The Bible - 73 or 66 Books?

[BobRyan]

I would say the Church created the scripture in that the Apostles and their followers wrote it

Acts 17:11 they studied the scriptures daily to see IF what the Apostle Paul taught was true or false.

All scripture "given by inspiration from God" 2 Tim 3:16 not "Given by inspiration from the Jewish-or-Catholic church"

Holy men of old - filled with the Holy Spirit - spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:19-21. Nothing at all about 'The church wrote what it wanted and called it Bible" as we probably both agree.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Acts 17:11 they studied the scriptures daily to see IF what the Apostle Paul taught was true or false.

All scripture "given by inspiration from God" 2 Tim 3:16 not "Given by inspiration from the Jewish-or-Catholic church"

Holy men of old - filled with the Holy Spirit - spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:19-21. Nothing at all about 'The church wrote what it wanted and called it Bible" as we probably both agree.

I'm getting kind of tired of this. Tell me, were the Apostles part of the Church? Was the Church something set up in contradistinction to Israel or was it where Israel should have gone but didn't?

If you are going to say that Peter and Paul and the rest of the Apostles were not part of the Church then fine. Though I suspect you believe they were not part of my Eastern Orthodox Church and that you think the EO is something that arose latter. Have that view. But at least concede the Bible (NT) was written by the Church in the first century, not just a group of individuals who were independent of the Church.

We can talk about our disagreement on who the Church is but what we should be able to agree upon is that there was a Church which wrote the bible.

That being said my claim still stands with regards to the historicity of the bible and the claim it can be arranged into a canon in the first place. The Apostles never arranged the books we have in the New Testament as the later Church did. My initial challenge of demonstrating the bible independent of latter Church tradition still stands. Can you or anyone do it? So far I have seen no attempt to.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

In that sense, sure, but the claim is always made on behalf of those men who codified the books over 300 years later. But now that I think of it, I hope you weren't using the word tradition in a different sense than I was. Oh, well.

Yes, I was thinking that, too.

Quite a few Anglicans don't even go for that, although it's pretty much what I would say of myself. Not to the exclusion of tradition and reason, of course, but seeing Scripture as the ultimate guide to doctrine.

It seems as though I've explained it several times already and with a variety of different words! But maybe it's a case of that 'talking past each other' thing you mentioned before.

I think the traditional Catholic Apologist claim can be overblown as well but it is not entirely inaccurate. It is a positive fact to say that the idea of a canon of Christian literature developed and it is what we know as the New Testament. That there were disagreements on the canon, different lists and etc, should pose a problem to those who assume we have just a bible and that's it (no need for anything else).

As for having explained why the bible stands by itself, perhaps I have missed that argument in our correspondence. What is the argument exactly for justifying the bible independently of any reference to the history of it's development? That history includes the Church and the fathers of it who used the scripture and testify to belief in and the trustworthiness of it. If we ignore all of that, how do we have a bible in the first place?

 

[Albion]

I think the traditional Catholic Apologist claim can be overblown as well but it is not entirely inaccurate. It is a positive fact to say that the idea of a canon of Christian literature developed and it is what we know as the New Testament. That there were disagreements on the canon, different lists and etc, should pose a problem to those who assume we have just a bible and that's it (no need for anything else).

Are there very many people who think that the Bible just appeared on its own?

As for having explained why the bible stands by itself, perhaps I have missed that argument in our correspondence. What is the argument exactly for justifying the bible independently of any reference to the history of it's development?

No one is arguing for that notion--no one here; and no one that I know personally, for that matter.

Somehow I can't get you and others to understand that the fact that the church made a determination, in the 4th century, about which books were to be considered inspired and which were not...

...does not mean that the institutional church, acting in committee, CREATED them or that the decision has to be considered infallibly correct.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

In these discussions regarding the canon, I think one thing that gets forgotten is what are the individual books for. For example, no one uses Esther for doctrinal purposes. So why is it included in the canon?

 

[Albion]

Would you say that Esther continues the storyline, the narrative, of the Old Testament? If so, it has a quality that the Apocryphal books lack.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Well, if having seven other Old Testament books makes our Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends happier and prouder that they are better, then that is their issue. If, however, they insist that those of us who differ from them are somehow condemned by their God then that is another issue.

Actually, it's still their issue. No one's eternal salvation is dependent upon the rubber stamp of the RCC, regardless of what they may say.

 

[FenderTL5]

Acts 17:11 they studied the scriptures daily to see IF what the Apostle Paul taught was true or false.

All scripture "given by inspiration from God" 2 Tim 3:16 not "Given by inspiration from the Jewish-or-Catholic church"

Holy men of old - filled with the Holy Spirit - spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:19-21. Nothing at all about 'The church wrote what it wanted and called it Bible" as we probably both agree.

Are you a believer in time-travel or do you reject all or some of the 27 books of the New Testament?
How else would you reconcile those verses to include all of the NT?

 

[FenderTL5]

In these discussions regarding the canon, I think one thing that gets forgotten..

I thought you were going to ask, Is it possible for protestants to even have a "canon"?

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Actually, it's still their issue. No one's eternal salvation is dependent upon the rubber stamp of the RCC, regardless of what they may say.

That is contained in the secret Vatican archives, sources say.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Are there very many people who think that the Bible just appeared on its own?


No one is arguing for that notion--no one here; and no one that I know personally, for that matter.

Somehow I can't get you and others to understand that the fact that the church made a determination, in the 4th century, about which books were to be considered inspired and which were not...

...does not mean that the institutional church, acting in committee, CREATED them or that the decision has to be considered infallibly correct.

It is not my view that the bible was created as an intentional collaboration by a committee of people. It's not even my view that the canon was ultimately decided upon by an ecumenical council (there was no such council that sought to answer this question). It is my view that the bible as series of documents has always been in the possession of the Church, there was however within the Church dispute over which books were and were not considered authoritative. Thus through the centuries there came to be a gradual consensus established about which books would be the New Testament and there was relative freedom as to what constituted the Old Testament in both Eastern and Western traditions. This is demonstrated by the various list of biblical books which differ with each other early on by Athanasius, Codex Sinaiticus and other authors I'm sure you're aware of.

Here is my point about the Church, it was necessary to have a church to write the New Testament (Apostles), it was necessary to have a church to preserve the New Testament (Apostles, their followers and subsequent followers after their deaths) and finally it was necessary to have a church in order to have a canon (The Apostles never gave us a canon, it was only the later Church which did this).

 

[Albion]

It is not my view that the bible was created as an intentional collaboration by a committee of people.

I'm relieved, but many other people have said essentially that on these forums. I didn't pick up your disagreement with them on this thread.

It's not even my view that the canon was ultimately decided upon by an ecumenical council (there was no such council that sought to answer this question).

You're correct that the two councils in question were not ecumenical councils. That, however, doesn't seem to matter to the folks we're talking about.

It is my view that the bible as series of documents has always been in the possession of the Church, there was however within the Church dispute over which books were and were not considered authoritative.

Some. Very little.

Here is my point about the Church, it was necessary to have a church to write the New Testament (Apostles), it was necessary to have a church to preserve the New Testament (Apostles, their followers and subsequent followers after their deaths) and finally it was necessary to have a church in order to have a canon (The Apostles never gave us a canon, it was only the later Church which did this).

But this is true only in the sense that "church" refers to the whole of the true believers in the Lord, the household of God.

The argument that we are discussing here always turns on the place of "church" in the sense of a specific institution, a denomination, a formal or visible organization with appointed leaders and so on. And the idea that it's this denomination and not one of those other denominations is always built into those people's argument. In other words, the claim is that some religious organization (the one favored by the speaker) "gave us" the Bible.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'm relieved, but many other people have said essentially that on these forums and I didn't pick up your disagreement with them on this thread.

You're correct that the two councils in question were not ecumenical councils. That, however, doesn't seem to matter to the folks we're talking about.

Some. Very little.

But this is true only in the sense that "church" refers to the whole of the true believers in the Lord. The argument that we are discussing here always turns on the place of "church" in the sense of a specific institution, a denomination, a formal or visible organization with appointed leaders and so on. And the idea that it's not some other such institutional "church" is always built into those people's argument. In other words, the claim is that some religious body (the one favored by the speaker) "gave us" the Bible.

Your conception of the Church probably differs from the historical conception which viewed the visible Church and communion to it as being of just as important. I do not see an Anglican concept of separate and interdependent branches all being recognised with an ultimate belief in the invisibility of the Church in the bible or early Church fathers. That is a belief of the reformation.

The Church obviously goes beyond mere institution in that it is Christ's body, it is an organisation of people who have put their faith in Christ and have unified as a result. It is a living body. It's no wonder you disagree with the statement, the Church gave us the bible, its because the idea of Church is ultimately invisible to you. It's a list known only to God, the actual communion of people on earth gathered and sharing the same Eucharist is of less importance than that invisible Church known only to God.

I would still stand by the claim, the Church gave us the bible, from my understanding because even under your beliefs you have to admit historically there was no Protestant Church before the reformation. You have to admit it was the general Catholic Church which preserved the bible and canonised it, two things the Apostles were unable to do beyond their deaths. By general Catholic church I mean the historical Church which includes both Eastern and Western Churches until the schisms which divided them.

 

[Albion]

Your conception of the Church probably differs from the historical conception which viewed the visible Church and communion to it as being of just as important.

I didn't say it wasn't important.

I said that those who want to claim that their denomination created the Bible are mistaken as to its origin.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I didn't say it wasn't important.

I said that those who want to claim that their denomination created the Bible are mistaken as to its origin.

What do we mean by denomination? Do we mean a historical communion by which we can identify certain individuals with who contributed to the canon? For instance, if the Eastern Orthodox Church existed as a communion since the first century and those fathers its venerates represent her beliefs throughout all various centuries then is it accurate to say that Eastern Orthodoxy contributed to the canonisation of the bible? The same goes with the Roman Catholic Church whose influence is more readily felt in the West.

The claim is only untrue if the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches can be said to have not existed in the first, second and third centuries. I find such attempts to say they didn't exist flawed and not actually deal with the evidence of the existence of historic Christian sees. It seems only on the basis of doctrinal differences do people deny the continuity of historical succession within the Church.

 

[Albion]

What do we mean by denomination?

a distinct religious community of faith different from other such institutions.

Do we mean a historical communion by which we can identify certain individuals with who contributed to the canon? For instance, if the Eastern Orthodox Church existed as a communion since the first century and those fathers its venerates represent her beliefs throughout all various centuries then is it accurate to say that Eastern Orthodoxy contributed to the canonisation of the bible? The same goes with the Roman Catholic Church whose influence is more readily felt in the West.

Sure. Contributed to.

The claim is only untrue if the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches can be said to have not existed in the first, second and third centuries. I find such attempts to say they didn't exist flawed and not actually deal with the evidence of the existence of historic Christian sees.

It's very hard to argue that the denominations or communions of later times existed as such from the very start. It's from an essentially non-denominational and very decentralized group of churches, many of whom had little or no contact with the others, that the denominations or communions that we know today eventually developed.

But also, this seems to switch us away from what we had been discussing, doesn't it?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's very hard to argue that the denominations or communions of later times existed as such from the very start. It's from an essentially non-denominational and very decentralized group of churches, many of whom had little or no contact with the others, that the denominations or communions that we know today eventually developed.

But also, this seems to switch us away from what we had been discussing, doesn't it?

I'm willing to concede that the form of the communions changed over the centuries, be that with regards to the particular liturgy, ecclesial structure, certain practices and etc. Yet I can't make a precise date for when my communion can have said to have started if not at the time of the Apostles since we see a continuity in the proclamation of the shared faith. Some radical protestants say the Roman Catholic Church began to exist after 325, the council of Nicaea and the influence of Constantine, yet is there evidence that the succeeding Bishop from before Constantine's ascension as Emperor of the empire was out of communion with the next bishop during that reign?

As for the anti Nicene being decentralised, to a certain extent this is true but to imagine them as being like modern protestant Churches which operate without concern for communion with one another seems anachronistic. The Bishop of Rome might not have had universal Jurisdiction, but he did preside in love as Ignatius tells us and Clement writes to the Corinthians exhorting them to return to an Apostolic practice of dealing with leaders and those appointed as presbyters in the Church. Just those two authors alone show us the concern for inter communion and reliance on one another between at least 8 churches (If I've counted that right, Magnesia, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, Smyrna, Antioch, Tralles and Philadelphia. There are also many other ante Nicene authors we could approach to see the interconnectedness of the one Church at that time.

I also do not consider this off topic since it is an important justification of the Churches who are making an argument for a larger canon. If they are truly Apostolic, truly the churches in historical continuity with the Apostles then that deflates attempts to say just represent a latter group in history rather than the one Church throughout all time.

 

[Albion]

I'm willing to concede that the form of the communions changed over the centuries, be that with regards to the particular liturgy, ecclesial structure, certain practices and etc. Yet I can't make a precise date for when my communion can have said to have started if not at the time of the Apostles since we see a continuity in the proclamation of the shared faith.

It's obvious that your church is not identical to the first churches, but I will say that it has about the best claim of all...if that sort of claim is going to be made.

The Roman Church is the one that makes the claim the most often, though, and there is no question but that what it has added to the faith over the centuries is considerable.

radical protestants say the Roman Catholic Church began to exist after 325, the council of Nicaea and the influence of Constantine, yet is there evidence that the succeeding Bishop from before Constantine's ascension as Emperor of the empire was out of communion with the next bishop during that reign?

I agree that "radical" or some word close to it is definitely called for when it comes to those people who believe that particular slant on Christian history. None of the mainline Protestants churches support it.

I would, however, argue that the Roman Catholic Church as we know it dates from about early 400s, but that's not because of Constantine. That was the time that Papal Supremacy began to be argued by the bishop of Rome, and since this is the most distinctive and virtually essential doctrine of that communion, this seems fair to say. Then it was onwards and upwards with other doctrinal innovations.

As for the anti Nicene being decentralised, to a certain extent this is true but to imagine them as being like modern protestant Churches which operate without concern for communion with one another seems anachronistic.

Well, your Orthodox Eastern churches don't have communion with the Roman Church, and these two have been closer in belief for a much longer time than the various Protestant churches are with each other.

The Bishop of Rome might not have had universal Jurisdiction, but he did preside in love as Ignatius tells us and Clement writes to the Corinthians exhorting them to return to an Apostolic practice of dealing with leaders and those appointed as presbyters in the Church. Just those two authors alone show us the concern for inter communion and reliance on one another between at least 8 churches (If I've counted that right, Magnesia, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, Smyrna, Antioch, Tralles and Philadelphia. There are also many other ante Nicene authors we could approach to see the interconnectedness of the one Church at that time.

"Concern for inter communion?" If it were as much as you say here, I would expect the two to be in full communion.

I also do not consider this off topic since it is an important justification of the Churches who are making an argument for a larger canon. If they are truly Apostolic, truly the churches in historical continuity with the Apostles then that deflates attempts to say just represent a latter group in history rather than the one Church throughout all time.

Frankly, I see the major Protestant churches as having reformed the Roman Church and to stand in essentially the same relationship to the Apostolic Church as does the Church of Rome. Luther, et al, obviously didn't come out of nowhere with no connection to Christianity just because 10% or so of what the Western Church was teaching at that time needed to be put right once more.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Acts 17:11 they studied the scriptures daily to see IF what the Apostle Paul taught was true or false.

All scripture "given by inspiration from God" 2 Tim 3:16 not "Given by inspiration from the Jewish-or-Catholic church"

Holy men of old - filled with the Holy Spirit - spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:19-21. Nothing at all about 'The church wrote what it wanted and called it Bible" as we probably both agree.

Are you a believer in time-travel or do you reject all or some of the 27 books of the New Testament?
How else would you reconcile those verses to include all of the NT?

A great example for "earlier" affirmations of "sola scriptura" is in Isaiah 8:20 "to the LAW and to the Testimony - if they speak not according to THIS Word they have no light". does not mean that more scripture cannot be written.

But this thread is about the fact that we are NOT talking about NT Christian text - but rather OT JEWISH text and that WAS completed by Acts 17:11 and by 2 Tim 3:16 and by Gal 1:6-9.

And the JEWS themselves did not stick the apocrypha into their Hebrew Bible - canonized already for over 300 years by the tie of Christ - according to their own historians.

 

[Erik Nelson]

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=438095

Jamnia sought to purify the Hebrew scriptures of all gentile Hellenistic influences, so rejecting everything gentile from the LXX onwards, including of course the Greek NT

Not obvious how that perspective supports Christianity, with its prominent mission to the gentiles? And, is not "6 6" an inauspicious number?