Christians ONLY: Does the Biblical canon really matter all that much?

[Shiranui117]

A thought that popped in my head recently is that many Protestants will argue to the death that the Bible should only contain 66 books--27 books of the New Testament, and 39 of the Old Testament, and the Deuterocanonical books are illegitimate and should be banned. Catholics and Orthodox will argue against this and point to the fact that the earliest Christian compilations of the Bible had all of these Deuterocanonical books, and the first Christians considered the Deuterocanonicals authoritative as Scripture.

In the meantime, however, there are certain books that were once tentatively considered part of the New Testament (such as 1 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas) that were later rejected. But to make matters more complicated, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes the Book of Enoch in its Old Testament, as well as a bunch of other books that are only found in their OT, while their NT numbers 35 books, including works that are completely unique to their Church. Yet despite a differing Biblical canon, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was under the authority of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt until the 1900's, with the Coptic Christians (who have the standard NT and the standard Septuagint OT) accepting the Ethiopic Canon as valid for use by the Ethiopian Christians, because while the two churches may have differing Bibles, both shared the same Faith--they both agree on the nature of the Trinity, miaphysitism, the nature of the Sacraments, they share the same theology, soteriology, hamartiology, eschatology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, the same prayer life, and almost the same exact liturgical life aside from a few aesthetic cultural differences. They have all this in common, except they both have different Bibles.

Indeed, in the earliest days of Christianity, before a more-or-less standard NT was established, you had Church Fathers with differing lists of what they called NT Scripture, yet they all agreed on the same Faith. While on the other hand, Christian denominations who all agree on the Bible canon differ sharply over the Faith--whether or not Jesus is divine, whether the Trinity is a thing, whether Hell exists, and whether Jesus rose bodily from the dead are just the tip of the iceberg. Calvinists deny that we have free will and assert that God predestined us to Heaven or Hell, and we can do nothing to change that fate, while Arminians affirm our free will and reject the notion that God has already preordained where we end up. Some say the Bible supports the Rapture, others vehemently deny that.

I hope the point I wish to discuss is becoming clear. My contention is that, if Christians can have different Bible canons yet share the same Faith, and likewise have the same Bible yet disagree on the Faith, how important is the exact list of Bible books, really? And why or why not?

 

[wizanda]

how important is the exact list of Bible books, really? And why or why not?

Because depending on which texts are included, it can change your perception on a topic; like imagine if something is explained in a none included book, everyone will be guessing what that metaphor means.

 

[Sleeppy]

The Devil is in the details.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

The only thing that matters in the bible, really matters, is the 4 gospels. Because Christ is central to scripture, without knowing the gospels, one cannot know What Christ says about the kingdom. Nothing else matters but the Word of Christ. Anything added or subtracted from the 4 gospels is just a matter of perspective. It is true that OT/NT scriptures can add perspective to what Christ taught, however, they are unnecessary to understanding the core message of Christ.

 

[rusra02]

And let me include that he did so through the church that you roundly have condemned, as it was the CC that chose the canon through the inspiration of the H.S. on the church, right?

I believe the Bible canon was set long before any church council decided this. God's holy spirit and not the decisions made by uninspired men decided what to include and exclude from the Holy Scriptures, IMO. The Bible was completed by the end of the first century before the death of the last of the apostles.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There is a massive difference between ordinary worshiping Christians on how the view the Bible, and those who have taken an interest in comparative christianity. Most of them only know about the one that their particular church uses. More than likely they have never read it through. The simply accept it as authentic, and believe the interpretations that their pastors put on it.

As these interpretations and emphasis varies widely between churches, as does the make up of the Bibles used, they are all either fully Christian or they are not.
A liberal view of christianity would accept them all, while others might either accept them as Christian but hetrodox, or deny their Christianity at all.

The Anglican Church accepts a fairly wide canon, and includes the apocrypha in its lexicon of readings. It takes the view that all scripture has value in teaching. It acknowledges a wide range of interpretations as valid.
While it only acceptsTrinitarian churches into full communion with it self. And regards Unitarianism and similar churches as beyond the pale, it does accept that they might be part of God's church universal.

my own view is that we all tend to add barriers, that God would not recognise, if only to protect our own purity of belief. But that we have no authority to do so, except through our own blinkered interpretations an denials.

God has called all men to follow him, not just those who by accident of birth read particular books, or hold particular or specific beliefs.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Bishop Spong from most churches point of view is a self confessed heretic. I too tend to the heretical point of view and agree with much of what he taught. I also tend to dismiss the miraculous and fairy like aspects of christianity. And would support a more unitarian Christianity. As followed by my ancestors who were early adherents of the Non subscribing Presbyterian church in ireland...who are about as liberal as you get.

 

[Triscuit]

A thought that popped in my head recently is that many Protestants will argue to the death that the Bible should only contain 66 books--27 books of the New Testament, and 39 of the Old Testament, and the Deuterocanonical books are illegitimate and should be banned. Catholics and Orthodox will argue against this and point to the fact that the earliest Christian compilations of the Bible had all of these Deuterocanonical books, and the first Christians considered the Deuterocanonicals authoritative as Scripture.

In the meantime, however, there are certain books that were once tentatively considered part of the New Testament (such as 1 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas) that were later rejected. But to make matters more complicated, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes the Book of Enoch in its Old Testament, as well as a bunch of other books that are only found in their OT, while their NT numbers 35 books, including works that are completely unique to their Church. Yet despite a differing Biblical canon, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was under the authority of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt until the 1900's, with the Coptic Christians (who have the standard NT and the standard Septuagint OT) accepting the Ethiopic Canon as valid for use by the Ethiopian Christians, because while the two churches may have differing Bibles, both shared the same Faith--they both agree on the nature of the Trinity, miaphysitism, the nature of the Sacraments, they share the same theology, soteriology, hamartiology, eschatology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, the same prayer life, and almost the same exact liturgical life aside from a few aesthetic cultural differences. They have all this in common, except they both have different Bibles.

Indeed, in the earliest days of Christianity, before a more-or-less standard NT was established, you had Church Fathers with differing lists of what they called NT Scripture, yet they all agreed on the same Faith. While on the other hand, Christian denominations who all agree on the Bible canon differ sharply over the Faith--whether or not Jesus is divine, whether the Trinity is a thing, whether Hell exists, and whether Jesus rose bodily from the dead are just the tip of the iceberg. Calvinists deny that we have free will and assert that God predestined us to Heaven or Hell, and we can do nothing to change that fate, while Arminians affirm our free will and reject the notion that God has already preordained where we end up. Some say the Bible supports the Rapture, others vehemently deny that.

I hope the point I wish to discuss is becoming clear. My contention is that, if Christians can have different Bible canons yet share the same Faith, and likewise have the same Bible yet disagree on the Faith, how important is the exact list of Bible books, really? And why or why not?

I was taught that Constantine's adoption of Christianity as a state religion also brought about the need for a universal public liturgy. The books selected were limited to those which were unanimously accepted according to specific criteria: age, apostolic authorship, etc.

It's not like books were voted as true or false, it was just that there needed to be a core foundation that different churches could all agree upon.

No two Christians agree on everything, and each Christian's faith grows and deepens day by day. Having a canon that is agreed upon by everyone is valuable even if some choose minor alterations in their private reading.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

A thought that popped in my head recently is that many Protestants will argue to the death that the Bible should only contain 66 books--27 books of the New Testament, and 39 of the Old Testament, and the Deuterocanonical books are illegitimate and should be banned. Catholics and Orthodox will argue against this and point to the fact that the earliest Christian compilations of the Bible had all of these Deuterocanonical books, and the first Christians considered the Deuterocanonicals authoritative as Scripture.
In the meantime, however, there are certain books that were once tentatively considered part of the New Testament (such as 1 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas) that were later rejected. But to make matters more complicated, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes the Book of Enoch in its Old Testament, as well as a bunch of other books that are only found in their OT, while their NT numbers 35 books, including works that are completely unique to their Church. Yet despite a differing Biblical canon, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was under the authority of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt until the 1900's, with the Coptic Christians (who have the standard NT and the standard Septuagint OT) accepting the Ethiopic Canon as valid for use by the Ethiopian Christians, because while the two churches may have differing Bibles, both shared the same Faith--they both agree on the nature of the Trinity, miaphysitism, the nature of the Sacraments, they share the same theology, soteriology, hamartiology, eschatology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, the same prayer life, and almost the same exact liturgical life aside from a few aesthetic cultural differences. They have all this in common, except they both have different Bibles.
Indeed, in the earliest days of Christianity, before a more-or-less standard NT was established, you had Church Fathers with differing lists of what they called NT Scripture, yet they all agreed on the same Faith. While on the other hand, Christian denominations who all agree on the Bible canon differ sharply over the Faith--whether or not Jesus is divine, whether the Trinity is a thing, whether Hell exists, and whether Jesus rose bodily from the dead are just the tip of the iceberg. Calvinists deny that we have free will and assert that God predestined us to Heaven or Hell, and we can do nothing to change that fate, while Arminians affirm our free will and reject the notion that God has already preordained where we end up. Some say the Bible supports the Rapture, others vehemently deny that.
I hope the point I wish to discuss is becoming clear. My contention is that, if Christians can have different Bible canons yet share the same Faith, and likewise have the same Bible yet disagree on the Faith, how important is the exact list of Bible books, really? And why or why not?

The reason the ' 66' are accepted as biblical canon is because of the ancient manuscripts. That comprises the exact of list of Bible books.
The apocryphal books exclude themselves because they are out of harmony with the harmonious '66' books.
In other words, the '66' have parallel or corresponding cross-reference verses and passages showing the internal harmony among the Bible writers. Other books do not.
That is why we can say the ' 66' are God inspired - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

 

[Shiranui117]

The reason the ' 66' are accepted as biblical canon is because of the ancient manuscripts. That comprises the exact of list of Bible books.
The apocryphal books exclude themselves because they are out of harmony with the harmonious '66' books.
In other words, the '66' have parallel or corresponding cross-reference verses and passages showing the internal harmony among the Bible writers. Other books do not.
That is why we can say the ' 66' are God inspired - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Then why were these so-called "apocryphal" books (actually called the Deuterocanonical books) accepted universally among all Christians for 1500 years? There are actually a multitude of references to the Deuterocanonicals in the other books. This isn't a case like the Gnostic Scriptures, where only some people accepted them as Scriptures. The Greek Septuagint was the universal standard for the Old Testament accepted by every Christian church, and are included in all the ancient manuscripts you care to name. The Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus all include the Deuterocanonicals in their Old Testament canons. Dismissing these books as illegitimate is to completely ignore the sources, documents and codices from throughout early Christian history.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Then why were these so-called "apocryphal" books (actually called the Deuterocanonical books) accepted universally among all Christians for 1500 years? There are actually a multitude of references to the Deuterocanonicals in the other books. This isn't a case like the Gnostic Scriptures, where only some people accepted them as Scriptures. The Greek Septuagint was the universal standard for the Old Testament accepted by every Christian church, and are included in all the ancient manuscripts you care to name. The Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus all include the Deuterocanonicals in their Old Testament canons. Dismissing these books as illegitimate is to completely ignore the sources, documents and codices from throughout early Christian history.

Why 1,500 years is answered by gospel writer Luke at Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30.
Starting with the end of the first century, false shepherds would try to fleece the flock of God until the 'harvest time' or the soon coming ' time of separation ' on Earth.
- Matthew 25:31-33,37

The '66' are legitimate, so to speak, because they correspond with each other, whereas the others are out of harmony in some way with the ' 66' Bible books.

 

[12jtartar]

A thought that popped in my head recently is that many Protestants will argue to the death that the Bible should only contain 66 books--27 books of the New Testament, and 39 of the Old Testament, and the Deuterocanonical books are illegitimate and should be banned. Catholics and Orthodox will argue against this and point to the fact that the earliest Christian compilations of the Bible had all of these Deuterocanonical books, and the first Christians considered the Deuterocanonicals authoritative as Scripture.

In the meantime, however, there are certain books that were once tentatively considered part of the New Testament (such as 1 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas) that were later rejected. But to make matters more complicated, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes the Book of Enoch in its Old Testament, as well as a bunch of other books that are only found in their OT, while their NT numbers 35 books, including works that are completely unique to their Church. Yet despite a differing Biblical canon, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was under the authority of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt until the 1900's, with the Coptic Christians (who have the standard NT and the standard Septuagint OT) accepting the Ethiopic Canon as valid for use by the Ethiopian Christians, because while the two churches may have differing Bibles, both shared the same Faith--they both agree on the nature of the Trinity, miaphysitism, the nature of the Sacraments, they share the same theology, soteriology, hamartiology, eschatology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, the same prayer life, and almost the same exact liturgical life aside from a few aesthetic cultural differences. They have all this in common, except they both have different Bibles.

Indeed, in the earliest days of Christianity, before a more-or-less standard NT was established, you had Church Fathers with differing lists of what they called NT Scripture, yet they all agreed on the same Faith. While on the other hand, Christian denominations who all agree on the Bible canon differ sharply over the Faith--whether or not Jesus is divine, whether the Trinity is a thing, whether Hell exists, and whether Jesus rose bodily from the dead are just the tip of the iceberg. Calvinists deny that we have free will and assert that God predestined us to Heaven or Hell, and we can do nothing to change that fate, while Arminians affirm our free will and reject the notion that God has already preordained where we end up. Some say the Bible supports the Rapture, others vehemently deny that.

I hope the point I wish to discuss is becoming clear. My contention is that, if Christians can have different Bible canons yet share the same Faith, and likewise have the same Bible yet disagree on the Faith, how important is the exact list of Bible books, really? And why or why not?

Shiranui117,
It is true that there were many books that were put forth as to be included into the Bible Cannon. Even some that were included into the Cannon were rejected for a while. The Bible writers knew which were supposed to be included, and in time the right ones, only were accepted. Remember it was the Almighty God Jehovah who inspired the Holy Scriptures to be written, and He promised to keep His word pure, uncontaminated, for all generations, 2Timothy 3:16,17, Psalms 12:6,7.
When Jesus was on earth he said, in prayer; Your Word is Truth, John 17:17.
After the Apostles died, The Apostle John dying around the end of the first century, there, shortly, became the start of the dark ages, when many false religious doctrines were accepted into the Christian Congregation, and this trend has only increased down through the years, until today, almost NONE of the main beliefs of mainstream Christianity, are true.
This is the reason it is very important to make sure, by comparing different Bible translations, to make sure that what you are reading is true, because as the Bible says, there are many false teachers in the world, Matthew 7:15, 2Peter 2;1-3, Paul warned the Christians in his day, Acts 20:29,30, Paul even wrote the people would turn away from sound doctrine, and gather teachers who would tell them what they wanted to hear, 2Timothy 4:2-5. Jesus even said that people would go so far from the truth that they would kill God’s own people, thinking they had done Him a sacred service, John 16:1-4.
Today, you must search hard for the ONE true religion, because it does not look what people think True Christianity should look like, 1Corinthians 1;20-30, Ephesians 4:4-6. Agape!!!

 

[12jtartar]

The only thing that matters in the bible, really matters, is the 4 gospels. Because Christ is central to scripture, without knowing the gospels, one cannot know What Christ says about the kingdom. Nothing else matters but the Word of Christ. Anything added or subtracted from the 4 gospels is just a matter of perspective. It is true that OT/NT scriptures can add perspective to what Christ taught, however, they are unnecessary to understanding the core message of Christ.

TheInfiniteLight
The Gospels are very, very important, but the Way mentioned in the Holy Scriptures is The Christian Way, Acts 9:2, 19:9,23, 22:4,26,28.
Jesus was Born a Jew, and was under the Mosaic Law Covenant. Jesus was not a Christian, but after his death, his followers became known as Christians, Acts 11:26.
After Paul became a Christian, Jesus gave Paul all the knowledge about how he wanted the Christian Congregation to act and work, through a Revelation, Galatians 1:11,12. Paul wrote 14 of the 27 books of the New Covenant, Testament. Just consider all the things Paul wrote about, as instructions to Congregations, in 1Corinthians & 2Corinthians, then the in depth explanations in Romans and Hebrews. I believe that Paul knew far more that all the Apostles. Then consider Revelations!!! Very few understand Revelations !! That is because they do not have a good foundation on the Scriptures that you can get from the Old Testament. Many oh the things mentioned in the Old Testament were summed up in the New Testament.
I have studied the Holy Scriptures for over 50 years and I love them more NOW, because I can tell where we are in the stream of time and I look in the Bible, to understand what is going to happen in the near future. This gives me even more Faith in God, And His words. Agape!!!

 

[Shiranui117]

Shiranui117,
It is true that there were many books that were put forth as to be included into the Bible Cannon. Even some that were included into the Cannon were rejected for a while. The Bible writers knew which were supposed to be included, and in time the right ones, only were accepted. Remember it was the Almighty God Jehovah who inspired the Holy Scriptures to be written, and He promised to keep His word pure, uncontaminated, for all generations, 2Timothy 3:16,17, Psalms 12:6,7.
When Jesus was on earth he said, in prayer; Your Word is Truth, John 17:17.
After the Apostles died, The Apostle John dying around the end of the first century, there, shortly, became the start of the dark ages, when many false religious doctrines were accepted into the Christian Congregation, and this trend has only increased down through the years, until today, almost NONE of the main beliefs of mainstream Christianity, are true.
This is the reason it is very important to make sure, by comparing different Bible translations, to make sure that what you are reading is true, because as the Bible says, there are many false teachers in the world, Matthew 7:15, 2Peter 2;1-3, Paul warned the Christians in his day, Acts 20:29,30, Paul even wrote the people would turn away from sound doctrine, and gather teachers who would tell them what they wanted to hear, 2Timothy 4:2-5. Jesus even said that people would go so far from the truth that they would kill God’s own people, thinking they had done Him a sacred service, John 16:1-4.
Today, you must search hard for the ONE true religion, because it does not look what people think True Christianity should look like, 1Corinthians 1;20-30, Ephesians 4:4-6. Agape!!!

This doesn't really address my OP, so allow me to rephrase:

If Christians with different Biblical canons can share the exact same faith, and if Christians with the exact same Biblical canon can have wildly differing beliefs, how important is it for us all to have just one standardized set of books in the Bible, really? Are there other factors more important to Christianity than the Biblical canon?