Are you obligated to believe the entirety of the bible?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Council of Nicea in 325

The Council of Constantinople in 381

The Council of Ephesus in 431

The Council of Chalcedon in 451

I don't think those councils decreed what you apparently think they do.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't think those councils decreed what you apparently think they do.

I don't know about the last three, but the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. was not called to formalize the Christian canon but to combat the "Arian heresy," thereby uniting the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

I don't think those councils decreed what you apparently think they do.

Then pray tell, what did they decree?

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

I don't know about the last three, but the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. was not called to formalize the Christian canon but to combat the "Arian heresy," thereby uniting the Holy Roman Empire.

It did combat the Arian Heresy (and that was the biggy) but it also formalized the canon, as well as combating other heresies. The neutralization of the Arian Heresy was not its only goal.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

How can you possibly know the degree of precision with which the Bible was copied and translated without having the original maniscripts? The translations we have may be very similar to the oldest copies of the original manuscripts we have, but when the oldest copies we have date to several hundred years after the originals were written, it's really impossible to say how accurate they are.

Which brings us back to the faith thing. But honestly, if the Bible has been so perfectly translated from the oldest copies we DO have to now, which (I think) is a longer time period between the time of the originals and the older copies, I see no reason to believe that the oldest copies we have are significantly different from the originals.

Why did He allow some of Paul's and the other Apostles' epistles to be lost then?

I'm not following you. I would still claim that if it's not in the Bible, it's not supposed to be.

So... which do you consider "our modern Bible"?

- the 73-book Bible used by the Catholic Church?
- the 78-book Bible used by the Orthodox Churches?
- the 66-book Bible used by most Protestant denominations?
- the "Joseph Smith Corrected" version used by the LDS Church?

Do you consider the Bible to include the Gospel of Thomas? 1 and 2 Maccabees? The Book of Wisdom? 3 Corinthians? The Pastoral Epistles?

What's the last verse in the Gospel of Mark?

"The Bible" may be simple to say, but it's difficult to pin down exactly what that means in a way that defensibly includes certain books and excludes others.

I suppose the 66-book Bible. I've never read (what to me are) the extra books in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, so I would need to look into it, and I don't believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired.

I wouldn't be opposed to reading the "extra" books I mentioned, but I would be interested to see if any of it contradicts the 66-book Bible I use. If not, then I don't see a problem with it.

 

[Katzpur]

It did combat the Arian Heresy (and that was the biggy) but it also formalized the canon, as well as combating other heresies. The neutralization of the Arian Heresy was not its only goal.

If it formalized the canon, what was the point of the later councils (in terms of the canon, I mean)?

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

If it formalized the canon, what was the point of the later councils (in terms of the canon, I mean)?

The Council of Nicea only began to formalize the canon. The point is that the canon was formalized over the span of all four. And because they were ecumenical (meaning that the whole church was involved...at that time, the church was undivided, unlike today) those that were formalized as canon are considered the Word of God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then pray tell, what did they decree?

Lots of points of doctrine and church jurisdiction. If you really want to know, you can see the full lists of decrees all over the web. Here's one example:

All Ecumenical Councils - All the Decrees

It did combat the Arian Heresy (and that was the biggy) but it also formalized the canon, as well as combating other heresies. The neutralization of the Arian Heresy was not its only goal.

I'm sure that the fact that the Council of Nicea in 325 formalized the Biblical canon came as a surprise to Athanasius, who was still trying to formalize the Biblical canon 40 years later. His face must have been red when he found out.

From what I can gather by Googling, the first council to try to establish a Biblical canon was the Synod of Hippo in 393, and their "canonical" Bible matches the modern-day Catholic canon, not the Protestant one.

Which brings us back to the faith thing. But honestly, if the Bible has been so perfectly translated from the oldest copies we DO have to now, which (I think) is a longer time period between the time of the originals and the older copies, I see no reason to believe that the oldest copies we have are significantly different from the originals.

Which brings us back to Mark. What verse does it end with?

I suppose the 66-book Bible. I've never read (what to me are) the extra books in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, so I would need to look into it, and I don't believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired.

I wouldn't be opposed to reading the "extra" books I mentioned, but I would be interested to see if any of it contradicts the 66-book Bible I use. If not, then I don't see a problem with it.

But in your mind, what makes the 66-book version authoritative and not the 73- or 78-book versions that other Christian groups consider authoritative?

 

[Katzpur]

I'm not following you. I would still claim that if it's not in the Bible, it's not supposed to be.

Well, in Colossians, Paul mentions an epistle he wrote to the Laodiceans. In his epistle, Jude mentions a second epistle. And Chronicles mentions eight or ten books that were considered by the people of the author's day to be scriptural. All in all, there are probably about 20 books that the scriptures themselves direct us to, but which are missing from the Bible. Clearly, there was a time when they were considered to be God's word. This, of course, was before what we know as "the Bible" existed. If we even had those writings today, we might be able to figure out why they were omitted, but the fact is that we don't.

Consider, too, John 21:25, which says, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." How could it be stated much more plainly that not everything that Jesus taught was even written down, much less preserved long enough to end up in our Bible today? Think of the length of Jesus' ministry and look at the relatively small amount of information is contained about His teachings in the four gospels. Surely He didn't spend any of His time talking about things that were so trivial and unimportant that they weren't worth writing down. We're enormously fortunate that His words and the words of His Apostles were preserved as well as they were, but I can't even imagine thinking that just because something didn't end up in the Bible, it was because it wasn't supposed to be there.

 

[Katzpur]

The Council of Nicea only began to formalize the canon. The point is that the canon was formalized over the span of all four. And because they were ecumenical (meaning that the whole church was involved...at that time, the church was undivided, unlike today) those that were formalized as canon are considered the Word of God.

For an undivided Church that had, as a goal, the formalization of a standard canon of scripture, how did it manage to take 125 years to do so? I suspect there was far more divisiveness than you believe there to have been.

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

For an undivided Church that had, as a goal, the formalization of a standard canon of scripture, how did it manage to take 125 years to do so? I suspect there was far more divisiveness than you believe there to have been.

I meant that it was not yet divided into separate denominations and the like (most notably Roman Catholic versus Greek Orthodox).

Of course they still had disagreements, but thats what the councils were for: to resolve them.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Which brings us back to Mark. What verse does it end with?

While I'm fully aware that there is controversey over the last few verses in Mark, my Bible has this:

And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen.
Mark 16:20

But in your mind, what makes the 66-book version authoritative and not the 73- or 78-book versions that other Christian groups consider authoritative?

I'm (basically) a Protestant, so obviously I would believe that Protestants are more correct than Catholics or Orthothoxies, making the version of the Bible used by Protestants the authoritative one. Am I making sense?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, in Colossians, Paul mentions an epistle he wrote to the Laodiceans. In his epistle, Jude mentions a second epistle. And Chronicles mentions eight or ten books that were considered by the people of the author's day to be scriptural. All in all, there are probably about 20 books that the scriptures themselves direct us to, but which are missing from the Bible. Clearly, there was a time when they were considered to be God's word. This, of course, was before what we know as "the Bible" existed. If we even had those writings today, we might be able to figure out why they were omitted, but the fact is that we don't.

Consider, too, John 21:25, which says, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." How could it be stated much more plainly that not everything that Jesus taught was even written down, much less preserved long enough to end up in our Bible today? Think of the length of Jesus' ministry and look at the relatively small amount of information is contained about His teachings in the four gospels. Surely He didn't spend any of His time talking about things that were so trivial and unimportant that they weren't worth writing down. We're enormously fortunate that His words and the words of His Apostles were preserved as well as they were, but I can't even imagine thinking that just because something didn't end up in the Bible, it was because it wasn't supposed to be there.

I still fail to see why you believe that a book mentioned in the Bible must needs be part of the Bible. God most likely spoke often to Adam in Garden. Should that dialogue be included as well?

 

[Katzpur]

Of course they still had disagreements, but thats what the councils were for: to resolve them.

Could you explain how they were resolved? What was the process?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Council of Nicea only began to formalize the canon. The point is that the canon was formalized over the span of all four. And because they were ecumenical (meaning that the whole church was involved...at that time, the church was undivided, unlike today) those that were formalized as canon are considered the Word of God.

The church was undivided?

The Assyrian Church split off after the second Ecumenical Council you listed, and the Coptics parted ways with the other churches over the fourth one.

 

[Katzpur]

I still fail to see why you believe that a book mentioned in the Bible must needs be part of the Bible.

I'm not saying it would have to be. I'm saying that it evidently was at one time. The fact that the author of one book refers the reader to another book implies that he, as a prophet or an apostle, considered it authoritative. If the compilers of "the Bible" we use today had had access to Paul's other epistles, do you think they might have recorded them? Do you really have any reason to believe that one of Paul's epistles was inspired but that another of his epistles was not? And, oddly enough, the inspired one just happened to be preserved while the uninspired one just happened to be lost?

God most likely spoke often to Adam in Garden. Should that dialogue be included as well?

Why shouldn't it be? Can you think of anything that would be much more enlightening to know? Why wouldn't you want to know what God said to Adam and Eve? I know I sure would!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While I'm fully aware that there is controversey over the last few verses in Mark, my Bible has this:

And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen.
Mark 16:20

So, then, you do believe that the original text of Mark included the description of Jesus' resurrection? Why?

I'm (basically) a Protestant, so obviously I would believe that Protestants are more correct than Catholics or Orthothoxies, making the version of the Bible used by Protestants the authoritative one. Am I making sense?

Not really; the reason you gave seems pretty circular. Why are you a Protestant?

 

[CCAPalandiriel]

The church was undivided?

The Assyrian Church split off after the second Ecumenical Council you listed, and the Coptics parted ways with the other churches over the fourth one.

Really, you're just splitting hairs here lol...my point is this! The canon was formalized over the course of the four councils, by the four councils. Thats all I'm saying.

 

[Valjean]

Really, you're just splitting hairs here lol...my point is this! The canon was formalized over the course of the four councils, by the four councils. Thats all I'm saying.

And then the Protestants came along and blithely deleted half a dozen books from the Bible......

No-ne seemed to notice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really, you're just splitting hairs here lol...

Not really. You claimed that the first four ecumenical councils were conducted by the "whole church" before it divided. Besides the fact that each ecumenical council was convened to address matters of doctrine that did divide the Church and cause schisms, there were other major divisions in Christianity that occurred during the period where you claimed that the church was still "whole".

And that doesn't address the major splits between Christian groups that occurred in the early church, centuries before even the Council of Nicea.

my point is this! The canon was formalized over the course of the four councils, by the four councils. Thats all I'm saying.

I disagree, but over the time period in question, I do acknowledge that the canon was formalized... as the 73 books of the Latin Vulgate (plus 3 apocrypha), which includes several books that were removed to form the 66-book Protestant canon (Edit: about a thousand years later).