The "word of God"

[TripleXBullies]

You're asking me to prove a negative?

If it was voted on, it should be easy for you to produce some details. So who voted on it? When? Where? How many voted? What was the talley on each book that made the cut? What was the talley on each book that got the axe?

So how did they come together in to one binding? I'm not up to date on that subject.

Aside from them being together, how were they organized in to the order we have?

Both of these seem to me that they were "voted" on, or chosen by someone or group.

 

[centerpin fan]

Right. Just like you reject Mohammed and Joseph Smith.

No, not just like I reject Mohammed and Joseph Smith. It's interesting that you picked those two since they both basically said the same thing:

1) that the groups who came before them became corrupt and twisted the meanings of the scriptures ...

2) ... therefore we need a new set of scriptures ...

3) ... and an angel of the Lord appeared to me alone and gave me those new scriptures.

No Christian believes anything like that. Christians reject Mohammed and Joseph Smith because they both came up with a new gospel and a new Jesus.

 

[TripleXBullies]

So you take back your previous comment that:

As it pertained to man voting or deciding? Is there a difference between the two that has any bearing on which one is used for this situation?

 

[centerpin fan]

So how did they come together in to one binding? I'm not up to date on that subject.

Aside from them being together, how were they organized in to the order we have?

Both of these seem to me that they were "voted" on, or chosen by someone or group.

The entire 27 books of the NT were mentioned in their entirety by St. Athanasius in 367. Virtually all of these books had been used by the church long before that, though.

 

[centerpin fan]

As it pertained to man voting or deciding? Is there a difference between the two that has any bearing on which one is used for this situation?

"Voting" implies a group of guys sat around and said, "OK, boys -- the gospel of Matthew: legit or not? Let's see ... one, two, three ... OK, that's 42 votes "for" and 37 votes "against". Congratulations to Matthew!

Now ... the gospel of Thomas? Let's see ... one, two, three ... OK, that's 33 votes "for", 46 votes "against", and St. Obama votes "present". Tough luck, Thomas."

That did not happen.

 

[TripleXBullies]

The entire 27 books of the NT were mentioned in their entirety by St. Athanasius in 367. Virtually all of these books had been used by the church long before that, though.

That doesn't answer my question. So who put those "most" together, then who added the rest?

 

[TripleXBullies]

"Voting" implies a group of guys sat around and said, "OK, boys -- the gospel of Matthew: legit or not? Let's see ... one, two, three ... OK, that's 42 votes "for" and 37 votes "against". Congratulations to Matthew!

Now ... the gospel of Thomas? Let's see ... one, two, three ... OK, that's 33 votes "for", 46 votes "against", and St. Obama votes "present". Tough luck, Thomas."

That did not happen.

How did it happen then? Is there another theory that seems more legitimate?

 

[atlashunter]

No, not just like I reject Mohammed and Joseph Smith. It's interesting that you picked those two since they both basically said the same thing:

1) that the groups who came before them became corrupt and twisted the meanings of the scriptures ...

2) ... therefore we need a new set of scriptures ...

3) ... and an angel of the Lord appeared to me alone and gave me those new scriptures.

No Christian believes anything like that. Christians reject Mohammed and Joseph Smith because they both came up with a new gospel and a new Jesus.

You don't need to explain to me the reason you've got it right and the other religions got it wrong. I'm sure they could do the same. And that's the point. You think you can differentiate which scriptures are inspired by a deity from those that aren't and so do they. The fact that people come to such disparate results in that effort tells me the chances of any of them getting it right are slim to none and the most likely explanation is that they are all full of baloney.

I do stand corrected on my original post though and I appreciate that.

 

[bullethead]

You're asking me to prove a negative?

If it was voted on, it should be easy for you to produce some details. So who voted on it? When? Where? How many voted? What was the talley on each book that made the cut? What was the talley on each book that got the axe?

Best I can do but it clearly states what made it and what did not was decided by the church leaders (man). Take the split between Catholics and Protestants and you have the bible go from 72 down to 66 books...who decided that? God?

Here is a good read. Since these councils took place over hundreds of years and the Protestant version of the bible was not present until the 1500's, I'm sticking with that during discussions between many church leaders, votes were made to see if the scripture met the criteria to be included. Being that the writings had to be ratified by the councils it was up to them to allow or disallow those writings.

Source: http://users.rcn.com/lanat/biblehistory.htm

"In the Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) this same Canon was officially stated and adopted for all the Church. This was the entire Church - East and West - there was not yet any split or schism in the heart of Christ yet. All of Christianity had one Holy Book. And it was this scripture that it maintained, whole, and unblemished, until the 16th century.

However, it is evident that the initial canon in the 4th century found many opponents in Africa, since it took three ratifying councils there at brief intervals - Hippo in A.D. 393, and Carthage in AD 397 and then again in A.D. 419 - to reiterate the official catalogs. This canon was once again ratified by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787; and then again confirmed and ratified by the Council of Florence in 1442. But if was first officially declared, for all time, as the official canon of the entire Church at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, and has never changed."

 

[JFS]

2) ... therefore we need a new set of scriptures ...

3) ... and an angel of the Lord appeared to me alone and gave me those new scriptures.

No Christian believes anything like that.

I don't know, sounds kind of like Moses to me.

 

[bullethead]

"Voting" implies a group of guys sat around and said, "OK, boys -- the gospel of Matthew: legit or not? Let's see ... one, two, three ... OK, that's 42 votes "for" and 37 votes "against". Congratulations to Matthew!

Now ... the gospel of Thomas? Let's see ... one, two, three ... OK, that's 33 votes "for", 46 votes "against", and St. Obama votes "present". Tough luck, Thomas."

That did not happen.

HOW was it decided? Being that the writings had to meet certain criteria the church leaders had to give some sort of acknowledgement of either Ay or Nay(those words are examples only...don't ask me where they had to say either!!!!!) whether or not that criteria was met. Did it have to be unanimous? Majority? How was it decided?

 

[centerpin fan]

I don't know, sounds kind of like Moses to me.

I'm sure you could find a Jewish outdoor forum you could use as a sounding board.

 

[JFS]

I'm sure you could find a Jewish outdoor forum you could use as a sounding board.

I don't follow you. Do Chrisitans not believe the Book of Exodus?

 

[centerpin fan]

HOW was it decided? Being that the writings had to meet certain criteria the church leaders had to give some sort of acknowledgement of either Ay or Nay(those words are examples only...don't ask me where they had to say either!!!!!) whether or not that criteria was met. Did it have to be unanimous? Majority? How was it decided?

Go back and read your own posts. The canon was settled by the church as a whole through common use of the scriptures. There was no vote, and they didn't draw straws. The gospel of Thomas was never removed from the NT. It was never included in the first place. The same goes for the gospel of Barnabas, the shepherd of Hermas, etc. The church never doubted the authenticity of the gospels. If you read the early church fathers, they quote NT passages left and right.

 

[centerpin fan]

I don't follow you. Do Chrisitans not believe the Book of Exodus?

I'm saying I disagree with you.

 

[centerpin fan]

How did it happen then? Is there another theory that seems more legitimate?

See post #55.

 

[centerpin fan]

... the writings had to be ratified by the councils it was up to them to allow or disallow those writings.

The writings had been ratified by the people long before any councils. Read the anti-Nicene fathers and see for yourself.

 

[JFS]

There was no vote, and they didn't draw straws.

That's interesting. They voted at the Council of Nicaea didn't they? How do we know they didn't vote at the Council of Laodicea? Seems odd they wouldn't.

 

[centerpin fan]

Being that the writings had to be ratified by the councils it was up to them to allow or disallow those writings.

Source: http://users.rcn.com/lanat/biblehistory.htm

"In the Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) this same Canon was officially stated and adopted for all the Church. This was the entire Church - East and West - there was not yet any split or schism in the heart of Christ yet. All of Christianity had one Holy Book. And it was this scripture that it maintained, whole, and unblemished, until the 16th century.

However, it is evident that the initial canon in the 4th century found many opponents in Africa, since it took three ratifying councils there at brief intervals - Hippo in A.D. 393, and Carthage in AD 397 and then again in A.D. 419 - to reiterate the official catalogs. This canon was once again ratified by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787; and then again confirmed and ratified by the Council of Florence in 1442. But if was first officially declared, for all time, as the official canon of the entire Church at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, and has never changed."

They did not, and the dates of those councils proves it. By the late 2nd century (at most), there was only a handful of books that anybody doubted.

 

[centerpin fan]

They voted at the Council of Nicaea didn't they?

Yes, but not on the canon of Scripture, as I pointed out way back in post #19.