Christians: How do you know which books of the bible are "inspired?"

[Hockeycowboy]

Protestants use a 66 book bible. Catholics use a 73 book bible. Other churches accept even more books as being inspired by God. For instance, the Ethiopian Christian Church uses a bible comprised of 84 books. Yet, the differences do not end here. Martin Luther succeeded in removing seven books from the original 73-book Catholic bible, and also wanted to remove the book of James and the book of Revelation, among others. So, how do you decide which Christians are correct, and which are not correct? And what makes you so certain that *you* are correct in identifying the word of God, if all of these church "fathers" disagreed with each other?

Jesus said, " By their fruits you will recognize them."

(Never once did Jesus say, "my genuine followers will teach this and this." But he said, "You are my friends, if you do what I tell you." -- John 15:14. See John 15:10-12,17; Matthew 28:19-20)

So, what should one do? Keep looking for a group that does what's commanded.

Interesting, that Martin Luther wasn't able to remove James and Revelation....maybe God didn't want that?

 

[nPeace]

And I basically agree with this statement. My only question to you would be this: Should God decide not to "leave them," exactly what do you think He'd do to get rid of them?

Appreciate your asking.
Based on how we have seen God operate, from scripture, we see that he does not remove everything that is not good, otherwise none of us would be here.
There is a reason of course.

So for me to say what exactly he would do, I can only guess, and give possibilities / probabilities. However, as God, he has many ways of doing what he wants.

To answer your question, I think we would appropriately have to look at scripture.

1)
King Saul was chosen by God, to rule God's people.
He started out humble, but then became proud, and God rejected him.
Even though God rejected him, he held his position for a considerable time.
Until he finally met his end - removed.
All the while David, whom God chose to replace Saul, waited patiently for Saul's removal, all the while respecting God's decision, and waiting on him to act.

2)
God used priest to carry out services in his temple, but in time they became very corrupt. This went on for a long time, but a point came where God said
(Jeremiah 23:1-3) . . .“Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” . . .
2 ...“You have scattered my sheep; you kept dispersing them, and you have not turned your attention to them.”
“So I will turn my attention to you because of your evil deeds,” declares Jehovah.
3 “Then I will gather together the remnant of my sheep from all the lands to which I have dispersed them, and I will bring them back to their pasture, and they will be fruitful and become many. 4 And I will raise up over them shepherds who will really shepherd them. They will no longer be afraid or be terrified, and none will be missing,” declares Jehovah.

From this, I think we can learn a lesson in how God works.
He aways has an appointed time to act (We see that throughout scripture),
I think for one obvious reason as we see from scripture - (1) his patience allows persons time to learn, develop godly qualifies, and obey. (2) time may be required for developments he put in place progress. Contrary to what many believe, God is no magician, that he just thinks an everything happen in an instant. From his perspective it can be instantaneous, but from our perspective, it takes time. (3) he knows the right time to act.

So, while God allows what is bad to remain, it is not absolutely outside the realm of his will.
If people wait patiently for God to reveal more evidence to them to verify what really is true, that reveals their heart condition... They made their choice.

In the meantime, get more answers, they develop more faith, and they benefit from obeying.

If people get fed up with the situation, and turn on God, by rejecting what I think - and everyone has the right to disagree with me, of course - , can be clearly seen as as a book of truths and guidance in righteousness... that reveals their heart condition. They made their choice.

Developments may already be taking shape, but we can't see those developments. We will only see them when they actually climax.


I hope you were able to follow, and I didn't lose you.
Look at it from this angle. What if God has developments are already running their course that would result in what you are asking? Or, what if those developments have already climaxed, but we are still looking for what we think should be, and it will never happen, because what should happen - according to God, not us - has already happened?

Imo, the solution is simple.
Either we believe the Bible is God's word, or we don't.
If we do, then stick with what we know works, which the discrepancies do not disrupt.
If we don't, then why worry. We can simply do like the Atheist and unbelievers.
We make a choice.

At the end of the day, one way or other we will get to know... or die and never know.
That's my opinion on it.
I hope I answered the question to a fair degree,

 

[Ellen Brown]

I don't think anyone will jump on you for your opinion.
I talk with all persons. When I talk with them, I expect that they have their own beliefs. My aim is not to make them believe what they don't want to.

However, sometimes during a conversation, I may say something, and they may ask a question, and I will answer. Eventually we learn each person's belief.

If we had a good conversation - which more often is the case, we might have more after that.
Even if we disagree, we may still talk, only it may not be on particular topics... depending.

Either way, no one should feel they have to do anything.
If one feels a religion is dangerous, then I say, stay away.
Even if they hold a gun to your head.

So what are you basically saying, that you don't talk to JWs?
We highly respect your decision.

Shalom

Look, I'm sorry. I just got something really hurtful done to me by the Mormon Church, showing to me that they feel entitled to defy the Bible. They name Jesus as the Christ, so I guess they have to be Christians. I'm just not ready to give myself over to anything right now and may never be.

I'd love to talk, but I am not your next convert.

 

[Glaurung]

So, why do you reject the 84-book bible used by Ethiopian Christians then?

You misunderstand. I don't "reject" the Ethiopian canon, I'm simply not a heir to that tradition. I'm a Catholic of the Roman Rite and in my tradition the canon consists of seventy-three books. Christianity is not one single tradition, even in Catholicism there are multiple rites all with their own traditions. For example, I'm pretty sure Eastern Catholics follow a slightly different rendering of Scripture than that of their western counterparts, yet that in no way detracts from our common faith.

Why do you reject other gospels not included in the bible like the Gospel of Thomas? Do you realize that the bible was decided by a vote in the fourth century AD and that different church fathers disagreed on what books to include?

Because I have no authority whatsoever to decide on such questions. No individual does. It is the Church alone that possesses the authority to interpret scripture (including what is and is not scripture) in light of sacred tradition. I'm not a Protestant, I don't assume the Bible came down from heaven. In the Catholic view, it was the Church which progressively recognized certain writings as divinely inspired, not any individual person. (Although some certainly gave their opinions). No single church father in and of himself is authoritative, it is the judgement of the Church that is.

The Church, and her authority preceded Scripture, not the other way around. What is scripture is scripture because the Church said it is scripture. (With some variation as per the rite). Sola scriptura is an ahistorical error of a sixteenth century schism. The men who led it had no authority but what they imagined themselves to have.

 

[nPeace]

Look, I'm sorry. I just got something really hurtful done to me by the Mormon Church, showing to me that they feel entitled to defy the Bible. They name Jesus as the Christ, so I guess they have to be Christians. I'm just not ready to give myself over to anything right now and may never be.

I'd love to talk, but I am not your next convert.

No need to apologize. I understand, believe me.
Who is the one thinking about converting? Hmmmmm... That would be... you. See

I am not your next convert

Be assured. I am not here to convert you, and I am sure I can speak for every Jehovah's Witness on these forums, that none of them are here to convert you either. I promise you that.

We can talk.

I sent you the links, but I will still put together some information for you on the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, but I believe that will be Monday. I likely won't be on tomorrow.

Take it easy.
Shalom

 

[WalterTrull]

In theoty, yes; but also, in theory, no.

Yes and no, how true. Would be comforting to get past it. Not sure working on it is the answer though, maybe. Don't think the lilies "try" to bloom.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Jesus said, " By their fruits you will recognize them."

(Never once did Jesus say, "my genuine followers will teach this and this." But he said, "You are my friends, if you do what I tell you." -- John 15:14. See John 15:10-12,17; Matthew 28:19-20)

So, what should one do? Keep looking for a group that does what's commanded.

Interesting, that Martin Luther wasn't able to remove James and Revelation....maybe God didn't want that?

But the definition of the bible is arbitrary. Catholics accept the original canon which was 73 books. Other Christians accept an 84 book canon. You seem to believe that Luther was wrong in wanting to remove those additional books, yet I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe Luther was a Christian. If Luther was a Christian and could be wrong about identify which books should and shouldn't be included in the Bible, couldn't you, or any other Christian, also be wrong? My point is that in the end, defining the books of the bible is arbitrary.

 

[Audie]

Jesus said, " By their fruits you will recognize them."

(Never once did Jesus say, "my genuine followers will teach this and this." But he said, "You are my friends, if you do what I tell you." -- John 15:14. See John 15:10-12,17; Matthew 28:19-20)

So, what should one do? Keep looking for a group that does what's commanded.

Interesting, that Martin Luther wasn't able to remove James and Revelation....maybe God didn't want that?

Fundy fruit aint my cup of tea.

 

[Ingledsva]

Your doubts aren't confirmed by the father's of the faith. But you are welcomed to have an opinion.

Facts are facts.

We know they were written after Jesus's death. We do not know if any of the words attributed to him - were actually said by him. Or if he said something close, - did these later people get the meaning wrong because they didn't have the context?

*

 

[Ellen Brown]

The likely fictionalization of the NT is one of the reasons that the OT and the four gospels are weighted, for me, more than the rest of the NT, except for the Book of Revelation, which seems to draw heavily on the OT. Wiki says that Paul died around AD 65, and John died around 100 AD.

From the OT It seems that God's requirements in the latter part of it are relatively modest. Micah 6:8 8He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Jesus said to Love God and Love one another. Mark 12:30-31

I'm not sure why we sort of ignore the first part of the OT, where the Jews say they are over 600 rules?

Of course 2 Cor. 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. Perhaps this sort of thinking on his part is what ended the old Jewish law for Christians?

Some days, studying the Bible seems simple and others it all seems inscrutable.

 

[Kenny]

Facts are facts.

We know they were written after Jesus's death. We do not know if any of the words attributed to him - were actually said by him. Or if he said something close, - did these later people get the meaning wrong because they didn't have the context?

*

EXACTLY! Facts are facts.

When 3 people stand before a court of law says that "so and so" said something... it is accepted that that person did.

But again, you are welcome to have your viewpoint.

 

[Kenny]

But the definition of the bible is arbitrary. Catholics accept the original canon which was 73 books. Other Christians accept an 84 book canon. You seem to believe that Luther was wrong in wanting to remove those additional books, yet I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe Luther was a Christian. If Luther was a Christian and could be wrong about identify which books should and shouldn't be included in the Bible, couldn't you, or any other Christian, also be wrong? My point is that in the end, defining the books of the bible is arbitrary.

Mainly because he was just coming out of a Catholic mindset. His viewpoints were still being formed and not necessarily correct in all points. Just because one is a "Christian" doesn't mean they have all their ducks in order. Thus, as mentioned before, the 66 books were determined in the time of Jerome as noted before with all cited information... way before Luther.

But if you want the Ethiopian Canon... all the power to you

 

[Ellen Brown]

Mainly because he was just coming out of a Catholic mindset. His viewpoints were still being formed and not necessarily correct in all points. Just because one is a "Christian" doesn't mean they have all their ducks in order. Thus, as mentioned before, the 66 books were determined in the time of Jerome as noted before with all cited information... way before Luther.

But if you want the Ethiopian Canon... all the power to you

I read the 66 book version of the KJV because that is what is easily available. I have also read other books associated with the Bible. Actually, I believe that the most valuable things in any "Bible" can easily be printed on a single typewritten page that is double spaced in font size 12, English. We scrupulously ignore the obvious in favor of obscure, and ridiculous ideas.

 

[Kenny]

I read the 66 book version of the KJV because that is what is easily available. I have also read other books associated with the Bible. Actually, I believe that the most valuable things in any "Bible" can easily be printed on a single typewritten page that is double spaced in font size 12, English. We scrupulously ignore the obvious in favor of obscure, and ridiculous ideas.

Can't argue with that!

 

[sojourner]

Protestants use a 66 book bible. Catholics use a 73 book bible. Other churches accept even more books as being inspired by God. For instance, the Ethiopian Christian Church uses a bible comprised of 84 books. Yet, the differences do not end here. Martin Luther succeeded in removing seven books from the original 73-book Catholic bible, and also wanted to remove the book of James and the book of Revelation, among others. So, how do you decide which Christians are correct, and which are not correct? And what makes you so certain that *you* are correct in identifying the word of God, if all of these church "fathers" disagreed with each other?

It’s really not a matter of “correct” or “incorrect,” as you state it here. The canon is generally misapprehended. It was originally intended to be only a “baseline standard.” When the canon was closed, it was not intended to completely exclude other texts; it was merely intended to say, “this is the stuff you can read in church.”
It was not intended to be exclusionary, or to infer that other texts weren’t “real,” or “useful,” or “inspired.”

A great case in point is Thomas. Thomas wasn’t discovered until long after the canon was closed, yet it’s considered to be authentic, helpful in determining authenticity of Jesus quotations, and edifying in its own right. It is “scripture” and is felt by many to be inspired. But it’s extra-canonical.

 

[sojourner]

Written by those who are recognized as prophets or apostles

The only apostle to have written anything is Paul. Thomas supposedly may have written — or caused to have written Thomas, and it’s not part of the canon.

Prophetic books that say "Thus says God" and it actually comes to pass

The job of prophecy is not to predict future events ala Jeanne Dixon, but rather to speak God’s truth.

 

[sojourner]

To check which books are divinely inspired, the above resources focused on the following points:
1) Historical accuracy

There’s historical inaccuracy in most of the histories.

3) Consistency in doctrine (esp atonement with blood, salvation through grace)

Substitutionary atonement is not the only, best, or even primary salvation construct. I don’t know where you dreamed this criterion up, but it’s certainly not historic.

 

[sojourner]

Basically you need a personal relationship with God and especially you need to be full of the holy Spirit then you will know what is from God because as the scriptures assure us over and over God will teach us.

I call mawkish BS.

 

[sojourner]

Excellent question. I'm pretty sure I don't have the answer. One thing I do know, though, is that people seem to be able to deal with the differences between the various Christian denominations's Bibles a whole lot more rationally than they do with additional Christian scripture compiled in a book with an entirely different title.

Respectfully — and you know I do respect you — for most scholars, it’s because there’s no anthropological or historical context for the sources of BoM material, and there’s no historical or theological continuity between the BoM texts and biblical texts. The material simply can’t be authenticated. Further, it doesn’t conform to literary forms consistent with other texts of the same alleged age. Were those problems to be solved, the BoM would be given more serious consideration.

Not saying they’re not real, or authentic, or inspired; just pointing out the scholastic difficulties.

I’d be interested in taking a closer look, if I could lay my hands on a copy.

 

[sojourner]

How people can pretend that "the Bible" as we know it today (and I'm not even talking about the hundreds of different translations, but the books that constitute the canon) was somehow signed, sealed and delivered to us exactly as God wanted it to be is beyond me.

Easy: they weren’t. This was a venture undertaken completely in a church committee. ‘Nuff said.