Originally posted by josephwIt says here Athanasius, a church leader in 387 chose the 66 books of the bible, not in the year 100.
You've made a huge blunder in reasoning sonhouse. First of all you lambast the idea that a God exists, and criticize anyone foolish enough to believe that God exists, and in complete confusion you cite as a reference those you consider to be duped by religion as authoritative on the canonization of scripture.
It's completely duplicitous. Whether you know ...[text shortened]... years later had anything to do with canonizing the scriptures is probably duped beyond recovery.
http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/how-were-the-books-of-the-bible-chosen/
Originally posted by josephwSorry Joe, but I think you might struggle to even find other Christians here who would agree with that.
You've made a huge blunder in reasoning sonhouse. First of all you lambast the idea that a God exists, and criticize anyone foolish enough to believe that God exists, and in complete confusion you cite as a reference those you consider to be duped by religion as authoritative on the canonization of scripture.
It's completely duplicitous. Whether you know ...[text shortened]... years later had anything to do with canonizing the scriptures is probably duped beyond recovery.
'No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired.
It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.
He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.
The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.'
http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/how-were-the-books-of-the-bible-chosen/
Originally posted by sonhouseThat defies logic. Do you think Paul, for example, only wrote 13 epistles? No doubt that in the course of thirty years Paul wrote hundreds. The same for the other apostles. The confusion lies in history, and in the minds of men, not in the canon of scripture.
It says here Athanasius, a church leader in 387 chose the 66 books of the bible, not in the year 100.
http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/how-were-the-books-of-the-bible-chosen/
Regardless of what you may think you know about how and when the scriptures were codified it was the first century church fathers, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that identified which books of the Bible were inspired and assembled them in the order in which they appear today.
That happened in the first century, not hundreds of years later. The very idea that the first century apostles and prophets just willy nilly threw it all out there for the church to figure out centuries later is bogus. It defies logic and reason. The canon of scripture was closed after Paul wrote 2 Timothy.
Athanasius, and others, after the fact, did only but rediscover the truth.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeSorry Ghost, but it isn't a struggle. The Bible itself confirms itself. I don't need anyone to agree with me. I wonder though how many Christians actually know what the Bible has to say about how and who God gave the responsibility to for the safe keeping and transmission of God's Word through the centuries since its beginning.
Sorry Joe, but I think you might struggle to even find other Christians here who would agree with that.
'No church created the canon, but the churches and councils gradually accepted the list of books recognized by believers everywhere as inspired.
It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete l ...[text shortened]... ction.'
http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/how-were-the-books-of-the-bible-chosen/
Originally posted by josephw"The bible confirms itself'' That my fine feathered friend is called circular reasoning. I am right because I am right. Same thing. So Paul wrote hundreds of works, why then is there only 66 books? SOMEONE had to edit the mess that it was becoming.
Sorry Ghost, but it isn't a struggle. The Bible itself confirms itself. I don't need anyone to agree with me. I wonder though how many Christians actually know what the Bible has to say about how and who God gave the responsibility to for the safe keeping and transmission of God's Word through the centuries since its beginning.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseAll of your self-described achievements and grandstanding is rich: you're an expert on everything, right?
Maybe it's time for YOU to learn about the bible and where they chose the canon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon#Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
But where it came from has nothing to do with the fact there was no deity involved. There are too many other religions where people of those faiths swear their ...[text shortened]... d by men but you are too propagandized and brainwashed to even consider such a state of affairs.
While your knowledge in a handful of fields is vastly superior to many people around you and on here, your knowledge of things biblical is junior high school level... at best.
Compared to those of us who have studied it and its history in excess of four decades, it is only your arrogance which could lead you to think you know more about the topic.
The fact of the matter is, you couldn't stand in my left shoe with respect to the topic, so you're better off sticking with something you know if you wish to expound on your expertise.
From reading your rants through the years, I can confidently affirm I have forgotten more about the Bible than you currently know.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOr perhaps that is just what other people have fed you. Did you actually look at the link I put in? I went k-8 in the First Lutheran school of El Monte California and we got the bible and catechism shoved down our throats on a daily basis. After grade 8 I was through with that though so I have no doubt you know more about biblical dogma than I but that doesn't mean what you know is the truth.
All of your self-described achievements and grandstanding is rich: you're an expert on everything, right?
While your knowledge in a handful of fields is vastly superior to many people around you and on here, your knowledge of things biblical is junior high school level... at best.
Compared to those of us who have studied it and its history in excess ...[text shortened]... e years, I can confidently affirm I have forgotten more about the Bible than you currently know.
Originally posted by sonhouseAnd your reading comprehension is crap, as well.
Or perhaps that is just what other people have fed you. Did you actually look at the link I put in? I went k-8 in the First Lutheran school of El Monte California and we got the bible and catechism shoved down our throats on a daily basis. After grade 8 I was through with that though so I have no doubt you know more about biblical dogma than I but that doesn't mean what you know is the truth.
I didn't get to church until later as my parents never went.
Probably around third grade was our first introduction, most likely.
While I eventually accepted the claims of the Bible's divine inspiration prima facie for awhile,
I rejected the Bible as the only source of inspiration on the basis of (what I considered to be) further examination.
For about ten or so years, I set out to prove the Bible wasn't the Word of God, as I had previously accepted.
Although my initial study of the Bible from an acceptance position resulted in a comprehensive knowledge of its contents, it was this decade long examination of its history which confirmed what I know today: every time I thought I'd found the 'gotcha' linchpin, I'd only once again confirmed the authority of the same.
I had an axe to grind, but was left with barely a handle.
Since that time--- as a result of an unrelenting confirmation of its veracity --- I scoff at lightweights such as you whose only poke into the topic is what they find on the internet.
Anything you can offer has been asked, answered and is most likely the errant swipe of a drunken amateur.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf the apostles wrote hundreds of books why are there only 66 now? Someone had to edit the mess of the times. That editing took place in the year 367. Nobody is saying they were written in the year 367, only edited to something managable.
And your reading comprehension is crap, as well.
I didn't get to church until later as my parents never went.
Probably around third grade was our first introduction, most likely.
While I eventually accepted the claims of the Bible's divine inspiration prima facie for awhile,
I rejected the Bible as the only source of inspiration on the basis of (wha ...[text shortened]... you can offer has been asked, answered and is most likely the errant swipe of a drunken amateur.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe apostles didn't write books.
If the apostles wrote hundreds of books why are there only 66 now? Someone had to edit the mess of the times. That editing took place in the year 367. Nobody is saying they were written in the year 367, only edited to something managable.
They wrote letters, and it's not likely any of them were as prolific as Paul.
The formation of the Canon appeared to occur organically, but there existed parameters which established both the value and the authority of what was accepted as Scripture.
Now 39 and 27 books with titles, chapters and verses, the finished product looked nothing like it did back then --- to project today's Bible unto the early Church's experience is nothing but woeful revisionist folly.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo in other words, the bible of 367 AD and after is not the same bible as 100 AD. That's all we were saying in the first place.
The apostles didn't write books.
They wrote letters, and it's not likely any of them were as prolific as Paul.
The formation of the Canon appeared to occur organically, but there existed parameters which established both the value and the authority of what was accepted as Scripture.
Now 39 and 27 books with titles, chapters and verses, the finished ...[text shortened]... roject today's Bible unto the early Church's experience is nothing but woeful revisionist folly.
My stance is the whole thing was strictly man made with no god needed. There are too many other religions with THEIR holy books that YOU would say was false and not deity inspired. The thing is, they say the same thing about your religion. So it seems clear NONE of them are true. They are ALL false, religious scams designed to control the population and gain political power and just ever so conveniently, the upper ranks getting the best housing, food, transport, women, money......
Originally posted by sonhouseNo, it is not circular reasoning. In your mind it is, but that's just because you don't know the author of the Bible much less what it means by what it says. God doesn't council with any other to determine what is defined by what God's Word says.
"The bible confirms itself'' That my fine feathered friend is called circular reasoning. I am right because I am right. Same thing. So Paul wrote hundreds of works, why then is there only 66 books? SOMEONE had to edit the mess that it was becoming.
"So Paul wrote hundreds of works, why then is there only 66 books?"
You are a knowledgable scientist sonhouse, but your question leaves me guessing whether or not you actually know much about the Bible. I'm not saying that as a way of belittling you or what you do know, but if you don't know who wrote the original autographs, how many writers there were and when they wrote, not to mention who they were that was responsible for the preservation of the scriptures, then we're going to have to start at square one.
But to answer your question; There are only 66 books because that's all there needs to be to contain God's Word. You'll probably balk at that, but God is not Vishnu, who needed, according to Dasa, billions of verses to convey his words.
God provided within the Bible everything we need to know about how to live a Godly life.
2 Timothy 3:16,17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
"SOMEONE had to edit the mess that it was becoming".
Not only someone, but many. As I told you before, it was the first century apostles and prophets that codified the scriptures. They were especially spiritually gifted men.
But you made a good point. There is indeed a mess. It continues to this day, and getting worse.