Does this article propagate idolatry?

[Tarheel Baptist]

Except for those referenced by Jesus?!
He referenced them in Scripture, so they're out as well...

This one you don't get at all.

There is a mountain of internal and external evidence that the gospels are historically accurate (although I believe Luke could be a little mixed up due to "the phone game" syndrome). 

In other words, there is a mountain of rational evidence to support the fact that Jesus existed and said and did the things recorded in the Gospels.  I also believe Jesus is God on earth, and therefore what he says is truth.  So when Jesus refers to Deuteronomy as an authoritative work, then I take Deuteronomy to be authoritative and inspired.  Same with Genesis, Daniel, etc. 

It's not about assuming all scripture verifies other scripture.  That's the mistake people make when they use 2 Peter to authenticate Paul's writings as scripture.

With all due deference, I don't believe you 'get it'...at all.

I have never denied that I accept the canon by faith.
But, the 66 book canon was not assembled out of an intellectual vacuum.
The fathers (Apostolic, Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene), the manuscripts (Unical, Minuscule), there was a process.
The process considered and eliminated many 'documents/books' including the Apocryphia and Pseudepigrapha.

The Gospels were scrutinized and accepted along with 62 other books.
You seem to assume it was a lottery or a casting of lots that determined to make up of the canon.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Actually, one major difference in the Quran and Book of Mormon when compared to the writings of the NT (particularly the Gospels and Acts) is the answer to the question of historical verifiability. A basic historical analytical approach to those three differing collections would put the NT writings FAR above either the Quran or the Book of Mormon in terms of reliability.

So... you don't buy that stuff about gold tablets nobody has ever seen and reading them from a hat or whatever?

Well, I place Joseph Smith's scholarly credibility right up there with your's and Smellin's.... ;D

 

[Castor Muscular]

I have never denied that I accept the canon by faith.
But, the 66 book canon was not assembled out of an intellectual vacuum.
The fathers (Apostolic, Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene), the manuscripts (Unical, Minuscule), there was a process.
The process considered and eliminated many 'documents/books' including the Apocryphia and Pseudepigrapha.

The Gospels were scrutinized and accepted along with 62 other books.
You seem to assume it was a lottery or a casting of lots that determined to make up of the canon.

And great men of faith have cast doubts on the authenticity and inspiration of several of those 66 books, Martin Luther being one of them.  In other words, there's still room for disagreement.  There may have been others, but I know Martin Luther felt James and Revelation did not belong in the canon.  Later on, as senility set in, he changed his mind about James. 

j/k about senility, but I hold it as a possibility.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Except for those referenced by Jesus?!
He referenced them in Scripture, so they're out as well...

This one you don't get at all.

There is a mountain of internal and external evidence that the gospels are historically accurate (although I believe Luke could be a little mixed up due to "the phone game" syndrome). 

In other words, there is a mountain of rational evidence to support the fact that Jesus existed and said and did the things recorded in the Gospels.  I also believe Jesus is God on earth, and therefore what he says is truth.  So when Jesus refers to Deuteronomy as an authoritative work, then I take Deuteronomy to be authoritative and inspired.  Same with Genesis, Daniel, etc. 

It's not about assuming all scripture verifies other scripture.  That's the mistake people make when they use 2 Peter to authenticate Paul's writings as scripture.

With all due deference, I don't believe you 'get it'...at all.

I have never denied that I accept the canon by faith.
But, the 66 book canon was not assembled out of an intellectual vacuum.
The fathers (Apostolic, Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene), the manuscripts (Unical, Minuscule), there was a process.
The process considered and eliminated many 'documents/books' including the Apocryphia and Pseudepigrapha.

The Gospels were scrutinized and accepted along with 62 other books.
You seem to assume it was a lottery or a casting of lots that determined to make up of the canon.

Exactly. Faith in a religous tradition that has been passed down through the centuries.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Except for those referenced by Jesus?!
He referenced them in Scripture, so they're out as well...

This one you don't get at all.

There is a mountain of internal and external evidence that the gospels are historically accurate (although I believe Luke could be a little mixed up due to "the phone game" syndrome). 

In other words, there is a mountain of rational evidence to support the fact that Jesus existed and said and did the things recorded in the Gospels.  I also believe Jesus is God on earth, and therefore what he says is truth.  So when Jesus refers to Deuteronomy as an authoritative work, then I take Deuteronomy to be authoritative and inspired.  Same with Genesis, Daniel, etc. 

It's not about assuming all scripture verifies other scripture.  That's the mistake people make when they use 2 Peter to authenticate Paul's writings as scripture.

With all due deference, I don't believe you 'get it'...at all.

I have never denied that I accept the canon by faith.
But, the 66 book canon was not assembled out of an intellectual vacuum.
The fathers (Apostolic, Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene), the manuscripts (Unical, Minuscule), there was a process.
The process considered and eliminated many 'documents/books' including the Apocryphia and Pseudepigrapha.

The Gospels were scrutinized and accepted along with 62 other books.
You seem to assume it was a lottery or a casting of lots that determined to make up of the canon.

Exactly. Faith in a religous tradition that has been passed down through the centuries.

So has apostasy...wheat and tares...that's in the Bible! 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Except for those referenced by Jesus?!
He referenced them in Scripture, so they're out as well...

This one you don't get at all.

There is a mountain of internal and external evidence that the gospels are historically accurate (although I believe Luke could be a little mixed up due to "the phone game" syndrome). 

In other words, there is a mountain of rational evidence to support the fact that Jesus existed and said and did the things recorded in the Gospels.  I also believe Jesus is God on earth, and therefore what he says is truth.  So when Jesus refers to Deuteronomy as an authoritative work, then I take Deuteronomy to be authoritative and inspired.  Same with Genesis, Daniel, etc. 

It's not about assuming all scripture verifies other scripture.  That's the mistake people make when they use 2 Peter to authenticate Paul's writings as scripture.

With all due deference, I don't believe you 'get it'...at all.

I have never denied that I accept the canon by faith.
But, the 66 book canon was not assembled out of an intellectual vacuum.
The fathers (Apostolic, Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene), the manuscripts (Unical, Minuscule), there was a process.
The process considered and eliminated many 'documents/books' including the Apocryphia and Pseudepigrapha.

The Gospels were scrutinized and accepted along with 62 other books.
You seem to assume it was a lottery or a casting of lots that determined to make up of the canon.

Exactly. Faith in a religous tradition that has been passed down through the centuries.

So has apostasy...wheat and tares...that's in the Bible! 

Apostasy from what? Relative religious positions?

 

[ALAYMAN]

And great men of faith have cast doubts on the authenticity and inspiration of several of those 66 books, Martin Luther being one of them...

There has been limited debate in evangelical circles regarding what constitutes the totality of the canon, but the difference in this discussion is that the epithet of "bibliolatry" has been lobbed at those who simply hold to the longheld accepted evangelical tradition of 66 books.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I have never denied that I accept the canon by faith.
But, the 66 book canon was not assembled out of an intellectual vacuum.
The fathers (Apostolic, Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene), the manuscripts (Unical, Minuscule), there was a process.
The process considered and eliminated many 'documents/books' including the Apocryphia and Pseudepigrapha.

The Gospels were scrutinized and accepted along with 62 other books.
You seem to assume it was a lottery or a casting of lots that determined to make up of the canon.

And great men of faith have cast doubts on the authenticity and inspiration of several of those 66 books, Martin Luther being one of them.  In other words, there's still room for disagreement.  There may have been others, but I know Martin Luther felt James and Revelation did not belong in the canon.  Later on, as senility set in, he changed his mind about James. 

j/k about senility, but I hold it as a possibility.

Luther's Antilegomena aside, the 66 book canon has a solid 'foundation'...it isn't based on 2 early father's casting lots for two pigs and the right to finalize the canon! 

 

[rsc2a]

Actually, one major difference in the Quran and Book of Mormon when compared to the writings of the NT (particularly the Gospels and Acts) is the answer to the question of historical verifiability. A basic historical analytical approach to those three differing collections would put the NT writings FAR above either the Quran or the Book of Mormon in terms of reliability.

So... you don't buy that stuff about gold tablets nobody has ever seen and reading them from a hat or whatever?

Actually, I have no problem at all believing that an angel appeared to either Mohammed or Smith. Whether I'd buy what that angel was selling is a different matter altogether....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

And great men of faith have cast doubts on the authenticity and inspiration of several of those 66 books, Martin Luther being one of them...

There has been limited debate in evangelical circles regarding what constitutes the totality of the canon, but the difference in this discussion is that the epithet of "bibliolatry" has been lobbed at those who simply hold to the longheld accepted evangelical tradition of 66 books.

Thou speakest the truth...but you might be closet Gnostic, so....

 

[rsc2a]

Except for those referenced by Jesus?!
He referenced them in Scripture, so they're out as well...

This one you don't get at all.

There is a mountain of internal and external evidence that the gospels are historically accurate (although I believe Luke could be a little mixed up due to "the phone game" syndrome). 

In other words, there is a mountain of rational evidence to support the fact that Jesus existed and said and did the things recorded in the Gospels.  I also believe Jesus is God on earth, and therefore what he says is truth.  So when Jesus refers to Deuteronomy as an authoritative work, then I take Deuteronomy to be authoritative and inspired.  Same with Genesis, Daniel, etc. 

It's not about assuming all scripture verifies other scripture.  That's the mistake people make when they use 2 Peter to authenticate Paul's writings as scripture.

With all due deference, I don't believe you 'get it'...at all.

I have never denied that I accept the canon by faith.
But, the 66 book canon was not assembled out of an intellectual vacuum.
The fathers (Apostolic, Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene), the manuscripts (Unical, Minuscule), there was a process.
The process considered and eliminated many 'documents/books' including the Apocryphia and Pseudepigrapha.

The Gospels were scrutinized and accepted along with 62 other books.
You seem to assume it was a lottery or a casting of lots that determined to make up of the canon.

Well, so much for the idea that Scripture is our sole and final authority on all matters of faith and practice...

 

[rsc2a]

And great men of faith have cast doubts on the authenticity and inspiration of several of those 66 books, Martin Luther being one of them...

There has been limited debate in evangelical circles regarding what constitutes the totality of the canon, but the difference in this discussion is that the epithet of "bibliolatry" has been lobbed at those who simply hold to the longheld accepted evangelical tradition of 66 books.

I don't know anyone who has lobbed that epithet at someone for holding to a 66-book canon. I personally lobbed it at those who would elevated Scripture (of however many books you want) to the place of Deity.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I have never denied that I accept the canon by faith.
But, the 66 book canon was not assembled out of an intellectual vacuum.
The fathers (Apostolic, Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene), the manuscripts (Unical, Minuscule), there was a process.
The process considered and eliminated many 'documents/books' including the Apocryphia and Pseudepigrapha.

The Gospels were scrutinized and accepted along with 62 other books.
You seem to assume it was a lottery or a casting of lots that determined to make up of the canon.

And great men of faith have cast doubts on the authenticity and inspiration of several of those 66 books, Martin Luther being one of them.  In other words, there's still room for disagreement.  There may have been others, but I know Martin Luther felt James and Revelation did not belong in the canon.  Later on, as senility set in, he changed his mind about James. 

j/k about senility, but I hold it as a possibility.

Luther's Antilegomena aside, the 66 book canon has a solid 'foundation'...it isn't based on 2 early father's casting lots for two pigs and the right to finalize the canon! 

You need to be careful constructing all these straw men.  They're going to catch fire sooner or later.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I don't know anyone who has lobbed that epithet at someone for holding to a 66-book canon. I personally lobbed it at those who would elevated Scripture (of however many books you want) to the place of Deity.

Keep on tellin' yerself that jack, but you have maligned and misrepresented those other people's position in such a fashion that all who take a high view of inerrancy and inspiration would be guilty of elevating Scripture to the place of Deity.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I have never denied that I accept the canon by faith.
But, the 66 book canon was not assembled out of an intellectual vacuum.
The fathers (Apostolic, Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene), the manuscripts (Unical, Minuscule), there was a process.
The process considered and eliminated many 'documents/books' including the Apocryphia and Pseudepigrapha.

The Gospels were scrutinized and accepted along with 62 other books.
You seem to assume it was a lottery or a casting of lots that determined to make up of the canon.

And great men of faith have cast doubts on the authenticity and inspiration of several of those 66 books, Martin Luther being one of them.  In other words, there's still room for disagreement.  There may have been others, but I know Martin Luther felt James and Revelation did not belong in the canon.  Later on, as senility set in, he changed his mind about James. 

j/k about senility, but I hold it as a possibility.

Luther's Antilegomena aside, the 66 book canon has a solid 'foundation'...it isn't based on 2 early father's casting lots for two pigs and the right to finalize the canon! 

You need to be careful constructing all these straw men.  They're going to catch fire sooner or later.

Again, I think you miss my point.....rs2 did, but that's to be expected.

I responded to this:

This one you don't get at all.

There is a mountain of internal and external evidence that the gospels are historically accurate (although I believe Luke could be a little mixed up due to "the phone game" syndrome). 

In other words, there is a mountain of rational evidence to support the fact that Jesus existed and said and did the things recorded in the Gospels.  I also believe Jesus is God on earth, and therefore what he says is truth.  So when Jesus refers to Deuteronomy as an authoritative work, then I take Deuteronomy to be authoritative and inspired.  Same with Genesis, Daniel, etc. 

It's not about assuming all scripture verifies other scripture.  That's the mistake people make when they use 2 Peter to authenticate Paul's writings as scripture.

I merely offered the same rationale for my belief that you did for yours...and do you not understand hyperbole?

 

[rsc2a]

I don't know anyone who has lobbed that epithet at someone for holding to a 66-book canon. I personally lobbed it at those who would elevated Scripture (of however many books you want) to the place of Deity.

Keep on tellin' yerself that jack, but you have maligned and misrepresented those other people's position in such a fashion that all who take a high view of inerrancy and inspiration would be guilty of elevating Scripture to the place of Deity.

No. However, people who claim Scripture is the final authority have done exactly that. People who have claimed that Scripture is the source of our salvation have done exactly that. People who have explicitly stated that Jesus and the Bible are co-equal have done exactly that.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I don't know anyone who has lobbed that epithet at someone for holding to a 66-book canon. I personally lobbed it at those who would elevated Scripture (of however many books you want) to the place of Deity.

Keep on tellin' yerself that jack, but you have maligned and misrepresented those other people's position in such a fashion that all who take a high view of inerrancy and inspiration would be guilty of elevating Scripture to the place of Deity.

You know you're wasting your time....

 

[ALAYMAN]

No. However, people who claim Scripture is the final authority have done exactly that. People who have claimed that Scripture is the source of our salvation have done exactly that. People who have explicitly stated that Jesus and the Bible are co-equal have done exactly that.

That last one was done by somebody who very likely did so tongue-in-cheek, and they did it AFTER you had already lobbed your epithet (so that is a bit of revisionist sophistry on your part).  The rest of your claims, as usual, are your erroneous opinion, arrived at by twisting and distorting what other people say in some cases, and incorrectly diagnosing their positions in others.  Scripture is the primary source of salvation ("means"), and that is nowhere near a departure from reformed/evangelical traditional soteriology.

 

[rsc2a]

I don't know anyone who has lobbed that epithet at someone for holding to a 66-book canon. I personally lobbed it at those who would elevated Scripture (of however many books you want) to the place of Deity.

Keep on tellin' yerself that jack, but you have maligned and misrepresented those other people's position in such a fashion that all who take a high view of inerrancy and inspiration would be guilty of elevating Scripture to the place of Deity.

You know you're wasting your time....

Of course, then you have the people who said that Scripture is the only way we can learn from God...

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

No. However, people who claim Scripture is the final authority have done exactly that. People who have claimed that Scripture is the source of our salvation have done exactly that. People who have explicitly stated that Jesus and the Bible are co-equal have done exactly that.

That last one was done by somebody who very likely did so tongue-in-cheek, and they did it AFTER you had already lobbed your epithet (so that is a bit of revisionist sophistry on your part).  The rest of your claims, as usual, are your erroneous opinion, arrived at by twisting and distorting what other people say in some cases, and incorrectly diagnosing their positions in others.  Scripture is the primary source of salvation ("means"), and that is nowhere near a departure from reformed/evangelical traditional soteriology.

Two words...OB TUSE!