Browsed by
Category: New Testament Canon

The Early Acceptance of Revelation

The Early Acceptance of Revelation

The Book of Revelation is without doubt the most complicated, controversial, and esoteric of the entire Bible! Some even doubt that it should even be in the Bible at all, and assert that its place in the Bible Canon was controversial from the start. This is false. Why? The early acceptance of Revelation by the Christian Church is proof that the book is divinely inspired.

  • We have early, widespread and consistent reception of Revelation. Papias (c 125), Justin Martyr, Irenaus, the Muratorian Fragment, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen all accepted Revelation as authentic. That’s impressive! Every one of these accepted Revelation as inspired, on the basis that John, the apostle was the recorder. B W Bacon was so impressed with the initial widespread acceptance of Revelation, that he wrote: “There is no other book in the entire NT whose external attestation can compare with that of Revelation, in nearness, clearness, defintiteness, and positiveness of statement” (The Making of the New Testament, 190).
  • Objections to Revelation were later and limited. Gaius in the early 3rd century rejected Revelation, thinking it was a forgery of the apostate Cerinthus. This is the first real objection.
  • Objections to Revelation were not on any historical basis. Gaius rejected the literal millennnial reign of Christ, so he thought the reference in chapter 20 of such had to be a product of the apostate Cerinthus.
  • Any such objections were resolved early. It was accepted by the synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), by Philastrius of Brescia (c 385), Rufinus of Aquuilia (c 404), Jerome ( c 414), and Augustine (c 426). They accepted Revelation as authentic because it was accepted by the early Christians as authentic.
  • There are many quotations from Revelation by early writers, who quoted it as being authentic.
  • The writings of the Apostles were viewed as authentic (Jude 17,18; 2 Peter 3:15,16).
  • read more

    Evidence of Early New Testament Canon by Circa 100 CE

    Evidence of Early New Testament Canon by Circa 100 CE

    Although it is popular to do so, we should not measure the existence of the New Testament (NT) canon (authoritative, or inspired, books) just by the existence of lists, which came into being somewhat later than the NT canon’s coming into existence. When we examine the way the NT books were viewed and used in the very early days of Christianity, we can determine the de facto existence of a functioning canon by about 100 CE.

    NT canon
    Did it take until the fifth century to finalize the NT canon?

    The views expressed here are admittedly a little different than the traditional, or orthodox, view of how the New Testament canon, in particular, and the Bible as a whole, came into acceptance. The views presented here actually stand in stark contrast to modern-day populist scholars, like the agnostic Bart Ehrman. read more

    Notes on the Origin of the New Testament Canon

    Notes on the Origin of the New Testament Canon

    The New Testament canon was established early, by Holy Spirit

    New Testament Canon
    The New Testament canon was established early, by Holy Spirit

    The New Testament canon was established in the first century by Holy Spirit. Let’s examine some notes on the scriptures which confirm this fact:

    2 Peter 1:16-21 – Peter affirms Old Testament prophets wrote God’s word. He puts himself and other apostles in the same category.

    2 Peter 3:15-16 – Paul’s letters were on the same level as all the “rest of the scriptures.” That is, inspired of God. Early Greek manuscripts show Paul writing 14 letters.

    2 Timothy 3:16-17 – The rest of the scriptures (the Old Testament) are inspired of God. We can broaden this now, and apply the principle to all 66 canonical books as shown below: read more

    Mark – Peter’s Eyewitness Gospel

    Mark – Peter’s Eyewitness Gospel

    The Gospel According to Mark
    Is Mark’s Gospel an early memoir of the Apostle Peter?

    The early church is unanimous that the Gospel According to Mark was written by John Mark. (Acts 12:12; Acts 12:25; Acts 13:5; Acts 13:13; Acts 15:37; Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24)

    Papias – c. 140 quotes an earlier source saying:

    1. Mark was a close associate of Peter, from whom he received his information. (1 Peter 5:13) Peter regards Mark with such warmth and affection that he calls him his son.
    2. This information didn’t come to Mark as a finished, sequential account of the life of Jesus, but as the preaching of Peter – preaching directed to the needs of Christian communities. Mark accurately preserved this material and arranged and shaped it.

    The title “According to Mark” appears in all the ancient canonical lists and many ancient manuscripts, and is thought to have been added very early in the history of the text.

    Early church fathers all affirm Mark wrote the Gospel:

    • Papias (140)
    • Justin Martyr (150)
    • Iranaeus (185)
    • Origen
    • Tertullian
    • Clement of Alexandria (195)
    • Eusebius (326) – quotes Papias saying “elder” (John) attributed to Mark

    Second and third century books falsely claimed apostles as authors rather than secondary figures such as Mark. read more

    Matthew the Tax Collector – A Proven Eyewitness

    Matthew the Tax Collector – A Proven Eyewitness

    Matthew the Tax Collector
    Matthew was an eyewitness to many of the events he wrote about

    Many “Bible scholars” claim that Matthew relied on Mark’s gospel as the primary source to write his gospel. Why would Matthew the tax collector, one of Jesus’ twelve apostles, rely so much on Mark’s account? The answer?  He didn’t. He was an eyewitness of much of what he wrote, so there was no need for him rely on Mark, who was not an eyewitness, but a recorder of the apostle Peter’s memories (1 Peter 5:13). Both Matthew and Mark wrote their gospels “inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). read more

    Bible Authenticity – Is the Bible Reliable?

    Bible Authenticity – Is the Bible Reliable?

    Is the Bible reliable?
    Can the Bible be trusted?

    Is the Bible reliable? Does it contain myths, or are the stories true? Did the writers simply write down stories they had heard from other people, or did they experience the things firsthand that they wrote about?

    The Bible is not made up of cleverly devised fables or myths. “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:16 NAB).  Many of the Bible writers were actually eyewitnesses of their written accounts.  “But we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16 NAB; see also 1 Peter 5:1) Eyewitnesses also handed down their accounts to others who carefully researched these things. (Luke 1:1-3) Still others studied and pondered. (Ecclesiastes 12:9-10) But none came from human will. (2 Peter 1:21) read more

    Who Wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter?

    Who Wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter?

    Is the Bible reliable?
    Who wrote 1 and 2 Peter? Did the apostle Peter?

    Who wrote 1 and 2 Peter, two letters  of the 27 books of the New Testament? Many critics say that they written by a pseudonymous writer, or writers, falsely claiming to be the apostle Peter, and especially is this said about 2 Peter.

    “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ . . . ” (1 Peter 1:1). ” . . . as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ” (1 Peter 5:1 NAB). The writer of 1 Peter clearly identifies himself by name as “Peter”, and also “an apostle of Jesus Christ” that is, one of Christ’s original 11 faithful apostles, and “as a fellow presbyter”, that is, an older, mature Christian man, having the position in the church of “elder” (1 Peter 5:1 most translations), and  as a “witness to the sufferings of Christ”, meaning he was actually there in person alongside Christ when Jesus was on earth. These descriptions fit the apostle Peter. read more

    The Historical Value of Luke-Acts

    The Historical Value of Luke-Acts

    The historical accuracy of the Luke-Acts two-volume work is frequently challenged. Scholars dispute such issues as the dating of the reign of Quirinius (Luke 1:5; 2:2) and references to Palestinian geography (Luke 4:44; 17:11) and raise additional historical questions regarding the numerous speeches in Acts (e.g., Acts 2:14-36) and the harmonious portrayal of the early church (Acts 4:32-35). The most critical historical objection to Acts concerns the details of Paul’s ministry. Although certain passages suggest that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul (Acts 16:10-17; 27:1—28:16), some scholars deem this tradition untenable on the basis of perceived difficulties in harmonizing the life and perspective of Paul as presented in Acts with details about his life found in his letters. read more

    WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com