What qualifies the writings of the New Testament as being considered Holy Scripture or part of the BIBLE ?

Question

Of course the Jews and Christians had the writings of Moses and the prophets .... but what qualifies those letters and writings of the Apostles as being considered Holy Scripture ? Why do Catholics include some different books also ??

Answer 1

The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament.

Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but rather developed very slowly over many centuries. This is not to say that formal councils and declarations were not involved, however. Some of these include the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism (by vote: 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain), the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for Greek Orthodoxy.

In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, Early Christianity, there seems to have been no New Testament canon that was universally recognized.

For the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, there are two strands of revelation, the Bible, and the rest of the Apostolic Tradition. Both of them are interpreted by the teachings of the Church. In Catholic terminology the Teaching Office is called the Magisterium; in Orthodox terminology the authentic interpretation of scripture and tradition is limited, in the final analysis, to the Canon Law of the Ecumenical councils. Both sources of revelation are considered necessary for proper understanding of the tenets of the faith. The Roman Catholic view is expressed clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992):

§ 83: As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.

§ 107: The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.

Answer 2

Well, the canonization process is sort of lengthy to describe but I will try to sum it up as best as possible. In the Christian church, the Bible as we know (i.e. the New Testament) was not formally put together until the 367 C.E., although much of writings had been around since first century (as early as 50 C.E.) During the process of selection, the Church looked at three things:

1) Was the letter old? (Written in not too long after the time of the Apostles)
2) Was the letter/book written by an apostle or a close associate to an apostle?
3) Did the theology of the text resonate with the beliefs held in the Christian Church and passed down through the generations of believers?

If a letter fit this bill, then it could be accepted. Some did not and were rejected (like the Gospel of Thomas, which speaks nothing about the importance of Jesus' death and Resurrection, an idea that was prominent in most of the church). Thus, age, proximity to an apostle of Jesus, and widespread use/acceptance governed the selection, which I believe is God using the context of the time.

In regards to the Catholics having different books, the Catholic Church has the Apocrypha, a series of books that were in Greek and Latin translations of the Old Testament, but not the original Hebrew Scriptures. These books are generally not thought to carry the same weight as the rest of Scripture.

Answer 3

Well Jews had the writings of Moses... the old testament. Christianity did not start til the new testament, when Jesus was born. The basis of the new testament is to bring to pass the prophecies written about in the old.

The coming of the Messiah was phrophecied in the old testament and in the new He came. The Messiah was to come to rid the world of sin and to teach it the new convenant of God, which is written in the new testament. The new convenant is to prepare the world for the 2nd coming of Christ by manifesting God's Kingdom on earth.

Side note... Catholics and Christians (Protestants) are two different faiths.

Hope this helped!

Answer 4

It was a process that took over a century before all of the churches could decide upon and then agree with what to include and exclude. Even then it wasn't so much a unaninous vote, there was a lot of money exchanged to win favour - as with anything that holds so much power and control. The illusion that it was otherwise is created by the fact that the church that came out on top simply preserved texts in its favor and destroyed or let vanish opposing documents. Hence what we call "orthodoxy" is simply "the church that won." This happened around mid 4th century CE.

Answer 5

The Catholic Church decided in the councils of Rome and Cartage, at the end of the 4th century, which books belonged to the NT. The conclusions of the councils were endorsed by Pope Damasus.
For example, the Apocalipse of John was included upon St. Augustine insistence, even though some had doubted previously that it was inspired. Conversely, the Apocalypse of Peter was rejected. Similarly, Hebrews, 2nd John , 3rd John and 2nd Peter were included even though some had doubted them (see Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, a 4th century historian), and Clement 1, Hermas, and many other gospels and epistles that were read at the several churches were left out.
That´s why St. Augustine (354–430 AD) says “For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." ( Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith)
Protestants (who generally respect St. Augustine) recognize the authorityof the Catholic Church every time they say the Bible is the rule of faith. Luther himself in his Commentary on St. John, chapter 16 says: “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all.”
Even so, Luther decided to eliminate 7 books that were approved in those councils . Catholics have not added books: Luther took them out over 1000 years later by his sole authority, because Maccabees supports the doctrine of purgatory (it says its a good and holy thing to pray for the dead). He also wanted to toss out James, because its says that "faith without works is dead", going like a railroad right against Luther´s "sola fide". Thanks God other "reformers" did not let him do that

Answer 6

2Peter 3:15 Remember that while our Lord is waiting patiently to return, people are being saved.
Our dear brother Paul also wrote to you about that. God made him wise to write as he did. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters. He speaks about what I have just told you. His letters include some things that are hard to understand. People who don’t know better and aren’t firm in the faith twist what he says. They twist the OTHER SCRIPTURES too. So they will be destroyed.

Answer 7

The part that God put the Bible together qualifies the writings of the New Testament. Catholics have different books of the bible because they are a different religion then Christians are.

Answer 8

The letters (epistles) from the various deciples (apostles) are their understanding of what they believed was Christ's message. It is only the first four books of the new testament (The Gospels) that actually contain what is assumed are quotes from Christ himself. In otherwords, people taking Jesus words and then telling us what they believe they meant. It also serves to some degree as a historical marker.

Answer 9

What qualifys them is that they are considered inspired by God. For example, as you read the epistles of Paul he cross references many OT verses and mentions events, people and places by name. Because of his importance in the early NT church, Paul is held in high esteem because he was there and it is from him we know a little more about the early days of Christianity.

As for the Catholics, the extra books are called the Deuterocanonicals or better known as the Apocrypha including Tobit, Judith, Ester (greek) Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jerimiah, etc etc. The church's position is that they are not "inspired" but provide good insight as to the history (traditions). My personal opinion is that they are false because neither Paul nor Jesus nor Peter nor John EVER mentioned any books from the Apocrypha but quoted from every OT book

Answer 10

most of these scriptures were from eye wittiness accounts.But mainly God's Spirit moved upon them to wright them. also Jesus fulfilled the old testament, even down to the very town he was born in.