The Truth About the Christian Canon

[Guest Robert]

On 12/29/2016 at 8:30 AM, Hoddie said:

 

 

RealPresence may have been banned from this thread, but I have not.

 

 

Sooo.... to echo what RealPresence and I have been asking over and over, and with a bit of editing to appease the moderators....Our (RealPresence and I ) questions to Protestants thus far on this forum has been:

 

 

Where

 

 

 

 

 

the the 66 Book Protestant Canon come from if NOT from the Catholic Church original 72 Book Canon?

WHO declared it?

WHO had the authority to do so?

 

 

So far - nobody has been able to answer this on FOUR threads now.

 

 

 

Two of the threads have been closed and we have been thrown off of two other threads and have been given warning points. Instead of doing a little research and answering the question - the response has been to simply report us to the Mods to have us thrown off. As a matter of fact - entire threads have been closed because of this question.

 

 

This speaks VOLUMES of many on this forum.

 

 

This should shake every Protestant on this forum to their very foundation. If you don't know WHERE you got your Bible - how can you possible know that it is your SOLE rule of faith?

 

 

　

 

 

Peace

Once again, I have to break my silence; this time, to set the record straight on "who declared what" concerning the canonicity of Scripture.

 

For Hoddie: you do deserve to have your question answered, as it is a legitimate one:

 

The Old Testament:

With the OT, when God authorized the writing of a manuscript, the people of God recognized it as being such and preserved it. To draw an example, Moses wrote "all the words of the Lord" (Exodus 24:4), and these writings were laid in the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:26), as were Joshua's (Joshua 24:26), Samuel's (1 Samuel 10:25), Jeremiah's and Daniel's (Daniel 9:2). As time went on, the number of books grew and people honored them as the Word of God. Example: Ezra possessed a copy of the law of Moses and and the prophets (Nehemiah 9:14, 26-30). This law was read and considered the Word of God.

Not all Jewish religious writings were considered Scripture though. Some examples are the Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13), Books of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14) and other books (1 Kings 11:41). Were these books inspired Scripture, the Lord would have insured that they were to be included in the Bible.

The canonicity (authenticity) of these books were not questioned largely by the Jewish scholars; the books were regarded as canonical as soon as they were written, and when properly interpreted are in complete harmony with the other books of the OT. The centuries have demonstrated that keeping these books in the biblical canon was a wise move.

As of 400 BC, the canon of the OT was considered closed by the Jewish with the prophecy of Malachi. We know this because 1) our OT is based on the Hebrew Old Testament canon accepted by the Jews, and 2) it's the same canon that Jesus Christ ratified by His continual references to the OT as the unbreakable Word of God. (note: Jesus never quoted any of the books of the "Apocrypha" such as Maccabees).

Keep in mind: the OT books were selected without the benefit of any "council" such as Nicaea to debate the merits or detractors of any of the books. The leaders who were responsible for the spiritual life of the nation recognized the books and selected them. That said, it was never a "select committee" that did so. And while a council in Jamnia in 90 AD met on the canon of the OT, all it did was to ratify what was already selected.

 

The New Testament:

The authority given to those who penned the books of the OT on the Lord's command was ascribed to the writers of the New Testament. This authority is not found in human intellect, brilliance or any type of speculation, but is rooted in God's character. Paul cited to the congregation that he was writing per the Lord's command, and could legitimately tell them that he was doing so (1 Corinthians 14:37).

The books of the NT were written around the last half of the First Century.  With the books, some of them were letters to individuals (such as the letter to Philemon), and others being letters to the local churches. Then there were the books that had been were written to larger audiences (such as Europe and East Asia). Because of this, we need to understand that not all the books were immediately available as copies to all the churches due to travel being as fast as one could walk, ride a horse or sail; communication was also limited as well during this time and depended on travel as opposed to today's technology. So, it took some time before the final number of NT books were ratified and the canon was set.

Selecting and verifying Scripture was important to the early believers, and as long as the Apostles were alive they could verify everything (Luke 1:2, Acts 1:21-22). Had Paul or Luke been fakes or unreliable, they would have quickly been decried by Peter, John, James and those who had been there for Jesus' miracles and heard His teaching during His ministry on Earth. For example, John said:

"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. " (1 John 2-3 NASB, emphasis mine).

Peter was able to assure us that he had personally seen the Lord at the Transfiguration, his testimony being an eyewitness account (2 Peter 1:16-18) Apostolic authority was a final "court of appeal"; as they were the Lord's representatives on Earth and were commissioned to pass on the truth Jesus had taught them:

"“These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."" (John 14:25-26, NASB, emphasis mine)

 

Apostolic Authority:

The fact that some books were accepted as Scripture is demonstrated in Peter's own words in Scripture: he possessed a collection of Paul's letters and regarded them as Scripture. Peter soundly confirms Paul's authority on writing Scripture:

"Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:14-16, NASB, emphasis mine)

Other books in the Bible confirm the authority of each other: Paul confirms Luke's writing as Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18 quoting Luke 10:7) and  Jude quoted Peter (Jude 1:17-18 quoting  2 Peter 3;3) are examples. By the end of the 1st Century, more than 2/3 of our present NT was deemed inspired, with the remaining books deemed as authoritative even though they had not been fully circulated yet. When a heretic named Marcion in 135 AD decided to "publish" his own version of Scripture that completely omitted the OT and only selected a few books from the NT (Marcion was fiercely anti-Semitic), the Church was forced to respond and declare which books were authoritative. A document called the Muratorian Fragment, dating back to 175 AD, evaluates the various canonical books alongside those that were not deemed canonical. Although the document is mutilated by age, scholars have been able to identify a list of book that contain 23 of the present 27 books of the NT. It also listed some spurious (fake) writings ascribed to Paul that the author noted could not be accepted into the church. These books that were fake were not "banned"; they were brushed aside because they were fakes.

 

What about the Councils?

There is contention that the canon of the OT was not finalized until 40 years after the Council of Nicaea (convened in 325 AD). While it's true that the full list of 27 NT books first appeared in the Easter letter of Athanasius in 367 AD, the 27 books of the NT (along with 39 books of the OT), had been functioning as the rule of the church for 250 years.

As for the Council of Nicaea, the topic of canon did not even come up at it; Constantine did not decide what canon was. What was discussed at the Council was whether Jesus Christ (The Son) was fully God or not (a man by the name of Arius was spreading the heresy that Jesus was not). This, along with other doctrinal disputes that were tearing apart society, forced Constantine to convene the council. Constantine had no agenda as to what creed or doctrine was selected; he let the delegates decide that.

Arius was given the opportunity to voice his views. But the council decided overwhelmingly that Jesus was fully God and fully man, and that Arius' views on Jesus not being so were heresy (John chapter 1 pretty much blows Arius' views out of the water). The delegates recognized that if Jesus was not fully God, then He could not be the redeemer of Mankind; to say Jesus was created was to violate Scripture in a number of areas (Colossians 1:16, Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1:8, etc.). Once the divinity of Jesus was addressed and confirmed, they then determined that Christ could be fully God only if He had the very same nature as God (This was expressed by Marcellus, a bishop from Asia Minor and representative of Athanasius, who was present but not invited to the proceedings).

That said, what Constantine did do was commission Eusebius to make 50 Bibles on good parchment by trained scribes to be given to the churches of Constantinople for use. But while we presently don't have any copies of these Bibles to see which books were in the NT, scholar F.F. Bruce (Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester for 27 years), "the answer is not seriously in doubt. The copies contained all the books which Eusebius lists as universally acknowledged...in short, the same twenty-seven books as appear in our copies of the New Testament today". (F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, InterVarsity Press, 1988)

in short: all the early church could do was recognize which books were inspired and which were not. It did not have the power to imbue a non-canonical book with any sort of authority, nor remove authority from a book that was authentic and had authority. They could only determine which books were legitimate; only the Holy Spirit, inspiring the book from the beginning, could make it authoritative.  No council could do this either, and the process was not a "selective, deliberate committee with an agenda".

 

Selection:

Now, how were these books determined to have inspiration and authority? These were the criteria:

1) Apostolic Writing/ Sanction: The books were either written by an apostle or sanctioned by one. Mark was not an apostle, but his words reflect his association with Peter; meantime, Luke traveled with Paul.

2) Tying in to the Rule of Faith: the book had to be consistent with both the teachings of the Old Testament prophets and the writings of the New Testament Apostles.

3) Acceptance: The book had to have continuous acceptance to remain in the canon. While times may change, the truth does not. Any book can be "true" in it's time, but does that book remain true and in harmony with established Scripture?

On that specific note: the Church is headed by Christ, and made up of fallible humans. And while humans do make mistakes, it is an infallible God who inspired a fallible Church to compile an infallible list of books that comprise our New Testament. And God is not so weak that he cannot ensure that man doesn't have His Word; if God is truly Almighty, He is capable of making sure the books of Scripture correspond to what He wants in there.

 

All of that being stated, the 66 books of the Bible did NOT originate with the "72 book canon" from the RCC, but was there long before.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now, as to Kwikphilly and RustyAngeL:

On 12/29/2016 at 9:09 AM, kwikphilly said:

Hoddie,how many times are you going to ask this question,who cares? So what ?And? What is it you want,The Bible was approved by the early rcc....is that what you so desparately want to hear ,why...what is the point.......I'll say this again.....just for you

BTW,not one THread has been closed because of this question....it has been closed either by an OPs request orfor getting out ofhand with personal attacks & insults

On 12/29/2016 at 9:12 PM, RustyAngeL said:

I"m getting sick of it.. And your right Kwik, who cares?

 

For one: I care. His word is precious and treating it as I have seen it being treated here is disgraceful.

For another: everyone naming themselves as a follower and disciple of Jesus Christ should know and be able to explain where Scripture came from and should care. Finally, The Lord God cares; He tells us that His word does not go out void:

" So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11, NASB)
 

And we are instructed to be ready to give an answer concerning it and our faith:

" Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him." (1 Peter 3:13-22, NASB, emphasis mine)

 

With as many people who died for the Word of God during the course of history, I'm truly surprised both of your attitudes concerning this issue! If where Scripture came from and how man received it in the book we have today doesn't matter, then how can we possibly expect people to take it seriously when we attempt to present it to them as the truth?

 

Please don't bother to ban me from this topic; I am done here and will not return to it. It is this kind of careless attitude that has caused me to stop posting here at Worthy at large, and I have only broken my silence at the behest of the Holy Spirit in this matter

 

And with that, I return to my silence.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Robert
spelling, grammar and emphasis.

[Hoddie]

7 hours ago, Robert said:

Once again, I have to break my silence; this time, to set the record straight on "who declared what" concerning the canonicity of Scripture.

And with all respects, where did you get the authority to "set the record straight"?

For Hoddie: you do deserve to have your question answered, as it is a legitimate one:

Thank you.

On that specific note: the Church is headed by Christ, and made up of fallible humans. And while humans do make mistakes, it is an

infallible God who inspired a fallible Church to compile an infallible list of books that comprise our New Testament.

I disagree that the Church founded by Jesus Christ is fallible. It is well to begin by stating the ecclesiological truths that are assumed to be established before the question of infallibility arises. It is assumed (a) that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society; (b) that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them; (c) that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship; (d) and that in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy—and on them exclusively—the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed. And this being assumed, the question that concerns us is whether, and in what way, and to what extent, Christ has made His Church to be infallible in the exercise of her doctrinal authority.

It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church's infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church's teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent, indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value. It will be best therefore to confine our attention to active infallibility as such, as by so doing we shall avoid the confusion which is the sole basis of many of the objections that are most persistently and most plausibly urged against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility.

As for your statemnet that the bible is infallible, yes. However...If God was capable of using thousands of sinners to infallibly communicate infallible truth, then, so that the Church could see it as the truth, which is the Bread of Life, which is Christ himself and all the teachings, if God could do it then, with fallible sinners, like Peter and Paul and John and Matthew, couldn't He still do it? In other words, certainly God is capable; and if you look around at how the Church spreads throughout the world, and how the Church encounters all kinds of crazies down through the ages, do you suppose that Jesus would say, "Well, once I give the Church this infallible scripture, there really is no need anymore for infallible interpretations of scripture. The Church can hold together just with the infallible Bible."

All of that being stated, the 66 books of the Bible did NOT originate with the "72 book canon" from the RCC, but was there long before.

Then you should have no problem proving this with historical documentation as I did with the historical writings of the Early Church Fathers proving otherwise.

And with that, I return to my silence.

I would wish you'd wait until you showed scriptural or historical documentation to prove your claims.

Peace

[Hoddie]

11 hours ago, RustyAngeL said:

I"m getting sick of it.. And your right Kwik, who cares?

In other words, you can't or won't.  As far as who cares goes?   you should care!

Peace

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 2:57 PM, kwikphilly said:

There you go again getting personal,I'm not "dancing" around anything,I simply am not motivated to entertain you or debate,i....I don't feel compelled to answer questions when anyone orders me to do so ,that is not the kind of conversation that is inviting to me......what,may I ask is your point? Actually,never mind,I really don't care to know what your point is.......

I found something that I think explains very well why certain books like the 7 Deuterocanonicals were rightfully left out of the bible

https://carm.org/errors-apocrypha

Well worth reading. Doctrinal errors and historical errors.

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 5:23 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Speak the truth once unambiguously, is all that is required.  I've corrected you on the existence of the book of Jasher, the book of Jubillees both quoted in the Bible, and corrected your dating of Revelation.  It seems a shame you can't get this simple thing correct.  This is not a debate where points are scored.  I assume we are both looking for the truth of God's word; to the Jew first, then the Gentiles.  It's a simple matter.

You haven't "corrected" me on anything. My facts are straight as to why these books aren't in the bible, and why the Holy Ghost allowed only a few quotes from them.

[woundeddog]

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 9:30 AM, Hoddie said:

This should shake every Protestant on this forum to their very foundation. If you don't know WHERE you got your Bible - how can you possible know that it is your SOLE rule of faith?

get over it Hoddie- we all have said in one way or the other that we believe God has preserved his word. and that's where the 66 books came form--  we really don't need to indulge in pseudo-intellectual debate as to where the Bible came from-- If you want to believe what you believe it is your right,  I think most folks here are tired of your same hackned reasoning for vetting the Validity of the Roman Catholic Church, but I do not think either you or Real Presents has convinced or converted one single true Christian in this forum--- maybe your time would be better spent on the 7-day Adventist site--- just saying, have a nice day and a good new year!

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 6:12 PM, Davida said:

It would seem for some any post that disagrees with Catholic doctrine and uses scripture to reprove it is called a "bash" now?  Is that a constructive contribution to the discussion?   I'm beginning to find it very negative & censoring when every time someone is following the Bible teaching of 2 Tim 4: 2  they are attacked for "bashing."  It is just a pc false criticism and does absolutely nothing for truth, understanding or Peace. 

This kind of thing isn't new, believe me.

[TheMatrixHasU71]

24 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

And with all respects, where did you get the authority to "set the record straight"?

 

Thank you.

 

I disagree that the Church founded by Jesus Christ is fallible. It is well to begin by stating the ecclesiological truths that are assumed to be established before the question of infallibility arises. It is assumed (a) that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society; (b) that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them; (c) that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship; (d) and that in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy—and on them exclusively—the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed. And this being assumed, the question that concerns us is whether, and in what way, and to what extent, Christ has made His Church to be infallible in the exercise of her doctrinal authority.

It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church's infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church's teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent, indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value. It will be best therefore to confine our attention to active infallibility as such, as by so doing we shall avoid the confusion which is the sole basis of many of the objections that are most persistently and most plausibly urged against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility.

As for your statemnet that the bible is infallible, yes. However...If God was capable of using thousands of sinners to infallibly communicate infallible truth, then, so that the Church could see it as the truth, which is the Bread of Life, which is Christ himself and all the teachings, if God could do it then, with fallible sinners, like Peter and Paul and John and Matthew, couldn't He still do it? In other words, certainly God is capable; and if you look around at how the Church spreads throughout the world, and how the Church encounters all kinds of crazies down through the ages, do you suppose that Jesus would say, "Well, once I give the Church this infallible scripture, there really is no need anymore for infallible interpretations of scripture. The Church can hold together just with the infallible Bible."

 

Then you should have no problem proving this with historical documentation as I did with the historical writings of the Early Church Fathers proving otherwise.

 

I would wish you'd wait until you showed scriptural or historical documentation to prove your claims.

Peace

You said

I disagree that the Church founded by Jesus Christ is fallible

Sooooo....you would put men on an equal plane with God by saying that the Body of Christ, which has changed biblical doctrines by adopting pagan teachings and rituals, and murdered millions of people over the centuries for disagreeing with her, is infallible?

ONLY GOD is infallible

 Isaiah 42:8   I [am] the LORD: that [is] my name: and my glory will I not give to another

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 5:27 PM, Marilyn C said:

Hi RealPresence,

Thank you for replying amid all the others. Now you said to Kwikphilly that `your very soul is at stake,` in relation to your question. So.....can you please explain this further. How is her soul or mine or other`s souls at stake if we don`t know or accept where the Bible was compiled & declared?

BTW I don`t have trouble knowing where the Bible was formally compiled & declared if it is as you say. Really haven`t looked into it & didn`t know my soul would be at stake if I didn`t know that historic fact.

regards, Marilyn.

I keep on telling Hoddie that men didn't compile the bible.....Catholics will always put the church first, men first, on this matter and God second. But its GOD that gave us the canon, and God who DIRECTED men to choose the right books and reject the heretical ones.

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎12‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 5:13 PM, woundeddog said:

I don't know as a Baptist I have found that some of the verses in the Apocryphool have really helped me develop a mature Christian walk- MY favorite verses are~~~

 

God helps those that help them selves

cleanliness is next to Godliness

God works in mysterious ways

Charity begins at home

money is the root of all evil

a stich in time saves nine

a penny saved is a penny earned

and my all time favorite when the chief priest was talking to Jesus~~~ " and you call yourself a Christian??"

 

Actually God helps those who CANT help themselves