How do you disagree with the Catholic notion of how the New Testament was formed?

[CanIHunt]

I am trying to learn about other churches and would like to know how you disagree with the Catholic view below of how the New Testament was formed. Thank you.

Did Catholics form the New Testament?

-As for the content of the Bible, it is the inspired word of God and contains accurate information about spiritual matters.

-As for who wrote the New Testament, various Christians wrote books explaining the history of the Church, some where Apostles, the books were about the life of Christ or letters to a specific group of people or an open letter.

-As for how the bible was compiled (as for in early Christianity, there were many letters floating around and some may have been fake), it took 300 years from the time the last book was written to when the New Testament was formally recognized. The final compilation of New Testament books was developed by individual Bishops in the Catholic Church. While these Bishops were far apart in distance, their compilation of books were very similar. The books they decided to use must have been written by an apostle or someone close to an apostle, must have been used frequently by other Bishops and priests in their masses and must have been referenced frequently by the early Fathers. They decided formally on which books to use in councils (the councils listed below). In the early 4th century, Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman empire. Beginning in the late 4th century and early 5th century, councils met and formally determined what was in the New Testament.


*In A.D. 170, the first canon was the Muratorian Canon was compiled.
This canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John

*In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches.

*In A.D. 393, the Council of Hippo and in A.D. 397, the Council of Carthage also affirmed the same 27 books as being authoritative

*Therefore, by the end of the 4th century the canon of the New Testament was determined

 

[faroukfarouk]

The Bible did not become the canon in the 4th century. Rather, its authority was recognized as inherent already. In the case of the New Testament books, the authorship of an Apostle - plus the Acts of the Apostles - is important, and their authorship was not dependent on what people said about them years later.

 

[Steeno7]

I am trying to learn about other churches and would like to know how you disagree with the Catholic view below of how the New Testament was formed. Thank you.

Did Catholics form the New Testament?

-As for the content of the Bible, it is the inspired word of God and contains accurate information about spiritual matters.

-As for who wrote the New Testament, various Christians wrote books explaining the history of the Church, some where Apostles, the books were about the life of Christ or letters to a specific group of people or an open letter.

-As for how the bible was compiled (as for in early Christianity, there were many letters floating around and some may have been fake), it took 300 years from the time the last book was written to when the New Testament was formally recognized. The final compilation of New Testament books was developed by individual Bishops in the Catholic Church. While these Bishops were far apart in distance, their compilation of books were very similar. The books they decided to use must have been written by an apostle or someone close to an apostle, must have been used frequently by other Bishops and priests in their masses and must have been referenced frequently by the early Fathers. They decided formally on which books to use in councils (the councils listed below). In the early 4th century, Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman empire. Beginning in the late 4th century and early 5th century, councils met and formally determined what was in the New Testament.


*In A.D. 170, the first canon was the Muratorian Canon was compiled.
This canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John

*In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches.

*In A.D. 393, the Council of Hippo and in A.D. 397, the Council of Carthage also affirmed the same 27 books as being authoritative

*Therefore, by the end of the 4th century the canon of the New Testament was determined

The canon was not determined or formed by the ecumenical councils, only affirmed. The NT writings were in circulation and in use long before the councils affirmation. The recognition of canonical books was simply the acceptance of a well attested fact. The authority of Scripture had already been established through its application by the Holy Spirit in the experience of believers.

 

[miamited]

Hi canihunt,

I agree with FF. What was accepted as 'the new covenant writings' had already been largely determined before the catholic organization established the 'authorized' canon. However, there were beginning to pop up quite a few spurious and unfounded writings that were beginning to infiltrate the 'church' and so the catholic organization took it upon themselves to set apart those writings that had always been generally accepted by the 'church' as the true Scriptures, dismissing the rest, and declaring that the canon was now closed.

Oddly enough, that didn't work all too well, since the very same organization then later added the apocryphal writings to the accepted canon. This happened much later on in the 1500's. They called these the 'deuterocanonical' books which actually means the 'second canon'. So much for the catholic organization being the 'keeper of the keys' of the canon.

As far as I am concerned, God has always been the author of the Scriptures and, through the works of men, has always been the one who preserved them. God has always used His people, the Jews, to write the Scriptures. The only books that have ever been questioned in this are the books of Luke and the book of the Acts of the Apostles (believed to have been written by Luke) and Job. The Scriptures never make clear that Luke was a Jew, but it is certainly possible that he was. There were many 'converted' Jews in that day and we are not given any lineage of Luke's forefathers. Luke supposedly came from the city of Antioch in Syria and there was a Jewish community in Antioch. As a matter of fact, the book of the Acts of the Apostles in 14:19 makes mention of several Jews having come from that area.

Job, on the other hand, is believed to have been written before the people known as the 'Jews' came into being. He seems to have been just a godly man who lived, possibly hundreds of years, before God called Abraham. Most of the 'clues' included in Job's writing seem to put him living at least as early as Abraham and very possibly much earlier.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I found it safer and more in line with Torah (all Scripture) to just trust and believe God instead of men who contradict Him. Oh, I was once with the multitudes who have been tricked, and perhaps they now say I am wrong, but like the Bereans, Scripture is my standard - not man any more.

Remember that the Creator Himself Promises to teach us(ekklesia) the truth is we love HIM more than we love men, so that's the crux of the matter - who do we love more; God or men?

God is Faithful, True and Trustworthy. men are degenerate, carnal, and in error.

God is able and willing to save souls. men cannot even if they want to.

So it's really a no-brainer; as it is Written, Trust God. (and do what He says)

RE How do you disagree with the catholic notion of how the New Testament was formed?

 

[BryanW92]

I am trying to learn about other churches and would like to know how you disagree with the Catholic view below of how the New Testament was formed. Thank you.

Did Catholics form the New Testament?

-As for the content of the Bible, it is the inspired word of God and contains accurate information about spiritual matters.

-As for who wrote the New Testament, various Christians wrote books explaining the history of the Church, some where Apostles, the books were about the life of Christ or letters to a specific group of people or an open letter.

-As for how the bible was compiled (as for in early Christianity, there were many letters floating around and some may have been fake), it took 300 years from the time the last book was written to when the New Testament was formally recognized. The final compilation of New Testament books was developed by individual Bishops in the Catholic Church. While these Bishops were far apart in distance, their compilation of books were very similar. The books they decided to use must have been written by an apostle or someone close to an apostle, must have been used frequently by other Bishops and priests in their masses and must have been referenced frequently by the early Fathers. They decided formally on which books to use in councils (the councils listed below). In the early 4th century, Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman empire. Beginning in the late 4th century and early 5th century, councils met and formally determined what was in the New Testament.


*In A.D. 170, the first canon was the Muratorian Canon was compiled.
This canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John

*In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches.

*In A.D. 393, the Council of Hippo and in A.D. 397, the Council of Carthage also affirmed the same 27 books as being authoritative

*Therefore, by the end of the 4th century the canon of the New Testament was determined

I agree with how the New Testament was formed because that is historical fact. They created the New Testament that we have and they were the first to pull together a concise and complete New Testament. At the 4th century, the Church had not succumbed to the corruption of the Middle Ages and early Renaissance period, so it is as trustworthy as any New Testament that we have access to.

My problem with the Catholic Church history of the bible begins after the 4th century and extends into the later Councils that began to elevate church "tradition" over Scripture. By the time of the Reformation, the RCC had all but abandoned scripture in favor of papal authority and a tradition that the RCC claimed was an oral history from the Apostles, but that has been proven to be false.

 

[BryanW92]

I found it safer and more in line with Torah (all Scripture) to just trust and believe God instead of men who contradict Him. Oh, I was once with the multitudes who have been tricked, and perhaps they now say I am wrong, but like the Bereans, Scripture is my standard - not man any more.

The OP asked about the New Testament. To say that New Testament believers are "tricked" is not really within the scope this forum.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

totally.

someone has been tricked. look at the posts in this thread - several do not agree with you and it is not possible to all be right. so one or more have been tricked. I used to be in among some who were tricked and I didn't know any better until passing through a time of learning that is what is required for everyone who comes to be becoming abiding in ekklesia. (as it is a gift from ABBA, not a work nor ability of men).

 

[BryanW92]

totally.

someone has been tricked. look at the posts in this thread - several do not agree with you and it is not possible to all be right. so one or more have been tricked. I used to be in among some who were tricked and I didn't know any better until passing through a time of learning that is what is required for everyone who comes to be becoming abiding in ekklesia. (as it is a gift from ABBA, not a work nor ability of men).

We're all in basic agreement on scripture in this thread. The only difference is in causes and effects as found in history, but that has no real effect on our belief in the New Testament. I really can't figure out what you believe. I think you've spoken of using some Hebrew New Testament a while back, but I'm not sure. Or do you strictly go with the Hebrew Bible (i.e. Old Testament) or the Torah only?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The Bible did not become the canon in the 4th century. Rather, its authority was recognized as inherent already. In the case of the New Testament books, the authorship of an Apostle - plus the Acts of the Apostles - is important, and their authorship was not dependent on what people said about them years later.

The canon was not determined or formed by the ecumenical councils, only affirmed. The NT writings were in circulation and in use long before the councils affirmation. The recognition of canonical books was simply the acceptance of a well attested fact. The authority of Scripture had already been established through its application by the Holy Spirit in the experience of believers.

i agree that no human 'group' decided what to be included in Scripture. Yhvh is in charge, directly, divinely, in the Old Testament and in the New through Yahushua. Looking at it any other way leads more and more into error as seen historically for Israel and later for others. See Hebrews. It's a wonderful enlightenment of how Yhvh speaks to people today, according to HIS PLAN (not man's).

 

[College Boy]

I agree with how the New Testament was formed because that is historical fact. They created the New Testament that we have and they were the first to pull together a concise and complete New Testament. At the 4th century, the Church had not succumbed to the corruption of the Middle Ages and early Renaissance period, so it is as trustworthy as any New Testament that we have access to.

I agree with this.

This is a verifiable fact that the Church labored in councils under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to compile what became the books of the New Testament.

Although I disagree with the suggestion that the Church fell to corruption between antiquity and the renaissance, for the purposes of this discussion that's neither here nor there.

 

[CanIHunt]

Thank you for all the responses. I am going to stop monitoring this thread now.