What Constitutes The Bible?

[Rightlydivide]

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

You have the minutes of a particular council?
I do not know of anyone arguing for the Gospel of Thomas in the late 4th century. Please cite your source.
The church discussed the canon even after that as you probably know. I have never said that the means that God chooses to reveal his canon was not a long process in some cases.

 

[Rightlydivide]

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

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.

 

[Rightlydivide]

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

Neither book was actually written by an apostle. Prove that they were. The Acts of Paul written by Paul!! You are in a crowd of one on that…even a good google search would probably not include a recognized scholar who agrees with that.
What apostle wrote the Shepherd? Please. Tell us.

 

[Thing]

Which is the True King James Version Bible;

The one God inspired in 1611 - with the Deuterocanonicals.
or
The one God inspired in 2005 - without the Deuterocanonicals.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Actually, you misrepresent Athanasius’ words, though they are present there for all to read:
Also note, no condemnation of Liberius, but praise.

Agreed. My summary was inaccurate in this case.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Which is the True King James Version Bible;

The one God inspired in 1611 - with the Deuterocanonicals.
or
The one God inspired in 2005 - without the Deuterocanonicals.

1611 and any existing translation that includes the Apocrypha afterwards.

 

[cazayoux]

Neither book was actually written by an apostle. Prove that they were. The Acts of Paul written by Paul!! You are in a crowd of one on that…even a good google search would probably not include a recognized scholar who agrees with that.
What apostle wrote the Shepherd? Please. Tell us.

You are right. I diverged from your actual question. My apologies.
I agree these were not written by an apostle.
Again, being written by an apostle is not a requirement for scripture, such as two of our gospel accounts.

My point was that there were additional writings considered inspired.
There was not agreement on the full canon.

michel

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are right. I diverged from your actual question. My apologies.
I agree these were not written by an apostle.
Again, being written by an apostle is not a requirement for scripture, such as two of our gospel accounts.

My point was that there were additional writings considered inspired.
There was not agreement on the full canon.

michel

I do not know if Mark and Luke were apostles. We know that the term apostle has a wider meaning. But you are right, one does not have to be an apostle to write NT scripture.
There was not and is still not full agreement about the canon in various Christian circles. Not just Catholic and otherwise. Some Orthodox bodies hold to a larger canon.

 

[cazayoux]

I do not know if Mark and Luke were apostles. We know that the term apostle has a wider meaning. But you are right, one does not have to be an apostle to write NT scripture.
There was not and is still not full agreement about the canon in various Christian circles. Not just Catholic and otherwise. Some Orthodox bodies hold to a larger canon.

But all agree on the NT. All groups trust those authoritative councils, led by the Holy Spirit, from the 4th century. Why not listen to that same church regarding the OT?

OT canon is where these groups you mentioned disagree.
How do we decide who is right?
By what measure do we decide whether an OT book is inspired or not?
Who has the authority to state if a writing is inspired?
Do we listen to the Jews after Christ’s resurrection and establishment of His Church?

I would say that the pillar and bulwark of the truth, the church *Christ *founded, has the authority … just as it did to define the NT canon.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

There was not and is still not full agreement about the canon in various Christian circles. Not just Catholic and otherwise. Some Orthodox bodies hold to a larger canon.

Right!

We all agree on the following of the OT.
Genesis · Exodus · Leviticus · Numbers · Deuteronomy · Joshua · Judges · Ruth · 1-2 Samuel · 1-2 Kings · 1-2 Chronicles · Ezra · Nehemiah · Esther · Job · Psalms · Proverbs · Ecclesiastes · Song · Isaiah · Jeremiah · Lamentations · Ezekiel · Daniel · Hosea · Joel · Amos · Obadiah · Jonah · Micah · Nahum · Habakkuk · Zephaniah · Haggai · Zechariah · Malachi

Catholic & Orthodox:
Baruch & Letter of Jeremiah · Additions to Daniel (Susanna, Song of the Three Children, Bel & the Dragon) · 1 Esdras · 2 Esdras · Additions to Esther · Judith · 1 Maccabees · 2 Maccabees · Sirach · Tobit · Wisdom

Orthodox:
3 Maccabees · 4 Maccabees · Odes · Prayer of Manasseh · Psalm 151

Syriac Peshitta only:
2 Baruch · Psalms 152–155

Ethiopian Orthodox only:
4 Baruch · Enoch · Jubilees · 1-3 Meqabyan

So who is right?
Are you saying that since this disagreement exist between Catholics and these other groups, that proves that your church is right regarding the OT?

The truncated OT you use is just another opposing view.
HOW do we know who is right?

michel

 

[JMJ_coder]

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.

There were other canons around. I mention Saint Athanasius, because he was the first one to list the same canon that the Catholic Church has today.

 

[Peter_J]

Actually, you misrepresent Athanasius’ words, though they are present there for all to read:
Also note, no condemnation of Liberius, but praise.

Agreed. My summary was inaccurate in this case.

Maybe I shouldn’t say anything, since you’re both in agreement, but I can’t help wondering why Athanasius was referring to himself in the third person.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

I don’t know whether that, in particular, is done on Protestant forums or not. I was thinking in more general terms: I think that Protestants (and Orthodox for that matter) are, often times, treated pretty badly on CAF – but not much worse or much better than Catholics are treated on a typical Protestant (or Orthodox) forum. (Some of my fellow Catholic would disagree with me here. Indeed some would say that Protestant and Orthodox are treated with lots of respect on CAF, whereas Catholic posters are treated like dirt on Protestant and Orthodox forums.)

 

[JMJ_coder]

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!

No, they didn’t have it before. Saint Athanasius was the FIRST to list a canon that is the same as the Catholic Church has today. Before the Councils, every Bishop more-or-less defined the canon for his territory. Some didn’t think that Hebrews was canonical, some didn’t think Revelations was canonical. Some thought that 1 Clement and the Shepherd were canonical. The reason for the Councils was to define what exactly was to be considered canonical.

For Saint Athanasius, he set three categories in his list: 1) those books that were canonical (inspired and inerrant), 2) those books that were edifying (taught solid doctrine and should be read, possibly inspired but not guaranteed) and 3) those books that must not be read (place gnostic garbage here).

 

[christmary4ever]

The scripture was scripture the second it was written. Men recognized it because of the sovereignty of God.
I have never met anyone who believes that but if you have, so be it. Scripture is from God. Not man. God is the author.

God is the author of scripture, just like the 10 Commandments.
No dispute about this for all Christians.

But both of them had been revealed to men through certain

authority. The canon of the bible was revealed to the catholic
church by God. and she was responsible for determining what books were inspired. Without the church you cannot even
guarantee the inspiration of this books. God is the author but
The church is the exclusive guarantor of its Divine origin by the authority vested on him by God.

   If you object point out to me the specific passages that

claim that table of contents are inspired.and that the bible
claims that every book is inspired.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Neither book was actually written by an apostle. Prove that they were. The Acts of Paul written by Paul!! You are in a crowd of one on that…even a good google search would probably not include a recognized scholar who agrees with that.
What apostle wrote the Shepherd? Please. Tell us.

You would just counter any evidence with “if was written by an Apostle it would be in the Bible” or something similar. It would be like an atheist saying “if there was a God, I would believe in Him - since I don’t He doesn’t exist; now prove to me there is a God”. It is a defeatist attitude going into it.

We don’t know who wrote the Shepherd of Hermas. We also don’t know who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews, although traditionally it is ascribed to Saint Paul.

 

[JMJ_coder]

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

The Didache is not part of the Canon, but it is still a work that is authoritative in the Church (and has been since the beginning - it was in many early canons).

 

[cfrancis]

But lets take Moses for example. He wrote the first five books of the Bible, and you would have to say that based upon his personal encounter with God, they instantly carried weight.

Interesting point, RD.
You appear to be saying they carried weight because the people had personal knowledge of Moses’ encounter with God and the transmittal to Moses of the writings; that is, they were eyewitnesses to the event.
Rather, I would say they were accepted as inspired (carried weight) because of the authority of Moses; his testimony to their authenticity - their Scriptural-ness (I made that up!) is what the people accepted.

Certainly think about the apostles. Is there a single book written by an Apostle that the church did not recognize?

We have to identify what the Apostles wrote (the gospel of Matthew does not state its author). We know Paul wrote more than is included in the canon (Col 4:16, 1 Cor 5:9). So yes, Paul’s two letters count. As for the rest, to say they did not write is to argue from silence.

 

[Rightlydivide]

But all agree on the NT. All groups trust those authoritative councils, led by the Holy Spirit, from the 4th century. Why not listen to that same church regarding the OT?

OT canon is where these groups you mentioned disagree.
How do we decide who is right?
By what measure do we decide whether an OT book is inspired or not?
Who has the authority to state if a writing is inspired?
Do we listen to the Jews after Christ’s resurrection and establishment of His Church?

I would say that the pillar and bulwark of the truth, the church *Christ *founded, has the authority … just as it did to define the NT canon.

michel

First of all, I do not believe the Council of Jamnia occured.
Second, I do not consider the councils as authoratative. I would consider them as part of the process.
We do not decide. God does. What we recognize, what the Oriental Orthodox recognize, what those who do not have the Apocrypha as any part of their Bible, and those of us who do recognize is a result of many factors. You recognize those books because of local regional synods…I suppose. Etc etc. If the key issue is the Apocrypha, that becomes a long story. Perhaps we will have time but lunch break is only so long.
But a great question. I do not give a short answer to it.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Right!

We all agree on the following of the OT.
Genesis · Exodus · Leviticus · Numbers · Deuteronomy · Joshua · Judges · Ruth · 1-2 Samuel · 1-2 Kings · 1-2 Chronicles · Ezra · Nehemiah · Esther · Job · Psalms · Proverbs · Ecclesiastes · Song · Isaiah · Jeremiah · Lamentations · Ezekiel · Daniel · Hosea · Joel · Amos · Obadiah · Jonah · Micah · Nahum · Habakkuk · Zephaniah · Haggai · Zechariah · Malachi

Catholic & Orthodox:
Baruch & Letter of Jeremiah · Additions to Daniel (Susanna, Song of the Three Children, Bel & the Dragon) · 1 Esdras · 2 Esdras · Additions to Esther · Judith · 1 Maccabees · 2 Maccabees · Sirach · Tobit · Wisdom

Orthodox:
3 Maccabees · 4 Maccabees · Odes · Prayer of Manasseh · Psalm 151

Syriac Peshitta only:
2 Baruch · Psalms 152–155

Ethiopian Orthodox only:
4 Baruch · Enoch · Jubilees · 1-3 Meqabyan

So who is right?
Are you saying that since this disagreement exist between Catholics and these other groups, that proves that your church is right regarding the OT?

The truncated OT you use is just another opposing view.
HOW do we know who is right?

michel

Sure.
First of all, whether everyone recognizes it or not, the underlying presuppositon for me is that God has set a canon. That not all people recognize it is irrelevent. God is truth and 70 percent of all people reject Christ and are burned in a literal hell if they die.
That is a fact. Jesus Christ is the only way. To reject him equals hell. The point is that not everyone even recognizes God, those who do not are the reason for missions, it does not change the reality that most people go to hell.
Because I accept that, I am not swayed by popular consensus.
Ok, so God has a canon. How do people decide? We have at least four that I can think of:
Catholic
Longer canon for some Orthodox
Protestant without Apocrypha
Christian with Apocrypha.

In examining the doctrines and history, the leadership of the church, prior to me ever being a Christian, recognized the majority stream as containing scripture. They believed the evidence leads to this being the correct canon. Every group has to accept one of the canons. Now on the larger issue of the Apocrypha, that would take time.