Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

15

What is considered scripture The Standard Works The LDS Church accepts 4 volumes as "standard works" of scripture: The KJV Bible (minus Apocrypha) The Book of Mormon The Pearl of Great Price The Doctrine and Covenants Each book is esteemed basically equally with the others as pertaining to their scriptural value. Of course, Mormons will emphasize the ...


14

Short Answer: The Book of Enoch is not Scripture. As such, the Holy Spirit did not lead the church to include it in the canon of Scripture. The Controversy Jude 1:14-15 says this: It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute ...


13

The problem with this question is that the Bible is not a single book, and as such does not directly address what "other books" are considered canon. Peter, for instance, writes that Paul's books are highly profitable for reading, "even if they are sometimes hard to understand," but there is no book anywhere that says "these books are canon, these are not." ...


13

The word for "scripture" in the Greek text is (ἡ) γραφή, often occurring in the plural, (τῆς) γραφῆς, which literally means "writing(s)." The word occurs approximately 50 times in the New Testament (depending on the manuscript used it is 50 or 51) and it seems pretty clear to me from a word search that this almost exclusively refers to the Old Testament ...


12

Several reasons: Historically, canonicity in the NT was restricted to the 12 apostles and direct relations of Jesus. (Mark = Peter, Luke=Paul*, Matthew & John were both disciples, Hebrews was errantly ascribed to Paul, James and Jude were brothers of Jesus // Paul was considered to be an apostle, since Jesus appeared directly to him.) Later Councils (I ...


11

Abstract The Jewish canon was still in a state of flux when the New Testament was being written. Therefore, early Christian authors drew freely from a wide variety of works, some of which were excluded from both the Jewish and Christian scriptures at a later date. 1st Enoch falls into that category. The early church probably held theological views ...


11

This is a difficult question, given that human reasoning is itself flawed. But if we were to look at the canonization process, the most we could say is that it must be not be absurd; Consider how Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas; even though the process of 'drawing lots' seems irrational, the lots were being drawn against a few possible candidates and ...


10

There are no direct quotes, at least, not in the sense that, for example, Isaiah is quoted, but there are certainly several allusions and parallel passages. Here is a list of some of them from both NT and OT (and yes, I am well aware that some of those are debatable). As to "other books quoting them," it should be noted that neither Song of Songs, Esther, ...


9

The key point of Luther's biblical exegesis was his conviction of Christ's being the rex scripturae1. There is a famous passage from his preface to the "Epistel S. Jacobi und Judas" saying: "This is the right touchstone to criticize all the books: See if they preach Christ or not. […] What Christ did not teach, that is not apostolic, may it have been ...


9

The "books" of the Bible are just that- they are separate works by separate authors in separate contexts. Yes, Luke wrote 2, Moses wrote 5, and Paul wrote somewhere between 7 and 13, but Stephen King has written more than one book, too :) Matthew, for example, was written by the Apostle Matthew. Luke, by Paul's traveling companion. Mark was written by ...


8

A more ecumenical answer: They weren't considered equal because they had been considered of dubious origin for quite some time. Back when the Vulgate was being put together Jerome made the points that The original Hebrew for those texts could no longer be found* Jews of the late first century onward did not consider them canonical. Others in the Church ...


8

The books known as "apocryphal" defined by Protestants are defined by Catholics as "Deuterocanonical" (a second canon) comes from Septuagint, a Greek translation (with these additional books) of Hebrew Tanakh. Which later around 4th century, was translated by St. Jerome to Vulgate, a Latin edition of the OT. Besides the Catholic Church, the Constantinople ...


8

Technically, the only "criteria" for canonicity is widespread acceptance. Looking at canonical lists up through the Festal Letter canonicity was always based on "what seemed most profitable to the reader" at the time. That said, the Council of Trent said All New Testament Books share a claim to apostolic authority: Matthew & John were disciples Luke ...


8

You, my friend, have a hard heart if you can't find anything interesting in Ezra. ;-) And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests in their vestments came forward with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the LORD, according to the directions of David king of Israel. And they sang ...


7

This answer brings up an interesting verse in 1 Corinthians 7, when Paul distinguishes between his words and the Lord's. Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. But to ...


7

One of the closest examples would be Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans. Scholarship is divided about the authorship, whether it is Paul or a Marcionite forgery - but the point is that at the time, when canonization was occurring, it was not accepted as such. Most everything else (Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, etc...) was pretty much rejected even at the ...


7

I think that the easiest answer is that it was excluded because it was never properly included. None of the groups who formed a version of the canon felt that this book accurately reflected Jewish values sufficiently to be included in the Tanak or the LXX. Christians just followed suit. Just because a book is cited by the Bible, that does not make for ...


7

Given the clarification of the question, an entirely new answer is in order. The quick answer is that most of the rest of the NT was written before the Gospels, and was sourced by eyewitnesses in any event. Every writer was in some way written by somebody who had first-hand knowledge of Jesus. As such, there would have been no need to go back and read ...


6

Parts of this answer is taken directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) which carries the seal of Imprimi Potest, by which the Catholic Church recognizes the publication to be free of doctrinal error (as I understand it). On the Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture, attesting to divine authorship: 105 God is the author of Sacred ...


6

They're sorted chronologically within their particular subject matters. First, the 5 books of the Pentetuch are packed together, these are all fairly chronological. Then, comes the narrative history of the kingdom of Israel ( all of Jesus' glorious, inglorious and vainglorious ancestors) culminating with the exile and return of the Jews to their ...


6

Briefly: Paul's letters were probably first, beginning with 1 Timothy and Galatians. Romans was a middling book, 2 Timothy was probably his last. They range from 52 ad to 62 or 68, depending on what you think about deutero-Pauline scholarship Of the Gospels, Mark is usually considered to be first, although some have proposed Matthew. Luke is usually dated ...


6

The confusing part of this question is that there was no "New Testament" until after everything had been written. And so yes, by the time that the canonical list of New Testament books was compiled (a process that took about 400 years, although the individual books were composed within the first 70) was considered Scripture. Because they were considered ...


5

Note that this answer refers to the Protestant Bible. The Catholic Bible, and the Eastern Orthodox Bibles largely follow this pattern, but contain different books. More on the differences can be found here. The differences are also noted below. First, understand that the Bible is not a single book It's a collection of 66 books, written at different ...


5

From Eusebius' Canons, one of the earliest church histories (early 300s AD) we have: Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed.593 It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews,594 saying that it is dis puted by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has ...


5

First, Catholic teaching is not that the Pope is infallible in everything he says and does, but rather infallible only when specifically exercising the authority of his office to pronounce doctrine. Second, a Saint in the sense meant by the Catholic church is one whose life, witness and actions have been examined in depth and at length by church leadership ...


5

tl;dr> Patterson Brown, in particular, has argued the disunity within the Nag Hammadi Corpus. That's about the best you're going to get without defining a positive corpus, as opposed to the inverse of the canon. The problem with answering this question is that you are asking a question akin to "Are the books not on the NY Times Best-seller list as ...


4

For a short answer to the question, in 1647 the Westminster Confession of Faith was issued which decreed a 39-book OT and 27-book NT, the others commonly labelled as "Apocrypha" were excluded. You can see the statement in http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs. For the long explanation, you can look at this wiki article: ...


4

The infallibility of the Pope means that it is impossible for him (due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to lead the Church into wrong definitive teaching in regards to faith and morals. However, it does not guarantee that the Pope is a morally good person. It is possible for someone to teach the truth, but not live it himself. There are many examples of ...


4

I'm not sure which specific councils you're referring to, but for the sake of this answer I'll assume it's the first four ecumenical councils. The Apocryphal writings were not the primary focus of these councils; doctrinal concerns were (the Trinitarian and Christological heresies). Here is a brief summary of these councils: Nicaea I (325 CE): Summoned ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible