Bible Study

[Sean]

Ah! I omitted the comma... That'll be why you didn't get it.

Photos in Viz news stories are often edited and altered, much to the detriment of the subjects involved (teeth blacked out, facial features shrunken/enlarged, and so on). In the case of the aforementioned Lemmy, for one photo the editors simply took a picture of a man wearing a baseball cap and drew a crude approximation of Lemmy's facial hair and warts on his face (as well as writing "Motörhead" on the cap). Photos will frequently be captioned only with the name of the subject and a comma followed by "yesterday", e.g. "A train, yesterday".
Viz

I will edit the post immediately so that you can appreciate the humour to it's fullest extent.

[MajGenl.Meade]

... the Bible which is the only authority.

What about the people who decided what would be in the Bible and what would not?

Are you asking the basis upon which various writings that claimed to be scripture were determined to be either authentic or spurious?

Are you claiming that all writings claiming to be scriptural are (or may be) in fact scriptural and that all such written things should therefore be included no matter how contradictory and repulsive (and the Canon never closed)?

Are you claiming that so many documents written by the church Fathers before the Canon was determined should not have been excluded - that the second century and later churchmen should have been allowed to toss in their own works?

Of course, you already know full well that just as all scripture is God breathed, so to the identification of valid scripture was God guided. Although one must put a bit of an asterisk next to The Revelation of St. John for later consideration. . .

Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

I will edit the post immediately so that you can appreciate the humour to it's fullest extent.

No, I don't know what 'Viz' iz and it still doesn't work for me (although I appreciate both comma and it's )

Is the suggestion that God has a round bottom and He cannot fall? But the statement was about keeping "us" from falling. So perhaps we have round bottoms. But in that case, should not the caption read "You, yesterday" or something similar?

Meade

[Gob]

Aren't we made in god's image?

[Andrew D]

... the Bible which is the only authority.

What about the people who decided what would be in the Bible and what would not?

Are you asking the basis upon which various writings that claimed to be scripture were determined to be either authentic or spurious?

No.

I am asking about "authority".

You say that "the Bible ... is the only authority".

So what is the "authority" of the people who decided what should be in the Bible and what should not?

You say "were determined" (a nice use of the passive, akin to "mistakes were made" without saying who made them). Some people did the determining.

By what right did those people do that determining?

And, more fundamentally, isn't the "authority" of the Bible determined by the people who decided what is in and what is out?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well Andrew I don't propose to regurgitate all of the arguments that you yourself already know. This website will do that for you:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html

although not having read the entirety of it, I cannot say whether all of it is accurate.

As regards "authority" I will quote a section below. You see, there were these churches full of Christians and for some odd reason Christians decided what was scriptural and what was not. Strangely they chose to ask neither hottentots nor atheists nor agnostics nor any other kind of pagan to take a crack at this task. Within the Roman church the books that we call the Apocrypha were regarded as semi-scriptural although by no means universally and this at a time when the Roman church was regarded by Christians as authoritative in the West but that of course is an argument outside the New Testament. The Eastern church accepted Baruch but not the Revelation of John and may still do so (I believe).

Gradual and independent definition of the canon by elders. In the year 367 an influential bishop named Athanasius published a list of books to be read in the churches under his care, which included precisely those books we have in our Bibles (with this exception — he admitted Baruch and omitted Esther in the Old Testament). Other such lists had been published by others, as early as the year 170, although they did not all agree. How did the men who published these lists decide which books should be called Scripture? Scholars who have studied this matter closely have concluded that the lists of books are merely ratifications of the decisions of the majority of churches from earliest days. We are able to prove this by examining the surviving works of Irenaeus (born 130), who lived in days before anyone felt it was necessary to list the approved books. He quotes as Scripture all of the books and only the books that appear in the list published on another continent and sixty years later by Origen.

It is evident that the elders of each congregation had approved certain writings and rejected others as they became available, and it turned out, by the grace of God, that most of the churches were by the year 170 in agreement, having approved the same books independently. Prominent teachers were also influential in this process. About that time bishops began to prevail in the Church, as governors of groups of churches, and they simply ratified with these lists the results thus arrived at. The approved books were then called the "canon" of Scripture, "canon" being a Greek word meaning "rod" or "ruler." These books constituted the standard rule of faith for all the churches. We must not imagine that the canon was imposed by ecclesiastical authorities. The canon grew up by many independent decisions of elders who were responsible for their congregations alone.

[Big RR]

The majority opinion seems to be that the unforgivable sin is to ascribe the acts of the Holy Spirit to the Devil. It appears that one may say anything against Jesus (or indeed God) and yet still remain eligible for repentance and forgiveness. But to maintain that the works of God through the Spirit are in fact acts of Satan is rather a blue.

The main point of course is not for people to worry too much about what is unforgiveable as it is to understand that forgiveness extends as widely as it does. One might lie, cheat or steal and when it comes to the moment of decision understand that those things, as ugly as they are, do not prevent God from reconciling to mankind.

I think it is somewhat akin to worrying about all those people who "have no'fold"t heard". Stop. Worry about yourself who has heard. Then do something about those who have not.

Meade

Meade--sorry this is so late, but going back to my confirmation classes (admittedly a long time ago) I recall being taught that this blasphemy was rejecting the grace of god offered through his spirit--I think Calvin referred it to a hardening of the heart against this message. Christian teachings generally say that god has provided a way for salvation, and rejection of this results in eternal spearation from god--hence the unpardonable sin. Indeed, in the dutch reformed view, I was taught that salvation is achieved through a justification which seals one's fate into the "fold" ; the longer process of sanctification was more or less automatic, and something one could not depart from once (s)he was "justified", hence no action after justification would be unpardonable or the message of redemption would be inconsistent. Hence rejection of justification is th eonly unpardonable "sin".

Re the selection of the books of the bible, I do think you expose the problem, saying the majority of christian churches agreed on it (presumably based on their beliefs and tenets). Starting froma belief system and selecting writings that agree with it does seem to be a bit skewed in favor of the majority view of christianity, silencing those who saw the message as different.

[MajGenl.Meade]

As to the first, I'm not sure that it is entirely logical. A person's continued rejection of the gospel, a denial of justification, a refusal to believe - however we want to put it - means that all sins remain unforgiven and are therefore unforgivable in that person. However, it's possible these two notions are actually one and the same. The context of the "unforgivable sin" was of course within Judaism itself - the ascribing by Jewish religious authorities of God's (ie Jesus') work to Satan as they did necessarily indicates a refusal to believe and a rejection of God's forgiveness.

As to the second, you have the cart before the horse. The faith was built upon the knowledge of Jesus conveyed by the apostles (including Paul) and church elders and leaders placed in charge of promulgating that faith. The written words recorded what had been and what was and what would be. There was no "majority view" of Christianity; just one, prior to the third century.

I think you are to a large extent confusing discussion, debate, disagreement and dissension about the interpretation of the scriptures with the fact of the scriptures themselves. The great "heretical" movements (Gnostic, Donatist, Arian, Pelagian, Nestorian) were not disputes over the identity of scriptures but over the interpretation of them.

Here's the introduction from my own history of the church. :

Church history is the story of how believers addressed two questions that Jesus asked; who do people say I am and who do you say I am? (Matt. 16:13-16). Some who followed Jesus during his earthly ministry decided he was John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets. When Jesus and the Apostles were no longer present on earth, people produced more speculative answers. The struggle of church leaders against such tendencies forced them to think through the second question – who did the church say Jesus was? One consequence was the establishment of the New Testament canon – the identification of authentic Christian scriptures common to all believers – another was an authority structure to rule on matters of faith.

The resilient Christian church caused the Roman state to abandon oppression in favour of tolerance and finally to co-opt this faith. In the fourth century, church and state began the long process of partnership as co-persecutors of heretics and infidels. Thus imperial ecclesiology intent on unified rule created the conditions for the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century and the proliferation of denominations we see today

[Andrew D]

I think you are to a large extent confusing discussion, debate, disagreement and dissension about the interpretation of the scriptures with the fact of the scriptures themselves. The great "heretical" movements (Gnostic, Donatist, Arian, Pelagian, Nestorian) were not disputes over the identity of scriptures but over the interpretation of them.

I think that that is not historically accurate. Nestorians, for example, rejected (and still reject) II Peter, which is widely viewed as canonical. The Council of Laodicea in the fourth century omitted Revelation, which is widely viewed as canonical.

The Gnostics especially had a whole slew of scriptures which are widely regarded as non-canonical: The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, Marcion, Theodotus, Heracleon, etc.

Even today, the Roman Catholic Church -- the center of gravity of Christianity as measured by numbers of adherents -- accepts as canonical seven "books" which Protestants, on the whole, do not: Tobit, Judith, I Maccabees, II Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch.

There were from the beginning, and there are to this day, great "disputes over the identity of scriptures" -- great disputes over what works are canonical and what works are not.

Which presents the questions: Was the choice of which books to include and which books to exclude itself divinely inspired? If so, which of the conflicting traditions of canonicity should be accepted, and why? If not, why should that choice be accepted by anyone?

[Andrew D]

There was no "majority view" of Christianity; just one, prior to the third century.

I think that that is also not historically accurate. Yes, there was no "majority view" of Christianity. But not because there was just one. On the contrary, precisely because there were so many.

Until one sect of Christianity sold itself to the Roman Empire in order to gain primacy, Gnostics were Christians. And Donatists were Christians. And Arians and Pelagians and Nestorians were Christians. And so were Monophysitists and Manicheanists and Sabellianists and ... and ... and ....

Whatever the divine truth of the matter may be, the historical truth of the matter is that early Christianity was a hodge-podge of conflicting beliefs about almost everything, from the nature of Christ to the canonicity of various scriptures.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I would not agree that Gnostics were ‘Christians’ given their propensity to dualism but there is no authority for what “scriptures” they actually admitted since there was no established movement. They are known mostly from anti-Gnostic writings unfortunately. Revelation perhaps deserves to be put aside as the Eastern church did. The Apocrypha was finally deemed canonical at Trent in 1546 by the Roman church in reaction to the Protestant Reformation.
Orthodox Anglicanism while not according those books canonical value deems them worthy of study.

There are no relevant disputes today other than from carping critics (like me over Revelation) as to which books meet the criteria that the Christian church established as marking truly canonical works in the early centuries. Despite modern cultural chauvinism, the church was quite capable of recognizing the falsity of works such as Thomas, Mary and so on which appeared late in the day and are not deserving of the same respect.

Your method appears to recommend tossing everything into the faith along with the kitchen sink - at which point you would choose (rightly in my view) to criticise Christianity for not distinguishing reliable teaching from idle speculation. As I said in my own history, questions arose about the nature of Christ, of the Holy Spirit and salvation and many other matters addressed in scripture and church leaders disputed much.

We certainly can agree about conflicting beliefs. Donatists were Christians until a dispute (in which I rather think they had the right) about the validity of clerical orders got Augustine riled up and prompted him to lay the ground work for the Inquisition – although he didn’t know he’d done that. Arians, Pelagians etc. were not declared heretical for arguing about the canon but for holding interpretative views that councils determined were not correct. However, all of these were developments arising from the study of scripture both prior to and after the canon was closed.

The essential conclusion though is that the Bible is the authoritative scripture of Christianity with or without 2Peter; with or without the Apocryphal works; with or without Revelation.

[Andrew D]

Well, General, I do not mean to be either offensive or nonserious. But I am (and I am notorious, here and elsewhere, for being) blunt. And bluntly speaking, what does this

The essential conclusion though is that the Bible is the authoritative scripture of Christianity with or without 2Peter; with or without the Apocryphal works; with or without Revelation.

even mean?

Is II Peter divinely inspired and authoritative, or is it not? Is Revelation divinely inspired and authoritative, or is it not? Etc.

If "the Bible is the authoritative scripture of Christianity," does there not need to be some authoritative conclusion about what is part of the Bible and what is not?

[MajGenl.Meade]

No worries Andrew; blunt as you wish. If it could be demonstrated that 2Peter and The Revelation were antithetical to the rest of NT canon, then one presumes they would be identified as not authoritative but instead would be categorized along with other non-biblical works.

Since they do not contradict the NT canon, are consistent with it and are arguably the product of apostolic writers, then their inclusion has no bearing on whether or not the Bible is either inspired or authoritative. If it could be shown beyond doubt that 2Peter and The Revelation were not inspired apostolic writings then their removal from the Bible would not harm it or change its authority one bit.

Although “all scripture is God-breathed”, the question of “what is scripture?” cannot be answered with a simple “it was inspired by God”. It is beyond the scope of my knowledge at least to categorically declare that God does not from time to time inspire non-biblical writers obsessed with religious mythology today, from Michael Moorcock (although I doubt it) to Richard Dawkins (I doubt that too).

The early church recognised that the Spirit inspired many of its leaders in their guidance of congregations and in their writings – such as Clement – but that these works should not be categorized as scriptural.

When you consider the tendency of secular organisations as they develop to adopt their own leaders’ writings as being “gospel”, it is quite remarkable that the early church did not enshrine the writings of such as Ignatius, Clement and Papias as ‘holy writ’.

Then we must ask, how did the elders of the churches decide which writings should be read in church as authoritative? The answer is simple: They received the writings of the apostles and their closest companions, and the writings endorsed by them

The OT was accepted as the scriptures identified by the Jewish faith and known to Jesus. I do not recall significant dispute within the Christian community about that in the early centuries but you will no doubt remind me if necessary.

The post-prophetic period Apocryphal books endorsed by the Roman organisation in the 15th century are “between” writings while somewhat useful in understanding events between Malachi and Matthew are antithetical to both OT and NT thought. Rome liked them because of the support they provided to novel Roman doctrines that are non-biblical to say the least. (Noted that Judaism itself was not unanimous on whether the Alexandrian OT in Greek, which included those works was as worthy as the Hebrew canon in use in Palestine before Christ).

The inspired and authoritative Bible of THE Christian faith consists of those books (39 in the OT and 27 NT), which are common to Protestant, Eastern and Roman churches (excepting the Revelation in the East; no harm, no foul).

[Big RR]

Meade--of course the 66 books you mention comprise the base of the christian bible (revelation nothwithstanding), but again the question was how were these selected? And I think it impossible that those assembling the collection of christian scriptural writings would not have chosen those which more closely mirror the views of the dominant church. Much of the comntrary writings would have beenlost in the purge of contrary opinions (indeed, I am quite surprised that some writings have survived), hence the gnostics may well have had contemporaneous writings supporting their positions which were suppressed; one need only look at something as simple as a statement of the 10 commandments as recognized by the RC church vs the protestant and eastern churches (and absence of the prohibition on graven images, replacing it with a split on the last commandment to the covetting of your neighbor's wife and covetting of your neighbor's goods)--many eastern churches go to the point of prohibiting statues in the church (preferring painted icons), while the RC church has statues they venerate. One selects the writings that suppport their beliefs, plain and simple.

Now sure, there are parts of the current canon that are widely disputed among denominations--those selecting the books for the canon did not extinguish all writings supporting views counter to their understanding, only those which clearly were. But I have seen no evidence that the dominant roman church, in conjunction with the eastern church it was in communion with at the time, had the continuance of their beliefs and the eradication of contrary views in mind when they assmebled the accepted scriptures and declared other writings as heretical. Indeed, your note that the RC church adopted the books of the apocrypha in response to issues raised in the reformation shows the churches clearly were able to do this in more modern times--do you really think the church leaders wouldn't have done the same in the first few centuries?

[MajGenl.Meade]

But I have seen no evidence that the dominant roman church, in conjunction with the eastern church it was in communion with at the time, had the continuance of their beliefs and the eradication of contrary views in mind when they assmebled the accepted scriptures and declared other writings as heretical.

"At the time" there was only one catholic (universal) church. The eastern and western split took a long time and was to do with interpretation and power. However, I'm glad to see that you don't know of any "evidence" that the Christian church based the canon on "continuance" of its own beliefs and the eradication of contrary views. Evidently we agree on that.

True heresy consists of introducing ideas contrary to the Christian faith as written in the canon. Thus Mormonism is heresy; Christian Science is heresy and so on. These are not 'interpretations' but outright rejection of Christ and his teachings disguised by using his name.

Now sure, there are parts of the current canon that are widely disputed among denominations--those selecting the books for the canon did not extinguish all writings supporting views counter to their understanding, only those which clearly were

The "disputes" as you put it had nothing to do with the content or "views counter to their understanding". The disputes involved whether these books (2Peter and Revelation being examples) were in fact canonical - i.e. meeting the standard of having been written by apostles, chums of apostles, and something else I can't recall at this moment. Neither of the two books mentioned is in opposition to the other books.

You once again put the cart before the horse. The Christian churches all were fond of various writings; over time, all the parts of the church accepted most of the writings that each regarded as particularly significant. They also rejected some writings which were considered non-apostolic, written by non pals of the Apostles, written later, written with false attribution and written in contradiction to Christ.

Some of the most spiritual and orthodox writings that were NOT included were the very popular Letters of Clement, which according to you as products of an early church leader writing the acceptable view, should logically have been declared part of the Bible. Not so. The canon was created without church-inspired writings of the ruling elders, bishops and what have you. What was chosen included some very problematic things; James vs Galatians for example.

You are actually incorrect - the Catholic Bibles do not "change" the Ten Commandments but translate them as does any other bible (with some alternative word use of course); they are all there. In Roman catechisms the "no graven images" one is left out because they regard it (falsely) as part and parcel of the commandment to have no other gods before God. Their interpretation is different but the Bible is the same there.

As to gnostics, I don't give a rat's ass for whatever writings they used because their beliefs were contrary to Judaism, to Christ and to God.

[Big RR]

Well Meade, my typo may have made tyou think we're in agreement on the first part, but we are not. I think selection of writings that support the beliefs of the dominant church at the time was key in assmbling the canon of the NT. Indeed, it provided the basis to silence contrary churches (like the gnostics) as heretical and contrary to the teachings of jesus, because those selected the canon could control the teaches that were viewed as authentic vs those which were not worthy of respect. And since the purges destroyed most, if not all, of the other writings, we'll never know exactly what was intentionally left out. I guess we'll remain in disagreement.

As for failure to include more recent writings like the letters of Clement, who knows why they were not included--possibly to claim legitimacy by saying they selected on more contemporaneous (with the time of Jesus) writings, and the rejection of some was not politically motivated (it could have worked with the people at that time; centuries later it seems to have convinced you). Many of the writings are fairly consistent, especially among the synoptic gospels.

And while I understand that the 10 commandments in the RC church was a translation artifact, I think it was also intwentional not to draw a lot of criticism of the statuary (as the eastern churches have claimed). Yes, the catechisms (especially the more recent ones) do include the prohibition on the worship of graven images, they also distinguish between veneration and worship in way which would make many other christians uncomfortable. This would have been difficult if there were a specific creation of creation and worship of graven images, and I think those assembling the accepted RC translations clearly would have known it (indeed, I am only familar with the vulgate of st jerome for RC scriptures--perhaps you know how long ago the troman church departed from the jewish views of the commandments).

Yes, second peter and revalation, the apocalypse present their own problems, but do you honestly think the 4 gospels are the only written records of what jesus said and taught, or that early church letters written by (or based on the writings of) disciples and other church leaders were left out of the canon, never to be seen again? I don't.

[Econoline]

Interesting summary of the different versions of the "Ten Commandments": (source)

(J) Jewish/Talmudic (C) Catholic/Lutheran* Christians (A) Angelican, Reformed, Other Christians (O) Orthodox Christians

*Only certain Lutheran Denominations.

I am the Lord your God (J) 1, (A) Preface, (O) 1, (C) 1
You shall have no other gods before me (J) 2, (A) 1, (O) 1, (C) 1
You shall not make for yourself an idol (J) 2, (A) 2, (O) 2, (C) 1
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God (J) 3, (A) 3, (O) 3, (C) 2
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy (J) 4, (A) 4, (O) 4, (C) 3
Honor your father and mother (J) 5, (A) 5, (O) 5, (C) 4
You shall not murder (J) 6, (A) 6, (O) 6, (C) 5
You shall not commit adultery (J) 7, (A) 7, (O) 7, (C) 6
You shall not steal (J) 8, (A) 8, (O) 8, (C) 7
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (J) 9, (A) 9, (O) 9, (C) 8
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife (J) 10, (A) 10, (O) 10, (C) 9
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor (J) 10, (A) 10, (O) 10, (C) 10

Of course, if you want to get technical, the actual Jewish version looked more like this:

[Sue U]

Of course, if you want to get technical, the actual Jewish version looked more like this:

Hey, you're starting in the middle of it! It actually begins in the last paragraph of the previous page (text column):



Interesting that "the 10 commandments" that most people know(?) are only the injunctive portions, not the explanatory context and elaboration.