Please Explain the Biblical Canon

[Justin A]

I just read through a good portion of this wikipedia article. As far as the history of the Biblical Canon goes I basically got from it that there were many competing canons that included or excluded some of the books in the modern Bible. Eventually the current set of books became the standard.

My question is how can you know that you're currently using the correct set of books?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read through a good portion of this wikipedia article. As far as the history of the Biblical Canon goes I basically got from it that there were many competing canons that included or excluded some of the books in the modern Bible. Eventually the current set of books became the standard.

My question is how can you know that you're currently using the correct set of books?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the word "correct" Loads the question in my opinion. I would want to use some common sense when approaching the books. Where do they come from? What is their context historically and culturally? What do respected scholars say about them? What does the Church say about them. What do secular and spiritual critics of the Church say about them? What do the spiritual proponents of the noncannonical texts say about them?

Taking everything into consideration I would read them and use my best judgement to decide what to think. If I'm looking for a Spiritual Solution to my life I would see for myself if I could find one there. I'd see if anything I found there Moved Me Spiritually.

I wouldn't worry too much about what's "correct".

PairTheBoard

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just read through a good portion of this wikipedia article. As far as the history of the Biblical Canon goes I basically got from it that there were many competing canons that included or excluded some of the books in the modern Bible. Eventually the current set of books became the standard.

My question is how can you know that you're currently using the correct set of books?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the word "correct" Loads the question in my opinion. I would want to use some common sense when approaching the books. Where do they come from? What is their context historically and culturally? What do respected scholars say about them? What does the Church say about them. What do secular and spiritual critics of the Church say about them? What do the spiritual proponents of the noncannonical texts say about them?

Taking everything into consideration I would read them and use my best judgement to decide what to think. If I'm looking for a Spiritual Solution to my life I would see for myself if I could find one there. I'd see if anything I found there Moved Me Spiritually.

I wouldn't worry too much about what's "correct".

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant correct in the sense of which books are the word of God and which aren't. This is more a question towards those who believe the Bible is inerrant. Maybe I have it wrong, but growing up I was taught that a writing was either divinely inspired or it wasn't. I'm trying to figure out the mechanism by which this was supposedly determined.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just read through a good portion of this wikipedia article. As far as the history of the Biblical Canon goes I basically got from it that there were many competing canons that included or excluded some of the books in the modern Bible. Eventually the current set of books became the standard.

My question is how can you know that you're currently using the correct set of books?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the word "correct" Loads the question in my opinion. I would want to use some common sense when approaching the books. Where do they come from? What is their context historically and culturally? What do respected scholars say about them? What does the Church say about them. What do secular and spiritual critics of the Church say about them? What do the spiritual proponents of the noncannonical texts say about them?

Taking everything into consideration I would read them and use my best judgement to decide what to think. If I'm looking for a Spiritual Solution to my life I would see for myself if I could find one there. I'd see if anything I found there Moved Me Spiritually.

I wouldn't worry too much about what's "correct".

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant correct in the sense of which books are the word of God and which aren't. This is more a question towards those who believe the Bible is inerrant. Maybe I have it wrong, but growing up I was taught that a writing was either divinely inspired or it wasn't. I'm trying to figure out the mechanism by which this was supposedly determined.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that if you're looking for an answer along those lines you should prepare to be disappointed. PTB's answer is about as good as it gets.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just read through a good portion of this wikipedia article. As far as the history of the Biblical Canon goes I basically got from it that there were many competing canons that included or excluded some of the books in the modern Bible. Eventually the current set of books became the standard.

My question is how can you know that you're currently using the correct set of books?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the word "correct" Loads the question in my opinion. I would want to use some common sense when approaching the books. Where do they come from? What is their context historically and culturally? What do respected scholars say about them? What does the Church say about them. What do secular and spiritual critics of the Church say about them? What do the spiritual proponents of the noncannonical texts say about them?

Taking everything into consideration I would read them and use my best judgement to decide what to think. If I'm looking for a Spiritual Solution to my life I would see for myself if I could find one there. I'd see if anything I found there Moved Me Spiritually.

I wouldn't worry too much about what's "correct".

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant correct in the sense of which books are the word of God and which aren't. This is more a question towards those who believe the Bible is inerrant. Maybe I have it wrong, but growing up I was taught that a writing was either divinely inspired or it wasn't. I'm trying to figure out the mechanism by which this was supposedly determined.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read the books I'm getting it from the mouth of the horses who ran the race. I'll use my own best judgement as to what kind of inspiration they enjoyed.

PairTheBoard

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]

When I read the books I'm getting it from the mouth of the horses who ran the race. I'll use my own best judgement as to what kind of inspiration they enjoyed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I understand your metaphor.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

When I read the books I'm getting it from the mouth of the horses who ran the race. I'll use my own best judgement as to what kind of inspiration they enjoyed.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I understand your metaphor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only go so far listening to what others say about the books. When I read the books I'm hearing from the people who actually wrote the books.

PairTheBoard

[the_scalp]

I'm not an inerrantist, but I am a pastor. I believe that the books of the Bible are "correct" (if by "correct" you mean the books God meant to be there). That is, I believe that the canon is the canon for a reason.

My beleif in the completeness of the canon is based on my faith that God became human in Christ and fulfilled his promise to the people of Israel by bringing salvation to the Jews and, through them, to all nations. Part of God's saving work is that he established a particular people to live and share God's good news in the world (the Church). Those people (the early Church) believed and taught in accordance with those who actually knew and witnessed Jesus' teaching and life (the apostles). Over time, the writings of some of these apostles, together with the writings of followers and imitators of the apostles, began to be collected in book forms (the letters of Paul, the letters of James, etc.). Some of these were accepted substantially in universally by the early church as normative and authoritative. Others were rejected for being non-normative or non-authoritative.

What critics of Christianity would have you believe is that the canon was "voted on" from a herd of books that had found equal acceptance throughout the early Church. That's simply not true. The canon was in wide use for decades before the official Church Council meeting that named it in entirity.

As early as 200 A.D. (really early), there was a mostly complete list called the Canon Muratori. The fragment misses some New Testament texts, but is remarkably inclusive for the early date. The final list first appears together in some bishop's festal letter around 370, and teh final list is voted on "as closed" by the Council fo Carthage in 370.

It's so important that I'll say it again -- the canon wasn't picked out because it accorded with the agendas of the controlling faction at Carthage. It was received more than it was selected. It was agreed upon, not decided upon. Other books were acknowledged to be substantially true and even helpful to the faith (the Shepherd of Hermes, the Song of Solomon), but were rejected for lacking explicit apostolic influence (authored by someone who knew Jesus or someone who knew an apostle), or for contradicting the accepted teachings of the Church.

[godBoy]

It makes sense to me that at the time when they created the canon, they were far better suited to understanding the truth of what actually happened at the time.

Think about it for a second, if joe blow writes a book about Jesus Christ saying he was a ham sandwich... If any book that was written about Jesus Christ was considered correct then you would have more reason to be skeptical. But at a time relatively close to his death they decided which books were accurate and which books were not. I'm willing to trust that the consistency found in the gospels is correct above the other lone books that suggest things that contradict these.

[PairTheBoard]

That's the kind of background information about the books I was talking about wanting to know. Thanks the_scalp.

PairTheBoard