Bible History 101
6,608 Views |
91 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by nortex97
Thaddeus73 said:
You are missing the part where someone wrote the Bible. :P
At a minimum he is missing the part where they added Mark 19:9-20.
- God chose what would be scripture.
- After the scriptures were written, people simply recognized what was already authoritative as well as the counterfeits
Then which Bible is the correct one?
God taught the prophets and apostles, then apostles taught others and successors. Much was through oral teachings and tradition…and then the scriptures began to be form into a cohesive format. chapters and verses were added in the 13th centuryDirtDiver said:
- God chose what would be scripture.
- After the scriptures were written, people simply recognized what was already authoritative as well as the counterfeits
You left out the catholic church's despicable treatment of John Wycliffe.
The books of the Bible were written, copied, read, circulated, and stored independently. Each individual book has to be evaluated by its own merits and this can happen through various groups. This is the only way to understand the process of forming any canon but of course that canon will look different depending on what tradition you come from. Each group will have their own standards on determining canon so the question is within a larger question of who has the correct tradition? Obviously everyone will argue for their own. The picture above is useless in describing this gigantic process. There's endless areas to discuss starting with the Old Testament which is necessary.Aggrad08 said:
Then which Bible is the correct one?
If you attended college you have libraries of approved books and that can scale in every department. The biology department will have a canon of approved books to back up whatever beliefs they hold. This of course has changed over time. You also do this process in your own home if own a lot of books. Overtime you might get rid of or add books for numerous reasons.
I agree with everything you said. I also think your comments are irreconcilable with what dirt driver wrote, which is who I was responding to.
Ya it's not even worth getting into.
But if the discussion is to happen this is a good short Orthodox article on our process. I can't speak for Protestants or Catholics. Decentralization guided by the Holy Spirit for the win.
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2018/02/21/decided-books-new-testament/
"We therefore have Christian communities developing across the Roman Empire, and even far beyond, following the teaching of the Apostles, on their own. This is what makes their agreement on these 19 books at such an early stage so stunning."
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2018/02/21/decided-books-new-testament/
"We therefore have Christian communities developing across the Roman Empire, and even far beyond, following the teaching of the Apostles, on their own. This is what makes their agreement on these 19 books at such an early stage so stunning."
Here's a useful Bible history 101
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4j1IImx9H8icqU2Dg3p4AU?si=o7OI4Zu4RbawsRE3wyI4Pw&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A7tI290Quis0qk4m3R39QCb
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4j1IImx9H8icqU2Dg3p4AU?si=o7OI4Zu4RbawsRE3wyI4Pw&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A7tI290Quis0qk4m3R39QCb
The canon of the Bible with all 73 books was decided on and infallibly approved for all time at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. Many books of that time like the Shepherd of Hermes and the Book of Jubilee were not approved as being divinely inspired...
Lord of Spirits is so good.Zobel said:
Here's a useful Bible history 101
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4j1IImx9H8icqU2Dg3p4AU?si=o7OI4Zu4RbawsRE3wyI4Pw&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A7tI290Quis0qk4m3R39QCb
That's not how any of this works
In that episode, Fr. Stephen mentions how in Rabbinic Judaism authority shifts to the texts itself so you no longer have a succession of prophets you have a succession of scribes. Also many forms of Protestantism follow the same model. No wonder these churches don't celebrate saints. They have no life to them. Crazy insight yet so obvious.
I lean towards the Bible consisting of 66 books.
Note: Most of the NT are epistles or letters written by different apostles from various locations. They were read and circulated, and copied throughout the churches.
At a later point copies were collected and bound into codices or books.
Good questions to research are:
"What are the reasons Protestants reject the apocrypha"
Why do Catholics accept the apocrypha as being inspired?
What are the reasons the Gnostic gospels are not considered 'Bible'
Historically there has always been a tendency to stray away from the work of God or the person of God by saying Jesus alone is not enough and the scriptures are not enough or insufficient or incomplete. People want to add, and add, traditions, additional texts, rules, you name it to the work and message Christ.
Note: Most of the NT are epistles or letters written by different apostles from various locations. They were read and circulated, and copied throughout the churches.
At a later point copies were collected and bound into codices or books.
Good questions to research are:
"What are the reasons Protestants reject the apocrypha"
Why do Catholics accept the apocrypha as being inspired?
What are the reasons the Gnostic gospels are not considered 'Bible'
Historically there has always been a tendency to stray away from the work of God or the person of God by saying Jesus alone is not enough and the scriptures are not enough or insufficient or incomplete. People want to add, and add, traditions, additional texts, rules, you name it to the work and message Christ.
And here we go…It's very interesting when Protestants claim Catholics added to the Bible. Scripture, in written form, developed from the oral traditions/teachings. The 'Word of God' refers to both oral and written. Both Paul and Jesus also appealed to teachings outside the written revelation (Matt 2:23). There is material sufficiency of scripture, but lacks the formal sufficiency that was the purpose of Christ establishing his church. Home Depot has everything you need to build a house…but for most people, they can't build it without external help. This is why there are so many denominations. Protestants interpret scripture based on their own understanding and if they don't like how someone else interprets it, then the can start their own church. This was not Christs intent. Finally, sola scriptura is not taught in the BibleDirtDiver said:
I lean towards the Bible consisting of 66 books.
Note: Most of the NT are epistles or letters written by different apostles from various locations. They were read and circulated, and copied throughout the churches.
At a later point copies were collected and bound into codices or books.
Good questions to research are:
"What are the reasons Protestants reject the apocrypha"
Why do Catholics accept the apocrypha as being inspired?
What are the reasons the Gnostic gospels are not considered 'Bible'
Historically there has always been a tendency to stray away from the work of God or the person of God by saying Jesus alone is not enough and the scriptures are not enough or insufficient or incomplete. People want to add, and add, traditions, additional texts, rules, you name it to the work and message Christ.
Quote:
And here we go…It's very interesting when Protestants claim Catholics added to the Bible. Scripture, in written form, developed from the oral traditions/teachings. The 'Word of God' refers to both oral and written. Both Paul and Jesus also appealed to teachings outside the written revelation (Matt 2:23). There is material sufficiency of scripture, but lacks the formal sufficiency that was the purpose of Christ establishing his church. Home Depot has everything you need to build a house…but for most people, they can't build it without external help. This is why there are so many denominations. Protestants interpret scripture based on their own understanding and if they don't like how someone else interprets it, then the can start their own church. This was not Christs intent. Finally, sola scriptura is not taught in the Bible
1st: I think many denominations try to add things, not just Catholics. Peter opposed Paul for trying to add circumcision to the gospel. Many today try to add works, baptism, turning from sins, surrender, etc to the finished work of Christ.
2nd: Scripture is inspired (God's breathe) or it's not. It's true or it's not.
17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
3rd. We have an example of the word of God related to traditions.
Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3 And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.' 5 But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God," 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
I would argue that if our traditions do not align with scripture they are in error.
You are right that Christ's intent is not for division. While misinterpretations are a cause of division, we do not sacrifice the truthfulness of scripture. This in no way diminishes it's authoritativeness.
Ironic statement is ironic. So which apostolic tradition-based Church should we all be joining instead? By my count they are at least 5 different ones that aren't in communion and can't agree about the nature of Christ or the Trinity (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, and the Anglicans). You're not wrong about Protestants but this is a problem baked into Christianity for 1000 years before the Protestants came alongQuote:
Home Depot has everything you need to build a house…but for most people, they can't build it without external help. This is why there are so many denominations. Protestants interpret scripture based on their own understanding and if they don't like how someone else interprets it, then the can start their own church. This was not Christs intent
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Quote:
if they don't like how someone else interprets it, then the can start their own church
As we've seen on other threads involving "full communiion" or not, I am not sure were the ones who took our ball and went home.
Also, solo scriptura refers to the sufficiency of Scripture. There are also 4 other solas of which you'd probably only object to 1.
ramblin_ag02 said:Ironic statement is ironic. So which apostolic tradition-based Church should we all be joining instead? By my count they are at least 5 different ones that aren't in communion and can't agree about the nature of Christ or the Trinity (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, and the Anglicans). You're not wrong about Protestants but this is a problem baked into Christianity for 1000 years before the Protestants came alongQuote:
Home Depot has everything you need to build a house…but for most people, they can't build it without external help. This is why there are so many denominations. Protestants interpret scripture based on their own understanding and if they don't like how someone else interprets it, then the can start their own church. This was not Christs intent
You're playing fast and loose with history. It wasn't 'baked in' as you assert; the apostles were sent out and these traditions are what they planted (which is why they're so very liturgically similar). Each grew in its own region and was refined by the saints there. They've met periodically in councils to deal with heresy. What we have as cannon is what was widely read and received within those traditions with slight variance between them. It was not the intention for them to split or a natural supposition that, say, the pope would declare himself such.
This is a far cry from contemporary Protestantism.
Edit: you forgot the Ethiopians.
What's keeping them out of communion with each other?
diehard03 said:
What's keeping them out of communion with each other?
Let's be clear what I'm arguing: that it's 'baked in'. It wasn't for a very long time. And it was ecumenical despite differences. Part of the Anglican history is submission to Rome. So it stands in stark contrast to the assertion that any disorder is equivalent between the two ideas of Christianity.
Talk about a loaded question. How much time you got and how many different opinions do you want?diehard03 said:
What's keeping them out of communion with each other?
Well Roman Catholic of course (wink emoji). Ultimately, every individual has to make a decision on what they believe to be the true church.ramblin_ag02 said:Ironic statement is ironic. So which apostolic tradition-based Church should we all be joining instead? By my count they are at least 5 different ones that aren't in communion and can't agree about the nature of Christ or the Trinity (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, and the Anglicans). You're not wrong about Protestants but this is a problem baked into Christianity for 1000 years before the Protestants came alongQuote:
Home Depot has everything you need to build a house…but for most people, they can't build it without external help. This is why there are so many denominations. Protestants interpret scripture based on their own understanding and if they don't like how someone else interprets it, then the can start their own church. This was not Christs intent
The idea of "adding things" presumes a minimalist set of "things" to first be added to.Quote:
I think many denominations try to add things, not just Catholics
Quote:
Peter opposed Paul for trying to add circumcision to the gospel
This is just incorrect. Conflation of the two parties aside, St Paul opposed St Peter not for "adding circumcision" but for hypocrisy with regard to separating himself from gentiles on the grounds of ritual cleanliness according to the Torah out of fear or concern for his reputation. St Paul's reminder or challenge to St Peter was that Jews by birth know that the Torah does not make a man righteous, because nowhere in the Torah does it ever claim or promise to make righteous; faith in Christ is what makes a person righteous.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not "how you are saved" anyway. The Gospel is the mighty work of Christ, the Evangelion - the proclamation of His great victory over all God's enemies, and over sin, and over death, and the announcement of His coming. The response to the proclamation of the Gospel is to ask "what should I do?" or "how can I be saved?" when He comes.
This rapidly becomes a tautological argument. People can agree of course that scripture is true, and god-breathed, and have different canons. St Paul's canon of scripture as a Pharisee would not have matched with other Jews of his day, yet they all would have agreed that the Torah was true and god-breathed. Accepting that there is a category of writings called scripture and that those writings have certain attributes says nothing whatever as to what writings are recognized as scripture.Quote:
Scripture is inspired (God's breathe) or it's not. It's true or it's not.
This is also just wrong. The problem is not tradition in and of itself; is this were true the very idea of scripture or teaching being passed down from generation to generation would be condemned. This is all the word "tradition" means - that which is handed down. This is an example of transgressing the commandment of God for the sake of tradition. Those are two radically different things.Quote:
We have an example of the word of God related to traditions.
Here's where you derive the canon of scripture without appealing to tradition or what you received as scripture. Good luck.Quote:
I would argue that if our traditions do not align with scripture they are in error.
I tend to look at the 'faith alone' as actually being expressed through our works. I think that it gets tangled up with 'belief' for some. It is our faith that cooperates with Gods grace helping make us righteous. Nothing we do, though, merits it. I do believe scripture is sufficient, but I also believe if your dropped the Bible in the middle of a group who never had any previous knowledge, teaching, biases etc related to Christianity, they would struggle to really grasp a lot of the implicit and explicit teachings. Even people raised in a denomination often carry their own preconceptions/biases into reading of scripture and I'd say most don't delve deep into the history of the first Christians that studied under the apostles. There are some who only study the New Testament. They don't have an appreciation about the progression of Gods revelation from Adam and Eve forward and why he didn't reveal everything all at once.diehard03 said:Quote:
if they don't like how someone else interprets it, then the can start their own church
As we've seen on other threads involving "full communiion" or not, I am not sure were the ones who took our ball and went home.
Also, solo scriptura refers to the sufficiency of Scripture. There are also 4 other solas of which you'd probably only object to 1.
My specific point was that schism was present for 1000 years before Luther kicked off the Protestant movement. So blaming Protestantism for the division in Christianity is like blaming Dwight Eisenhower for the poor condition of Native Americans. Yeah, he certainly didn't help and probably made it worse, but it's not like things were great for them before that.AGC said:diehard03 said:
What's keeping them out of communion with each other?
Let's be clear what I'm arguing: that it's 'baked in'. It wasn't for a very long time. And it was ecumenical despite differences. Part of the Anglican history is submission to Rome. So it stands in stark contrast to the assertion that any disorder is equivalent between the two ideas of Christianity.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Quote:
Let's be clear what I'm arguing: that it's 'baked in'. It wasn't for a very long time. And it was ecumenical despite differences. Part of the Anglican history is submission to Rome. So it stands in stark contrast to the assertion that any disorder is equivalent between the two ideas of Christianity.
so you're contending that all faiths outside of Protestantism are in communion with one another?
Quote:
Even people raised in a denomination often carry their own preconceptions/biases into reading of scripture
That's a problem for everyone, even those who claim apostolic succession.
ramblin_ag02 said:My specific point was that schism was present for 1000 years before Luther kicked off the Protestant movement. So blaming Protestantism for the division in Christianity is like blaming Dwight Eisenhower for the poor condition of Native Americans. Yeah, he certainly didn't help and probably made it worse, but it's not like things were great for them before that.AGC said:diehard03 said:
What's keeping them out of communion with each other?
Let's be clear what I'm arguing: that it's 'baked in'. It wasn't for a very long time. And it was ecumenical despite differences. Part of the Anglican history is submission to Rome. So it stands in stark contrast to the assertion that any disorder is equivalent between the two ideas of Christianity.
That's not what came through in my reading so apologies if I was off base in my reply. I was stipulating that not all splits are equal. I didn't read the post you replied to as saying that only Protestants are responsible; merely that the ease of leaving a church is quite simple and essentially frictionless while leaving a more liturgical tradition is harder, though even these are splitting now.
Edit: I agree with the point though that it wasn't the intent that each apostle walk off and teach whatever they thought to be true about scripture based on their interpretation. That's why it runs so close for so long relative to how long today's denominations hold together.
The Roman Church didn't infallibly define the scriptures until the 1500's. That means nobody knew what the Scriptures were until the 1500's
Actually, there was no need to define it bc everyone was practicing what was the apostolic tradition so there was no need to define it. Often, the only reason the RCC defined teachings is when there was a movement challenging what was already inspired scripture or tradition. This is an argument Protestants like to use as a gotcha…but it isn't. The Church isn't required to define every teaching about everything. It usually happens when something that has been taught since the apostles goes off the rails with some apostates…I.e. reformists. I have to do wonky emoji bc I don't pay for the fancy laughing emojisAggie4Life02 said:
The Roman Church didn't infallibly define the scriptures until the 1500's. That means nobody knew what the Scriptures were until the 1500's
Featured Stories
See All
Baseball Thoughts: No. 1 Aggies back top spot with T-Town takedown
by Ryan Brauninger
33:53
12h ago
5.4k