what makes Paul's letters part of the Bible?

[beamishboy]

I have no problem with Paul's epistles being in the canon. His epistles were accepted by the early church and they form the backbone of our faith.

My real problem is Hebrews. It only got into the canon because of an ERROR. It was thought to be a part of the Pauline Corpus for a long time. When it was subsequently discovered that the Pauline Corpus should have only 13 epistles and Hebrews was out, Hebrews was still retained int the Canon although it was considered an anonymous epistle.

Scholars today are certain Hebrews is not by Paul. No serious theologian ever thinks of Hebrews as Pauline any more. Yet it is in the canon.

Why is it that in my experience, questions about the canon of the Bible are usually met with silence? My Mum has warned me never to bring up such questions in adult company but I can hardly bring them up in non-adult company, can I? It's just one of the crosses I have to bear.

 

[Krelian]

You know beamish boy, I really do like kids like you.
I know a thirteen year old girl who is completely in love with the Bible.
She reads it every day, puts off other little wants in order to read it, and feels awful all day until she gets around to it.
She is an inspiration to me XD

You sound like you know your stuff too though.
The thing about the book of Hebrews is that it may or may not be Pauline.
It doesn't say either way in the text of the book, so it's best not to get too dogmatic either way.
Eusebius thought it was ambiguous and so did other writers of the 2nd century, so if people were confused then, they are sure to be absolutely baffled today XD

The big reason why I would choose, if it were up to me, to keep Hebrews is that it gives an example of how we New Covenant people are supposed to read the Old Testament.
I, personally, am a scholar of the Old Testament.
I loved the Old Testament and the Old Testament God even before I loved Jesus.
(No, I'm not ethnically Jewish, I just loved the Bible.)

As such though, I really appreciate the Hebrew epistle as it gives me a "starting point" in interpreting the Old Testament by the standard of II Corinthians 3:13~16.

In fact, I bet that a lot of what was said in Hebrews was spoken by Jesus on the road to Emmaus.
Of course, I won't deny that there are some difficult (understatement) passages in Hebrews like the one that seems to be saying that if a Christian sins he loses his salvation forever.
But for the moment, I'd rather try to understand what I don't like in the Bible from every possible viewpoint before chucking it
Otherwise, I'd have no problem with, like Martin Luther, holding the book of Esther in total disdain.

Now, I quote St. Augustine to show what my approach is toward stuff that bothers me in the Bible,
"Credo ut intelligam:" 'I believe in order that I might understand.'

But I hope you don't feel left out because of your age.
It's an awful feeling when people ignore you, but all you have to do is talk louder and make them listen to you

Good luck!

 

[beamishboy]

You know beamish boy, I really do like kids like you.
I know a thirteen year old girl who is completely in love with the Bible.
She reads it every day, puts off other little wants in order to read it, and feels awful all day until she gets around to it.
She is an inspiration to me XD

You sound like you know your stuff too though.
The thing about the book of Hebrews is that it may or may not be Pauline.
It doesn't say either way in the text of the book, so it's best not to get too dogmatic either way.
Eusebius thought it was ambiguous and so did other writers of the 2nd century, so if people were confused then, they are sure to be absolutely baffled today XD

The big reason why I would choose, if it were up to me, to keep Hebrews is that it gives an example of how we New Covenant people are supposed to read the Old Testament.
I, personally, am a scholar of the Old Testament.
I loved the Old Testament and the Old Testament God even before I loved Jesus.
(No, I'm not ethnically Jewish, I just loved the Bible.)

As such though, I really appreciate the Hebrew epistle as it gives me a "starting point" in interpreting the Old Testament by the standard of II Corinthians 3:13~16.

In fact, I bet that a lot of what was said in Hebrews was spoken by Jesus on the road to Emmaus.
Of course, I won't deny that there are some difficult (understatement) passages in Hebrews like the one that seems to be saying that if a Christian sins he loses his salvation forever.
But for the moment, I'd rather try to understand what I don't like in the Bible from every possible viewpoint before chucking it
Otherwise, I'd have no problem with, like Martin Luther, holding the book of Esther in total disdain.

Now, I quote St. Augustine to show what my approach is toward stuff that bothers me in the Bible,
"Credo ut intelligam:" 'I believe in order that I might understand.'

But I hope you don't feel left out because of your age.
It's an awful feeling when people ignore you, but all you have to do is talk louder and make them listen to you

Good luck!

Hi,

Thanks for your post. It's very kind of you to reply. You are indeed most knowledgeable. But then you are a scholar.

You mentioned the hard part in Hebrews. I have a problem with that too. I had a lot of problems with the canon of the Bible which led me to read two very scholarly books: Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament and FF Bruce, The Canon of Scripture. I have always known FF Bruce to be evangelical and I thought he would argue in favour of something more evangelical but as it turned out, both books have the same idea about how the books of the Bible got accepted. Some of the reasons for accepting some books and throwing out some other books are terrible.

Actually, Hebrews does teach that a Christian has no chance of salvation once he sins. Even the early church took that to be the clear interpretation of Hebrews. In an equally popular book among churches then was a book called the Shepherd of Hermas. This book advocates that a Christians still has one chance for repentance when he sins. To us in this sinful modern world, that would be unpalatable because one chance is too few. So the church was confronted with two books - Hebrews (no chance for any sin after conversion) and Shepherd of Hermas (one chance given to Christians). The church chose Hebrews and barred Shepherd from the Canon.

My vicar tells me it is ok to chuck Hebrews and a few other works. He says I must always remember I'm a follower of Jesus and not a follower of all the books of the Bible.

But I find reading scholarly books a problem. FF Bruce has a more popular book on the canon meant for the masses and in that book, he shows how reliable the New Testament as a whole is. It depends on the angle you take and I think scholars usually write differently when they do so for the masses. Naturally, I find that patronising.

I have read a commentary on Matthew by Leon Morris and I was horrified to discover that most of the prophecies of the Old Testament mentioned in the New Testament are misquoted. It's because the NT quotes from the Septuagint (by the time the NT was written, the Christians had been cast out of the Jewish community and they had no access to the Hebrew OT and also many of the Christians who were Greek could not read Hebrew). The Septuagint is known to contain serious errors. So, in Matthew, there is so much effort made to show that Jesus fulfilled some prophecies when in fact, these prophecies are non-existent when you read the Hebrew OT. The writer of Matthew bent the story of our Lord so as to fulfil a non-existent prophecy! But when I talk to people who only read popular commentaries (you know the type? One or two volumes for the entire Bible!), they think I make this up. It is very infuriating sometimes.

 

[Chickapee]

Hi beamish and krelian
I was reading your posts [exchange ] of thoughts
and was thinking also of the part that states

Hbr 6:4 For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift,

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

you are referring to this correct ?

If not , i beg your pardon
but if so , I just wanted to consider this thought

the fruits of repentance , is
acknowledging our sin [error from the Truth , being Gods will ] and accepting salvation through Jesus Christ and the need for His redemtion, deliverance; rescue... the Gift of Gods grace to us , unmerrited favor the Grace is what Im seeing as many fall from
Paul says it here fairly plainly
the law makes incomplete , half ways[Cross roads ] if you will , making Hebrews 6 well explained to me .. , and Jesus Christ makes us complete , whole entire ,[you are clean every bit by the WORD I have spoken to you , except your feet , wash one anothers feet than your my disciples [students of the WORD ] FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST JESUS path of righteousness .. this wonderful salvation of the Spirit & soul joined togther in FAITH in GODS works
from the foundation of the world [ Jesus Chgrist being the First corner Stone ]of Gods kingdom ..

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

I want to consider ALL HIS WORD and not just parts and pieces , adding to or taking away from

Building a faulty foundation of my own
but By His Holy Spirit we have newness of Life Hid in Christ Body [believers] our salvation .
peace C

 

[beamishboy]

Hi beamish and krelian
I was reading your posts [exchange ] of thoughts
and was thinking also of the part that states

Hbr 6:4 For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift,

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

you are referring to this correct ?

If not , i beg your pardon
but if so , I just wanted to consider this thought

the fruits of repentance , is
acknowledging our sin [error from the Truth , being Gods will ] and accepting salvation through Jesus Christ and the need for His redemtion, deliverance; rescue... the Gift of Gods grace to us , unmerrited favor the Grace is what Im seeing as many fall from
Paul says it here fairly plainly
the law makes incomplete , half ways[Cross roads ] if you will , making Hebrews 6 well explained to me .. , and Jesus Christ makes us complete , whole entire ,[you are clean every bit by the WORD I have spoken to you , except your feet , wash one anothers feet than your my disciples [students of the WORD ] FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST JESUS path of righteousness .. this wonderful salvation of the Spirit & soul joined togther in FAITH in GODS works
from the foundation of the world [ Jesus Chgrist being the First corner Stone ]of Gods kingdom ..

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

I want to consider ALL HIS WORD and not just parts and pieces , adding to or taking away from

Building a faulty foundation of my own
but By His Holy Spirit we have newness of Life Hid in Christ Body [believers] our salvation .
peace C

Hi, I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying you disagree with that part of Hebrews? Or are you taking the "interpretation" of most fundamentalist scholars that it's only a hypothetical and it can never happen? I find that interpretation the most innovative and outrageously incorrect. It flies in the face of the verse and pretends to explain the verse. The other way is to restrict the term "fall away" to such an extent that makes nonsense of the verse in the first place.

 

[Chickapee]

Hi, I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying you disagree with that part of Hebrews? Or are you taking the "interpretation" of most fundamentalist scholars that it's only a hypothetical and it can never happen? I find that interpretation the most innovative and outrageously incorrect. It flies in the face of the verse and pretends to explain the verse. The other way is to restrict the term "fall away" to such an extent that makes nonsense of the verse in the first place.

Hi Beamish
No , dear Im not saying i disagree with Hebrews 6 ,that part of the Bible , I so believe that Part

most
defiantly !!! I LOVE HEBREWS ! ALL 13 chapters


I think your not understanding my speech ,

sorry about that ,

Im NOT clear enough , its true , God help
Its one of the reasons i quit posting on any forums


My main point is , the ''falling away'' in hebrews 6
to me is ''what IS the FALLING AWAY''

to me it is the grace of God Paul says in Gal 5;4

Please , what do you think this falling away is Beamishboy ? THANKS IN advance


2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. ........ these are the kings of the earth to me

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon falling away here is defection, apostasy....feminine of the same as G647
apostasion
1) divorce, repudiation
2) a bill of divorce
neuter of a (presumed) adj. from a derivative of G868
seeing this is to'' come out'' of her my people ... being Babylon [confusion by mixing ] the harlot of the earth is being partakers of where the wrath of God is upon ,, reciecing her plagues
oh i hope this was more clear , if not I will try to say it plain , if you are willing bro

with much peace in Jesus christ ,, c

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr006.html#4

Hbr 6:4 For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift,

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr006.html#4Hi Chick and great post. I am hoping one day to translate the Jewish/Hebrew book of Hebrews like I did Revelation but it is time consuming and tedious.
Looking at this verse from the greek text, I always thought the word "falling away" was the same that was used in 2 thess 2 concerning the "apostasy" but they are different. I will work on this some more. Peace

Hebrew 6:4 For unable those once being enlightened tasting besides the gratuity of the heavenly and partakers being become of spirit, holy 5 and ideal tasting of God declaration powers part of the being about age, 6 and falling-away/parapesontaV <3895> (5631) again, to be renewing into reform/repentance, ones crucifying to themselves the Son of the GOD, and beside-showizing.

2 Thess 2:3 No any ye should be deluding according to no yet one manner/way, that if-ever no may be coming the apostasy/apostasia <646> first.
And may be being un-covered the Man of the Sin, the Son of the destruction/apwleiaV <684>.

NKJV) Hebrews 6:6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put [Him] to an open shame.

NKJV) 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for [that Day will not come] unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

 

[Chickapee]

Hi Chick and great post. I am hoping one day to translate the Jewish/Hebrew book of Hebrews like I did Revelation but it is time consuming and tedious.
Looking at this verse from the greek text, I always thought the word "falling away" was the same that was used in 2 thess 2 concerning the "apostasy" but they are different. I will work on this some more. Peace

Hebrew 6:4 For unable those once being enlightened tasting besides the gratuity of the heavenly and partakers being become of spirit, holy 5 and ideal tasting of God declaration powers part of the being about age, 6 and falling-away/parapesontaV <3895> (5631) again, to be renewing into reform/repentance, ones crucifying to themselves the Son of the GOD, and beside-showizing.

2 Thess 2:3 No any ye should be deluding according to no yet one manner/way, that if-ever no may be coming the apostasy/apostasia <646> first.
And may be being un-covered the Man of the Sin, the Son of the destruction/apwleiaV <684>.

NKJV) Hebrews 6:6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put [Him] to an open shame.

NKJV) 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for [that Day will not come] unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

wow ! Thanks Little Lamb !

they have a different meaning .. humm?
I look forward to your translating the Hewbrews!
I am learning , slow but surly GOD willing LOL..
falling into a net or trap maybe huh Like its written in the OC ? i looked up the other meaning somewhere else in Christian scriptures , now i checked this one , I was curious hee hee
parapipt&#333;

Pronunciation

pä-rä-p&#275;'p-t&#333; (Key)

Part of Speech

verb


Root Word (Etymology)

from G3844 and G4098
​

TDNT Reference

6:170,846​

Vines

View Entry​

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to fall beside a person or thing
2) to slip aside
a) to deviate from the right path, turn aside, wander
b) to error
c) to fall away (from the true faith): from worship of Jehovah

I am an old die hard BLB ,fan sorry but this is the simple way for me to learn , Im not the brightest bulb

burning hee hee

GOD bless you and yours always C

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

wow ! Thanks Little Lamb !

they have a different meaning .. humm?
I look forward to your translating the Hewbrews!
I am learning , slow but surly GOD willing LOL..
falling into a net or trap maybe huh Like its written in the OC ? i looked up the other meaning somewhere else in Christian scriptures , now i checked this one , I was curious hee hee
parapipt&#333;

Pronunciation

pä-rä-p&#275;'p-t&#333; (Key)

Part of Speech

verb


Root Word (Etymology)

from G3844 and G4098​

TDNT Reference

6:170,846​

Vines

View Entry​

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to fall beside a person or thing
2) to slip aside
a) to deviate from the right path, turn aside, wander
b) to error
c) to fall away (from the true faith): from worship of Jehovah

I am an old die hard BLB ,fan sorry but this is the simple way for me to learn , Im not the brightest bulb

burning hee hee

GOD bless you and yours always C

Sometimes the greek can have up to 3 different greek words combined into one, with the prefix affixed to the primary root word.

Remember also the original greek did not have seperation between the words and that must have been a nightmare for the translators.

Mark 8:2325 Thereafter again, He places the hands upon the eyes/ofqalmouV <3788> of him, and made him look-up/ana-bleyai <308> and he is restored/apo-kat-estaqh <600> (5681) and he beheld/enebleyen <1689> clearly all.

Acts 1:6 The-ones indeed then coming together, asked Him saying, "Lord!, if in to-the time, this, restoring/apo-kaq-istaneiV <600> (5719) the Kingdom to-the Israel?"

 

[Krelian]

Don't believe everything you read beamishboy.
The thing about the prophecies in Matthew is that some seem to be taken out of context, but they really do apply to the situations involved.

I know that this is weak evidence, but Matthew wrote that [so-and-such thing that Jesus did] was a fulfilment of [so-and-such prophecy] to a company of Hebrews.
Many of them, I guarantee, knew the Old Testament in the original tongue.
Matthew wrote of prophecies to convince those who knew them that Jesus fulfilled them.

My contention is that there must have been something inthose verses to make the Jews see them as "messianic enough" to allow Matthew to reference them as prophecy.
What I mean is that if there were nothing prophetic about those verses, I doubt that Matthew would have made it past the first edition without some serious editting
The rabbis and OT scholars would surely have caught Matthew and made a stink about a misapplication of this verse to that situation.

I'm not saying that that's bad at all, that's just how Judaism works.
If he had been wrong about using a verse as though it were prophetic and it was never seen by anyone as prophetic, then he would have been called on it (perhaps by his fellow messianic Jews) and it would have been editted out for sure.

Example: some say that Isaiah 53's "suffering servant" is not messianic in any way.
But it must have been because there was an interpretaion of that chapter in a certain Judaic hermeneutic that saw the word for "striken" as being connected to leprosy.
In effect, the group that used that interpretation thought the Messiah was going to be a leper.
So, I tend to think that, while I certainly don't see how some prophecies apply to the Gospel, I'm studying them to find out how they do.
Because it could be that they were considered prophetic or that I'm just missing a small nuance that I'm unaware of.

Anyway, I know that that's pretty weak evidence, but it makes good enough sense to myself.
Just thought I'd share that with you.

 

[Chickapee]

Sometimes the greek can have up to 3 different greek words combined into one, with the prefix affixed to the primary root word.

Remember also the original greek did not have seperation between the words and that must have been a nightmare for the translators.

Mark 8:2325 Thereafter again, He places the hands upon the eyes/ofqalmouV <3788> of him, and made him look-up/ana-bleyai <308> and he is restored/apo-kat-estaqh <600> (5681) and he beheld/enebleyen <1689> clearly all.

Acts 1:6 The-ones indeed then coming together, asked Him saying, "Lord!, if in to-the time, this, restoring/apo-kaq-istaneiV <600> (5719) the Kingdom to-the Israel?"

Hi Lamb ,
your right about that ,up to 3 meanings in the greek text ..ugh ?!

seeing that many times LOST IN TRANSLATION !
for me , I desire to keep in the Spirit of Life THOUGH JESUS CHRIST
If the quickining doesnt apply [move within ], im doomed to yet another wild goose chase ...
and do come short of it..

thanks for the reminder as always in the Peace of Christ Jesus C

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi Lamb ,
your right about that ,up to 3 meanings in the greek text ..ugh ?!

seeing that many times LOST IN TRANSLATION !
for me , I desire to keep in the Spirit of Life THOUGH JESUS CHRIST
If the quickining doesnt apply [move within ], im doomed to yet another wild goose chase ...
and do come short of it..

thanks for the reminder as always in the Peace of Christ Jesus C

That is what made translating revelation such a "buger bear"

 

[beamishboy]

I have no problem with Paul's epistles being in the canon. His epistles were accepted by the early church and they form the backbone of our faith.

My real problem is Hebrews. It only got into the canon because of an ERROR. It was thought to be a part of the Pauline Corpus for a long time. When it was subsequently discovered that the Pauline Corpus should have only 13 epistles and Hebrews was out, Hebrews was still retained int the Canon although it was considered an anonymous epistle.

Scholars today are certain Hebrews is not by Paul. No serious theologian ever thinks of Hebrews as Pauline any more. Yet it is in the canon.

Hi,

Thanks for your post. It's very kind of you to reply. You are indeed most knowledgeable. But then you are a scholar.

You mentioned the hard part in Hebrews. I have a problem with that too. I had a lot of problems with the canon of the Bible which led me to read two very scholarly books: Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament and FF Bruce, The Canon of Scripture. I have always known FF Bruce to be evangelical and I thought he would argue in favour of something more evangelical but as it turned out, both books have the same idea about how the books of the Bible got accepted. Some of the reasons for accepting some books and throwing out some other books are terrible.

Actually, Hebrews does teach that a Christian has no chance of salvation once he sins. Even the early church took that to be the clear interpretation of Hebrews. In an equally popular book among churches then was a book called the Shepherd of Hermas. This book advocates that a Christians still has one chance for repentance when he sins. To us in this sinful modern world, that would be unpalatable because one chance is too few. So the church was confronted with two books - Hebrews (no chance for any sin after conversion) and Shepherd of Hermas (one chance given to Christians). The church chose Hebrews and barred Shepherd from the Canon.

My vicar tells me it is ok to chuck Hebrews and a few other works. He says I must always remember I'm a follower of Jesus and not a follower of all the books of the Bible.

But I find reading scholarly books a problem. FF Bruce has a more popular book on the canon meant for the masses and in that book, he shows how reliable the New Testament as a whole is. It depends on the angle you take and I think scholars usually write differently when they do so for the masses. Naturally, I find that patronising.

I have read a commentary on Matthew by Leon Morris and I was horrified to discover that most of the prophecies of the Old Testament mentioned in the New Testament are misquoted. It's because the NT quotes from the Septuagint (by the time the NT was written, the Christians had been cast out of the Jewish community and they had no access to the Hebrew OT and also many of the Christians who were Greek could not read Hebrew). The Septuagint is known to contain serious errors. So, in Matthew, there is so much effort made to show that Jesus fulfilled some prophecies when in fact, these prophecies are non-existent when you read the Hebrew OT. The writer of Matthew bent the story of our Lord so as to fulfil a non-existent prophecy! But when I talk to people who only read popular commentaries (you know the type? One or two volumes for the entire Bible!), they think I make this up. It is very infuriating sometimes.

Just as I thought. After you guys have written reams and reams of texts, nobody has answered my question on the canon. Why is that so? One of my friends thinks that we Christians are secretly terrified of looking at the canon because that will show up one of Christians' worst fears - that the Bible cannot wholly be depended upon.

When confronted with the canon, most Christians will talk about how well they did in Bible school in Greek and Hebrew or how lovely another passage of the Bible is but they'll NEVER address the question head-on.

 

[Chickapee]

nobody has answered my question on the canon. Why is that so?

Hi beamishboy , well sorry about that

Do you think ''they''[them writtings] are the jewish fablesTitus warns of ?

and maybe come out of ?? the Sin of Israel is Idolatry after all ... right ?

Tts 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

I dont put a lot of stock in them
I hang on to Jesus every word though ,
peace bro ...C

 

[beamishboy]

Hi beamishboy , well sorry about that

Do you think ''they''[them writtings] are the jewish fablesTitus warns of ?

and maybe come out of ?? the Sin of Israel is Idolatry after all ... right ?

Tts 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

I dont put a lot of stock in them
I hang on to Jesus every word though ,
peace bro ...C

Actually Chickapee, I didn't know of Titus at all. I don't believe I've read it except if it's part of the readings in church. But then, we altar boys don't read because we stand with our hands clasped in holy posture and we just know when to say the responses.

But now that you've drawn Titus to my attention, I think I've got a whole new defence of my view. I've been arguing in the GA forums that the killings in the OT of babies, women, etc were just Jewish war history and had nothing to do with God. Now, Titus comes in handy here.

Thanks. Your knowledge of the Bible is immense.

 

[Krelian]

Just as I thought. After you guys have written reams and reams of texts, nobody has answered my question on the canon. Why is that so? One of my friends thinks that we Christians are secretly terrified of looking at the canon because that will show up one of Christians' worst fears - that the Bible cannot wholly be depended upon.

When confronted with the canon, most Christians will talk about how well they did in Bible school in Greek and Hebrew or how lovely another passage of the Bible is but they'll NEVER address the question head-on.

Heh, sorry, bud
I thought you wanted to know why one (read: we) would think of those things as canonical.
Please forgive me if I disappointed you with my apologetics

Anyway, I tried to approach what my interest was drawn to in your post.
I don't have the energy most days to respond to every little point of a post, so I tend to be rather selective.
I hope someone else knows how to respond more precisely to your post than I did.

 

[beamishboy]

Heh, sorry, bud
I thought you wanted to know why one (read: we) would think of those things as canonical.
Please forgive me if I disappointed you with my apologetics

Anyway, I tried to approach what my interest was drawn to in your post.
I don't have the energy most days to respond to every little point of a post, so I tend to be rather selective.
I hope someone else knows how to respond more precisely to your post than I did.

Hi, no, it's got nothing to do with you. I wasn't disappointed in you or anything like that.

It's just that I'm getting rather agitated with my own position. You see, when I told my vicar my problems with Hebrews and other parts of the Bible, he said it was OK not to accept these as correct. He approved of my view totally. He himself does not accept the canonicity of some books and parts of books - we all know the Bible got mixed up sometimes.

So I said to myself, "That's ok, i just read the Bible for the teachings of Jesus." But it's not that simple. My understanding of the Bible makes reading it tough. It's clearly not the word of God. Not the Bible in its entirety at least. The other day, there was a reading in church from Jude. I immediately thought to myself what a terrible choice that was. Jude only got into the canon because there were anti-feminist church leaders at the time. We all know Jude quoted from 1 Enoch which is considered apocryphal by EVERYONE regardless of denomination; even the Jews regard it apocryphal. We also know that the early church leaders wanted Jude to be in because 1 Enoch had a story of Satan teaching women how to apply cosmetics. The early church wanted to put women down (as usual).

It's a good thing I'm not a girl. I can't imagine why there are so many more women than men in church when so much of the faith is opposed to them. But I'm digressing.

My point is although it is easy for my priest to say it's ok not to believe in this and that, there comes a time when it makes reading any part of the Bible tough. I accept the four-fold Gospels as undisputed by the early church. But it's not that simple. For example, let me say what Metzger says in page 54 of his book "The Canon of the New Testament - Its Origin, Development and Significance". Metzger is quoting from what Papias wrote in his "Expositions" and he says that Papias knows of sayings ("ta logia") written by Matthew "in a Hebrew dialect and each one interpreted (or translated) them as best he could". What we have is only a Greek Matthew. Never mind the fact that we don't have the original Greek version. That original Greek version (which is lost) is only a translation of an original Hebrew version. This makes the position of each book of the Bible more tenuous. If we look at the gospel of Matthew alone, the errors are numerous. From the non-existent prophecies that the author of our Greek text tries to fulfil for Jesus (which includes the Virgin Birth) to flagrant misquotations of the OT in Matthew. If you want me to, I can substantiate each point I've raised here. It's come to the point that when anyone tells me to read the Bible, I just shrug and say nothing. What's the point of reading such a flawed book?

And speaking to Christians doesn't help. They either know too little about the problems with the Bible in which case they think I'm being sacrilegious and they get angry or tell me to say nothing (always with something insulting about my age) or they (like my priest who knows the problems with the Bible) tell me it is OK if I feel that way about the Bible. Before coming to CF, I knew precious little about fundamentalists but I've learnt AV1611VET's stand which is quite shocking: he takes the 1611 KJV to be specially inspired by God. I suppose that's a good cop-out way: once you do that, you don't have to go behind each book of the Bible. But how can I honestly believe in such an outrageous proposition?

I hope people understand my frustration.

 

[Secundulus]

The reason Hebrews is in the Canon is because it expresses theological truth.

We know it expresses theological truth because the Church said so.

We know the Church is correct because Jesus Christ established and said the gates of Hell would not prevail.

It's really simple.

 

[beamishboy]

The reason Hebrews is in the Canon is because it expresses theological truth.

We know it expresses theological truth because the Church said so.

We know the Church is correct because Jesus Christ established and said the gates of Hell would not prevail.

It's really simple.

How do you know Jesus says the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church? Even if we accept that Jesus says that, how can you interpret it to mean that the Church's decision on the canon is correct? That verse alone does not mean that at all.

Further, what consitutes the Church? Do you include an institution which after centuries of coming up with concepts that seem to fly in the face of apostolic teachings continue in non-apostolic practices?

 

[Secundulus]

How do you know Jesus says the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church? Even if we accept that Jesus says that, how can you interpret it to mean that the Church's decision on the canon is correct? That verse alone does not mean that at all.

Because he established and confirmed the leadership of that Church and gave them the Holy Spirit to guide the people of God. We can see this both in the Gospels and in the Book of Acts where they met to corporately make important decisions.

If you question even the Gospels then I don't think you will find a satisfactory answer elsewhere. The early Church did not doubt the Gospels and that is what kept them united and gave them the fortitude to face three centuries of persecution and martyrdom. If you doubt this then read Athanasius, or Irenaeus, or Justin Martyr. Their faith was grounded on the Gospels.

The Gospels establish the Church and the Church declares theological truth.

Further, what consitutes the Church? Do you include an institution which after centuries of coming up with concepts that seem to fly in the face of apostolic teachings continue in non-apostolic practices?

At the time the Canon was made there was only one Church. What has happened since that time is irrelevant to the Canon.