-
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!
Which Bible is inerrant and inspired?
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
firedragon
Veteran Member
Because it was.
McBell
Unbound
Oh?
No "theological variance"?
Makes one wonder just how many different variations of Christianity there would be if there was "theological variances"....
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
I don't know, but according to Wiki those five books are still not used in their lectionary.
Constantine's secretary, Eusebius (263-339 CE) says that these five book were disputed, even in his day. (Ecclesiastical History 3.25.1-7)
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The second category is composed of the Antilegomena, or contested writings; these in turn are of the superior and inferior sort. The better ones are the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, II Peter, II and III John; these, like Origen, Eusebius wished to be admitted to the Canon, but was forced to record their uncertain status; the Antilegomena of the inferior sort were Barnabas, the Didache, Gospel of the Hebrews, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter.
Last edited:
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
From Wiki [emphasis mine:]
The Epistle of Barnabas (Greek: Βαρνάβα Ἐπιστολή) is a Greek epistle written between AD 70–132. It is preserved complete in the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus, where it appears immediately after the New Testament and before the Shepherd of Hermas. For several centuries it was one of the "antilegomena" writings that some Christians looked on as sacred scripture, while others excluded them. Eusebius of Caesarea classified it as such.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Then there is the First Epistle of Clement, deemed by some to be scripture:
Again, from Wiki [emphasis mine:]
Again, from Wiki [emphasis mine:]
The work is traditionally attributed to Clement I, the Bishop of Rome. In Corinth, the letter was read aloud from time to time. This practice spread to other churches, and Christians translated the Greek work into Latin, Syriac, and other languages. Some early Christians even treated the work like scripture.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Third Corinthians:
in the Syriac Orthodox Church, Aphrahat (c. 340) treated it as canonical and Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373) apparently accepted it as canonical,[3] because he wrote a commentary on it. The Doctrine of Addai includes it, but it was not included in the Syriac Pe****ta translation of the Bible (but nor were 2–3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, or Revelation, which are almost universally recognized as canonical, see also Antilegomena). Although part of the Oskan Armenian Bible of 1666, it was in an Appendix to the Zohrab Armenian Bible of 1805 which follows the Vulgate canon, and it is not currently considered part of the Armenian Orthodox New Testament.[4] It was not part of the canon list of Anania Shirakatsi in the 7th century but is part of the canon lists of Hovhannes Imastaser (11th century), Mekhitar of Ayrivank (13th century) and Gregory of Tatev (14th century).[5][6]
in the Syriac Orthodox Church, Aphrahat (c. 340) treated it as canonical and Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373) apparently accepted it as canonical,[3] because he wrote a commentary on it. The Doctrine of Addai includes it, but it was not included in the Syriac Pe****ta translation of the Bible (but nor were 2–3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, or Revelation, which are almost universally recognized as canonical, see also Antilegomena). Although part of the Oskan Armenian Bible of 1666, it was in an Appendix to the Zohrab Armenian Bible of 1805 which follows the Vulgate canon, and it is not currently considered part of the Armenian Orthodox New Testament.[4] It was not part of the canon list of Anania Shirakatsi in the 7th century but is part of the canon lists of Hovhannes Imastaser (11th century), Mekhitar of Ayrivank (13th century) and Gregory of Tatev (14th century).[5][6]
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
So, Christians have historically had different books in their canon. How do you know which ones were divinely inspired and inerrant?
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
Because I have the Bible sitting in front of me that was accepted as the inspired Word of God by the people of God.
Good-Ole-Rebel
So you have no idea. You just picked one and declared its authority into existence. The one you were raised with, no doubt.
We don't really know. It is all based on what people want to believe.
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
Well, you quoted me. I said the Bible I have was accepted as inspired by God by the people of God. Yes, I come from a family of believers. So we naturally use the Bible.
Good-Ole-Rebel
This in no way addresses my post. Are you confused or was this a dodge?
My family is Christian going back generations. That does not make a particular biblical Canon inerrant.
Buggs-Sent-Me
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
No dodge. As I said, the Bible I have was accepted by the people of God as inspired by God. You say you don't know in post #(54). That's too bad. Are you a Christian or just a Methodist?
Canonization and inerrancy are two separate subjects really. Canonization and inspiration are more the same.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Well of course I am not. By your definition, being a Christian requires compliance with a whioe bunch of rules not in the Bible or reinterpreted with bias.
You have no idea that the Bible is inerrant. You just decided it is.
It isn't even necessary it be so to be a Christian.
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
Oh, you are not Christian but you wear the label as 'methodist'. Speaks volumes.
No, you have no idea. I have perfect confidence.
You are not Christian any way. What does it matter?
Good-Ole-Rebel
Last edited:
Kudos to @Dan From Smithville and @Wandering Monk for insightful posts
I like the points you made. I think Dan from Smithville is correct that most of us grow up with a specific canon and are quite unaware that canons are somewhat arbitrary in that there are different versions with different texts depending upon what era and what geographical location one is describing. Like @Good Ole Rebel, when I was younger, I simply assumed that “my” canon and “my” bible was the only canon and the only bible that existed. I was simply not educated regarding religious or textual history. If I grew up in the 4th Century, my Bible might have barnabas and Hermas in it (Sinaiticus). If I grew up in Ethiopia in 2020, my bible of the year may have over 80 books in it, including barnabas, jubilees, enoch, etc.
Wandering Monks’ various references to some of the early literature also brings to mind the fact that ALL of our biblical texts are pseudographic in that we do not know nor can we prove who wrote any of these texts. We do know they, or versions of them, were very popular early on.
I do not think that “inspired” means “dictated” and it certainly does not mean “inerrant” since all biblical texts of any size have errors in them. This does not mean that the base testimonies of the writers are not important or not inspired.
Clear
νετωνεω
I like the points you made. I think Dan from Smithville is correct that most of us grow up with a specific canon and are quite unaware that canons are somewhat arbitrary in that there are different versions with different texts depending upon what era and what geographical location one is describing. Like @Good Ole Rebel, when I was younger, I simply assumed that “my” canon and “my” bible was the only canon and the only bible that existed. I was simply not educated regarding religious or textual history. If I grew up in the 4th Century, my Bible might have barnabas and Hermas in it (Sinaiticus). If I grew up in Ethiopia in 2020, my bible of the year may have over 80 books in it, including barnabas, jubilees, enoch, etc.
Wandering Monks’ various references to some of the early literature also brings to mind the fact that ALL of our biblical texts are pseudographic in that we do not know nor can we prove who wrote any of these texts. We do know they, or versions of them, were very popular early on.
I do not think that “inspired” means “dictated” and it certainly does not mean “inerrant” since all biblical texts of any size have errors in them. This does not mean that the base testimonies of the writers are not important or not inspired.
Clear
νετωνεω
Last edited: