Why Not In The Canon?

[Smyth]

Hope it is ok for another non-expert to chime in. There are several "tests" applied to books and among them are:
1) Acceptance by the original audience
2) Dynamic, it changes lives

I was taught 2 or 3 more, but my memory fails.

No, not #2. "Changes lives" is too subjective and is an invitation for loons to think their opinions are authoritative. The books of the New Testament were written by the Apostles, or are approved by the church under the Apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, and Paul. Even though there is some dispute, all these men were Apostles, except Mark and Luke. Mark and Luke were close companions to the Apostles.

Books left out of the Bible don't pass the above qualification.

 

[HankD]

Hank, I just typed out a rather lengthy response to your post above but it went off somewhere into cyberspace and disappeared. I am too tired to do it all again, so . . . . .

No problem, I have many items out there myself.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Hank, I just typed out a rather lengthy response to your post above but it went off somewhere into cyberspace and disappeared. I am too tired to do it all again, so . . . . .

Try logging out then sign back into BB, go to the location you typed it and it might magically re-appear.

Has been known to happen.

HankD

 

[Van]

No, not #2. "Changes lives" is too subjective and is an invitation for loons to think their opinions are authoritative. The books of the New Testament were written by the Apostles, or are approved by the church under the Apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, and Paul. Even though there is some dispute, all these men were Apostles, except Mark and Luke. Mark and Luke were close companions to the Apostles.

Books left out of the Bible don't pass the above qualification.

Hi Smyth, see point # D, in post # 3. It is indeed one of the tests for inclusion in the cannon.

 

[Smyth]

Hi Smyth, see point # D, in post # 3. It is indeed one of the tests for inclusion in the cannon.

I disagree with post #3. I think the only thing anyone need concern themselves about when wondering what book should be in the Bible is whether or not it's an authentic work of an Apostle or one of their very close associates.

 

[Yeshua1]

Now I'm not of those like John Of Japan, TC and a few others who have studied Hebrew and Greek... I'm ignorant and unlearned about these things... Saying that, I read the KJV and been reading and study it over 50 years and know its history some what... Also know there are 66 books of the Bible that contain the Old and The New Testament... I also know there were many writing that didn't make it into the Canon of scripture... Also know that there are some in the Catholic Bible that are not in mine and maybe others too but I don't know of any to my limited knowledge... But I've heard of others that were not included and I'm sure you brethren have a list of them... What was the criteria used to included or excluded in the canon?... What was the measuring rod to make that determination and who made it?... Hope this has stirred up your pure minds... Brother Glen

The basic truth on the canon of scripture is that they were received from pretty much the start as being the very books of God unto us, and those so called "excluded" books NEVER were recognized by the Jews nor the early Church as being inspired from/of God!

Jesus and the Apostles all saw the OT as being the canon versions the Jews had in their times, and the early church only accepted to ones that we now have in the NT canon...

The catholic church did NOT create/mandate any of that, just accepted what was already recognized for centuries, and the other books came in as a way to directly uphold wrong catholic theology during reformation era!

 

[Van]

Hi Smyth, the question was not what our individual basis for inclusion might be, but what were the tests for inclusion used by those who contributed to our list of inspired books.

 

[HeLives4me]

All I know is that it was great growing up with one Bible version. When we opened them at church everyone had the same words they were reading. When someone said do you have a bible, it meant the same to everyone.

Not knocking the newer versions, as I use the NKJV and NASB for study, along with KJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, not #2. "Changes lives" is too subjective and is an invitation for loons to think their opinions are authoritative. The books of the New Testament were written by the Apostles, or are approved by the church under the Apostles: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, and Paul. Even though there is some dispute, all these men were Apostles, except Mark and Luke. Mark and Luke were close companions to the Apostles.

Books left out of the Bible don't pass the above qualification.

Think some of the main criteria used were"

Either written by an Apostle, or one known to be used by him, like Luke/Mark
Spoke with authority/conformed with accepted prior revelations from God
No doctrines/practices against established truths
Accepted and used early on in church as received from the Lord
Were alluded to/quoted by other recognized Apostles

At the time of the official conormation of canon works, those books that met all of the above had already been received and used as inspired early on in the church!

Church just confirmed what had been "unofficial" held for a long time!