that would be the position held by the early Church!Just 66 Books fully inspired by God is my vote.
Some Hyper Dispy would place the Gospels and Acts back still in the OT era!I believe the current 66 books were God breathed (2Ti 3:16). Given by the revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12), and holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost (2Pe 1:21).
What puzzles me are those who in a sense exclude the gospels as inspired, which I partially blame on the practice of synopsis and/or Harmony of the Gospels, which is rooted in the thought of “by the will of man”
While this practice, which originally started by Tatian in the 2nd century may seem enlightening and helpful in the understanding of the gospels, when you scrutinize this layout even slightly closer it is anything but helpful. I think there are maybe 26 standard formats of the harmonies…. all of which present problems…. “The synoptic problem”
If I believe that the gospels were written (as some describe) by the recollection or common source of → Mat, Mark, Luke & Johnny ….then it is nothing more than a good story ….devoid of any authority. And when you start with a flawed premise your conclusions will generally be flawed….
The gospels are purposed for a reason by God, exactly the way they are written and do not contradict one another………….. similar is not identical.
True, but they still believe our Canon is fully inspired of God, albeit a different way of making sense of the 66.Some Hyper Dispy would place the Gospels and Acts back still in the OT era!
Yes, as they basically have just a Pauline NT canon!True, but they still believe our Canon is fully inspired of God, albeit a different way of making sense of the 66.
I guess I am partial Hyper Dispy…Some Hyper Dispy would place the Gospels and Acts back still in the OT era!
As some have read support just limited inspiration, and have added to the canon additional books to the 66?
The Gospels ARE Old Testament right up to the Ressurection when the NEW Testament begins. Acts is ALL New Testament.Some Hyper Dispy would place the Gospels and Acts back still in the OT era!
Think that Rome included them due to the fact that many of their sacred dogmas could not be found in the 66 canon books!YES!
The question is actually rooted in fact that The Catholic bible has 73 books, the Protestant only 66. Why is that?
Were those 7 books removed by the Protestants, or added by the Catholics? Most importantly, do they belong in the Bible?
Those 7 books are called the Apocrypha and I say this with all due respect......when a born again believer actually reads those books it becomes very clear that they are "Occultic" and can never be included in the inspired Word of God.
I will be glad to give anyone who needs to know the examples of that comment if asked.
The NT starts with the birth of Christ!The Gospels ARE Old Testament right up to the Ressurection when the NEW Testament begins. Acts is ALL New Testament.
Happens many times on Christian web sites!I find it interesting how the topic of 'Inspiration of Scripture' can morph into a discussion of 'dispensations'.
Yes, but the Kingdom was now here in his very person!Just asking …what changed at the birth?
Wasn’t the law still applicable for 30 years following the birth…and throughout His ministry of 1.6 years (or 3 years)
I guess as Christians, we have a hard time focusing?Happens many times on Christian web sites!
I believe the current 66 books were God breathed (2Ti 3:16). Given by the revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:12), and holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost (2Pe 1:21).
What puzzles me are those who in a sense exclude the gospels as inspired, which I partially blame on the practice of synopsis and/or Harmony of the Gospels, which is rooted in the thought of “by the will of man”
While this practice, which originally started by Tatian in the 2nd century may seem enlightening and helpful in the understanding of the gospels, when you scrutinize this layout even slightly closer it is anything but helpful. I think there are maybe 26 standard formats of the harmonies…. all of which present problems…. “The synoptic problem”
If I believe that the gospels were written (as some describe) by the recollection or common source of → Mat, Mark, Luke & Johnny ….then it is nothing more than a good story ….devoid of any authority. And when you start with a flawed premise your conclusions will generally be flawed….
The gospels are purposed for a reason by God, exactly the way they are written and do not contradict one another………….. similar is not identical.
If the Bible is not fully inspired, when it says it is then we have a credibility problem.