Apostolic Friends Forum

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - The Bible (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=47444)

What (or who) determines what is allowed, or authorized as NT scripture?

What did they(whoever all they is)base their acceptance or rejection off of, in the 3rd century(or whenever exactly) as to the acceptance into the nt cannon?

What (or even who) exactly("besides God") is stopping anyone from adding to the cannon now if they wanted to?

Why can't the existing nt be added to anymore?

Im not saying it can be added to, I just want to read some responses of why it cannot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shag (Post 1356129)

What (or who) determines what is allowed, or authorized as NT scripture?

"What" is more appropriate bro...The thousand of manuscripts making up the received text of the N.T. are used as the text of the KJV. They are exact copies with only a few exceptions, of manuscripts in many languages, mostly Greek'. These are revered as our "word of God" dating back into history by those that kept these documents secure around the world. They were brought together as a collection. We are simply agreeing with these "keepers" of the word as what they considered sacred.

What did they(whoever all they is)base their acceptance or rejection off of, in the 3rd century(or whenever exactly) as to the acceptance into the nt cannon?

When the Catholic church was formed, they compiled their own collection and set out to preserve and cannonize the manuscripts they had in their possession. However, over time, they "modified" these texts to fit their religion.

The thousands of manuscripts used in the development of the KJV were not handled or tampered with by the Catholic church. These manuscripts were kept in places the Catholics could not get to.

What (or even who) exactly("besides God") is stopping anyone from adding to the cannon now if they wanted to?

Nobody is stopping anyone from tampering with what was handed to us on a blood soaked platter.
We must use our own God given, Spirit led sensitivity to decide which books are false and which are the word of God.
These "extra" books laying around must be read with caution. There are reasons dating back centuries for their rejection by the "keepers" of the texts we use. Our job is to see why they rejected them and take heed. We dont want our Bible to be "kinda" right, but we want it to be "exactly" right and harmonize perfectly.

Why can't the existing nt be added to anymore?

Because the "outsider" books, many times, do not fit the narrative and are many times contradictory to the "accepted" books.

Im not saying it can be added to, I just want to read some responses of why it cannot.

This is a fantastic video that may shed some light on this subject you are raising.....

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Z3S9J_PqHROyfw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNv-zzpIwBs#t=276

Please check it out if you care to!

F F Bruce wrote a easy to read book about how the books of the NT became the New Testament. It is called "The Canon of Scripture". Spent twenty bucks and all your questions will be answered.

Most local churches decided their own cannon at first.
So give or take a book or two most everybody was using what we now consider the New Testament canon.
Most of Paul's letters were accepted, the gospels were accepted. There is history of saints saying we got this letter from Paul or we got this gospel from Mathew.
I know everybody wants a conspiracy but our cannon is reliable. :2cents

yes--but it is not the only extant canon; we have several varieties of Bible in the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta (Post 1356141)

F F Bruce wrote a easy to read book about how the books of the NT became the New Testament. It is called "The Canon of Scripture". Spent twenty bucks and all your questions will be answered.

it's free--

http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/PDF...0Scripture.pdf

Is not the dividing point of what was, is, or is not allowed in the NT cannon, primarily based on apostolic authority, the apostles being eye witnesses to Jesus?

-----------------------------

In the process of addressing the standards by which the early Christians judged which books should be included in the New Testament canon, J.N.D. Kelly wrote:

"the criterion which ultimately came to prevail was apostolicity. Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be." (ECD, 60)

----------------------------------

This link is a lot faster explanation than reading an entire book.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/...testament.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disciple4life (Post 1356171)

I know everybody wants a conspiracy but our cannon is reliable. :2cents

:heeheehee

Interesting question. Luke wrote 2 books but he was not one of the 12. Mark was the disciple of Peter. We do not know for certain who wrote James or Hebrews. The same can be said for Jude.

The early church fathers, like Irenaeus, had much influence on which books were worthy to be in the canon.

The church never officially determined which books would be in the canon. Unless you value the 15th century council of Trent.

If you examine the actual Bibles themselves, some very popular books were included in some of them. Like the Shepard of Hermes.

There was no "official" true church in the last 1700 years that we know of. Independent scholars preserved the books from destruction by the Catholics for us to figure out what we consider "sacred". The KJV was made in 1611 for any Christian faith to read and be blessed by.

The KJV, like many other Bibles before it, included books we do not now have in the canon. I have no axe to grind with Catholicism. Those that we now possess do not represent a single theological tradition.

True, the original KJV included the Apocrypha. It was ordered as "historical reference" and not sacred scripture.

King James was so shell shocked by Catholicism and its' persecutions of "heretics", he wanted all of England to have legal access to the scriptures, even "outsider" books.

The Apocrypha was later removed legally after king James died.

I've never read any book that reads like the bible. Anything that would get addes just wouldn't fit.

The apocryphal books just don't have the same "oomph" the others seem to have. Can't explain it but there it is.

Many early copies of the NT included books we do not now have. Not all Bibles all had the same extra books.

Interesting discussion.

What are the criteria for determining if a book is inspired or not ?

The church was motivated to consider a canon by the heretics. Certain false teachers had their own list of inspired books. This forced the church to consider which books were inspired and which were not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1356352)

I shall explain it for you in easy words.

The books that belong to the Bible are easier to classify on the basis that they mention other books of the Bible, have a continuity or a link to other scriptures in the Bible.

Per example, the book of Exodus links to Genesis, by retelling some of the past actions mentioned in Genesis.

The Book of Ruth is linked to the Book of Judges by telling us that those events happened in the time of the Judges.

The book of Job is linked by mentioning Adam, God and Angels and the foundation of the world.

No book of the Bible stands alone, every book is linked to others, but most people fail to see the connections

The books of the NT do not quote each other. They really are stand alone books. One of the books of the OT is not quoted in the nt. Remember which one ? It will be your fun fact of the day !! :)

The OT canon was established by the time of Christ.

The NT works came to be recognized as authoritative by a consensus aming early believers. Some groups added some, some rejected some, of course.

But the Gospel of Thomas or Hermas' Shepherd for example just din't have that special something the others have.

Personally I always wondered what the point of including Philemon was. But I have no objections to it lol.