What Constitutes The Bible?

[Rightlydivide]

God made it scripture.
Moses brought it to the people.
God did not bring the scripture to every person individually.

When Moses brought this to the people, did anyone question his authority to do so?
What I need is a scripture saying that the people stated Moses did not have the authority to write and deliver the God-given scriptures.
I mean … why would they believe him?

It’s the sola scripturists that looks only scripture.
So what to do when scripture doesn’t state specifically the sentence you are looking for? How are we to understand issues such as abortion, contraception, the assumption of Mary. If it’s not in scripture is it okay or not okay? … or … should we get an *understanding *of scripture and its teaching to apply to these topics that are not explicitly stated one way or the other?

As a literalist, how do you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man?

michel

You have not shown a verse. Everything else distracts from my request. And that is not even the chronology the BIble gives about Moses. ??

 

[Rightlydivide]

Great point!
I ran across this today.
Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible

so …
1 - not all books of the bible say they are inspired
2 - not all books in the OT are referenced in the NT
3 - OT and NT reference writings that all of us agree are not inspired.

So how DO we know what is and is not considered inspired?

michel

Us or the early church?
I have already answered these questions I thought.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well, Christ said the Moses put in some bad teachings on divorce to appease the hard-hearted Jews, so that was Moses exerting his own authority.

Jesus Christ gave the Catholic Church authority - the Church has used that authority to discern which books are canonical and which are not.

Let me ask you, if there were no Bible and someone handed you a stack of ancient manuscripts and said “we need a canon”, how would you know which ones to select?

I would not know in those parameters.
But we do have four choices for a Christian canon. Four Christian groups use them. At least. Could be more. I answered why I picked what I picked.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Scripture is scripture from the get go.
There is no chance that scripture could not have been scripture unless one doubts the sovereignty of God.
The early church quickly and in a few cases slowly recognized scripture.

Do we agree on those three prior to going on?
I suspect we agree on those.

 

[cfrancis]

1 - Scripture is scripture from the get go.

*2 - There is no chance that scripture could not have been scripture unless one doubts the sovereignty of God.*If you believe #1, #2 follows - Yes.

The early church quickly and in a few cases slowly recognized scripture.

I would say, over a period of centuries, the early church came to understand which writings were and were not Scripture, culminating in a the canon.

As for #2, we must agree that Scripture, if it does not self-identify, must then be recognized as Scripture.

 

[Rightlydivide]

you better only be responding when Obama talks or I will have to end this conversation*

 

[cfrancis]

you better only be responding when Obama talks or I will have to end this conversation

Actually, I’m not watching the debate, but I am not voting for Obama, that’s for certain!

 

[christmary4ever]

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.

The Catholic church recognizes the OT. AND THE
NT BOOKS as inspired because it was revealed to
them by the Holy Spirit. No, the correct list of inspired books was not immedietly known.

For example the DIDACHE an apostolic teaching,
was widely recognized as inspired till the Catholic
church in 382 A.D. SELECT THE CANON OF
THE BIBLE IN THE\SYNOD OF ROME,of course
only made possible by the guidance of the Holy
Spirit. Even Martin Luther a great opponent of
church authority recognizes this.

This fact is absolutely back up even by secular
historians., even non catholics.

If you disagree then furnish us a date and place
in history and another group or church responsible
for determinig the canon of the bible.

We have no argument that God is the author of the
bible. but God always designate an authority
to reveal his messages if it affects his entire
creation.

 

[christmary4ever]

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.

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

‘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.

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

michel

Rightly divide is arguing outside the bible yet could
not even come up with a different date or place,
when the majority of the books were recognized as inspired.Historical proof sholud always contain date,event and places otherwise it cannot even qualify as speculation.

 

[cazayoux]

Actually, I’m not watching the debate, but I am not voting for Obama, that’s for certain!

Pro-life guy here … skip all other politics … can’t vote for Obama on this most-basic issue of respecting life.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

Gabriel of 12;
I have no argument with the Catholic Saints. You suppose that what one Saint lists as a canon conflicts with the Catholic coucils? Many Saints listed books, that is why The Catholic coucils are so important, inorder to remove all error from the different canon of books proposed to be used in the Mass, by different individuals including the Saints. And of course God and the Holy Spirit inspired the body of Jesus Christ on earth his Catholic magisterium to put together the books of the bible that were truly inspired of God and reject those that were proved not inspired by God, by the Magisterium of the Catholic church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

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

Gabriel of 12;
First of all for the Record; the Catholic church existed before any canon of the new testament was put together.

Irenaueus, Bishop of Lyons 185 a.d developed a new testament canon

200 a.d Muratorian Fragment contained a canon similar to Trent

Eusibius, Bishop of Caesarea 325, wrote a history of the Church and books in dispute.

The council of Laodicea 360 a.d produced a Canon similar today’s canon.

Pope Damasus 366-384 a.d listed the books of today’s canon.

Council of Rome 382 a.d what prompted the Pope Damasus Decree of the canon that mirrors today’s canon since this time period.

Pope Innocent I in 405 listed the present canon at the request of a Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse.

Council of Hippo approved the entire canon of both old and new testaments as we have them today.

Council of Trent settled the matter of disputed books once and for all. 1563 a.d

If you deny the Rabbi council of Jamnia in 100 a.d , then in what year did the Jewish community canonize their Hebrew Palestinian Canon of scripture? If it was not 100 a.d, then for sure you have a date when they removed the 7 deutorocanonical books, because in some time they did council and removed them. Just as Martin Luther removed the same 7 books from the bible, that the Catholic church had already canonoized for 1200 years.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Gabriel of 12;
First of all for the Record; the Catholic church existed before any canon of the new testament was put together.

Irenaueus, Bishop of Lyons 185 a.d developed a new testament canon

200 a.d Muratorian Fragment contained a canon similar to Trent

Eusibius, Bishop of Caesarea 325, wrote a history of the Church and books in dispute.

The council of Laodicea 360 a.d produced a Canon similar today’s canon.

Pope Damasus 366-384 a.d listed the books of today’s canon.

Council of Rome 382 a.d what prompted the Pope Damasus Decree of the canon that mirrors today’s canon since this time period.

Pope Innocent I in 405 listed the present canon at the request of a Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse.

Council of Hippo approved the entire canon of both old and new testaments as we have them today.

Council of Trent settled the matter of disputed books once and for all. 1563 a.d

If you deny the Rabbi council of Jamnia in 100 a.d , then in what year did the Jewish community canonize their Hebrew Palestinian Canon of scripture? If it was not 100 a.d, then for sure you have a date when they removed the 7 deutorocanonical books, because in some time they did council and removed them. Just as Martin Luther removed the same 7 books from the bible, that the Catholic church had already canonoized for 1200 years.

First of all, the so called Damasine list is a fraud, you should know that.
Second of all did you just claim the LXX at the time of Jesus contained the Deuterocanonical books? I am sure you have some proof of that because everyone I read says that they were in flux and there is no proof of when these books found their way into the LXX.
Even the earliest exisitng copies of the LXX contain different books and that is in the 4th century.

The LXX was not generally available in the form of a modern Bible (although there are some copies, called codices, which were bound in a form like a modern book), but as a collection of scrolls, and thus its table of contents was less fixed. Furthermore, even in the ancient codices there is some variation in the contents. One finds books there that both Catholics and Protestants consider to be non-canonical. In all cases the disputed books are present in the codices, the only exception is that Maccabees is absent from one copy of the LXX named Codex Vaticanus.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

First of all, the so called Damasine list is a fraud, you should know that.
Second of all did you just claim the LXX at the time of Jesus contained the Deuterocanonical books? I am sure you have some proof of that because everyone I read says that they were in flux and there is no proof of when these books found their way into the LXX.
Even the earliest exisitng copies of the LXX contain different books and that is in the 4th century.

I think your missing the point to your own argument? What I have proven here is that ONly the Catholic church in existance from the first century on… is disputing, gathering, practicing from the letters of the apostles, then placing them together in what we call the bible today. Your personal opinions of disputes or rejections of canons only confirms the Catholic church and her Popes and Saints are the one’s inspired under the HOly Spirit to officially canonize the books of the bible. In other words, God’s inspired word, under the authority placed by Jesus Christ himself, for his Catholic church to bind and loose those things that are of God and are not of God. Thus the canon today mirrors the canon of the 4th century. How can you deny this?

As far as the Deutorcanonicals, do you have a date when the Jewish Rabbi’s rejected them? This proves their existance up to this date if you have one? Rejecting a Rabbi council from 100 a.d seems far fetched, although I have heard this argument, but no one in favor of this argument can prove what date the Jews rejected the deutorcanonical books. You must remember St. Jerome a devout Catholic, included them in his vulgate at the discretion of the Pope. Point is these ancient greek texts were in existance, and believed in as canonical by the only christian Catholic church around. Yes they were disputed, and St. Jerome disputed the same argument the Jews used for removing them prior to his vulgate, no Hebrew counterparts;

 

[Rightlydivide]

Gabriel of 12;4272507]I think your missing the point to your own argument? What I have proven here is that ONly the Catholic church in existance from the first century on… is disputing, gathering, practicing from the letters of the apostles, then placing them together in what we call the bible today. Your personal opinions of disputes or rejections of canons only confirms the Catholic church and her Popes and Saints are the one’s inspired under the HOly Spirit to officially canonize the books of the bible. In other words, God’s inspired word, under the authority placed by Jesus Christ himself, for his Catholic church to bind and loose those things that are of God and are not of God. Thus the canon today mirrors the canon of the 4th century. How can you deny this?

You most certainly have not proved that the Catholic church came into existence in the first century.
It was not the authority of the church. That is not what you teach. The church approved them subsequently. It was not the approval that made them scripture.

As far as the Deutorcanonicals, do you have a date when the Jewish Rabbi’s rejected them? This proves their existance up to this date if you have one? Rejecting a Rabbi council from 100 a.d seems far fetched, although I have heard this argument, but no one in favor of this argument can prove what date the Jews rejected the deutorcanonical books. You must remember St. Jerome a devout Catholic, included them in his vulgate at the discretion of the Pope. Point is these ancient greek texts were in existance, and believed in as canonical by the only christian Catholic church around. Yes they were disputed, and St. Jerome disputed the same argument the Jews used for removing them prior to his vulgate, no Hebrew counterpart

No. There is no proof that the LXX at the time of Jesus contained them. This is conventional stuff. Get off the google search and read a book!
The books were never accepted as canonical by the Jews. They were read. Heck some of the books are quoted by Jews but canonical? Nope.
It is true that at Hippo and Carthage they were accepted. It is also true that the first list appealed to in 367 AD rejected them.

 

[mackbrislawn]

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.

That is right: scripture was scripture the second it was written.

But we know that only retroactively. It may not have been known at the time. Some writings, such as the letters of Paul, were taken to be authoritative immediately, because the people knew the letters came from Paul, an apostle.

However, not necessarily so with other scriptures which today we regard as canonical. For centuries books such as Hebrews, or Revelation, were regarded as uncertain whether they were inspired scripture or not. Finally it was decided they were inspired and to be included in the canon.

The problem was that the inspired scriptures, although scripture from the second they were written, were mixed in with a lot of other writings, writings that competed with inspired scripture for that status. How was a poor Christian to know? Which books to include and which to exclude? It was just as important to know which books to exclude.

All these writings were written by men. But some were written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and others were not.

Yes, the Church recognized which should be canonical scripture by the sovereignty of God guiding the Church.

How do we know which books constitute the bible? Why do we believe God is the author of scripture? Church Tradition.

 

[cfrancis]

No. There is no proof that the LXX at the time of Jesus contained them. This is conventional stuff. Get off the google search and read a book!

Perhaps, in the course of your MDiv studies, you should have broadened your reading horizons, as there are plenty of books that state the case of the LXX containing the deuterocanonicals.
You’ve stated this point several times; may we please have the “proof” that supposts your statement? How about “proof” that supports your position the LXX did not contain them?

It is also true that the first list appealed to in 367 AD rejected them.

Is this St Athanasius’ 39th Festal Letter?

1. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. **Job **follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, **Ezekiel **and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

1. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

1. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The** Wisdom of Solomon**, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and 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 in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

The two highlights would be the inclusion of Baruch in “the Canon” and the exclusion of Esther.

 

[JMJ_coder]

But we know that only retroactively. It may not have been known at the time. Some writings, such as the letters of Paul, were taken to be authoritative immediately, because the people knew the letters came from Paul, an apostle.

I don’t think it was the writings themselves. I don’t think that the early Christians received a letter from Saint Paul and said ‘O good, the next edition of the New Testament just arrived’. If that were the case, you’d think that they would have lovingly saved all the writings of both Saint Paul and the rest of the Apostles.

No, it was the preaching of Saint Paul and the Apostles that the early Christians knew was authoritative. Sometimes this preaching of the Gospel was done by writing, most of the time (and the preferred way, according to among others Saint John) it was by oral communication. Whether by word of mouth or by letter, they knew that Jesus vested the Apostles with the ability to speak in His Name. They knew that He revealed the Gospel to them and that they were now preaching to them. This apostolic teaching, both oral and written, was passed on to the Apostles successors who also received the authority from God. This succession has continued to this day in the Apostolic Churches.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Perhaps, in the course of your MDiv studies, you should have broadened your reading horizons, as there are plenty of books that state the case of the LXX containing the deuterocanonicals.
You’ve stated this point several times; may we please have the “proof” that supposts your statement? How about “proof” that supports your position the LXX did not contain them?
.

The question is whether or not it can be proved that the LXX at the time of Christ contained the Deuterocanonical books. cfrancis has suggested I did not read enough. I have quoted two Catholic sources. I can provide more. I only wanted to use Catholic sources.

This factor should be considered in weighing a certain argument. A large number of Catholic authorities see a canonization of the deuteros in a supposed wholesale adoption and approval, by the Apostles, of the Greek, and therefore larger, Old Testament. The argument is not without a certain force; the New Testament undoubtedly shows a preference for the Septuagint; out of the 350 texts from the Old Testament, 300 favour the language of the Greek version rather than that of the Hebrew. But there are considerations which bid us hesitate to admit an Apostolic adoption of the Septuagint en bloc. As remarked above, there are cogent reasons for believing that it was not a fixed quantity at the time. The existing oldest representative manuscripts are not entirely identical in the books they contain. Moreover, it should be remembered that at the beginning of our era, and for some time later, complete sets of any such voluminous collection as the Septuagint in manuscript would be extremely rare; the version must have been current in separate books or groups of books, a condition favourable to a certain variability of compass. So neither a fluctuating Septuagint nor an inexplicit New Testament conveys to us the exact extension of the pre-Christian Bible transmitted by the Apostles to the Primitive Church. It is more tenable to conclude to a selective process under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and a process completed so late in Apostolic times that the New Testament fails to reflect its mature result regarding either the number or note of sanctity of the extra-Palestinian books admitted. To historically learn the Apostolic Canon of the Old Testament we must interrogate less sacred but later documents, expressing more explicitly the belief of the first ages of Christianity.

newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c03612.htm
Evolution of OT Collection (canon)
a. Torah (Law), Prophets, Writings evolved 1200 BC to 200 AD
b. Each congregation has collection of scrolls read in liturgy. Torah & prophets every congregation had; the later “writings,” except for psalms, not necessarily found in the possession of each congregation
c. Palestine–Hebrew; Diaspora–Gk. Septuagint (LXX) ca. 200 BC. Not a “codex” or bound volume! (We don’t have this till 4th century!)
d. What is the “Canon”? (see New Jerome Biblical Comment. article on “canonicity”)
(a) Jews no evidence for one till late 2nd cent AD
(b) Christians: 2nd -16th centuries. Not centralized & official till 15th Century.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I don’t think it was the writings themselves. I don’t think that the early Christians received a letter from Saint Paul and said ‘O good, the next edition of the New Testament just arrived’. If that were the case, you’d think that they would have lovingly saved all the writings of both Saint Paul and the rest of the Apostles.

No, it was the preaching of Saint Paul and the Apostles that the early Christians knew was authoritative. Sometimes this preaching of the Gospel was done by writing, most of the time (and the preferred way, according to among others Saint John) it was by oral communication. Whether by word of mouth or by letter, they knew that Jesus vested the Apostles with the ability to speak in His Name. They knew that He revealed the Gospel to them and that they were now preaching to them. This apostolic teaching, both oral and written, was passed on to the Apostles successors who also received the authority from God. This succession has continued to this day in the Apostolic Churches.

You make a good point–it was the apostles themselves that had authority, from Jesus, and their writings had authority because they came from an apostle.

The authorship of the other NT books was more uncertain, so it took longer for them to be recognized as canonical. And other writings yet were decided to be non-canonical.

 

[cazayoux]

You make a good point–it was the apostles themselves that had authority, from Jesus, and their writings had authority because they came from an apostle.

The authorship of the other NT books was more uncertain, so it took longer for them to be recognized as canonical. And other writings yet were decided to be non-canonical.

Two of the gospel accounts were not written by apostles and we all agree that they are inspired, authoritative writings.
I’d say the Church had authority, not just the apostles.

michel