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

[nikeairviturin]

Is the Old Testament Canon of the Jews the same as the Old Testament Canon of the Catholics?

[ElCid]

I will not answer line by line as the questions and the gist presented in your post were just rinsed and repeated. Kindly refer to my previous posts to answer your re-questioning.

so I'll just get a few points in your posts that I think were not discussed in our previous correspondence.

Actually Dessa this conversation is finished since you already admitted in principle that there is no basis for the 66 book protestant canon from scripture. So as far as the THREAD TOPIC IS CONCERNED - YOU HAVE NO BIBLICAL BASIS FOR ADOPTING A 66 BOOK CANON OF SCRIPTURE. Discussion is over unless you can point to a verse that says which book should be included in the bible and all of them total 66 books which was adopted by the protestants and evangelicals. And hence this contradicts the principle of Sola Scriptura which holds that only those doctrines which are supported by scripture should be held on to. Simple lang.

the Jews being those who crucified and those who did not accepted Jesus as the Christ, were the same Jews who canonized the Old testament, with the old law they had the authority from God, but with the New covenant, they are rightfully considered not in the guidance of God for not having the New law and Christ Himself.

They never had a 'canon' until the council of Jamnia 90 AD according to scholars - which is already a generation after Christ established his church and this canon isn't in scripture. What does this mean? Authority regarding God's word was already passed to the CHRISTIAN CHURCH since the guarantee of the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT was given to the church - TO GUIDE IT INTO ALL TRUTH - NOT ONLY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT BUT ALL TRUTH: OLD AND NEW. So if you follow the Jewish canon you should also DISCARD the NEW TESTAMENT if you are saying that they were inspired in determining what is scripture and what is not. When there is conflict between the old and the new - the new always prevails. And when there is a conflict between the Jews and Christians - as Christians of course we are bound BY THE LAWS and TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH and not by TEACHINGS BY JEWISH RABBIS. You should therefore now decide if you are a JEW OR A CHRISTIAN.

the Jews being the original ones responsible for taking out the Apocryphas had merit to do so since the apocrypha is before Christ, hence the Old law.

so your assertion just fails, it could have been feasible if we were talking about the NT though.

On the contrary, your assertion is what miserably fails. You undermine the canon of the christian church and obey those by the pharisees. YOU AREN'T A JEW. What is binding to the christian is not what PHARISEES TELL THEM. What is binding is the teachings of the Christian Church WHICH IS THE SAME CHURCH WHICH IS GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT INTO ALL TRUTH - not some but all. Are you saying that THE JEWS/PHARISEES AUTHORITY extends to the christian church?

You cannot put NEW WINE INTO OLD WINE SKINS. That is what you people are doing.

RC is not exempted to division, you divided yourself from the eastern church and labeled yourself Roman.

The teachings are fundamentally the same. There is only a question of leadership and polity or church organization but that is not what matters. What matters is the teachings.

how wonderful to have One God, One Church, and one faith. by traditions we cannot avail of this, only through the mingled Spirit.

Your appeal to the 'spirit' doesn't really wash. After more than 500 years the protestants are more divided now than when they started into thousands of different and peculiar sects. And it is not only 'wonderful' to have one god one faith and one baptism - it is the model provided in scripture itself:

4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Eph 4

So if you say you are guided and follow the spirit then you should have ONE LORD, ONE FAITH AND ONE BAPTISM. But the fact is you aren't therefore - you aren't GUIDED AND 'MINGLED' WITH SPIRIT.

though we have thousands of divisions, RC being a major one, all christians have one God, one Faith, one Christ, and One church.

We aren't part of the DIVISION. Protestants separated themselves from the true church hence the term REFORMATION is a misnomer. They REFORMED nothing. They only succeeded in establishing their own peculiar churches with their own peculiar doctrines which I have proven to be CONTRARY to each others teaching.

yes, there is only ONE church, and that's not merely the RC, the genuine believers in the RC are part of His church.

I agree to a certain extent to what you are saying here. That there WAS ONE CHURCH and the protestants separated from it. But by virtue of their baptism they are still considered as part of this one christian church.

and no, there is no One doctrine. there can never be one doctrine, perhaps now we need doctrine, but in the final consummation, these doctrines will break. They are not eternal like our faith, our God and our Lord and the church.

How can you say at one point that you have one faith but different doctrines? Can you have one faith while believing in different doctrines? And doctrines will not break according to Jesus Christ because the teachings of the Lord are eternal and will never pass away:

Psalm 119:89
ל Lamedh Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.

Psalm 119:160
All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.

Luke 21:33
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

yeah, right. Rome and the East is the mother of denominations, except that in this denom, there are only 2.

it's just like the thousands denoms, having the same fundamentals, but are not one.

There is no comparison between you protestants and us catholics. We are both catholics both Roman and Greek catholics sharing the same fundamental doctrines. What is different is the leadership.

On the otherhand you people don't have one fundamental doctrine - only those that you've borrowed from us catholics.

liars, calling yourself to have one fundamentals and one Christ and yet could not form as one Body to express the oneness of God.

If we are liars by having division in leadership but not in fundamental doctrines, how much more can you people be considered as LIARS since you are admittedly divided into THOUSANDS OF SECTS with different doctrines? The sauce for the goose is also good for the gander lols :P

well, we cannot deny that these books was passed down to us by the early fathers and in a way, it looks as if it's tradition. but then one can ask how in the very beginning did the early fathers chose these writings? is it still tradition?

Tradition is something which is passed down. So the canon is tradition, the bible is tradition. They chose these writings thru the inspiration of the Holy spirit to the church.

bottomline is the Spirit, the early fathers, inspired by the Spirit, picked the books that were inspired by the same Spirit.
can you say that the writers of the books in the Bible "ay binulungan ng spirit spirit"? the same question you are asking me?

There is no comparison between YOU and the EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH inspiration. The christian church has the guarantee of the guidance of the Holy Spirit given by Christ himself. How about you? Who guaranteed your inspiration?

ok, then what is your basis that canon should be based on tradition? if your answer is tradition

Since OBVIOUSLY it was taken from TRADITION and not from scripture.

then how can you reject the same structure of argument the prots have that

their basis where canon should be based on the scripture, is the scripture as well?

Since OBVIOUSLY AGAIN they have no SCRIPTURAL BASIS. If there is why not provide me the verse just to end this discussion? Where in SCRIPTURE DO YOU FIND THE BOOKS THAT MAKE UP THE 66 CANON OF SCRIPTURE WHICH YOU CLAIM IS THE PROTESTANT POSITION/ARGUMENT? Wala. That's why it is unnacceptable.

that is why for me, both tradition and scripture is not the basis of which scripture is God-breathed, but the Spirit.

the scriotures were not called God-written, or even God-given. But God-breathed. and the breath of God is life, the Spirit.

That is why this THREAD is not for you since you AREN'T ANSWERING THE QUESTION but AFFIRM my assertion that the 66 book canon used by the protestants arent in scripture.

You have another authority aside from scripture which is YOUR OWN discernment of the spirit. For most protestants they have SOLA SCRIPTURA MEANING: SCRIPTURE AS THE ONLY, FINAL AND SUPREME AUTHORITY. Obviously you don't belong to these category THAT'S WHY YOU AREN'T ANSWERING the question of this thread.

putting words in my mouth.
Genesis is OT, and the early fathers made it canon, so they are in the Spirit.what I said is that the early fathers were not in the spirit when they chose the apocryphas, not the OT canon.

I'm not putting words into your mouth. Actually you're just making things up as you go along. You aren't even using references. Oh I forgot - it's what the spirit tells you. :P

God dwelling in us gave us the authority, not tradition, not apostolicity, not by men.

I did not arrogated it for myself, I arrogated it for all of us.
when we are one with Spirit, we have authority.

Authority rests on those who were APPOINTED to lead and FEED the sheep. Not all are leaders. Each have their own gifts and have their own parts to play in the church of Christ. What you again say is contrary to what the SPIRIT SAYS IN SCRIPTURE:

1 Corinthians 12:28
And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

And how could you tell if you are ONE with the spirit? Because you said so?

the Spirit is real, is He not to you?

He is real but I doubt if he's the one inspiring you.

I agree that traditions are not at all bad, it's a way for us to be preserved and to take the early fathers our pattern.

but I am not saying that we should follow people or systems, what we follow is the same Spirit the early people followed.

the Jews maintained a tradition that was given to them by God through the priests, but the Lord transgressed these traditions to prove a that He only can fulfill the Law.

praying to God, worshipping God, helping the poor, salvation through the Gospel are traditions that are followed by the RC christians, and there is nothing wrong with that. But when these traditions starts to undermine the Spirit's function in us then these traditions should be "transgressed"

like I said, tradition is just "dessert", the "main course" is the Spirit

do I despise tradition? of course not, but only if we take it above the Spirit who is One with the Word.

You do despise tradition and even try to make it out as something contrary to scripture which isn't the case - they complement each other have only God as their source.

and there are also many that comes with the genuine Spirit of the Lord. the question is affiliation.

if an INC preaches to you to love Christ, would you not say that he has the Spirit?

if a Roman Catholic pope tells you to conquer the Holy Land and purge infidels, can you say he is One with the Spirit?

I don't see the relation of this quip with the topic.

when we say the scripture is sufficient, it means that the 66 books are sufficient and is a complete revelation about God, Christ and the church, from eternity past, until the coming age of the new heavens and earth.

by saying that the Bible or the scriptures are sufficient, we are not saying that the revelation of God, Christ and the church can ONLY be found in the Bible.

the Lord gave us the Spirit as our basis with-in us.
and the scriptures was passed on to us as our basis with-out us.

the Word and the Spirit should always go hand in hand, to discern the revelation in the scripture we need the Spirit, to discern if we have the Spirit we need the scriptures.

the written scripture and oral practices is the one passed down to us, or for your convenience, traditions passed down to us, but we cannot say that every writings and every practice is genuinely inspired by God, that is why we have the Spirit with-in, for us to discern which scripture is God breathed.

please do not ask me how 2 things can be based on each other to confirm validity, because it's just that.

it's like having a marriage certificate, and a husband.
you're certificate proves that you have a husband, and the husband proves that you have a marriage certificate.

It's obvious dessa that you just make things up as you go along and use the 'spirit' as your source. Don't you find it dangerous since you have ARROGATED for yourself the authority of the spirit of God? Are you saying you are like Moses? Elijah? The prophets which talk to the spirit of God? So are you telling me that what you say is MORE AUTHORITATIVE than the early christian church who lived closer to the apostles and the time of Christ? You cannot REINVENT the church and its doctrines. It was ESTABLISHED once by christ. There WAS AND IS A CHURCH. All you have to do is find it. Only the church has the guarantee of guidance of the Holy Spirit since it is the body of Christ. Individual christians don't have this guarantee - they must remain in the body of Christ to be member of the church.

yes of course, we should uphold tradition, and one them is to transgress tradition in favor of the Spirit's calling.

Jer. 2:13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

the law is the tradition of the jew, these tradition holds no water.

Much of what Christ teaches is obedience. But what you call for is the exact opposite. At one point you say tradition is alright, at this point you say otherwise. I don't even think you know what you are talking about since you are ambivalent in everything you say. But then again you have carried this discussion over and above the topic.

our spirit is not all we need, the Spirit is all we need.

I can always throw my Bible, burn it in front of you if I fail to see the Spirit in it.

what is hypocrisy is to deny that the scriptures were written based on the Spirit, and the early fathers selected them based on the Spirit as well.

and it is hypocrisy as well to not admit that the Roman church have thoroughly neglected the Spirit's authority in the Word and replaced it with tradition.

course not, but i know Who knows better, and I'm sure it's not tradition.

good.
but be reminded that all these authorities is sourced from God, delievered by the Spirit. these "authorities" is a compound of one authority who is God Himself, and therefore cannot be contradicting.

feeling?

no, but it is based on the subjective mingled Spirit, and the objective Word of God.

when you read the DCs, do you sense the subjective Spirit? otherwise, it is no different than reading the newspaper.

being too objective is death, we need to draw waters from the Word of God as well.

easy, the scriotures tells us that all scriptures are God-breath.
so the DCs if they are scriptures, they should give life.

Christ as God is the Spirit that gives life, and the church is the one who receives it.

if you find in the DC Christ who gives life to the church then that is God-breath. A scriptoure that nourishes our spirit, and gives us salvation.

read the newspaper, don't tell me you need the magisterium to decide whether it is scripture or not.

too much knowledge leads us to fall, beware of that tree.
rely more on the Tree that gives life.

facts or even truth, are pointless if they can't give reality.

e ayan o, it shows there that the scripture is my basis also.
my basis is the scrioptures that did not tell us 66 or 73.

but take note that I can also say that IT IS 66 books based on the Spirit.

when I say based on the Spirit, it may also mean the Spirit in the early fathers who chose the 66 books from your 73, not necessarily and originally in my spirit.

you are misrepresenting what was posted, giving it a different meaning.

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

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

"scripture nga e, bakit "spirit" ang sinabi mo?

what I said is the scrioture doesn't tell us if it's 66 or 73, so the scrioture is not a basis to know the number of books.

and that's only the number, wala pa tayo sa part na kung anu-ano yung 66 na yon.

the scripture is physical, the Spirit is spirit.
I'm sure the early fathers have collected a lot of writings from early disciples and was able to deduce it into 27, coherent, books of the NT, and for the OT, they compromised the Spirit in favor for historicity.

heh, in reality, the NT is more relevant to us today in this age, I don't really understand why I am even arguing with you about DCs when they are even less relevant than the OT.

did I not tell you that tradition are flowers and decorations of the tree, that it is dessert?

even the word "canon" is in itself tradition.

what I always tell is to go to the Word not because of tradition, not because history, but primarily because of LIFE, because you want to be nourished and to eat Christ as your daily bread.

that is your primary basis, LIFE. and you get it from the Spirit in the Word. if not then the manuscript is not the Spirit and the Word.

but the Spirit and the Word are ONE.
the Bible is sufficient because we can find the Spirit in it that gives life.
the Bible can also be not sufficient if one cannot find the Spirit in it.


each book of the Bible does not completely reveal the full revelation of Christ and the church, but the 66 books combined together completely unveils the full revelation. the DC does not contain any revelation or if it does, it's not needed since the 66 have already that part of the revelation, whatever that is.

goodness, is this how you talk to people?

sige, i will ride with it.

YES. the AUTHORITY is with me, I was given authority by God to read the Bible, to partake the divinity from His Word, to pray directly to God without passing through a dead christian, to speak for God without the permission of any authority, to ENJOY Christ directly without being told what to enjoy or when to enjoy.

and the proof that I have this authority is because my self is crucified on the cross, that my opinions, my allegiances, my stand, my ego, my self, was buried and was made dead, it is no longer I who lives but Christ, in such a way I have gained this authority.

and not only I have this authority, every believer has this authority, all we need is to deny ourselves and turn to the mingled Spirit.

how will you know if the water is polluted if you don't get sick or even die because of it?

di ba nga, we were given the Law of God to persecute us and to make us dead, in order for us to realize that Christ is our answer to fulfill God's law.

sometimes God uses Satan to inflict sufferings to us in order for us to turn to Christ.

what answer do you want from me when you already have settled to your point?

my desire is to impart Christ in you, not to despise your tradition or your beloved DCs.


the church is not perfect, yet, though they have Christ, they are sometimes not one with Him, as typified in the 7 churches in revelation, key figures in the OT, even Paul was at a time in His flesh during his ministry.

A lot of verbiage Dessa but I'd like to remind you that the topic is not about what you are ranting about. The question is simple: Saang talata sa biblia nakasulat na ang salita ng Dios binubuo ng 66 na libro?

I don't see you answering this question after reading your paragraphs. I AM ASKING FOR THE VERSE which states that God's word is composed of 66 books. Where do we find that in scripture? So kung wala - eh di wala di ba? So why belabor the issue? If it's not in scripture then the 66 book canon used by the PROTESTANTS/EVANGELICALS has no scriptural basis and hence unscriptural. And based on their own teachings such should not be held on to by Christians and should be repudiated.

Napakasimple ng tanong - kung saan saan mo dinadala ang topic?

[froshie1]

jeric baket di mo itanong yan sa pastor mo? mahilig ka magtanong kung saan nakasulat sa bibliya diba? o ngayon, saan makikita sa bibliya na 66 na libro dapat ang bumubuo nito?

[ElCid]

^ Di nga alam ni Jeric yun na yung bibliang gamit niya di naman biblical lols. Kaya napakahipocrito ang mga argumento ni Jeric. Baket? Tanong ng tanong kung biblical eh yung biblia niya mismo di niya majustify using the bible. Baket 66 books? Saan nakatala sa biblia ang mga libro/aklat na bumubuo dito at ang total nito 66 books at hindi 73 tulad ng gamit ng mga catolico? Ano batayang biblical sa pagbabawas nila sa septuagint ng libong taon ng ginagamit panahon pa ng mga apostol at pinalitan lang ng mga repormista bilang pagsunod sa mga pariseong Judyo. Saan ka nakakita ng ganun? Autoridad ng cristiano sa aral eh HUDYO? Ang masakit pa naniniwala silang BIBLIA LAMANG ANG TANGI, PINAKAMATAAS AT HULING AUTORIDAD HINGGIL SA ARAL CRISTIANO - eh ganun pala eh baket sa canon of scripture ang sinunod nila HUDYO AT HINDI BIBLIA? So lumalabas mas mataas na autoridad ang mga HUDYO sa biblia kase ang batayan nila ng biblia mga hudyo? Puro kahipocrituhan di ba? They teach one thing but do the exact opposite.

[ElCid]

So asan na yung mahilig sa termino na biblical na gumagamit ng 66 aklat na biblia? Baket di niyo depensahan ang itinuturing niyong tamang listahan ng salita ng Dios na siya niyong pangunahing aral? Wala magtatanggol sa aral protestante/ebanghelico? O talaga lang alam niyo wala talagang batayan yang paniniwalang 66 aklat ang bumubuo sa biblia - dahil wala naman talaga sa biblia. At kahipocrituhan lumalabas ang aral protestante/ebanghelico. Baket? Eh they insist on having biblical basis on all doctrines but FAIL TO PROVIDE biblical basis for their primary doctrine regarding the composition of the word of God which is the bible.

[ElCid]

So sa dami ng ebanghelico/protestante dito walang makasagot sa tanong. Ano ang ibig sabihin nito?

Dapat marealize nila na ang doctrina ng SOLA SCRIPTURA talagang untenable and demonstrably - SELF REFUTING. Kahipocrituhan yung aral nila na ang BIBLIA ANG TANGI, HULI AT PINAKAMATAAS NA AUTORIDAD SA ARAL CRISTIANO. Baket? Sa issue ng CANON OF SCRIPTURE na mahalagang bahagi ng aral nila ukol sa salita ng Dios ang sinunod nilang autoridad mga tao - MGA PARISEONG HUDYO sa council of Jamnia 90AD AT HINDI ANG BIBLIA. Malinaw sarili nilang aral sinasalungat nila. Hindi nila sinunod at masunod ang biblia at ang masakit pa - hindi cristiano ang sinunod nila kungdi mga HUDYO na siya ding nagpapako kay Cristo Hesus.

At paano nila titindigan yang doctrinang yan na kinahoy nila sa mga Hudyo? Wala naman sa biblia? So dapat ibasura yang aral na yan DAHIL HINDI NAMAN MATATAGPUAN AT MASUSUPORTAHAN NG BIBLIA. Sundin niyo ang aral niyo para di kayo maging mga hipocrito. Mangangaral kayo ng ganitong aral di niyo naman masunod? Eh ano tawag doon - malinaw na doctrina ng mga hipocrito.

[OrionPax]

Wala pa rin makakasagot dyan...yung mga birada ni Smart Dessa hindi naman RELATED sa topic eh

So sa dami ng ebanghelico/protestante dito walang makasagot sa tanong. Ano ang ibig sabihin nito?

Dapat marealize nila na ang doctrina ng SOLA SCRIPTURA talagang untenable and demonstrably - SELF REFUTING. Kahipocrituhan yung aral nila na ang BIBLIA ANG TANGI, HULI AT PINAKAMATAAS NA AUTORIDAD SA ARAL CRISTIANO. Baket? Sa issue ng CANON OF SCRIPTURE na mahalagang bahagi ng aral nila ukol sa salita ng Dios ang sinunod nilang autoridad mga tao - MGA PARISEONG HUDYO sa council of Jamnia 90AD AT HINDI ANG BIBLIA. Malinaw sarili nilang aral sinasalungat nila. Hindi nila sinunod at masunod ang biblia at ang masakit pa - hindi cristiano ang sinunod nila kungdi mga HUDYO na siya ding nagpapako kay Cristo Hesus.

At paano nila titindigan yang doctrinang yan na kinahoy nila sa mga Hudyo? Wala naman sa biblia? So dapat ibasura yang aral na yan DAHIL HINDI NAMAN MATATAGPUAN AT MASUSUPORTAHAN NG BIBLIA. Sundin niyo ang aral niyo para di kayo maging mga hipocrito. Mangangaral kayo ng ganitong aral di niyo naman masunod? Eh ano tawag doon - malinaw na doctrina ng mga hipocrito.

[froshie1]

Up on this thread!

[ElCid]

Sumagot naman ang mga gumagamit ng 66 aklat na biblia dito na humahawak din sa Sola Scriptura o Bible Alone principle.

[OrionPax]

Matagal tagal na hantayan yan bro...hinahanap pa nila sa Bible eh

Sumagot naman ang mga gumagamit ng 66 aklat na biblia dito na humahawak din sa Sola Scriptura o Bible Alone principle.

[gad_moon1]

pangalanan nyo wag kayo matakot

[nikeairviturin]

Conrado, wag kang mahiya! Sagutin mo ang tanong!

pangalanan nyo wag kayo matakot

[gad_moon1]

ako ba tinatanong? o sya hintayin ko pangalanan nila ako.

[nikeairviturin]

mASYADOI KA NAMANG ASSUMING! Nakulangan yata ang pagiging hambog mo today!

ako ba tinatanong? o sya hintayin ko pangalanan nila ako.

[gad_moon1]

ano daw? "assuming" nyahahaha. heto na naman ang ingitero sa kanya hambog lahat ng tao. ano, nalinis mo na ba ang simbahan nyo sa quiapo

[nikeairviturin]

Kapag hambog pala palaging mainit ang ulo!!!

Ang aga naman ng pakikip[aglaro ko . hahahahah

ano daw? "assuming" nyahahaha. heto na naman ang ingitero sa kanya hambog lahat ng tao. ano, nalinis mo na ba ang simbahan nyo sa quiapo

[gad_moon1]

ang ingitero sa kanya lahat hambog

yup. hanggang one liner lang yan. walang laman nyahahahaha

[nikeairviturin]

Utak sugo!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

ang ingitero sa kanya lahat hambog

yup. hanggang one liner lang yan. walang laman nyahahahaha

[Mabuhay-Rex]

ang ingitero sa kanya lahat hambog

yup. hanggang one liner lang yan. walang laman nyahahahaha

naku si brainwashed!!! Conrado! laging nag iinit ang ulo!!!oppss palamig muna Conrads para di mag aapoy yung ilong mo...

uusok na yun...

[gad_moon1]

nyahahaha. bakit ba kayong mga katoliko mahilig ibintang sa ibang religion ang gawa ninyo. sino ang brainwashed? testing natin: 1+1+1 =? kung hindi ka brainwashed sagot dyan 3 tama? i try mo trinity

mainit ang ulo? yung brad mo ikalawang post pa lang name-calling na ahihihihihi