Which books belong in the New Testament?

[drich0150]

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

Again, you are not judged on the quality or quantity of what is given, just your faithfulness to it... That is unless You can point to scripture that says otherwise.

I can't understand why you would be forced to follow somebody else's mistake.

Because being 2000 years removed from the events that are described in those books You (we) have absolutely no way of knowing the accuracy of anything. So either way it is by faith/faithfulness that you are looking to find righteousness. If We are living by faith either way then Why not live by the faith described in the bible?

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?

We are not ignoring anything. IT Was God's Responsibility To Compile the Bible. If He Did Not Want Us Worshiping A Certain Book Then It Should Not Have Been Included.

I personally believe the bible needs flaws otherwise More of Us would worship it to a Higher degree than what we already do.

Excuse me, but how do you know that God chose the books that are currently in the New Testament?

Are you saying God had absolutely No say in how the bible was compiled? That He was helpless and had to stand by while the evil 4 century church put His words together in an unsatisfactory way, and then had to wait 2000 years (Give or take) for you to rally the changes He finally wants?

That does not sound like any God I know.

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?

Again The God I worship can pretty much do as He pleases. If He wanted a change to happen He would have made that change happen.

 

[drich0150]

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

The Shepard of Hermas as you well know has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. I charged you to "grow up" (and still do) because you are evading my questions. And, you are using the Shepard to do it. This is a shameful response.

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?

Again you are evading my directly asked questions by reinforcing or insisting that we speak about something you have prepared yourself to speak about. Perhaps I should rephrase: You are 54 years old Man up and answer my questions. I have done nothing but answer your questions on your terms. Quid pro quo now it is your turn to answer mine. Are you afraid to be held accountable for you actions or statements?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The Shepard of Hermas as you well know has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. I charged you to "grow up" (and still do) because you are evading my questions. And, you are using the Shepard to do it. This is a shameful response.

Huh? I started this thread. The very first paragraph says, "In 367 AD a man named Athanasius wrote a list of 27 books that was identical to the list found in the New Testament. This is the first record we have of anybody writing that exact list. There were previously lists, of course, but none of them had all 27 books, and most included books that are not now accepted."

And yes, one of the books that I was referring to that was on Previous lists was the Shepherd of Hermas. So yes, of course, the Shepherd of Herman is a very important part of this thread.

Earlier lists included the Shepherd of Hermas. Why accept the list of Athanasius, which excludes the Shepherd, while rejecting earlier lists that include it? That seems like a very relevant question.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

Are you serious? Do you then never read a newspaper? If you really thought that no newspaper was ever "seriously reliable at all," why would you ever read one? Journalists make mistakes, sure, but I cannot understand why anybody would say newspapers are not 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.

I see. So when post 12 tells me, "Lest you can find Book Chapter and verse that commands us to recompile the bible for every generation, we must simply be faithful to what we have." Are we not required to be faithful to the book after all?

You can tell me that I need to be faithful to Jesus, but since I have no reliable way of knowing what Jesus wants, that does not help me much.

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

Isn't the process of critical thinking the very opposite of cultural arrogance? For the essence of critical thinking is to examine everything, even one's own culture, and test the truth of all claims, even our own.

 

[Harry3142]

The earliest list that we have showing the books that are included in the New Testament was written circa 170 AD. Every book that is now in the New Testament is on that list, with the exceptions of James and Hebrews. Two other books were also on that list. One of them was known to have been written by an impostor (they were close enough to the actual time of Christ to know who did what) and the other was to be seen as part of the Old Testament rather than the New Testament.

You can read the english translation of this list here:

www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

 

[ebia]

Are you serious? Do you then never read a newspaper? If you really thought that no newspaper was ever "seriously reliable at all," why would you ever read one? Journalists make mistakes, sure, but I cannot understand why anybody would say newspapers are not reliable at all.

Not in the sense the NT is reliable no. But still useful, none the less. Which only goes to show how much more useful the NT can be without being perfect.

I see. So when post 12 tells me, "Lest you can find Book Chapter and verse that commands us to recompile the bible for every generation, we must simply be faithful to what we have." Are we not required to be faithful to the book after all?

We care required to be faithful to Jesus Christ, not to a book.

You can tell me that I need to be faithful to Jesus, but since I have no reliable way of knowing what Jesus wants, that does not help me much.

You do have a reliable way of knowing what Jesus is about. Chasing for perfection in the text and an instantanous universal delivery of the canon is a red-herring. The text is reliable. The canon is reliable, and even if it weren't entirely you'd have a reasonable reliable source working from almost any of those mainstream proposed earlier lists. The core books are common to pretty much all of them.

Isn't the process of critical thinking the very opposite of cultural arrogance?

In theory it ought to be, in practice it very often is highly culturally arrogant.

For the essence of critical thinking is to examine everything, even one's own culture, and test the truth of all claims, even our own.

That's not achievable, or even approachable in practice.

 

[drich0150]

Huh? I started this thread. The very first paragraph says, "In 367 AD a man named Athanasius wrote a list of 27 books that was identical to the list found in the New Testament. This is the first record we have of anybody writing that exact list. There were previously lists, of course, but none of them had all 27 books, and most included books that are not now accepted."

And yes, one of the books that I was referring to that was on Previous lists was the Shepherd of Hermas. So yes, of course, the Shepherd of Herman is a very important part of this thread.

Earlier lists included the Shepherd of Hermas. Why accept the list of Athanasius, which excludes the Shepherd, while rejecting earlier lists that include it? That seems like a very relevant question.

so you do not have the wherewithal or inclination to answer ANY of my questions?

 

[razeontherock]

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.

I can't believe nobody has said this, but it was only written down for use in Churches that had no experience. They wanted to make sure they didn't mess things all up. It's that simple, and none of the other things you've been going on about have anything to do with it. The only real controversy was Revelation, which was not read in any of the Churches. You could say some other books (beyond the universally accepted 66) are good, but basically there's a huge difference btw Scripture and anything else.

 

[razeontherock]

What is it about the shepherd of Hermas that you're concerned about following, or not? Specifically?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

Again, you are not judged on the quality or quantity of what is given, just your faithfulness to it... That is unless You can point to scripture that says otherwise.

Wow! So if the Catholic Church made a mistake, and inserted a book into the New Testament that doesn't belong, then you are required to follow that book even if it does not belong there? Amazing!

I can't understand why you would be forced to follow somebody else's mistake.

Because being 2000 years removed from the events that are described in those books You (we) have absolutely no way of knowing the accuracy of anything. So either way it is by faith/faithfulness that you are looking to find righteousness. If We are living by faith either way then Why not live by the faith described in the bible?

And the Catholic Church in the 4th century was also very far removed from the books that had been written 300 years previously, and had access to none of the accumulated science and textual criticism skills available today.

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?

We are not ignoring anything. IT Was God's Responsibility To Compile the Bible. If He Did Not Want Us Worshiping A Certain Book Then It Should Not Have Been Included.

Uh, excuse me, if somebody was blindly following a book as though it belonged in the canon, even if that book had been wrongfully inserted into the canon, would he not be ignoring that mistake? Suppose Revelation was inserted by mistake, that it is not God's word, but is a writing of man that accidentally got included. If somebody says that all future Christians are obligated to treat Revelation as though it belongs there, then he is telling Christians to ignore that mistake, isn't he?

You say it was God's responsibility, but how do you know that God agreed with the books the Catholic Church chose? Did God agree with everything the Catholic Church ever did?

Are you saying God had absolutely No say in how the bible was compiled? That He was helpless and had to stand by while the evil 4 century church put His words together in an unsatisfactory way, and then had to wait 2000 years (Give or take) for you to rally the changes He finally wants?

Nope.

I am not saying that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so you do not have the wherewithal or inclination to answer ANY of my questions?

Uh, is there a particular question that you would like me to respond to? I thought I responded to all your major points.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You do have a reliable way of knowing what Jesus is about. Chasing for perfection in the text and an instantanous universal delivery of the canon is a red-herring. The text is reliable.

OK, you think the New Testament texts are reliable and I think much of the history recorded in the New Testament is not reliable. That would be a great topic for a thread, and I would like to discuss that with you sometime.

But that is not the topic of this thread. In this thread I am asking which books belong in the New Testament, and how you know they belong there.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The earliest list that we have showing the books that are included in the New Testament was written circa 170 AD. Every book that is now in the New Testament is on that list, with the exceptions of James and Hebrews. Two other books were also on that list. One of them was known to have been written by an impostor (they were close enough to the actual time of Christ to know who did what) and the other was to be seen as part of the Old Testament rather than the New Testament.

You can read the english translation of this list here:

www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

Ok, so you write in confirmation of the opening post, that all the "canons" before the 4th century were different from the one used today? The Murarotian fragment included two books no longer recognized (Book of Widsom and Apocalypse of Peter) and excluded Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter, and 3 John.

The date of this document is unknown. Some have made a strong case that it comes from the 4th century. See http://www.jstor.org/pss/1509348 .

We know it only because a 7th century editor included a fragment of it in a compilation. As that compilation was poorly edited, and the existing copy of it is hard to read, there are many question about whether the 7th century compiler accurately reproduced the original, and exactly what the 7th century complier wrote. Even if you assume the common translation you referenced comes for the 2nd century, the Muratorian Canon certainly doesn't confirm that the list with 27 books was cast in stone in the 2nd century.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The only real controversy was Revelation, which was not read in any of the Churches. You could say some other books (beyond the universally accepted 66) are good, but basically there's a huge difference btw Scripture and anything else.

If the only book in dispute was Revelation, then please list the name of one person before 360 AD who listed either the 27 books currently in the New Testament, or all 27 except Revelation. The problem for your position is that every list before 360 AD excluded at least 2 books of the current books of the New Testament, and most lists included books no longer accepted. (For instance see the Muratorian canon discussed above.)

If there is a huge difference between scripture and anything else, why did the early Christians have such a hard time deciding which books were scripture?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The earliest list that we have showing the books that are included in the New Testament was written circa 170 AD. Every book that is now in the New Testament is on that list, with the exceptions of James and Hebrews. Two other books were also on that list. One of them was known to have been written by an impostor (they were close enough to the actual time of Christ to know who did what)

And yet modern scholarship shows that many of the books they selected for the New Testament were most like written by imposters. The authorship of Titus and II Peter are the most doubtful.

 

[doubtingmerle]

What is it about the shepherd of Hermas that you're concerned about following, or not? Specifically?

The problem is that the Sheherd of Hermas was often treated by early Christians as being equal to books that later made it into the New Testament. In fact, one of the oldest copies of the New Testament that we have found includes the Shepherd of Hermas (as well as the Epistle of Barnabas) right there in the New Testament. Since the copy ends in the middle of the Shepherd, we have no idea how many other books were included in the original book.

If the New Testament books were truly unique, how can you explain this?

 

[drich0150]

Wow! So if the Catholic Church made a mistake, and inserted a book into the New Testament that doesn't belong, then you are required to follow that book even if it does not belong there? Amazing!

I am saying being over 2000 years removed from the events or the version of them you favor over those that were complied into the new testament your are placing the same faith as "we" who believe in the bible do. The only difference being is Your Personal version of righteousness that places your judgment over that of the Men God used to compile scripture.

And the Catholic Church in the 4th century was also very far removed from the books that had been written 300 years previously, and had access to none of the accumulated science and textual criticism skills available today.

So being even further removed makes our ability to simply know what happened more accurate? The NT has been scrutinized for a very long long time, a level scrutiny that "your books" have not seen.

Uh, excuse me, if somebody was blindly following a book as though it belonged in the canon, even if that book had been wrongfully inserted into the canon, would he not be ignoring that mistake?

This statement presupposes that one could definitively know such things. Even if this were possible your personal arguments do not seem to be based on that type of evidence. You simply seem to be on a rant against the Catholic church.

Suppose Revelation was inserted by mistake, that it is not God's word, but is a writing of man that accidentally got included. If somebody says that all future Christians are obligated to treat Revelation as though it belongs there, then he is telling Christians to ignore that mistake, isn't he?

Again, your pride blinds you to the fact that the intended compilation of the bible is something contained within the Mind of God. To "know better" is to know better than God. Again, unless you think that God was powerless to change a mistake made 1700 years ago.

You say it was God's responsibility, but how do you know that God agreed with the books the Catholic Church chose?

One more time, Do you think God to be powerless to change these books before now? Do you think to be the instrument of God to make these changes? What revelation or authorization did you get to make these changes? What makes you Think you know better?

Did God agree with everything the Catholic Church ever did?

Did he make changes, in accordance to what He did not agree with the RCC?
Yes He did, and it did not take the amount of time you are referring to.

Nope.

I am not saying that.

Then what are you saying?

 

[drich0150]

Uh, is there a particular question that you would like me to respond to? I thought I responded to all your major points.

I've re asked them in the post above.. You seem to have missed them as "major points."

 

[doubtingmerle]

Then what are you saying?

Read the opening post, please. That is what I am saying.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I am saying being over 2000 years removed from the events or the version of them you favor over those that were complied into the new testament your are placing the same faith as "we" who believe in the bible do. The only difference being is Your Personal version of righteousness that places your judgment over that of the Men God used to compile scripture.

If being close to the events is important, why do you not accept the lists that were earlier than the list you use? The Didache and the Shepard of Herman appeared in the lists before your list.

The people who compiled your list lived 300 years after the apostles, and had no first hand knowledge of who wrote what. They didn't even know anybody who had known anybody who had known the apostles.

And they have selected books that were apparently not even written by apostles.

So being even further removed makes our ability to simply know what happened more accurate? The NT has been scrutinized for a very long long time, a level scrutiny that "your books" have not seen.

Did the compilers of the NT use careful scrutiny, or did they resort to politics and faulty reasoning? Irenaeus argued there must be four gospels, because there are four winds. Others argued that the Apocalypse of Peter should not be allowed, because people were disturbed by its teaching. With reasoning liike this, one might think they could end up with a faulty list.

if somebody was blindly following a book as though it belonged in the canon, even if that book had been wrongfully inserted into the canon, would he not be ignoring that mistake?

This statement presupposes that one could definitively know such things. Even if this were possible your personal arguments do not seem to be based on that type of evidence. You simply seem to be on a rant against the Catholic church.

My point has been that we have no way of knowing that certain books were selected of God to be in the New Testament. So no, I am not presupposing that we can know such things.

Again, your pride blinds you to the fact that the intended compilation of the bible is something contained within the Mind of God.

I have asked you several times how you know the books compiled into the New Testament are the ones that God chose. Unless you can prove that God chose your list, you have no proof that the books in your list contain the Mind of God.

To "know better" is to know better than God. Again, unless you think that God was powerless to change a mistake made 1700 years ago.

God may have had the power to select books. The point is that we have no clear way of knowing which books God selected.

One more time, Do you think God to be powerless to change these books before now?

If God exists and created the universe, than I would think he could select and change books. Do you have any means of knowing which books he selected?

Do you think to be the instrument of God to make these changes? What revelation or authorization did you get to make these changes? What makes you Think you know better?

No, I do not think I am an instrument of God to make changes.

Did he make changes, in accordance to what He did not agree with the RCC?
Yes He did, and it did not take the amount of time you are referring to.

What changes did God make to the RCC? Are you referring to the reformation? Not everybody agrees that God caused the reformation, but even if he did, that was a long time after the 4th century. If God can wait a long time to fix the church, why couldn't he wait a long time to fix the Bible?