What do Christians consider as scripture?

[KP3243]

There is no cherry picking going on. Within the historic Church, there has always been opinions and variances as to which books are considered canon. Even the term canon, meaning “rule”, regarding scripture can be viewed in different ways.

From a Lutheran perspective, our confessions do not provide a list of canonical books, which means, essentially, that we generally receive the books brought to us historically by the western Church, even though we hold that the deuterocanon is not equal to the protocanon.

Jon

There was a council convened in the 400s and the canon of scared scripture was closed, there were 400 gospel accounts at that point and only 4 were declared the Word of God by the council and the Holy Father. It wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation a 1100 years later that books in the Old Testament were taken out. I know why the Jewish leaders did not accept these books in 90 AD but I can’t figure out why the Protestants reject them, even today. My goodness the Book of Tobit reveals something that doesn’t come up again until Revelation regarding the heavenly kingdom of God.

 

[JonNC]

There was a council convened in the 400s and the canon of scared scripture was closed, there were 400 gospel accounts at that point and only 4 were declared the Word of God by the council and the Holy Father. It wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation a 1100 years later that books in the Old Testament were taken out. .

There were no ecumenical councils that closed the canon in the 400’s. If there had been, then the canon of scripture in Orthodoxy and in the West would be identical . There were local synods, such as Carthage and Hippo, but no ecumenical council.
Further, there were Catholics who questioned the deutero-canonical books right up to and even during the Council of Trent.

I know why the Jewish leaders did not accept these books in 90 AD but I can’t figure out why the Protestants reject them, even today. My goodness the Book of Tobit reveals something that doesn’t come up again until Revelation regarding the heavenly kingdom of God

I agree with you regarding the DC’s. For Lutherans, it isn’t a rejection of the DC’s. Luther’s translation includes all of them, and additionally includes the Prayer of Manasseh, which is a wonderful book. Lutherans have often used them liturgically, and in our humnody.

Jon

 

[KP3243]

There were no ecumenical councils that closed the canon in the 400’s. If there had been, then the canon of scripture in Orthodoxy and in the West would be identical . There were local synods, such as Carthage and Hippo, but no ecumenical council.
Further, there were Catholics who questioned the deutero-canonical books right up to and even during the Council of Trent.

I agree with you regarding the DC’s. For Lutherans, it isn’t a rejection of the DC’s. Luther’s translation includes all of them, and additionally includes the Prayer of Manasseh, which is a wonderful book. Lutherans have often used them liturgically, and in our humnody.

Jon

Some Orthodox churches use Joseph ben Gurion’s (Josippon’s) medieval history of the Jews and other nations in their Bibles. It doesn’t mean that the Canon of Scripture wasn’t ever closed. In fact it is rather dangerous to say it can be opened.

 

[JonNC]

Some Orthodox churches use Joseph ben Gurion’s (Josippon’s) medieval history of the Jews and other nations in their Bibles. It doesn’t mean that the Canon of Scripture wasn’t ever closed. In fact it is rather dangerous to say it can be opened.

One question could be, is III Maccabees scripture or not? Orthodoxy says yes. We in the west say no. If, indeed, the canon is closed, then it closes with a constant disagreement and tension regarding what is or is not canonical. That was not the practice of the Church up until Trent.
Numerous theologians, from Eusebius and Jerome, to Cajetan and Erasmus, have held to different canons, and disputed various books, even books that we all assume as canonical.
Luther’s view of the canon was the minority view, but it was not his view alone.

I agree that an open canon can also be an opening for abuse.

Jon

 

[SoMissCatholic]

I know Christians consider the NT as scripture. But what about the OT? I’m getting the impression that people Chery pick sections from the OT where it suits them but reject it when it doesn’t. So what is the deal here? What is regarded as scripture and what isn’t?

To elaborate on what has been discussed in previous posts, as Christians (or, at least, as Catholics, unfortunately it is hard to make any statements beyond very general ones that represent the beliefs of all Christians) we believe that when God revealed Himself to man within the history of time, He did so gradually, only revealing as much of Himself and His nature as man was ready to accept at that particular time. So in the Old Testament, we see a gradual revalation from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses and to David, with each subsequent revalation providing a bit more information to add to the puzzle than the last. This gradual revelation culminated when God Himself (that is, God the Son, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity) became man in the person of Jesus Christ (whom we believe is both fully God and fully man) and delivered to humanity the fullness of His revelation.

To illustrate the above, consider the following example. In the time of Moses, it was not uncommon for one who was injured by another to retaliate in a manner that exceeded the initial injury (i.e. a man who had his eye gouged out by another may have retaliated by killing the other man, a retaliation which clearly exceeds the initial injury). Therefore, to limit such excessive retaliation God commanded through Moses “Anyone who inflicts a permanent injury on his or her neighbor shall receive the same in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The same injury that one gives another shall be inflicted in return.” (Leviticus 24:19-20) In other words, the retaliation or punishment was to correspond in kind and degree to the initial injury and no more. At the time of Moses, man was not yet ready to accept the fullness of the revelation that would come through Jesus. However, when Jesus came along, He showed us a still more excellent way: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.” (Matthew 5:38-42) Here we see that the fullness of God’s revelation is not only to not retaliate in an excessive manner, but to not retaliate at all. Therefore, what had been the practice under the Mosaic law no longer applies because what was only partially revealed at the time of Moses is now fully revealed in Jesus.

I hope that explantation and example helps somewhat.

 

[peace_at_last]

I thank everyone for their responses. The responses are rather interesting and I do have a few questions, but I prefer to observe the thread for some more time and see how the other members discuss the differences between them.

Thanks again.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

If we can take the new testament as a starting point we see certain books quoted in that as if they are of authority, thus the Christian takes what is quoted there as scripture, albeit one exception in the epistle of Jude. The Torah, the prophets (especially Isaiah) and others.

We can then get on to the second century and see those after the apostles making full use of the Old testament in their writings, be it Clement, Iraneaus, Justin or Ignatius. There has however never been a universal consensus as to what book is and what is not scripture.

One can, if one wants to read the New testament and the fathers, see a set of books generally regarded as authoritative from the earliest time.

 

[KP3243]

One question could be, is III Maccabees scripture or not? Orthodoxy says yes. We in the west say no. If, indeed, the canon is closed, then it closes with a constant disagreement and tension regarding what is or is not canonical. That was not the practice of the Church up until Trent.
Numerous theologians, from Eusebius and Jerome, to Cajetan and Erasmus, have held to different canons, and disputed various books, even books that we all assume as canonical.
Luther’s view of the canon was the minority view, but it was not his view alone.

I agree that an open canon can also be an opening for abuse.

Jon

Jesus only started one Church and gave it teaching authority and charged it to spread the Gospel, correctly. Without the Catholic Church, the Bible does not get created. Like I said before at the time of council of Carthage and Hippo, there were over 400 written works claiming to be gospels and serious heresies that they were addressing like the Donatists, Pelagism that they had to define what was divine and what was not. None of the theologians you mentioned have infallible authority, while we respect their very valued works they are not perfect. Augustine for instance wrongly states that the soul enters a child in the womb at the third month after conception, which we know is not right, Augustine did not have the information we have now about fetal development and would be the first to agree that life begins at conception. The Council of Trent affirmed the Old Testament books in the Canon because it had not been questioned in 1100 years. When a council is convened it always because there is a great heresy happening that needs to be corrected. The Catholic Church’s claim is that the books in our Bibles are the books that the Apostles and Jesus used and we can say that because we are the only Church that has Apostolic Succession. I can go from my parish priest all the way back to Apostles and Jesus, it might take 3/4 of a day to go through 2000 years of Holy Order ordinations but it will ultimately lead back to the 12.

 

[PaulDupre1]

To elaborate on what has been discussed in previous posts, as Christians (or, at least, as Catholics, unfortunately it is hard to make any statements beyond very general ones that represent the beliefs of all Christians) we believe that when God revealed Himself to man within the history of time, He did so gradually, only revealing as much of Himself and His nature as man was ready to accept at that particular time. So in the Old Testament, we see a gradual revalation from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses and to David, with each subsequent revalation providing a bit more information to add to the puzzle than the last. This gradual revelation culminated when God Himself (that is, God the Son, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity) became man in the person of Jesus Christ (whom we believe is both fully God and fully man) and delivered to humanity the fullness of His revelation.

To illustrate the above, consider the following example. In the time of Moses, it was not uncommon for one who was injured by another to retaliate in a manner that exceeded the initial injury (i.e. a man who had his eye gouged out by another may have retaliated by killing the other man, a retaliation which clearly exceeds the initial injury). Therefore, to limit such excessive retaliation God commanded through Moses “Anyone who inflicts a permanent injury on his or her neighbor shall receive the same in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The same injury that one gives another shall be inflicted in return.” (Leviticus 24:19-20) In other words, the retaliation or punishment was to correspond in kind and degree to the initial injury and no more. At the time of Moses, man was not yet ready to accept the fullness of the revelation that would come through Jesus. However, when Jesus came along, He showed us a still more excellent way: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.” (Matthew 5:38-42) Here we see that the fullness of God’s revelation is not only to not retaliate in an excessive manner, but to not retaliate at all. Therefore, what had been the practice under the Mosaic law no longer applies because what was only partially revealed at the time of Moses is now fully revealed in Jesus.

I hope that explantation and example helps somewhat.

A wonderful response. Thank you.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

BTW, my mother attended Mississippi State College for Women in the 1940s. I understand they call it something different now.

 

[hiramross]

I thank everyone for their responses. The responses are rather interesting and I do have a few questions, but I prefer to observe the thread for some more time and see how the other members discuss the differences between them.

Thanks again.

you started by first saying some people “cherry pick” from the OT; I guess you spoke to someone on the subject. So could you give an example of the “cherry picking”?

That would be more help.

If you ask a Christian a question and they can’t “seem” to answer you doesn’t mean the faith as a whole is discredited. I know if I ask a muslim and they can’t give me an answer even you would say the same.

So I’m glad you turn to places like this website for answers. But to say “cherry picking” as though Christians use the Holy Bible a personal interpretation would be false for that IS the MAIN reason we have the established Catholic Church.

 

[KP3243]

you started by first saying some people “cherry pick” from the OT; I guess you spoke to someone on the subject. So could you give an example of the “cherry picking”?

That would be more help.

If you ask a Christian a question and they can’t “seem” to answer you doesn’t mean the faith as a whole is discredited. I know if I ask a muslim and they can’t give me an answer even you would say the same.

So I’m glad you turn to places like this website for answers. But to say “cherry picking” as though Christians use the Holy Bible a personal interpretation would be false for that IS the MAIN reason we have the established Catholic Church.

Wait what are you saying is the main reason the Catholic Church was established? To interpret sacred scripture? I would say the Church holds the deposit of faith which includes sacred scripture but it also includes the sacraments.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I know Christians consider the NT as scripture. But what about the OT? I’m getting the impression that people Chery pick sections from the OT where it suits them but reject it when it doesn’t. So what is the deal here? What is regarded as scripture and what isn’t?

Peace-

I don’t expect you to have read the OT (I have only once), but it’s quite large, and not all of it seems readily applicable to our daily lives.

Consequently, the average Christian has more familiarity with books like the Psalms and those that contain prophecies concerning Jesus and less familiarity with books like Numbers.

Additionally, Christians might have a tendency to view the OT as about “them” and the NT as about “us”.

Hope this helps.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I know Christians consider the NT as scripture. But what about the OT? I’m getting the impression that people Chery pick sections from the OT where it suits them but reject it when it doesn’t. So what is the deal here?

Use your same sentence:

people Chery pick sections from the (fill in the blank) where it suits them but reject it when it doesn’t.

It’s called being human. For us Catholics, the Church settles Scriptural and Traditional matters.

What is regarded as scripture and what isn’t?

In Christianity at the time of Jesus Christ and His Apostles Scriptures were available in Hebrew and Greek (for the most part), the Greek manuscripts considered as Scriptures were called the Septuagint (LXX). Our Scriptural archaeological consistency is second to none and consistent with the Divine Revelation to the Church.

 

[ltwin]

I know Christians consider the NT as scripture. But what about the OT? I’m getting the impression that people Chery pick sections from the OT where it suits them but reject it when it doesn’t. So what is the deal here? What is regarded as scripture and what isn’t?

For what it’s worth, Protestants agree with what Catholic posters have said on this thread. The Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) foreshadows the New Testament. For example, the Temple sacrifices and shedding of blood of the lamb for the sins of the people look forward to Christ’s perfect sacrifice on the Cross. He is the Lamb that was slain for our sins.

Therefore, the Jewish ceremonial and ritual laws were fulfilled in Christ. The legal matter applied to the Kingdom of Israel, and Christians are not obligated to reproduce the ancient Israelite legal system today. The moral and ethical teachings continue to apply to Christians, and in the New Testament, we see them perfected in Jesus’ life and teachings.

 

[hiramross]

Wait what are you saying is the main reason the Catholic Church was established? To interpret sacred scripture? I would say the Church holds the deposit of faith which includes sacred scripture but it also includes the sacraments.

The truth of the Scriptures is upheld by the Church is it not? If one ask why it is an authority to us; is it not because their work is to perserve the true teachings which includes Scripture and the Sacraments?

 

[KP3243]

Use your same sentence:

It’s called being human. For us Catholics, the Church settles Scriptural and Traditional matters.

In Christianity at the time of Jesus Christ and His Apostles Scriptures were available in Hebrew and Greek (for the most part), the Greek manuscripts considered as Scriptures were called the Septuagint (LXX). Our Scriptural archaeological consistency is second to none and consistent with the Divine Revelation to the Church.

Let’s not forget, Jesus and the Apostles lived in a time where oral tradition occurred more than written. The apostles probably were not walking around with scrolls of the Hebrew and Greek scripture. We are a written culture and not an oral culture.

 

[KP3243]

The truth of the Scriptures is upheld by the Church is it not? If one ask why it is an authority to us; is it not because their work is to perserve the true teachings which includes Scripture and the Sacraments?

You said exactly what I did, your response to the OP earlier made it sound like the only reason the Church was created was to interpret the Bible.

 

[hiramross]

You said exactly what I did, your response to the OP earlier made it sound like the only reason the Church was created was to interpret the Bible.

I’m honestly happy we agree; in my text I wrote that it was one of the main reasons not the only.

St. Paul pulled the church together when there was differences between the different locations.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Let’s not forget, Jesus and the Apostles lived in a time where oral tradition occurred more than written. The apostles probably were not walking around with scrolls of the Hebrew and Greek scripture. We are a written culture and not an oral culture.

Indeed!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

peace_at_last, Muslims, too, “cherry pick” the O.T. Example: pointing out only passages that refer to God’s unity, and passing over references to the Trinity, or at least to plurality in God (e.g. Let us make man in our image–Gen. 1:26). But that’s a whole other discussion.

I agree; much of the cherry pickin’s not only try over look and deny the Trinity, these non-Catholic cherry pickers, make a mess out of the scriptures falsifying Jesus divinity, when some scriptures are revealing Jesus humanity. Some reveal Jesus is God in presence in the Son of God sent from the Father in heaven and others reveal Jesus is the Son of Man.

The Son of God and the Son of Man scriptures really play havoc on many non-Catholic bible cherry pickers, who remove the content out of the context from these scriptures that reveals a contradiction of Catholic doctrine, when they only give support and full credence to the Catholic God revealed divine Doctrines.