How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[Dokimas]

Would you not agree with that about all scripture in general. Did God not say that no one can define scripture only him because we could not think like God only humans.

Remember what he said to the Apostles when he was teaching and they did not understand what he was talking about. Remember how he told them they will come to understand because he would be sending the advocate the Holy Spirit to teach them.

Yes.

I do remember.

 

[Dokimas]

I do.

Like in acts 15:11 we will be saved through the grace of Jesus.

Then in Phil. 2:12 work out your salvation with fear and trembling…

If I did not understand ST and SS I would think I am already saved and do not have to work out anything. But Thank goodness the Church showed me how to put scripture in comtext.

Ephesians 2:
8 For by grace you **have been saved **through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Notice the verb in verse 8: past tense.

Notice the verse in Philippians 2: it says ‘your salvation’ - it’s ours already.

 

[Dokimas]

Thank you for answering, my dear gentlemanly friend! :kiss4you:

**So we are agreed, then, based on context, that *sometimes *the Scriptures–both in the OT and the NT–use the word “until” to mean “only up to a certain point”. (Although I must say that there’s nothing in the context of either 2 Sam or Corinthians which tells us this. With 2 Samuel it’s common sense that tells us she didn’t have children after she died–not the context of the verses; and with Corinthians it’s all the other verses in Scripture which tell us Jesus reigns forever. So it’s *not *context in these examples)

Then, we can say that Matthew’s verse about Joseph not knowing Mary “until” she gave birth is*** not ***proof whatsoever that Mary had relations with Joseph. The context does not give us any clues about how “until” is used in this verse.

:yyeess:

You’re welcome. Did you just miss my answer?

What I agreed to was that context tells us that either nothing happens after ‘until’ or something most likely did happen after ‘until’. A woman can’t have a baby after death. Mary did not die so she could have had relations with Joseph after she gave birth to Jesus. Agreed?

I’m not saying the Matthew 1:25 verse is NOT a proof. It is good evidence FOR their relationship based on the use of ‘until’ in the other verses you agreed, in context, meant something was going to happen after ‘until’.​

Married couples have relations after they are married. Mary was to wait ‘until’ Jesus was born.

 

[Cinette]

Jesus Christ is the only One teaching the truth and the only One with the truth,you must be SENT to have the truth, how can you know the truth if you are not sent and not has been sent ONY the Apostle ,not One preacher has been sent and that is why we have over 32,000 non-cathloic churchs to day

*That is one loooooong sentence! Can’t understand what you are saying. Please can you rearrange the words and break the sentence into two or three sentences. It should help.

Thanks
Cinette*

 

[Dokimas]

Jesus Christ is the only One teaching the truth and the only One with the truth,you must be SENT to have the truth, how can you know the truth if you are not sent and not has been sent ONY the Apostle ,not One preacher has been sent and that is why we have over 32,000 non-cathloic churchs to day

As I always say, everone (like you, Bill) are welcome to their opinion, even if it may be wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re welcome. Did you just miss my answer?

What I agreed to was that context tells us that either nothing happens after ‘until’ or something most likely did happen after ‘until’. A woman can’t have a baby after death. Mary did not die so she could have had relations with Joseph after she gave birth to Jesus. Agreed?

No.

What we are agreed on (I thought) are that there are at least 2 Scripture verses–one from the OT, one from the NT–that show that the inspired authors have used the word “until” to show ONLY that something occurred up to a certain point. It makes no indication of what happened after.

If you are not willing to acknowledge this, Dokimas, my dear brother in Christ, in all of your integrity and honesty, then I will have to sadly say that I am done with you.

 

[minkymurph]

That is a fairly good summation but excludes a few important things.
First, the council of Jamnia canon insisted on the books that are used by Jews in the west failed to consider the African and HellenisticJews who have always used the Septuagint. The Septuagint is how the OT came to the Christians and there are NT texts that reference the DCs.

Secondly, Luther did not really want to get rid of all the DCs - only Mac2 because of the references to purgatory. But because he had no ground for getting rid of Mac2 by itself, he had to get of all DCs because he could use the fact that the council of Jamnia rejected these books.

Thirdly, if the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded on earth, then it is the same Church that is being guided by the Holy Spirit to determine which books are canonical not a Jewish council. Of late, scholars have questioned whether the Jamnia council did take place. It is still hypothetical at this stage. Some scholars also think that a canon was not determined at the council if there was one.

Your right I did omit a lot of important things. Only so much one can write in one post!

I agree the Jamnian council did not like Hellentistc influences and another important fact is they rejected the entire New Testament as they did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. As historical evidence during that time period is questionable, some have questioned if the Jamnian council ever took place. It cannot be irrevocably proven it did. However, we do know the Reformers went with the Jamnian Canon, allegedly or otherwise.

I agree Luther did not exactly reject the DC’s, but he did not like the Maccabees as they had the practice of praying for the dead. However, he acknowledged the Maccabean period is a very significant period in the history of Israel regarding the re-establishment of a monarchy and restoration of true worship. I agree the OT came to the Gentiles and consequently Christians via the Septuagint. Interestingly, Jude quotes from the Septuagint. Orthodox Jews did not like it for obvious reasons.

From what we both have said here, it is obvious that deciding the Canon of Scripture was a lengthy, controversial and complex process. A lot of Christians do not know how the Canon of Scripture was decided and the Bible came to be written in its present form. I personally see little point in discussing the validity of Scripture etc unless you go right back to the beginning. Lots of people believe the Bible is inspired but are unsure why. As you quite rightly state in your conclusion, the Canon of Scripture could only be validly decided under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it comes down to the age old arguement, who did the Holy Spirit inspire?

 

[PRmerger]

Context tells a lot. A person can’t do anything after they die in this life. Mary did not die in child birth. Apples with apples.

If you continue to say, “Well, Mary didn’t die so your point is not valid”, you are not able to understand analogies. Don’t take one isolated point and zero in on that.

It’s like you’re trying to explain to your drunk brother who’s left the Church, “Come back home, brother! Jesus will forgive you! Look at the story of the Prodigal Son!” and he responds, “Well, I’ve never eaten the food meant for pigs, so it doesn’t apply to me.” He’s missing the bigger point which is: even if you live a dissolute life, God will welcome you home.

That’s exactly what you’re doing. You’re taking the point that Mary didn’t die, but Michal did and saying, “Well, it doesn’t apply”.

Look at the bigger picture: is there an example of the word “until” which clearly shows something only occurred up to a certain point? The answer is YES!! In the OT AND the NT!!

 

[larkin31]

If you continue to say, “Well, Mary didn’t die so your point is not valid”, you are not able to understand analogies. Don’t take one isolated point and zero in on that.

It’s like you’re trying to explain to your drunk brother who’s left the Church, “Come back home, brother! Jesus will forgive you! Look at the story of the Prodigal Son!” and he responds, “Well, I’ve never eaten the food meant for pigs, so it doesn’t apply to me.” He’s missing the bigger point which is: even if you live a dissolute life, God will welcome you home.

That’s exactly what you’re doing. You’re taking the point that Mary didn’t die, but Michal did and saying, “Well, it doesn’t apply”.

Look at the bigger picture: is there an example of the word “until” which clearly shows something only occurred up to a certain point? The answer is YES!! In the OT AND the NT!!

can you remind the rest of us what the point is with this word? What is the larger issue here?

 

[PRmerger]

can you remind the rest of us what the point is with this word? What is the larger issue here?

There is a verse in Matt that says that Joseph did not have relations with Mary UNTIL she bore a son (Matt 1:25).

Protestants say that this means that AFTER Mary gave birth she and Joseph had relations.

Catholics profess that Mary remained a Perpetual Virgin. For the womb that bore God Incarnate would not have borne any other babies.

Matt 1:25 says nothing whatsoever about what happened after Jesus was born. Only that they did not have relations up to the point that Mary gave birth. Matthew’s point in that verse was that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, but that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Doki is reading the word “until” with the assumption that it means something occurred afterwards. We have provided verses which show that it does not necessarily indicate a subsequent occurrence, although it can. (There are indeed some verses which use the modern sense of the word “until”, but there are also some verses which show the archaic meaning.)

 

[larkin31]

There is a verse in Matt that says that Joseph did not have relations with Mary UNTIL she bore a son (Matt 1:25).

Protestants say that this means that AFTER Mary gave birth she and Joseph had relations.

Catholics profess that Mary remained a Perpetual Virgin. For the womb that bore God Incarnate would not have borne any other babies.

Matt 1:25 says nothing whatsoever about what happened after Jesus was born. Only that they did not have relations up to the point that Mary gave birth. Matthew’s point in that verse was that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, but that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Doki is reading the word “until” with the assumption that it means something occurred afterwards. We have provided verses which show that it does not necessarily indicate a subsequent occurrence, although it can. (There are indeed some verses which use the modern sense of the word “until”, but there are also some verses which show the archaic meaning.)

roger

there is nothing definitive either way

Commentary on whether Mary had sex after Jesus was born is a form of speculation, whether faith-based or otherwise.

Sure enough, where the Bible does not specify or make clear, there is more than one denominational opinion. Not surprising.

 

[PRmerger]

roger

there is nothing definitive either way

Commentary on whether Mary had sex after Jesus was born is a form of speculation, whether faith-based or otherwise.

Sure enough,** where the Bible does not specify or make clear, there is more than one denominational opinion.** Not surprising.

Exactly!! :extrahappy:

That’s exactly what the CC’s point is! The Bible is quite unclear about a multitude of issues, which is why you need a guardian and interpreter of Scripture in order to know the Truth.

What you have without an authority is…chaos and confusion!

 

[minkymurph]

You’re welcome. Did you just miss my answer?
Married couples have relations after they are married. Mary was to wait ‘until’ Jesus was born.

This is an interesting point. Why did Mary have to wait until Jesus was born before she had sex with Joseph? What is wrong with having sex with your husband while pregnant? Why would it be inappropriate to have sex with your husband while carrying a child who is the Son of God? What is the Gospel writer trying to communicate to us by telling us this?

 

[Dokimas]

No.

What we are agreed on (I thought) are that there are at least 2 Scripture verses–one from the OT, one from the NT–that show that the inspired authors have used the word “until” to show ONLY that something occurred up to a certain point. It makes no indication of what happened after.

If you are not willing to acknowledge this, Dokimas, my dear brother in Christ, in all of your integrity and honesty, then I will have to sadly say that I am done with you.

If you need to be done with me, so be it.

However, those verses I gave you clearly showed ‘until’ being used that something was to change after ‘until’.

If you are not willing ot concede that then you are not being honest with the verses I posted.

For example — one verse spoke of Joseph, Mary and Jesus being in Egypt until Harod died. Are you willing to say that after ‘until’ there was NO different action (they stayed in Egypt)? I know you know correctly that after ‘until’, Joseph brought Mary and Jesus back to Israel.

So unless you are willing to admit that context helps to know that sometime ‘until’ is a dead end and many times it indicates a change will take place, then you are correct to give up on me.

 

[Dokimas]

If you continue to say, “Well, Mary didn’t die so your point is not valid”, you are not able to understand analogies. Don’t take one isolated point and zero in on that.

It’s like you’re trying to explain to your drunk brother who’s left the Church, “Come back home, brother! Jesus will forgive you! Look at the story of the Prodigal Son!” and he responds, “Well, I’ve never eaten the food meant for pigs, so it doesn’t apply to me.” He’s missing the bigger point which is: even if you live a dissolute life, God will welcome you home.

That’s exactly what you’re doing. You’re taking the point that Mary didn’t die, but Michal did and saying, “Well, it doesn’t apply”.

Look at the bigger picture: is there an example of the word “until” which clearly shows something only occurred up to a certain point? The answer is YES!! In the OT AND the NT!!

Thank you for your opinion of what I’m doing. I repectfully disagree.

 

[Dokimas]

This is an interesting point. Why did Mary have to wait until Jesus was born before she had sex with Joseph? What is wrong with having sex with your husband while pregnant? Why would it be inappropriate to have sex with your husband while carrying a child who is the Son of God? What is the Gospel writer trying to communicate to us by telling us this?

Under normal situaltions there is NOTHING wrong with it. However, Jesus was special and Mary was impregnated in a special NON sexual way by the Holy Spirit. My guess is is that God did not want any question about the ‘virgin birth’ of Jesus so Mary did not have sex with her husband until after Jesus was born

Context is important: they were married and married people have been given the gift of sex that God says that should only be experience between one husband and one wife. Any other sex is sinfully wrong. (Thank God for the Blood of Jesus that cleanses us from our sin. Thank God for the resurrection of Jesus that enables us to put our sin nature way away from us.)

 

[PRmerger]

If you need to be done with me, so be it.

Amen.

:crying:

 

[larkin31]

This is an interesting point. Why did Mary have to wait until Jesus was born before she had sex with Joseph? What is wrong with having sex with your husband while pregnant? Why would it be inappropriate to have sex with your husband while carrying a child who is the Son of God? What is the Gospel writer trying to communicate to us by telling us this?

Don’t get me started on sex and the Bible…

There is nothing wrong with it, IMO.

 

[Dokimas]

Amen.

:crying:

Did you even read my post?

Did Joseph, Mary and Jesus stay in Egypt after the death of Herod?

It seems I’m the one that should be crying, for infact on the inside I’m very sad.

 

[larkin31]

Exactly!! :extrahappy:

That’s exactly what the CC’s point is! The Bible is quite unclear about a multitude of issues, which is why you need a guardian and interpreter of Scripture in order to know the Truth.

Many denominations do!

What you have without an authority is…chaos and confusion!

Not necessarily. You are presenting a false dichotomy.