The Bible's Authors

[namesdontmatter]

In the name of God, most Gracious, most Merciful.
Peace and blessings of God be upon you all.

Forgive me if these questions have been asked before, but I was recently discussing this with a Christian in my hometown and he was unable to answer.

1. The Bible is a compilation of many books by many authors. Who decided which books were included in this compilation? Who decided which books were thrown out?

2. Did the authors of the books know that their books would be a part of a larger work? If so, were there any books that were rejected from being admitted into the compilation?

3. Is there any order to the books in the Bible? I know they're not chronological, but do they have any other order such as by topic or by author?

Thanks in advance for your replies.

--Would a rose, by any other...?

[heaven_id]

The great constantine (Roman emperor) who ordered to compile the Bible.
For me, it is more important to read inside the Bible rather than its outside.
But I've read the other scriptures that been rejected by men before. Except Gospel of barnabas there's nothing to suspicious. Why? because only Gospel of barnabas said that Jesus Christ is not Son of God.
Therefore inside the Bible, there's many number mismatch or history not chronologicaly for that book is not faxed from Heaven. It is wrote by hand of men although inspired by God.

[wil]

Out of hundreds of books that were used in spiritual study they canonized 66.

They rearanged the Judaic texts in a manner that ended so 'good news' could follow.

The names of the books do not define the authors (although some are thought to)

Like anything there was politics, an agenda, and the ends justifies the means.

The authors were all long dead by the time the bible was concieved as a complete volume.

I am currently on the road but have answers to your other questions in books at home...suspected times written, suspected authors and grouping methods..

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by heaven_id

The great constantine (Roman emperor) who ordered to compile the Bible.
For me, it is more important to read inside the Bible rather than its outside.
But I've read the other scriptures that been rejected by men before. Except Gospel of barnabas there's nothing to suspicious. Why? because only Gospel of barnabas said that Jesus Christ is not Son of God.
Therefore inside the Bible, there's many number mismatch or history not chronologicaly for that book is not faxed from Heaven. It is wrote by hand of men although inspired by God.

out of all the ones not in the 66, i actually like gospel of barnabus the best. i dont remember it saying Jesus is not son of God. though it seemed more like an interpretation of things already written from the apostles.

i always find it interesting how people see Jesus as son of God like Hercules and Zeus. i guess that is just how people have always believed even before Jesus came.
that is not how i have ever pictured it.

[bananabrain]

if you look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible you will find information on the different canons of the bible as far as judaism and christianity are concerned. judaism has its own view on who the "traditional authors" are; please feel free to ask if you have any questions.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[heaven_id]

Originally Posted by Bandit

out of all the ones not in the 66, i actually like gospel of barnabus the best. i dont remember it saying Jesus is not son of God. though it seemed more like an interpretation of things already written from the apostles.

i always find it interesting how people see Jesus as son of God like Hercules and Zeus. i guess that is just how people have always believed even before Jesus came.
that is not how i have ever pictured it.

Contradictions
1. The Gospel of Barnabas says Jesus stated "I am not the Messiah" (sec. 42,48) which contradicts both the Bible (Matthew 16) and Quran (Sura 5).
It calls Paul apostate, circumcision is necessary for Salvation (Sec. 23)
Jesus did not die on the cross, Judas did in his place (Sec 217), and Jesus is not God incarnate.
"Jesus was born when Pilate was governor" (Sec 3)
"Jesus sailed to Nazareth" which of course has no seaport. (Sec 20)
Mary brought forth her son without pain. (Sec 3) This is contradicted by the Quran (19:23).
The Quran condemns eating pork but "Barnabas" says "that which entereth into the man defileth not the man, but that which cometh out of the man defileth the man" (32).
Daniel was taken captive by Nebuchadnezer while he was 2 years old.(Sec. 80)
And many others.

[bananabrain]

heaven_id,

i'm jewish, not christian or muslim, but pointing out contradictions between the texts that each hold dear isn't exactly an argument. we all have our ways of resolving these contradictions. obviously, as a jew, it doesn't bother me if the "new testament", which is not a sacred text to me, contradicts something in the Torah, which is. similarly, if a muslim finds something in the NT which contradicts the Qur'an, or vice-versa for a christian, that's also not problematic. it is resolving contradictions *within* texts themselves that is far more instructive.

and have you heard of the "pseudepigrapha"?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by heaven_id

Contradictions
1. The Gospel of Barnabas says Jesus stated "I am not the Messiah" (sec. 42,48) which contradicts both the Bible (Matthew 16) and Quran (Sura 5).
It calls Paul apostate, circumcision is necessary for Salvation (Sec. 23)
Jesus did not die on the cross, Judas did in his place (Sec 217), and Jesus is not God incarnate.
"Jesus was born when Pilate was governor" (Sec 3)
"Jesus sailed to Nazareth" which of course has no seaport. (Sec 20)
Mary brought forth her son without pain. (Sec 3) This is contradicted by the Quran (19:23).
The Quran condemns eating pork but "Barnabas" says "that which entereth into the man defileth not the man, but that which cometh out of the man defileth the man" (32).
Daniel was taken captive by Nebuchadnezer while he was 2 years old.(Sec. 80)
And many others.

pardon my error. i was in reference to the EPISTLE, not the GOSPEL.

The Son of God therefore came in the flesh with this view, that He might bring to a head the sum of their sins who had persecuted His prophets to the death.

however i was correct in that your view of Son of God/son of man is 'like' that of hercules and zeus.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

heaven_id,

i'm jewish, not christian or muslim, but pointing out contradictions between the texts that each hold dear isn't exactly an argument. we all have our ways of resolving these contradictions. obviously, as a jew, it doesn't bother me if the "new testament", which is not a sacred text to me, contradicts something in the Torah, which is. similarly, if a muslim finds something in the NT which contradicts the Qur'an, or vice-versa for a christian, that's also not problematic. it is resolving contradictions *within* texts themselves that is far more instructive.

and have you heard of the "pseudepigrapha"?

b'shalom

bananabrain

exactly.
that is why everyone creates written religious doctrine on top of the writing already written & insists that others believe the same thing they believe & if you dont believe the same way or if you question the dogma, then you get your head chopped off.

[pohaikawahine]

in some ways talking about the bible's authors is like talking about the creator of chants .... we (hawaii nei) have one referred to as the chant of creation, the Kumulipo (meaning from the deep source) and originally it was passed down in the oral tradition and later was written and now has been translated in several different ways .... originally it was about the creation of the world and man, then it became a genealogy chant used primarily by the ali'i (kings and queens) to claim prominance (or dominance) in their birth line (power is probably a better word) .... but in reality the chant and its tones belong to all kanaka maoli (the true people) and was never the personal property of the ali'i .... or the high priest .... but one must go as far back in time as possible to get as close to the source to undersand the meaning .... the chant "Kumulipo" can be broken down in many ways .... the simplist is "kumu" (teacher) "lipo" (the deepest dark blue of the ocean) .... the source, the dark source, teacher of the source .... it starts in darkness (the time of 'po' which is the winter period of the year) and it emerges in light (the time of 'ao' which is the 2nd half of the year, spring when all life emerges from the underground to be reborn) .... but that is only one level of meaning .... there is a deeper 4th level of meaning which is the "sacred" or the "huna" (hidden) and that is how I see the Bible .... somewhere back nearer the original source are the words and sounds that tell us the "sacred" or inner meaning .... the closer we get the the source (the ancient language) the more visible the sounds and words through the veil of time .... he hawai'i au, pohaikawahine

[bananabrain]

i'll get my axe.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by namesdontmatter

1. The Bible is a compilation of many books by many authors. Who decided which books were included in this compilation? Who decided which books were thrown out?

Hopefully this may be of help:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/christianity/

The whole tradition is believed to have existed at first only in oral form, with various writings slowly coming into existence over the next hundred years after the death of Jesus. There is a great amount of debate among Biblical scholars as to which came first. The Gospels are often cited as having being composed from around 50 AD. However, the first time they appear in the form as we know now does not occur until around the middle of the second century AD.

The Epistles of Saul of Tarsus (Saint Paul) are less contentious, with general agreement of their origin being in in the 50's and 60's AD. They are most likely the first textual material of the accepted Christian canon. This is important as St. Paul effectively is the origin for all Christian theology.

A relatively large number of Christian texts claiming informed origin soon became read about the Roman Empire, some of which are obvious and poor fakes, whereas others present interesting philosophical angles. It took the will of the Roman Emperor Constantine to bring together various Christian Bishops in 325 AD, at the Council of Nicaea, to decide upon an authorised Christian canon for an alerady greatly diversified religion. Despite the strong will of persons such as Arius, it was Athanasius whose viewpoint essentially became dominant in deciding what core of the New Testament was accepted. By 397 AD, with the addition of Revelations at the Council of Chalcedon, the authoritive version of the Bible that we have today was complete.

Hope that helps.

[heaven_id]

As a part of Christ body, i definitely recognize which is true word of Christ and which is fake. Don't you either as Muslim (or Jew)? Try to think objectively. I give you an example : as a tree you'll recognize the fruit you'd bear, for the fruit always shows its tree whether it's good or bad.

[bananabrain]

As a part of Christ body, i definitely recognize which is true word of Christ and which is fake. Don't you either as Muslim (or Jew)?

leaving aside how this recognition is done for a second, i can't really speak for how muslims do it. as a jew, whether something is genuine jesus or not is not actually relevant to me, as he's not part of my religion.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[heaven_id]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

leaving aside how this recognition is done for a second, i can't really speak for how muslims do it. as a jew, whether something is genuine jesus or not is not actually relevant to me, as he's not part of my religion.

b'shalom

bananabrain

you said that was thinking objectively? for you, use Torah not Jesus.