Books of the Bible

[earl]

Some of the posts here are humorous when you look at all the books and commentaries that modern day Christians use in conjunction with their Bibles. Yet the men who wrote them are no closer to Christ's times than the authors excluded way back when.
LJ has stated that the Talmud is a commentary ,yet he references it continually .
Once again it comes down to how and where you want your point to be.

 

[Ronnie T]

We're all fortunate that all writings were 'tested' to separate the true gospel from the false teachings that were widespread in the 1st century.

 

[1gr8bldr]

Hello guys, The time period that the bible was "canonized" was filled with persucutions all done in the name of Jesus. It was a terrible corrupt time with the most powerful dominating. It was not as though they just wrote the scriptures. They had been around for some time. Some of the church fathers saw some books as inspired and some not. Lots of different opinions. After studying through most of the rejected books with the exception of a few extreme ones, my opinion is that they contained no contridictions to the others. They could have been included. I don't see why they should have been but could have been. You could google "early church writings".

 

[gtparts]

Some of the posts here are humorous when you look at all the books and commentaries that modern day Christians use in conjunction with their Bibles. Yet the men who wrote them are no closer to Christ's times than the authors excluded way back when.
LJ has stated that the Talmud is a commentary ,yet he references it continually .
Once again it comes down to how and where you want your point to be.

Fail to see the humor.

Commentaries are study tools. The sure aren't up for selection to be included in any canon I am aware of. The advantage of commentaries is the additional scholarship that is available to help understand Scripture. I don't have to speak and read ancient Hebrew or koine Greek, nor get access to ancient manuscripts to have that additional information and insight. Why drive a nail with a rock when there is a hammer available. I believe it was Henry Ford who basically said he need not know everything about building cars, he only needed to know those who had that specific knowledge (or something to that effect).

Same story with the Talmud, a scholarly tool from some of the best minds on Torah and Judaism. If I wanted a Jewish perspective, I would sure include it in my sources of study.

A little surprised you would take a poke at scholarly pursuits, earl.

 

[earl]

I was poking at the statement about the Council being the only qualified people to make judgement calls on the Bible. My point was that even today we look to others to help with our decisions,just as you pointed out.

 

[centerpin fan]

Madman and gtparts have made some good comments, but I just wanted to add a point regarding this:

A council of men sat and determined that only the 4 Gospels Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were needed.

The same four gospels we have today were known and accepted by the church long before Nicea or any other council.

St. Irenaeus wrote this in the 2nd century:

The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. As David said, when asking for his coming, 'O sitter upon the cherubim, show yourself '. For the cherubim have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. For the first living creature, it says, was like a lion, signifying his active and princely and royal character; the second was like an ox, showing his sacrificial and priestly order; the third had the face of a man, indicating very clearly his coming in human guise; and the fourth was like a flying eagle, making plain the giving of the Spirit who broods over the Church. Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these.

And Origen wrote this in the late 2nd century/early 3rd century:

Matthew to be sure and Mark and John as well as Luke did not 'take in hand' to write, but filled with the Holy Ghost have written the Gospels. 'Many have taken in hand to compose a narrative of the events which are quite definitely familiar among us' . The Church possesses four Gospels, heresy a great many, of which one is entitled 'The Gospel according to the Egyptians', and another 'The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles'. Basilides also has presumed to write a gospel, and to call it by his own name. 'Many have taken in hand ' to write, but only four Gospels are recognized. From these the doctrines concerning the person of our Lord and Savior are to be derived. I know a certain gospel which is called 'The Gospel according to Thomas' and a 'Gospel according to Matthias', and many others have we read - lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine that they posses some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the Church has recognized, which is that only the four Gospels should be accepted.

A list of books accepted by the Greek Orthodox Church as part of the Bible that are not accepted as part of the Protestant Bible.

1 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (different than Ecclesiastes)
Baruch
The Epistle of Jerimiah

There are 9 more should you require them.

These books are included in the Orthodox canon, but they are not considered to be equal to the Old and New Testaments. They are merely considered "worthy to be read".

 

[Madman]

Spot on CenterPin.

 

[earl]

Any comments on how Revelation made the cut ?

 

[Big7]

I was poking at the statement about the Council being the only qualified people to make judgement calls on the Bible. My point was that even today we look to others to help with our decisions,just as you pointed out.

Well.. Your "polk" was spot on as the Council is the ONLY authority. Good job!

 

[rjcruiser]

Any comments on how Revelation made the cut ?

what is your question? why should it not be included?

 

[earl]

If modern man with all his resources can't give a reasonable explanation of it , how could first century guys make a unanimous decision to include it ?

 

[centerpin fan]

If modern man with all his resources can't give a reasonable explanation of it , how could first century guys make a unanimous decision to include it ?

Actually, Revelation "made the cut" much later. St. Athanasius included it in his canon (which included the same NT books we have today) in the late 4th century. Certain parts of the church rejected it even after that.

 

[earl]

Why ?

 

[Sammus]

Actually, Revelation "made the cut" much later. St. Athanasius included it in his canon (which included the same NT books we have today) in the late 4th century. Certain parts of the church rejected it even after that.

I hate to make my first post in disagreement, but that statement isn't factual.

The Muratorian fragment lists Revelation, as does Irenaeus, Clement, and Tuertullian. The dates of these listings range from c170-207C.E.

Another point. I didn't notice it in the previous posts, so my apologies if it has already been mentioned, but the Bible itself acts as its own guide. In other words, most books of the Bible verify the authenticity of other books. For example, by quoting Isaiah, Jesus verifies its inclusion in the Holy Scriptures. I can give you other examples, but you get the idea.

 

[earl]

I hate to make my first post in disagreement, but that statement isn't factual.

The Muratorian fragment lists Revelation, as does Irenaeus, Clement, and Tuertullian. The dates of these listings range from c170-207C.E.

Another point. I didn't notice it in the previous posts, so my apologies if it has already been mentioned, but the Bible itself acts as its own guide. In other words, most books of the Bible verify the authenticity of other books. For example, by quoting Isaiah, Jesus verifies its inclusion in the Holy Scriptures. I can give you other examples, but you get the idea.

Welcome to forums.

Any examples for Revelation ?

 

[centerpin fan]

I hate to make my first post in disagreement, but that statement isn't factual.

Sure it is. I didn't say St. A was the first, just that he included Rev along with every other NT book -- and he did.

Rev was certainly counted as scripture by Christians before St. A. Others did not accept it, however, and there were many who doubted it's authenticity long after St. A.

 

[Sammus]

Any examples for Revelation ?

You mean citations from other books of the Bible? Only by the slimmest of evidence.
All I can think of is Jesus' conversation with Peter after His resurrection. Peter asked regarding John, "Lord, what will this man do?"
Jesus reply: "If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?" John 21:21,22.

In a sense, John did live to see Jesus, as it were. Note John's statement at Revelation 1:10 "By inspiration I came to be in the Lord's day..."
Enough to convince the skeptic? Hardly. The believer? Perhaps.

Revelation, you might say, is backwards-compatible. The only way to unravel the mystery is to compare the visions to other, older visions of Old Testament.

Compare the beasts of Revelation with the beasts of Daniel. The locust swarm of Rev. 9 with a very similar vision in the book of Joel. The measurement of the holy city to the temple vision of Ezekiel. The reference to Satan as the 'original serpent' in chapter 12 to the serpent of Genesis.

The expression 'Armageddon' is prone to misuse and confusion until it is compared to 'the valley of megiddo' and the battles fought in its vicinity.

I could go on, but you get the point. It's impossible to discern the meaning of Revelation without the rest of Scripture. Revelation is so interwoven with Scripture it is impossible to separate it. Revelation is the climax of the Bible, plain and simple.

Of course, the real clincher is the fact that there are prophecies in Revelation that people alive today have seen fulfilled, even if they didn't know it at the time, but we won't go into that.

 

[centerpin fan]

Why ?

Not sure of all the reasons. One I have heard is that the Montanists were really into apocalyptic literature. Since their other ideas were discredited, they tainted Rev also.

I'll do some more research.

 

[earl]

Of course, the real clincher is the fact that there are prophecies in Revelation that people alive today have seen fulfilled, even if they didn't know it at the time, but we won't go into that.

Might as well. I have all the time in the world.

 

[Sammus]

Might as well. I have all the time in the world.

Heh, me and my big mouth

Give me a little time to work up a proper reply, and I'll try to answer that for you.