Where did the Bible come from?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fulloftruth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fulloftruth

Guest
Many Protestants when pushed to give an answer on the Canon state that they(the early Church) all agreed on what was scriptural and what was not and that the Church was ratifying what everyone already believed was inspired. Yet the original source’s tell us a different story. The early church held different views on how many books were included in the New Testament. Not all of the communities agreed on what came from the Apostles.

All of the lists agree on the four Gospels, at least. In the 170-180’s Muritorian Canon or Fragment accepted the Acts of the Apostles, 13 Epistles of Paul (excluding Hebrews), Jude, 2 letters of John(not 3), the Apocolypse(Revelation),and the apocolypse of Peter(which was later rejected), and the book of Wisdom.

St Clement of Alexandria in his Stromateus Book 3 included 14 Letters of Paul , Acts, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, Jude, Revelation, the Apocolypse of Peter, The preaching Of Peter, the Sheppard Of Hermas, The letter of St.Barnabus, The 1st Letter of Clement the pope of Rome.

St Iraneus in his Book 2 Against Heresies, had 12 Letters of Paul, did not Philemon, and with some reserve he mentions Hebrews. He includes 1 Peter ,1 and 2 John, Revelation, but includes the Sheperd of Hermas as well

Tertulian of Carthage had 13 Epistles of Paul, did not include Acts, did include 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude, but not Revelation.

These are the first 4 lists we have.

Origen, Who was the first Scripture Scholar in the Church, working with Hebrew and Greek Translations,accepted Hebrews and Revelation, was the first to accept the letter of James and 2 Peter, also 2 and 3 John, though he mentions they are disputed, and also accepts the Didache and St Barnabas.

Dionysis who became the Patriarch of Alexandria in 231, questioned the book of Revelation but accepted it.

Lucian, who was the head of a scripture school at Antioch rejected the Book of Revelation.

In the East the Book of Revelation was not widely accepted.

Bishop Eusebius of Ceasaria had doubts about James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation but includes them in the list he sends to the Emperor Constatine

St Ceril of Jerusalem and St Gregory Naziensus had 26 books but not Revelation.

Epiphanius of Constantia did Accept Rev.

St. Athenasius the Patriarch of Alexandria, finally accepts 27 books of the New Testament

But St John Chrisistom did not use 2 Peter, 3 John, Jude, and Rev.

The Council at Laodicea in approx 343 also cmae up with a list with the same new test but a slightly diff old test.

St. Jerome had 27 books after he was charged with doing the research and made his report to the Synod of Rome which came up with the same list Cathoilcs use today, even though Jerome himself did not think the OT had 46 Books He only thought 39

The Synod of Rome in 382 and the Synods of Hippo and Carthage finally agreed on the Canon.

My question is what source does a Protestant have to substantiate the claim that Scripture was self evident and if so why did it take so long for a Canon to be finalized. And under what Authority did they eliminate some texts and include others. If it was the Spirit who led them. Where is that in the Bible #1 and if it was the Apostolic Church that Christ estabolished that determined the canon, where does it say in Scripture that that Church would lose its Authority after the 4th century?
 
And under what Authority did they eliminate some texts and include others.
Hi

When we make a research for that, we come to know that
  1. JesusYeshuaIssa did not leave the Word of God or anything in writing revealed on him from GodAllahYHWH in the form of stone tablets as was in the case of Moses.
  2. Or anything written by JesusYeshuaIssa himself as a biography when he left from Galilee, after the incident of Crucifixion, alongwith his mother Mary in search of the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel, he died natural and peaceful death in Kashmir, India.
  3. Jesus left nothing behind authenticated by him, in possession of the Church, as there was none in existence.
  4. We do respect the NTGospels which have account of Jesus life, but our research leads us that we may treat it as a book of history subject to scrutiny, internal as well as external, for each bit of event for finding truth in it on merit.
There are about 120+ writers who wrote a sort of history books about the time of Jesus, that could be logically accepted as a historical source and truth could be searched out of it like we do from other sources of history on merit of each bit of event unbiased.

All these 120+ books must be treated at par but unfortunately some have been selected by the clergy and are known as NTBible while others have been discarded. This shows their bias.

The historians should come forward and sift the material for truth, if found, on equal footing from all of these 120+ books, with reason, rationality and valid arguments acceptable to the whole world, as these are claimed to be Universal by our Protestant/Catholic friends.

I respect your religion but I think I could form my own opinion freely. My Christian friends may remain steadfast on what they believe, no compulsion, and that is their right.

Thanks
 
The Qur’an says, "And dispute ye not with the People of the Book [Jews and Christians and the Bible], except in the best way, unless it be with those of them who do wrong but say,

“We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you,” (29:46).

Question: Isn’t the Qur’an here saying that the Muslim is to believe what the Bible says?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top