The 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament are the only writings Christians consider fully inspired. The books that are in our present Old Testament were universally accepted at the time of Christ and endorsed by Him. In fact, there are nearly 300 quotations from the Old Testament books in the New Testament.

A number of books that are considered valuable but not inspired are found in the Roman Catholic and Anglican Bibles. These books are called the Apocrypha (which means "hidden," "secret," or "profound"). The Apocrypha was accepted by the council of Carthage, but was not accepted by many important church leaders, including Melito of Sardis, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and Jerome. 1

Although the New Testament Canon was officially confirmed in its present and final form by the third council of Carthage in 397, the 27 documents it contains were accepted as authoritative from the very beginning.

The New Testament is solidly rooted in history. It revolves around the death, burial, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not even the rationalist critics of the 19th century could find reason to question Pauline authorship of 1 Corinthians, and it has been acknowledged as the earliest written testimony of Christ’s resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul declared:

"For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless, you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hope in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied" (vv. 16-19)

First-century Christians circulated documents— either written or approved by the apostles— which contained an authoritative explanation of the accounts concerning Jesus’ life and teaching. These documents often quoted from each other and presented the same gospel message from different perspectives and in different styles. Hundreds of other documents were written and circulated, but the church quickly rejected spurious documents and established the authority of those that were genuine.

The following was written by: Dan Vander Lugt
------------------------------------------------

1 . "Augustine alone of ancient authors, and the councils of Africa which he dominated, present a different picture. Augustine specifically accepted the apocryphal books and gives the total number as forty-four. He is the only ancient author who gives a number different from the twenty-two or twenty-four book reckoning. The list includes Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, 1 Esdras (the book composed of part of 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah), Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus. The Local councils of Carthage and Hippo, dominated by Augustine, included the same books. This listing prob. agreed with the ideas of Pope Damasus who dominated the local council of Rome at 382. It will be remembered that it was Damasus who urged Jerome to translate also the apocryphal books for his Vulgate. Jerome did so with the explicit declaration that they were not canonical.

"Green (op. cit. 168-174) discusses the witness of Augustine and points out that Augustine seems to vacillate. Green quotes Augustine; ’What is written in the book of Judith the Jews are truly said not to have received into the canon of Scripture’ (Augustine, City of God xviii, 260). ’After Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra, they had no prophets until the advent of the Savior’ (id. xvii, last ch.). He was well aware that Maccabees were after the cessation of prophecy. Green concludes that Augustine was using ’canonical’ in the sense of books which may be read in the churches without putting them all on an equal plane." Excerpted from an article by R.L. Harris ("Canon of the Old Testament") in the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.
----------------------------------

What were the standards that earned a document the right to be included in the Bible?

To gain canonical recognition, a book was expected to pass two basic tests. First, "it had to have a history of "continuous and widespread approval amongst Christians" . Second, "it was expected to demonstrate that it had either been written by an apostle or specifically approved by the apostles." (J. W. Wenham, Christ And The Bible)

The fact that the Muratorian Canon (approximately AD 170) listed all of the books presently in the New Testament except for Hebrews, James, and the two epistles of Peter, is another demonstration of the early broad-based support for the Canon.

Another example (and many others could be given) is provided by the brilliant theologian Irenaeus, who also wrote in the second century. He quoted the four Gospels extensively and included quotations from all of the New Testament books except Philemon and 3 John. Actually, the fact that a few books were received officially by the church at a later date is more a demonstration of the church’s discretion and caution than it is an indication that these books are in some way unreliable.

A well-known theologian once said that the church no more created the New Testament Canon than Newton created the basic principles of physics. The earliest writings of the church fathers demonstrate their confidence in the authority of the New Testament Scriptures.

Dan Vander Lugt, again:
______________________________

Brown speaks through Mr. Teabing: "The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven.…The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book." (p. 231)

Brown misses the boat on several counts in this assertion: Most of those who believe that Scripture is divinely inspired do not believe that it was revealed in so simplistic a fashion as a "fax from heaven." While it's true that the Bible was penned by people, Brown's comments regarding "countless translations, additions and revisions" are hyperbole. There are thousands of biblical manuscripts or copies of manuscripts that date as far back as the second century—exponentially more than for most other historical documents. When dealing with translations, it is impossible to avoid some variance, especially when working with ancient languages. However, those familiar with different existing translations of the Bible know that the differences among them are minor. The same body of Scripture, or "canon," has been used for almost two thousand years, so the idea that "history has never had a definitive version of the book" is incorrect. One would be hard-pressed to find a single book with so many contributors that is as coherent and consistent as the Bible.

Brown asserts that until the early church council meeting at Nicea in 325, "Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet…a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal." (p. 233)

The creed that was codified at the church council of Nicea does claim that Jesus was divine as well as human, but this was not a doctrinal shift. Long before, people believed that Jesus was divine, based on the earliest records of Jesus' words, the gospel accounts of his life, especially the Gospel of Yochanan (John), which contain references to Jesus' divinity. A case in point: in John 10:30, Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." At that point the religious leaders picked up rocks to stone him, for they believed that he was claiming divinity. Stoning him would have been the proper punishment for blasphemy. Paul's letters were written in the first century and refer to Jesus' divinity. "Primitive church documents and the testimony…confirm that Christians have always believed Jesus to be Lord, God and Savior—even when that faith meant death."1 Documents such as the Didache that date back as early as the second century refer to Jesus' followers speaking of him as Lord.

Brown states that a marriage between Jesus and Mary is a "matter of historical record." (p. 244)

There is absolutely no evidence of this. The Bible records interactions between Jesus and Mary, but makes no reference to the notion that they were romantically involved. Scholars have been debunking this myth since at least the 17th century.

This idea that Jesus and Mary were married has grown out of interpretations of certain "Gnostic," or "secret" gospels, which were written much later than the Gospel accounts that are in the New Testament. Some examples of the Gnostic gospels are the "Gospel of Thomas" and the "Gospel of Philip," which were never considered historically reliable due to the late date they were written and their inconsistency with earlier Scripture. Furthermore, these Gnostic gospels contradict Brown's own views. They actually portray a divine Jesus who rejects his own humanity and becomes an esoteric kind of spirit being, not the mortal prophet Brown puts forth.

Brown contends, "Any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus' life had to be omitted from the Bible." (p. 244)

Yet we read in the Gospels that Jesus eats, drinks, weeps, bleeds and dies. And several eyewitnesses attest to his resurrection from the dead. It's not that followers of Jesus deny his humanity; they believe that he is fully God and fully man, the Messiah who is also Lord, in keeping with messianic prophecies such as Isaiah 9:6: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." It is this belief that makes Jesus unique; it is this claim that sets him apart from other historical figures—he is not only a fascinating person of history; he is the Redeemer of humankind.

_____________________________________

God loves us SOOO much that He provided a blueprint for life and a personal love letter from Him to us. He DID NOT allow error, misinterpretation and myths created by storytellers to creep in.

The 27 books of the New Testament were almost all recognized as God's Word from the moment they were written and the few that were not, WERE, in fact considered Scripture for at least two centuries BEFORE the council of Nicea, (the government to which is referred).

This council, Augustine and the Roman government supposedly suppressed documents that contained the "real" truth and promoted these [contained in our Bible] instead.  

The fact is that the documents that were not considered to be Scripture do at least one of several things: they contradict Scripture that was already in existence, they have a late date, they are not written by the person who claims to have written them, they are not written by an apostle. (There are a couple of other points too and I will look them up and add them later)

All of the books of the New Testament were written by 100 AD. This has been incontrovertibly proven.

There are many people who do not want to believe the truth. Some of them have written seemingly scholarly tomes that allegedly "prove" their heretical and false claims.

The reality is that the LORD Who is all-knowing and all-powerful has indeed divinely provided and supernaturally protected His Word. Thank you Jesus.

This is from the book, "More Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell:
____________________________________

Meaning of the word Canon:

The word canon comes from the root word 'reed' (English word 'cane', Hebrew form 'ganeh', and Greek form 'kanon'). The reed was used as a measuring rod, and came to mean "standard."

The third-century church father Origen used the word "canon to denote what we call the 'rule of faith,' the standard by which we are to measure and evaluate." Later, the term meant a "list" or "index" . As applied to Scripture, canon means "an officially accepted list of books."

It is important to note that the church did not CREATE the canon; it did not DETERMINE which books would be called Scripture, the inspired Word of God. Instead, the church RECOGNIZED, or DISCOVERED, which books had been inspired from their inception. Stated another way, "a book is not the Word of God because it is accepted by the people of God. Rather, it was accepted by the people of God because it is the Word of God. That is, God gives the book its divine authority, not the people of God. They merely recognize the divine authority which God gives to it."
____________________________________

 Each of these following four points has a paragraph or more expanding on the explanation.

TESTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE CANON

[1] Was the book written by a prophet of God?

[2] Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?

[3] Did the message tell the truth about God?

[4] Does it come with the power of God?

[5] Was it accepted by the people of God?

I hope that this information helps to have a deeper appreciation and gratitude for this 'blue print for life' and 'love letter to humanity from God Himself'.  

Be blessed in the Most High, Karah

BACK