What Constitutes The Bible?

[JMJ_coder]

Never met a one. Maybe you know more morons that I do. Statistically it is possible.

Well, I could tell you some stories…

 

[JMJ_coder]

I think that God is the author of scripture.
That is Catholic teaching as you well know.
It is “given by inspiration of God”
It was not their will

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

That is about all I can say about the process.

The last one is the Catholic teaching. It wasn’t that they transcribed a verbatim exchange - like Muslims think Mohammed did. Nor were they possessed and had their limbs bodily taken over.

They wrote in their own words and genres, but the Holy Spirit guided and inspired them.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The last one is the Catholic teaching. It wasn’t that they transcribed a verbatim exchange - like Muslims think Mohammed did. Nor were they possessed and had their limbs bodily taken over.

They wrote in their own words and genres, but the Holy Spirit guided and inspired them.

I was not in the room. I do not know or care except to the extent that it effects inerrancy. When it leads to those who believe the authors were inaccurate, then I care.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Most of that is lost to history. But lets take Moses for example. He wrote the first five books of the Bible, if you believe Jesus anyway and not some whacked documentary hypothesis, and you would have to say that based upon his personal encounter with God, they instantly carried weight. It appears to be the same process with the prophets and so on. Certainly think about the apostles. Is there a single book written by an Apostle that the church did not recognize? I have heard that some will argue that some of Paul’s letters would qualify as such but I digress. No, I would say that the vast majority of the NT was recognized fairly quickly as scripture.
Now do I know the conversation that occured between Timothy and Mark as they sat around discussing the books they wrote or received? No I do not. Blessed are those who do not see and still believe.

It is quite likely that the earliest Christians didn’t know all the works of Saint Paul (let’s use him as a momentary example). It wouldn’t be unheard of for Corinthians to be unaware of the letters written to the Romans. Or the Colossians to not know about the letters to the Phillipians. Remember, communications were not like they are today - and Saint Paul’s own words seem to indicate that many communities weren’t getting the whole story.

There are quite possibly (and likely) written works of Apostolic origin that we don’t include in the Bible. Some were lost to various forces, some couldn’t be authenticated, etc.

Saint Athanasius was the first of the Church Fathers to compile a list of canonical books that matches what we have today. At the Council of Hippo and Carthage, the canon was defined to the books we know today and that canon was confirmed at Trent. Luther removed seven books from the Old Testament, but the earliest Protestant Bibles included them.

Some books were not included because they were not written by an actual Apostle, even they their content was considered inspired. An example would be the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians and the Shepherd of Hermas. Others were attributed to the Apostles (and possibly written by them) but their authorship was suspect.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It is quite likely that the earliest Christians didn’t know all the works of Saint Paul (let’s use him as a momentary example). It wouldn’t be unheard of for Corinthians to be unaware of the letters written to the Romans. Or the Colossians to not know about the letters to the Phillipians. Remember, communications were not like they are today - and Saint Paul’s own words seem to indicate that many communities weren’t getting the whole story.

There are quite possibly (and likely) written works of Apostolic origin that we don’t include in the Bible. Some were lost to various forces, some couldn’t be authenticated, etc.

Saint Athanasius was the first of the Church Fathers to compile a list of canonical books that matches what we have today. At the Council of Hippo and Carthage, the canon was defined to the books we know today and that canon was confirmed at Trent. Luther removed seven books from the Old Testament, but the earliest Protestant Bibles included them.

Some books were not included because they were not written by an actual Apostle, even they their content was considered inspired. An example would be the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians and the Shepherd of Hermas. Others were attributed to the Apostles (and possibly written by them) but their authorship was suspect.

Just so you know, not to insult you, I have a graduate degree from a regionally accredited school (MDiv). I do not need the history lesson. We disagree on interpretation, I know the history.
The rigor is there or it could not remain so.
I do not believe there are other works by the Apostles. But that is not something I can prove or disprove.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I do not believe there are other works by the Apostles. But that is not something I can prove or disprove.

If I remembered correctly, there are fragments of the Gospel of Peter that many consider to be authentic.

 

[Rightlydivide]

If I remembered correctly, there are fragments of the Gospel of Peter that many consider to be authentic.

My recollection is it is different in enough details that would be suspect…
Regardless…

 

[JMJ_coder]

The point I’m trying to make, is that the Canon of Scripture was defined by the Catholic Church (Councils of Hippo and Carthage, confirmed at Council of Trent).

It may be asked of a Protestant, when did the Catholic Church go off on a tangent (side story, one of those KJV fell from the sky fellas said it went into error before Jesus ascended) - if it is before the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, then how can you believe they got the Canon correct; if it is after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, then that Church was decidedly Catholic.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The point I’m trying to make, is that the Canon of Scripture was defined by the Catholic Church (Councils of Hippo and Carthage, confirmed at Council of Trent).

It may be asked of a Protestant, when did the Catholic Church go off on a tangent (side story, one of those KJV fell from the sky fellas said it went into error before Jesus ascended) - if it is before the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, then how can you believe they got the Canon correct; if it is after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, then that Church was decidedly Catholic.

Defined or confirmed? By your own admission the NT list you mentioned by Athanasius predates these councils by many years being written around 370 AD or so.
I do not believe those local regional synods defined the canon.
Your question about the early church as it directly relates to the veracity of claims that it holds the doctrine from the apostolic church is going to take us off in another direction.
The history of the Bible, the story of the Bible from Genesis until Revelation (the seven churches had some serious issues even then) is of imperfect people unable to fully grasp God’s truth. At all times he used imperfect people. That is the story. No councils defined scripture in 200 BC and not in 400 AD. They may have recognized it but by your own admission things were set AT LEAST 30 to 50 years before. And remember Athanasius may have simply confirmed what was around longer than that!

 

[Rightlydivide]

If he used the word canon (kanonizomena)-and he did–prior to the defining of the canon according to you…was he in error?
Catholic apologists are always saying that Hippo and Carthage are responsible for the canon but according to the very person you cite, we HAD A CANON before them.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If he used the word canon (kanonizomena)-and he did–prior to the defining of the canon according to you…was he in error?
Catholic apologists are always saying that Hippo and Carthage are responsible for the canon but according to the very person you cite, we HAD A CANON before them.

Athanasius was a Catholic period. His list was not a canon, it was a list of books he approved to be used in the Liturgies of the Mass throughout the Catholic Christian world only in existance. Others were rejected that had apostles names attached to them. The list gets canonized by the Catholic Popes and Church councils because other books were being used in the Mass liturgies that did not make the list. A canon (approved list) is made so that no one can use other books for the liturgy Mass readings. Thus the councils of Hippo, Carthage, Trent is the council that layed the matter of disputed books to rest and confirmed the canon from 400 a.d. and would excommunicate anyone who refused to acknowledge the approved cannon list of books in the bible by the Catholic church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Athanasius was a Catholic period. His list was not a canon, it was a list of books he approved to be used in the Liturgies of the Mass throughout the Catholic Christian world only in existance. Others were rejected that had apostles names attached to them. The list gets canonized by the Catholic Popes and Church councils because other books were being used in the Mass liturgies that did not make the list. A canon (approved list) is made so that no one can use other books for the liturgy Mass readings. Thus the councils of Hippo, Carthage, Trent is the council that layed the matter of disputed books to rest and confirmed the canon from 400 a.d. and would excommunicate anyone who refused to acknowledge the approved cannon list of books in the bible by the Catholic church.

It was a canon. It was not a list of books HE approved. He is telling that God has revealed to the church. You know…I think you should agrue with HIM.

But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtilty of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.

In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

The church did not need a council. These councils are secondary part of the process that God used.

 

[Rightlydivide]

1. These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And he reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.

But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

 

[Rightlydivide]

And to throw in a tidbit, it is Athanasius who said that Pope Liberius lapsed into heresy under fear of torture

Who that shall hear what they did in the course of these proceedings will not think them to be anything rather than Christians? When Liberius sent Eutropius, a Presbyter, and Hilarius, a Deacon, with letters to the Emperor, at the time that Lucifer and his fellows made their confession, they banished the Presbyter on the spot, and after stripping Hilarius the Deacon and scourging him on the back, they banished him too, clamouring at him, ‘Why did you not resist Liberius instead of being the bearer of letters from him.’ Ursacius and Valens, with the eunuchs who sided with them, were the authors of this outrage. The Deacon, while he was being scourged, praised the Lord, remembering His words, ‘I gave My back to the smiters Isaiah 50:6;’ but they while they scourged him laughed and mocked him, feeling no shame that they were insulting a Levite. Indeed they acted but consistently in laughing while he continued to praise God; for it is the part of Christians to endure stripes, but to scourge Christians is the outrage of a Pilate or a Caiaphas. Thus they endeavoured at the first to corrupt the Church of the Romans, wishing to introduce impiety into it as well as others. But Liberius after he had been in banishment two years gave way, and from fear of threatened death subscribed. Yet even this only shows their violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. For that which men are forced by torture to do contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors. They however attempted everything in support of their heresy, while the people in every Church, preserving the faith which they had learned, waited for the return of their teachers, and condemned the Antichristian heresy, and all avoid it, as they would a serpent.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi all,

I haven’t been participating in this thread, but I’d like to jump in to respond to something Rightlydivide said early on:

Oh and I love participating in threads designed to raise doubt in Christians over things we both believe. It is a common Catholic argument. You can only believe the Bible if you believe for the same reasons we do. Have you ever noticed that we do not do that? We do not attack the things that we both believe.
It must be a Catholic thing. Every Protestant you talk out of believing the Bible gets you a few hours out of purgatory.

Rightlydivide, I think that if you take a good, honest look at Protestant forums on the internet, you’ll find that they are not much different from CAF – some a little better, some a little worse, but by and large pretty similar.

 

[cfrancis]

And to throw in a tidbit, it is Athanasius who said that Pope Liberius lapsed into heresy under fear of torture

Actually, you misrepresent Athanasius’ words, though they are present there for all to read:

But Liberius after he had been in banishment two years gave way, and from fear of threatened death subscribed. **Yet even this only shows their violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. *For that which men are forced by torture to do ***contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors.

Also note, no condemnation of Liberius, but praise.

 

[cazayoux]

It was a canon. It was not a list of books HE approved. He is telling that God has revealed to the church. You know…I think you should agrue with HIM.
The church did not need a council. These councils are secondary part of the process that God used.

Why then, at the council in 382, was there so much discussion about what is and is not ‘inspired’.
Revelations made it in even though some argued against it.
The Gospel of Thomas didn’t make it even though some argued for it.

If the ‘canon’ was already decided, why so much discussion later?

michel

 

[cazayoux]

Most of that is lost to history.

In fact, it is not. Ignoring history doesn’t make it ‘lost’.

Is there a single book written by an Apostle that the church did not recognize?

Yes, the Gospel of Thomas, for example.
Don’t forget, two of the accounts of the gospel that we agree are inspired did not come from the apostles.
Apostolic authorship is not a requirement that either of us hold scripture to, whether you realize it or not.

I have heard that some will argue that some of Paul’s letters would qualify as such but I digress.

Luther is the only one (I know of) that wanted to remove any of the letters.

No, I would say that the vast majority of the NT was recognized fairly quickly as scripture.

‘Vast majority’ isn’t enough.
We agree that EVERY word in the bible is considered the Word of God.
… and ‘fairly quickly’ isn’t a good measure either.
Better to learn the history and not guess.

Blessed are those who do not see and still believe.

I agree, however, this is not a reason to ignore the history of the body of Christ.

michel

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hi all,

I haven’t been participating in this thread, but I’d like to jump in to respond to something Rightlydivide said early on:

Rightlydivide, I think that if you take a good, honest look at Protestant forums on the internet, you’ll find that they are not much different from CAF – some a little better, some a little worse, but by and large pretty similar.

Ok… I have personally never witnessed someone attacking someone else for the REASON they believe the same thing BUT if you have…that is bad too.

 

[cazayoux]

Is there a single book written by an Apostle that the church did not recognize?

The Shephard of Hermas is another.
The Acts of Paul is another.

On ‘The Shephard of Hermas’…
The Shepherd of Hermas (sometimes just called The Shepherd) is a Christian work of the second century, considered a valuable book by many Christians, and occasionally considered canonical scripture by some of the early Church fathers. The Shepherd **had great authority **in the second and third centuries.[1] It was cited as Scripture by Irenaeus and Tertullian and was bound with the New Testament in the Codex Sinaiticus, and it was listed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Paul in the stichometrical list of the Codex Claromontanus. Some early Christians, however, considered the work apocryphal.

michel