Canon of Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ginger2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Ginger2

Guest
This issue came up in another thread…

Is the Bible self-authenticating? And, how do we determine which books really belong in the Bible? Only confirmed inspired writings? Or some uninspired writings that may in some way benefit Christians?

I believe the Bible, being a collection of inspired works, bears witness to which books are truly inspired.

The claim of inspiration by the author of a single book is not in itself “proof.” The book’s historic and geologic accuracy lends supporting witness. Being written in the time and language it claims to be written also lends credence.

When prophets recognize the inspiration of other prophets they bear witness to each other, and when their prophecies come true.

The New Testament books acknowledge the Old Testament Books. (Not all the Christian OT books) but what was recognized by the Jews as inspired.

The Old Testament witnesses to the truth of the NT which fulfills the OT prophecy.

And finally, that the testimonies of each book is consistant with the others.

What do you think?
 
Greetings to you in Christ Ginger…

It would be very nice if one book in the bible could be used as proof that another book is valid. Unfortunately, this is not the case. If it were, there would have been a full canon prior to 382AD. Prior to the Council of Rome, you will find no one any where that agreed on what was scripture, and what was not…

Some believed that Revelation was heretical, others thought that the apocalypse of Peter was valid scripture. But the point is, no one anywhere was in agreement.

Ultimately, the issue boils down to the seven books removed by protestants. So, if we look at these books specifically, what do we find.
  1. These were the books in the septuigent (sp). In Other words, they were in the Jewish canon if you will at the time of Christs Ministry.
  2. All three councils agreed on the OT Canon. The Council of Rome, Hippo and Carthage.
  3. From this point forward, there was no disagreement till ML.
  4. The ‘Council’ that said these books were invalid was a Jewish Council in about 90AD (could be off on the date). One of the requirements for a book being valid was that it must be in Hebrew, Since the 7 books were NOT in hebrew, then they could not be added. However, there are some very interesting things to note about this council. First… It occurred AFTER Christs resurrection. In Other words… though the Jews are still Gods chosen, the banner of his representatives had passed on to Christians, not Jews. Therefore, the Jews no longer had the Authority to set scripture. Further more. the Council was started with a statement similar to (don’t know the exact wording) “All who worship the man Jesus are an insult to God and Condemned. The Name of Jesus is forever blasphemous.”
So, when ML looked around and saw no Jews using those books, he felt Well, who knows the OT better than the Jews… they don’t have those books, therefore neither should we. However, using this logic means that you inadvertently give support to a council that no longer had authority, and that started by Blaspheming the name of Jesus.
5) If it is so glaringly obvious that these books do not belong. Why is it that when the Orthodox Church broke away, they did NOT remove those books. The closest you will find is some Orthodox Churches have a few EXTRA books, but you do not find anything close to the Protestant Canon.
6) If these books did NOT belong, why did no one challenge them in the Eastern OR Western church.
7) Why would you want to depend on the opinion of a single man. No Council, no Group consensus. ML decided on his own that these books were not valid
8) ML ALSO said that several NT books were invalid. (Such as James, Some of the letters of John and Revelation) If he was wrong about the NT books, why was he right about the OT books.
9) If someone today called a book an epistle of Straw, would you laugh at them as a loon? Isn’t that what ML did?

These are some of my points on why I believe that the scripture canon of the CC is the correct version. However, I would like to hear your reasoning on why you think those books should be removed…

Also, if this is not the path you wanted to take on this thread. please correct me…

In Christ
 
Not to change the thread, but if we cannot accept the Cannon as being devinely inspired, then how can we be sure that any of it is? In other words, if one inspired work was left out, or one uninspired one put in, how can we be sure that the Bible really is what we claim it to be?
 
Ginger2 said:
This issue came up in another thread…

Is the Bible self-authenticating? And, how do we determine which books really belong in the Bible? Only confirmed inspired writings? Or some uninspired writings that may in some way benefit Christians?

I believe the Bible, being a collection of inspired works, bears witness to which books are truly inspired.

The claim of inspiration by the author of a single book is not in itself “proof.” The book’s historic and geologic accuracy lends supporting witness. Being written in the time and language it claims to be written also lends credence.

When prophets recognize the inspiration of other prophets they bear witness to each other, and when their prophecies come true.

The New Testament books acknowledge the Old Testament Books. (Not all the Christian OT books) but what was recognized by the Jews as inspired.

The Old Testament witnesses to the truth of the NT which fulfills the OT prophecy.

And finally, that the testimonies of each book is consistant with the others.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Ginger says that the Scriptures are self-authenticating. Whenever did she ever hear such nonesense. Where do you get this stuff from, Ginger?

The bible is the revealed word of God because the bible says it is the revealed word of God? Pure, unadulterated nonesense. In Logic it is called ‘circular reasoning’.

There are lots of apocrypha. Who says they are not authentic? The Catholic Church says they are not, through the Deposit of faith.

There are lots of writings of pagan authors at the beginning of the Christian era. Their historicity and their ecologic accuracy only point that they came from a particular historical period. Your ‘proofs’ only show that the Bible was written about when we say it was.

Do you want us to believe that Methusula, and the ancient patriarchs lived hundreds of years - taking your interpretation of the Bible on your face value? None church experts, and even in the Catholic Church, we do not take such numbers to mean what they seem to mean on face value. Numbers in the Bible are to be specially interpretated, and not necessarily literally.

You are swimming way over your head, Ginger, and you are 10 miles off shore.

There are no proofs for Sola Scriptura; there are no proofs for the Scriptures being self-authenticating.

Give the divinely instituted Church of God, the Roman Catholic Church, credit for authenticating the books of the Bible. Give the Catholic Church credit for preserving and interpreting these books for 2,000 years

The fulfillment of OT prophesies in the NT is proof only for a believer, not for an atheist, or non-Christian believer.

The devil can quote Scripture for his own purpose, as was proved in the devil tempting Jesus. Who is convinced of the Bible’s inerrancy if you tell us, by means of your private interpretation what it means, and a 100 people in your congregation say it means something else. All cannot be right, and that there are diversity of opinions as to meaning is conclusive proof to the non-believer that the Bible is not inspired, and certainly not self-authenticating.

Luther interpreted the Bible differently than the Catholic Church. His diverse interpretation is proof that the Bible is not self authenticating.

This is just another non-Catholic effort to prove that they do not need the one, holy, truly and apostolic Catholic Church.

peace
 
mgrfin said:
There are no proofs for Sola Scriptura; there are no proofs for the Scriptures being self-authenticating.

Give the divinely instituted Church of God, the Roman Catholic Church, credit for authenticating the books of the Bible. Give the Catholic Church credit for preserving and interpreting these books for 2,000 years
Click to expand...
mgrfin, Please try to stay on topic.

If I respond to questions off topic it always leads to me be chastised for taking a thread off topic.
If I ignore the “off topic” questions, I am criticized for ignoring the questions.

That being said, Welcome to the Canon of Scripture thread!
 
heisenburg said:
Greetings to you in Christ Ginger…

It would be very nice if one book in the bible could be used as proof that another book is valid. Unfortunately, this is not the case. If it were, there would have been a full canon prior to 382AD. Prior to the Council of Rome, you will find no one any where that agreed on what was scripture, and what was not…

Some believed that Revelation was heretical, others thought that the apocalypse of Peter was valid scripture. But the point is, no one anywhere was in agreement.

Ultimately, the issue boils down to the seven books removed by protestants. So, if we look at these books specifically, what do we find.
  1. These were the books in the septuigent (sp). In Other words, they were in the Jewish canon if you will at the time of Christs Ministry.
  2. All three councils agreed on the OT Canon. The Council of Rome, Hippo and Carthage.
  3. From this point forward, there was no disagreement till ML.
  4. The ‘Council’ that said these books were invalid was a Jewish Council in about 90AD (could be off on the date). One of the requirements for a book being valid was that it must be in Hebrew, Since the 7 books were NOT in hebrew, then they could not be added. However, there are some very interesting things to note about this council. First… It occurred AFTER Christs resurrection. In Other words… though the Jews are still Gods chosen, the banner of his representatives had passed on to Christians, not Jews. Therefore, the Jews no longer had the Authority to set scripture. Further more. the Council was started with a statement similar to (don’t know the exact wording) “All who worship the man Jesus are an insult to God and Condemned. The Name of Jesus is forever blasphemous.”
So, when ML looked around and saw no Jews using those books, he felt Well, who knows the OT better than the Jews… they don’t have those books, therefore neither should we. However, using this logic means that you inadvertently give support to a council that no longer had authority, and that started by Blaspheming the name of Jesus.
5) If it is so glaringly obvious that these books do not belong. Why is it that when the Orthodox Church broke away, they did NOT remove those books. The closest you will find is some Orthodox Churches have a few EXTRA books, but you do not find anything close to the Protestant Canon.
6) If these books did NOT belong, why did no one challenge them in the Eastern OR Western church.
7) Why would you want to depend on the opinion of a single man. No Council, no Group consensus. ML decided on his own that these books were not valid
8) ML ALSO said that several NT books were invalid. (Such as James, Some of the letters of John and Revelation) If he was wrong about the NT books, why was he right about the OT books.
9) If someone today called a book an epistle of Straw, would you laugh at them as a loon? Isn’t that what ML did?

These are some of my points on why I believe that the scripture canon of the CC is the correct version. However, I would like to hear your reasoning on why you think those books should be removed…

Also, if this is not the path you wanted to take on this thread. please correct me…

In Christ
Click to expand...
Before Hippo and Carthage there was much disagreement. Origen’s list is not even close to what we have today. Eusebius of Caesarea had a list very similar to Origen’s.

And after the counsel of Hippo there was still disagreement.

An African bishop, Julius in the sixth century wrote a list of Scripture that disputed James John Hebrews Jude and Rev.

Peshitta’s Version omitted John James Jude Rev. in the 5th century

Amphilocius of Iconium in the 4th century was similar to Origen.

It wasn’t until about five hundred years ago before the canon was officially set.

As for the OT the Apocryphal books do not have the same qualities as the other books. I don’t believe any of them even claim divine inspiration. And I know that 2 Macc denies inspiration. Many of these books **contain historical, geographical, and chronological errors. **

Therefore they can’t be inspired.

I am not depending on Luther. I don’t really object to the books being included. You jumped to the wrong conclusion thinking I want them removed. I think, as did many church fathers, that they have some value, but are not inspired.

My only objection to them is people placing them on the same level as inspired Scripture.
 
Ginger2 said:
mgrfin, Please try to stay on topic.

If I respond to questions off topic it always leads to me be chastised for taking a thread off topic.
If I ignore the “off topic” questions, I am criticized for ignoring the questions.

That being said, Welcome to the Canon of Scripture thread!
Click to expand...
Ginger, you are the one who consistently goes off topic.

You start off the thread:

Is the Bible self-authenticating?

Now you say, this is not the topic. STATE THE QUESTION CLEARLY, so you do not go astray, and lead others astray.
WHAT IS THE TOPIC OF THIS TREAD?

peace
 
mgrfin said:
Ginger, you are the one who consistently goes off topic.
Click to expand...
(sigh)

mgrfin, You brought up sola Scripture. This thread has nothing to do with Sola Scripture.
mgrfin said:
You start off the thread:

Is the Bible self-authenticating?

Now you say, this is not the topic. STATE THE QUESTION CLEARLY, so you do not go astray, and lead others astray.
WHAT IS THE TOPIC OF THIS TREAD?

peace
Click to expand...
The question is clear.

Is the Bible self-authenticating? And, how do we determine which books really belong in the Bible? Only confirmed inspired writings? Or some uninspired writings that may in some way benefit Christians? What do you think?

I hope this clears things up. 🙂
 
Ginger2 said:
This issue came up in another thread…

**Is the Bible self-authenticating? **
Click to expand...
The answer to that is, “No.” The reason is that authority has to come from authority. Something or someone that does not have authority cannot declare itself (or himself, or herself) to have authority, because the authority to do that does not yet exist.

Something that already has authority has to “authorize” the person or thing. Ultimately, authority comes from God, and passes to and through human beings.

God gave Adam and Eve authority over the world, and over their children. All parents have authority over their children, which comes from God. The parents may delegate one of the children to have authority over the others for a period of time, but none of the children can usurp the parents’ authority without their permission.

When a human being creates something - a work of art, a business, an invention of some kind - we recognize that that person has natural authority over that thing. He has the right to delegate authority to others, with regard to that thing, but no one has the right to take his authority away from him.

A nation is governed by leaders who are selected in a manner that is accepted as authoritative by the people - he inherits his authority from an ancestor, or he derives his authority from his military power (as in a coup) or he derives his authority through some kind of democratic process, etc., but the leader of a government is recognizable by certain features that designate that person as being the person in authority. Without those features, he is either a madman, or he has lost authority that he used to have to someone else.

The word “authority” comes from the word “author,” and so when we are trying to figure out who has authority in a given situation, it is good to look at who is the author of that situation. We look to God, and then we look to those human beings whom He has delegated.
** And, how do we determine which books really belong in the Bible?**
Click to expand...
By looking at their authorship, and by looking at the degree of authority held by those who are making the claim.

Random Joe Blow says that there are 39 books in the Old Testament; the Pope of the Catholic Church, who gets his authority from Jesus Christ through the Apostle Peter, says there are 46.

Who do I believe? (Hint: The one who has been given the authority to make this decision - that is, the Pope.)
 
Ginger2 said:
(sigh)

mgrfin, You brought up sola Scripture. This thread has nothing to do with Sola Scripture.

The question is clear.

Is the Bible self-authenticating? And, how do we determine which books really belong in the Bible? Only confirmed inspired writings? Or some uninspired writings that may in some way benefit Christians? What do you think?

I hope this clears things up. 🙂
Click to expand...
No Ginger. The question is still not clear.

You have stated three questions:
  1. Is the Bible self-authenticating?
  2. How do we determine which books really belong in the Bible?
  3. Only confirmed inspiret writings, or non inspired writings included. (A totally confused point).
You can seem to get it down to one question.

By the way, the Catholic New Testament was determined at the beginning of the 5th century, not the 16th century.

Please clear up the matter with one question, please.

peace
 
Ok, why don’t we address this first. Why are the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel of Thomas (among other books) NOT included in the canon of scripture today? All of these were once considered worthy of inclusion by at least someone in the Christian world, and were used as scripture by these groups for a time. By what process did they get left out?

Question #2 - Why did Revelation get left in? There was a huge long-standing and controversial debate over the inclusion of this book. Some Christian communities refused to use it. And yet, there it is. What process allowed this book to remain?
 
The thing that the Church officially declared Deutrocanonical Books as inspired. The passage in Heb 11:35 refers to the incident in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

35 Women received their dead raised to life again. But others were racked, not accepting deliverance, that they might find a better resurrection. Heb 11:35

Compare and Contrast. I could not copy and paste the 2 Macc 7:1-42 because it is a long passage.

drbo.org/chapter/46007.htm Read the Passage.
 
ralphinal said:
Not to change the thread, but if we cannot accept the Cannon as being devinely inspired, then how can we be sure that any of it is? In other words, if one inspired work was left out, or one uninspired one put in, how can we be sure that the Bible really is what we claim it to be?
Click to expand...
I think it is always possible another inspired writing could be found in the future. But I trust God that it will not change the basis of our faith.

While I don’t believe the Apocryphal writings are inspired, I don’t believe they change it either.

The reason I don’t object is because I have seen how God always lets His truth shine thru even the most corrupt writings/teachings.

Since I don’t consider these extra books corrupt, why should it be a big issue that Christians have access to read them?

However, the dispute arises when doctrine is drawn from them - that is my objection.
 
mgrfin said:
No Ginger. The question is still not clear.

You have stated three questions:
  1. Is the Bible self-authenticating?
  2. How do we determine which books really belong in the Bible?
  3. Only confirmed inspiret writings, or non inspired writings included. (A totally confused point).
You can seem to get it down to one question.

By the way, the Catholic New Testament was determined at the beginning of the 5th century, not the 16th century.

Please clear up the matter with one question, please.

peace
Click to expand...
I included three questions tot insure this dialog moved in the direction I intended.

We are talking about the NT and OT and the entire canon. The entire canon was set about 500 years ago.

If I was confusing my statements, I apologize. I was trying to do 3 things at the same time.
 
Ginger2 said:
However, the dispute arises when doctrine is drawn from them - that is my objection.
Click to expand...
We don’t get doctrine from the Bible; we get it from the Magisterium of the Church, which passes on and interprets to us the Tradition of the Church. It is the Magisterium of the Church that tells us that the Bible is inerrant, and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is also the Magisterium that tells us that the Bible actually consists 46 books of the Old Testament, and 27 books of the New Testament.
 
Ok, another question:

At what point did a Bible finally appear, with all of the canonical books, in a single tome in a single language? I ask this because before that point, it would have been difficult for average people to have access to all of the scriptures, since one would have had to known both Greek and Hebrew to read them. Wouldn’t this be the point, strictly speaking, at which we had a final version of the Bible?

By the way, it would be relevant to know which particular canon was used in that particular Bible.
 
Rolltide said:
Ok, another question:

At what point did a Bible finally appear, with all of the canonical books, in a single tome in a single language? I ask this because before that point, it would have been difficult for average people to have access to all of the scriptures, since one would have had to known both Greek and Hebrew to read them. Wouldn’t this be the point, strictly speaking, at which we had a final version of the Bible?

By the way, it would be relevant to know which particular canon was used in that particular Bible.
Click to expand...
That’s easy - the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, in the early 400s AD. He used the same canon that is currently used by Catholics today, and it is still considered the “official Bible” of the Church, even until today. 🙂
 
Mannyfit75 said:
The thing that the Church officially declared Deutrocanonical Books as inspired. The passage in Heb 11:35 refers to the incident in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

35 Women received their dead raised to life again. But others were racked, not accepting deliverance, that they might find a better resurrection. Heb 11:35

Compare and Contrast. I could not copy and paste the 2 Macc 7:1-42 because it is a long passage.

drbo.org/chapter/46007.htm Read the Passage.
Click to expand...
2 Macc denies divine inspiration.
 
Ginger2 said:
This issue came up in another thread…

Is the Bible self-authenticating? And, how do we determine which books really belong in the Bible? Only confirmed inspired writings? Or some uninspired writings that may in some way benefit Christians?

I believe the Bible, being a collection of inspired works, bears witness to which books are truly inspired.

The claim of inspiration by the author of a single book is not in itself “proof.” The book’s historic and geologic accuracy lends supporting witness. Being written in the time and language it claims to be written also lends credence.

When prophets recognize the inspiration of other prophets they bear witness to each other, and when their prophecies come true.

The New Testament books acknowledge the Old Testament Books. (Not all the Christian OT books) but what was recognized by the Jews as inspired.

The Old Testament witnesses to the truth of the NT which fulfills the OT prophecy.

And finally, that the testimonies of each book is consistant with the others.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
  1. Cite the verse(s) that specifically state the books in the New Testament as being 27 books only.
2)Who wrote the book of Hebrews?

3)And since no one knows who wrote Hebrews, how do you know it belongs with the other inerrant books of the Bible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top