Which books belong in the New Testament?

[doubtingmerle]

As for the fact that the Bible is not perfect, of course it's not; mistakes have been well-known for millenia. We worship Jesus Christ; we do not worship the Bible.

OK, and how do you reconcile this with what drich0150 said, "It is not for us to judge what we have been entrusted with...we must simply be faithful to what we have"?

So I am trying to figure out how this all works. If the Bible is sometimes mistaken, why am I being told to not judge it? If the book has some mistakes, shouldn't I be on guard for those mistakes, and not accept those mistakes as truth? Why should I be told to faithfully follow a document that is sometimes wrong? Shouldn't I follow only those parts that are right?

 

[doubtingmerle]

St. Irenaeus seems to be the first bishop to clarify the need for an NT canon since there were dozens of false gnostic writings purported to be Gospel & preachings of the apostles circulating in his time. Irenaeus outlines most of these in book one of his 5 vol. masterpiece: "Against the Heresies" which is later than the "Demonstration" writing mentioned previously.

But Irenaeus does not actually give us a canon, does he? It is true that he quotes many of the books that are now in the New Testament, but he quotes many other books also. The fact that Irenaeus quotes a book (in his writings dated about 180 AD) does not prove it is the inspired Word of God, does it?

Nowhere does Irenaeus gives us a list of inspired books that are to be treated as special compared to ordinary books.

 

[drich0150]

Well yes, books have been compiled into the New Testament, but that happened in the fourth century.

So what. that just means all those who came after the fourth century were held accountable to their level of exposure to what we know as the "New testament."

But what about those people who lived in the first 3 centuries of Christianity?

As the parable explains, they are held to the standard in which they have been entrusted.

If the list of book is so important that all of us are required to live our lives by the books in that list, why is it that every single list that we have before 360 AD differ with the list that you have?

The "book" is not salvation. the message the book brings is. "They" did not need the book, because the message up to that point was still being relayed sufficiently without the current compilation of the NT.

The first list of books we have was compiled by Marcion about 150 AD. It included 10 epistles and one gospel, the Diatessaron.

Then those brothers would be responsible to it's content, as we are responsible to ours.

So are you saying that in those days people were required to live by that list, since that was the list they were given?

Yes, now your getting it.

The people who tend to have trouble understanding this double standard are those who have been taught to deify religion as a means of worshiping God. If one were to place the authority one place in religion, in God. then one could see the flexibility, Freedom and Authority that God has liberally used throughout the History of the Church. (There is not one right way)

God nor His Church are bound by the constraints we placed on them with our religious beliefs. In other words just because "we" use the bible to find God does not mean all people who have found Him did so through the bible as we know it.

Remember we are simply responsible for what we have been given. No matter what you personally think about the bible, there is enough information held with in it's pages to allow one to start and maintain a relationship with God.. If one were indeed faithful to what he had been given.

 

[salida]

Maybe the below will help:
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html

 

[JasperJackson]

Can you explain how you know that the New Testament writers knew they were writing scripture? Only the writer of revelation actually makes that claim.

You mention that the writer of Peter referred to Paul's writings as "scripture" (greek graphē) but that greek word was used for all writings, not just inspired writings.

And even if the writer of 2 Peter, whoever he was, was actually claiming that Paul's writings were inspired, he nowhere makes the claim for his own book.

And even if the writers knew they were writing scripture, how is it that nobody else seems to know? For all the early lists of books combine some of the currently recognized books with books that are not currently recognized. There is nothing in those early lists to indicate that some of the books were scripture and some were not.

I understand you don't want to accept that it was the Holy Spirit who led the early church as it composed the NT because you don't believe in him, but that is the answer I will stand by.

Exactly how? I do not know. I can't provide blueprints for how they created scripture.

 

[drich0150]

Why not? If we were given a false list, why should we not judge that list?

Because no matter what others have been given. you have been given what is known as the bible. also because no matter what reason you can fool yourself into excepting you will be held to a strict account of what has been placed in your possession. It truly matters not what any other account says, because it is to this account that your actions will be judged.

OK, the first canon we had consisted of 10 epistles and the Diatessaron.

What 10 epistles? and who's diatessaron?

Were they the "gold" books for the early Christians?

apparently not. It looks as if these books were just to fill the gap between the oral tradition of our first church fathers and what we have now.

If we should never recompile the list, why don't you stick with the first published list we have?

Who say "we" did?

Why do you accept the recompiled list that comes from the fourth century?

Because it was what was entrusted to me.

If we are faithful to the standard in which we have been given, what more could God ask for?

And if you accept the recompiled list, why do you tell us that the list should never be changed?

Because we are told to never add to or take away from any thing in the bible.

Why or under what authority do you feel it is a command of God to change or recompile His written word?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I understand you don't want to accept that it was the Holy Spirit who led the early church as it composed the NT because you don't believe in him, but that is the answer I will stand by.

Exactly how? I do not know. I can't provide blueprints for how they created scripture.

I didn't ask you how they created scripture. I asked you how how you know that the New Testament writers knew that their books were scripture.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because no matter what others have been given. you have been given what is known as the bible. also because no matter what reason you can fool yourself into excepting you will be held to a strict account of what has been placed in your possession. It truly matters not what any other account says, because it is to this account that your actions will be judged.

Even if they selected the wrong books? Why should I be forced to follow books simply because Catholic leaders in the fourth century decided that those are the books I should folllow?

What if they were mistaken?

I have also been given the Shepherd of Hermas. Must I also follow that book? After all, I have been given that book also.

 

[drich0150]

Even if they selected the wrong books?

Even IF they selected the wrong books.

Why should I be forced to follow books simply because Catholic leaders in the fourth century decided that those are the books I should follow?

Because whether you like it or not these are the book God chose to work through these books in His church.

What if they were mistaken?

So what if they were.. God is not the bible. The bible is a simple tool used to find God. Even if "They" were mistaken the bible still can be used to serve it's purpose. Again you will not be judged on the content of the book God left you to find Him with. You will however, be judged on the faithfulness to what you have been given by God.

I have also been given the Shepherd of Hermas. Must I also follow that book? After all, I have been given that book also.

Grow up. you are 54 years old. You have shown me you have the ability to follow the conversation when it suits you, and now you choose to hold everything to the most literal interpretation possible. This shows me one of two things. One, you are feigning stupidity because you simply feel I have no way to respond to this question, or are you hoping to redirect my focus from the unanswered questions i asked you in my last post...

The other possibility is that you believe yourself to be a prophet, and God has literally given you "The Shepherd of Hermas." and now you seek an answer from me whether or not He will hold you responsible to the gift He has given you... Because that is the context in which I speak..



That said, i have taken great care to answer each and everyone of your questions all i ask is that you take the time to answer mine.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

For what it's worth, the Diatesseron was composed by Tatian, a harmony of the Four Gospels. Marcion used an edited form of Luke, a reconstruction of what Marcion's Gospel [may have] looked like can be found here and more info here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Oh, I see, so the Bible doesn't have to be immaculate and perfect?

Of course not.

It's just a collection of good ideas (mixed with some imperfect ideas)?

It's a collection of texts which the Christian Church has, over the course of two thousand years, come to regard as inspired and authoritative in matters of faith and practice, as containing and directing us toward the Word of God (Jesus), and in that is the written word of God.

Or as St. Augustine puts it,

"You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time."

Scripture doesn't need to be inerrant or immaculate to communicate Christ, God is capable of speaking His Word through Scripture in spite of human flaw, imperfection, etc.

So, no, I'm not saying it's just a collection of some good and some bad ideas--I don't want to be misunderstood--I'm just saying that theories of inerrancy are trivial; that it's okay that there has been disagreement as to the exact composition of the Biblical Canon, and what those of us as Christians need to hear from Scripture is declared faithfully through and/or in spite of whatever human flaw and error may be present.

If you agree that the Bible contains some error, then it becomes a question of determining which statements in the Bible are false and which are true.

I think critical analysis of the biblical texts is good, and determining what those texts are saying properly and contextually and then dealing with that and the repercussions for faith they have is a fundamental aspect of the struggles of faith. But I'm not sure that's anything less than a lifetime of discussion, conversation, and struggle both in the life of the individual Christian and the corporate and communal life of the Faithful.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Lukaris]

But Irenaeus does not actually give us a canon, does he? It is true that he quotes many of the books that are now in the New Testament, but he quotes many other books also. The fact that Irenaeus quotes a book (in his writings dated about 180 AD) does not prove it is the inspired Word of God, does it?

Nowhere does Irenaeus gives us a list of inspired books that are to be treated as special compared to ordinary books.

Actually the only other writings he is said to have quoted from are the Shepard of Hermas (ca.140 aD) and a letter of St. Clement of Rome (ca. 98 AD). The Shepard was a widely circulated writing in the early church cosidered inspirational & scripture by some and the letter of Clement was directed to ongoing theology disputes in the Corinthian church t going back to the time of St. Paul. St. Irenaeus even quotes a portion of the much disputed resurrection account of the Gospel of Mark 16 (verses 9-20) which are often reputed to have been added ln the 4th century but Irenaeus' quotes attest to them already as scripture. The only scriptures not found in his existing writings are from PHilemon, 2 Peter, Jude, & 3 John but there are accounts of lost writings of Irenaues so these could conceivably been referred to elsewhere.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Even IF they selected the wrong books.

Interesting. So you must follow the books in the New Testament, even if a book was inserted into your Bible by mistake?

I can't understand why you would be forced to follow somebody else's mistake. If the Catholic church had inserted an incorrect book into the Bible, one would think the proper response would be to remove it. Why blindly ignore the mistake?

Because whether you like it or not these are the book God chose to work through these books in His church.

Excuse me, but how do you know that God chose the books that are currently in the New Testament? They were chosen by councils in the fourth century. Those councils made some mistakes, didn't they? Then why do you insist that God agrees with what they decided on the issue of the canon?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I have also been given the Shepherd of Hermas. Must I also follow that book? After all, I have been given that book also.

Grow up. you are 54 years old. You have shown me you have the ability to follow the conversation when it suits you, and now you choose to hold everything to the most literal interpretation possible. This shows me one of two things. One, you are feigning stupidity because you simply feel I have no way to respond to this question, or are you hoping to redirect my focus from the unanswered questions i asked you in my last post...

The other possibility is that you believe yourself to be a prophet, and God has literally given you "The Shepherd of Hermas." and now you seek an answer from me whether or not He will hold you responsible to the gift He has given you... Because that is the context in which I speak..

Really? People who ask about the Shepherd of Hermas are immature and need to grow up?

Do you see what Lukaris wrote in post #32? He wrote, "The Shepard [of Hermas] was a widely circulated writing in the early church considered inspirational & scripture by some"

I'm going to stand up with Lukaris on this point. I don't think the people that Lukaris is referring to were being immature for thinking the Shepherd was inspirational scripture. I don't think those people were feigning stupidity.

Can you please explain to Lukaris and me why you think those who ask questions about the Shepherd of Hermas might be immature and feigning stupidity for asking such questions?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Scripture doesn't need to be inerrant or immaculate to communicate Christ, God is capable of speaking His Word through Scripture in spite of human flaw, imperfection, etc.

So, no, I'm not saying it's just a collection of some good and some bad ideas--I don't want to be misunderstood--I'm just saying that theories of inerrancy are trivial;

I don't understand. If the Bible has some mistakes, doesn't that mean that some of the ideas in the Bible could be mistakes?

And especially if the Bible could contain some books that don't even belong there, doesn't that mean that those books can contain flawed ideas like any other books can?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Actually the only other writings he is said to have quoted from are the Shepard of Hermas (ca.140 aD) and a letter of St. Clement of Rome (ca. 98 AD). The Shepard was a widely circulated writing in the early church cosidered inspirational & scripture by some and the letter of Clement was directed to ongoing theology disputes in the Corinthian church t going back to the time of St. Paul. St. Irenaeus even quotes a portion of the much disputed resurrection account of the Gospel of Mark 16 (verses 9-20) which are often reputed to have been added ln the 4th century but Irenaeus' quotes attest to them already as scripture. The only scriptures not found in his existing writings are from PHilemon, 2 Peter, Jude, & 3 John but there are accounts of lost writings of Irenaues so these could conceivably been referred to elsewhere.

I can't understand how the fact that Irenaeus quotes most of the New Testament books as well as the Shepherd of Hemas and Clement proves that the 27 books found in the New Testament are the inerrant Word of God. Irenaeus never makes that claim.

But if Irenaeus had been claiming that all of those books he quotes are the inspired Word of God, then Irenaeus would have been claiming that the Shepherd of Hermas was the Word of God. Irenaeus hardly supports the claim that there are 27 and only 27 inspired books that belong in the New Testament.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I don't understand. If the Bible has some mistakes, doesn't that mean that some of the ideas in the Bible could be mistakes?

And especially if the Bible could contain some books that don't even belong there, doesn't that mean that those books can contain flawed ideas like any other books can?

It depends on what you think the Bible is supposed to be. Yes, the Bible could contain flawed ideas, but I still argue that the Bible is still what it needs to be--God's inspired word that proclaims Christ to the Church. A recurring theme through many of the biblical narratives involve God working and speaking through clearly flawed individuals, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Jonah, Peter, Paul, etc. Their flaws, however, never seem to stop what God is doing, He works perfectly in and through the flaws and weaknesses of ordinary human beings. Thus I don't have a problem with God working perfectly through a collection of texts which we call the Bible.

That's what I'm attempting to get at. I think it's really easy to oversimplify matters and propose a dichotomy between the Bible as inerrant and immaculate or the Bible as just a collection of writings, some good ideas and some bad. I don't think that dichotomy is accurate.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ebia]

OK, and how do you reconcile this with what drich0150 said, "It is not for us to judge what we have been entrusted with...we must simply be faithful to what we have"?

So I am trying to figure out how this all works. If the Bible is sometimes mistaken, why am I being told to not judge it? If the book has some mistakes, shouldn't I be on guard for those mistakes, and not accept those mistakes as truth? Why should I be told to faithfully follow a document that is sometimes wrong? Shouldn't I follow only those parts that are right?

The important thing us not whether something is perfect, but whether it is reliable. We know there are minor imperfections in the texts we have, but that doesn't stop them being more than reliable enough for us - indeed those imperfections are dwarfed by our imperfections in understanding what we are reading. Lack of perfection is an excuse, not a reason, for rejecting something.

As to the specifics of the canon, a canonical list is not essential, but is very useful. The universal church took a long while to discern some of the books at the edges - and no surprisingly they would be the books most discussed now if the question were reopened. That discernment, however, was an open process and is no less reliable for the time it took. There is no reason to think God is less involved in a process that took a couple of centuries than in an overnight decision. Unless on brings 21st century impatience to the table and says that trumps everything else.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The important thing us not whether something is perfect, but whether it is reliable. We know there are minor imperfections in the texts we have, but that doesn't stop them being more than reliable enough for us - indeed those imperfections are dwarfed by our imperfections in understanding what we are reading.

OK, so the New Testament is reliable but not perfect? So it is sorta like the New York Times, which is also reliable but not perfect?

It appears that we agree that the Bible is not perfect. Whether the Bible is reliable is perhaps a different topic for another thread.

As to the specifics of the canon, a canonical list is not essential, but is very useful.

If we are going to claim, as some have said here, that "Our job is to be faithful to what we have been given, it is God's responsibility to give us something to be faithful to," (post 6) then the list of books that God holds us accountable to is important. Is God going to hold us accountable for following the Didache? Will he hold us accountable for following Revelation?

If "our job is to be faithful" to those books that are on the list--while scoffing at the immaturity of those who suggest other books--then I would think that list needs to be perfect.

Unless on brings 21st century impatience to the table and says that trumps everything else.

21st century impatience might not be a virtue. But 21st century critical thinking is. Will the list of 27 books stand up as the one true correct list of NT books if the list were to be subjected to 21st century critical thinking?

 

[ebia]

OK, so the New Testament is reliable but not perfect? So it is sorta like the New York Times, which is also reliable but not perfect?

I don't think I've ever come across a newspaper that was seriously reliable at all.

We are accountable to God for being faithful to Jesus, not to a list of books. Plenty of people have achieved that working from a slightly different list or no list at all. Having a list is useful, especially when it's more or less universally agreed list, but it's not essential, especially at the edges. It is a gift from God, and because God works through us in real history not everyone has had access to that list. That doesn't mean it isn't a real gift.

21st century impatience might not be a virtue. But 21st century critical thinking is. Will the list of 27 books stand up as the one true correct list of NT books if the list were to be subjected to 21st century critical thinking?

21st century critical thinking is a virtue when it knows it's limits and doesn't become 21st century cultural arrogance.