Page 1 of 1

Still questioning and struggling

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:40 am
by WConn
I don't wish to come across as the pessimist that I obviously am, but I still am having trouble understanding the manner in which the Bible was compiled. I understand that we believe that the Bible was the word of God, written by man, inspired by God. Again, the question I have is how did those who decided on which of the 66 books of the bible were actually the writings of those inspired by God? There were reportedly many writings which were not considered divinely inspired. Am I missing something? I think I have read all the answers that I have received in the past, but this is a big point of contention (perhaps not the best choice of words) with me.

I know there are some very well versed people here and that a reasonable, understandable and convincing answer is forthcoming.

W

Re: Still questioning and struggling

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:59 am
by cslewislover
Here is a link to a audio talk about the canon: http://www.bethinking.org.uk/bible-jesu ... itrary.htm I'm not trying to send you away (!), but that site has many pretty neat and informative articles and audio messages.

Re: Still questioning and struggling

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:08 am
by WConn
cslewislover wrote:Here is a link to a audio talk about the canon: http://www.bethinking.org.uk/bible-jesu ... itrary.htm I'm not trying to send you away (!), but that site has many pretty neat and informative articles and audio messages.

Thank you, I will read and listen to anything I can get.

W

How was the Bible compiled:

Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:01 am
by WConn
Am I correct in understanding that the Bible as we know it today, the 66 books by 40 authors, was compiled under the Council of Nicea by direction of Emperor Constantine? It is my understanding that Constantine, in order to create some standardization of the Bible instructed the Bishops to convene and decide which writings passed the test to be considered the inspired word of God, although actually written by man. I have seen this on the internet but many things on the internet are known to not be true. Sometimes the greatest challenge is filtering out that which is correct and that which is not.

Thank you,

W

Re: Still questioning and struggling

Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:05 pm
by erawdrah
I really like this guy and agree with almost everything he says. Josh Mcdowell This guy came to the Lord while trying to disprove the Bible. He has a great testimony. I have not studied this enough to answer your question. I think that the prophecies in the Bible that you can see coming true prove the Bible. For example, Ezekiel 37. This is were Israel becomes a nation again. And not only does it become a nation in 1948, it is not divided into Judah and Ephraim. They are one nation.

Ezekiel 37:11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.
Ezekiel 37:12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
Ezekiel 37:13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
Ezekiel 37:14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.
Ezekiel 37:15 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,
Ezekiel 37:16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
Ezekiel 37:17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
Ezekiel 37:18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
Ezekiel 37:19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

Re: How was the Bible compiled:

Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:05 pm
by cslewislover
Here is part of an article that is from the main site: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... rigin.html I reformatted the outline slightly.

"Skeptics and liberal Christian scholars both seek to date the New Testament books as late first century or early second century writings. They contend that these books were not written by eyewitnesses but rather by second or third hand sources. This allowed for the development of what they view as myths concerning Jesus. For example, they would deny that Jesus actually foretold the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather they would contend that later Christian writers "put these words into his mouth."

1. Many of the New Testament books claim to be written by eyewitnesses.
A. The Gospel of John claims to be written by the disciple of the Lord. Recent archeological research has confirmed both the existence of the Pool of Bethesda and that it had five porticoes as described in John 5:2. This correct reference to an incidental detail lends credibility to the claim that the Gospel of John was written by John who as an eyewitness knew Jerusalem before it was destroyed in 70 A. D.
A. Paul signed his epistles with his own hand. He was writing to churches who knew him. These churches were able to authenticate that these epistles had come from his hands (Galatians 6:11). Clement an associate of Paul's wrote to the Corinthian Church in 97 A. D. urging them to heed the epistle that Paul had sent them.

2. The following facts strongly suggest that both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written prior to 65 A.D. This lends credibility to the author's (Luke) claim to be an eyewitness to Paul's missionary journeys. This would date Mark prior to 65 A.D. and the Pauline epistles between 49-63 A.D.
A. Acts records the beginning history of the church with persecutions and martyrdoms being mentioned repeatedly. Three men; Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus all play leading roles throughout the book. They were all martyred by 67 A.D., but their martyrdoms are not recorded in Acts.
B. The church in Jerusalem played a central role in the Book of Acts, but the destruction of the city in 70 A.D. was not mentioned. The Jewish historian Josephus cited the siege and destruction of Jerusalem as befalling the Jews because of their unjust killing of James the brother of Jesus.
3. The Book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome under house arrest in 62 A.D. In 64 A.D., Nero blamed and persecuted the Christians for the fire that burned down the city of Rome. Paul himself was martyred by 65 A.D. in Rome. Again, neither the terrible persecution of the Christians in Rome nor Paul's martyrdom are mentioned.

Conclusion: These books, Luke-Acts, were written while Luke was an eyewitness to many of the events, and had opportunity to research portions that he was not an eyewitness to.

The church fathers bear witness to even earlier New Testament manuscripts

The earliest manuscripts we have of major portions of the New Testament are p 45, p 46, p66, and p 75, and they date from 175-250 A. D. The early church fathers (97-180 A.D.) bear witness to even earlier New Testament manuscripts by quoting from all but one of the New Testament books. They are also in the position to authenticate those books, written by the apostles or their close associates, from later books such as the gospel of Thomas that claimed to have been written by the apostles, but were not.

1. Clement (30-100 A.D.) wrote an epistle to the Corinthian Church around 97 A.D. He reminded them to heed the epistle that Paul had written to them years before. Recall that Clement had labored with Paul (Philippians 4:3). He quoted from the following New Testament books: Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James.
2. The apostolic fathers Ignatius (30-107 A.D.), Polycarp (65-155 A.D.), and Papias (70-155 A.D.) cite verses from every New Testament book except 2 and 3 John. They thereby authenticated nearly the entire New Testament. Both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the apostle John.
3. Justin Martyr, (110-165 A.D.), cited verses from the following 13 books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and Revelation.
4. Irenaeus, (120-202 A.D.), wrote a five volume work Against Heresies in which,
A. He quoted from every book of the New Testament but 3 John.
B. He quoted from the New Testament books over 1,200 times.

How was the New Testament canon determined?

The Early church had three criteria for determining what books were to be included or excluded from the Canon of the New Testament.

1. First, the books must have apostolic authority-- that is, they must have been written either by the apostles themselves, who were eyewitnesses to what they wrote about, or by associates of the apostles.
2. Second, there was the criterion of conformity to what was called the "rule of faith." In other words, was the document congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative.
3. Third, there was the criterion of whether a document had enjoyed continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.
4. The gospel of Thomas is not included in the Canon of the New Testament for the following reasons.
A. The gospel of Thomas fails the test of Apostolic authority. None of the early church fathers from Clement to Irenaeus ever quoted from the gospel of Thomas. This indicates that they either did not know of it or that they rejected it as spurious. In either case, the early church fathers fail to support the gospel of Thomas' claim to have been written by the apostle. It was believed to by written around 140 A.D. There is no evidence to support its purported claim to be written by the Apostle Thomas himself.
B. The gospel of Thomas fails to conform to the rule of faith. It purports to contain 114 "secret sayings" of Jesus. Some of these are very similar to the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Four Gospels. For example the gospel of Thomas quotes Jesus as saying, "A city built on a high hill cannot be hidden." This reads the same as Matthew's Gospel except that high is added. But Thomas claims that Jesus said, "Split wood; I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there." That concept is pantheistic. Thomas ends with the following saying that denies women salvation unless they are some how changed into being a man. "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life." Jesus is quoted as saying, "Lo, I shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven."
C. The gospel of Thomas fails the test of continuous usage and acceptance. The lack of manuscript evidence plus the failure of the early church fathers to quote from it or recognize it shows that it was not used or accepted in the early Church. Only two manuscripts are known of this "gospel." Until 1945 only a single fifth-century copy translation in Coptic had been found. Then in 1945 a Greek manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas was found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt. This compares very poorly to the thousands of manuscripts that authenticate the Four Gospels."

Re: How was the Bible compiled:

Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:08 pm
by cslewislover
Here is a shorty from another site:http://www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=46126


"Who selected the documents that are now included in the Bible?

The 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament are the only writings Christians consider fully inspired. The books that are in our present Old Testament were universally accepted at the time of Christ and endorsed by Him. In fact, there are nearly 300 quotations from the Old Testament books in the New Testament.

A number of books that are considered valuable but not inspired are found in the Roman Catholic and Anglican Bibles. These books are called the Apocrypha (which means "hidden," "secret," or "profound"). The Apocrypha was accepted by the council of Carthage, but was not accepted by many important church leaders, including Melito of Sardis, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and Jerome. 1

Although the New Testament Canon was officially confirmed in its present and final form by the third council of Carthage in 397, the 27 documents it contains were accepted as authoritative from the very beginning.

The New Testament is solidly rooted in history. It revolves around the death, burial, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not even the rationalist critics of the 19th century could find reason to question Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians, and it has been acknowledged as the earliest written testimony of Christ's resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul declared:

For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been rasied, your faith is worthless, you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hope in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied (vv. 16-19).

First-century Christians circulated documents—either written or approved by the apostles—which contained an authoritative explanation of the accounts concerning Jesus' life and teaching. These documents often quoted from each other and presented the same gospel message from different perspectives and in different styles. Hundreds of other documents were written and circulated, but the church quickly rejected spurious documents and established the authority of those that were genuine.


1 . "Augustine alone of ancient authors, and the councils of Africa which he dominated, present a different picture. Augustine specifically accepted the apocryphal books and gives the total number as forty-four. He is the only ancient author who gives a number different from the twenty-two or twenty-four book reckoning. The list includes Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, 1 Esdras (the book composed of part of 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah), Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus. The Local councils of Carthage and Hippo, dominated by Augustine, included the same books. This listing prob. agreed with the ideas of Pope Damasus who dominated the local council of Rome at 382. It will be remembered that it was Damasus who urged Jerome to translate also the apocryphal books for his Vulgate. Jerome did so with the explicit declaration that they were not canonical.

"Green (op. cit. 168-174) discusses the witness of Augustine and points out that Augustine seems to vacillate. Green quotes Augustine; 'What is written in the book of Judith the Jews are truly said not to have received into the canon of Scripture' (Augustine, City of God xviii, 260). 'After Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra, they had no prophets until the advent of the Savior' (id. xvii, last ch.). He was well aware that Maccabees were after the cessation of prophecy. Green concludes that Augustine was using 'canonical' in the sense of books which may be read in the churches without putting them all on an equal plane." Excerpted from an article by R.L. Harris ("Canon of the Old Testament") in the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.

Dan Vander Lugt"

Re: How was the Bible compiled:

Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:45 am
by Byblos
Only for the sake of presenting a complete picture of the assembly of the canonical books from all sides, see the following links:

Counting The Canon
The Old Testament Canon
The Council (Jabneh) That Wasn't

Please note that they are not being offered as points of contention or debate, merely for the reader to consider both sides.

Re: How was the Bible compiled:

Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:00 pm
by jlay
Moderators,
Can we merge this thread and wconn's other two where this exact same question comes up?

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =3&t=33639
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =3&t=33626

Re: How was the Bible compiled:

Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:50 pm
by cslewislover
jlay wrote:Moderators,
Can we merge this thread and wconn's other two where this exact same question comes up?

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =3&t=33639
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =3&t=33626
I merged the first topic you listed with the current one, but not the second one.

Re: Still questioning and struggling

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 4:53 pm
by GodLover
The Early church had three criteria for determining what books were to be included or excluded from the Canon of the New Testament.
The Early church, a heirarchical institution, which was Catholic. Perhaps this will not be acknowledged by many on this forum, but all the Early Church Fathers (ECF's) were Catholic, in practice, in apologetics, and in doctrine.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm
The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."

Anyone who believes in the Bible (whether with or without the Deuterocanonicals - sometimes referred to as apochrypha) must acknowledge the Authority of the Catholic Church. Yes, Big "C" and not small "c". It was the only Church around at the time right after the apostles, united in practice and catechesis. For more on that, I refer you to the Didache, a sort of how-to book of ECF writings (they speak about the Eucharist, for example, and how it IS the real presence of Christ).

These same practices and teachings are all found in only one church today, and that is the Catholic Church.
- unbroken line of apostolic succession (you can check this in an encyclopedia)
- still adhering to Jesus being really and truly present in Holy Communion (the Eucharist)
- modeled on ancient Jewish worship rites and the Davidic Kingdom
- heirarchical, with bishops as heads of dioceses, just as in ancient times (also priests and deacons)
- still not allowing divorce and remarriage (are there any Protestant sects which do this?)
- still following the sacred Traditions, one of which is the sign of the Cross, an ancient prayer (2 Thess: 2:15)

Yet, I find it ironic that many Protestants (though not all non-Catholics) point to the ECF's in their apologetics.
St Augustine was Catholic. http://patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/2009/ ... holic.html

This history should not be brushed aside; if you ignore these facts, are you really being honest about the Faith?

God bless all,
GodLover

Re: Still questioning and struggling

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 9:20 am
by jlay
All true beleivers come from the same root. Christ.
Christ did not come to institute a gentile hierarchy. He came as Israel's Messiah. The true theocracy. Once rejected by Israel, the mystery that was hidden was revealed. Read Ephesians 3.
What makes a Christian is not belonging to the RCC, or any other group, but trusting in Christ Jesus. Not following sacraments, but faith alone, in Christ alone. If anything, the scriptures warn us of the "institutional" church, and the corruption that will come. And as evidenced by Paul's letters, and the rebukes in Revelation, we can see that corruption and false doctrine quickly infiltrated the congregations spread through out the land at that time.

All true Christians are united family in Christ. Augustine, and all the saints included. I could go into a lenghty list of how different the traditions of the RCC have changed since the time of Constatine, but that is not the purpose of this thread. A thread that has been inactive for nearly a year. Yes, there are many practices in the RCC that are the same today as they were 1,700 years ago. There are also many that are not.

Re: Still questioning and struggling

Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:45 pm
by FredFlanders
J, I had the same questions until I found a Church that had the miracles of Christ in operation. Here I was empowered with the Holy Spirit and now there are no more questions as I know know Christ personally through the Holy Spirit.

Fred.

Re: Still questioning and struggling

Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:55 am
by jlay
Fred,

What questions? I didn't say I had a question, or questions.

Re: Still questioning and struggling

Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:59 pm
by FredFlanders
jlay wrote:Fred,

What questions? I didn't say I had a question, or questions.
Sorry Jlay,

meant for W Conn.