How do you determine which NT-era books are authoritative?

[hatsoff]

Hey, all.

Back when I was still Christian, I had begun to seriously question the authenticity certain books of the New Testament. I was even more concerned about the possible authenticity of omissions from the canon--books such as GThomas, EBarnabas and the Didache. Before I had a chance to seriously investigate any of this, though, I lost my faith. So all of my most serious research was done as a non-Christians. Yet most of the folks on this board have had the opportunity to do so from a Christian perspective, which apparently leads to a unique method of inquiry and conclusion. So I was curious, what have you all decided about the canon? Many folks believe Scripture is the final authority in all matters Christian, but how do you determine what is and is not Scripture? And if you haven't investigated it yet, how do you deal with the issue?

Thanks in advance for your replies!

EDIT: Also, since most of you probably just trust tradition, why is that? In my experience, most people hold tradition to be notoriously unreliable. For example, the Church long held doctrines relating to purgatory, but upon investigation of the Bible texts protestants rejected them. Why make an exception for the canon?

EDIT #2: I'm not asking why certain books were accepted in ancient times and others were not. I am well aware of all that. Rather, I want to know why you folks out there today accept some books and reject others.

Edited February 13, 2007 by hatsoff

[CSLewis]

Apostolic tradition of the church, passed down from the historic episcopate. Through the power of the Holy Spirit. There was still some debate but compromises were made.

[apothanein kerdos]

Hey, all.

Back when I was still Christian, I had begun to seriously question the authenticity certain books of the New Testament. I was even more concerned about the possible authenticity of omissions from the canon--books such as GThomas, Barnabas and the Didache. Before I had a chance to seriously investigate any of this, though, I lost my faith. Yet most of the folks on this board (that is, the Christians) have had just that opportunity. So I was curious, what have you all decided about the canon? Many folks believe Scripture is the final authority in all matters Christian, but how do you determine what is and is not Scripture? And if you haven't investigated it yet, how do you deal with the issue?

Thanks in advance for your replies!

A lot factors into it. Just to give you an example, the reason the cannonical books were accepted is that:

- for 300 years, the majority of churches had already used them

- by the end of the second century, heretics had already tried to "remove" these from the New Testament...all of this at the beginning of the second century

- They matched the descriptions of eye witnesses

- they fell in line with the Old Testament

The reason the Gospel of Thomas and others weren't accepted is:

- They weren't written until the end of the 3rd century

- They contradicted what was already accepted

- They contradicted the Old Testament

There are around 85 qualifying points, but I don't feel like typing them all up.

[hatsoff]

A lot factors into it. Just to give you an example, the reason the cannonical books were accepted is that:

- for 300 years, the majority of churches had already used them

- by the end of the second century, heretics had already tried to "remove" these from the New Testament...all of this at the beginning of the second century

- They matched the descriptions of eye witnesses

- they fell in line with the Old Testament

The reason the Gospel of Thomas and others weren't accepted is:

- They weren't written until the end of the 3rd century

- They contradicted what was already accepted

- They contradicted the Old Testament

There are around 85 qualifying points, but I don't feel like typing them all up.

Since this is my thread, I should probably point out that most of the above quote is not true. For example, we don't know much about the first 300 years of Christianity, so any statements about that time period are rather tentative. At the close of century II, there was no codified "New Testament," and many if not most of the circulating collections contained apocryphal texts. The NT makes great changes to OT theology, so I wouldn't say one "falls in line" with the other--certainly no more than apocryphal texts. GThomas, Barnabas and the Didache were written no later than century II and quite possibly in century I. Etc...

Edited February 12, 2007 by hatsoff

[Fiosh]

Hey, all.

Back when I was still Christian, I had begun to seriously question the authenticity certain books of the New Testament. I was even more concerned about the possible authenticity of omissions from the canon--books such as GThomas, Barnabas and the Didache. Before I had a chance to seriously investigate any of this, though, I lost my faith. Yet most of the folks on this board (that is, the Christians) have had just that opportunity. So I was curious, what have you all decided about the canon? Many folks believe Scripture is the final authority in all matters Christian, but how do you determine what is and is not Scripture? And if you haven't investigated it yet, how do you deal with the issue?

Thanks in advance for your replies!

EDIT: Also, since most of you probably just trust tradition, why is that? In my experience, most people hold tradition to be notoriously unreliable. For example, the Church long held doctrines relating to purgatory, but upon investigation of the Bible texts protestants rejected them. Why make an exception for the canon?

EDIT #2: I'm not asking why certain books were accepted in ancient times and others were not. I am well aware of all that. Rather, I want to know why you folks out there today accept some books and reject others.

Hi hatsoff,

Good question.

I believe that Jesus instituted an authoritative Church which was, and is, guided by the Holy Spirit. That Church determined which books were to be included in the Canon.

Simple. I trust the Bible because I trust the Church because I trust the Holy Spirit because I trust the promise of Jesus.

Peace,

Fiosh

PS. If you lost your faith, you can also find it. I'll pray for you.

[apothanein kerdos]

A lot factors into it. Just to give you an example, the reason the cannonical books were accepted is that:

- for 300 years, the majority of churches had already used them

- by the end of the second century, heretics had already tried to "remove" these from the New Testament...all of this at the beginning of the second century

- They matched the descriptions of eye witnesses

- they fell in line with the Old Testament

The reason the Gospel of Thomas and others weren't accepted is:

- They weren't written until the end of the 3rd century

- They contradicted what was already accepted

- They contradicted the Old Testament

There are around 85 qualifying points, but I don't feel like typing them all up.

Since this is my thread, I should probably point out that most of the above quote is not true. However, I'd rather not get so off-topic this early in the thread.

So even though you admit to not having studied it, it's not true according to you? I'd much rather trust me, someone who has studied Church history, specifically the first three centuries, and quite in depth, than someone who ADMITS to not having studied it.

[hatsoff]

So even though you admit to not having studied it, it's not true according to you? I'd much rather trust me, someone who has studied Church history, specifically the first three centuries, and quite in depth, than someone who ADMITS to not having studied it.

I did not "admit to not having studied it." On the contrary, I know a great deal about it. I amended my post above (#4) to point out most of the errors in post #3.

Edited February 12, 2007 by hatsoff

[hatsoff]

Hi hatsoff,

Good question.

I believe that Jesus instituted an authoritative Church which was, and is, guided by the Holy Spirit. That Church determined which books were to be included in the Canon.

Simple. I trust the Bible because I trust the Church because I trust the Holy Spirit because I trust the promise of Jesus.

That's what I think most Christians believe, but I find that hard to swallow because Protestants stress the Bible over tradition--except that the Bible is defined by tradition. I see a double standard there.

[Fiosh]

Hi hatsoff,

Good question.

I believe that Jesus instituted an authoritative Church which was, and is, guided by the Holy Spirit. That Church determined which books were to be included in the Canon.

Simple. I trust the Bible because I trust the Church because I trust the Holy Spirit because I trust the promise of Jesus.

That's what I think most Christians believe, but I find that hard to swallow because Protestants stress the Bible over tradition--except that the Bible is defined by tradition. I see a double standard there.

Yep. One of the reasons I'm not a Protestant.

[Floatingaxe]

Protestants stress the Bible over tradition? Holy Spirit-filled protestants stress Jesus Christ over all. And so should you.

In response to the OP: I don't have to determine which NT books are authoritative, because they all are--if they are in the canon. God has seen to it that we have exactly what He wants us to have. Any searching or questioning along these lines are superfluous to the life of faith we are called to.