PDA

View Full Version : Bible canon



Ruzz
Apr 18th 2007, 07:35 PM
I've been discussing the bible's authority and authenticity with a Catholic friend who questions how can I believe the bible is complete when I doubt the Catholic Church's authority. I don't accept their authority, but accept their cannon of it.

Now I believe God protected His word regardless of who the stewards of it were. But I'm not sure how to answer his questions.

threebigrocks
Apr 18th 2007, 07:57 PM
Explain how you serve and worship the same God, who wrote all that is within the scripture included in the canon.

Sold Out
Apr 18th 2007, 08:05 PM
Excerpt from Strand Study Bible:







How We Got Our Bible, and Why I Believe it to be God’s Word





Our LORD fixed the limits on the extent of the “canonical” books of the Old Testament at the 39 books we have today when He accused the religious crowd of his day of being guilty of killing all the prophets God had sent from Abel (Genesis – the first book in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible) to Zecharias (II Chronicles – the last book in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible). The question of which books belong in the Bible is called ‘the question of the canon.’ The word “canon” means rule or measuring rod and refers to the collection of books, which passed a test of authenticity and authority.
In the case of the Old Testament some assert that all 39 books were collected and recognized by Ezra in about 450 B.C.
In the case of the New Testament all 27 books were collected and “canonized” by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.
The question is: How was that collection made? Why were some books “canonized” and some not (the Book of Jasher, the Gnostic Gospels, the 12 books of the Apocrypha, etc.)? What tests were applied to determine authenticity and authority? The following questions determined legitimacy:

1. Was the book written by a prophet (Moses, David, etc.), a leader in Israel (Joshua, Ezra, etc.), or an Apostle (Paul, etc.)?

2. Was the book given the “stamp of approval” by CHRIST and the apostles? (See footnote on II Pet 1:21)

3. Which books were considered authentic and authoritative via historians?
*Josephus, the first century Jewish historian (c. 95 A.D.), listed the 39 books of the O.T. as being authentic and authoritative.
*The Council of Jamnia (c. 90 A.D.), comprised of a synod of Jewish leaders, also listed the 39 books of the O.T. as being authentic and authoritative.
*Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.), Bishop of Carthage, recognized a number of N.T. books as authoritative and was the first to use the expression “New Testament.”
*Athanasius of Alexandria published a list of divine books in about 367 A.D. It contained the 39 books of the O.T. and the 27 books of the N.T. Historians claim it is the first listing that matches perfectly with the Bible as we have it today.
*Jerome recognized the same 27 books of the N.T. as being authentic when he translated the Latin Vulgate in about 385 A.D.
*Two North African councils (Hippo in 393 A.D. and Carthage in 397 A.D.) also officially endorsed the canons of both Testaments and decided that nothing else should be read in the churches.

4. Which books were discovered to be authentic and authoritative via archaeology?
*The Dead Sea Scrolls found in 1947, which dates back to the second century B.C., gave us a Hebrew text consisting of all but one of the 39 O.T. books (Esther).
*Two small silver amulets containing Numbers 6:24-26 discovered in 1986, which dates back to the seventh century B.C.,
* More than 5,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament exist today, which makes the Greek New Testament the best-attested document in all ancient writings. Contrast that with the writings of Julius Caesar or

5. Which books brought about a unity of theme?
* Written over a period of some 1,500 years by nearly forty different authors in several languages, the miracle of the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament becomes all the more obvious when the Book is studied as a whole.

There are three simple reasons why I believe the Bible to be God’s Word and why the extra biblical books out there (such as, Hindu Literature, the writings of Gautama Buddha and Chiu Kung (Confucianism), the Apocrypha, the Gnostic Gospels, the Talmud, the Koran, the books of Mormonism, etc.) come from a “different” god than the God of the Bible:

#1. The Bible is the oldest religious book in the world.
Better than half of the Old Testament was already written (starting with Job about 1600 B.C.) before Hindu Literature (the second oldest religion, which started c. 700 B.C.) even got off the ground.

#2. The Bible was written over a period of about 1700 years (from c. 1600 B.C. – 96 A.D.) by over 40 different authors.
Compare that to Hindu Literature, which has no known author and was complied within a matter of years (c. 700 B.C.). Compare the Bible to the teachings of Buddha, which came to us from one man and was compiled just four months after his death by some of his disciples. Compare the Bible to the Koran, which also came to us from just one man (Mohammed) and was compiled within just a few years of his death by Othman, the third caliph c. 657 A.D. Compare the Bible to the Book of Mormons, which also came to us from one man (Joseph Smith) and was compiled in just three months.

#3. The Bible refuses to accept any other system of belief.
Whereas Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Catholicism, and Mormonism are all tolerant of other religions, even to the point of assimilating elements from them, Christianity is narrow, confined, and limited.

Random hero
Apr 19th 2007, 01:38 PM
well, God's Word is 99% textually pure, the only differences between the original manuscripts and the ones we have now are things such as it just saying Jesus instead of Jesus Christ.

The canon of a catholic is different than you, that is if you are not a catholic( i mean roman catholic here, not true catholics). The apocryphia deutorcanonical books have many errors. I don't know if anything in the Bible that refers to anything in the books either. You could use that :).

Ramon
Apr 20th 2007, 07:37 PM
i also accept the Catholic Church's canon. The authors of Judith and Tobit make it known that they are religious novels and are not meant to be taken as true stories. They were written during the Exile and was a way for the Jews to keep their customs.traditions/faith alive so these two books are great ways that this was achieved by. Besides they are interesting stories. The two books of Maccabees are great reads as well and in fact they do mention the bodily resurrection. Everyone that wants to know more about how Judaism survived through the ages should read them, in my opinion.

GothicAngel
Apr 21st 2007, 01:39 PM
3. Which books were considered authentic and authoritative via historians?
*Josephus, the first century Jewish historian (c. 95 A.D.), listed the 39 books of the O.T. as being authentic and authoritative.
*The Council of Jamnia (c. 90 A.D.), comprised of a synod of Jewish leaders, also listed the 39 books of the O.T. as being authentic and authoritative.
*Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.), Bishop of Carthage, recognized a number of N.T. books as authoritative and was the first to use the expression “New Testament.”
*Athanasius of Alexandria published a list of divine books in about 367 A.D. It contained the 39 books of the O.T. and the 27 books of the N.T. Historians claim it is the first listing that matches perfectly with the Bible as we have it today.
*Jerome recognized the same 27 books of the N.T. as being authentic when he translated the Latin Vulgate in about 385 A.D.
*Two North African councils (Hippo in 393 A.D. and Carthage in 397 A.D.) also officially endorsed the canons of both Testaments and decided that nothing else should be read in the churches.

I see that they left out all lists which contained the Catholic Apocrypha... here is what I have found from my personal study, whether or not the writers accept the Apocrypha...

books they accepted in addition to the Protestant canon:

-St. Melito of Sardis (late 100s): Wisdom.

-Origen in his Commentaries on The Psalms: Maccabees, Baruch.

-Canons of the Council of Laodecia: Baruch.

-St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechital Lectures (350s): Baruch.

-St. Hilary of Poetiers in his Commentaries on the Psalms (mid 300s): Tobit, Judith.

-Decree of Pope St. Damasus I: Judith, Tobit, Macc, Sirach, Wisdom

-Apostolic Canons (c.400): Sirach, Macc.

-Rufinus in his Explanation of the Apostles Creed (c400): Sirach, Wisdom, Macc, Judith, Tobit, the Shephard of Hermas.

-St. Jerome in his Helmeted Prolouge (c400): Macc; rejected Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, the Shephard of Hermas.

-St. Augustine in his Christian Instruction: Tobit, Judith, Macc, Wisdom, Sirach.

-Pope St. Innocent I: Wisdom, Judith, Macc, Sirach.

-Macarius Magnes (c500): rejected Wisdom, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit.

-St. John Damascene in his The Source of Knowledge: rejected Wisdom, Sirach.

GothicAngel
Apr 21st 2007, 01:42 PM
well, God's Word is 99% textually pure, the only differences between the original manuscripts and the ones we have now are things such as it just saying Jesus instead of Jesus Christ.

The canon of a catholic is different than you, that is if you are not a catholic( i mean roman catholic here, not true catholics). The apocryphia deutorcanonical books have many errors. I don't know if anything in the Bible that refers to anything in the books either. You could use that :).
A person I know posted this once, on possible biblical referneces to the Apocrypha:

Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

That is only the stuff from the Gospels. Possible quotes from the rest of the NT and alos the OT it makes the list too long.. I have it available if anyone wants it though

th1bill
Apr 21st 2007, 03:07 PM
I've been discussing the bible's authority and authenticity with a Catholic friend who questions how can I believe the bible is complete when I doubt the Catholic Church's authority. I don't accept their authority, but accept their cannon of it.

Now I believe God protected His word regardless of who the stewards of it were. But I'm not sure how to answer his questions.
The Cannon of scripture was accepted by the Catholic Church, they did not perform that act. Always go to history for historical questions. You can dig all the facts out by using any search engine on the internet or you can do it at the library.

matthew94
Apr 21st 2007, 03:19 PM
We don't accept the canon b/c a group of Christians centuries later 'picked' certain books and letters. We accept certain books and letters because Jesus picked a group of Christians to teach.

GothicAngel
Apr 21st 2007, 03:44 PM
We don't accept the canon b/c a group of Christians centuries later 'picked' certain books and letters. We accept certain books and letters because Jesus picked a group of Christians to teach.
But the books in question are not from the New Testament.

Ramon
Apr 21st 2007, 05:10 PM
A person I know posted this once, on possible biblical referneces to the Apocrypha:

Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

That is only the stuff from the Gospels. Possible quotes from the rest of the NT and alos the OT it makes the list too long.. I have it available if anyone wants it though


awesome list, the others would be nice to read as well ;)

matthew94
Apr 21st 2007, 05:42 PM
But the books in question are not from the New Testament.

The point stands. We don't base the 'canon' on the 'authority' of men, but on the authority of Jesus. The question isn't 'What group gets to define the canon,' but is instead 'What ancient books did Jesus view as Scripture?'

punk
Apr 21st 2007, 05:46 PM
The point stands. We don't base the 'canon' on the 'authority' of men, but on the authority of Jesus. The question isn't 'What group gets to define the canon,' but is instead 'What ancient books did Jesus view as Scripture?'

That's a tough position given that:

1. Jesus only really specifies "the Law and the Prophets" which means those books used in the Jewish Synagogue service and leaves out a huge chunk of the OT.
2. Jesus quotes "scripture" which doesn't appear in the OT as we have it (which would mean we are missing books).
3. The NT quote things like the Book of Enoch which isn't included in the Bible.

So basically by the above position our Old Testament is totally wrong.

matthew94
Apr 21st 2007, 08:46 PM
I would recommend FF Bruce's "the canon of Scripture' in regards to what 1st century Jews accepted as Scripture.

Christian Holzman
Apr 21st 2007, 09:05 PM
I would recommend FF Bruce's "the canon of Scripture' in regards to what 1st century Jews accepted as Scripture.

punk gave you 3 very good points, I dont see why he would need to go purchase some authors book so that he can understand your stance and what you believe.

Christian Holzman
Apr 21st 2007, 09:41 PM
Excerpt from Strand Study Bible:



How We Got Our Bible, and Why I Believe it to be God’s Word


Our LORD fixed the limits on the extent of the “canonical” books of the Old Testament at the 39 books we have today when He accused the religious crowd of his day of being guilty of killing all the prophets God had sent from Abel (Genesis – the first book in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible) to Zecharias (II Chronicles – the last book in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible). The question of which books belong in the Bible is called ‘the question of the canon.’ The word “canon” means rule or measuring rod and refers to the collection of books, which passed a test of authenticity and authority.
In the case of the Old Testament some assert that all 39 books were collected and recognized by Ezra in about 450 B.C.
In the case of the New Testament all 27 books were collected and “canonized” by the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.
The question is: How was that collection made? Why were some books “canonized” and some not (the Book of Jasher, the Gnostic Gospels, the 12 books of the Apocrypha, etc.)? What tests were applied to determine authenticity and authority? The following questions determined legitimacy:

1. Was the book written by a prophet (Moses, David, etc.), a leader in Israel (Joshua, Ezra, etc.), or an Apostle (Paul, etc.)?

2. Was the book given the “stamp of approval” by CHRIST and the apostles? (See footnote on II Pet 1:21)

3. Which books were considered authentic and authoritative via historians?
*Josephus, the first century Jewish historian (c. 95 A.D.), listed the 39 books of the O.T. as being authentic and authoritative.
*The Council of Jamnia (c. 90 A.D.), comprised of a synod of Jewish leaders, also listed the 39 books of the O.T. as being authentic and authoritative.
*Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.), Bishop of Carthage, recognized a number of N.T. books as authoritative and was the first to use the expression “New Testament.”
*Athanasius of Alexandria published a list of divine books in about 367 A.D. It contained the 39 books of the O.T. and the 27 books of the N.T. Historians claim it is the first listing that matches perfectly with the Bible as we have it today.
*Jerome recognized the same 27 books of the N.T. as being authentic when he translated the Latin Vulgate in about 385 A.D.
*Two North African councils (Hippo in 393 A.D. and Carthage in 397 A.D.) also officially endorsed the canons of both Testaments and decided that nothing else should be read in the churches.

4. Which books were discovered to be authentic and authoritative via archaeology?
*The Dead Sea Scrolls found in 1947, which dates back to the second century B.C., gave us a Hebrew text consisting of all but one of the 39 O.T. books (Esther).
*Two small silver amulets containing Numbers 6:24-26 discovered in 1986, which dates back to the seventh century B.C.,
* More than 5,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament exist today, which makes the Greek New Testament the best-attested document in all ancient writings. Contrast that with the writings of Julius Caesar or

5. Which books brought about a unity of theme?
* Written over a period of some 1,500 years by nearly forty different authors in several languages, the miracle of the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament becomes all the more obvious when the Book is studied as a whole.

There are three simple reasons why I believe the Bible to be God’s Word and why the extra biblical books out there (such as, Hindu Literature, the writings of Gautama Buddha and Chiu Kung (Confucianism), the Apocrypha, the Gnostic Gospels, the Talmud, the Koran, the books of Mormonism, etc.) come from a “different” god than the God of the Bible:

#1. The Bible is the oldest religious book in the world.
Better than half of the Old Testament was already written (starting with Job about 1600 B.C.) before Hindu Literature (the second oldest religion, which started c. 700 B.C.)even got off the ground.

#2. The Bible was written over a period of about 1700 years (from c. 1600 B.C. – 96 A.D.) by over 40 different authors.
Compare that to Hindu Literature, which has no known author and was complied within a matter of years (c. 700 B.C.). Compare the Bible to the teachings of Buddha, which came to us from one man and was compiled just four months after his death by some of his disciples. Compare the Bible to the Koran, which also came to us from just one man (Mohammed) and was compiled within just a few years of his death by Othman, the third caliph c. 657 A.D. Compare the Bible to the Book of Mormons, which also came to us from one man (Joseph Smith) and was compiled in just three months.

#3. The Bible refuses to accept any other system of belief.
Whereas Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Catholicism, and Mormonism are all tolerant of other religions, even to the point of assimilating elements from them, Christianity is narrow, confined, and limited.

we dont know what books were given an approval by christ or the prophets. There are many books that are missing including several written by paul. As a matter of fact the orginal KJV had an additonal 14 books that were removed in the 1800s. The "bible" is not the oldest religous book in the world. The torah is the oldest written scriptures. As to the oldest religon it is argued that judaism hinduism and zaroastrianism is the oldest still practicing reliogn. I tend to believe that judaism is the oldest religon just because they have the written proof of some type of time table, although there is no clear answer to either. Christianity does not accept any other religon but neither does islam.

matthew94
Apr 21st 2007, 10:05 PM
punk gave you 3 very good points, I dont see why he would need to go purchase some authors book so that he can understand your stance and what you believe.

I didn't say punk 'needed' to. I recommended it because Bruce, a great scholar, addresses those issues.

th1bill
Apr 21st 2007, 10:13 PM
we dont know what books were given an approval by christ or the prophets. There are many books that are missing including several written by paul. As a matter of fact the orginal KJV had an additonal 14 books that were removed in the 1800s. The "bible" is not the oldest religous book in the world. The torah is the oldest written scriptures. As to the oldest religon it is argued that judaism hinduism and zaroastrianism is the oldest still practicing reliogn. I tend to believe that judaism is the oldest religon just because they have the written proof of some type of time table, although there is no clear answer to either. Christianity does not accept any other religon but neither does islam.
Those are outlandishly broad statements to just stand there on their on merit, unsupported. If you expect anyone to find you credible you will need to give the evidence and support it with a bibliographical referance. Right now you are in serious need of a towel, to wipe all the egg off your face.

th1bill
Apr 21st 2007, 10:17 PM
I didn't say punk 'needed' to. I recommended it because Bruce, a great scholar, addresses those issues.
Matthew, I'm not rebuking you but you must remember that 95% of the church family are beached whales screaming to be fed. They are blissful in their ignorance and refuse to study.

Pick your battles carefully, most of the available contests will just infuriate you and cause you to sink down to their level.

punk
Apr 21st 2007, 10:47 PM
I would recommend FF Bruce's "the canon of Scripture' in regards to what 1st century Jews accepted as Scripture.

Oh, I've read that and a number of other books on the topic.

The point was that your position as you articulated it is untenable.

Ultimately you find yourself saying that the OT consists of the canon arrived at in Jamnia after the death of Christ. Which is to say that the opinions of Palestinian Jews after the Christians definitely became a separate movement become definitive.

ddlewis86
Apr 21st 2007, 11:17 PM
I would recommend FF Bruce's "the canon of Scripture' in regards to what 1st century Jews accepted as Scripture.

I posted this link in another thread and I thought it would go well with this discussion.

Read online for FREE here "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" By: F. F. Bruce (http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm)

matthew94
Apr 21st 2007, 11:25 PM
yeah, that is a very good book ddlewis

Christian Holzman
Apr 22nd 2007, 06:22 AM
Those are outlandishly broad statements to just stand there on their on merit, unsupported. If you expect anyone to find you credible you will need to give the evidence and support it with a bibliographical referance. Right now you are in serious need of a towel, to wipe all the egg off your face.

Just checked in the mirror and didnt see any egg on my face. Although I did check the fridge and the egg carton is full. Just let me know which statements you would like some historical proof on and I will give it to you. Anyone who has studied religion can support the views. Im am excited though to see which outlandishly broad statement I made that you find unmerited and unsupported.

Christian Holzman
Apr 22nd 2007, 06:23 AM
I didn't say punk 'needed' to. I recommended it because Bruce, a great scholar, addresses those issues.

I was just saying that if someone had some points that I disagreed with, I wouldnt suggest they read a book I have read, but rather explain to them why I believe what I believe and why I disagree with their points.

GothicAngel
Apr 22nd 2007, 12:47 PM
awesome list, the others would be nice to read as well ;)
Sure... will pm

edit... do you have your priavet messenging set up... it is too long to post

punk
Apr 22nd 2007, 03:55 PM
Those are outlandishly broad statements to just stand there on their on merit, unsupported. If you expect anyone to find you credible you will need to give the evidence and support it with a bibliographical referance. Right now you are in serious need of a towel, to wipe all the egg off your face.

Well the Gathas of Zarathustrianism and the Rig Veda of Hinduism are generally held to be the oldest extant religious texts (and I believe most Indo-european scholars would argue that the the Avestan language of the Gathas appears to be older than the Vedic Sanskrit language of the Rig Veda).

awestruckchild
Apr 22nd 2007, 10:17 PM
Wow! You guys sure do have some spirited debates!
For the record, I don't like eggs very much so please don't throw one of them at me.
I am a baby christian and I have so many Bible translations it ain't funny. One of them is a catholic Biible and I think all of them have been useful to me at one time or another when comparing scriptures.
I found nothing in the catholic Bible to offend me - at least thus far, except for the preface and the constitution in the front. Strike that - I wasn't offended, just puzzled by some of it. Like the capitalization of People of God and a few other things like calling the religious leader Holy Father.
I guess my point is that the actual text of the Bible seems okay to me. I don't think any prefaces or additions anyone sticks in the front or the back can take away from the power of God to reach us through the actual text or translation.
I have avidly read the so-called 'lost gospels' and found them to be bizarre, so I discounted them. I was actually very surprised to find that the gospel of Q is a fictional, theoretical idea as I was looking forward to reading it.
Anyway, my point is that of all my translations I have yet to find one that isn't helpful. Of course I have a favorite or two because of the wording, but I use them all.

Ramon
Apr 22nd 2007, 10:51 PM
Wow! You guys sure do have some spirited debates!
For the record, I don't like eggs very much so please don't throw one of them at me.
I am a baby christian and I have so many Bible translations it ain't funny. One of them is a catholic Biible and I think all of them have been useful to me at one time or another when comparing scriptures.
I found nothing in the catholic Bible to offend me - at least thus far, except for the preface and the constitution in the front. Strike that - I wasn't offended, just puzzled by some of it. Like the capitalization of People of God and a few other things like calling the religious leader Holy Father.
I guess my point is that the actual text of the Bible seems okay to me. I don't think any prefaces or additions anyone sticks in the front or the back can take away from the power of God to reach us through the actual text or translation.
I have avidly read the so-called 'lost gospels' and found them to be bizarre, so I discounted them. I was actually very surprised to find that the gospel of Q is a fictional, theoretical idea as I was looking forward to reading it.
Anyway, my point is that of all my translations I have yet to find one that isn't helpful. Of course I have a favorite or two because of the wording, but I use them all.


If you want to read the Catholic canon without any hint whatsoever of Catholic ideas I would recommend the New Jerusalem Bible-Reader's Edition. There are many many bold headings that make the text so easy to understand. It also unlike many other Catholic Bibles keeps the Jewishness of the Old Testament by not translating words such as Yahweh and Sheol

awestruckchild
Apr 22nd 2007, 10:57 PM
Thank you for the tip Ramon - I will check into that translation.

Ruzz
Apr 23rd 2007, 08:44 PM
Here's the thing.

My friend is asking how can I accept the NT as scripture when it was the Catholic Church who declared it so and I not accept them as authorities to declare what is and is not scripture?

In other words, I don't believe they are God's authority but I accept my bible which they canonized.

My best answer is that God protected His word no matter who was in custody of it. But in the back of my mind, I also wonder what other writings may have existed that the Roman Catholic Church tossed because it conflicted with their teachings.

th1bill
Apr 23rd 2007, 08:53 PM
Just checked in the mirror and didnt see any egg on my face. Although I did check the fridge and the egg carton is full. Just let me know which statements you would like some historical proof on and I will give it to you. Anyone who has studied religion can support the views. Im am excited though to see which outlandishly broad statement I made that you find unmerited and unsupported.
And still you assert with no substance.

Christian Holzman
Apr 23rd 2007, 08:56 PM
the bibe was not written as a book, there werent chapters and verses and such. They are letters and stories written by people who shared a relationship with God and wrote about what they felt that God led them to write about. Are there other letters that were written that are not part of the cannonized bible? of course there are. Are there fake letters written to discredit the other letters and stories? of course there are. Is the catholic church the authority on what can be accepted and what cant ? of course not. With all of that being said we are still greatful for the writings that we do have and Im sure that God worked it together so that we do have what we do have. There may be some mistakes because of traslation of one language to the next or some scripture being left out, but as a whole we should be thankful for what we do have considering the time frame and the all that went on during all of these yrs that could have deprived us of these great scriptures. But remember there was a time that people did not have a "bible" as a whole, there was also a time that even though there was a bible, that the people were not able to interpret and read the scripture, but even without that bible and scripture they still believed, they still had faith in who Jesus was and what He accomplished. The word of God is the Son of God, the bible is just scripture. You dont need a bible to come to know the word of God, although it does come in handy.;)

Christian Holzman
Apr 23rd 2007, 08:58 PM
And still you assert with no substance.

you mean the no egg thing? I can take a picture if you like. As far as any other substance you may like proof of, all you have to do is let me know what you need substance on.

th1bill
Apr 23rd 2007, 08:59 PM
Here's the thing.

My friend is asking how can I accept the NT as scripture when it was the Catholic Church who declared it so and I not accept them as authorities to declare what is and is not scripture?

In other words, I don't believe they are God's authority but I accept my bible which they canonized.

My best answer is that God protected His word no matter who was in custody of it. But in the back of my mind, I also wonder what other writings may have existed that the Roman Catholic Church tossed because it conflicted with their teachings.
And several people lost the question but my answer still stands, the Catholics did not execute the Canon of Scripture. The accepted the canon of both the Old Testament and the New. The Catholic Church is not the first church. History is the answer.

Christian Holzman
Apr 23rd 2007, 11:02 PM
And several people lost the question but my answer still stands, the Catholics did not execute the Canon of Scripture. The accepted the canon of both the Old Testament and the New. The Catholic Church is not the first church. History is the answer.

Please assert with substance

Teke
Apr 25th 2007, 06:53 PM
And several people lost the question but my answer still stands, the Catholics did not execute the Canon of Scripture. The accepted the canon of both the Old Testament and the New. The Catholic Church is not the first church. History is the answer.

Bill, the word "catholic" doesn't automatically mean the Roman church. The early unified church called themselves "catholic", a word meaning "universal". So the united whole church in the beginning (catholic) with the Holy Spirit decided the canon of scripture by ecumenical councils. After the seventh council the Roman church went their own way, which is called, west. The eastern part of the church didn't follow them.

As you said, "History is the answer". But you have to read it.:)

awestruckchild
Apr 25th 2007, 07:22 PM
Ruzz-
In regard to your earlier post- I wouldn't worry too much that there may be something we are missing that didn't get included in the Bible. He is quite powerful enough to see to it that we have what He wants us to have.
I do wonder often though if maybe something may come to light at a future date that He has kept hidden from us for His purposes and His timing.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to find a written copy of whatever He told the writer of the book of revelation not to write down? Of course, if he actually did write it down somewhere he would have been disobeying God , which I can't quite see him having the guts to do after all he had seen!!!

th1bill
Apr 25th 2007, 08:55 PM
Please assert with substance
See post 34. Then I sughgest the library or Goggle. Seeking a fight will gain you silence.

th1bill
Apr 25th 2007, 08:59 PM
Bill, the word "catholic" doesn't automatically mean the Roman church. The early unified church called themselves "catholic", a word meaning "universal". So the united whole church in the beginning (catholic) with the Holy Spirit decided the canon of scripture by ecumenical councils. After the seventh council the Roman church went their own way, which is called, west. The eastern part of the church didn't follow them.

As you said, "History is the answer". But you have to read it.:)
If you nit pick I'll also ignore you, but if you'll read closely you'll find I did not use the word catholic, I used the word Catholic and I am aware of the difference.

Teke
Apr 25th 2007, 09:16 PM
If you nit pick I'll also ignore you, but if you'll read closely you'll find I did not use the word catholic, I used the word Catholic and I am aware of the difference.

Yes, but everyone is not aware of that difference. Not nitpicking, just history.
And, we wouldn't want a shibboleth from "c" versus "C", among Christians. :)

punk
Apr 25th 2007, 09:22 PM
So, if I'm reading this thread right, people are really sure the canon of Scripture is right, but can't say how or when it came into being...but nevertheless it is right! (and don't ask any questions about the man behind the curtain)

Doesn't anyone care to point to some specific history of who or when?

Am I the only one who wonders how one can be so sure something happened without knowing any specifics about it happening?

Teke
Apr 25th 2007, 09:35 PM
So, if I'm reading this thread right, people are really sure the canon of Scripture is right, but can't say how or when it came into being...but nevertheless it is right! (and don't ask any questions about the man behind the curtain)

Doesn't anyone care to point to some specific history of who or when?

Am I the only one who wonders how one can be so sure something happened without knowing any specifics about it happening?

I don't think anybody was specific about what canon of scripture they wanted to know about.
:bible: Jewish, early church (catholics :P ), Protestants, Muslims......:dunno:
They all have different criteria.

punk
Apr 25th 2007, 09:37 PM
I don't think anybody was specific about what canon of scripture they wanted to know about.
:bible: Jewish, early church (catholics :P ), Protestants, Muslims......:dunno:
They all have different criteria.

Nope, no one did that either.

We basically have a long thread with no specifics whatsoever, but everyone sure that they are right.

Of course "right" and "wrong" are rather meaningless without specifics.

th1bill
Apr 25th 2007, 09:47 PM
Yes, but everyone is not aware of that difference. Not nitpicking, just history.
And, we wouldn't want a shibboleth from "c" versus "C", among Christians. :)
Then you will explain rebuking me? I really do not see just cause.

th1bill
Apr 25th 2007, 09:52 PM
Nope, no one did that either.

We basically have a long thread with no specifics whatsoever, but everyone sure that they are right.

Of course "right" and "wrong" are rather meaningless without specifics.
There was a question asked, I answered it and then people, not the gent asking, went off running down rabbit trails and now teke has rebuked me, I know not even what for, strange, the lack of apparent comprehension.

punk
Apr 25th 2007, 09:57 PM
There was a question asked, I answered it and then people, not the gent asking, went off running down rabbit trails and now teke has rebuked me, I know not even what for, strange, the lack of apparent comprehension.

Fair enough.

If I understand correctly you asserted that the Catholic Church did not create the canon of scripture but received it from elsewhere and affirmed the truth of the canon (although their affirming a slightly different canon than Protestants would lead one to ask just which canon is intended here).

The Catholic in conversation with the poster of the OP is just going to say:

"I say the Catholic Church created the canon, you say it came from elsewhere and the Church just affirmed it. Where exactly was that elsewhere, who did it, and when?"

All of which are fair questions.

th1bill
Apr 25th 2007, 10:13 PM
Fair enough.

If I understand correctly you asserted that the Catholic Church did not create the canon of scripture but received it from elsewhere and affirmed the truth of the canon (although their affirming a slightly different canon than Protestants would lead one to ask just which canon is intended here).

Over and over I have resisted being smart mouthed about this and I will resist it once more, type "canon" and "Bible" into any search engine and you will find the proof that the, alluded to, catholic church executed the Canon of scripture and that Canon was accepted by the Catholic Church in Trent, I believe it is. The only other Canon is the Canon exicuted by the Jewish Church of the Old Testament.

The books added to the middle of the Bible have never been Canonized by anyone, they are not scripture.

Now, if you choose, you may make this even more difficult by going to the Public Library, also previously stated by myself, and search through reams of books to find said illustration of the truth.

Punk, being facetious is not cute and I do not believe you actually are that lacking in comprehension.


The Catholic in conversation with the poster of the OP is just going to say:

"I say the Catholic Church created the canon, you say it came from elsewhere and the Church just affirmed it. Where exactly was that elsewhere, who did it, and when?"

All of which are fair questions.

Teke
Apr 25th 2007, 10:15 PM
Then you will explain rebuking me? I really do not see just cause.

Forgive me. :pray:
I did not mean it to sound like a rebuke. It wasn't personal.

punk
Apr 25th 2007, 10:25 PM
Over and over I have resisted being smart mouthed about this and I will resist it once more, type "canon" and "Bible" into any search engine and you will find the proof that the, alluded to, catholic church executed the Canon of scripture and that Canon was accepted by the Catholic Church in Trent, I believe it is. The only other Canon is the Canon exicuted by the Jewish Church of the Old Testament.

The books added to the middle of the Bible have never been Canonized by anyone, they are not scripture.

Now, if you choose, you may make this even more difficult by going to the Public Library, also previously stated by myself, and search through reams of books to find said illustration of the truth.

Punk, being facetious is not cute and I do not believe you actually are that lacking in comprehension.

The (16th century) Council of Trent simply affirmed a biblical canon that had been in existence for over a millennium which had (then) recently been challenged by Protestants.

I presumed we were discussing the canonization which occurred sometime around the 4th century AD (whether to Athanasius, the Synod of Hippo, or the Third Synod of Carthage), all of which occurred under the auspices of the Great Church (which later became the Catholic and Orthodox churches).

Teke
Apr 25th 2007, 10:37 PM
Fair enough.

If I understand correctly you asserted that the Catholic Church did not create the canon of scripture but received it from elsewhere and affirmed the truth of the canon (although their affirming a slightly different canon than Protestants would lead one to ask just which canon is intended here).

The Catholic in conversation with the poster of the OP is just going to say:

"I say the Catholic Church created the canon, you say it came from elsewhere and the Church just affirmed it. Where exactly was that elsewhere, who did it, and when?"

All of which are fair questions.


Here is the OP question. (bolded parts by me)

I've been discussing the bible's authority and authenticity with a Catholic friend who questions how can I believe the bible is complete when I doubt the Catholic Church's authority. I don't accept their authority, but accept their cannon of it.

Now I believe God protected His word regardless of who the stewards of it were. But I'm not sure how to answer his questions.

It would seem were talking "authority" and "authenticity" here. The first being interpreted differently by each group. The bible is not an "authority" in the RC church, it is part of holy tradition. A tradition held to since the first temple of Israel. So, tradition wise, it is a tradition in all the churches of Christ, to read the scriptures (ancient writings of the church). Each one decides which ones they will read.

The authenticity is a matter of the original texts.

"Canon" differs in accordance with the religions. Canon is only authoritative as held so by the structural authority of the church/religion.

To the OP. You don't have to accept structural authority of a church to accept a canon of scripture you will read.

punk
Apr 25th 2007, 10:39 PM
Here is the OP question. (bolded parts by me)


It would seem were talking "authority" and "authenticity" here. The first being interpreted differently by each group. The bible is not an "authority" in the RC church, it is part of holy tradition. A tradition held to since the first temple of Israel. So, tradition wise, it is a tradition in all the churches of Christ, to read the scriptures (ancient writings of the church). Each one decides which ones they will read.

The authenticity is a matter of the original texts.

"Canon" differs in accordance with the religions. Canon is only authoritative as held so by the structural authority of the church/religion.

But the Catholic is asserting that the Bible's authority ultimately rests on the Catholic Church's authority since the Catholic Church assembled the Bible. So if you are going to give authority to the Bible you have to give greater authority to the institution that put it together.

The Protestant has to divorce the Bible from the Catholic Church, and this requires, IMHO, an appeal to history.

Teke
Apr 25th 2007, 10:44 PM
But the Catholic is asserting that the Bible's authority ultimately rests on the Catholic Church's authority since the Catholic Church assembled the Bible. So if you are going to give authority to the Bible you have to give greater authority to the institution that put it together.

Try telling a Muslim that.:lol:


The Protestant has to divorce the Bible from the Catholic Church, and this requires, IMHO, an appeal to history.

And they do make that appeal.

punk
Apr 25th 2007, 10:47 PM
And they do make that appeal.


Well, maybe I jumped ahead several steps in the argument, but I understood that OP to be asking how one ought to go about making that appeal to history.

Teke
Apr 25th 2007, 10:53 PM
Well, maybe I jumped ahead several steps in the argument, but I understood that OP to be asking how one ought to go about making that appeal to history.

OK, let's take that route. You go first.:D

punk
Apr 25th 2007, 11:05 PM
OK, let's take that route. You go first.:D

Well my first attempt would be to take a survey of ancient writers prior to some arbitrary cutoff date, and see what works they seem to take to be scripture. I'd take both Jewish and Christian writers.

This will likely very regionally, and will likely result in many works that were taken as scripture locally over a small region.

Given this data I'd divide texts into classes based on some measure of strong, middling, and weak acceptance. Then I'd produce a text that included weakly accepted texts in appendices.

Obviously this would be influenced by decress of councils but not beholding to any particular group or council.

It has the advantage of not specifically trying to prove any particular group's view.

Of course it probably won't give you any currently used canon either, and there is the question of varying versions of the same text.

The assumption is that on average over a large group of people the Holy Spirit will draw people to basically the right texts.

Of course I do happen to think a good Bible should include the Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and I Enoch in an appendix.

Teke
Apr 26th 2007, 12:24 AM
Isn't the whole point of canon to prove a particular groups view?
Like in this case with the bible, the Christian belief in Christ. So each group is going to make it's strongest view on Christ based on their canon of scripture.


The assumption is that on average over a large group of people the Holy Spirit will draw people to basically the right texts.

I certainly agree on this.:)

punk
Apr 26th 2007, 06:14 AM
Isn't the whole point of canon to prove a particular groups view?
Like in this case with the bible, the Christian belief in Christ. So each group is going to make it's strongest view on Christ based on their canon of scripture.



I certainly agree on this.:)

Well most people want to use the canon to support this or that group.

I personally like to leave open all possibilities...including such as that no existing group is correct in the matter of the canon. ;)

Teke
Apr 27th 2007, 05:27 PM
Well most people want to use the canon to support this or that group.

That is basically why canons are formed from ancient texts.:)


I personally like to leave open all possibilities...including such as that no existing group is correct in the matter of the canon. ;)

I agree on all possibilities.
But each group is likely correct in their canon, since they chose it to be so.
Meaning it agrees with their theological views.

From what I've seen, all the Christian denoms of the world, hold all the ancient text as canon in one way or another.
And besides the canon, they vary on which ancient text they agree with as part of that canon. For instance, Protestants use the KJV with the Massoretic text of the OT, while in the east they don't accept that text and use the Sept. instead.

punk
Apr 27th 2007, 06:42 PM
That is basically why canons are formed from ancient texts.:)


I agree on all possibilities.
But each group is likely correct in their canon, since they chose it to be so.
Meaning it agrees with their theological views.

From what I've seen, all the Christian denoms of the world, hold all the ancient text as canon in one way or another.
And besides the canon, they vary on which ancient text they agree with as part of that canon. For instance, Protestants use the KJV with the Massoretic text of the OT, while in the east they don't accept that text and use the Sept. instead.

That makes sola scriptura a rather more awkward position than it would seem at first glance.

Christian Holzman
Apr 28th 2007, 12:35 PM
See post 34. Then I sughgest the library or Goggle. Seeking a fight will gain you silence.

Not looking for a fight, just looking for you to back up your incorrect statements to be backed up with historical proof.

a sojourner
Apr 28th 2007, 07:54 PM
That makes sola scriptura a rather more awkward position than it would seem at first glance.

I agree. Do we base our idea of canon on the books, or the manuscripts we have of the books? Because the books are only as good as the manuscripts used to piece them together.

I don't believe that we have discovered all of the manuscripts left to be discovered, and I don't believe that the manuscripts we have are necessarily 100% accurate. There is still (and may always be) more work to be done in piecing together the original texts.

At the same time, I know God is merciful, and that he leads us perfectly in spite of this.

Gojira69
Jul 1st 2007, 01:55 AM
Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

I found your post quite interesting. The Apocrypha is something I accept as ancient truth by which we can benefit today.

I'd love to be able to point to a specific prophecy in the Apochrypha fulfilled in the New Testament (like can be done with 1 Enoch). The only one on your list that claims this is quoted above.

A closer look at Wisdom 11:7 (http://www.thebookofenoch.info/summascriptura/html/Wisdom%20of%20Solomon.html#ch11), however, will show something different than a prophecy fulfilled. In the Wisdom 11, the wilderness wanderings of Israel are in view. The passage states that every bad thing the Egyptians placed upon the Jews resulted in a commensurate blessing being placed upon the Jews by God. For the Egyptian, "decree to slay the infants" in Moses' day, God gave the Jews preservation in a desert land.

Those are good thoughts, they're just not a prophecy of the slaying of the infants in Jesus' day.

Gojira69
Jul 1st 2007, 03:51 AM
Well my first attempt would be to take a survey of ancient writers prior to some arbitrary cutoff date, and see what works they seem to take to be scripture. I'd take both Jewish and Christian writers.

This will likely vary regionally, and will likely result in many works that were taken as scripture locally over a small region.

Given this data I'd divide texts into classes based on some measure of strong, middling, and weak acceptance. Then I'd produce a text that included weakly accepted texts in appendices.

<snip>

It has the advantage of not specifically trying to prove any particular group's view.

Of course it probably won't give you any currently used canon either, and there is the question of varying versions of the same text.

The assumption is that on average over a large group of people the Holy Spirit will draw people to basically the right texts.

I totally agree with you, punk.


Of course I do happen to think a good Bible should include the Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and I Enoch in an appendix.

The ancient communions of the faith have established the canon.

Having said this, one truth we all have to face is there never has been one canon. Each of the ancient communions of faith ascribe to canons that vary to a degree. In my opinion, the degree of variation does not significantly impinge upon any doctrine the church holds as of central importance. It is probably the case that books accepted into only one the {small "c"} catholic church's canons will always have a different status for Christians than those books all hold in common.

Of the books accepted by all we have 39 in the OT and 22 in the NT.

Of books accepted by almost all we have 5 in the NT.

Of books accepted into one or another of the ancient canons or ancient communions, you mentioned Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and I Enoch. There's also 1 and 2 Clement, Jubilees, III Corinthians and others.

I find none of them threatening to my faith and all of them contain things I find inspirational. Would it hurt any of us to read a little more?