Why did the Bible stop being written?

[jlherna]

Why did the new testament stop where it did? And why isn’t the authority to continue the scriptures passed down through apostolic succession? In other words why can’t some of the writtings of the early church fathers and so on be cononized?

 

[06convert]

It does continue in a way, more like being expanded upon through the CCC. Although everything in the CCC is Biblical in basis, Church doctrine expresses a very deep understanding of the Bible.

The Bible is to believed to be a 100% complete set of teachings. Everything that you need to know is in there already. Anything extra would simply be redundant.

Through the Church we take what is in the Bible (sacred scripture) or the written word of God. Combine that with what is practiced in our lives (sacred tradition) or the spoken word of God and we have a complete perfect and infallible teaching of the written and spoken word of God.

 

[JRKH]

Why did the new testament stop where it did? And why isn’t the authority to continue the scriptures passed down through apostolic succession? In other words why can’t some of the writtings of the early church fathers and so on be cononized?

My understanding is that one of the reasons for shoosing the books in the Bible was to assure that the same texts were being read in all of the Churches throughout Christendom.
The books selected were to be ones that were written either by Apostles or persons closely associated with an apostle (in so far as could be determined).
Also the Books selected needed to be widely used already and be consistant with the teachings and beliefs of the Church.

So what the bible is intended as is a repository of the earliest writings of the Church by men who knew Jesus or were associated with men who knew Jesus. Of course by the time the Bible was assembled, many letters etc had been lost, and many others were of dubious origin and teaching, thus they were left out.
As to the writings of the Early Church Fathers, they really don’t fit with criteria used for assembling the Bible. We must remember that the Bible was not assembled as a be all end all intruction manual. No one who assembled the Bible ever thought of it being used apart from Christ’s Church which assembled it.

Hope some of this helps.

Peace
James

 

[Verbum]

Hi Jlherna,

God’s revelation was wholly contained in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. This revelation he passed on to his apostles, who passed on to us what they felt we needed. After they died, there was no one to pass on NEW revelations.

Verbum

 

[puppypatrol]

Hi Jlherna,

God’s revelation was wholly contained in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. This revelation he passed on to his apostles, who passed on to us what they felt we needed. After they died, there was no one to pass on NEW revelations.

Verbum

With the exception of what God reveals to us through the Early Church Fathers, Saints, Popes, etc…

What was revealed through the apostles and disciples, etc are in the bible and the basis of our faith. Other revelations can be found in other documents and writings.

When the bible was finish, God revealed it and it was done.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Why did the new testament stop where it did? And why isn’t the authority to continue the scriptures passed down through apostolic succession? In other words why can’t some of the writtings of the early church fathers and so on be cononized?

Jude referred to the “…faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

I have a question that is think is related to this topic, and that is that some scripture (the writings of John and the book of Revelation in particular), was produced long after all the other apostles were dead.

This means that the content of Revelation was unknown to the other apostles, such as Peter and Paul, who died 30 years before Revelation was written. So, did they have an incomplete knowledge of the faith?

But how could they, if “The faith was once for all delivered to the saints,” a statement written before the book of Revelation.

And, if the faith was once for all delivered, as according to Jude, subsequent scriptures cannot represent essential additions but perhaps clarifications and encouragements to Christians.

However, a number of prophetical religious groups, (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, the “Left Behind” books, et al, make the book of Revelation a prime source of doctrine and teachings. There are so many “prophecy seminars” based upon Revelation. However, their very assumptions about what the book is about may be faulty, especially in view of the fact it was late in being accepted into the canon.

So, are beliefs based on Revelation such as “the Millenium,” or the 1000-year reign" essential such as prophecy groups insist?

 

[Verbum]

hI Puppypatrol,

With the exception of what God reveals to us through the Early Church Fathers, Saints, Popes, etc…

Sorry, those are not new revelations. They are interpretation and development of what the apostles passed on to us.

Verbum

 

[quasimodo]

Very early on, when all sorts of nonsense was being written and claimed as scripture by all kinds of heretics and whack-jobs, the Church decided that for consideration as scripture (and to be used in Mass), the writings under consideration had to have several properties:

It had to be a product of the “ancient church” (in the year 150, that meant prior to about 100 or 110).

It had to have some sort of apostolic provenance.

It had to be in harmony with church teaching.

The Church never changed its mind about what was necessary for consideration as scripture and so the canon is closed.

As we all know it was not an easy thing to agree on the presence of even these three criteria, but the Church in her wisdom eventually made her decisions.

 

[Agripa]

It does continue in a way, more like being expanded upon through the CCC. Although everything in the CCC is Biblical in basis, Church doctrine expresses a very deep understanding of the Bible.

The Bible is to believed to be a 100% complete set of teachings. Everything that you need to know is in there already. Anything extra would simply be redundant.

Through the Church we take what is in the Bible (sacred scripture) or the written word of God. Combine that with what is practiced in our lives (sacred tradition) or the spoken word of God and we have a complete perfect and infallible teaching of the written and spoken word of God.

But to extend the original question, why has not the Bible expanded? Why are there not newer writings entered into it?

If the Bible reaches from the Creation Story and Abraham through Jesus’s death and the writings of John, why does it end there as the full sum of its collected works? If these books define a relationship with a living God that continues into current time, why are there no writings in the Bible about that current relationship?

Surley there were religious writers, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to write about God’s relationship with man in all sorts of eras and time periods that came well after Christianity was established? Why no bible books from say the 1350’s? From the 1860’s or from World War II and up through today? (Yes, I will anticipate the Mormon assertion of writings of Later Day Saints, but other than these, why nothing else?) Were these all not importatn eras in our history? Was not God exisiting and was not man existing? Why no biblical books in these periods?

 

[Ruthie]

This means that the content of Revelation was unknown to the other apostles, such as Peter and Paul, who died 30 years before Revelation was written. So, did they have an incomplete knowledge of the faith?

No, because Jesus revealed it to them personally.

But to extend the original question, why has not the Bible expanded? Why are there not newer writings entered into it?

Here’s the Catechism:

God has said everything in his Word
[65](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/65.htm’) "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on *Hebrews *1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.27
There will be no further Revelation
[66](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/66.htm’) "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
[67](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/67.htm’) Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

26 Heb 1:1-2.
27 St. John of the Cross, The Ascent of Mount Carmel 2,22,3-5 in The Collected Works of St. John of the Cross, tr. K. Kavanaugh, OCD, and O. Rodriguez, OCD (Washington DC:Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1979),179-180:LH, OR Advent, week 2, Mon.
28 DV 4; cf. 1 Tim 6:14; Titus 2:13.

Hope this helps,

Ruthie

 

[Agripa]

No, because Jesus revealed it to them personally.

Here’s the Catechism:

Hope this helps,

Ruthie

No, not really - it still seem strange God seems never to reveal itself to any but the most primitive or savage people in the most distant past. And for a Church (of men) to say its foolish to question this or God is in itself a foolish way of simply protecting an ancient dogma. All this, of course, leads to all sorts of other fun questions like the Dead Sea Scrolls or all the various books left out of all the various bibles and the translations of those bibles from one language to another.

Better yet are the more recent revelations of Mary which seem only to happen in third world, deeply catholic countries and to peasant, uneducated children. Hmmm.

 

[John7]

Why did the new testament stop where it did? And why isn’t the authority to continue the scriptures passed down through apostolic succession? In other words why can’t some of the writtings of the early church fathers and so on be cononized?

Its an interesing question. I just got done reading the ‘first epistle of Clement (4th pope) to the Corinthians’ and you’d swear that it belongs in the Bible, very orthodox, filled with quotes from OT…

 

[06convert]

No, not really - it still seem strange God seems never to reveal itself to any but the most primitive or savage people in the most distant past. And for a Church (of men) to say its foolish to question this or God is in itself a foolish way of simply protecting an ancient dogma. All this, of course, leads to all sorts of other fun questions like the Dead Sea Scrolls or all the various books left out of all the various bibles and the translations of those bibles from one language to another.

Better yet are the more recent revelations of Mary which seem only to happen in third world, deeply catholic countries and to peasant, uneducated children. Hmmm.

This is why the Church is a living faith. Just because it adheres to what is in the Bible doesn’t mean that it’s out date, or living in the past. It’s a fundamental set of teachings that cannot be altered. If we added stuff to it it would be an unorganized confusing mess that we wouldn’t have a chance at figuring out. Imagine looking at a Bible and having it sit on a shelve and being 10,000 pages of various writings and notes from the last 2000 years.

Everything God wanted in the Bible is in there. Nothing more, nothing less. We don’t have the right to go and change God’s word. We do that, and we’ll have some real problems.

Every religous document written since the Bible is merely an attempted clarification, some better than others, some heresey.

America is still bound by the constitution (more or less) and has been for a couple hundred years. But the Church bound by the Bible has been for a couple thousand years. That is a testimate to the staying power. Nothing less than perfect set of teachings can hold together an organization for that long.

 

[JRKH]

No, not really - it still seem strange God seems never to reveal itself to any but the most primitive or savage people in the most distant past. And for a Church (of men) to say its foolish to question this or God is in itself a foolish way of simply protecting an ancient dogma. All this, of course, leads to all sorts of other fun questions like the Dead Sea Scrolls or all the various books left out of all the various bibles and the translations of those bibles from one language to another.

Better yet are the more recent revelations of Mary which seem only to happen in third world, deeply catholic countries and to peasant, uneducated children. Hmmm.

Its an interesing question. I just got done reading the ‘first epistle of Clement (4th pope) to the Corinthians’ and you’d swear that it belongs in the Bible, very orthodox, filled with quotes from OT…

If I may attempt to address both of these issues.
I think that they both stem from a mis-understanding of why the Bible was compiled in the first place. These stem primarily from the erros of Sola Scriptura and the Reformation.
Jesus never promised revelation to a book. He promised it to His Church. It is to the Church that we look for teachings and understandings of God and Christ and how we are to live. The Bible is a collection of the earliest and most reliable works in Christendom. It was compiled to assure that the faithful across the far flung Church were using the same sacred texts in their liturgies and not mixing in things, supposedly apostolic, that contained error. Therefore the Bible is a part of, and underpinning for, The Church’s teachings and a repository for the earliest works, done by or as near to the Apostles and Christ as are available.
The Church continued to produce many great documents and teachings from the earliest times to today and certainly many would make wonderful reading, but they do not fit into the purpose and intent of the Bible.
The bottom line is the Bible is a Static, Holy, Book. The Church is Christ’s Living, Breathing, Dynamic, Holy Body. Look to that which Jesus Founded and Promised His protection to.

As for God revealing himself to whomever, I would ask that we remember that Palistine of that day was really not much more primitive (by our standards) than any other part of the world.
As to the marian apparitions to samll Children and in the “third world” countries, I would say that God reveals himself to those whom He chooses. It is mostly to those most disposed to rely on Him and with little other “Baggage” such as a lot of food in a reich country surrounded by videotapes and internet.
Jesus Paraphrased = Father you hvae hidden these things from the rich and powerful but made them known to the littlest ones and the poor.

Peace
James

 

[Agripa]

If I may attempt to address both of these issues.
I think that they both stem from a mis-understanding of why the Bible was compiled in the first place. These stem primarily from the erros of Sola Scriptura and the Reformation.
Jesus never promised revelation to a book. He promised it to His Church. It is to the Church that we look for teachings and understandings of God and Christ and how we are to live. The Bible is a collection of the earliest and most reliable works in Christendom. It was compiled to assure that the faithful across the far flung Church were using the same sacred texts in their liturgies and not mixing in things, supposedly apostolic, that contained error. Therefore the Bible is a part of, and underpinning for, The Church’s teachings and a repository for the earliest works, done by or as near to the Apostles and Christ as are available.
The Church continued to produce many great documents and teachings from the earliest times to today and certainly many would make wonderful reading, but they do not fit into the purpose and intent of the Bible.
The bottom line is the Bible is a Static, Holy, Book. The Church is Christ’s Living, Breathing, Dynamic, Holy Body. Look to that which Jesus Founded and Promised His protection to.

As for God revealing himself to whomever, I would ask that we remember that Palistine of that day was really not much more primitive (by our standards) than any other part of the world.
As to the marian apparitions to samll Children and in the “third world” countries, I would say that God reveals himself to those whom He chooses. It is mostly to those most disposed to rely on Him and with little other “Baggage” such as a lot of food in a reich country surrounded by videotapes and internet.
Jesus Paraphrased = Father you hvae hidden these things from the rich and powerful but made them known to the littlest ones and the poor.

Peace
James

Seems to me God would do a bit better if God would reveal himself to a bunch of highly educated atheists running TV stations.

 

[JRKH]

Seems to me God would do a bit better if God would reveal himself to a bunch of highly educated atheists running TV stations.

I think we all have this thought from time to time.
But more important…
Perhaps instead of asking why God doesn’t do things “our way”, the way we think they should go, we would be better off trying to learn what God is trying to teach us in “His Way”.

It reminds me of the Fact that I often see bumber stickers saying, God Bless America", but I never see one that says, “America!! Bless God.” WE always look for what we want from God, but what are we giving to Him from us?

Sorry for the off topic soapbox. This really is something for it’s own thread.

Peace
James

 

[Agripa]

I think we all have this thought from time to time.
But more important…
Perhaps instead of asking why God doesn’t do things “our way”, the way we think they should go, we would be better off trying to learn what God is trying to teach us in “His Way”.

It reminds me of the Fact that I often see bumber stickers saying, God Bless America", but I never see one that says, “America!! Bless God.” WE always look for what we want from God, but what are we giving to Him from us?

Sorry for the off topic soapbox. This really is something for it’s own thread.

Peace
James

My point is that there seems to be a lot of self-delusion to think God is revealed only through ancient books and men and such a model of revelation seems to work generally in favor of those that call themselves priests, Churches, religions, etc.

On the other hand, the model itself presents what at one point in time was a good way to govern and keep peace amoung people and societies. So its really a two-edged sword - delusion and mythology on one side, societal control on the other.

I simply think at this point in human development, we can give up the mythologies and voo doo and live rather by the principals!

 

[rocketrob]

My point is that there seems to be a lot of self-delusion to think God is revealed only through ancient books and men…QUOTE]

Agripa, nobody on this thread has said anything of this sort. And more importantly, neither does the Catholic Church (see earlier post containing Catechism entries). God revealed Himself to all of mankind (personkind, if that helps) and provided the means of salvation through His one Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus is the one complete Word of God who has always been and will always be, and is currently living, and Jesus continues to reveal Himself (and His Father) to all of us individually through His Holy Spirit.

God, through Jesus and His Holy Spirit, is in fact revealing Himself to you, evidenced by your interest in these forums. You are obviously troubled by many tenets of the Faith. Try not to harden your heart, but remain open to God’s revelation through His Spirit.

rocketrob

 

[rocketrob]

My point is that there seems to be a lot of self-delusion to think God is revealed only through ancient books and men…

Agripa, nobody on this thread has said anything of this sort. And more importantly, neither does the Catholic Church (see earlier post containing Catechism entries). God revealed Himself to all of mankind (personkind, if that helps) and provided the means of salvation through His one Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus is the one complete Word of God who has always been and will always be, and is currently living, and Jesus continues to reveal Himself (and His Father) to all of us individually through His Holy Spirit.

God, through Jesus and His Holy Spirit, is in fact revealing Himself to you, evidenced by your interest in these forums. You are obviously troubled by many tenets of the Faith. Try not to harden your heart, but remain open to God’s revelation through His Spirit.

rocketrob

 

[JRKH]

My point is that there seems to be a lot of self-delusion to think God is revealed only through ancient books and men and such a model of revelation seems to work generally in favor of those that call themselves priests, Churches, religions, etc.

May I first say that I don’t believe that God is revealed through ancient books and men either. God is revealed to us through our efforts and acceptance of Him and His creation. We must seek after Him.
If you read my earlier post where I addressed the issue of the Bible, you will note that I believe that God is revealed through His Church and not through a book. That Church is dynamic and teaches appropriately in all times.
I must say that, to me anyway, the revelation we have is quite sufficient to keep us busy for some time. For each of us must discern that revelation to the best of our ability and there is more than enough already on the table to make the most brilliant heads swim sometimes. What you might consider to be a “revelation” someone else might have already seen. Thus something that had already been revealed, may not be “known” to you. This growth is not “New Revelation” but rather “New Understanding” and “New Knowledge”
Finally, there can be no doubt that sinful men have used religion to control badly. But that is the fault of men and not God.

On the other hand, the model itself presents what at one point in time was a good way to govern and keep peace amoung people and societies. So its really a two-edged sword - delusion and mythology on one side, societal control on the other.

I’d say that “delusion and mythology” are a bit subjective here for we could easily change those words to “Enlightenment and Love of God”. When God is accepted by an entire society then there is no “delusion” nor mythology.

I simply think at this point in human development, we can give up the mythologies and voo doo and live rather by the principals!

I certainly can agree with this.
I think it’s high time we Got together and worshiped as God intended. United in His Church and Living out His Great Commandments of Love.

Peace
James