How do you know you have the correct Canon?

[Spiderman]

The turn of the fourth century, the Catholic Church settled disputes about what should be in the Bible.

Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains.

Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo , the Council of Carthage, a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse , and the Second Council of Carthage.

In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on,in practice, Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.

Why did God not leave a table of contents so people would know what is and is not scripture?

The original Christian Bible contained the deuterocanonicals. The very people who chose what would be your new testament Canon, made a mistake, according to the majority of Christians.

If they made a mistake on the Old Testament Canon, how do you know you have the correct New Testament Canon?

 

[Spiderman]

New Testament authors quoted the Septuagint which contained the deuterocanonicals.

 

[Shiranui117]

The turn of the fourth century, the Catholic Church settled disputes about what should be in the Bible.

Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains.

Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo , the Council of Carthage, a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse , and the Second Council of Carthage.

In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on,in practice, Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.

Why did God not leave a table of contents so people would know what is and is not scripture?

The original Christian Bible contained the deuterocanonicals. The very people who chose what would be your new testament Canon, made a mistake, according to the majority of Christians.

If they made a mistake on the Old Testament Canon, how do you know you have the correct New Testament Canon?

No, the Biblical canon was not decided in the fourth century at any kind of universal level. The Romans didn't decide on a Biblical canon until the Council of Trent. Early editions of the Bible published by Protestants still contained the Deuterocanonicals, and we're talking close to a century after the Reformation started. The Book of Revelation wasn't fully accepted into Eastern Christian canons until the 500's, after our lectionaries for the liturgical year had already been made. Eastern Orthodox have slightly varying Old Testament canons, mainly differing on things like Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees or 3 Ezra. The Ethiopian Orthodox have a New Testament with 35 books and by far the largest Old Testament of any Christian church in the world, with books like Enoch and a whole bunch of stuff I've never heard of (sadly most of it's not been translated into English yet). The Coptic Orthodox, who the Ethiopians are in communion with, have a much smaller Old Testament that is basically the same as the Eastern Orthodox, and IIRC their NT is only 30 or 31 books. Biblical manuscripts from the 300's like Codex Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus have New Testaments with more than 27 books as well, containing things like the Epistle of Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas, and also the Shepherd of Hermas if I have my head on straight.

EDIT: Oh, and one more thing. The deuterocanonicals are part of the Bible for approximately 2/3 to 3/4 of all Christians (Catholics, Orthodox and Assyrians). For 1600 years, the deuterocanonicals were part of the Bible for ALL Christians. Only Protestants of the past 400 years would disagree.

 

[shunyadragon]

The turn of the fourth century, the Catholic Church settled disputes about what should be in the Bible.

Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains.

Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo , the Council of Carthage, a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse , and the Second Council of Carthage.

In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on,in practice, Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.

Why did God not leave a table of contents so people would know what is and is not scripture?

The original Christian Bible contained the deuterocanonicals. The very people who chose what would be your new testament Canon, made a mistake, according to the majority of Christians.

If they made a mistake on the Old Testament Canon, how do you know you have the correct New Testament Canon?

There is no coherent provenance as to what the true Canon is, and the actual authorship of the gospels is unknown.

Nor is there any coherent provenance as to the origins and authorship of the Torah.

 

[InChrist]

I still see the same overall theme: the fall of humans into sin, separation from God, the need of and promise of a Savior, and the good news of Jesus Christ born in Bethlehem, dying on the cross and rising again in victory over sin to offer salvation, new, and eternal life to humanity, whether reading the NKJV or my old Catholic Bible.

 

[shunyadragon]

I still see the same overall theme: the fall of humans into sin, separation from God, the need of and promise of a Savior, and the good news of Jesus Christ born in Bethlehem, dying on the cross and rising again in victory over sin to offer salvation, new, and eternal life to humanity, whether reading the NKJV or my old Catholic Bible.

This 'overall theme is established quite late by the Roman Church.

 

[leroy]

In Mexico we have an expression that says ",you are making a storm out of a glass of water" which means that your are making a big deal out of something small.

The typical arguments for the existance of God and for Christianity don't really on the assumption that the Bible is the word of God. , So even if the current Canon is wrong, nothing relevant will change.

As for the question 'how do I know that we have the correct cannon,?" the answer is because the Canon Was determined by scholars that honestly and sincerly tried to select the correct books......they might be wrong, and I am open to that possibility, but untill proven otherwise I think we should accept the current cannon.

 

[74x12]

The turn of the fourth century, the Catholic Church settled disputes about what should be in the Bible.

Up until this time, there was disagreement over the canon, and some ten different canonical lists existed, none of which corresponded exactly to what the Bible now contains.

Around this time there were no less than five instances when the canon was formally identified: the Synod of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo , the Council of Carthage, a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse , and the Second Council of Carthage.

In every instance, the canon was identical to what Catholic Bibles contain today. In other words, from the end of the fourth century on,in practice, Christians accepted the Catholic Church's decision in this matter.

Why did God not leave a table of contents so people would know what is and is not scripture?

The original Christian Bible contained the deuterocanonicals. The very people who chose what would be your new testament Canon, made a mistake, according to the majority of Christians.

If they made a mistake on the Old Testament Canon, how do you know you have the correct New Testament Canon?

The books in the current Bible were the most trustworthy and established books. The ones that had shade or suspicion were removed for that reason.

Therefore you may argue that some of these books taken out are wrongly excluded. So, which books do you think should be added back into the canon and why do you believe this?

 

[Spiderman]

No, the Biblical canon was not decided in the fourth century at any kind of universal level. The Romans didn't decide on a Biblical canon until the Council of Trent. Early editions of the Bible published by Protestants still contained the Deuterocanonicals, and we're talking close to a century after the Reformation started. The Book of Revelation wasn't fully accepted into Eastern Christian canons until the 500's, after our lectionaries for the liturgical year had already been made. Eastern Orthodox have slightly varying Old Testament canons, mainly differing on things like Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees or 3 Ezra. The Ethiopian Orthodox have a New Testament with 35 books and by far the largest Old Testament of any Christian church in the world, with books like Enoch and a whole bunch of stuff I've never heard of (sadly most of it's not been translated into English yet). The Coptic Orthodox, who the Ethiopians are in communion with, have a much smaller Old Testament that is basically the same as the Eastern Orthodox, and IIRC their NT is only 30 or 31 books. Biblical manuscripts from the 300's like Codex Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus have New Testaments with more than 27 books as well, containing things like the Epistle of Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas, and also the Shepherd of Hermas if I have my head on straight.

EDIT: Oh, and one more thing. The deuterocanonicals are part of the Bible for approximately 2/3 to 3/4 of all Christians (Catholics, Orthodox and Assyrians). For 1600 years, the deuterocanonicals were part of the Bible for ALL Christians. Only Protestants of the past 400 years would disagree.

Not true. The Church had decided upon the Canon and created the first Christian Bible long before the council of Trent. The Council of Trent just reaffirmed what previous councils decided because the Canon was once again under attack.

 

[Spiderman]

The books in the current Bible were the most trustworthy and established books. The ones that had shade or suspicion were removed for that reason.

Therefore you may argue that some of these books taken out are wrongly excluded. So, which books do you think should be added back into the canon and why do you believe this?

I like the books of Judith and Sirach. Do you know why they were removed?...

For many centuries Christians had them in their Bible and who gave the reformers the right to remove them in the 16th century?

 

[74x12]

I like the books of Judith and Sirach. Do you know why they were removed?...

For many centuries Christians had them in their Bible and who gave the reformers the right to remove them in the 16th century?

I personally like those books also. I just don't believe they're canon. I think Judith doesn't line up with what we know of history (maybe I'm wrong and I'm open to the idea) but it's a cool story in any case. As for Sirach, it has a lot of good wisdom but doesn't line up completely with other scriptures. However all this is my personal opinion after reading those books.

I don't know the exact reason reformers removed them in the 16th century but I think it had to do with the fact that these books are not in the Jewish Tanakh. Basically, reformers removed all old Testament books that were not in the Jewish Tanakh.

 

[Shiranui117]

Not true. The Church had decided upon the Canon and created the first Christian Bible long before the council of Trent. The Council of Trent just reaffirmed what previous councils decided because the Canon was once again under attack.

Please show me one council binding upon the whole Church that ever published a canonical list of books of the Bible prior to the Council of Trent. And I don't mean local councils that only constituted a decision made by a few dioceses or even one regional church.

 

[Shiranui117]

I personally like those books also. I just don't believe they're canon. I think Judith doesn't line up with what we know of history (maybe I'm wrong and I'm open to the idea) but it's a cool story in any case. As for Sirach, it has a lot of good wisdom but doesn't line up completely with other scriptures. However all this is my personal opinion after reading those books.

I don't know the exact reason reformers removed them in the 16th century but I think it had to do with the fact that these books are not in the Jewish Tanakh. Basically, reformers removed all old Testament books that were not in the Jewish Tanakh.

I can guarantee you that Calvin had Sirach taken out because it absolutely obliterates his doctrine of double predestination.

From Sirach 15:
Do not say, “It was the Lord’s doing that I fell away”;
for he does not do what he hates.
12 Do not say, “It was he who led me astray”;
for he has no need of the sinful.
13 The Lord hates all abominations;
such things are not loved by those who fear him.
14 It was he who created humankind in the beginning,
and he left them in the power of their own free choice.
15 If you choose, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
16 He has placed before you fire and water;
stretch out your hand for whichever you choose.
17 Before each person are life and death,
and whichever one chooses will be given.
18 For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything;
19 his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every human action.
20 He has not commanded anyone to be wicked,
and he has not given anyone permission to sin.

 

[74x12]

I can guarantee you that Calvin had Sirach taken out because it absolutely obliterates his doctrine of double predestination.

From Sirach 15:
Do not say, “It was the Lord’s doing that I fell away”;
for he does not do what he hates.
12 Do not say, “It was he who led me astray”;
for he has no need of the sinful.
13 The Lord hates all abominations;
such things are not loved by those who fear him.
14 It was he who created humankind in the beginning,
and he left them in the power of their own free choice.
15 If you choose, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
16 He has placed before you fire and water;
stretch out your hand for whichever you choose.
17 Before each person are life and death,
and whichever one chooses will be given.
18 For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything;
19 his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every human action.
20 He has not commanded anyone to be wicked,
and he has not given anyone permission to sin.

Interesting. So what did Calvin say about James 1:13-14?

 

[Spiderman]

Please show me one council binding upon the whole Church that ever published a canonical list of books of the Bible prior to the Council of Trent. And I don't mean local councils that only constituted a decision made by a few dioceses or even one regional church.

The church didn't have to make it binding because no significant group was disputing it. When there is a big split and Division in the church, it is then that a council makes a binding statement.

The bottom line is, the church had a Bible starting in the 4th century and preserved that Bible and reprinted it Century after Century after Century before the Protestant Reformation was invented.

what was wrong with the book of Judith or Sirach?. Those books were awesome ( in my opinion.)

 

[InChrist]

I like the books of Judith and Sirach. Do you know why they were removed?...

For many centuries Christians had them in their Bible and who gave the reformers the right to remove them in the 16th century?

They were removed because it was considered that they were not inspired because there were some historical inaccuracies and contradictions with other books. But even if the books of the Apocrypha were not removed this would not have changed the main theme of the Bible, which is humanity's need for a Savior and God's provision in Jesus Christ.

"Though a noble story in many regards, concerns are often expressed due to certain statements. For example, Nebuchadnezzar was said to have ruled over Assyria from Nineveh (he was actually King of Babylon). The time of the story's events also took place when Nineveh would have already been destroyed. As a result, some suggest the account is fictional, while others accept the basic story while disputing certain historical weaknesses. "
The Book of Judith – What is it?

 

[Spiderman]

The first Bible ever printed was the Gutenberg Bible, it contains the Apocrypha.

 

[Shiranui117]

The church didn't have to make it binding because no significant group was disputing it. When there is a big split and Division in the church, it is then that a council makes a binding statement.

The bottom line is, the church had a Bible starting in the 4th century and preserved that Bible and reprinted it Century after Century after Century before the Protestant Reformation was invented.

Which one, the Coptic Bible that had two Epistles of Clement? Or the Pe****ta, which only had a 22-book New Testament? Or the 34-book Biblical canon as listed in the Apostolic Constitutions Or the Armenian canon which recognizes a third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians? Or the Byzantine canon which refused to include the Book of Revelations until the 500's? Or the Ethiopian canon which has 35 books in its New Testament down to this very day?

what was wrong with the book of Judith or Sirach?. Those books were awesome ( in my opinion.)

Nothing. A few Protestant reformers decided they didn't like them and wanted them thrown out.

 

[Shiranui117]

Interesting. So what did Calvin say about James 1:13-14?

He gives an extremely convoluted response that doesn't adequately address the challenge that the verses you mentioned make to his doctrine. He says that God isn't the author of our sins or blindness or hardness of heart, but in the same breath he writes in his Institutes of Christian Religion that God creates the reprobate for the sole purpose of torturing them in Hell forever, and creates them for that purpose--He creates the reprobate to be reprobate, and no amount of wriggling gets him out of the conundrum that he makes God the fashioner of us in our wickedness and makes all of our actions nothing other than the result of His divine decree.

Basically, Calvin sounds like this when trying to ascribe fault to humanity and get around God being the only real chooser of our actions while still somehow remaining a just and blameless judge:

 

[Spiderman]

Which one, the Coptic Bible that had two Epistles of Clement? Or the Pe****ta, which only had a 22-book New Testament? Or the 34-book Biblical canon as listed in the Apostolic Constitutions Or the Armenian canon which recognizes a third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians? Or the Byzantine canon which refused to include the Book of Revelations until the 500's? Or the Ethiopian canon which has 35 books in its New Testament down to this very day?

Nothing. A few Protestant reformers decided they didn't like them and wanted them thrown out.

The Catholic Church stuck with 73 books.

During the Protestant Reformation, which was by a Catholic priest, the church did an infallible declaration to reaffirm what was under attack. there was a lot of dispute over the Canon, so the church made an infallible declaration that was binding.

the church did not change anything from the Bible it had accepted since the 4th century.