question about the bible canon

[julian]

where apostal paul letters used before the councel of nicea?

 

[farouk]

where apostal paul letters used before the councel of nicea?

Yes; it would be false to suggest that any status was acquired by any Bible book at Nicea; rather, at Nicea and before and afterwards their authority was already inherent and recognized.

 

[julian]

i was confused for a while atheist usto tell me thats where they invented everything in the bible so much deception now in days

 

[mondar]

where apostal paul letters used before the councel of nicea?

To answer this question let me first give you some information. After Nicea, scriptoriums came into being where professional scribes copied Pauls letters on Velium. Velium is a much more expensive material. Before Nicea, Christianity was illegal. Pauls letters were still being copied, that is clear because of the Papyri. This is a cheaper material, where copies of Pauls letters were made in private. Since Christianity was illegal at that time, the Romans burned much of the Papyri, but some copies have survived. You can google the term "papyri." The fact that Pauls letters were being copied demonstrates that they were being used in some capacity. That of course does not prove that the average 2nd century user was aware of each and every letter of Paul.

One thing that is true is that the NT has internal evidence of the fact that Pauls letters were consider canonical from the time he wrote them. Notice this reference in the NT.
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Notice that Peter is aware of Pauls epistles in verse 15. Then in verse 16 he says that ignorant people wrest Pauls writings and misrepresent them "as they do other scriptures." Peter is here equating Pauls epistles with "other scriptures." For some reason this rumor has gone around that the canon of scriptures was decided at Nicea. This is not true. In fact at Nicea, I do not think they even debated the canon. Nicea has no list of inspired books. Nicea was about the trinity and not the canon. The way canonization works is like this... Individual books were recognized as scripture as soon as they left the pen of an apostle, or someone close to the apostles. The problem was collecting all these inspired books into one great book. Now since Christianity was under sporadic persecution until the time of Constantine, it was difficult to collect all of the gospels and epistles in one place. This does not mean that the anti-nicean Church did not use them. If you read the frequent illusions and quotes that the Anti-nicean Church Fathers used, you will see that the epistles of Paul were well known and well used and considered scripture.

To make a point blank statement that is easier to understand... it is absurd to think that no one realized the books were inspired and a part of the canon until Nicea. They may not have arrived at a final number of books until after Nicea, but that does not mean that they did not know that individual books were canonical. In a way, what is the big deal about the final number anyway? It really does nothing for me to know there are 66 books in the English Bible (39 in the OT and 27 in the NT). But it means a lot to me to know that the epistle of Romans (and each of the other books individually) is and always has been the Word of God.

 

[julian]

To answer this question let me first give you some information. After Nicea, scriptoriums came into being where professional scribes copied Pauls letters on Velium. Velium is a much more expensive material. Before Nicea, Christianity was illegal. Pauls letters were still being copied, that is clear because of the Papyri. This is a cheaper material, where copies of Pauls letters were made in private. Since Christianity was illegal at that time, the Romans burned much of the Papyri, but some copies have survived. You can google the term "papyri." The fact that Pauls letters were being copied demonstrates that they were being used in some capacity. That of course does not prove that the average 2nd century user was aware of each and every letter of Paul.

One thing that is true is that the NT has internal evidence of the fact that Pauls letters were consider canonical from the time he wrote them. Notice this reference in the NT.
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Notice that Peter is aware of Pauls epistles in verse 15. Then in verse 16 he says that ignorant people wrest Pauls writings and misrepresent them "as they do other scriptures." Peter is here equating Pauls epistles with "other scriptures." For some reason this rumor has gone around that the canon of scriptures was decided at Nicea. This is not true. In fact at Nicea, I do not think they even debated the canon. Nicea has no list of inspired books. Nicea was about the trinity and not the canon. The way canonization works is like this... Individual books were recognized as scripture as soon as they left the pen of an apostle, or someone close to the apostles. The problem was collecting all these inspired books into one great book. Now since Christianity was under sporadic persecution until the time of Constantine, it was difficult to collect all of the gospels and epistles in one place. This does not mean that the anti-nicean Church did not use them. If you read the frequent illusions and quotes that the Anti-nicean Church Fathers used, you will see that the epistles of Paul were well known and well used and considered scripture.

To make a point blank statement that is easier to understand... it is absurd to think that no one realized the books were inspired and a part of the canon until Nicea. They may not have arrived at a final number of books until after Nicea, but that does not mean that they did not know that individual books were canonical. In a way, what is the big deal about the final number anyway? It really does nothing for me to know there are 66 books in the English Bible (39 in the OT and 27 in the NT). But it means a lot to me to know that the epistle of Romans (and each of the other books individually) is and always has been the Word of God.

thanks bro that info helped me a lot!

 

[felix]

Then in verse 16 he says that ignorant people wrest Pauls writings and misrepresent them "as they do other scriptures." Peter is here equating Pauls epistles with "other scriptures."

Not so. The other scriptures is a reference to LXX in which 2/3 of all NT quotes are taken from.

 

[mondar]

Not so. The other scriptures is a reference to LXX in which 2/3 of all NT quotes are taken from.

felix, so when the translators in Egypt translated the LXX from Hebrew into Greek, it suddenly stopped being "scripture?" Really?

 

[felix]

felix, so when the translators in Egypt translated the LXX from Hebrew into Greek, it suddenly stopped being "scripture?" Really?

No. Christians consider LXX as scripture but not the Jews of 1st century, which is why their canon was established after the resurrection of Christ.

Scripture don't get added everyday. The definition of Scripture is from Christ - http://www.churchsw.org/order-of-authority