Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Carlton lost his pastorship and fell out with the powerful Roberts family of megachurches. He's now in obscurity.
Carlton's fate is most unfortunate. The God that I know is a lot more merciful than all that. It astounds me how people seem so determined to establish God as a being that is vastly less merciful that he truly is.
Quote:
Now to answer your question: if the Christian Fundamentalists in power today--and this organization has been building and consolidating its power since Luther--says the canon is closed, then it is closed. Whenever they say it was closed, that's when it was closed. Whoever they say closed it, that's who closed it. No further questions asked. No further answers given. Carlton Pearson will verify all that I've said is true.
The canonization of the Bible in the ancient Church begins and ends with Ecumenical Councils. While they undoubtedly did their level best in most cases, when and where did God ever establish a scholarly debate enmasse ending in a vote as a legitimate voice of divine authority? It is an interesting notion: Divine revelation by committee. It certainly isn't Biblical, but interesting nonetheless.
Then Martin Luther removes 14 books from the Bible on his own authority, and virtually every Reformer just accepted Luther's word without questioning it. Also very interesting.
The messy circular illogic of it all from a Protestant point of view: Sola Scriptura = "If it ain't in the Bible then it's not of God." Yet the Bible never actually bothers to canonize anything. All canonization, both Old and New Testaments, was done after all the apostles were dead and gone. But if there is no canon then there is no certainty of the legitimate contents of the Bible. Might as well add the Sears Catalog to it. And from a purely Sola Scriptura point of view, the canon would be wide open because that's where the Bible leaves off ... but that would defeat the entire premise of Sola Scriptura. Yeah, it hurts.
Well, thanks for the few responses I got. I guess nobody knows the answer to my question. Maybe there is no answer.
There really isn't a comprehensive answer to the question as each perception of what "Holy Bible" means will have a different answer. A better question might be why a canon was established in the first place, and why such an establishment should reach the status as "God's Word."
There really isn't a comprehensive answer to the question as each perception of what "Holy Bible" means will have a different answer. A better question might be why a canon was established in the first place, and why such an establishment should reach the status as "God's Word."
Why a canon was established in the first place is easily answered, there were false letters being circulated allegedly from the Apostles. The canonization was done to remove the false letters.
The reason for the status is simple:
[1]God had in the past (in the OT) instructed to have his spoken word written down, so there is precedence for the written word to be the same as "God's Word".
[2] Jesus had instructed that his spoken words were to be written down
[3] Paul equated prophecy, the spoken word, or written letters from them on the same level
I suspect the canon got closed when people finally realized God was no longer speaking through His authorized servants. He certainly didn't say, "I'm done talking now, so this book can now go to press."
People have no idea how extensively the Christian canon has changed over the years. In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?
The Bible has been changed many, many times over the years. What so many people seem to be saying, in effect, is that books go from being "God breathed" to "not God breathed" and sometimes back again. That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
I suspect the canon got closed when people finally realized God was no longer speaking through His authorized servants. He certainly didn't say, "I'm done talking now, so this book can now go to press."
People have no idea how extensively the Christian canon has changed over the years. In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?
The Bible has been changed many, many times over the years. What so many people seem to be saying, in effect, is that books go from being "God breathed" to "not God breathed" and sometimes back again. That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
Certainly the best response so far. Of course Katzpur comes from a belief set where an open canon and continuing revealed scripture is foundational.
Conversely, a closed canon is foundational for virtually all traditional/older Christian denominations. Sola Scriptura doesn't make any sense without it, but even Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox traditions build their entire belief set on an assumed closed canon. In the thread I split this off of, hiker45 just assumed that you couldn't call yourself a Christian without wholeheartedly accepting that the canon is closed and that God will never again say anything to humankind that is worth writing down. His reasoning? To paraphrase, "That's just the way it is, everybody knows that." And I think that's where most people are on the matter. They don't know why it is, it just is. So is it something like Groundhog Day? A pointless tradition that we just do for the sake of doing it? Or is there something more to it?
I'd really like to hear from folks who do strongly believe in a closed canon. It seems illogical that something so foundational would have no reasonable explanation. But in lieu of that dialogue, here is "That's Just the Way It Is" now that I've now accidentally gotten the song stuck in my head.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Up to the fourth century only the Alexandrians were acquainted with it, and in their Church the epistle attained to the honour of being publicly read. The manner in which Clement of Alexandria and Origen refer to the letter gives confirmation to the belief that, about the year A.D. 200, even in Alexandria the Epistle of Barnabas was not regarded by everyone as an inspired writing.
I remember reading something about Paul and Barnabas spliting and going in different directions and that it was Pauline theology that won out over Barnabian theology, some have posited that it was Barnabas that held the Truth not Paul...Many say that Paul's writings seem to contradict Yeshua's words, so how does Barnabas' writings line up with what Yeshua taught?...I have yet to read Barnabas...
Why?...Was it that the writings of Barnabas cut them to the quick and they preferred to read something that soothed them instead?...
I remember reading something about Paul and Barnabas spliting and going in different directions and that it was Pauline theology that won out over Barnabian theology, some have posited that it was Barnabas that held the Truth not Paul...Many say that Paul's writings seem to contradict Yeshua's words, so how does Barnabas' writings line up with what Yeshua taught?...I have yet to read Barnabas...
Why?...Was it that the writings of Barnabas cut them to the quick and they preferred to read something that soothed them instead?...
No, the split between Paul and Barnabas was about the way to handle a failure by one of their close associates, not theology and you may have read about it in Acts. The split was resolved and the one who failed was returned to Paul's good graces.
Yes, as Peter noted, many misconstrue Paul's words. It comes with a failure in reading comprehension that we see all too often here.
Paul's writing "soothing?" Not much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
