God2man2again:
The acronyms are:
B- Basic
I- Instructions
B- Before
L- Leaving
E- Earth


The Bible came into existence through inspiration, revelation, illumination, audible voice, angels, prophets, visions, dreams and still small voice from God Almighty and nature..

About 40 different authors wrote the Bible of 66 books in different locations over a period of more than one thousand years.

Some of these authors never saw the writings of one another yet there is a wonderful unity, agreement and conformity with their writings.

How can you preserve a book for more than 1,000 years?
It can only be God.
God has hands in it.
Till tomorrow, the Bible is still under attacks, scrutiny, twisting, misapplication and misinterpreted.
They sought in vain to destroy the Bible but it stood like an unmovable Rock

The Bible is good for the soul. It nourishes, encourages, heals, transforms and fits the soul as key to a lock.

The Bible has power. The power to destroy the deception of the wicked old man, the devil.
Quote the Bible and see how the wicked will flee.

The Bible is a spirit. It gives life to people.

A world without Bible is like a Sodom and Gomorrah, ready for destruction.

( To be continued)

God2man2again:
The acronyms are:
B- Basic
I- Instructions
B- Before
L- Leaving
E- Earth


The Bible came into existence through inspiration, revelation, illumination, audible voice, angels, prophets, visions, dreams and still small voice from God Almighty and nature..

About 40 different authors wrote the Bible of 66 books in different locations over a period of more than one thousand years.

Some of these authors never saw the writings of one another yet there is a wonderful unity, agreement and conformity with their writings.

How can you preserve a book for more than 1,000 years?
It can only be God.
God has hands in it.
Till tomorrow, the Bible is still under attacks, scrutiny, twisting, misapplication and misinterpreted.
They sought in vain to destroy the Bible but it stood like an unmovable Rock

The Bible is good for the soul. It nourishes, encourages, heals, transforms and fits the soul as key to a lock.

The Bible has power. The power to destroy the deception of the wicked old man, the devil.
Quote the Bible and see how the wicked will flee.

The Bible is a spirit. It gives life to people.

A world without Bible is like a Sodom and Gomorrah, ready for destruction.

( To be continued)

LordReed:


66 books that were selected by men, who excluded other books simply because they did not fit into their theology but were recognised by others.

God2man2again:

About 40 different authors wrote the Bible of 66 books in different locations over a period of more than one thousand years.

LordReed:


66 books that were selected by men, who excluded other books simply because they did not fit into their theology but were recognised by others.

SIRTee15:


There were criteria selected to determine what book should be canonised. It has nothing to do with the feelings of anyone.

SIRTee15:


There were criteria selected to determine what book should be canonised. It has nothing to do with the feelings of anyone.

LordReed:


Criteria that were made by men. When one of the criteria was wide geographical use tell me that is not based on feelings.

SIRTee15:


Criteria based on theological deduction and logical reasoning.

SIRTee15:


Criteria based on theological deduction and logical reasoning.
Strict criteria for the new testament scriptures include the books must be written in the 1st century AD by people who knew the Lord or who met people that knew the Lord.
It must have a new Christology doctrine not written in books b4 it. If it's just a repetition of what's already known, there's no need for it to be canonised.

It must not contain legends, fables or supernatural tales that sounds strange to the early church. Whatever supernatural that's written in the book must be well known and established by the early church.

It's pertinent to note that the gospel was initially sung as a hymn or chants in the early church and known to hearts by the early Christians b4 it was written down. So coming up with tales that's strange or unheard of will be rejected.

That's why stories like Jesus talking at birth was rejected because early Christians didn't sing it and books having such tales not included in the bible.

I don't know anything about widespread geographical use. 2 Peter wasn't widespread when it was canonised.

LordReed:


The gospel of Peter met all these criteria but was still rejected. Tell me why.

None of the things you've said have excluded human judgement.

Maynman:

SIRTee15:


Soooo irrelevant and off point assertion.
Seriously I wouldn't mind condoning your pest like behaviour if at least u bring substance to the argument. At least we all here to learn.
But u....it's like people are talking mathematics then u come along and start talking about heresy.
Always off point.

SIRTee15:


There's no evidence anywhere Peter wrote a gospel when he was alive. None of the apostolic fathers mentioned anything about Peter writing a gospel.
What the apostolic fathers wrote was that the gospel of Mark is the oral rendition of Peter.
Gospel of Peter started circulating in the 2nd century. No reference was made of it in the 1st century.

Gospel of Peter was a pseudepigrapha

In addition to the sets of generally agreed to be non-canonical works, scholars will also apply the term to canonical works who make a direct claim of authorship, yet this authorship is doubted. For example, the Book of Daniel is considered by some to have been written in the 2nd century BC, 400 years after the prophet Daniel lived, and thus the work is pseudepigraphic. A New Testament example might be the book of 2 Peter, considered by some to be written approximately 80 years after Saint Peter's death. Early Christians, such as Origen, harbored doubts as to the authenticity of the book's authorship.[4]

SIRTee15:


But u....it's like people are talking mathematics then u come along and start talking about heresy.
.

LordReed:


One of the criteria you mentioned was that it was in oral traditions, Gospel of Peter was in oral tradition.

As for it being pseudepigrapha, riddle me this:

SIRTee15:


The old testament was already compiled possibly by Ezra 200 years b4 any Christian existed so I really don't see how Christianity wil influence something already established b4 it.

SIRTee15:


Regarding old testament. Christians regard it as books telling the history of the Israelites. The Jews compiled their history in the books.
It's not for me to start disputing the history of a race I don't belong. The old testament is read either as historical evidence or theology interpretation. The later is the interest of christians when it comes to the old testament.
We learn the principles of God as he relates with his elects and then apply such principles to the new testament.
The old testament was already compiled possibly by Ezra 200 years b4 any Christian existed so I really don't see how Christianity wil influence something already established b4 it.

I've read the apocryphal books in the old testament and I don't see much difference in canonised and non canonised. It's basically much of the same Jewish history and their challenges. My favourite is the book of sirach anyway.

Now to new testament. I already dealt with 2 Peter in one of my previous posts. I will check and bring it here, can't repeat myself.

But if we are to go by scholars. Only 13 of the 27 new testament books are accepted as genuine. The authorship of the rest are disputed by modern day scholars.
The funny thing is the number keeps changing. A scholar may wake up this morning and claim another book's authorship is disputed because of some new criteria he discovered.
Every bible scholar must defend his phD by claiming they've discovered something new about the bible. That's the way it works. It's either they publish or perish.
Even 1 Thessalonians that have been agreed by all scholars to be the first authentic letter of Paul is now been disputed as fake by some new scholars.
I don't know about u but personally I will take their work by a pinch of salt.

Anyway, back to 2 Peter, it was a private letter and wasnt well known in the early church period. However Clement of Rome quoted from it in his own letter in the first century AD.
That was one of the decisions that influenced it's canonisation.

LordReed:

...BTW 3 of the gospels have unknown authors nor does Paul who some of his books were likely written before the gospels barely quotes anything from Jesus' words. If indeed these were all stuff that was being transmitted orally how come Paul's books barely has any touchstones by way of verbatim quotes?

LordReed:


66 books that were selected by men, who excluded other books simply because they did not fit into their theology but were recognised by others.

Dtruthspeaker:


Because his focus was in the area where he was an expert, which is Law (The Commandments) and his knowledge of Law which was the same reason why he hated Christ's movement in the first place and made him think that they were evil anti-God like you.

Until God opened his eyes to see that Christ was still talking about The Law, the very thing which he supported and upheld.

Thst is why we see him making the connections of Law to us and to Christ as he applauded and uppraised Christs works.

Thus his writings focused on re-raising up The Law and giving us The Law opinion (if i say legal opinion now you people will get it but legal means man made while Law is God Made) for us to see and know the workings and implications of The Law (The Commandments).

Which is why God chose him so that the world would have a glimpse from The Eye of The Law how God, The Law would judge them!

It's as simple as that. The lay men like the fishermen can say and repeat what Christ had Said and taught them but God raised Paul, to be the lawyer who gives The Judgments of The Law!

Galatians 3
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:[

Galatians 5:4
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

LordReed:


So then whether a book was pseudepigraphal would be irrelevant as a criteria if you going to add pseudepigraphal books to the canon anyway.

LordReed:

BTW 3 of the gospels have unknown authors nor does Paul who some of his books were likely written before the gospels barely quotes anything from Jesus' words. If indeed these were all stuff that was being transmitted orally how come Paul's books barely has any touchstones by way of verbatim quotes?

SIRTee15:



The 3 gospels were made anonymous by who?
The early church knew the writers of the gospel, this wasn't disputed until modern scholars came up until their unanimous claim.
.

SIRTee15:


Criteria for tanakh is different from the new testament canonisation.
The Jews that compiled the book of Daniel said it was written by Daniel in the 6th century BC.
Ezekiah who lived in Babylonian exile mentioned Daniel in his book as a righteous person.
You may want to question the historicity of Daniel but remember until 1993 most scholars insisted David never existed, them an ancient inscription depicting city of David was discovered.

The 3 gospels were made anonymous by who?
The early church knew the writers of the gospel, this wasn't disputed until modern scholars came up until their unanimous claim.

John, Peter and James also didn't quote the Lord in their letters. What does that change.
The audience of these letters already heard the gospel. Why should u tell them again.
The aim of the letters is to explain exegesis and address heresy/controversy in the church.
They don't need to recount the gospel.

LordReed:


This is funny. The criteria for some parts of the same so called Holy Book was made different to others and yet you are here trying to defend the reason why books where excluded? LoLz.

The question is not about the historicity of Daniel but the authorship of the book.

LordReed:


By what method do you know who wrote the gospels, just tell me that.

LordReed:

Heard the gospel from who? And why shouldn't they be told again? What is wrong with repetition especially to buttress whatever point is being made? Why do they quote passages from the prophets and the psalms if they've already heard those many times before?

LordReed:

Where did the heresy spring from if they were already hearing the gospels?

SIRTee15:


“I have much more to tell you but you cannot bear it now. Yet when that one I have spoken to you about comes—the Spirit of truth—he will guide you into everything that is true.

LordReed:


Which law? The same one he said Christians are not under?

Maynman:

What does "heresy" mean?
When you have an authority(Catholic) deciding the foundation of your Christianity, other opinions are regarded as "heresy".
If another was in authority, all your ORTHODOX BELIEFS will be "heresy".

Dtruthspeaker:


O Christian Lawyers were art thou?

He did not mean that Christians are not under Law. He was talking about The Law of Condemnation. The Laws which convicts and condemna a man what you would understand as "Criminal Law" with all the standards of proof of guilt and absolve-tion from guilt according to Law.

Paul was simply showing and proving in accordance with Law how a man is guilty and how a man is declared innocent making the connection and Law effects (legal effects) with the Works Christ Did and had Done.

Thus, his writings is about The Law implications (legal implications) of what Christ had done via a vis what The Law had done and will do.

So; Paul was writing to us lawyers first, hence Peters warning to lay men (2 Peter 3:6) to save help us see the Truth and Foundations of Law, for we absolutely know that there is no thing on earth that is not under Law.

Therefore, when Paul said "not under law" he meant a person who would not be attacked by criminal law since he has committed no offence exactly as no police or Efcc or ndlea has come to face you since you have not broken their law. That is what he was trying to teach hence why he said "sin (offence) is not imputed when there is no Law" Romans 5:13". This is where man and his fake laws called legal attached their own "Nullum crimen sine lege is Latin for "no crime without law." The phrase reflects the principle in criminal law and international criminal law that a person cannot or should not face criminal punishment except for an act that was criminalized by law before they performed the act. Though they say "Law" they mean man made laws e.g. criminal code, police act, acja, constitutions and all those fake commands that man made

Whereas, Law is Law and has always been in force and no man made The Law hence my thread https://www.nairaland.com/6989896/lawyers-not-deceit#110283265

So, Paul was talking about Law and how the Law operates in convicting an offender (a sinner)/absolving a person from sin.

Maynman:

What does "heresy" mean?
When you have an authority(Catholic) deciding the foundation of your Christianity, other opinions are regarded as "heresy".
If another was in authority, all your ORTHODOX BELIEFS will be "heresy".

SIRTee15:


Olodo. U can't even interpret sentences properly.
I mean people gathered talking and analysing mathematics. Then u arrive and start talking about religious heresy.
How this mathematics and religious heresy relates?

That's how u sound here, the reason u so annoying.

Even this sentence, u thought I was talking about heresy in the bible.

For someone who claim he's atheist, ur obsession with Christianity is alarming. U can't get your head round anything else apart from Christianity, u see it everywhere.