U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-29-2010, 01:02 PM
 
Location: New York City
5,556 posts, read 6,714,521 times
Reputation: 1351

Advertisements

Not as romantic as some might want to think.

How the Canon Was Formed
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-29-2010, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Gaston, North Carolina
4,213 posts, read 4,902,173 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane View Post
Not as romantic as some might want to think.

How the Canon Was Formed
It was actually discovered not formed. Keep trying you might find the truth yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2010, 04:10 PM
 
5,925 posts, read 5,684,959 times
Reputation: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69 View Post
It was actually discovered not formed. Keep trying you might find the truth yet.

Please correct me if I am wrong but the canon was not a discovery. The manuscripts were discovered and they were not discovered compiled as what we now know as the "bible". I believe, again I may be mistaken, that the canon is a term used to label the process of determining which of the discovered manuscripts was acceptable as the word of God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2010, 04:32 PM
 
Location: New York City
5,556 posts, read 6,714,521 times
Reputation: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69 View Post
It was actually discovered not formed. Keep trying you might find the truth yet.
See Phazelwood's reply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2010, 05:13 PM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,436,374 times
Reputation: 989
The apostle Paul collected the books of the bible in his day and handed them on down to those who were faithful.

He talked about "all scripture is inspired and profitable for instruction" etc. and he told Timothy that when he comes to bring the vellums which were the sacred Scriptures.

He told Timothy to give himself to reading (the Scriptures). And since he already had "all scripture" he already had what was necessary for us to be instructed thereby.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2010, 05:29 PM
 
Location: New York City
5,556 posts, read 6,714,521 times
Reputation: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
The apostle Paul collected the books of the bible in his day and handed them on down to those who were faithful.

He talked about "all scripture is inspired and profitable for instruction" etc. and he told Timothy that when he comes to bring the vellums which were the sacred Scriptures.

He told Timothy to give himself to reading (the Scriptures). And since he already had "all scripture" he already had what was necessary for us to be instructed thereby.
Interesting. Who collected the other 27 of the New Testament? I think that the article was more concerned about the New Testament books as the Hebrew scriptures were already long decided.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2011, 10:35 PM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
21,278 posts, read 20,889,434 times
Reputation: 9960
Here's some more information worth knowing...

In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?

If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?

The Bible has been changed many, many times over the years. It is not infallible or complete and it has never claimed to be either of these things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2011, 10:42 PM
 
37,517 posts, read 25,250,403 times
Reputation: 5857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur View Post
Here's some more information worth knowing...

The Bible has been changed many, many times over the years. It is not infallible or complete and it has never claimed to be either of these things.
Amen, Katz . . . well said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2011, 10:49 PM
 
5,500 posts, read 4,417,260 times
Reputation: 5146
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Amen, Katz . . . well said.
I second that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2011, 10:57 PM
 
Location: Florida
5,965 posts, read 5,571,687 times
Reputation: 1584
Quote:
Originally Posted by ans57 View Post
I second that!
I 3rd ans57's 2nd of MysticPhD's original Amen
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top