the bible canon

[metis]

The canon was selected by Catholic Church bishops back in the 4th century, and the debate was unsettled to the point whereas it extended into the early 5th century with no decision on what we now call the "Apocrypha". There were some questions dealing with authorship, such as with the book of Hebrews, plus the use of the various books by local churches was not uniform.

 

[Shiranui117]

The canon was selected by Catholic Church bishops back in the 4th century, and the debate was unsettled to the point whereas it extended into the early 5th century with no decision on what we now call the "Apocrypha". There were some questions dealing with authorship, such as with the book of Hebrews, plus the use of the various books by local churches was not uniform.

Are we talking about the Deuterocanonicals, or the NT Apocrypha?

 

[jaybird]

Are we still arguing the canon and why? I can think of a half-dozen reason to accept the 66 and reject all known apocrypha.

so in other words your saying they dont name the books.
feel free to reject them, or have a council make the decision for you. dont teach others thay are false. Saint Paul commanded the Corinthians to read them, why would he do that? is Paul wrong to?

 

[metis]

Are we talking about the Deuterocanonicals, or the NT Apocrypha?

The former. Some of the latter eventually got put into Canon Law, as you're probably aware of.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Jaybird
In short, the church officially listed the cannon after the fact
criteria was the books had to be written by an apostle (like Peter Paul or John) or eyewitness closely associated with an apostle (like Luke)

Various churches unofficially had the books and recognized them in parts and the collection was officially recogniced although unofficially recognized much ealrier
The successor to the successor of John said as there were 4 corners of the earth (4 compass directions ) there are 4 gospels... and that was quite early (sorry Davinci code)

Thank you but there were numerous other criteria. We enjoy FULL confidence in the 66 today.

 

[BilliardsBall]

so in other words your saying they dont name the books.
feel free to reject them, or have a council make the decision for you. dont teach others thay are false. Saint Paul commanded the Corinthians to read them, why would he do that? is Paul wrong to?

I don't follow. Where in Corinthians does Paul say to read apocryphal accounts? I can point you to where he signs letters "in his hand" and warns people of the apocrypha out there!

 

[metis]

There were numerous letters in circulation, only some of which were selected as part of the canon. It was never assumed by the church that they had decided it all correctly, which is one reason why that canonization process continued on into the early fifth century in part to try and iron-out some of the disagreements.

IOW, it's not like the complete unabridged Bible floated down from heaven and someone just happened to catch it.

 

[jaybird]

I don't follow. Where in Corinthians does Paul say to read apocryphal accounts? I can point you to where he signs letters "in his hand" and warns people of the apocrypha out there!

Paul encourages people that when they come across something good to study it, not run from it because a council didnt declare it canon.

Colossians 4:16
After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

so where is the Epistle to the Laodiceans in the canon?

 

[BilliardsBall]

There were numerous letters in circulation, only some of which were selected as part of the canon. It was never assumed by the church that they had decided it all correctly, which is one reason why that canonization process continued on into the early fifth century in part to try and iron-out some of the disagreements.

IOW, it's not like the complete unabridged Bible floated down from heaven and someone just happened to catch it.

No, some of what you wrote is untrue. As I wrote, their are numerous reasons, then and now, to safely reject apocrypha and accept the 66. But accepting the apocrypha is merely another excuse to say God's Word is unclear. It is clear--we are all accountable to God and He has set a date to judge man.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Paul encourages people that when they come across something good to study it, not run from it because a council didnt declare it canon.

Colossians 4:16
After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

so where is the Epistle to the Laodiceans in the canon?

Can you tell us if Paul wrote that letter? Can you tell us that 4:16 says that Paul says Laodicea is canonical? Of course not.

What is true, rather, is that Paul--as does Judaism--as does the NT--encourages the reading and studying of a variety of documents. Jewish people are learned but read outside the Bible, too. What is also true is that Paul specifically warns believers about apocrypha! Apo-false or apostate Crypha-writing.

 

[jaybird]

Can you tell us if Paul wrote that letter? Can you tell us that 4:16 says that Paul says Laodicea is canonical? Of course not.

What is true, rather, is that Paul--as does Judaism--as does the NT--encourages the reading and studying of a variety of documents. Jewish people are learned but read outside the Bible, too. What is also true is that Paul specifically warns believers about apocrypha! Apo-false or apostate Crypha-writing.

the people back then didnt need a council of men to tell them if its canon.

your dodging the point. all this time ur screaming these books are false, why, cause they are not canon. here we have paul, COMMANDING people to read a book thats not of the canon. you dont command people to read false books.

 

[jaybird]

No, some of what you wrote is untrue. As I wrote, their are numerous reasons, then and now, to safely reject apocrypha and accept the 66. But accepting the apocrypha is merely another excuse to say God's Word is unclear. It is clear--we are all accountable to God and He has set a date to judge man.

rejecting any apocrypha book based on the fact its not canon is putting your faith in man made councils and not the Spirit.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

where does the tradition come from that Christians attack any writing that is not of the "official" bible books? there are many books that were removed, if you quote from one they will immediately tell you its not real scripture or its heresy. when you ask why, because a council of men say it is. almost never will you hear them say its non canon because on page 55 it says to kill your kids or sex with animals is ok.
some Christians will only use a KJV, other bible users are attacked. have the KJVers ever researched who king james was? i would not want his name on my bible.
and the traditions of Jesus in other cultures. native americans, UK/Ireland, India and others believe Jesus taught there but so many mainstreamers will attack this idea, this they do not want to hear, why? it says right there in the "official" bible He had other sheep to go to.
so many of these things make no sense to me. anyone else think on such things?

I believe that scripture even that what we have including other works have errors. All even the most exclusive writtings.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

rejecting any apocrypha book based on the fact its not canon is putting your faith in man made councils and not the Spirit.

some of the apocryphal books are ridiculous. Have you read any?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

where does the tradition come from that Christians attack any writing that is not of the "official" bible books? there are many books that were removed, if you quote from one they will immediately tell you its not real scripture or its heresy. when you ask why, because a council of men say it is. almost never will you hear them say its non canon because on page 55 it says to kill your kids or sex with animals is ok.
some Christians will only use a KJV, other bible users are attacked. have the KJVers ever researched who king james was? i would not want his name on my bible.
and the traditions of Jesus in other cultures. native americans, UK/Ireland, India and others believe Jesus taught there but so many mainstreamers will attack this idea, this they do not want to hear, why? it says right there in the "official" bible He had other sheep to go to.
so many of these things make no sense to me. anyone else think on such things?

As some one once said
"sex with animals is ok." I don't know what books you read but that is ridiculous.

 

[metis]

No, some of what you wrote is untrue. As I wrote, their are numerous reasons, then and now, to safely reject apocrypha and accept the 66. But accepting the apocrypha is merely another excuse to say God's Word is unclear. It is clear--we are all accountable to God and He has set a date to judge man.

If you actually read from some of the historical transcripts from the time the canon was selected, then you would know that what I wrote in my last post is true. There are some good books that cover this, and the best I read is by Dr. Hanson (Anglican) in his book "Tradition In the Early Church". In one of the chapters he covers why and how that process took place, and the fact that it took the church almost 100 years to make the selection should tell anyone that it was a difficult and contentious process. It's an old book, but Hanson heavily documents that process, including a great many quotes.

BTW, another excellent book is Introduction To the Bible" by Dr. William Barclay (Anglican). Unfortunately, the last time I checked it was out of publication.

Here's just a brief on this as found in Wikipedia with a link:

The process of canonization of the New Testament was complex and lengthy. In the initial centuries of early Christianity, there were many books widely considered by the church to be inspired, but there was no single formally recognized New Testament canon. The process was characterized by a compilation of books that apostolic tradition considered authoritative in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament. Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities and the Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the 1st century AD... -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

Notice even what the first line says. Also, there are about a dozen or so paragraphs that will clearly show anyone in brief how and why this process took so long and was so contentious.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

the people back then didnt need a council of men to tell them if its canon.

your dodging the point. all this time ur screaming these books are false, why, cause they are not canon. here we have paul, COMMANDING people to read a book thats not of the canon. you dont command people to read false books.

I have met people that would love to mess you in such a way.

 

[BilliardsBall]

the people back then didnt need a council of men to tell them if its canon.

your dodging the point. all this time ur screaming these books are false, why, cause they are not canon. here we have paul, COMMANDING people to read a book thats not of the canon. you dont command people to read false books.

Hyperbole is unneeded. I'm neither dodging nor screaming. Consider your assumptions:

1. The letter from Laodicea isn't already an NT book. It could have been an NT book that passed to Laodicea and then to these readers and then...

2. I'm saying "they're false because they aren't the 66". Not so, there are numerous reasons both to accept the 66 and to reject the apocrypha.

 

[BilliardsBall]

rejecting any apocrypha book based on the fact its not canon is putting your faith in man made councils and not the Spirit.

1. The Spirit happens to agree with the councils.

2. Some of the councilmen affirmed in their letters that the Spirit was surely with them; they had marvelous harmony and discussion and were so encouraged to find such great agreement among the brethren.

3. The Spirit tells us in the Word to check all pronouncements against the Word. I cannot believe in apocrypha that contradict God's Word nor should you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you actually read from some of the historical transcripts from the time the canon was selected, then you would know that what I wrote in my last post is true. There are some good books that cover this, and the best I read is by Dr. Hanson (Anglican) in his book "Tradition In the Early Church". In one of the chapters he covers why and how that process took place, and the fact that it took the church almost 100 years to make the selection should tell anyone that it was a difficult and contentious process. It's an old book, but Hanson heavily documents that process, including a great many quotes.

BTW, another excellent book is Introduction To the Bible" by Dr. William Barclay (Anglican). Unfortunately, the last time I checked it was out of publication.

Here's just a brief on this as found in Wikipedia with a link:

The process of canonization of the New Testament was complex and lengthy. In the initial centuries of early Christianity, there were many books widely considered by the church to be inspired, but there was no single formally recognized New Testament canon. The process was characterized by a compilation of books that apostolic tradition considered authoritative in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament. Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities and the Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the 1st century AD... -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

Notice even what the first line says. Also, there are about a dozen or so paragraphs that will clearly show anyone in brief how and why this process took so long and was so contentious.

I've read account that disagree with this position, and strongly.