Pages: 1

Why those 66 books?

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: JeriRose12

Does anyone have information on how the 66 books of the Bible were chosen as the ones that belong in The "infallable, inerrant" Word of God? Why were they chosen and what was the canonization process? Is there a credible source out there? The sites I've been on are accepting other books besides the 66 in the Bible, incluidng the Book of the Mormom ( !!!) as canonized scripture. I only want info on The Holy Bible that contains the 66 books recognized by born again believers in Jesus Christ. Thanks for any info.

My brother had info that related to a numbering system (I am not talking about numerology). And the scriptures that fit numerically into this pattern were in those 66 books. They tried to put this numerical system to other books and they didn't fit inot the pattern. I thought this was from Keith Green info, as in The Last Days Ministries. I have some of their stuff around here, but can't remember where. Have any of you heard of this?

I need to know, because when I am refuting false doctrines from The Word, I want to have a solid understanding of why those books are the inerrant Word of God, so I can explain to others why what they teach isn't right.

~JeriRose~


Posted by: Christian Commando

Old Test Books as according to historical records, had been kept and collected thru time by the Jews. As for New Test Books, these were, as according to historical documentations, come across aby the first 2 centuries of Christian Leaders after the Apostles when Church Leaders or those in thier proximity came across these writings, thus, they collected and preserved them as Apostlic writings and containing the Teachings of Christ and coincided with Old Test Teachings plus more, as such, were considered as the inspiration of God because of these and more points.

Since they were collected and preserved over time, when bound copies were made, both Old and New Test were then considered the "Canon of Scripture". (Foundatioonal Truths of Christianity).

The fact all writings of the New Test. are in "letter" form, written by Apostles to groups or Churches, tells me, theres alot more out there waiting to be found, if not having been destroyed by centuries of pileging and ransacking so many Early Churches as time went on over and over.

To study historical steps to find Christian related writings, I found alot of old early Church original writings done by many a Leader of Early Centuries, partially destroyed, leaving only parts, some by historical research had 1,000 or more pages, now down to 15 or 20 to several hundred left is all.

I was Graced with a Book of a Christian writer who also traced many of the steps I followed, but even more in some directions, running into the same thing all the way thru that I had.

But, thats how the "Bible" as we know it came about. Since the Old Test was mostly written in Hebrew and another language, and New Test. in Greek and Aramaic, the writings had to be translated. But thats basically how the "Canon of Scripture" we have today came about.

God Bless!!


Posted by: JeriRose12

Thanks for the input and reply.

But some are embracing books like "The Gospel of Thomas" which is a Gnogstic Gospel, meaning one of the first, if not the first, cults. So, if we find this book (well, copies are in print), supposedly written by Thomas, we could not accept it as part of the God breathed canon that He wanted. The 66 in our Bibles are the ones commonly accepted as the ones truly given by inspiration of The Holy Spirit. How do I explain to the people out there why those books (there are other "lost books," too) are not the ones we get our beliefs from?

~JeriRose~


Posted by: Christian Commando

Well Sis, you and I call them Books and we got that from others wh called them such. But, the writings of the Apostles are not true "Books". All are letters written to other Believers , be they groups or an established Chuch. Except for Acts, which are a record of the Apostles to begin with and cover many of the beginnings of God's Mission for them.

The 4 Gospels are purely for the record of Christ's Ministry, that if read historically, were written towards others to share this Gospel of Christ to them for Salvation. As with the Book of Mark. Historically, theres more evidence pointing to James, Jesus' Brother to have wrote this originally and a man named Mark was sent with the writing to those few saved people intended for, as a record for sharing this Gospel with the unsaved around them.

But tho the documentations got to thier destination, Mark had died and the writings became more popularly called the writings or Gospel of or later, according to, Mark.

As for the Gospel of Thomas, no different than the "Book of Enoch". Yes, both make some Biblical references, but for too much of thier teachings, they do not fit with the rest of Scripture. The "Book of Enoch" has even been considered as having been written by another, using a Biblical Name to claim authenticity to its content.

I would just tell others, the Books of the New Test are 4 Gospels, a record of Christ's Ministry by His Disciples and the Acts are record of the Apostles starting out in mission and the rest were letters written by the Apostles to groups or Churches of Believers. Thats the simple Truth. Jesus' brother James was a Disciple, not of the original 12 but at least the 120 at Pentecost.

As for the Old Test, these were writings from way back, kept as records by the Jews thru out history. And thats simple Truth, which historical research proves too.

If want, if come across a copy of Thomas's writings, sit down with it next to God's Word and compare it. You'll be able to tell if of God or not.

How to explain other lost "Books". Let them know what the New Test writings are- letters to Churches. Thus, we know then for sure for the few we have to Churches or other Christians, there has to have been more written than just what we know of.

No matter who was claimed to write a Book or letter, it can only be acceptable if falls completely inline with God's Word.

God Bless!!


Posted by: JeriRose12

I read a little of the "Gospel of Thomas" on a website that compared it to the four Gospels. Not all of it was printed there. Many of the words were the same that Jesus spoke with a little added in here or there.

You and I say it has to line up with The Word of God, and we go by the inner witness of the Spirit. . .but to undiscerning people. . .who swallow anything. . . . We had friends complaining that our Bibles had left out many "lost books." There is the Book of Rachel, Book of Enoch, Gospel of Thomas and others as well. We told them those books weren't right. . .but it's circular reasoning. Using the Bible to back the Bible. I was hoping to locate truths outside the Bible that authenicate why those are the chosen books.

I know we believe it was handed down by the first church to the next believers and so on, but this can seem like hearsay. The websites I found were not helpful. But I know I have read before why the orthodoxy of Christianity accepts those books.

I will keep searching for something further, though I do know that the reasons you list are valid. The main thing I have found is what you said -- that these were the letters, Gospels, etc. accepted at that time as the ones written by the apostles and lining up with the teaching of the apostles.

We are warned in 1 John that we test the spirits by making sure that Spirit says Jesus came in the flesh. I am sure this is based on the fact that The Gospel of Thomas was a Gnostic gospel. And the Gnostic's spiritualize everything, so they probably taught that Jesus only came spiritually, not LITTERALLY IN THE FLESH. That authenticates the epistles of John to me and would discredit the Gospel of Thomas. I haven't read the entire Gospel of Thomas to see exactly all it teaches....but I am pretty sure we can find it on line.

~JeriRose~


Posted by: JG

I will add some more later but for now.

We have the Old Testament books because they are quoted by the New Testament.

Note none of the so-called other books are quoted by Jesus or the Apostles

If we limit ourselves to the specific quotations and direct allusions which form the basis of our previous reckoning, we shall note that 278 different Old Testament verses are cited in the New Testament: 94 from the Pentateuch, 99 from the Prophets, and 85 from the Writings. Out of the 22 books in the Hebrew reckoning of the Canon only six (Judges-Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezra-Nehemlah, Chronicles) are not explicitly referred to. The more extensive lists of Dittmar and Huehn show passages reminiscent of all Old Testament books without exception.

It is to be noted that the whole New Testament contains not even one explicit citation of any of the Old Testament Apocrypha which are considered as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. This omission can scarcely be viewed as accidental.

Please note when we include references to not exact quotes Judges-Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Ezra-Nehemlah, Chronicles are refered to.

As a matter of fact we have thousands of references to the old testament works that you would not call quotes.

I will talk about the New Testament Later.


Posted by: JeriRose12

In the Gospel of Thomas one of the "secret sayings of Jesus" was that he did come in the flesh. . . .but the disciplels asked where He was, as if they couldn't see Him. It has a new agey feel, in that Jesus says if you pick up a rock there He is. . .and it has Him saying something like if the light is in you. . . .but there is no such thing as "Repent, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand," anywhere in the entire book. The fact that no references are made to the need to repent is the one thing that really stands out. All of the other Gospels lay out the same plan of salvation somewhere within them -- that if we repent and if we believe we can be part of the Kingdom.

I found a reference to "The Gospel of Judas" or "Book of Judas" as well, a discovery by National Geographic a while back. This supposedly rocked and shocked the Christian world.

But as I read the Gospel of Thomas it did not line up with the other four in that it had strange references to things like, "he who finds his body will not taste death." This doesn't make sense next to "Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" or "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son....that whosever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." In the established and accepted Gospels Jesus refers to His coming death. In the Gospel of Thomeas (The Secret Sayings of Jesus), there are no such references attributed to anything He supposedly said.

I notice info that was going to explain the gnostic ideas in the book. So, I will check that out.

~JeriRose~


Posted by: JG

The gospel of Thomas makes many quotes of Jesus that are not true.

GoT 53:
"His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision beneficial or not?" He said to them, "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."

This is quite unlikely to be a teaching of Jesus.
Nowhere in the NT Gospels does Jesus address the issue of circumcision.

But Paul does. And this is significant, because the issue of circumcision was a point of contention between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians.

Had Jesus taught this, you would have expected Paul to appeal to this authoritative teaching. Or, at the least, you would not have expected this to have been an issue for the Jerusalem Church.

It certainly appears that the author of the GoT mistook Paul's teaching ("circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit" [Ro 2:29]) as that of Jesus'.

And if this is the case, we must ask how many other teachings are falsely attributed to Jesus.


In 1 Cor 2:9, Paul paraphrases Isaiah:

"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him."

Now consider Thomas 17:

"Jesus said, 'I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind.'"

Once again, the author seems to falsely attributes the teachings of Paul to Jesus. What other teachings are falsely attributed to Jesus?

Some of the things the Gospel of Thomas says John the Apostle refer to as anti-christ statements.

The gospel of thomas makes you a twin of Jesus
Certain passages in the Gospel of Thomas, for example, suggest that all humans have within themselves the source of their own salvation.

In other words you do not need Jesus.

"The [Father's] imperial rule is inside you
and outside you," Thomas said Jesus says at one point. "When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father."

Of course we know Jesus said In John 14
"No man can come unto the Father but by me"

There are so many hearsays in the Gospel of Thomas it is not worth our time.


Posted by: JeriRose12

Thanks for the comments, Jerry.

Someone in favor of the Gospel of Thomas likes it for these reasons:

It does not contain a supernatural virgin birth in a manger.
It does not promote a doctrine of original sin.
It does not mention Jesus’ crucifixion or a supernatural bodily resurrection.
It does not interpret Jesus’ death as payment of a debt to “atone” for our sins.
It does not include any supernatural healings.
It does not exclude, but goes out of its way to include women.


So, we can conclude that it is a false gospel. It does not agree with or uphold the clear teachings of the other Gospels or the apostles to the early church. It also does not line up with the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus! And it totally leaves out the entire reason Jesus came -- to seek and to save the lost and to die for the lost and atone for their sins.

As to the comment about women, how can he say the true Gospels exclude women? There are many references to Jesus affirming women. And in the Acts and the epistles women were very active in church work.

It seems like the books that don't line up, do not uphold the fundamentals of the other books, and they don't line up with clear Old Testament prophecy.

I see there is a Gospel of Mary out there, too. . . .

I never thought about this much until doing some recent research on a particular group and they like these Nag Hammadi books. Something bothering me is their website has aritcles by some well respected Christians, one of who I know for a fact doesn't accept these "lost books." So, it can seem like that would be an endorsement by that person, though I have heard their ministry say the opposite. I suppose anyone can use any ariticle in the public domain and put it on their website whether that person actually endorses everything that site believes. It can just be confusing to new believers who see that respected Christian quoted on a website that preaches false things. And I really want some ammo for those who start buying into belief in these false books.

So thanks all for any light and information you can give me on this.

~JeriRose~


Posted by: JeriRose12

Thanks for the further comments, Jerry. Yes, The Gospel of Thomas has many things that don't line up with the things Jesus talked about in the other TRUE Gospels.

In fact it actually says you can become Jesus!!! There is no such teaching anywhere in the other books of the Bible. So how can people say they use this book when seeking truth??? We can NOT become Jesus. That is the new age teaching that boils down to "I am God." Sinners in need of a Savior is opposite of the ability to become Jesus. Jesus taught "REPENT for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand," and he sent the disciples out to preach the same, not this gobbly gook that says we can become Him.

Isn't that similar to the Mormom's belief that they are going to become gods and populate planets? Yet, one of the websites says the Book of the Mormom is also accepted as canonized scripture.

It's really awesome to be on a website that teaches the TRUTH. Hopefully some of these who are deceived will come across this discussion and have their eyes opened to the REAL Jesus.

Well, one could talk forever about The Truth, because it's so awesome.... but I'd better get going.... It's late.

~JeriRose~


Posted by: Christian Commando

Thank you Pastor for the incredible insights, as I hadn't thomas as yet. As you can see tho JeriRose, theres plenty of proof the Book of Thomas is spirious n its distorted teachings, as I had mentioned before, such things would be seen if compare read it and God's Word together.

As Pastor pointed out, there are quotes as well as direct reference paraphrasing from New Test Apostles of Old Test Books. Either way for reference was still in context to Scripture refered to.

As for this person who likes Thomas for avoiding a supernatural birth thru a Virgin f Christ among others, this would come from basic two ways, either they were raised or taught such beliefs, or are unable to look at God as the ultimate power in existance as a Trinity, thus incapable of doing such things.

Such beliefs are products of Satan's influence to convince people God is not all His Word claims of Him and more. And since the teachings in the Book are distorted, it would not supprise me to know they may have distorted a prominant Christian Leaders' words to fit thier claims such Books are authentic, even if that prominant Leader does not.

If you were to research historical backrounds of Early Church meetings for Scriptural acceptance since about 150 BC, you'd find many manuscripts that were aregued to be accepted were still rejected.

And since then till now, there are some religions who had thier own Bibles made up, which have the "Books" not accepted by the general Christian Assembly, yet included in thier own particular version for thier religion. That is thier choice. A good part of this situation, rests upon the way in which Scripture is interpreted by a particular religion.

Some spiritualize, some figuratize, some symbolize plus more ways they interprete God's Word. But, within each way, theres all kinds of variations to do it as well. This can be very clearly seen from the examples both Pastor and you Sis had shared of points differing from God's Word.

God Bless!!


Posted by: JeriRose12

The more you research the aberrant teachings of these books and the more you look back into The Word of God (the 66 canonized books), the more you appreciate and love God and His Word.

Recently, I really got into researching a lot of weird beliefs out there -- off doctrines, cults, movments. . . .and getting a sound grasp on The Word of God will help us to confront and reason with these people.

~JeriRose~


Posted by: JG

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeriRose12
The more you research the aberrant teachings of these books and the more you look back into The Word of God (the 66 canonized books), the more you appreciate and love God and His Word.

Recently, I really got into researching a lot of weird beliefs out there -- off doctrines, cults, movments. . . .and getting a sound grasp on The Word of God will help us to confront and reason with these people.

~JeriRose~



Dear Jerirose

AMEN AND AMEN

OH HOW BEAUTIFUL THE WORD OF GOD IS


Posted by: Christian Commando

Yes, and back in the 70's and early 80's, my research hadn't come across all the Books you've brought up nor some of the more recent ones I've come across in the last 5 years or so.

I've found some have been around for centuries, just not brought up, as ran across some I could not find writings on years ago, that had been rejected for Canon of Scripture in Early Church Days.

But, the info was out there, but by postal service, it took me alot longer to find the resources to gain such info. But this is how God convinced me fully He was real and Word true way back.

Now, for what Jews had for Old Test Scrolls of the torah, could well have been destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem and all ransackings that went on in captive take overs and rebellions against Christianity. It understandable how the Dead Sea Scrolls ended up found hidden in all those caves, so if some were found and destroyed, others may survive.

But, there are also an imense amount of archeological finds that prove many of the earlier claims of Secular scientists or researchers God is not real or Word true, for particular aspects not found by thier times, having since been found and proven them wrong and God accurate hehe.

Another point I found, if want to deal with people who represent a religion, get written copies of the religions' foundational doctrinal beliefs that they belong to. Many times, as with Mormons- "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", true Mormons stand by those beliefs, where some LDS Church followers will argue they are not Mormons and have slightly differing claims of beliefs- (Even tho both believe in follow and preach and teach the BoM). So, that can really confuse people.

If have written records of ther beliefs, you can go down the list and question them to see what they have chosen to believe of Scriptures, or which ones are used and how, to explain thier beliefs. With your Bible handy, thats one of the quickest ways to see where thier beliefs of Scripture are inline or out of contet with Scripture.

God Bless!!