the church

[SaulToPaul 2]

Should we consider any writings composed after 2 Timothy to be noncanonical?

Perhaps 2 Timothy is the 66th.
You do not know that it isn't.

 

[glassjester]

Peter never says he was in Rome.

The Bible never says Peter was ever in Rome.

Wrong.

From http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome

Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox).

 

[glassjester]

Perhaps 2 Timothy is the 66th.
You do not know that it isn't.

Whether it is or isn't, should we consider all books composed after 2 Timothy to be noncanonical (based on Paul's reference to "all Scripture")?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Whether it is or isn't, should we consider all books composed after 2 Timothy to be noncanonical (based on Paul's reference to "all Scripture")?

Sure why not.

 

[musterion]

Wrong.

Show where the Bible itself identifies Rome as "Babylon." If anyone could do so, it was Paul. He didn't.

As wicked as Rome was (and still is, particularly Vatican City), Jerusalem -- stumbled, fallen and blinded in unbelief by that point -- more resembles a spiritual Babylon.

 

[Right Divider]

And who has the authority to proclaim which writings God calls Scripture?

The Gnostics? Martin Luther? Joseph Smith? Right Divider?

You should have in included the RCC in there.

Who decided that Genesis is scripture?

Why not?
Do you currently believe any false Christian doctrine?

Because it's a silly and LOADED question and I'm not falling for your tactics.

 

[glassjester]

You should have in included the RCC in there.

Who decided that Genesis is scripture?

Well Jesus considered it to be Scripture.
His opinion on the matter is certainly authoritative.

But what about the books that were written after His ascension?

Did the Gnostics have the authority to proclaim new writings to be Scripture?
Did Joseph Smith? Did Martin Luther have the authority to declare certain writings to be Scripture?

Who was it that actually had the authority to do that?

Because it's a silly and LOADED question and I'm not falling for your tactics.

Either you currently do believe false Christian doctrine or you do not.
How is the question "loaded"?

 

[musterion]

Make with the biblical Babylon/Rome connection already.

 

[Right Divider]

Well Jesus considered it to be Scripture.
His opinion on the matter is certainly authoritative.

Indeed, He did and He is.

But what about the books that were written after His ascension?

Did the Gnostics have the authority to proclaim new writings to be Scripture?
Did Joseph Smith? Did Martin Luther have the authority to declare certain writings to be Scripture?

Who was it that actually had the authority to do that?

Again, you should include the RCC in that list as they have no authority in the matter.

Either you currently do believe false Christian doctrine or you do not.
How is the question "loaded"?

No, I do not believe any false Christian doctrine. That is why I reject all of the false doctrines of the RCC.

 

[glassjester]

Again, you should include the RCC in that list as they have no authority in the matter.

Who did decide, then?

No, I do not believe any false Christian doctrine. That is why I reject all of the false doctrines of the RCC.

Ok

I believe most Christians would say the same.
I have the same opinion of my own beliefs, of course!

So my difficulty is in understanding how we can arrive at that conclusion.


Would you say that you've come to believe only true Christian doctrine, by your own human ability?
(I will guess the answer is no, as I would say the same, myself)

 

[glassjester]

Make with the biblical Babylon/Rome connection already.

There's plenty of early Christian writings that confirm Peter's presence in Rome.
You dismiss all of those so readily? Do you dismiss all historical documents that are not canonized Scripture?

Do you believe Peter went to Babylon?

That would seem to be the more extraordinary claim.
Is there any historical evidence of that?

Anyway...

From http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome

Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).

 

[Right Divider]

Who did decide, then?

That's sort of the point. Nobody "decides". God put His Word out there and we all get to have it. We discover, we do not decide.

Ok

I believe most Christians would say the same.
I have the same opinion of my own beliefs, of course!

So my difficulty is in understanding how we can arrive at that conclusion.

In a certain sense, that's just the way that it is. God allows us each to discover Him and His Word. There is no human authority when it comes to that.

Would you say that you've come to believe only true Christian doctrine, by your own human ability?
(I will guess the answer is no, as I would say the same, myself)

No.

 

[musterion]

There's plenty of early Christian writings that confirm Peter's presence in Rome.
You dismiss all of those so readily? Do you dismiss all historical documents that are not canonized Scripture?

Do you believe Peter went to Babylon?

That would seem to be the more extraordinary claim.
Is there any historical evidence of that?

Anyway...

From http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome

Post the biblical connection between Rome/"Babylon."

 

[glassjester]

That's sort of the point. Nobody "decides". God put His Word out there and we all get to have it. We discover, we do not decide.

Hm. Yes, that seems right. Truth is discovered or revealed, not created by people.
A better question may be, by what means does God reveal His written Word to us?

I assume you and I would agree that Joseph Smith was not the means by which God revealed to us which writings are His written Word.

No.

I agree. As I said before, I would readily give the same answer.

Is it God then, the Holy Spirit, that allows you to only believe true doctrine, and prevents you from believing false doctrine?

 

[glassjester]

Post the biblical connection between Rome/"Babylon."

Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world.

If Peter was not referring to Rome, then to what place did he refer?

 

[Kott]

There is no church
that Jesus built on earth
at this point in time.

All these so called churches
on earth today are all fakes.

They are built
by the spirits of this world.

 

[musterion]

If Peter was not referring to Rome, then to what place did he refer?

Wow, you're making a case that Dave Hunt was right. Good job.

Peter never went to Rome, as far as the Bible records.

 

[patrick jane]

There is no church
that Jesus built on earth
at this point in time.

All these so called churches
on earth today are all fakes.

They are built
by the spirits of this world.

Who are you ?

 

[Kott]

Who are you ?

The question is not who am I
but who am I not.

I am not one of you.

 

[Right Divider]

Hm. Yes, that seems right. Truth is discovered or revealed, not created by people.
A better question may be, by what means does God reveal His written Word to us?

I assume you and I would agree that Joseph Smith was not the means by which God revealed to us which writings are His written Word.

I would agree about Joseph Smith and I would put him in the same category as the RCC.

I agree. As I said before, I would readily give the same answer.

Is it God then, the Holy Spirit, that allows you to only believe true doctrine, and prevents you from believing false doctrine?

The Holy Spirit leads us to truth, but He does not always prevent us from being imperfect in our understanding.

The RCC is absolutely no help there because they teach a deadly mix of truth and error.