When compiling the bible, how did the 'authorities' know which books to include? i.e God-inspired ones

Question

what was to stop any random claiming their own ramblings was a divine message?

Answer 1

For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in (A.D. 170). The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative. Contrary to popular hearsay, the New Testament Canon was not decided upon in the Council of Nicea - even look up Council of Nicea on Wikipedia.

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?

For more read The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce.
Sorry for the long answer, but I wanted to clear up some misconceptions.

Answer 2

They were not building a book, but a collective message , the final, complete and definitive "word". This unified approach was necessary to suppress the wide variety of "truths" that made up Christian belief for much of its early life. There were also many `Pagan`or Heretical movements,challenging the message, using alternative Gospels, translations, and a wide range of views that today's Christians would never believe. There was NO divine intervention - just the age old greed for power, to control others and make their version of `truth`, the winning side.

Answer 3

A book/teachings was/were revealed to Jesus from God in his lifetime but it was never written in his presence or at that time. If we had a book written/signed by jesus. 'sheeee' no question about its authenticity but when explore the facts we find that the most ancient scripts that we found goes back to 300 to 400AD. means a material written after 300 years after Jesus. So we had many scripts from many parts of world and areas but they all didn't exactly contained what Jesus said rather it was a knowledge written after being collected from ear says, stories of those times etc. so definitely there are confusions and chunks of these materials are un authentic and so we have groups saying this is authentic and this is not.
We have got old testiment and new testiment, May be we need something knows as 'last testiment'. you need to explore for it.

Answer 4

Council of Nicea is right, however
there were many 'authority' figures
and they could not agree
amongst the strongest challengers were Arianists
meanwhile the bishops etc all of course had agenda's
So Constantine decided what was to be included
it was his sole decision and he overode many of the bishops.
Pauline Catholic doctrine is the way it is because of his actions.
There was an awful lot going on then it was a brilliant period.

Answer 5

The Catholic Church put it together----------and they put in just what they wanted in-left out things that didn't quite ''jell'' to what they wanted people to believe. This was the NT


What Christians call the OT was the Jewish Tanakh-and were the books that had been there as long as scribes had been writing the texts. I believe the Catholic Church left this part alone. They were, at the Nicene Council, making up the Christian religion to suit their needs. The OT was not of any consequence to them.

Answer 6

There were many gospels written. They were studied by the leaders of the church at the time and only the ones believed to be true and showed the faith and Jesus in a light which suited the current frame of thinking at the time were accepted by the church.

Answer 7

Check with the Catholic Church. The Church compiled the Bible as we know it today. Whatever criteria they used, the rest of Christianity has been using for a long time.

Answer 8

In the council of Niccae many books were accepted and others not. This is where many claim jesus's divinity took place. Aside from that they took the most inspiring ones and put it together.

Answer 9

If it supported the centralization of the church's power and authority, the unquestioning loyalty of it's followers, and pronounced Jesus as a diety as opposed to an enlightened individual it was good to go.

Answer 10

Let's just say the Author knows what kind of utter goofballs He's dealing with and only let's you get but so far.