E
EZweber
Guest
So from what I can gather, you cannot know what books make up Scripture.
- Status
E
EZweber
Guest
By guesses I meant educated guesses.
E
EZweber
Guest
The problem is, if Tradition established Scripture, its authority is superior to Scripture.
P
Prodigal1984
Guest
We need to realize the historical truth that the first three centuries, many early Christians went to their graves thinking certain books were scripture that aren’t in the Bible today. Also some disputed books made it into the canon.
The book of Revelation for example wasn’t well received in the east, and the letter to the Hebrews wasn’t well received in the west.
The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, 1 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apocalypse of Peter were very popular in the early Church and were cited as scripture by Church Fathers.
As for Old Testament books that were very influential early on that didn’t make the canon, 1 Enoch and Jubilees were very popular. They only made it into one traditions canon. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church who has the largest canon in Christianity with 81 books. See the Bible isn’t really a book, it is a collection of books. The history of its development is actually as interesting as it gets.
Generally Protestants have 66 books. Catholics have 73. Orthodox are fluid depending on the autocephaly but they generally have 76-78 books. And the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has the most with 81.
The book of Revelation for example wasn’t well received in the east, and the letter to the Hebrews wasn’t well received in the west.
The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, 1 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apocalypse of Peter were very popular in the early Church and were cited as scripture by Church Fathers.
As for Old Testament books that were very influential early on that didn’t make the canon, 1 Enoch and Jubilees were very popular. They only made it into one traditions canon. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church who has the largest canon in Christianity with 81 books. See the Bible isn’t really a book, it is a collection of books. The history of its development is actually as interesting as it gets.
Generally Protestants have 66 books. Catholics have 73. Orthodox are fluid depending on the autocephaly but they generally have 76-78 books. And the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has the most with 81.
Last edited:
You tell me. As is so often said, no table of contents fell from Heaven. Each communion does the best it can to determine it. What is remarkable is that of the up to 81 or so books considered canon in different parts of the Church, there is virtually universal agreement on 66 of them.JonNC:
So from what I can gather, you cannot know what books make up Scripture.
Last edited:
Authority for what, and where did it get its authority from. The Church is established by Christ at Pentecost. How do we know. “It is written.”JonNC:
The problem is, if Tradition established Scripture, its authority is superior to Scripture.
No one (should) question the Church’s authority to teach. Why? Again, “it is written.”
The Church has the authority to set doctrine. All sola scriptura states is that scripture should be the final norm in determining doctrine.
H
Hodos
Guest
Well, that was why I asked you my initial question. What is the canon? The canon is not a manmade construction. As you may know, canon means a measuring stick, it is a standard by which something is judged. The canonical works or scripture are considered canonical because they have their origin from God. In other words, they are the written record of God’s revelation. They are canonical because some books are indeed inspired by God through the Holy Spirit, whereas others aren’t. So from that standpoint, the canon is an objective truth in that some texts are indeed inspired of God, while others aren’t.
That being said, the recognition of what was revealed by God is an epistemological question. How do we recognize what has been handed down from God? In determining that, I have no issue with placing weight on tradition as a tool of providing evidence that gives us a reasonable certainty that what we have is indeed inspired by God. It isn’t infallible, but it does provide some evidence that can be weighed. Look at it as circumstantial evidence being used to build a case in a courtroom.
That being said, you are correct in that some books struggled for canonicity. I have no issue with this. Although Revelation didn’t struggle for quite the reason you think. It was widely held that it was handed down by a trusted source (John), and that it was ancient in its origin (first century). The reason it struggled for canonicity was due largely because there were a number of heresies that attempted to refer to the Book of Revelation, but clearly misused the text. The question of whether it was trusted or whether the content was orthodox was not seriously in doubt, it was more along the lines of being concerned about its misuse. Ultimately, I think the early Church Fathers were right in judging it to be canonical. Getting back to Revelation though, we trust the source, it is ancient in its origin, its content is canonical and in keeping with both Old Testament apocalyptic prophetic revelation as well as New Testament revelation about Christ and the coming eschaton, and ultimately, its prophecies proved true providing additional evidence of its divine origin.
H
Hodos
Guest
Not so. This is often the charge of Roman Catholic apologists, but the issue is that they conflate two questions. Sola Scriptura is answering the question of what holds primacy when declaring doctrine. It is answering the question of when two sources of authority are in contradiction, which holds primacy. Catholic apologists conflate this with recognizing what written works were received through the Holy Spirit by the Church. Catholic apologists also erect a straw man when they insist that somehow tradition has no bearing to someone who holds to Sola Scriptura. This is far from the truth.
I also think that you have an issue when you elevate man’s authority over the word of his creator. It is God’s word that informs and shapes the Church. The Church doesn’t shape God’s word.
Last edited:
E
EZweber
Guest
The Church does not shape God’s word. However, the Church’s authority comes from God, just like Scripture’s.
E
EZweber
Guest
The problem with this is that the only place that says many of the books of the Bible are inspired is Tradition. Few books of the Bible claim to be inspired in the text. How do you know 1st and 2nd Corinthians are inspired without Tradition having authority? It doesn’t say so in the Bible.
E
EZweber
Guest
It is true that we know this in this day and age because of Scripture, but in the early Church, they knew it because of the testimony of the Apostles. Scripture as a historical (not inspired) document gives proof that the Church came from Christ. We would still have the Church without Scripture. There would be less evidence for its authenticity, but we would have it. Vice versa on the other hand…
S
SyCarl
Guest
How is Scripture, particularly the New Testament, established as a historical document? How would establishing it as a historic document show that the information in it is true? The Iliad is an historical document. Does that mean everything it says is true?
Once we have Scripture though to establish the claims of the Catholic Church still requires private interpretation. You believe the authority of the Catholic Church because your interpretation agrees with its interpretation. Otherwise we are still stuck with the Catholic Church saying it has authority because its interpretation of Scripture says it does.
The spiral argument does not work.
Once we have Scripture though to establish the claims of the Catholic Church still requires private interpretation. You believe the authority of the Catholic Church because your interpretation agrees with its interpretation. Otherwise we are still stuck with the Catholic Church saying it has authority because its interpretation of Scripture says it does.
The spiral argument does not work.
P
Padres1969
Guest
Simple, I don’t think any of them are inspired.
E
EZweber
Guest
The information contained in the New Testament is to the best of our ability to test historically accurate.
E
EZweber
Guest
I believe that a careful, logical, unbiased study of Scripture and history would leave the Catholic Church the only one in the market for the fullness of truth. I know that most of the people on this thread would disagree with me, but that is a topic for a number of other threads.
E
EZweber
Guest
How does your doctrinal structure work then?
The first part of scripture did know. That’s why Christ used the phrase, “it is written.”JonNC:
It is true that we know this in this day and age because of Scripture, but in the early Church, they knew it because of the testimony of the Apostles. Scripture as a historical (not inspired) document gives proof that the Church came from Christ. We would still have the Church without Scripture. There would be less evidence for its authenticity, but we would have it. Vice versa on the other hand…
Fortunately, we do have the written word.
E
EZweber
Guest
My point is that the Church is not established by Scripture. Scripture was established by the Church. The Church is proven (concede this for the benefit of the argument) by Scripture, but it is not dependent on it.
True. Christ established the Church. Scripture records it for our knowledge and to support our our faith (faith comes by hearing). Less proven, more a testament of (hence the term).
Z
ZMystiCat
Guest
I didn’t expand on it at the time, but I think this might be a reason Protestants have ultimately moved away from the “those with the Holy Spirit just know” position. The instant you start looking into the history of the canon, the idea starts breaking down. Well, it might remain upheld if one is willing to dismiss St. Augustine and Martin Luther as having the Holy Spirit, but I don’t see too many Protestants willing to go there. You have to go into some really fringe Baptist movements to find that.
Last edited:
- Status