Biblical fundamentalism: Is it idolatry, bibliolatry?

No it is you that is reading something to fit purpose

the sun was out?

what does this mean????? well you would need the context wouldn't you?

The Scriptures were being circulated as early as 65 A.D.

[Phil 4:16, James 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1; Rev 1:11],

and were being compiled before 70 A.D. [2 Pet 3:15-16; Jude 17]

Originally posted by drevill
You might want to look up the Waldenses

Looks like a typical Roman Catholic-Protestant conflict. So... what's your point?

Originally posted by drevill
No it is you that is reading something to fit purpose
the sun was out?
what does this mean????? well you would need the context wouldn't you?

So, then, who defines the context? Because here we have an example of two people (you and I) who sincerely interpret the scripture differently, eh? Look up the word and find the context yourself:
* Matt 15:2-6;
* Mark 7:3-13;
* 1 Cor 11:2;
* Gal 1:14;
* Col 2:8;
* 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6

So, effectively what you are saying is, "when the context is negative, then it means that nasty ol tradition that Protestants despise... but when the context is positive, then it means instruction/teaching that agrees with my doctrine." I am sorry, but the text in-context is very clear, if one considers that Paul is referring to an acceptable Holy tradition that is passed down without being written down. I see that this disturbs you, and I can relate to the conflict that this can cause because it really pulls the rug out from underneath Protestantism. You likely have found a way to justify your position as well.

Just as our colleague asmeone2 has stated (perhaps in another thread), it may be necessary to undergo "deprogramming" -- in this case to erase the pathological need to reconcile the Bible with your doctrine (I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Protestant doctrine is a tradition of men, despite vigorous protest otherwise) as if you had it all figured out and were sitting at the right hand of God. "Tradition" is an emotionally loaded word for the Protestant, which they have given the connotation of, "customs and doctrines that those nasty ol Catholics had, not THE BIBLE, like we have." This is propaganda. Granted, the Roman Catholic church had huge problems and the motivations behind the reformation were quite understandable. But to then move to throwing out all tradition was like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The problem with revolution is that it does not suddenly cease when the revolutionaries decide it is over... and in this case, the reformation continued into the present day, where various protestant sects have created a putrid mess built yet again upon traditions of men, just not referred to as such. And protestants are in utter chaos and hypocrisy at virtually every level.

And when wolves comes in sheep's clothing, there is nobody to protect the flock or feed the sheep; everyone does what is right in his own eyes (or interprets the scriptures as he sees fit) and people are hurt, stumble, devastated... some even die. Then nobody takes responsibility for it.

I interpret these scriptures in the context of 2000 years of Christians interpreting them the same way. Yet, you lean on your own understanding. It is thus what I am referring to when I assert, "you put your god in a book" because you have reduced the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to words on a page as you interpret them. In the extreme case, one who does this worships his own mind and passions of the flesh as his god, but thinks he does a good thing. This is idolatry.

The Scriptures were being circulated as early as 65 A.D. and were being compiled before 70 A.D.

This is circular reasoning and a fallacy, because you are asserting that the passages you cite refer to the Protestant canon. This is an anachronism. I am not arguing that the books in your Protestant Bible were forgeries, or written 300 years after the fact. But the Early Church was not in agreement that they were "scripture" as you are claiming; there was disagreement, and there is no historical nor traditional evidence to suggest that the first compilation agreeing with the Protestant NT canon was made until well after the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.); anything before this was tradition!

reply to post by ScienceDada


yes

you keep saying tradition and that the cannon as we know it was set out in the 4th century, it was NOT and is easily verifiable.

i often have to wonder how the RCC shouts that IT is responsible for our bible as w.e have it and yet withhold it from the liaty and denounce its authority

the fact the Waldenses Bible in the 2nd century is almost identical to what we have now.


that said im sure we have both wandered a bit so as to my point im quite sure lol

reply to post by ScienceDada



The Bible defines the context

there is no oral tradition spoken of in the NT. it simply does not mean the way you and the RCC want it to read. people want to believe an oral tradition to form god of the own making. The oral that Paul is speaking of is the reading aloud of the written word.

Irenaeus:

1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Sc ptures,

herefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all,

re Nicea

Bishop of Alexandria

... For the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources ... (De Decretis, 31)

But since Holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things. (Ad Episcopos, 4)

The Holy and Inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the truth. (Contra Gentes, I:1)

These books are the foundation of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them: in these alone the school of piety preaches the Gospel; let no man add to or take away from them. (Fest. Ep, 39

quite bizarre that the RCC is such an advocate of oral tradition and yet their own "pope" at the time speaks the opposite.

david









[edit on 15/08/2008 by drevill]

Originally posted by drevill
reply to post by ScienceDada

 

i often have to wonder how the RCC shouts that IT is responsible for our bible as w.e have it and yet withhold it from the liaty and denounce its authority

Frankly, I don't care what the RCC says. They can shout all they want and make claims, but it is irrelevant for this discussion.

the fact the Waldenses Bible in the 2nd century is almost identical to what we have now.

I am sure in the process of building the case for the Bible as a perfect book, stories like this arise. However, I point out two facts:

1. "Almost the same" and "the same" makes a BIG difference when you are claiming perfection; so, why are there differences?

2. Where are the extant manuscripts? Similar claims are made about the Pesh-itta, but the evidence does not support that it was derived from early manuscripts. Many have claimed that the Waldenses Bible is a Vulgate derivative. Demonstrate otherwise.

reply to post by ScienceDada


demonstrate otherwise>?

sorry you lay a claim its from the vulgate so the burden of that proof is on you my friend.

the council of nicea was to stop the gnostics adding to the cannon, not to discuss what was already widely recognised as being scripture anyway.

when i say almost the same i mean that it is not word for word

The Pe#ta Syriac version (150 A.D 2nd century)... was based on the Received Text as is the KJV

david



[edit on 15/08/2008 by drevill]

Originally posted by drevill
reply to post by ScienceDada

 

demonstrate otherwise>?

sorry you lay a claim its from the vulgate so the burden of that proof is on you my friend.

No, I said others have made that claim. I know virtually nothing about the Waldenses or their bible. And I am very well studies in the matters of the scripture and the early Church. As far as I am concerned, you made all this up to justify your faith or found something in desperation to protect the fragile doctrine of sola scriptura.

the council of nicea was to stop the gnostics adding to the cannon, not to discuss what was already widely recognised as being scripture anyway.

I am sorry, but this is a mistaken concept. The council at Nicea theologically addressed the heresy of Arius. Logistically, it also tackled some problems of organization and tried to settle a date for what the RCC and most Protestant sects call "Easter." The proceedings can be found here: NPNF vol 14

I will assume you already knew this and just mistyped. If this is new information to you, then please let me know, because despite your zeal, this entire discourse is probably a severe waste of time, since I expect you will be arguing for the sake of arguing without much regard for the facts.

Originally posted by drevill
reply to post by ScienceDada
when i say almost the same i mean that it is not word for word

Oh, I see. But all the same 66 books that the Protestants use, eh? Provide links to references and where I can see the manuscripts.

The Pe#ta Syriac version (150 A.D 2nd century)... was based on the Received Text as is the KJV

That is sort of a silly notion, since the received text refers to the Byzantine family of manuscripts. Since Byzantium was founded after the year 300 A.D. that sort of makes your claim about the received text bring your entire understanding into question.

I don't want to embarrass you, but if you are not very knowledgeable in this topic, it is ok... I understand. Feel free to U2U me. But if you continue to make silly claims, I will be forced to annihilate your arguments because they are so riddled with error.

Originally posted by drevill
reply to post by ScienceDada

 

The Bible defines the context

No, it doesn't. The context is provided by culture, history, language, prejudice, and motive. I have to point no further than the absolute and abject chaos of the multiplicity of Protestant sects to demonstrate this. And I am not referring to "lightweights" but rather the many die-hard bible thumpers and fundamentalists.

there is no oral tradition spoken of in the NT.

Yes, it does. And I quoted you the passages, which illustrate my point. So, why then don't we agree? We are looking at the same scriptures. We are analyzing the same language. Why don't we agree?

I once held your position, and I repented because it was false; perhaps this is "cheating" because I also know how your arguments fail. If you are a real zealot, you will either ignore the evidence or have a crisis of faith. The scriptures do not mention an oral tradition to your satisfaction. Oh well, I am sorry for that. But that all the more makes my point that Protestants often make their mind their god, dressing it up as being sola scriptura so they can fit god into an idol and beat others over the head with it, and have something pretty to point to when recruiting... er, evangelizing.

You can quote all the early fathers that you want: Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin, Athanasius, etc. I can even understand where one can read a "sola scriptura" principle in them, if one wants to. However, if you want to go down that path, I can demonstrate how the Protestant sects have greatly deviated from the early church according to those very fathers.

You want to quote the fathers? Ok then, lets look at all the writings, not just the ones that suit your doctrine. For it was against those who used similar selectivity in their arguments that the fathers wrote their treatises against the heretics.

You want to quote Irenaeus? Then let us look at all of Irenaeus -- and how he accuses the heretics of following neither the scriptures nor the tradition handed down by succession from the Apostles; he uses both Apostolic succession/tradition and scripture to make his arguments -- this you have misrepresented. Irenaeus is overwhelmingly an argument against the Gnostics in terms of their false tradition which conflicted with the tradition of the true Church.

You want to quote Ignatius? Then let us look at all of Ignatius -- such as the statements about acting apart from the Bishop -- also.

You want to quote Polycarp? Then let us look at all of Polycarp -- about submitting to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ -- also.

You want to quote Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria? Then let us look at all of Athanasius -- Athanasius argues against the Arians interpretations of the scriptures because their interpretations deviated from those of the true Church. Arius was not stupid, and his case was made "scripturally."

it simply does not mean the way you and the RCC want it to read. people want to believe an oral tradition to form god of the own making. The oral that Paul is speaking of is the reading aloud of the written word.

It apparently doesn't read the way the fathers interpreted it either. I wonder out loud how much of the Church Fathers you have actually read? Because your arguments using their quotes are as conveniently selective as your scripture quotes.

quite bizarre that the RCC...

Wow, this is starting to get really irritating. I don't give a flying hoot about the RCC, so perhaps you should just drop it as if it will somehow overpower me.

reply to post by ScienceDada



Burgon, The Revision Revised, 1881

Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the Received or the Traditional, or by whatever name you please--the fact remains that a text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient Versions”

recieved text

David Otis Fuller

First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.
All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text

The Pe#ta New Testament resembles the Byzantine text-type and therefore supports the Traditional Text.

Alexander Souter

the Pe#ta Syriac rarely witnesses to anything different from what we find in the great bulk of Greek manuscripts."

The Pe#ta is from the 2nd century and resembles the Byzantine texts, ergo have the same older source.

Bishop Ellicott

It is no stretch of imagination to suppose that portions of the Pe#ta might have been in the hands of St. John

the Waldenses used the traditional/recieved/byzantine text The Waldensian Bible is believed to be the source text for the German Tepl Bible, which was in turn used by Martin Luther when he produced his own Lutheran New Testament.

the Church Council did not decide the Cannon of the Bible, they rather AFFIRMED/CONFIRMED the Cannon.

david

sorry im tired now

basically what i'm trying to say is that the bible as we know it now is what it always was

david






[edit on 15/08/2008 by drevill]

Originally posted by drevill
sorry im tired now

Hey, I know what you mean... I am too! I was just trying to be a good OP and keep up with your "machine-gun burst" of posts earlier

Please, feel free to post as you have time

Originally posted by drevill

Souter was a professor, but coincidentally his quote is also the least earth-shattering of your references. Yes, the pesh-itta does follow the textus receptus... I never said it didn't.

The Pe#ta New Testament resembles the Byzantine text-type and therefore supports the Traditional Text.

This is not true. The Pesh-itta prior to the 6th-7th centuries omit several canonical books: II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and the Apocalypse of John. This incomplete Canon identified cited by John Chrystosom. Only from the 6th-7th centuries do they contain all 27 books.

As for Burgon, Fuller, and Ellicott... All these guys were preachers, no? Do you have more substantial or reputable sources? I know that Bruce Metzger is well respected in the field. Or perhaps you can just identify original sources rather than some preachers' opinions? I am sorry, but the seeming KJV-only flavor of your sources really makes a critic question their motives and claims.

You quote that the Textus Receptus (TR) was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity and the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. While this is true, the TR was not that cut and dry early on because a set Canon was not defined. Thus, several manuscripts and Church fathers either considered some non-canonical books to be included, or omitted canonical books (according to the Protestant canon, that is).

For example: Eusebius in his History of the Church specifically documents disagreement over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and the Apocalypse of John. Interestingly, with the exception of Hebrews, all these books are missing from the early Pesh-itta. Note: I anticipate that you might argue with respect to the RCC canon and all, but the Codex Sinaitcus and the Vulgate contain all 27 books (plus additional ones)... so please refrain from spouting any RCC conspiracy theories, because you will shoot yourself in the foot (or in the head depending on how you spout it).

Also, the Council of Nicea did not define or affirm/reaffirm the Canon as you asserted. I challenge you to identify it from proceedings of the council or any other ancient source making this claim for that matter.

It was eventually affirmed by Athanasius in the festal letter that I cited, but that is really puts your argument in a bind now doesn't it? Because the canon was then not defined or agreed upon by several sources until that point... that is of course unless you appeal to Church tradition. And that kinda undermines the sola scriptura argument. Ooh, that is a tough one!

The Waldenses used the traditional/recieved/byzantine text The Waldensian Bible is believed to be the source text for the German Tepl Bible...

Yes, I gathered that much from a quick Google search. But where are the extant manuscripts? Copies of copies of copies combined with a local tradition. Oh crap -- there is that pesky tradition again. Why do you continually appeal to tradition? I assert that these stories were likely manufactured to support the sola scriptura principle Please provide me with the references to these people in the writings of the early Church from the sometime before say the year 400 A.D. (or whatever the earliest reference is). Because this sounds like a made up story, just as your cited preachers' assertions about the textus receptus and the pesh-itta.

basically what i'm trying to say is that the bible as we know it now is what it always was

No, it isn't, as I explained above. And we are just discussing the New Testament, but haven't even touched on the Old Testament.

P.S. I am using pesh-itta because the forum will replace the embedded 4-letter word with a # (see your previous posts to see what I mean

reply to post by ScienceDada


hello

thanks for the debate i am learning, so thanks

This is not true. The Pesh-itta prior to the 6th-7th centuries omit several canonical books:
II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and the Apocalypse of John. This incomplete Canon identified cited by John Chrystosom.
Only from the 6th-7th centuries do they contain all 27 books.

point conceded- i cannot find evidence to say all 27 were in the Pes-hitta. Thankyou for that.

Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary describes the Pe#ta as a departure from the Greek New
Testament in that Apocryphal books were included and books of the later canon were omitted:

despite that

Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses quotes from all the books of the New
Testament with the exception of: Philemon, II Peter, III John, and Jude

Origen, was born in Alexandria about 185 AD and he listed all the books in the NT,
but says that Hebrews, James 2 and 3 John and Jude were questioned by some.

Dionysius of Alexandria accepted all the books that Origen did,
and supported the authenticity of James, 2 and 3 John, but not 2 Peter and Jude.

Methodius of Olympus quotes all the N.T writings as canonical

Eusebius (270-340 AD) names all the NT books. He says that James,
2 Peter 2 and 3 John and Jude were accepted by the majority

As for Burgon, Fuller, and Ellicott... All these guys were preachers, no? Do you have more substantial or reputable sources?
I know that Bruce Metzger is well respected in the field. Or perhaps you can just identify original sources rather than some preachers' opinions? I am sorry, but the seeming KJV-only flavor of your sources really
makes a critic question their motives and claims.

yes they were preachers , however they were much more than that.
i think most people would definitely recognize Burgon as a great learned man

You quote that the Textus Receptus (TR) was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity and the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. While this is true, the TR was not that cut and dry early on because a set Canon was not defined. Thus, several manuscripts and Church fathers either considered some non-canonical books to be included, or omitted canonical books (according to the Protestant canon, that is).

For example: Eusebius in his History of the Church specifically documents disagreement over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and the Apocalypse of John. Interestingly, with the exception of Hebrews, all these books are missing from the early Pesh-itta.

Note:
I anticipate that you might argue with respect to the RCC canon and all, but the Codex Sinaitcus and the Vulgate contain all 27 books
(plus additional ones)... so please refrain from spouting any RCC conspiracy theories, because you will shoot yourself in the foot (or in the head depending on how you spout it).

Eusebius (270-340 AD) names all the NT books. He says that James, 2 Peter 2 and 3 John
and Jude were suspected, but that they were accepted by the majority

Also, the Council of Nicea did not define or affirm/reaffirm the Canon as you asserted. I challenge you to identify it from proceedings of the council or any other ancient source making this claim for that matter.

In reponse i challenge you also to proove that they DID define cannon.
Any notes/minutes that were taken of the Council of Nicaea, have not survived

however there is

1) A letter to the church of Alexandria from the council (Norman P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils vol.1)

2) A letter from Athanasius To the Bishops of Africa.

For this was why an ecumenical synod has been held at Nicæa, 318 bishops assembling to discuss the faith on account of the Arian heresy namely, in order that local synods should no more be held on the subject of the Faith,

Festal Letter

It was eventually affirmed by Athanasius in the festal letter that I cited,
but that is really puts your argument in a bind now doesn't it? Because the canon was then not defined
or agreed upon by several sources until that point... that is of course unless you appeal to Church tradition.
And that kinda undermines the sola scriptura argument. Ooh, that is a tough one!

this was the yearly letter he sent, he only describes what IS accepted not
that it was MADE cannon by the council he doesn't mention oral tradition, in fact he quotes from the bible

Matthew 22:29 Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

copies of copies combined with tradition?

you have not proved oral tradition, a copy is as good as an original if you can trust the copyist.
P64 is still in existence now dating from approx 50ad. To say that something that is not available now means it wasn't available at some other time is absurd.

from an earlier post re the protestant church, i fully agree! Im of no denomination.

david

[edit on 15/08/2008 by drevill]

I bought a Bible, years ago, from the local book store. They did a free imprint on your Bible, for buying it from them, so I had my name put on it. I got a Bible that looked nice because I was doing some amateur preaching, at the time.
It came in a box and that is how I carry it around, like when I go to church. I hope to have it for life, so I want to keep it safe from damage. I do not think I need to impress anyone by flashing a nice Bible around. And I do not know anyone at my church that acts like that.

BTW I had a choice between a few symbols to go with my name and I chose the Dove.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by ScienceDada


Fundamentalists believe the Holy Bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God.

If they hold the idea that God dwells in the book than they are wrong. I can't think of a single verse that would claim such a thing.

It says the body is a temple of God, not a book.

Originally posted by drevill
thanks for the debate i am learning, so thanks

Cool. And a again, I have a job and a family, so slower pace is great.

Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses quotes from all the books of the New Testament with the exception of: Philemon, II Peter, III John, and Jude

The Apostle Paul quoted from books outside of the canon of scripture in his Epistles, but this does not make them canonical. I would imagine that if I were to do a study, I could find non-canonical scriptures quoted in Irenaeus as well, so your example really doesn't suggest anything except that Irenaeus might have considered Philemon, II Peter, III John, and Jude to be non-canonical.

Origen, was born in Alexandria about 185 AD and he listed all the books in the NT, but says that Hebrews, James 2 and 3 John and Jude were questioned by some.

Yes, and this is good evidence that there was confusion over the canon. But be fair in your sources, because Origen also makes references to (and even made claims of divinely inspired) for the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of the Hebrews, Acts of Paul, I Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and the Shepherd (Hermas).

Dionysius of Alexandria accepted all the books that Origen did

Given what I wrote above, this is not very helpful. But I would like to see your source for this so I can read it myself.

Methodius of Olympus quotes all the N.T writings as canonical

He also quotes from the Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, and the Didache

Eusebius (270-340 AD) names all the NT books. He says that James,
2 Peter 2 and 3 John and Jude were accepted by the majority

Eusebius almost never states that a "majority" used anything, although that can be inferred from his words -- I refer to this link in the beginning of book III for what he says. For example, he states that:
* II Peter: "does not belong to the canon"
* Hebrews: "some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews"
* The Shepherd (Hermas): "disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books"
* John: "the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times, but the other two are disputed"
* Apocalypse of John: "the opinions of most men are still divided"
* The Gospel according to the Hebrews: "may be reckoned among the disputed books."

Eusebius makes 3 categories: undisputed books, disputed books, and rejected books. And his report does not agree with the Protestant canon, no matter which approach (inclusive or exclusive) you use.

So how then is it asserted that "the Bible is the same now as what 'they' used?" This is demonstrably false, as "the Bible" is not a unit but a collection, and there was not agreement (not even majority agreement) on canonicity.

As for Burgon, Fuller, and Ellicott...

yes they were preachers , however they were much more than that.

Yes, but I expect that they had ulterior motives, so I assert they were biased. This is not an unreasonable assertion; if the claims you make are true, then please just provide the original sources that they use in making their claims.

Originally posted by drevill

Also, the Council of Nicea did not define or affirm/reaffirm the Canon as you asserted. I challenge you to identify it from proceedings of the council or any other ancient source making this claim for that matter.

In reponse i challenge you also to proove that they DID define cannon.
Any notes/minutes that were taken of the Council of Nicaea, have not survived

Nice try I do not hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura, nor have any reason to assert that the council at Nicea did or did not affirm the canon of scripture. But these things I do know:
(1) No canon list appears in any of the documentation of the council
(2) The tradition of the oldest Churches (RCC, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox) do not support any such claim of the canon
(3) Early manuscripts either omit canonical books or conatin non-canonical books
(4) Several writers before and after the council indicate that there was disagreement against several books, some of which are in the canon and others are not (including Eusebius, who was present at Nicea and wrote his History of the Church in the years following)
(5) The first list in recorded history does not appear until 367 A.D., more than 40 years after Nicea

The evidence does not support that the Council at Nicea formulated a list. So, getting back to my original question: what evidence do you have that they did?

In reference to your words regarding tradition... I have no problem with tradition, nor the copy being as good as the original. But one cannot rely on that while claiming to reject tradition, which is ultimately what the canon rests upon. Thus, my statement stands as I made it: sola scriptura is a tradition of man, not the Church, nor of God. It is contrary to the very scriptures that it claims to have been derived from. As such, holding such a belief is hypocritical and actually un-Christian.

I know that this tips over sacred cows, and will piss off many people. But it is the reality of history that the canon was not clearly defined for hundreds of years after Christ. I am sorry, and I know it is a difficult thing to accept, but that is just reality.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Fundamentalists believe the Holy Bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God.

Yes, but effectively it is "the word of God" as the individual interprets it. I only have to point to the chaos of Protestantism and biblical fundamentalists themselves to illustrate this.

If they hold the idea that God dwells in the book than they are wrong. I can't think of a single verse that would claim such a thing.

I can't think of one that does either. But Fundamentalists often reverence God and worship their Bibles, especially the KJV-only camp.

Christ himself said of the hypocrites that they continually searched the scriptures, thinking in them that they find eternal life, but they failed to recognize God in the flesh. The hypocrites were very comfortable with their God being constrained to a book, and so do the biblical fundamentalists, because it effectively gives them power over their god.

In this way, it is the epitome of idolatry. And whenever someone attacks that idol, fundamentalists will turn to anger, hatred, and all ungodliness to protect their idol. And it is because of this behavior that Christ "is blasphemed among the Gentiles." You claim to follow the true god, but your behavior is contrary to this very faith. Do you go to the ends of the earth to make converts, only to make them twice the sons of hell as yourself?

Fundamentalism is nothing more than man's attempt to control god. It is a degenerate condition that kills the spirit. You have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. The only solution to this condition is to repent and humble yourself before the Lord.

reply to post by ScienceDada
I'm in the "KJV" only crowd because of proven falsehoods in the other works.

KJV VS counterfeits

I can assure you that the Bible is only a book, God dwells in the hearts of believers ONLY. The Bible I repeat, is just a book. I believe it is the Word of God, but nothing more.