Biblical Canon

[ByFaithAlone]

Hello All:

Biblical canon is a subject I struggle with, so I'm looking for answers. Depending on the denomination, everyone has a different canon. Why do we accept some and reject others. There are obvious forgeries like the Gospel of Judas but why should we accept Paul's letters as binding any more than we accept a wise Christian speaker's words as binding? I truly admire Paul but why do we have to consider his works sacred? Could someone help me understand this?

[Smalcald]

This is a good topic.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Shiloh does a good job of explaining here

[Smalcald]

That is a good treatment thanks Shiloh.

I may have added a little about how God used the Church itself to protect and defend scripture, with of course the requirement that each book included has the power of the Holy Spirit for conversion; but you have nailed the heart of the matter.

[ByFaithAlone]

Shiloh does a pretty good job with the OT and Matthew-Acts are established as eyewitness/historical accounts. I think I found a good set of reasoning for Paul's letters being scripture.

γραφὴ (graphe) is the word that is translated into Scripture. However, whenever the word in used previously by Jesus, it is always referring to the OT.

So we know for sure that everything before and including Acts is in either as history/inspiration.... Good start!

Meanwhile, Peter says that Paul writes with sophian (σοφίαν) or wisdom (II Peter 3:15) given him by God. He says that some distort this wisdom as they do with the λοιπός (loipas - left, left behind, the remainder, the rest, the others) γραφὰς (graphas - Scriptures). I believe this implies that the Paul's wisdom through his letters are scripture as it specifically mentions the remainder of Scripture, indicating that Paul's epistles should be included in Scripture.

Therefore, it should be assumed that Paul's epistles should be included. How do you think we could adequately prove that the rest are γραφὰς?

[Littlelambseativy]

There is a great website that tells of the history of the Bible. It has gone through many translations. Written by hand and translated many times so that some of the wording may have been mistranslated, yet the substance has never been altered - the Holy Spirit has made that a certainty. However the translations are done by humans and changes have occurred. Books have been added and removed. Check out the following website

/www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh does a pretty good job with the OT and Matthew-Acts are established as eyewitness/historical accounts. I think I found a good set of reasoning for Paul's letters being scripture.

γραφὴ (graphe) is the word that is translated into Scripture. However, whenever the word in used previously by Jesus, it is always referring to the OT.

So we know for sure that everything before and including Acts is in either as history/inspiration.... Good start!

Meanwhile, Peter says that Paul writes with sophian (σοφίαν) or wisdom (II Peter 3:15) given him by God. He says that some distort this wisdom as they do with the λοιπός (loipas - left, left behind, the remainder, the rest, the others) γραφὰς (graphas - Scriptures). I believe this implies that the Paul's wisdom through his letters are scripture as it specifically mentions the remainder of Scripture, indicating that Paul's epistles should be included in Scripture.

Therefore, it should be assumed that Paul's epistles should be included. How do you think we could adequately prove that the rest are γραφὰς?

Are you talking about the non-Pauline epistles of the New Testament as well as the Gospels, or are you talking about the rest of the Bible as a whole?

I would also be interested in knowing what you think about the authority of Scripture in terms of how you see it as God's infallible self-disclosure. Hence we believe it to be wholly of Divine origin. We believe the Bible is the final arbiter in all matters of Christian faith and practice. Therefore, it has the authority to instruct us in morality and conduct. Where do you stand on those issues?

[ByFaithAlone]

Shiloh does a pretty good job with the OT and Matthew-Acts are established as eyewitness/historical accounts. I think I found a good set of reasoning for Paul's letters being scripture.

γραφὴ (graphe) is the word that is translated into Scripture. However, whenever the word in used previously by Jesus, it is always referring to the OT.

So we know for sure that everything before and including Acts is in either as history/inspiration.... Good start!

Meanwhile, Peter says that Paul writes with sophian (σοφίαν) or wisdom (II Peter 3:15) given him by God. He says that some distort this wisdom as they do with the λοιπός (loipas - left, left behind, the remainder, the rest, the others) γραφὰς (graphas - Scriptures). I believe this implies that the Paul's wisdom through his letters are scripture as it specifically mentions the remainder of Scripture, indicating that Paul's epistles should be included in Scripture.

Therefore, it should be assumed that Paul's epistles should be included. How do you think we could adequately prove that the rest are γραφὰς?

Are you talking about the non-Pauline epistles of the New Testament as well as the Gospels, or are you talking about the rest of the Bible as a whole?

I would also be interested in knowing what you think about the authority of Scripture in terms of how you see it as God's infallible self-disclosure. Hence we believe it to be wholly of Divine origin. We believe the Bible is the final arbiter in all matters of Christian faith and practice. Therefore, it has the authority to instruct us in morality and conduct. Where do you stand on those issues?

Thanks for the reply. As I said earlier, your posts were really helpful. I mainly have problems with the epistles. Most of the Pauline letters are fine with me. Do you have any evidence regarding the letters to Timothy? I have heard about some authorship problems that have come up over time. I generally accept all the works attributed to the 12 Disciples. What about Jude? I've heard little on that book...

As per your questions: I believe that Scripture, when taken in the context of which it was written, in the original form speaks to us as the Word of God through the Spirit. The Bible is the final arbiter for Christian doctrine, again with the help of the Spirit. It has the authority to instruct, teach, rebuke, etc. There is my stance...

Thanks for your help in this matter. It means a lot!

[Littlelambseativy]

Shiloh does a pretty good job with the OT and Matthew-Acts are established as eyewitness/historical accounts. I think I found a good set of reasoning for Paul's letters being scripture.

γραφὴ (graphe) is the word that is translated into Scripture. However, whenever the word in used previously by Jesus, it is always referring to the OT.

So we know for sure that everything before and including Acts is in either as history/inspiration.... Good start!

Meanwhile, Peter says that Paul writes with sophian (σοφίαν) or wisdom (II Peter 3:15) given him by God. He says that some distort this wisdom as they do with the λοιπός (loipas - left, left behind, the remainder, the rest, the others) γραφὰς (graphas - Scriptures). I believe this implies that the Paul's wisdom through his letters are scripture as it specifically mentions the remainder of Scripture, indicating that Paul's epistles should be included in Scripture.

Therefore, it should be assumed that Paul's epistles should be included. How do you think we could adequately prove that the rest are γραφὰς?

Are you talking about the non-Pauline epistles of the New Testament as well as the Gospels, or are you talking about the rest of the Bible as a whole?

I would also be interested in knowing what you think about the authority of Scripture in terms of how you see it as God's infallible self-disclosure. Hence we believe it to be wholly of Divine origin. We believe the Bible is the final arbiter in all matters of Christian faith and practice. Therefore, it has the authority to instruct us in morality and conduct. Where do you stand on those issues?

Thanks for the reply. As I said earlier, your posts were really helpful. I mainly have problems with the epistles. Most of the Pauline letters are fine with me. Do you have any evidence regarding the letters to Timothy? I have heard about some authorship problems that have come up over time. I generally accept all the works attributed to the 12 Disciples. What about Jude? I've heard little on that book...

As per your questions: I believe that Scripture, when taken in the context of which it was written, in the original form speaks to us as the Word of God through the Spirit. The Bible is the final arbiter for Christian doctrine, again with the help of the Spirit. It has the authority to instruct, teach, rebuke, etc. There is my stance...

Thanks for your help in this matter. It means a lot!

Still when being translated each translator brings to the translation his own knowledge of the language and interpretation of the time.

Eg. in one language the word 'brother' may mean sibling or cousin or brother-in-law. It would then depend on the translators knowledge of the term brother as used say by Christ - cousin, brother or stepbrother. Many words have such variable interpretations making it hard to put specifically the correct English word to the original.

That is why though the meaning may stay the same the words may in some sense be wrong to the original.

[Guest shiloh357]

Thanks for the reply. As I said earlier, your posts were really helpful. I mainly have problems with the epistles. Most of the Pauline letters are fine with me. Do you have any evidence regarding the letters to Timothy? I have heard about some authorship problems that have come up over time.

Well both letters to Timothy are Pauline epistles. Both I and II Timothy claim to be have been authored by Paul in the first verse of each letter. I am not aware of any authorship issues. From whom did you learn of possible authorshiop issues and what specificially are those issues?

I generally accept all the works attributed to the 12 Disciples. What about Jude? I've heard little on that book...

Jude (Yehudah) was the brother of James (Yakov). What about it? Do you have any specific concerns?