By What Authority?

[GoodSamaritan]

My understanding is the 66 Books were canonized, by the Catholic church in the time of constantine, and then after that they added some on.

In 393, the Council of Hippo closed the NT canon and this canon was reaffirmed at 5 other councils. Combined with the OT canon that had been in use since Apostolic times, there were 73 books. The canon had 73 books until 1540 when Luther altered it to agree with his new 'theologies'. Constantine had no say in what books were canonized in the NT but he did call the Council which attmepted to determine it around 339.

Now with a canon firmly in place by 393, who would possess authority to remove or add books after this and why?

[Steff]

Now with a canon firmly in place by 393, who would possess authority to remove or add books after this and why?

I think that was the point. Man had no authority to say which book would become part of the bible and which would not. I think the best point to take is that the additional books are not referenced by the scriptures.

However, being that I cannot read Hebrew or Ancient Greek I would personally have to read through the earliest texts available to see what they say. The seven extra books do contain valuable lessons, but it's a big question as to whether they truly come from God. Being that I'm not a linguist or a biblical scholar I would have to do some reading before I could see the true relation of these texts to the bible as it stands today. Remember, just because it has history doesn't necessarily make it right, I think many Catholics fall into this trap.

Something else to add, back in the original days it was near impossible to anyone to "Re-write" a text because of the enormous cost involved. It was very rare for anyone to have the means to investigate the origins of the Biblical texts and submit changes to be made. The Catholic chuch ruled these changes with an Iron fist so to speak so they did not lose their means of control over the whole of Europe.

Edited June 17, 2004 by Steff

[GoodSamaritan]

Man had no authority to say which book would become part of the bible and which would not. I think the best point to take is that the additional books are not referenced by the scriptures.

I'm not sure i follow you here. If humans, guided by the Holy Spirit didn't choose the books of the BIble, who did? Angels? Jesus created a Church based on his Apostles, then filled them with the HOly Spirit. Is it conceivable that he taught them the faith and then, when they all died, took his teachings and went home? Of course not. He said he'd be with the Apostles and His Church to the end of the world.

The point is that Christ gave his authority to the Apostles and they handed it on to successors. This authority was manifest in the 73 books canonized in 393. It was so until 1540--was Luther filled with the Holy Spirit? If so, prove this. If not, how was he able to claim authority to take out 7 books which were there for 1200 years?

The Catholic chuch ruled these changes with an Iron fist so to speak so they did not lose their means of control over the whole of Europe.

The Catholic Church did not rule Europe. YOur history book is flawed. THey did, however, claim authority based upon Apostolic succession, to create the canon of the Christian Bible. Nobody disputed this for 1200 years--why is this? It surely wasn't because the Pope had an army at his back. The 73 Book canon existed before the 66 book canon did--this is fact. If this is so, how can you or I or Luther take stuff out simply because they didn't fit in with his challenge to authority.

[Guest charlie]

Well, if the people that chose the books of the Bible were truly inspired by God as to which ones to choose, and they chose 73, then imo we should stick with 73. My Bible has 66 and it wasn't until I was in my 30s that I found out other people had more than 66. It made me "uncomfortable" but so far I still don't have the other 7. Sixty six has kept me pretty busy. Anyway, if Luther tossed out 7 books and we agree that it was right to do this, don't we undermine the authority of the other 66 books. If "they" were not under the inspiration of God when those 7 books were chosen then how can we say "they" were under the inspiration of God when they chose the 66.

Another thing that bothered me when I "found out" about 66 vs 73 is the number 66 itself. I don't like that number.

A third thing that bothers me is the timing. If 73 were the accepted norm thruout church history, and the 7 were tossed out during the reformation, I have to wonder if the 7 were tossed for legitmate, sincere reasons or for political reasons. Is there something in those 7 books that nullify Luther's teachings or something that nullifies the entire reformation?

[Guest yod]

When deciding on which books were canonical, the OT was accepted "as is" because the jewish people recognized it as scripture. The "extra 7" books were written before the New Testament and could have been chosen as biblical by the jews before there was a church.....but they were not even considered!

Likewise, Yeshua & the disciples never mentioned them as scripture either.

This is the most likely reason Luther would have also rejected them.

[stevehut]

Why do you want to change the Bible? Is there something you don't like, that you want removed?

[Guest Strservant]

When deciding on which books were canonical, the OT was accepted "as is" because the jewish people recognized it as scripture. The "extra 7" books were written before the New Testament and could have been chosen as biblical by the jews before there was a church.....but they were not even considered!

Likewise, Yeshua & the disciples never mentioned them as scripture either.

This is the most likely reason Luther would have also rejected them.

Yod,

Thank you for your post. Good Samaritan insists that the Hebrew Scriptures include the seven extra books and that is a false assumption. The seven books of the Apochrapha have never been accepted by any religion save Catholics.

Good Samaritan, I see you chose not to respond to my last post but let me ask you a question. The Old Testament is the Scriptures of the Hebrew people. If they don't accept the seven books why should we? You keep saying that the apostles used these books but have not given us one example of their use in Scripture. Once again their is one religion trying to make themselves better than all the others by saying they have special approval by the apostles. It can't be proven by Scripture. When I ask you to back up by Scripture this or the other thread we have been discussing (Catholic Church being able to claim apostolic origins) you have not responded. Would that be because there are no Scriptures that specifically say that the church Jesus referred to was the Catholic Church? Would this also be because none of the apostles or Jesus quoted anything from these seven books? These things that you espouse cannot be shown Scripturally.

Why must you continue to try to make your church better or somehow more authoritative than those of other Christian brothers and sisters on this forum? Does this make you more of a Christian than anyone else on this forum? God deals with each one of us as He needs to and to say that literrally millions of people who have followed His words are going to be lost because they are not of the Catholic Church is ludicrous.

Respectfully,

Strservant

[Guest Strservant]

THey did, however, claim authority based upon Apostolic succession, to create the canon of the Christian Bible. Nobody disputed this for 1200 years--why is this? It surely wasn't because the Pope had an army at his back.

Good Samaritan,

You say the history books are flawed and I say that those by whom you have learned church history has presented the Catholic Church in somewhat of a filtered light. I have said before that I am a Southern Baptist. No matter if I want to admit it or not, my denomination supported slavery. I am not proud of this fact and I am very glad that they have issued formal apologies for this stance. In the area of the 900's to 12 or 1300's there were popes that controlled governments and actions of governments. Many of the crusades were started by leaders of countries who were being pressured by the pope. Once again, I wish Good Samaritan that you could choose to accept your brothers and sisters in Christ. These things you put forth as fact without being able to give direct quotes of Scripture to back them up does nothing but divide the brethren.

Respectfully,

Strservant

[Guest yod]

.... and to say that literrally millions of people who have followed His words are going to be lost because they are not of the Catholic Church is ludicrous.

Quite the opposite is more likely

Anyone who thinks they are saved by a religious institution or a few hocus-pokus rituals is going to be surprised on the day of Judgement.

[AllforJesustheLord]

Man had no authority to say which book would become part of the bible and which would not. I think the best point to take is that the additional books are not referenced by the scriptures.

I'm not sure i follow you here. If humans, guided by the Holy Spirit didn't choose the books of the BIble, who did? Angels? Jesus created a Church based on his Apostles, then filled them with the HOly Spirit. Is it conceivable that he taught them the faith and then, when they all died, took his teachings and went home? Of course not. He said he'd be with the Apostles and His Church to the end of the world.

The point is that Christ gave his authority to the Apostles and they handed it on to successors. This authority was manifest in the 73 books canonized in 393. It was so until 1540--was Luther filled with the Holy Spirit? If so, prove this. If not, how was he able to claim authority to take out 7 books which were there for 1200 years?

The Catholic chuch ruled these changes with an Iron fist so to speak so they did not lose their means of control over the whole of Europe.

The Catholic Church did not rule Europe. YOur history book is flawed. THey did, however, claim authority based upon Apostolic succession, to create the canon of the Christian Bible. Nobody disputed this for 1200 years--why is this? It surely wasn't because the Pope had an army at his back. The 73 Book canon existed before the 66 book canon did--this is fact. If this is so, how can you or I or Luther take stuff out simply because they didn't fit in with his challenge to authority.

Well the Catholic church was not always lead by God. They were not always lead by God's Spirit, they through out time taught many things against the 66 books which are in The bible.

Now I am not saying we can not look at those other books, we can receive all truth, but if something goes against God, and His teachings, then we should not receive those things, we have a suffient amount of teachings in the Bible, to show His will.