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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
