• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Cannonization of the Bible

Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
RedDragon94 said:
Riders said:
So why were the books that were Cannonized Cannonized?
Click to expand...
They (Council of Nicaea) chose them based off of authorship (who they thought wrote it) and doctrinal content. ...
Click to expand...
It's more than a little disconcerting to see ignorant assertions repeatedly offered with such nonchalant authority. As has been noted more than once in these forums ...

There is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council. The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.

In 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople, but little else is known (in fact, it is not even certain whether his request was for fifty copies of the entire Old and New Testaments, only the New Testament, or merely the Gospels), but some scholars believe that this request provided motivation for canon lists. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures", which some have suggested means the Nicene Council did discuss what documents would number among the sacred scriptures, but more likely simply means the Council used Judith in its deliberations on other matters and so it should be considered canonical.

The main source of the idea that the Bible was created at the Council of Nicea seems to be Voltaire, who popularised a story that the canon was determined by placing all the competing books on an altar during the Council and then keeping the ones that didn't fall off. The original source of this "fictitious anecdote" is the Synodicon Vetus, a pseudo-historical account of early Church councils from AD 887:

The canonical and apocryphal books it distinguished in the following manner: in the house of God the books were placed down by the holy altar; then the council asked the Lord in prayer that the inspired works be found on top and--as in fact happened--the spurious on the bottom. (Synodicon Vetus, 35)​

- source
Click to expand...

It is not helpful to not know what you don't know.
 
buddhist

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Reggie Miller said:
How I know is previously stated above.

The canon currently accepted by most Protestant churches is the true one. I have yet to read the extra books included in the Catholic Bible but they make no difference to the Bible's message.
Click to expand...
There are more than just the Roman Catholic books; there are additional Orthodox books, yet even more Ethiopian Orthodox books; Gnostic Christians have less than the Protestant Christians, and the Gnostics also add others. Various groups of Messianics uphold other books as well. Etc. There are more "Bibles" than just two.
 
Reggie Miller

Reggie Miller

Well-Known Member
buddhist said:
There are more than just the Roman Catholic books; there are additional Orthodox books, yet even more Ethiopian Orthodox books; Gnostic Christians have less than the Protestant Christians, and the Gnostics also add others. Various groups of Messianics uphold other books as well. Etc. There are more "Bibles" than just two.
Click to expand...

So? The one I know to be true is the one I mentioned.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Reggie Miller said:
Men filled with the Holy Spirit decided the issue long ago. The Spirit is truth. The gnostic "gospels" are lies. End of story.
Click to expand...
So how can you tell if a person is filled with the holy spirit? The way they act?

Plus how come no names are ever mentioned?

Something that people find importaint, one would think those men would be remembered.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Reggie Miller said:
What do you believe, exactly?
Click to expand...
My signature statement at the bottom of my posts will give you my general overview of the broader picture.

In regards to Jesus, I do believe he was likely a well-intended man who felt that changes should be made whereas there should be a stronger emphasis on compassion and justice (fairness), which is pretty much where I'm coming from. I do not believe, but neither do I disbelieve, in many of the other attributes attributed to him.

It is largely impossible to verify or deny what happened in this general arena 2000 years ago, so almost any believe one way or another is largely based on blind faith. However, I have no problem with one saying "I believe...", but I really do have a problem when one says things as facts but in reality are just beliefs. And I have even a greater problem when some bad-mouth other faiths or non-faith.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Reggie Miller said:
How I know is previously stated above.

The canon currently accepted by most Protestant churches is the true one. I have yet to read the extra books included in the Catholic Bible but they make no difference to the Bible's message.
Click to expand...
There is only one basic concept found in the Apocrypha that's not found in the other books in the N.T. and that is the idea of praying for the dead. But the early church did believe as such, and my guess is that probably most Christians today do as such. It would be nice to see a survey on that.
 
Reggie Miller

Reggie Miller

Well-Known Member
Nowhere Man said:
So how can you tell if a person is filled with the holy spirit? The way they act?

Plus how come no names are ever mentioned?

Something that people find importaint, one would think those men would be remembered.
Click to expand...

It helps if one has the gift of the Holy Spirit.
 
Reggie Miller

Reggie Miller

Well-Known Member
metis said:
My signature statement at the bottom of my posts will give you my general overview of the broader picture.

In regards to Jesus, I do believe he was likely a well-intended man who felt that changes should be made whereas there should be a stronger emphasis on compassion and justice (fairness), which is pretty much where I'm coming from. I do not believe, but neither do I disbelieve, in many of the other attributes attributed to him.

It is largely impossible to verify or deny what happened in this general arena 2000 years ago, so almost any believe one way or another is largely based on blind faith. However, I have no problem with one saying "I believe...", but I really do have a problem when one says things as facts but in reality are just beliefs. And I have even a greater problem when some bad-mouth other faiths or non-faith.
Click to expand...

One thing you can look into on your own is whether or not the resurrection actually happened. The research is well worth the result.
 
Reggie Miller

Reggie Miller

Well-Known Member
metis said:
There is only one basic concept found in the Apocrypha that's not found in the other books in the N.T. and that is the idea of praying for the dead. But the early church did believe as such, and my guess is that probably most Christians today do as such. It would be nice to see a survey on that.
Click to expand...

No offense to you, but I don't need to see any survey.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Reggie Miller said:
I'm sorry for you. I'll pray for you.
Click to expand...
You don't at all have to feel sorry for me, especially since one of the things that I believe about Jesus that some here don't, and that is that I don't go around judging people-- much like Jesus said "Judge ye not...".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top