Why do Protestants accept the NT canon?

[PRmerger]

When Paul dictated the Letter of Romans to Tetris, was that Scared Tradition?

In that it was the Word of God being transmitted orally, yes.

When Tetris give the letter to Trusted Traveler going to Rome and says: deliver this letter from Paul to the Church in Rome. Is that Scared Tradition?

I don’t know. How do we know he said those words? Is it in Scripture?

When Trusted Traveler gives the letter to the Church in Rome and says I have this letter from Paul for you. Is that Scared Tradition?

No! Trusted Traveler is not the Magisterium!

When they read the letter in Church and Christian Man tells his 10 friends and family: I just heard Paul’s Letter to us. Is that Scared Tradition? And then they tell their 10 friends and family…

Most definitely not ST! Not part of the Magisterium.

If Josephus (37 – c.100 AD/CE),* also Yosef Ben Matityahu (Joseph son of Matthias) and Titus Flavius Josephus was a first-century Romano-Jewish historian and hagiographer of priestly and royal ancestry who recorded first century Jewish history, such as the First Jewish–Roman War which resulted in the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. He has been credited by many as recording some of the earliest history of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels.*…writes about it ; Is that Scared Tradition?

Again, no. Not part of the Magisterium.

well you qualified it with the word “some” so i guess you could find 3 Jews somewhere who thought that: of course

Do you think there were more than 3 Sadducees?

did MOST Jews in the time of Jesus think Isaiah was inspired ? of course!

Ok.

 

[tester]

was Polycarp in in 140 AD part of the Magisterium.?

 

[PRmerger]

was Polycarp in in 140 AD part of the Magisterium.?

I don’t know. Why?

 

[tester]

Still building from this quote of yours
"Now, clearly, without the Catholic Church to tell you that this verse is part of the Holy Bible, no one of his own authority–using science, or logic, or geometry–could discern that this is inspired. "

I offered an example of Polycarp knowing that letter of Ephesians was scripture"

you replied in post 375:
Regarding Polycarp referencing the letter of Ephesians as Scripture; you stated that

Yes! This is a wonderful example of Sacred Tradition: the witness of the early Christians.

then in post #381 you stated that the examples used was NOT Scared Tradition because Christain man , Trusted Traveler were not part of the Magisterium .

and now I am asking you "was Polycarp in 140 AD part of the Magisterium.? "

 

[Philthy]

Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (often simply called To the Philippians) composed around 110 to 140 AD directly quotes Paul’s letter to the Ephesians and calls it Scripture.

 

[Philthy]

I offered an example of Polycarp knowing that letter of Ephesians was scripture"

 

[tester]

Philthy:

how he(polycarp) arrived at that knowledge is entirely unknown: he could have received private revelation; he could have been tutored by another Bishop or the vicar of Christ himself.

Tester:

If I was there in in 140 AD and had access to the Paul’s letter , would I know it was Scripture?

Philthy:

No

hmmm…special knowledge not available to all believers…special revelations about what is True
Aren’t you getting really close to Gnosticism?

 

[PRmerger]

Still building from this quote of yours
"Now, clearly, without the Catholic Church to tell you that this verse is part of the Holy Bible, no one of his own authority–using science, or logic, or geometry–could discern that this is inspired. "

I offered an example of Polycarp knowing that letter of Ephesians was scripture"

you replied in post 375:
Regarding Polycarp referencing the letter of Ephesians as Scripture; you stated that

then in post #381 you stated that the examples used was NOT Scared Tradition because Christain man , Trusted Traveler were not part of the Magisterium .

and now I am asking you "was Polycarp in 140 AD part of the Magisterium.? "

Ah. I see.

I don’t know if he was part of the Magisterium; it’s irrelevant to this discussion, however, because if he knew that Ephesians was theopneustos it was because of the Magisterium, or the Oral Tradition of the Magisterium.

Either he was part of this “teaching body” and through it discerned Ephesians was inspired, or he accepted the authority of those who discerned it.

 

[PRmerger]

So, tester, since you reject the notion of Sacred Tradition, how is it that you think Polycarp knew what was Scripture?

Are you saying it was “common knowledge” and he just accepted what everyone knew by private revelation?

 

[tester]

So, tester, since you reject the notion of Sacred Tradition, how is it that you think Polycarp knew what was Scripture?

Are you saying it was “common knowledge” and he just accepted what everyone knew by private revelation?

It was “common knowledge” that Paul wrote Ephesians…
Paul had authority beacuse of his miracles and the eyewitnesses to his miracles:

Paul as an apostle of Christ wrote scripture.

2 Corinthians 12:11,12 - Paul claimed that the signs, wonders, and miracles he did confirmed his apostleship. Note that he claimed these miracles were done in the presence of the people to whom he wrote, so they would have known whether or not he did these miracles.

1 Corinthians 15:1-8 - Paul specifically listed himself as an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection.

Note that Paul’s claim to do miracles and be an eyewitness was confirmed by Luke, who recorded many of Paul’s miracles (Acts 13:6-12; 14:8-20; 16:16-19; 19:11-17; 20:9-12; 28:2-10).

All these men recorded in writing their eyewitness testimony of miracles that confirm Jesus’ claims and the claims of Bible writers. As discussed earlier, these men fully meet the qualifications of valid eyewitnesses. Specifically, all of them suffered greatly for the faith they upheld, and many died at the hands of persecutors. Yet they never denied or compromised their testimony.

I

 

[PRmerger]

It was “common knowledge” that Paul wrote Ephesians…
Paul had authority beacuse of his miracles and the eyewitnesses to his miracles:

Paul as an apostle of Christ wrote scripture.

Ok. But who decided that the criteria for authorship of Scripture is that

1. he had to work miracles
2. he had to be an apostle?

And, do the other authors of Scripture fit that criteria?

I think…no.

Did Mark work miracles?
What about Matthew?
And David?

 

[PRmerger]

and now I am asking you "was Polycarp in 140 AD part of the Magisterium.? "

Just did a google search and as Polycarp was a bishop of Smyrna, he was indeed part of the Magisterium. Thus, that which he taught which was in union with the Pope at that time (don’t know who that was) and the other bishops was part of the Sacred Tradition.

I find it rather interesting that even in this first century there were bishops. Sounds rather Catholic to me–what about you?

 

[Philthy]

hmmm…special knowledge not available to all believers…special revelations about what is True
Aren’t you getting really close to Gnosticism?

No, but it sounds like Im getting closer to demonstrating the absurdity of your original question.
You would not have “known” it was Scripture. How could you have known? You wouldnt have written it.
Its the same question as the OP - How do you know the NT is Scripture?
And the truth is that you can’t answer it.

 

[Philthy]

It was “common knowledge” that Paul wrote Ephesians…

 

[PRmerger]

Where does Luke claim to be an eyewitness? Try reading Luke 1:1 - he relied on eyewitnesses.

'zactly. The fact that Luke reported Paul’s miracles does not mean he was there, any more than Luke’s reporting of Mary’s Annunciation means he was a witness to that.

 

[joe370]

Gcnuss…

=gcnuss;7073791]Randy,

I have not personally

concluded anything about the New Testament canon and its completeness. Why should I? The canon was set in the fourth century and I know of no reason why that decision should not be accepted, just as there is no reason for me not to accept the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds as true declarations of my faith.

If you accept those creeds, established by the Catholic church, and the canon, which was also set by the CC, in the 4th century, what would be so wrong with accepting the CC too?

 

[joe370]

Hey Tina…

TinaG;7076436]Doesn’t God speak to you? Is the indwelling Holy Spirit silent to you? May He only speak through the Magisterium, and is not permitted to speak to individual Christians?

So you believe that you were entrusted with the authority, by Jesus, to correctly interpret scripture as the holy spirit moves you, and this is how it is for every Christian? By the way, Magisterium (Latin) - simply means teaching office, as you know, so every protestant church has a Magisterium - correct?

Tina, do you believe that all 27 books of the NT were never doubted as to their authenticity, from 100 AD to 393 AD?

 

[joe370]

Well, that settles everything. The question is being asked of Protestants, please remember.

-Tina “Please Fasten Your Seatbelts” G

Who decided what would be included in the bible and what would not be included in the bible? Was it the 4th century CC council(s) or each and every Christian belonging to the CC in the 4th century?

 

[joe370]

4thelamb…

That one church of which you are speaking, that existed prior to the supposed man-made CC - please identify that church, in the world today? We know that one church must still exist today, alongside the supposed man-made CC and all of the man-made Protestant Churches.

If you believe that the CC in communion with Rome is nothing more than a man-made church then why do you accept that the bible is infallible? The bible comes from the CC, as opposed to that one anonymous church of which you speak. How do you know that the CC didn’t intentionally sabotage sacred scripture or accidentally include a book that shouldn’t have been included?

Why is it so hard to realize, that “the church”, that kept (and held as authoritative) the Gospels and Paul’s Epistles (Letters), during the 300 years between Christ’s ressurection and the Council at Nicea, was NOT the Roman Catholic Church? So what’s the point in saying that Scripture came to us through believers in the early churches as guided by the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles in their “writings”. The early christians used their “writings” for instruction, public reading, and to guide them in their faith (Much like we do today, except we have all of them combined into one book). If you think there was “one” church before Rome incorporated itself into christianity(at Nicea), uniting it under the heirarchy and authority of the Roman Empire, you’re severly mistaken and have located a major contributing factor in your confusion.

 

[joe370]

I think a lot of people don’t bother to think it through, whether Catholic or Protestant.

At some point you simply trust Christ to show you the truth. Either He does or He doesn’t.

-Tina “Trusting” G

So in the end, Christ is showing you truth and showing me truth, even if you and I have opposing truths about the same teaching?

Did Jesus leave us with a way to know who is right and who is wrong; clearly the bible via individual interpretation, is not settling our differences?