T
TruthHasSpoken
Guest
Especially for non-Catholics, how do you know that all 27 books of the New Testament are God’s Written Word and that no books have been left out that should be included?
- Status
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Which books did you have in mind? Which books got left out? And which books found their way into the canon but ought not to have done?
Last edited:
C
CzechMan
Guest
I guess we have no idea if any parts of any books of the New Testament are God’s Written Word. Though one hint we can get is if we find in any books sexism unworthy of a good God. In all the NT books we find God referred by the sexist term Father, except for one, 3 John. So we could guess that all of 3 John could be the Word of God. For other books, we could guess that either nothing in them is the Word of God, or parts are God’s Word. That is my current opinion. Of course many will disagree with me. And that is OK. Different people have different opinions.
The consensus of the Universal Church is the 27 books. This is despite some very learned ECFs who disputed some of them, including James.
0
0331
Guest
Are you aware that this view is not only not Catholic, it is not Christian?
Z
ZMystiCat
Guest
As far as Catholics are concerned, we believe that the Church’s dogmatic teachings are infallible, and that includes the canon.
As far as Protestants are concerned, it varies. A couple major theories are:
As far as Protestants are concerned, it varies. A couple major theories are:
- The lone exception to sola scriptura is the Church’s declaration of the canon.
- The canon isn’t infallible, but it’s assumed that the Church got it right.
Remember kids, you have to respect a person’s preferred gender. Unless it’s God, then it’s sexist!
C
commenter
Guest
History is written by the winners. To put it another way, “consensus” is declared by the wannabe winners.TruthHasSpoken:
The consensus of the Universal Church is the 27 books. This is despite some very learned ECFs who disputed some of them, including James.
A skeptic would argue that one sub group of Christians identified with one of the current Christian theologies, and along with that picked out more or less about 27 of the hundreds of possible scriptures as THE canon. Then they said those who agreed with them are the Early Church Fathers. Of that population, of course there was near universal “consensus” since you weren’t counted in the sample unless you agreed with them.
Then, according to the skeptics, they labelled the other Christian groups, and their scriptures, heretical. Then they eliminated almost all traces of the other Christianities, until the History Channel.
The only alternative view that I can see is that a Magisterium identified that a NT ought to exist, which books belong to it, which guys are ECFs, and which heretics.
I say the RCs won by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and skeptics say the Catholics just had sharper swords, but I don’t see the consensus argument.
Last edited:
C
CzechMan
Guest
0331, well, Christianity is very varied. Some Christians don’t consider any of the NT the word of God. Some Christians consider some of the NT the word of God. Some Christians believe God would never refer to himself or herself by the title Father. Some Christians would therefore reject any baptizing with the words in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Of course I am aware that the official Catholic doctrine considers such a baptism invalid. And that is OK. Diversity of opinions is good. Of course we should be respectful to each other.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
No, heresy is not good.
0
0331
Guest
Well sure, we can respect each other, but we should correctly define our terms for what Christianity is.
Using your criteria for the NT Canon, you’d have to throw out as the Word of God the four Gospels. Without the Gospels, there’s no Christ. Without Christ, there’s no Christianity.
We’re not talking about opinion here. We’re talking about Truth (Jesus) revealed to us by God the Father, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Then they’re not Christians…
Last edited:
C
CzechMan
Guest
I think assuming a good God exists, then he or she does not mind a diversity of opinions, what you might call heresies, because he or she likes freedom of religion, and does not judge us based on what we happen to believe. That is my opinion, but of course some will disagree. And that is OK.
0
0331
Guest
This is your own private theology. If you’re discounting any book that refers to God as Father, your theology has very little to be based off of.
Because the basis of theology is the Word of God.
Christians believe God is Truth, among other things. And we believe God wants us to know him, so he has revealed himself to us in history. So the ways in which he reveals himself are true.
Therefore any view that goes against revealed Truth is false.
Last edited:
C
CzechMan
Guest
We would not have to throw out the four Gospels. It could be that God considers parts of the Gospels his Word. Now maybe God considers also parts of the Qur’an his Word. Maybe parts of the Book of Mormon. Etc. We can always speculate. And that is the beauty of religious thinking, we can have all kinds of beautiful theories. And I could guess that after we die, we will find the answers, so we will see whose theories are closest to the Truth. That would be good.
0
0331
Guest
You said you’d only regard books that don’t refer to God as Father. And Jesus makes it clear in the Gospels that God is Father, his Father and our Father.
They may be theories to you at the present moment but the point of theology and philosophy in religion is to search and know Truth.
Last edited:
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
Yes, because it was complied by the Infallible Church of Christ which has the God-given right and duty to do so.
C
CzechMan
Guest
Well, what do we know? Maybe Jesus never called God Father. After all we were not there. We do not have even recordings of Jesus’s words, no tapes or anything. We do not even have some writings that are generally believed to have been written by Jesus. We do have a letter that Jesus allegedly wrote to a king of Edessa, but the prevailing opinion is that this letter is not genuine.
So yes, let us search for truth. But it might be that nobody alive knows the Truth. Certainly when I prayed to God, I got no answers about what is the Truth. Some pray to God, and believe they get answers. Some believe the answers they got are consistent with Catholic doctrine, some, with Lutheran doctrine, some, with Islam, some, with Orthodox Judaism, some, with Reformed Judaism, some, with Sikhism, some, with Hinduism, etc. Obviously, they can’t all be right. But there is a lot of beauty in our religious diversity. I love comparative religion.
So yes, let us search for truth. But it might be that nobody alive knows the Truth. Certainly when I prayed to God, I got no answers about what is the Truth. Some pray to God, and believe they get answers. Some believe the answers they got are consistent with Catholic doctrine, some, with Lutheran doctrine, some, with Islam, some, with Orthodox Judaism, some, with Reformed Judaism, some, with Sikhism, some, with Hinduism, etc. Obviously, they can’t all be right. But there is a lot of beauty in our religious diversity. I love comparative religion.
0
0331
Guest
Ah, this gets back to the point of the thread:
The books that make up the New Testament canon are believed to be the Word of God. We believe in a God who desires man to worship him and know him, and has revealed himself in history so man may know him—first to the Israelites (in the Old Testament) and then in the person of Jesus Christ, his Son, the Word made Flesh. Reason tells us that this Word would not be false—why would God (Truth) deceive his people?
The books that make up both the Old and New Testaments are believed to be written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—the writers were chosen by God and he acted in them. The Four Gospels are held especially to have apostolic origin. So even if the Holy Spirit had no part in their writing, they still stand to be the works written by men closest to Jesus.
C
CzechMan
Guest
The four Gospels are works written by men closest to Jesus? Well, you can think so. Though they were apparently written decades after Jesus died. One of the authors, Luke, wrote that he read a number of gospels. Maybe even some written soon after Jesus died. But I guess he did not like those. Well, he wrote what he wrote. Was he one of the men closest to Jesus? Most don’t think so.
Does God deceive his or her people, if he or she inspires parts of the Bible, and parts of other books? I don’t think so. God in his or her wisdom might think this is the best thing, so we can have some guidance, among all the error. Could think that better inspire a little something , than nothing. So that we could read all kinds of scriptures, and among those read a little Truth, and it can help us. Even though we read some error too. So we can think about it all. A lot of interesting food for thought. Stimulates our interest.
Does God deceive his or her people, if he or she inspires parts of the Bible, and parts of other books? I don’t think so. God in his or her wisdom might think this is the best thing, so we can have some guidance, among all the error. Could think that better inspire a little something , than nothing. So that we could read all kinds of scriptures, and among those read a little Truth, and it can help us. Even though we read some error too. So we can think about it all. A lot of interesting food for thought. Stimulates our interest.
I wouldn’t deny the former, nor would I defend the latter. I’ve seen very little conflict regarding the NT to support a “winners” vs. “losers “ perspective.JonNC:
History is written by the winners. To put it another way, “consensus” is declared by the wannabe winners.TruthHasSpoken:
The consensus of the Universal Church is the 27 books. This is despite some very learned ECFs who disputed some of them, including James.
A skeptic would argue that one sub group of Christians identified with one of the current Christian theologies, and along with that picked out more or less about 27 of the hundreds of possible scriptures as THE canon. Then they said those who agreed with them are the Early Church Fathers. Of that population, of course there was near universal “consensus” since you weren’t counted in the sample unless you agreed with them.
Then, according to the skeptics, they labelled the other Christian groups, and their scriptures, heretical. Then they eliminated almost all traces of the other Christianities, until the History Channel.
The only alternative view that I can see is that a Magisterium identified that a NT ought to exist, which books belong to it, which guys are ECFs, and which heretics.
I the RCs won by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and skeptics say the Catholics just had sharper swords, but I don’t see the consensus argument.
I also don’t see any proof that the Holy Spirit guided only the RC Magisterium, even regarding the OT. And I’m not willing to dismiss the alternative views of people like Eusebius.
- Status