow para kang si Moses? Elijah? Isaiah? Who speaks directly to God?

give me scripture that says God is in traditions

Layo naman ng sagot?

fine, you don't like me here.

Because you're not addressing the issues. You don't even believe in Sola Scriptura so I have another question for you:

If the basis for your canon is not scripture - then what is your basis? Surely it is not tradition nor history since obviously you despise both but prefer the your own discernment of the spirit. So how reliable is your discernment without scripture? And why should we trust your discernment over and above the ancient christians who believed that the O.T. is composed of 46 books based on the septuagint? They are the same people whom you say have been guided by the spirit in determining the 27 books of the N.T. So shouldn't the same spirit guide them in determining the O.T.?

ops,
sufficient in what manner?

the scrioture as a written text and record of history, is not sufficient.

Answer me in a direct fashion - is scripture sufficient for you or not? Obviously scripture isn't sufficient for you since you rely on your own discernment of the spirit APART from scripture as regards christian truth and doctrine.

and you cannot put Someone in another that is inside that Someone.

there are a lot of canons, 73, 66 and whatnots.

Again we go back to the fundamental question - what is your basis for holding on to the 66 book canon? Just your own discernment of scripture? Should the whole world now trust their own discernment? What if I just hold on to 6 books?

the 66 books is what I consider God breathed, the DCs are not. if they are then evangelize us why it is by showing us Christ in them.

Now it is obvious who your authority is - YOURSELF.

again? goodness, enough already, you sound like a cry baby.

Just answer the question.

I said "THE WAY" not "THE NUMBER"

well, we can drink plain water, but not trust in it that it will make us not thirsty anymore.

So you don't have any qualms even if the water is polluted - you would still drink it? Since obviously you imply that TRADITION should not be trusted - then why drink from it? Aren't you placing yourself in danger?

I use the DCs especially Macabees, because it's historical, but I do not trust that it can give me life, because Christ is our only life.

praise the Lord! much Grace to you.
Let the Lord renew you and wash away the old traditions that keeps you from Him.

You make a lot of comments that has no bearing in the thread. But it doesn't mean that you have answered my point. You're just taking up space lols.

the church is fallible without Christ.
Christ is the infallible source of the church.

we need Christ in the church that composes every believer in this world.

Again that means that the CHURCH who was instrumental in determining the canon of scripture has Christ and hence is infallible because of Christ our Lord. I have no problem with that.

[Ischaramoochie]

answer to the thread topic: table of contents

[ElCid]

answer to the thread topic: table of contents

Lols Exactly. The bible doesn't have any - so what is the protestant basis for picking 66 books from a plethora of books all claiming to be scripture? If it is not from the bible then it is not authoritative since it is not 'God breathe' according to the principles of Sola Scriptura. All doctrines should be based from scripture alone - so where do we find the inspired table of contents from scripture? lols wala :P

So hindi authoritative yung canon nila precisely because it wasn't culled from scripture.