The heretics who made the bible

Gracia Singh said:

I think I know the thread you're referencing, @HTacianas , and it was very strange, and frankly, upsetting. How much folks torture themselves trying to understand every word of Scripture with their own reason. I can understand healthy skepticism, uncertainty, and a desire to be 100% correct, and not be mislead. That, I get. But, agreed, to say that the Saints who in history helped to establish the Canon should not be trusted, or were heretical, is just weird. And sad.

Click to expand...

Can you link the thread, please? It sounds like an interesting read

James Murphy said:

Can you link the thread, please? It sounds like an interesting read

Click to expand...

I believe this is it;

Jesus Only had an Eternal Divine Soul & Not a Human Soul (Scripture only debate please).

Gracia Singh said:

I believe this is it;

Jesus Only had an Eternal Divine Soul & Not a Human Soul (Scripture only debate please).

Click to expand...

Ah! Thanks

The belief that the canon of scripture was inspired but not the doctrines of the churches that formed such canon has more to do with desperation than logic.

HTacianas said:

This is NOT a callout thread. I am only offering this for discussion.

I had someone earlier in another thread attempt to convince me that the successors to the apostles are heretics foretold by Peter. To support the idea he quoted, inter alia:

2Pe 2:1 - But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

To prove the point that heretics took over the Church, he quoted the bible. Yet those men accused of heresy are the very same men who decided what the bible is.

So apparently using a bible composed by heretics proves they were in fact heretics. This not the first time I've heard this. And it begs the question:

Was the bible created by heretics?

Click to expand...

No.

The Holy Spirit created the 'Bible'.

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:

They believed heretical Ideas(Speaking of the Catholics who composed their bible) and were thus heretics(though I will not judge whether or not they were saved). The bible they put together did have flaws that is why there are seven extra books in the Catholic bible that are not in the the Protestant bibles. It should be remembered they did not write the bible they simply tried to decide on which books to include, of which they added 7 that were not true and are not in agreement with the rest of scripture. As for the Orthodox Church they have even more than what the Catholics added.

Protestants do not use a bible composed by heretics in fact protestants have removed all the heretical books from the bible to bring it back to the full and true word of God. Protestants do not use the Catholic or the Orthodox bible, they only accept the true word of God and and do not accept the Heretical books that were added by either group.

It is a common practice for Catholics(in my experience) to say we use the bible composed by them and this shows that they are the Authority. But if we look protestants do not use the bible composed by Catholics instead protestants only acknowledge the true and inerrant books that are in full agreement with the rest of scripture, thus proving this Catholic argument false.

I hope this helps to answer your question brother.

Click to expand...

At the time of Jesus there was no fixed list of canonical books of the Old Testament. In general there was a belief in a spectrum of authenticity, with the Pentateuch being the most authoritive. With the rise of Christianity, some books (such as Enoch in the Ethiopian canon) became emphasized in certain communities while others not. These communities then developed their own unique canon lists.

The reformers decided to go with the Jewish canon (which did not exist in Jesus' day) and moved to the back of printed Bibles. They were considered useful to read, but should not be held as a source of doctrine. The notion that the Apocrypha were "heretical" developed much later.

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:

2. The question of what was to be in the bible was settled when the Apostles fully preached the doctrine of Christ and established his word on earth.

Click to expand...

You are confusing Kerygma (preaching) and Paradosis (teaching/tradition in this case the Apostolic Tradition) for the finished written word of the Bible in its final summation. You do not have an Apostolic Tradition without a church that passes it on!

1 Timothy 3:15
15so that, if I am delayed, you will know how each one must conduct himself in God’shousehold, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

But at least we agree that Apostolic Tradition of the Church survived and was useful in determining the NT Canon!

Lost4words said:

No.

The Holy Spirit created the 'Bible'.

Click to expand...

With gilded edges and leather bound with margins and verses, just the way the apostles meet it to be.

Tutorman said:

With gilded edges and leather bound with margins and verses, just the way the apostles meet it to be

Click to expand...

Punctuation added later

timothyu said:

Punctuation added later

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll fix t now. I do appreciate the help.

On edit: Went to ginger and they said the sentence was fine :shrug:

Tutorman said:

Thanks, I'll fix t now. I do appreciate the help

Click to expand...

I meant in the Bible

timothyu said:

I meant in the Bible

Click to expand...

Oh, sorry I am so goofy sometimes

HTacianas said:

Was the bible created by heretics?

Click to expand...

It is possible. The only requirement is that the attendees at those councils made the correct decision about which books were actually inspired.

No heresy that I can think of depends upon the whole of any book of the Bible for its claims. And what if some of those men were heretics and others were not. How does that affect the answer to the question?

Rubiks said:

At the time of Jesus there was no fixed list of canonical books of the Old Testament. In general there was a belief in a spectrum of authenticity, with the Pentateuch being the most authoritive. With the rise of Christianity, some books (such as Enoch in the Ethiopian canon) became emphasized in certain communities while others not. These communities then developed their own unique canon lists.

The reformers decided to go with the Jewish canon (which did not exist in Jesus' day) and moved to the back of printed Bibles. They were considered useful to read, but should not be held as a source of doctrine. The notion that the Apocrypha were "heretical" developed much later.

Click to expand...

1. The doctrine preached by the Apostles included the Old Testament, the scriptures they reasoned from when they went to synagogue were the ones that we now have in our Old Testament(protestant version). And they rest was given to them by the Holy spirit, the word of God being written in their hearts.

2. The Books of the Old testament did indeed exist in Christ's day, that the Scribes of the Apostles time could not decide on what was and what was not true does not mean Christ and the Apostles were lacking in understanding what were the true books and what were the false books.

3. The reformers simply brought the bible back to it's pure from, being guided by God to the truth over time.

Pavel Mosko said:

You are confusing Kerygma (preaching) and Paradosis (teaching/tradition in this case the Apostolic Tradition) for the finished written word of the Bible in its final summation. You do not have an Apostolic Tradition without a church that passes it on!

1 Timothy 3:15
15so that, if I am delayed, you will know how each one must conduct himself in God’shousehold, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

But at least we agree that Apostolic Tradition of the Church survived and was useful in determining the NT Canon!

Click to expand...

They preached the fullness of God's tradition and wrote in down in the books we now have contianed in our New Testament. There were no other traditions that needed to be passed on that were not already contained in the words written by the Apostles. The Apostles established the Lord's word and traditions in his Church, and these traditions are passed on wholly and completely in the words written down in the bible. The words they spoke out loud were the same words they wrote down.
Declared all the counsel of God(Acts 20:26-28)
Continued in Doctrine of the Apostles(Acts 2:42)
Hold Fast to the Doctrine(Titus 1:9)
Paul has Planted the word(1 Cor 3:6)
Do the things commanded by the Apostles(2 Thess 3:4,6)
Hold Fast to the word and Tradtions we have been taught(2 Thess 2:14-17)
Doctrine of Christ(2 John 9-10)
Oberserve these things(2 Tim 5:21)
Be mindful of the words spoken by the prophets and the commandments of the Apostles and Christ(2 Peter 3:1-2, 15-18)
Keep the sound words given by Paul(2 Timohty 1:13-14)
Fully known the Doctrine, continue in things learned(2 Tim 3:10, 14-15)
Laws of God (Rom 13:2,9-10)
Stablish according to the Gospel and preaching of Christ(Romans 16:25-27)
Fully preached the Gospel of Christ(Romans 15:19,29)
Acknowledge things spoken as commandments of the Lord(1 Cor 14:37)
Gospel received by Revelation of Christ(Gal 1:6-12)
Christ the same today yesterday and tomorrow, so to is the word of God the same. (Hebrews 13:8-9)
Keep the Commandments given by Christ(John 14:21,23, Matt 28:20)
Keep the Ordinances as delivered by the Apostles(1 Cor 11:1-20)
Holy word of God is of no private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20-21)

We can agree that the traditions of Christ and the Apostles exist in the bible, and that God's Church has existed in his people throughout the ages, and not within any institution like the Catholic Church. We can even agree that it was the Lord who decided was to be included in the bible when he instructed and guided the Apostles to write the books we now have in the New Testament.

That is what I could agree with you on brother.

Yes we agree on a lot, but I think it is hard to get every dogma of the Church purely or clearly from the Bible "Alone". The belief that Jesus is "True God and True Man" is the best example. Full blown Arianism, the belief that Jesus is divine, but not fully God (and therefore only God the Father should be worshiped) is a belief that is very easy to fall into by just reading a number of passages of the NT at the surface level and not getting into all the other stuff concerning the context and developing theology of the New Testament etc.

Pavel Mosko said:

Yes we agree on a lot, but I think it is hard to get every dogma of the Church purely or clearly from the Bible "Alone". The belief that Jesus is "True God and True Man" is the best example. Full blown Arianism, the belief that Jesus is divine, but not fully God (and therefore only God the Father should be worshiped) is a belief that is very easy to fall into by just reading a number of passages of the NT at the surface level and not getting into all the other stuff concerning the context and developing theology of the New Testament etc.

Click to expand...

It is fairly easy to fall into those beliefs brother, that is why the Lord ordains preachers teachers, Pastors, Etc to instruct men/women in the truth. The ministers ordained by the Lord are guided to the truth(by his spirit-1 Cor 2:10-16) about what the context means and every deep thing about God's word. It is through these people and the spirit of God that righteous instruction is given, but if there be no preacher to give instructing, then the spirit is sufficient(1 Cor 2:10-16) so long as the truth is being searched for with unwavering faith and obedience to God(James 1:5-7). To clarify it is the Lord who calls and the Lord who ordains his people, not any man. So you see brother the bible alone is sufficient for doctrine and is also sufficient for instruction, but where either faith or understanding is lacking a minister of the Lord is ordained and sent out to instruct those without understanding using only the bible/the word of God to do so. It the falls under the prove all things by God's word alone, and studying God's word to show ourselves approved portion of the bible.

1 Thess 5:21
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
2 timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 timothy 4:1-2, 5
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
1 Peter 3:15
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:


2 Timiothy 2:15
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Strangely much of what you have written Catholics and Orthodox would accept, but they would apply that to how the early church was run!

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:

1 Thess 5:21
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
2 timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 timothy 4:1-2, 5

Click to expand...

The Lexicon of the Timothy word is worth checking out the Greek uses a term meaning "profitable" or "useful" to describe scripture but does not necessarily use any words for "all sufficient" (and the mechanics of saying something like that did exist since Greek is a pretty articulate language.) Some Catholic apologists I have read make the apt point that if you read on other subjects like prayer or fasting the Bible says very similar things in regards to them, but it would be a stretch to say that for spiritual maturity all you need to do is to pray or fast! But if you understand the passage in its context it makes sense for the language used. At the time it was written, it was speaking of the OT, it was mentioning how the OT is useful for NT preaching (since as we previously discussed the NT was currently being written and not called "scripture" by early Christians until centuries later when they were all bundled together in the first Bibles)


I actually find the story of the "noble Bereans" of the Book Acts very instructive on issues like this!