What is meant by ...

[doug yowell]

Again, Doug, only because you say so? Aside from the fact that no one takes any decenter on this forum seriously. If you don't toe the official Adventist line you cannot be 'in the club'. Here on this forum anyone with a substantially different viewpoint is automatically labeled a heretic. Hm! Let me see, wasn't Martin Luther considered a heretic by his church? Wm Miller was also called names by his church. Certainly Jesus Christ was considered to be a heretic within His religion and culture. If I am a heretic I am in good company.

[Remember the narrow gate and the narrow way.]

I didn't label you a heretic, Musicman, I simply tried to imply that Wayfinder was creating a major problem by excluding 98% per cent of the Biblical testimony and then then claiming that that 98% didn't say what it,in fact,it did say.Feeling a little guilty, are we? When one tries to pit Jesus against Paul they demonstrate that they,in fact, reject the historical testimony of the Bible, not just SDA propaganda! By the way, I notice that you're still "in the club" (Adventist)

[Musicman1228]

Yes, Doug, thankfully I have not been banned yet, as some have been. I was not saying that you were naming me 'heretic', I was just pointing out that this has been done on this forum. All I have ever desired both here and in other venues is an open exchange of ideas based in truth. Some see truth differently than I, which is perfectly OK with me. I have never made the statement or implied in any way that anyone here must believe the way I do.

By the way, I and my friends have never suggested throwing out any Scripture much less 98% of it. My only concern is that we must not check our intellect, logic and reason at the door labeled 'faith', and then say that anything that doesn't confirm my individual beliefs must be left outside.

I love a challenge, open debate and honest criticism. For the most part that is what I find here on the forum.

[Guest]

Yeah right MM, "open exchange of ideas" "I love a challenge" "don't check your brain at the door"

Oh, and by the way, you can only use the parts of the Bible I agree with. LOL! What a challenge for you MM.

[Dr. Rich]

Richard, if I am confused, then I am good company! Take a look at all of the books at a Christian book store on this subject and you will see that there must be lots of confused people such as I. But then, you will have a serious problem with this because one must first have eyes to see.

[doug yowell]

Richard, if I am confused, then I am good company! Take a look at all of the books at a Christian book store on this subject and you will see that there must be lots of confused people such as I. But then, you will have a serious problem with this because one must first have eyes to see.

Rich, I think that claiming to be in good company begs the question.Perhaps you should have said: "I'm no less confused than a lot of other people!"

[Guest]

Richard, if I am confused, then I am good company! Take a look at all of the books at a Christian book store on this subject and you will see that there must be lots of confused people such as I.

That doesn't mean I need to be one of them. And like Doug said, I don't believe I would call that good company, just because there's a bunch of you.

[Guest]

Amen

[Dr. Rich]

No Doug, that would be a lie, and you can't trick me into lying. I am NOT confused. I have done my homework well (as the song goes) and the truth can't please everyone, so I might as well please myself with it.

You see Doug, I was once in the same position as you and Richard, but now that I opened my eyes, there is just no way at all that I could ever go back. You guys on the other hand, have NEVER been in my present position, so you have no way of knowing what I now know unless you take the time and honestly do you 'homework well'. Listen for a change and actually 'test' it for yourself. Why you ask? Because Matthew 24:45 is a warning that there will be 'someone' feeding the fellow servants at the proper time. This feeding is not physical food, but spiritual food, stuff that you will not want to eat unless you are hungry for it. It's your choice just as it is my choice.

But hey, who am I to suggest such a thing?

[Guest]

No Doug, that would be a lie, and you can't trick me into lying.

Nobody needs to trick you to get you to lie. The devil has already done that.

[doug yowell]

You see Doug, I was once in the same position as you and Richard, but now that I opened my eyes, there is just no way at all that I could ever go back. You guys on the other hand, have NEVER been in my present position,

Sorry, Dr., I can't speak for Richard but I, also, was once an unbeliever in God's Word. I have been in your position!! But, God, in His mercy,changed all that! And if I should deny that I would be a liar!

[Guest]

And all god's children said Amen.

[Musicman1228]

I too am a firm believer in God's Word, with the operative word being "God's". I believe that God spoke in the OT to His servants the prophets in all ages from Genesis to Malachi. I also believe in the Words of Jesus Christ, God the Son as given to those who God the Father chose for Him to be His Disciples. This is my definition of 'God's Word'.

Whenever someone states that this applies to the entirety of the New Testament then that is where we must part company. Someone has yet to prove to me that the NT as approved by Constantine and his bunch (the Council of Catholic Bishops at Leodicea in 325-6 CE) has any standing to be defined as 'the Very Words of God.' I have heard phrases in response to this such as 'you must have faith', or 'you must believe' that the Bible is the wholly inspired, inerrant Word of God, but this is not born out in the words of Jesus where He gave us the responsibility to 'not be deceived'. As for me I have decided to play it safe and go with the words of Jesus Christ and Him alone in the New Testament. I'm sorry but I refuse to put my trust in a group of eminently fallible members of the Roman Catholic Church in defining for me what is Scripture and what is not. That requires a LOT more 'faith' than I am able to muster.

[Guest]

Constantine and his bunch didn't add anything that hadn't already been accepted by the early churches for years.

By the early 200s, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the Catholic NT canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation, known as the Antilegomena. Likewise the Muratorian fragment is evidence that perhaps as early as 200 there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the 27-book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the third century.

....Christian scholars assert that when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

[Musicman1228]

And this makes those texts 'God Speak'? Actually, there were lots of texts accepted by the churches that did not make it into the Canon called the New Testament. Those that were accepted by 'most' of the churches were termed homologumena. These were rare, as getting manuscripts copied accurately was very difficult, and getting them to all the churches even more so. I also would not call Origen an authoritative source, as he had his own issues with truth.

The choice is whether to believe that in spite of the historical fact that Constantine put together the Councils (Nicea, Leodicea) for purely political reasons that these Roman Catholic Clergy were in fact acting wholly on behalf of truth and at the behest of God, or that some of what they decided to include in this new Canon was included as a way of helping Constantine solidify a splintering empire and was not influenced by the Spirit of the Living God.

The more research I did (for a published book) the more I realized that there are numerous concerns about the quality of thought that brought the texts of the New Testament together. This would go right along with what Jesus prophecied about the Wheat and the Tares.

[Guest]

The New Testament Canon

The process of canonization for the New Testament is similar to the Old even though the circumstances widely differed. While the Old Testament was kept confined largely to the Israelite community protected by the temple and the priests, the New Testament was literally spread out across the world through the Greek copies and different language translations.

Christians were wondering which books should they teach, which would they die for and what books taught the truth. Cults produced their own set of books. A heretic named Marcion in the second century AD said that only Luke and ten of Paul' s epistles should be part of the New Testament. This forced the church to formerly recognize which books really were authentically scripture.

We know more of the process of canonization for the New Testament because of many secondary documents. That having been said, the process was similar to the Old Testament. Canonization happened over periods of time as the community of God's people became familiar with the different books and got copies of them. For example, some books were written to certain places such as Rome (Romans) or even to individuals (Gaius in 3 John). It would take a good amount of time before the document circled back to Antioch, Jerusalem and the other Christian communities. Those books that were questioned were often excluded from one part of the church.

Note how Colossians 4:16 describes how the book was to be passed around.

And when this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.

As time went on, the 27 different documents (Bible books) would travel about and end up in different Christian churches or Christian centers. Each main Christian center would begin their own collection of these NT scriptures (ie.manuscripts) by making their copies. Some books might never get to another center. This would produce some question whether the book was authentic.

Most books were easily accepted. The authenticity of others was debated. Twenty of the twenty-seven books were clearly accepted by 180 A.D.

[doug yowell]

I also believe in the Words of Jesus Christ' date=' God the Son as given to those who God the Father chose for Him to be His Disciples.

quote'] And who exactly are you referring to. Who fits this description?

[doug yowell]

As for me I have decided to play it safe and go with the words of Jesus Christ and Him alone in the New Testament. I'm sorry but I refuse to put my trust in a group of eminently fallible members of the Roman Catholic Church in defining for me what is Scripture and what is not.

And this is your idea of "playing it safe"? This isn't really about the Roman Catholic Church,is it?

[oldsailor29]

As for me I have decided to play it safe and go with the words of Jesus Christ and Him alone in the New Testament. I'm sorry but I refuse to put my trust in a group of eminently fallible members of the Roman Catholic Church in defining for me what is Scripture and what is not.

[Musicman1228]

Doug, great question, and fairly easily answered.

I am referring to those Disciples that were eyewitnesses to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. In the Bible they are Matthew, Peter (Mark writing for Peter) and John. Luke was a convert of Paul and never met Jesus.

[doug yowell]

Doug, great question, and fairly easily answered.

I am referring to those Disciples that were eyewitnesses to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. In the Bible they are Matthew, Peter (Mark writing for Peter) and John. Luke was a convert of Paul and never met Jesus.

So, Luke is out. Are both Peter and Mark in, or just Mark? Does that mean that the Books of Acts and Luke are out too? If so, We're down to Matthew, Mark, John (including 1,2,3 John,and Revelation)and Peter,right? How about,Hebrews? Weren't James and Jude also eyewitnesses?Are they in?

[SivartM]

How many times has Musicman had to make a list so far?

Maybe you should put it on your profile, MM. Or have a FAQ webpage. :\

[doug yowell]

How many times has Musicman had to make a list so far?

Maybe you should put it on your profile, MM. Or have a FAQ webpage. :\

Sorry, SivartM, this is news to me. I didn't mean to invite redundancy over and over again. Give me the answer quick and I promise to never ask again.

[SivartM]

I didn't mean it personally, but I've seen several people having the exact same conversation with MM before and if it were me I'd get tired of it and have a copy-and-paste answer ready or something. So I just made a suggestion.

LOL at redundancy over and over again.

[Guest]

Hey Doug, I think I can fill you in, since I am one of MM's favorite people to argue with. (or maybe most hated) Hebrews, James, and Peter are out too. It would make it easier if I just told you who is in:

The only ones they haven't thrown away yet, are: Matthew, Mark, John, and the book of Revelation. Although after you see what they do with Rev. you'll wonder why they don't just go ahead and throw it out too. Also they claim to believe the OT, but no matter where you find the word faith, they don't believe it, because they are pretty sure they don't need faith. Or grace.

I say they, because there are three of them. I call them the three wise men.

MM, Dr. Rich, and wayfinder. Wayfinder is their leader.

[Dr. Rich]

Actually Richard, Jesus Christ, and only Him, is the leader of those who are called His Bondservants as found in Revelation 1:1-3. Wayfinder is the teacher who started our bible study class called "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" in our Calimesa SDA Sabbath School class that we have been broadcasting weekly on the internet and on skype. We have around 2,000 people around the world that download this and listen to it.

As we testified to in today's program called "The Bible On Trial", we treat the words of Jesus as our only foundation for understanding truth. Therefore, if anything is in controversy with the words of Jesus, then we take them over anyone else, because all else would be called hearsay evidence.

The reason we do this is to build on a solid foundation instead of following people like Joseph Smith and/or Mohammad.

Richard's foundation is assumed to be built upon his faith where everyone who says that they are of Christ is telling the truth. We understand that many people do this and that is their choice--it just is not our choice to do so.