WHO..decided the Bible canon?

by gumby 65 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bluesapphire

  Gumby, there are some very reliable sources to get answers to your questions here on the internet. Or also there are plenty of books you can read. (None of which the publisher is the Watchtower - since we know their record for being intellectually dishonest I don't recommend their book "All Scripture Is Inspired By God")

  For starters, it was not the intention of the bible writers to have a collection of books. Paul, for instance wrote letters to congregations during his lifetime about things he had first ORALLY taught them.

  None of his letters were intended to be catechisms, containing EVERY TEACHING of the Christian Church. Most of the Christian Traditions were taught orally and only when something went wrong was a letter necessary. Paul, In my opinion, probably never imagined his letters would be fought over 2000 years later by 10,000 sects all claiming to be the "original" Christians.

  Regardless of the claims of many, there obviously was an organization of men who first decided it was necessary to collect and preserve and then proceeded to collect and preserve the books we now include in our Bible. These same men decided what the criteria would be for a book to be considered "inspired" and thus warrant its inclusion in the collection.

  The Canon wasn't decided in a vaccum. It took hundreds of years before it was finally AUTHORITATIVELY established.

  So maybe your question should be, "Who had the authority to decide the canon?"

  In fact, that's a good question for all "Bible believers" to ask themselves because obviously God didn't come down from heaven and throw the books at us, did he?

  Someone already mentioned Irenaeus and Eusebius. Isn't it interesting that before the canon of the Bible was established, the doctrines of the Trinity, Hellfire, Immortality, Eucharist etc. were already in place. I mean Christians didn't even agree on which books were inspired but they already had a universal creed.

  That's because the Bible was one of many Traditions of the Christian Church which evolved. First came the oral Tradition and out of it came the Written Tradition.

  So when JWs or fundies say the Catholic Church practices "traditions of men" they are forgetting that the establishment of the Bible is one of those Traditions they are calling a "tradition of men."

  If a person is interested in historical facts, well it is undisputed that the Bible is a product of the Catholic Church. Even if one wants to say the Bible came from God, they still have to admit that God used the Catholic Church as his "channel" or "organization" to give His Word.

  The Catholic Church is responsible for preserving the books, as Amazing pointed out, they still have the documents at the Vatican. They are responsible for deciding which books belong in the canon. They are responsible for copying the books throughout the centuries. Throughout the centuries when most people were illiterate, they were responsible for teaching what was in the books to the people.

  In the middle centuries the cost to own a bible was equal to the cost of buying a house. So, needless to say, most people didn't have a bible of their own. But the scriptures were read every day in Mass. And there were bibles chained to Churches (because of their value) in order for people to have access to them.

  That is why the Catholic Church claims responsibility for interpreting the books they themselves canonized. The Catholic Church has always maintained the goal of preserving the original Christian teachings. Do you think they would have included in the canon of scripture teachings which contradict what they themselves believed?

  Many people who detest the Catholic Church accept the traditional Canon of the New Testament. By doing so, they necessarily acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church.

  And yet at the same time, they follow the tradition of Luther and discard 7 of the books which were part of the original canon. Why they don't discard James and Revelation I don't understand since Luther also wanted to do away with those books. If he had had his way, we wouldn't have Revelation and thus, probably no apocalyptic sects like the JWs, who claim to have the correct interpretation for that book.

  If you want more info on the canon, for starters you can go to this link and then pick up from there.

  http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS3.HTM#CANON OF THE BIBLE AND THE APOCRYPHA
• 

  gumby

  Bluesaphire: Quote "Do you think they would have included in the canon of scripture teachings which contradict what they themselves believed?

  This implies there were other books that would have contradicted the books the church chose....is that correct?

  Another Question: The books the church chose......were they really written by the people they are credited to, and were they written WHEN they have been claimed to have been written....

  in other words...were the Gospels really written about 60 AD.?
  If so...how do we know?

  If none of these writings was not intended to be written in a book.....how would we know anything about God as we know him today or his son, in whom were supposed to believe in to gain life??
• 

  bluesapphire

  Bluesaphire: Quote "Do you think they would have included in the canon of scripture teachings which contradict what they themselves believed?
  This implies there were other books that would have contradicted the books the church chose....is that correct?

  Yes there are hundreds of books which never made it into the canon of the bible. Some books didn't make it simply because the Romans got a hold of them and burned them (such as the first book to the Colossians). Other books didn't make it because they didn't meet the criteria that the ones who were compiling lists established.

  Some books were written by heretics. Although that is a strong word, to put it simply, there were teachings which were not part of the original oral teachings. They were new and thus "heretical." Like I said before, the primary reason even for collecting the books was to preserve the ORIGINAL or another word for it ORTHODOX teachings. So if a book contained heresies (or new teachings), obviously it was not included.

  There were books which were not included just simply because they were written after the "cut-off" date which the compilers established. Those books are known as the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers (or just "The Fathers). Those are writings which the Church looks to and holds in high regard because they contain information written by the leaders in the Church of the next generation of Christians after the apostles. The writings of Justin, for example, are very valuable because he was a student of one of the Apostles (My memory is fading but I think it was John.) The same with the writings of Clement and Polycarp.

  Then there are writings such as the Didache which was a catechism of the first century. Essentially, it was a collection of teachings of the apostles. It wasn't included in the canon even though it was written during the same timeframe as the other books.

  Another Question: The books the church chose......were they really written by the people they are credited to, and were they written WHEN they have been claimed to have been written....

  in other words...were the Gospels really written about 60 AD.?
  If so...how do we know?

  This question is not easily answered here on the forum because of its complexity. Some books are attributed to certain writers and the only evidence we have is the testimony of the Church which was handed down. When you hear historians use phrases such as "Tradition credits such and such with authorship..." what they really are saying is that the only proof we have is the testimony of the Church. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. The Church's testimony found in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers is what has given us almost everything of what most Christians believe.

  It's just like when we hear said that Moses is the author of the first five books of the Old Testament. Well, we know most of those books were written long after Moses. But the testimony of the Jewish religion is the basis for attributing the writings to Moses, when in reality Moses probably authored the books only in the sense that he might have written some things or possibly only orally taught them and only later on were they compiled into what we call the Torah.

  In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers is valuable testimony which attributes authorship to certain books. I believe the Synoptic Gospels were written around 60 AD but the Gospel of John was later, along with his Revelation. That website could answer your question more effectively than I can in this setting. I encourage you to go there. You will find out a lot!

  If none of these writings was not intended to be written in a book.....how would we know anything about God as we know him today or his son, in whom were supposed to believe in to gain life??

  The fact is that without these writings we would still have a Church that He established. It wasn't God who commanded the men to write, or to collect, or to canonize, or to preserve, or to translate... God didn't command those words. But Jesus said, "Go therefore and teach."

  In the early stages of Christianity when Christians believed in the imminent end of the world, there wasn't much of a need for a canon. But as the first generation of Christians started to die off and heresies began to spring up, the need became apparent to establish not only a creed but also a canon. The goal was to preserve original Christianity.

  So the Church decided that the best way to preserve the teachings and pass them down was to write and collect and preserve and pass on. That is why Catholics believe they have the "fullness" of the faith. Because we not only value the Sacred teachings in the written form but also in its Oral form. The Liturgy of the Mass for example is an ancient Christian Tradition that we carry on to this day.

  So in answer to this question, how would we even know God, I'm not sure we would if it wasn't for the fact that the Bible was written, collected and preserved. But along with that, comes the realization that He did use a Church to do it.

  The JWs and many other sects freely criticize teachings of the Church and say, for example, that it has distorted original Christianity. I believe this to be an absurd accusation. Any one of those heresies could have been used by God to do the job of establishing a canon which would survive until our day. But God didn't use any of them. He didn't use the Montanists or the Arians or the Gnostics. Some heresies stayed alive for 200 years until they eventually died out. Some reappeared in our day under different guises such as the JWs. God could have chosen to use any of the sects which sprung up. He used One Church. He had his choice. He chose.

  The bottom line of why I chose to become Catholic.
• 

  SixofNine

  Perhaps Gumby, anyone who thinks they know anything of God by the writings found in the bible, knows nothing of God, and actively insults God. That's the best bet I can come up with. So, why did we ever think that book had a supernatural source in the first place? Our mommies and daddies and society at large told us so, that's why. Turns out our mommies and daddies and society at large were wrong about alot of things. Most things, in fact.

  Let it go. Or go insane.
• 

  bluesapphire

  SixofNine, there are a lot of evil people who believe in the Bible. That's for sure. Just look at Hitler. Or even some of these Cardinals nowadays who have no excuse for what they're doing.

  But to say that anyone who believes in the Bible "knows nothing of God and insults God", don't you think that's being just as judgmental as those who say that anyone who doesn't believe in the Bible insults God and knows nothing of God?

  Even people who were never taught anything at all about God by their moms and dads and society can know God. And many people who don't even claim to believe in God honor God by being good human beings. The law of God is written in men's hearts. That's what I believe anyways.
• 

  Satanus

  Gumby

  how would we know anything about God as we know him today or his son

  Maybe we wouldn't, as they are thought to be known today. Maybe they aren't like most people today think they are. Most people have the capacity to find god for themselves. I think we should at least attempt to do that. If someone doesn't, well ok, but why put all your faith in one or two guys' (paul & jesus) experiences from 2000 yrs ago.

  All aboriginal groups had their shamans. These guys journied into the spirit world on behalf of their tribe members. To their respective tribes, they were like jesus was to his clique. Shamanism springs up naturally. It was the first religion in all human groups. As the size of groups grow, shamanism is built upon and eventually dicarded as beaurocracy positions itself to controll the people through religion.

  Anyway, how much sense does it make that the almighty who is supposedly so concerned with our thoughts would make no expressions for 2000 yrs at a time? Even within the catholic church were many who experienced god. Hildegard of bingen, st francis asissi, st anthony, the theresas, st john of the cross etc etc. Check out the book mysticism by evelyn underhill.

  The bible really isn't necesary for spirituality. It has become so popular because it acts like an invisible police man through the fear and guilt that it teaches. One of the reasons i have some respect fot the catholic church is because it has the writings and god experiences by its saints, and it downplays a reliance on the bible, especially the ot, at least compared to evangelicals.

  SS
• 

  bluesapphire

  SS:

  One of the reasons i have some respect fot the catholic church is because it has the writings and god experiences by its saints, and it downplays a reliance on the bible, especially the ot, at least compared to evangelicals.

  If you mean what I think you mean, then I agree with you. I've said it before that I can't find respect for Protestant or Evangelical groups which focus on attacking the Catholic Church all the while proclaiming "Sola Scriptura!" That is an oxymoron!

  I don't think so much that the Catholic Church downplays the Bible. I just think it appears that way because Catholics don't go around saying, "Where is that in the Bible?" for every stupid question asked. Not that the Bible doesn't support the teachings, just that we realize where we got the Bible from.

  The Bible has its place but the emphasis is on Christian living. What good is it to be able to quote this verse or that verse if you don't live it?

  The lives of the saints -- St. Francis of Assisi and St. Therese are my favorites -- those are treasures. Anyone who can endeavor to be as close to Godliness as those people, regardless of what religion they are or are not, has my respect.
• 

  Satanus

  BlueS

  Catholics don't go around saying, "Where is that in the Bible?" for every stupid question asked

  Exactly, and so most catholics start using more of their brains for thinking instead of memorising. Also, there are extensive philosophical writings on the nature of god and many other topics. As you say, some of the saints are like treasures. Reading a book of saint bios is very uplifting.

  A couple of yrs ago, i corresponded w a young catholic going the saint route in toronto. His description of his god/jesus experiences were very interesting, to say the least. He had a true love relationship w god. Jw's haven't got a clue, by comparison.

  SS
• 

  William Penwell

  These books of the bible that were put together by the church.....................WHO wrote the books????????????

  If you believe what the Jdubs and other Christian religions, tell you, they say that the gospel accounts of Jesus in the NT was written by Jesus followers around the time of his death. Historians now say that the gospel accounts were written some 20 to 30 years after Jesus death and there is doubt some of the writers personally knew Jesus. There was more than 4 gospel accounts but the number was finally decided in the 4 century at the Council of Nicea. The number 4 were finally decided on because they felt 4 was a perfect number i.e. 4 corners of the earth. One of the oldest if not the oldest Gospel account was not included in the NT. This was the Gospel of Thomas. The early Orthodox Church fathers didn't include because it was to "Gnostic". As a matter of fact they did not want to include the Gospel of John because of its Gnostic sentiments but to appease the Gnostic element in the church it was included. That is why the Gospel of John is said to be the synoptic Gospel.

  I hope this is a little more information for you.

  Will

  "I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's."
  Mark Twain
• 

  bluesapphire

  With all due respect, William Powell, the canon was NOT decided at the Council of Nicea. The Gospel of Thomas was not excluded because it was a "fifth" gospel. The Gospel of John is not a "synoptic" gospel and your statement that the four gospels were decided upon because of the number 4 sounds quirky to me too.

  Where, may I ask, did you obtain your information?

  Thanks.