Determining a book's truth.

Honestly, Psalm148, the thread was not proposed accurately, and I don't think attsyf is around to discuss this any longer.If you look at Bible history, first, there is the major factor of 2 Timothy. Scripture, even as defined by the Jews, was not one book, and in many cases, what was considered important info from God was not even written. The Jewish people had a long oral tradition to supplement the books.Shrtly after 2 Timothy was written, the Christain churches had a huge debate about whether or not to even use the ancient scriptures in their catechising. I am thankful that they did, but I can't say at all that they were going to throw out these books because they believed they were false.So you move on to the Council of Trent etc., and many books were thrown out of the new canon. The reasoning behind the choices is not clearly explained in any place that I can find, but I have a hunch that it had little to do with what was 'true' and more to do with what was important and what was known to be from a reliable source. What they were doing at the time was not seperating God breathed from non, because that is impossible. It is possible to find a text which is closest to an original, or comes from an area, or a person, or a time period, which fits into other known 'facts'? I hvae not been able to discover whether the fathers of the councils used a more scientific method, or just guessed. Seems there is little regarding this still preserved.Because the RCC also accepts publically some teachings which come from non canonical books, it is safe to say that those were not necessarily considered false, but were rather simply of obscuer, untrusted, or unknown origins.The best way to approach the discussion is to find out what the criteria was for the people actually making the selections, and to find their reasons for which books were ultimately put in the Bible. All we are doing is trusting their judgement, really, whether that be inspired or not.

I put in the wrong council there, not Trent, but Laodicea and Hippo. Constantine wasn't until Nicea anyway, and he was a Roman convert afterall. All of the early Christians were converts, and I think you do a disservice to GOd by calling the Gentiles corrupters. Well, they did, precisely because they wanted to be true followers of Christ alone. No one knows if Paul believed something was factual, all he said was that it was useful. If you want to disregard all of church history as 'not real Christianity' you are in a bind, because without them you would have nothing. Well, Paul screwed around with Jews and their tradtions, as well as doctrine. So did Jesus, and I believe all of it is important. Do you know where we got the Bible? Tradition.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.