books of the canon

SummaScriptura · #71 13th September 2008, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Standing Up

The Word is a lamp unto my feet (Psalm 119:105). And Jesus said Moses wrote of Me (John 5:46).

The lamp in the tabernacle of Moses is the menorah. It had 7 branches with three complete decorations of an almond bud, cup, and blossom on each, except for the central shaft that had four. It was hammered from a single piece of gold without measurements.

So, couple of thoughts: Whoever compiled the Bible for us, ended up with the right number of a total of 66 books with 39 in the OT and 27 in the NT. We are to consider the work as a limitless whole.

The 66 is derived from 3*3*6=54 plus 4*3=12 for a total of 66. Also, there are three branches and the central branch for a total of 39 (3*3*3 and 4*3) plus the other three branches of 27 (3*3*3).

The tabernacle in the wilderness was built according to the pattern God showed Moses on the mountain. The pattern was based upon heavenly realities. We're not in the realm of guesswork here when we conclude the sevenfold light of the Menorah in the tabernacle was patterned after the Holy Spirit, whom the Bible says is sevenfold.

Revelation 1:4-5 Here the sevenfold Holy Spirit sends grace and peace to the churches.
Revelation 4:5 Here the sevenfold Holy Spirit is shown to be the light of the heavenly Menorah before the throne.

The Bible, whose canon we're discussing, determines the seven-candled Menorah stands to represent the nature and works of the Holy Spirit, not the Bible.

Also, I hope you're willing to realize there have been other numerological formulas suggested besides yours which claim to reveal a hidden pattern for just how many books the Bible should include. The Syrians say the O.T. should include 22 books and the N.T. should include 22; some have noticed this agrees with the total letters in the Hebrew alphabet.

Also, realize 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles are really 3 books which have been artificially broken into 6. There are other ways of repackaging the "66-book Bible" (which was never canonized, by the way!) into other configurations. The Jews in ancient times placed the 12 prophets on one scroll (one book) for instance.

Crazy Liz · #72 13th September 2008, 09:23 PM

Standing Up · #73 15th September 2008, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by SummaScriptura

The tabernacle in the wilderness was built according to the pattern God showed Moses on the mountain. The pattern was based upon heavenly realities. We're not in the realm of guesswork here when we conclude the sevenfold light of the Menorah in the tabernacle was patterned after the Holy Spirit, whom the Bible says is sevenfold.

Rev. 1:4-5 Here the sevenfold Holy Spirit sends grace and peace to the churches.
Rev. 4:5 Here the sevenfold Holy Spirit is shown to be the light of the heavenly Menorah before the throne.

The Bible, whose canon we're discussing, determines the seven-candled Menorah stands to represent the nature and works of the Holy Spirit, not the Bible.

Also, I hope you're willing to realize there have been other numerological formulas suggested besides yours which claim to reveal a hidden pattern for just how many books the Bible should include. The Syrians say the O.T. should include 22 books and the N.T. should include 22; some have noticed this agrees with the total letters in the Hebrew alphabet.

Also, realize 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles are really 3 books which have been artificially broken into 6. There are other ways of repackaging the "66-book Bible" (which was never canonized, by the way!) into other configurations. The Jews in ancient times placed the 12 prophets on one scroll (one book) for instance.

Well, the Holy Spirit "authored" the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16). So the symbolism of the menorah in the tabernacle should fit with the reality in heaven.

The problem with altering it now is that it allows for various other views, such as the Book of Mormon or Gospel of Thomas or etc. If not, why not? How to decide what is God breathed, which brings the conversation full circle I suppose.

Incidentally, it's not "candled", which implies self powered, but sustained by oil (of the Spirit).

SummaScriptura · #74 16th September 2008, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Well, the Holy Spirit "authored" the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16). So the symbolism of the menorah in the tabernacle should fit with the reality in heaven.

The problem with altering it now is that it allows for various other views, such as the Book of Mormon or Gospel of Thomas or etc. If not, why not? How to decide what is God breathed, which brings the conversation full circle I suppose.

Incidentally, it's not "candled", which implies self powered, but sustained by oil (of the Spirit).

I do not recall anyone on this thread advocating opening up the canon. I certainly do not.

To my understanding, the history of salvation is recorded at junctures in history where significant events related to the history of salvation occur. Since the founding of the Church by Jesus and the Apostles, that aspect of salvation history was recorded. Its over. The scriptures were recorded in that context and the canon closed by the Holy Spirit.

It is up to the Church to discover what books are within God's canon. I do not think this is too mysterious to be determined. We can know from the oldest traditions of the Church what books have been included from ancient times.

One thing is certain in this regard, in discovering the books included in God's canon, one cannot logically conclude the total number of books He has given us amounts to 66. There was never a canon of the Church issued that gave us a 66-book Bible... ever.

Standing Up · #75 16th September 2008, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by SummaScriptura

I do not recall anyone on this thread advocating opening up the canon. I certainly do not.

To my understanding, the history of salvation is recorded at junctures in history where significant events related to the history of salvation occur. Since the founding of the Church by Jesus and the Apostles, that aspect of salvation history was recorded. Its over. The scriptures were recorded in that context and the canon closed by the Holy Spirit.

It is up to the Church to discover what books are within God's canon. I do not think this is too mysterious to be determined. We can know from the oldest traditions of the Church what books have been included from ancient times.

One thing is certain in this regard, in discovering the books included in God's canon, one cannot logically conclude the total number of books He has given us amounts to 66. There was never a canon of the Church issued that gave us a 66-book Bible... ever.

On the one hand you say don't open the canon, but on the other you seem to suggest there are books to discover within an expanded canon. So ok, we can use as "canon" various books of various ministries since the salvation history based on Jesus and the apostles is over. We might end with say the restored church.

I don't suppose you really mean anything like I'm probably misunderstanding you ... But the 66 book bible we have now isn't the canon---we may as well include the Gospel of Peter or Enoch or etc. There's no connection between the menorah and the bible as we know it, else how will one decide to use the bible versus take your pick of so-called other potential canon eligible books. Slippery slope, but have no fear. Here's a question, just who is the Church?

At the same time, may I reiterate that there are no dimensions given for the menorah? If one figures it all out, the height, width, depth, then we should move on, eh?

SummaScriptura · #76 17th September 2008, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Standing Up

On the one hand you say don't open the canon, but on the other you seem to suggest there are books to discover within an expanded canon. So ok, we can use as "canon" various books of various ministries since the salvation history based on Jesus and the apostles is over. We might end with say the restored church.

I don't suppose you really mean anything like I'm probably misunderstanding you ... But the 66 book bible we have now isn't the canon---we may as well include the Gospel of Peter or Enoch or etc. There's no connection between the menorah and the bible as we know it, else how will one decide to use the bible versus take your pick of so-called other potential canon eligible books. Slippery slope, but have no fear. Here's a question, just who is the Church?

At the same time, may I reiterate that there are no dimensions given for the menorah? If one figures it all out, the height, width, depth, then we should move on, eh?

The earthly Menorah is not a type of the Bible, it is a type of the Holy Spirit of God.

-The Bible itself contains no doctrine by which the canon of the Bible was to be determined. Neither Jesus or the Apostles ever commanded the Church to establish a canon of the Bible.

-There is not now, nor has there ever been one canon of the Church by which all the churches have abided. There have and are a number of different canonical lists of the Bible of the Church as expressed by her churches.

-The 66-book arrangement, sad to say, was NEVER spelled out by any church in any canonical list of books of the Bible.

-Add to that the fact the Church faired quite well without one for centuries and you have more of a case for not establishing one than you do for establishing one.

I believe there is a canon, established by God. The Church has discovered it over time. The Church has at times done very well in this regard and at other times it has faltered.

Most Protestants beleive there are 66 canonical books.
Roman Catholics beleive there are 73 canonical books, with additions to 2 others.
Anglicans beleive there are 76 canonical books, with additions to 2 others.
Eastern Orthodox beleive there are 78 canonical books, with additions to 3 others.
Syrian, Aremenian and Ethiopian Orthodox have also recognized other books such as Enoch, Jubilees, 2 Baruch, etc.

Each of these are expressions of historical understandings of what constitutes the canonical list of Biblical books.

So, even if one were to accept all of the above-mentioned books, doing so would not consist of "opening up" the canon as these books are all demonstrably ancient and have been considered canonical from ancient times and found useful to the fatihtful and orthodox, (small "o" again).

TheCub · #77 29th September 2008, 10:04 PM

The Church is the Pillar of Truth, Not the Bible

1Ti 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (n.b. he did not say that the Bible was the pillar and buylwark of the truth.....but the Church who wrote the Bible.)

During the 4th century, Pope St. Damasus I, as a successor to Pope St. Peter, defined which books were canonical:

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I - 382 A.D.
(Incorporated into the Council of Rome)

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.

The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.

Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

(the rest of the decree not included here.)

N.B. It is to be noted that the book of Baruch was considered by some Church Fathers to be a part of the book of Jeremiah and as such was not listed separately by them.

Affirmed by a number of Councils subsequently.

Source:
The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William A. Jurgens, Vol 1 pp 404-407; Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minesota, NIHIL OBSTAT, Imprimatur. Copyright 1970.

TheCub · #78 29th September 2008, 10:11 PM

During the first century, the Jews were realing from the effects of Christianity upon their flock. In an attempt to undermine the Christians, they convened a JEWISH Council in Jamnia in 90 A.D. At such council they voted to remove 7 books from the OT Canon...i.e. the Deuterocanonicals.

It is worthy of emphasis that the Septuagint (LXX) was used by Jesus and St. Paul to teach from. It contained the deuters.....also, there are a number of citations in the NT that refer to the deuters. [Would Jesus drink from a poisoned cup?]

During the 15th century, Luther chose to add the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28. Further, he chose to remove the deuters (citing a JEWISH council) becuase certain citation therein addressed the doctrine of Purgatory.

SummaScriptura · #79 30th September 2008, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by TheCub

During the first century, the Jews were realing from the effects of Christianity upon their flock. In an attempt to undermine the Christians, they convened a JEWISH Council in Jamnia in 90 A.D. At such council they voted to remove 7 books from the OT Canon...i.e. the Deuterocanonicals.

It is worthy of emphasis that the Septuagint (LXX) was used by Jesus and St. Paul to teach from. It contained the deuters.....also, there are a number of citations in the NT that refer to the deuters. [Would Jesus drink from a poisoned cup?]

During the 15th century, Luther chose to add the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28. Further, he chose to remove the deuters (citing a JEWISH council) becuase certain citation therein addressed the doctrine of Purgatory.

Your defense is classically Roman Catholic.

As a Baptist, attempting to walk in repentance concerning the O.T. books which are not found in the MT, I choose to discard as unhelpful the whole RCC vs. Protestant argument. I have no personal use for the perjorative term "Apocrypha", I have no personal use for the term deuterocanon. Its just "the Bible" as far as I'm concerned. Truth is, both the RCC and the Protestants throw out some books. Here's an interesting tidbit of info, the Anglicans have more books in their Bible than do the Roman Catholics, (though neither has all the books of the Old Testament!)

Instead, I find going further back to the Orthodox traditions as more original and a better picture of what has been of use to the Church from the earliest times.