The journey to find or construct the real Jesus. Peril or silver lining??

[firedragon]

I don't know where I said that only some books were taken off the OT. If I said that I would have meant that the Protestant list of OT books is different to the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Cannons and the Protestants removed what they considered apocryphal books. This lest an OT with the same list of books as the Jewish Canon.
The development of the New Testament canon was an evolution, with different places accepting some books that others did not. However the basic core of the New Testament was there in the 2nd century and the development of a definite canon was necessary because of the proliferation of agnostic writings.
The criteria of acceptance changed over time it seems but the original criteria was apostolic authenticity. Even this was disagreed on with a number of books, but the main ones were accepted pretty early.
It was not a one person job to decide and finalise the canon even though we can see at various times in the first few centuries, the state of the list of accepted books by various church fathers. The New Testament books accepted and used can also be seen in the quotes used from them by various church fathers.
It is a matter of Christian faith that God inspired both the writing of and collection of the books He wanted to be in the Christian Bible.

I understand it’s a faith matter.

But you must understand that to an onlooker, just saying we believe is not good enough. The canon was developed centuries later. Believing these group of people who were ruling basically an empire and having so many disagreements and even killings based on the schisms we inspired 4 centuries after Jesus. It’s out of no choice that you say it’s faith.

your prerogative.

 

[Brian2]

I understand it’s a faith matter.

But you must understand that to an onlooker, just saying we believe is not good enough. The canon was developed centuries later. Believing these group of people who were ruling basically an empire and having so many disagreements and even killings based on the schisms we inspired 4 centuries after Jesus. It’s out of no choice that you say it’s faith.

your prerogative.

The New Testament was developed a lot earlier than the 4th century and this can be seen in the quotes we get in the church fathers. Here is a site with quotes from just 2 early church fathers. Most of the New Testament is there and shows the use and acceptance of these books very early in Christian history,,,,,,,,,,by people who probably would have a good idea whether the writings were authentic or not.
It was the job of those who canonised these books to put their stamp of approval on books that had been used for centuries.
But yes I can see that it may look as if the 4th century people selected a limited number of acceptable books from a vast array around at the time. The real story is not like that even if the authenticity of some books was debated for some time.
I guess also that it is easy to see all the 4th century church as being corrupt, but really that would not have been the case and anyway, God could get the right books in even if the Church was fully corrupt.
Schisms were not caused by Christians using different books but by different interpretations of those same books.

 

[firedragon]

The New Testament was developed a lot earlier than the 4th century and this can be seen in the quotes we get in the church fathers.

Then how do you account for several books in the canon, in different manuscripts, at similar times in the 4th to 5th century?

If the canon was developed much earlier than the 4th century, and that was (as per you) due to Gods inspiration, then suddenly are you suggesting other books were included in the canon by God just for the time being and then removed again?

 

[Brian2]

Then how do you account for several books in the canon, in different manuscripts, at similar times in the 4th to 5th century?

If the canon was developed much earlier than the 4th century, and that was (as per you) due to Gods inspiration, then suddenly are you suggesting other books were included in the canon by God just for the time being and then removed again?

By "developed" I mean that it evolved into what it is today. That pretty much assumes that some books came in or left at various times in the development.
All the books that people have thought might belong to a collection of great spiritual stuff that was inspirited are probably that, great spiritual stuff that were inspired. When it came to deciding what books should go in the official canon more stringent things would no doubt have applied.
The canon could not have been left not done because spurious scriptures were multiplying.

 

[firedragon]

By "developed" I mean that it evolved into what it is today. That pretty much assumes that some books came in or left at various times in the development.

So you claim that all of them, all of these books, all of these variations, everything, this whole "evolution" of scripture in the Bible are all Gods inspiration?

 

[Brian2]

So you claim that all of them, all of these books, all of these variations, everything, this whole "evolution" of scripture in the Bible are all Gods inspiration?

Interesting question. I could see it coming and I don't know. Even the canonised Catholic Bible contained things that the Jews did not include and which the Protestants have discarded. Personally I see the Protestant selection as more appropriate. Others see the Catholic collection and others see the Orthodox Church collection. The Orthodox includes a few extra OT apocryphal books than the Catholics.
I cannot definitely say they are right or wrong. Where does this leave the inspiration part?
Probably just where it should, a matter of individual faith.

 

[firedragon]

Interesting question. I could see it coming and I don't know. Even the canonised Catholic Bible contained things that the Jews did not include and which the Protestants have discarded. Personally I see the Protestant selection as more appropriate. Others see the Catholic collection and others see the Orthodox Church collection. The Orthodox includes a few extra OT apocryphal books than the Catholics.
I cannot definitely say they are right or wrong. Where does this leave the inspiration part?
Probably just where it should, a matter of individual faith.

Okay. I understand.