How do you know you have the correct Canon?

[Shiranui117]

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.

The Roman Church? Maybe. But Rome=/=the Church. Rome was merely one part of the larger Church, before they split off and went their own way. When they split off from the East, they were numerically the minority among Christians.

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

Correction: How do you know you even have the right religion......

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

Considering the lack of provenance and known lack of authors. I do not consider trustworthiness the criteria. Basically the Roman Church Fathers determined the New Testament we have today.

i do not consider the books in or out of the chosen Canon separately from an objective perspective. I consider them the New Testament literature and not Canon. The same for all the books in and out of the Torah, Tanakh and what Christians call the Old Testament.

 

[Spiderman]

Correction: How do you know you even have the right religion......

I don't know.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Roman Church? Maybe. But Rome=/=the Church. Rome was merely one part of the larger Church, before they split off and went their own way. When they split off from the East, they were numerically the minority among Christians.

Rome? Rome has a long history before and after becoming Christian. I consider historically the Orthodox and Roman Churches were essentially one Roman Church in the beginning.

 

[Shiranui117]

Rome? Rome has a long history before and after becoming Christian. I consider historically the Orthodox and Roman Churches were essentially one Roman Church in the beginning.

You must have a very different definition of the word "Roman" from the early Church according to her canons and Councils, then. There was the Roman Church, the Alexandrian Church, the Constantinopolitan Church, the Caesarean/Jerusalem Church, the Antiochian Church, and so on and so forth. All of these together as one constituted the Catholic Church, but Rome never had any authority over the Eastern Churches remotely close to how the Papacy dominates in the Roman Catholic Church and her communion today. Even Catholic theologians and historians, among them Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI himself, admit this.

 

[Shiranui117]

Considering the lack of provenance and known lack of authors. I do not consider trustworthiness the criteria. Basically the Roman Church Fathers determined the New Testament we have today.

Outside of the fact that the first person to enumerate the canon as we know it today was a Pope of Alexandria, who was not part of the Church of Rome...

 

[lukethethird]

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?

We don't know and we don't care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This site should be able to answer your questions:

Canon EOS Digital SLR Cameras & PowerShot Digital Cameras | Canon Online Store

 

[shunyadragon]

Outside of the fact that the first person to enumerate the canon as we know it today was a Pope of Alexandria, who was not part of the Church of Rome...

'Outside of the fact?' The fact is the Canon was determined by the Church Fathers at the Councils under the rule of Constantine,

Which Pope of Alexandria? date?

From: Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia

The canon of the New Testament is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and constituting the New Testament of the Christian Bible. For most, it is an agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books[1] that includes the Canonical Gospels, Acts, letters of the Apostles, and Revelation. The books of the canon of the New Testament were written before 120 AD.[1]

For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692. The Catholic Church made dogmatic definition upon its Biblical canon in 382 at the Council of Rome[2] as well as at the Council of Trent of 1545, reaffirming the Canons of Florence of 1442 and North African Councils (Hippo and Carthage) of 393–419.[3][4] For the Church of England, it was made dogmatic on the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563; for Calvinism, on the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.

 

[Shiranui117]

'Outside of the fact?' The fact is the Canon was determined by the Church Fathers at the Councils under the rule of Constantine,

The Council of Nicaea and the following councils called by St. Constantine nowhere lay out a Biblical canon.

Which Pope of Alexandria? date?

Pope St. Athanasius the Great, in his Easter letter of 367 to his churches. However, this was not binding upon the whole Church, but merely his own Alexandrian Church. The heads of each respective Church, whether it be the Bishop of Rome, or of Jerusalem, or of Antioch, or of Alexandria, or of Constantinople, only had jurisdiction over their respective churches, and not over any other church.

From: Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia

The canon of the New Testament is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and constituting the New Testament of the Christian Bible. For most, it is an agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books[1] that includes the Canonical Gospels, Acts, letters of the Apostles, and Revelation. The books of the canon of the New Testament were written before 120 AD.[1]

For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692. The Catholic Church made dogmatic definition upon its Biblical canon in 382 at the Council of Rome[2] as well as at the Council of Trent of 1545, reaffirming the Canons of Florence of 1442 and North African Councils (Hippo and Carthage) of 393–419.[3][4] For the Church of England, it was made dogmatic on the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563; for Calvinism, on the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.

You overlook the fact that these local synods often had slightly varying lists of books of the Old Testament. Some, for example, include Sirach and the Epistle of Jeremiah, while others don't. The fact that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage publish their own lists of books of the Old and New Testaments which are at slight variance from the Roman canon means that the Council of Rome was not seen as dogmatically binding on the whole Church. Trullo makes no reference to this supposedly "dogmatic" definition of the Council of Rome.

From Canon II of Trullo: "But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the 318 holy God-bearing Fathers assembled at Nice, and those at Ancyra, further those at Neocæsarea and likewise those at Gangra, and besides, those at Antioch in Syria: those too at Laodicea in Phrygia: and likewise the 150 who assembled in this heaven-protected royal city: and the 200 who assembled the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and the 630 holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon. In like manner those of Sardica, and those of Carthage: those also who again assembled in this heaven-protected royal city under its bishop Nectarius and Theophilus Archbishop of Alexandria. Likewise too the Canons [i.e. the decretal letters] of Dionysius, formerly Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria; and of Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria and Martyr; of Gregory the Wonder-worker, Bishop of Neocæsarea; of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa; of Gregory Theologus; of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Theophilus, Archbishop of the same great city of Alexandria; of Cyril, Archbishop of the same Alexandria; of Gennadius, Patriarch of this heaven-protected royal city. Moreover the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the custom delivered down to them."

Now, if the Council of Rome was in fact a "dogmatic definition upon [the] Biblical canon" made by the "Catholic Church", then surely Trullo would have referenced it alongside its list of various Ecumenical and regional councils. The fact that it doesn't should tell you that Rome didn't call the shots as to what and wasn't canon for the rest of the Church.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Council of Nicaea and the following councils called by St. Constantine nowhere lay out a Biblical canon.

Pope St. Athanasius the Great, in his Easter letter of 367 to his churches. However, this was not binding upon the whole Church, but merely his own Alexandrian Church. The heads of each respective Church, whether it be the Bishop of Rome, or of Jerusalem, or of Antioch, or of Alexandria, or of Constantinople, only had jurisdiction over their respective churches, and not over any other church.



You overlook the fact that these local synods often had slightly varying lists of books of the Old Testament. Some, for example, include Sirach and the Epistle of Jeremiah, while others don't. The fact that the Councils of Hippo and Carthage publish their own lists of books of the Old and New Testaments which are at slight variance from the Roman canon means that the Council of Rome was not seen as dogmatically binding on the whole Church. Trullo makes no reference to this supposedly "dogmatic" definition of the Council of Rome.

From Canon II of Trullo: "But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the 318 holy God-bearing Fathers assembled at Nice, and those at Ancyra, further those at Neocæsarea and likewise those at Gangra, and besides, those at Antioch in Syria: those too at Laodicea in Phrygia: and likewise the 150 who assembled in this heaven-protected royal city: and the 200 who assembled the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and the 630 holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon. In like manner those of Sardica, and those of Carthage: those also who again assembled in this heaven-protected royal city under its bishop Nectarius and Theophilus Archbishop of Alexandria. Likewise too the Canons [i.e. the decretal letters] of Dionysius, formerly Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria; and of Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria and Martyr; of Gregory the Wonder-worker, Bishop of Neocæsarea; of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa; of Gregory Theologus; of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Theophilus, Archbishop of the same great city of Alexandria; of Cyril, Archbishop of the same Alexandria; of Gennadius, Patriarch of this heaven-protected royal city. Moreover the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the custom delivered down to them."

Now, if the Council of Rome was in fact a "dogmatic definition upon [the] Biblical canon" made by the "Catholic Church", then surely Trullo would have referenced it alongside its list of various Ecumenical and regional councils. The fact that it doesn't should tell you that Rome didn't call the shots as to what and wasn't canon for the rest of the Church.

Your arguing against documented history, and I provided a valid source and will provide more.

It is essentially the Roman Church, and Catholic for those that believe the church is indeed catholic.

 

[Shiranui117]

Your arguing against documented history, and I provided a valid source and will provide more.

It is essentially the Roman Church, and Catholic for those that believe the church is indeed catholic.

You're the one arguing against history. I have provided not just one primary document, but several that show the Council of Rome in 392 was not seen as binding upon the whole Church. Nowhere did the Council of Rome claim to "dogmatically define" the canon. You're speaking from a Rome-centric point of view, not from an actual historical reading of the situation. It laid out a list of books to be used, but it was not the final authority on the matter. If it were, nobody else would have made a list contrary to it later on.

In point of fact, the Synod of Hippo in 393 published their own Biblical canon which excepted Sirach, a book accepted by the Council of Rome. Synod of Hippo - Wikipedia. The Synod of Carthage in 397 did likewise. Councils of Carthage - Wikipedia

Now why, if the Council of Rome "dogmatically defined" the Biblical canon, did two North African councils within 15 years after this council publish differing canons? And why did the Council of Trullo not even so much as mention this "dogmatic definition"?

 

[onlytruth]

it was against the law to be christian until the edict of Milan, signed 313 it decriminalize Christianity and some other religions. the 325 council at Trent was about two different philosophies concerning the nature of god being decided, the trinity believers won at first, then two years later Arius came out on top. also the date of Passover was moved to its present time of celebration, in a letter that can be still read Constantine declared Passover to be the holiest day of the year but moved to a particular Sunday not determined by Jews.
the fourth century was very active in the creation of christian orthodoxy, which was determined by men not god.but men and women did claim they acted under the spirit of god even changing the ten commandments to fit the orthodoxy.

 

[onlytruth]

The Edict of Thessalonica issued on 27 February AD 380 by three reigning Roman Emperors, made Nicene Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.