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

[Kansasdad]

So we clearly know that the books of the Bible are indeed scripture, (the words of God) because we know these men were taught by the Apostles and therefore knew what the Apostles taught, and could recognise false teachings.

Scripture is scripture, and the apostles who wrote it are the apostles we need to heed. None others.

We can trust only that God preserved His word throught the work of valuable, yet fallible individuals, just like you and I. that is the miracle of God's Word.

It is getting rather grating to read the phrase, "Apostolic Tradition" over and over like it was some sort of mantra. Is there another song in your repertoire?

Ok how about Apostolic teaching.

And you have once again side stepped the question at hand. If you continue to say what they taught about scripture was false then you can not turn around and say they had the protection of God to recognise true scripture from false. You cannot have it both ways. If they were not capable of recognising the Words of God then they were not capable of putting together the Bible. Which puts you back to the same delima. You can not claim that the books in the Bible are in fact the only accurate words of God in print with out also recognising the men who made that determination. If you denounce one you have to denounce the other. If you recognise one you must recognise the other. I know this puts you in a real difficult position. However if you maintain your position then the OP has a legitimate claim and you have no basis to refute him.

Didn't I just communicate that God used fallible men in the process? It isn't their own minds that were at work in the "project". It was the supreme mind of God. His intelligence, His Spirit, His decision-making all filtered through fallible , weak gray matter.

I am not in any difficult position and I do not have any illusions about these men.

So once God was done creating the canon of the Bible, did all this knowledge just disappear. God abandoned them then? OH and what happened for the several hundred years after the Apostles and before the bible. How was his word protected for those generations?

That is a logical jump. We woulod only say God abandoned people if He left no alternative. Since the scriptures contain all that is needed for salvation and life, He has not abandoned them. Your question regarding the encoding of scripture is a non issue. If you read textual history, you will see than most churhces before the canonization process had in their possession copies of the texts of the NT and OT. In addition, there was near universal agreement regarding which apostolic writings should be considered authoritative, and which should not. By the time of the councils there were only 1 or 2 books that were under discussion.

You question makes it sound like we had not texts until the councils. That is simply not true. The word was protected by God himself. Jesus made that promise

1. I would not call it logical at all

2. The question of the "encoding" of scripture was not my question, it was part of the original question by the OP so it is the issue

3. If there was near universal agreement then they did not need the councils.

4. Even on the 1 or 2 books in question if they could not trace the authority back to the teachings of the Apostles it was not considered authoritive.

5. For there to have been near universal agreement, by what knowledge was this agreement determined. Writting style can only go so far. They had to have "learned" kowledge of what was actually taught. They weighed what was written against other written text and what they were taught. If they agreed they included it as part of the Canon.

[EricH]

1. I would not call it logical at all

That was my point exactly. It was not logical. It was a jump

2. The question of the "encoding" of scripture was not my question, it was part of the original question by the OP so it is the issue

It is certainly an issue for ther OP, but in terms of making your point, it is a non-issue. Your statement implied that there was something "missing" between the age of the apostles, and the councils. There was not.

3. If there was near universal agreement then they did not need the councils.

No one said that they did. The books that came to be recognized by us as "God-Breathed" were "God-Breathed" long before we recognized them as such. The councils were simply the method the church at that time used for discerning the voice of God. They could have chosen another method and that would have been fine. The primary reason for the councils was not to make believers aware of which letters belonged in the canon. It was to combat certain "heretics" that came along recommending other books, and were attempting to have others (like Hebrews) removed. It was a meeting of the leadership designed to compat heresy (in regards to Jesus deity, and the inclusion of the gnostic books)

4. Even on the 1 or 2 books in question if they could not trace the authority back to the teachings of the Apostles it was not considered authoritive.

I agree. Don;t see the issue here. The one or two books I was talking about, were not included (like the Gospel of Thomas)

5. For there to have been near universal agreement, by what knowledge was this agreement determined. Writting style can only go so far. They had to have "learned" kowledge of what was actually taught. They weighed what was written against other written text and what they were taught. If they agreed they included it as part of the Canon.

I never raised the issue of writing style. There were several criteria they used to determine the authenticity of a text. I can list them if you want.

[Kansasdad]

1. I would not call it logical at all

That was my point exactly. It was not logical. It was a jump

2. The question of the "encoding" of scripture was not my question, it was part of the original question by the OP so it is the issue

It is certainly an issue for ther OP, but in terms of making your point, it is a non-issue. Your statement implied that there was something "missing" between the age of the apostles, and the councils. There was not.

3. If there was near universal agreement then they did not need the councils.

No one said that they did. The books that came to be recognized by us as "God-Breathed" were "God-Breathed" long before we recognized them as such. The councils were simply the method the church at that time used for discerning the voice of God. They could have chosen another method and that would have been fine. The primary reason for the councils was not to make believers aware of which letters belonged in the canon. It was to combat certain "heretics" that came along recommending other books, and were attempting to have others (like Hebrews) removed. It was a meeting of the leadership designed to compat heresy (in regards to Jesus deity, and the inclusion of the gnostic books)

4. Even on the 1 or 2 books in question if they could not trace the authority back to the teachings of the Apostles it was not considered authoritive.

I agree. Don;t see the issue here. The one or two books I was talking about, were not included (like the Gospel of Thomas)

5. For there to have been near universal agreement, by what knowledge was this agreement determined. Writting style can only go so far. They had to have "learned" kowledge of what was actually taught. They weighed what was written against other written text and what they were taught. If they agreed they included it as part of the Canon.

I never raised the issue of writing style. There were several criteria they used to determine the authenticity of a text. I can list them if you want.

I think that was indeed part of the OP question

[Jorge S]

Modern critics are not comparable to ancient authors. A person is not automatically more qualified to judge certain issues simply because he lives chronologically closer to the issue at hand.

You've just buried History as a scientific discipline and rendered the knowability of our past a mockery. It is the typical attitude of Agnosticism when it comes to everything related to God. In everything else, including their own conclusions about things divine, Agnostics are quite gullible and shallow.

My friend, ancient authors qualify as primary sources for the knowledge of their historic times, and that includes their views about the events and characters they witnessed. You simply don't have the opportunity of knowing the past without them. Whatever conclusion we draw about historic events has to be in agreement with the available evidence.

The early times of Christianity were unique in many regards. That's why the writtings of the Apostolic Fathers are an invaluable tool to learn about the beginnings of our Faith.

Here are some inspired excepts from the Introductory Notice to an 1884 compilation of the writtings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: "Those were times of heroism, not of words; an age, not of writers, but of soldiers; not of talkers, but of sufferers." ..."These writings come down to us as the earliest response of converted nations to the testimony of Jesus. They are primary evidences of the Canon and the credibility of the New Testament."... If you are familiar with Scripture, you owe it largely to these primitive witnesses to its Canon and its spirit. By their testimony we detect what is spurious, and we identify what is real. Is it nothing to find that your Bible is also their Bible, your faith their faith, your Saviour their Saviour, your God their God?" Let us reflect also that, when copies of the entire Scriptures were rare and costly, these citations were "words fitly spoken, - apples of gold in pictures of silver."... The Fathers are inferior in kind as well as in degree; yet their words are lingering echoes of those whose words were spoken "as the Spirit gave them utterance." They are monuments of the power of the Gospel.

When we look at the books of the Bible, it is clear that, while they are much better-preserved than most ancient literature, the texts have been irreparably corrupted at least to some degree.

To what degree and what's your blueprint to proof-read them?

2. ... I would begin by throwing out the idea of inerrancy. I would next take a more historical approach, separating the authentic letters of Paul, and dividing the rest of the early Christian writings according to topic and time period. I would then treat each work with varying authority.

Again, what's your proof-reading tool?

[hatsoff]

You've just buried History as a scientific discipline and rendered the knowability of our past a mockery. It is the typical attitude of Agnosticism when it comes to everything related to God. In everything else, including their own conclusions about things divine, Agnostics are quite gullible and shallow.

My friend, ancient authors qualify as primary sources for the knowledge of their historic times, and that includes their views about the events and characters they witnessed. You simply don't have the opportunity of knowing the past without them. Whatever conclusion we draw about historic events has to be in agreement with the available evidence.

The early times of Christianity were unique in many regards. That's why the writtings of the Apostolic Fathers are an invaluable tool to learn about the beginnings of our Faith.

You're confusing use with trust. Ancient sources are indeed helpful, but they must be interpreted with a critical eye, especially when they contradict eachother.

To what degree and what's your blueprint to proof-read them?

We don't know how badly they have been corrupted. Certain problems have been identified and corrected, such as Mark 16:9-20,21 and 1 John 5:7-8; others have been discovered but remain unsolved, such as John 7:53-8:11. Who knows what other corruptions have escaped recognition, especially in the Old Testament, where mss. history is often absent up until the Masoretic texts?

Again, what's your proof-reading tool?

Textual criticism and historical inquiry.