KJVOist, 66 Book Onlyists, Hebrew Onlyists and the like.

[praise_yeshua]

Not true. Most attribute it the "James the Just"..... which is what started this argument between you two.

We could argue who the real James is.

You use the word "most" to prop up your own authority on this. Since my view is the traditional view going all the way back to the early fathers, your "most" is just a cheap debate word.

The fact that he (and possibly you) were unaware of my argument from internal evidence is a glaring omission. You are unfamiliar with the arguments.

Not true again. The book of James wasn't even considered part the canon by many of the "early fathers". James wasn't part of the earliest lists of canonical books.

Provide a early church "father" that supported "James" not being "James the Just"?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Just for reference. I remember reading this article shortly after it was published. Its really is a good article dealing with evangelicals and the canon.... and how we should address the issue. I don't agree with everything that is said but its a good read.

https://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament

 

[FSSL]

Not true again. The book of James wasn't even considered part the canon by many of the "early fathers". James wasn't part of the earliest lists of canonical books.

Origen and Eusebius did.

Provide a early church "father" that supported "James" not being "James the Just"?

Eusebius

 

[praise_yeshua]

Not true again. The book of James wasn't even considered part the canon by many of the "early fathers". James wasn't part of the earliest lists of canonical books.

Origen and Eusebius did.

Provide a early church "father" that supported "James" not being "James the Just"?

Eusebius

Both Origen and Eusebius are too far removed from the source of information to be an absolute indicator of who wrote what. They were no different than "translators". They "translated" the information available to them and made choices we do not have to make.

Which goes back to my OP. We don't accept translations of the Scripture to be inspired. Neither are the choices of so called "church father". My canon is not bound by their choices/translation. We could keep going in circles for days.... I could challenge on every point you make.... but I'm not going to do it. Its not worth my time at the moment.

I will mention that if you accept the work of Eusebius.... you should accept the Septuagint.

Just to be clear. I believe the final decision on the canon is a personal one based on internal evidence to the writings itself. They must have the "voice of God" within them. They must be both logically compatible and complimentary to the canon as a whole.... so as to form a cohesive set of writings that empower and guide those in Christ to serve God properly. 

This is the reason I wouldn't remove anything from the 66 book canon even though I think there are mistakes. I would add a couple... three.... books. I'm on the "fence" about others.

There. Does that satisfy you?

 

[FSSL]

Provide a early church "father" that supported "James" not being "James the Just"?
.....

Both Origen and Eusebius are too far removed from the source of information to be an absolute indicator of who wrote what. They were no different than "translators". They "translated" the information available to them and made choices we do not have to make.

You asked me to provide an early church father. I did. Now what are you asking ?

My canon is not bound by their choices/translation. We could keep going in circles for days.... I could challenge on every point you make.... but I'm not going to do it. Its not worth my time at the moment.

It is obvious that your canon is bound by your inability to reconcile the relationship between faith and works and errors of copyists and a lack of identification of an author.

Your approach is too capricious.

I will mention that if you accept the work of Eusebius.... you should accept the Septuagint.

Like a good Catholic?

Just to be clear. I believe the final decision on the canon is a personal one based on internal evidence to the writings itself. They must have the "voice of God" within them. They must be both logically compatible and complimentary to the canon as a whole.... so as to form a cohesive set of writings that empower and guide those in Christ to serve God properly.

... and yet 2 Peter and James do not satisfy you personally. That's fine. Perhaps you will realize that the OP is far from charitable regarding our inner testimony of the Spirit.

You are a brother, but you have some strange thinking.

This is the reason I wouldn't remove anything from the 66 book canon even though I think there are mistakes. I would add a couple... three.... books. I'm on the "fence" about others.

There. Does that satisfy you?

I am confused. You already said 2 Peter, James and 1-2Chronicles were not Scripture... Yet you want to keep them in there?

I suspect you need to do some more canonical study before you claim I have none.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Just for reference. I remember reading this article shortly after it was published. Its really is a good article dealing with evangelicals and the canon.... and how we should address the issue. I don't agree with everything that is said but its a good read.

https://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament

It is a good article.  I like this quote and the quote from the conclusion:

"On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63 Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64"

"The canon of the New Testament was not closed historically by the early church. Rather, its extent was debated until the Reformation. Even then, it was closed in a sectarian fashion. Therefore the question must be asked, is it then heresy for a person to question or reject a book of the present canon ? There have been repeated reevaluations of the church's canon. This happened during the initial sifting period. It happened again during the Renaissance and Reformation period, and it is beginning to happen again now. In such instances the fringe books of the canon have been repeatedly questioned. If an individual believer should come to question or reject a book or books of the accepted canon, should that person be regarded as a heretic, or accepted as a brother whose opinions are not necessarily endorsed?"

 

[FSSL]

If an individual believer should come to question or reject a book or books of the accepted canon, should that person be regarded as a heretic, or accepted as a brother whose opinions are not necessarily endorsed?"

It depends... Apparently those of us who hold to all 66 books are being treated as heretics.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[praise_yeshua]

If an individual believer should come to question or reject a book or books of the accepted canon, should that person be regarded as a heretic, or accepted as a brother whose opinions are not necessarily endorsed?"

It depends... Apparently those of us who hold to all 66 books are being treated as heretics.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Good grief... I haven't treated you like a heretic. I don't TRT has either. You're too sensitive.

I'll respond to the other when I get back to my desk.

 

[FSSL]

KJVOism has nothing in common with a belief that 66 books are scripture. You overstated your OP.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

KJVOism has nothing in common with a belief that 66 books are scripture. You overstated your OP.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What they have in common is that the defense for both are based on "just so story" fallacies. 

 

[FSSL]

Lol... Poisoning the well is fun, but altogether illogical.

Your approach throughout this thread was silly. You have not really read about the authorship of James and it showed.

Before you reject these books, you need to really study them.

 

[praise_yeshua]

KJVOism has nothing in common with a belief that 66 books are scripture. You overstated your OP.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What they have in common is that the defense for both are based on "just so story" fallacies.

They use the exact same tactics. They use the exact same methods... Nah.... They aren't comparible at all!!!

If we don't have to accept a translation as inspired. We don't have to accept a canon as being inspired.

It really is that simple.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Lol... Poisoning the well is fun, but altogether illogical.

Your approach throughout this thread was silly. You have not really read about the authorship of James and it showed.

Before you reject these books, you need to really study them.

I've been studying James for decades. I've had more canoncal discussions on James than youve had about the entire 66 book canon. You're being silly. You think we've treated you as a heretic..... Now that down right ridiculous.

I didn't poison any well. Feel free to establish your canon by inspiration...

 

[FSSL]

Ummm... For someone to claim that the establishing of the canon by inspiration shows some real shallow understanding.

Books are inspired, not the canon.

The canon is a collection of inspired books.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Ummm... For someone to claim that the establishing of the canon by inspiration shows some real shallow understanding.

Books are inspired, not the canon.

The canon is a collection of inspired books.

Then show why you believe James is inspired. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

Ummm... For someone to claim that the establishing of the canon by inspiration shows some real shallow understanding.

Books are inspired, not the canon.

The canon is a collection of inspired books.

Shallow? Really?

You try to establish your choice of canon via inspiration and then deny it...

That's dispictable!!!

You clearly appealed to Paul's words to say the canon was inspired. That is what you did. Even child knows you did..... Don't be dishonest to protect your failure to defend your beliefs.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Ummm... For someone to claim that the establishing of the canon by inspiration shows some real shallow understanding.

Books are inspired, not the canon.

The canon is a collection of inspired books.

Then show why you believe James is inspired.

He cant. Its obviously beyond him.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Ummm... For someone to claim that the establishing of the canon by inspiration shows some real shallow understanding.

Books are inspired, not the canon.

The canon is a collection of inspired books.

Then show why you believe James is inspired.

He cant. Its obviously beyond him.

So far, his only answer has been, "I have supernatural knowledge of the fact that you haven't read as much as I have."

 

[praise_yeshua]

Ummm... For someone to claim that the establishing of the canon by inspiration shows some real shallow understanding.

Books are inspired, not the canon.

The canon is a collection of inspired books.

Then show why you believe James is inspired.

He cant. Its obviously beyond him.

So far, his only answer has been, "I have supernatural knowledge of the fact that you haven't read as much as I have."

I presented my overall method of establishing the canon. He might begin there.....

 

[FSSL]

So far, his only answer has been, "I have supernatural knowledge of the fact that you haven't read as much as I have."

You thought my logic of James was my own opinion. You were not familiar with the thought EVENTHOUGH it is prolific in the commentaries.

Your post proved your lack of information.