New Testament Canon - Incomplete/missing Books? Corrupted?

[Canadaigua]

Vance made a statement in another thread stating

 

"Just as "sola scriptura" is not found in the Bible and therefore due to "sola scriptura" must be rejected."

 

 

"Question: "What is sola scriptura?"

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)."

(reference "Got Questions" website)

 

 

This brings up several possibilities from an LDS point of view which I have listed below (obviously the points are not an inclusive list of every possibility)

 

1.  The Bible was complete, authoritative and taught all of the doctrine for salvation/exaltation at one point in time but was subsequently corrupted thus making it incomplete as we have it today.

 

2.  The Bible is incomplete and the early Christians did not have all of the doctrine necessary for salvation/exaltation.

 

3.  Other books were written that were not included in the current NT canon.  If so what books should be included in the current NT canon that are currently not present?

 

 

 

[Freedom]

No book of scripture is complete, this is why we have ongoing revelation. Since we do not know what books the early saints had access too, it is impossible to answer your question. Missing doctrines were restored through the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearls of Great Price. 2 Timothy 3:16 actually is proof that the Bible was not complete. Scripture is inspire and profitable, not perfect and necessary. 

[Boanerges]

Without going into too much detail so as to take away from the sacredness (and secrecy) of the temple, I believe we covenant that the fullness of the gospel is contained in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The gospel itself is very simple, and I don't see anything that is in one of those books that is not in the other (of course, there's lots of stuff besides the gospel in each of them).

[Canadaigua]

No book of scripture is complete, this is why we have ongoing revelation. Since we do not know what books the early saints had access too, it is impossible to answer your question. . .

You bring up a couple of interesting points that may be interesting to discuss.  Let me give you my beliefs then perhaps you could share yours with me.  I believe that the canon that we have today in the modern NT was considered scripture by early NT believers and that within these 27 books contains everything that is necessary for salvation/exaltation.  You said that you are not sure what books the early believers had.  First off do you believe that the early church members had all of the information needed for salvation/exaltation?  Or do you believe that they only had a part of the truth and that later truth/requirements were added by modern day revelation?

[Canadaigua]

Without going into too much detail so as to take away from the sacredness (and secrecy) of the temple, I believe we covenant that the fullness of the gospel is contained in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The gospel itself is very simple, and I don't see anything that is in one of those books that is not in the other (of course, there's lots of stuff besides the gospel in each of them).

https://www.lds.org/topics/gospel?lang=eng

". . .Additional Information

In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom. . ."

 

The LDS gospel includes everything that is required for exaltation.  So both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are incomplete in that neither book (or taken as a whole) provide what is required for salvation/exaltation.

[Boanerges]

https://www.lds.org/topics/gospel?lang=eng

". . .Additional Information

In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom. . ."

 

The LDS gospel includes everything that is required for exaltation.  So both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are incomplete in that neither book (or taken as a whole) provide what is required for salvation/exaltation.

 

All I'm saying is what I was taught in the temple. While I do believe LDS.org is the official stance of the church, I don't believe it is canonized.

 

 

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Boanerges

[HappyJackWagon]

All I'm saying is what I was taught in the temple. While I do believe LDS.org is the official stance of the church, I don't believe it is canonized.

I agree. Many of the essays address historical issues within the church with a dabbling of theology. But is history really doctrine at all? I know many who reject the essays teachings about race and the priesthood, JS polygamy, multiple 1st vision accounts etc on the basis that it is just an essay on a website. There is no authority directly tied to the essays so they could easily be discarded in the future. This is the basis of the criticism about President Newsroom. The authorities rarely take on these issues themselves but rather leave it to the PR department or a website, neither of which are ultimately authoritative.

[thesometimesaint]

There has been only one perfect person on this earth, and we ain't him. The doctrines of the Church reside in the Standard Works of the Church.

[Spammer]

 Since we do not know what books the early saints had access too, it is impossible to answer your question. 

 

Actually, we know quite a bit about what books the early Christians had access to by the end of the 1st-early 2nd century.  Have you read the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna?  They were early bishops and disciples of the apostles Peter (Clement) and John (Ignatius and Polycarp).  Their letters are the oldest Christian writings outside of the New Testament written by men known to have been bishops - Clement wrote around 90ad; Ignatius wrote around 107ad; Polycarp around 120ad.  Together, these bishops quoted or referenced all but a couple of the NT books, including all of the Gospels, all of Paul's Letters and Peter's Letters, Hebrews and two of John's letters. This is very early evidence that most of the New Testament as we have it today was already considered canonical and being used by the church, particularly by the older churches of Syria and Asia Minor.  Ignatius and Polycarp were friends and together they quoted from 22 of the 27 books.  Clement of Rome quoted Titus and James a generation earlier, so if we include those to the books Ignatius and Polycarp quoted, that accounts for all but three of the NT books universally recognized as canonical.  None of these bishops quoted any of the ancient non-canonical books thought to be from the NT period.  To me, that's telling.  We thus have clear reference to the canonicity of most of the NT very early on, more than two centuries before the ancient church was legalized and could safely meet in council to make it official.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Spammer

[thesometimesaint]

Books missing from the Protestant Bible

SEE http://www.answers.com/Q/Which_books_are_missing_from_the_Protestant_Bible

 

Books missing from the Bible.

SEE Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:7);
Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14);
Book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13);
Book of the Statutes (1 Sam. 10:25);
Book of Enoch (Jude 14);
Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41);
Book of Nathan the Prophet, and that of Gad the Seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
Book of Ahijah the Shilonite, and visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chr. 9:29);
Book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15);
Story of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chr. 13:22);
Book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34);
the Acts of Uzziah, by Isaiah, the son of Amoz (2 Chr. 26:22);
Sayings of the Seers (2 Chr. 33:19);
a missing epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9);
a missing epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3);
missing epistle to the Colossians, written from Laodicea (Col. 4:16);
a missing epistle of Jude (Jude 3).

In fact, the Book of Enoch is quoted in the Bible over 30 times

[Freedom]

You bring up a couple of interesting points that may be interesting to discuss.  Let me give you my beliefs then perhaps you could share yours with me.  I believe that the canon that we have today in the modern NT was considered scripture by early NT believers and that within these 27 books contains everything that is necessary for salvation/exaltation.  You said that you are not sure what books the early believers had.  First off do you believe that the early church members had all of the information needed for salvation/exaltation?  Or do you believe that they only had a part of the truth and that later truth/requirements were added by modern day revelation?

I do not understand how you can hold that belief since the books were not written when the early church was in existence. What evidence do you have that the early church considered the writings of Paul or any other books as scripture for example?

 

All we can discuss is the facts. Conjecture is not a very good foundation for a discussion. The facts tell us that the bible we know today was not compiled for hundreds of years after the early church was organized. We also know that there were far more than the 27 books we have today. We also know that we do not have the original documents so there is no way of verifying that what we have today is what the original author wrote. 

 

I suspect that the saints in the time of Christ had all the information they required based on their ability to understand, but we do not know what these teachings were other than the brief snapshots of the 4 gospels. Certainly they did not have any of the teachings of Paul so based on the argument that the early saints had all they needed we should disregard much of the new testament. 

[Freedom]

Actually, we know quite a bit about what books the early Christians had access to by the end of the 1st-early 2nd century.  

 

Yes, we know what was available 100 to 200 years after the fact, but we do not know what the early saints had during the time of Christ and of Peter.

[Spammer]

Yes, we know what was available 100 to 200 years after the fact, but we do not know what the early saints had during the time of Christ and of Peter.

 

The saints during the time of Christ would only have had the Hebrew scriptures from the OT period.  None of the NT books had been written yet.  After the Ascension and while the apostles were still living, they would have had the Hebrew scriptures (the NT writers quote the Greek version of those books found in the Septuagint) as well as whatever Gospels and letters were written by the apostles and put into circulation by them before their deaths.  These are the same NT books referenced by Clement and Ignatius/Polycarp, who didn't write 100-200 years after the fact, but wrote 30-60 years after the fact (if we use the mid-60s death of Peter as the benchmark).  And don't forget, Clement knew Peter and Ignatius/Polycarp knew John and were appointed as bishops by those apostles.  All three bishops were alive, were church members, and were appointed as bishops while the apostles were still alive and creating/administering churches.  It's hard to see how a case can be made that we don't know what books the early Christians had available to them during the time of Christ and Peter.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Spammer

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The saints during the time of Christ would only have had the Hebrew scriptures from the OT period.  None of the NT books had been written yet.  After the Ascension and while the apostles were still living, they would have had the Hebrew scriptures (the NT writers quote the Greek version of those books found in the Septuagint) as well as whatever Gospels and letters were written by the apostles and put into circulation by them before their deaths.  These are the same NT books referenced by Clement and Ignatius/Polycarp, who didn't write 100-200 years after the fact, but wrote 30-60 years after the fact (if we use the mid-60s death of Peter as the benchmark).  And don't forget, Clement knew Peter and Ignatius/Polycarp knew John.  All three bishops were alive and church members while the apostles were still alive and creating churches.

Hi Spammer. Can you point me to a source which discusses which new testament books were referenced by which church father? This is not a CFR, I'm just interested in learning more.

Thanks!

[Freedom]

The saints during the time of Christ would only have had the Hebrew scriptures from the OT period.  None of the NT books had been written yet.  After the Ascension and while the apostles were still living, they would have had the Hebrew scriptures (the NT writers quote the Greek version of those books found in the Septuagint) as well as whatever Gospels and letters were written by the apostles and put into circulation by them before their deaths.  These are the same NT books referenced by Clement and Ignatius/Polycarp, who didn't write 100-200 years after the fact, but wrote 30-60 years after the fact (if we use the mid-60s death of Peter as the benchmark).  And don't forget, Clement knew Peter and Ignatius/Polycarp knew John and were appointed as bishops by those apostles.  All three bishops were alive, were church members, and were appointed as bishops while the apostles were still alive and creating/administering churches.

Well that is my point. The early saints were those who lived when the church was organized. They had no written texts. If the god breathed word of God was so important, why was it not produced for such a long time after and why is there no evidence that these books were ever considered scripture. 

[Spammer]

Hi Spammer. Can you point me to a source which discusses which new testament books were referenced by which church father? This is not a CFR, I'm just interested in learning more.

Thanks!

 

Hey there.  The source is the writings themselves.  They're all available online to read for free or you can purchase them all in a single volume on Amazon.  Search the Apostolic Fathers on Amazon or save money and go here to read them for free:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.html

 

The letters in question are: 

 

Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians

 

Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Ephesians

Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Magnesians

Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Trallians

Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Romans

Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Philadelphians

Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Smyrneans

Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to Polycarp of Smyrna

 

Polycarp of Smyrna's Letter to the Philippians

 

Happy reading!

[carbon dioxide]

2.  The Bible is incomplete and the early Christians did not have all of the doctrine necessary for salvation/exaltation.

 

Since I believe that Peter, James, and John and a whole of others will receive salvation/exaltation, they must have had all that was NECESSARY given to them for that.   However there is a lot of truth that exists that may not be necessary for salvation/exaltation it is still truth and we should seek as much as possible.  Jesus said we are to live by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God.  Every word being past, present, and future. An unwise person would declare that God has nothing useful to tell us today that he did not tell people in the past.

 

We should not assume that everything that was given to them was written down in a few writings that we call the New Testament.  If Steve says the NT contains everything we need and Jack says it only contains 1% of what we need for salvation/exaltation, both positions are equally possible since both have zero evidence to support their positions.  The safest position is the NT contains some of the things that are necessary.  If the NT writers did not claim it contained everything, why should any person living 2000 years after they wrote those writings claim it?

Edited April 15, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Spammer]

Well that is my point. The early saints were those who lived when the church was organized. They had no written texts. If the god breathed word of God was so important, why was it not produced for such a long time after and why is there no evidence that these books were ever considered scripture. 

 

Presumably Luke wrote his gospel and the Book of Acts, and Paul wrote his letters, while they were still alive?  Do you think those men wrote their books and letters and hid them away?  The moment those books were copied and distributed to the churches the early saints would have had written texts for use during church.

 

Also, the early bishops I mentioned, who were alive when the apostles were alive, clearly considered those books to be scripture.  Someone in the church handed those books down to them, possibly the apostles themselves.  Why do you think there's no evidence those books were ever considered scripture at the time they were written by the apostles themselves?

Edited April 15, 2015 by Spammer

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Hey there.  The source is the writings themselves.  They're all available online to read for free or you can purchase them all in a single volume on Amazon.  Search the Apostolic Fathers on Amazon or save money and go here to read them for free:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.html

 

The letters in question are: 

 

Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians

 

Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Ephesians

Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Magnesians

Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Trallians

Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Romans

Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Philadelphians

Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Smyrneans

Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to Polycarp of Smyrna

 

Polycarp of Smyrna's Letter to the Philippians

 

Happy reading!

Thanks!

[Freedom]

Presumably Luke wrote his gospel and the Book of Acts, and Paul wrote his letters, while they were still alive?  Do you think those men wrote their books and letters and hid them away?  The moment those books were copied and distributed to the churches the early saints would have had written texts for use during church.

 

Also, the early bishops I mentioned, who were alive when the apostles were alive, clearly considered those books to be scripture.  Someone in the church handed those books down to them, possibly the apostles themselves.  Why do you think there's no evidence those books were ever considered scripture at the time they were written by the apostles themselves?

We have dozens of books written today by apostles and they are not considered scripture. Saying they were considered scripture because they written by apostles is a circular argument. The authors never claimed that the letters they were writing scriptures. 

[carbon dioxide]

Presumably Luke wrote his gospel and the Book of Acts, and Paul wrote his letters, while they were still alive?  Do you think those men wrote their books and letters and hid them away?  The moment those books were copied and distributed to the churches the early saints would have had written texts for use during church.

That is an assumption that the writers went to the nearest Kinkos (Is that still even around today) and made copies.  Anyway we know some letters of Paul are not in the NT so they got lost somewhere.  Not everything gets copied and gets mass distribution. 

[Duncan]

The saints during the time of Christ would only have had the Hebrew scriptures from the OT period.  None of the NT books had been written yet.  After the Ascension and while the apostles were still living, they would have had the Hebrew scriptures (the NT writers quote the Greek version of those books found in the Septuagint) as well as whatever Gospels and letters were written by the apostles and put into circulation by them before their deaths.  These are the same NT books referenced by Clement and Ignatius/Polycarp, who didn't write 100-200 years after the fact, but wrote 30-60 years after the fact (if we use the mid-60s death of Peter as the benchmark).  And don't forget, Clement knew Peter and Ignatius/Polycarp knew John and were appointed as bishops by those apostles.  All three bishops were alive, were church members, and were appointed as bishops while the apostles were still alive and creating/administering churches.  It's hard to see how a case can be made that we don't know what books the early Christians had available to them during the time of Christ and Peter.

 

 

Read Luke 1:1-4. Who knows who and how many gospels or accounts at least have been lost to time. There is no record of anyone ever seeing the originals of the Synoptic Gospels and John, it's anybody guess as to what else is or was out there

[Spammer]

We have dozens of books written today by apostles and they are not considered scripture. Saying they were considered scripture because they written by apostles is a circular argument. The authors never claimed that the letters they were writing scriptures.

No, they only claimed to be writing about historical events and providing guidance and correction to churches and individuals. Their designation as scripture came later. The point is that the early Christians thought the books important enough to preserve. Are you suggesting they aren't scripture after all? 

 

[Edited to add]  Regardind an earlier point you made about no written texts when the early church was organized, you're mistaken.  The early church had written copies of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament).  The NT authors quote from it in their writings when they quote the OT.  The Septuagint was the Bible of the church when it was organized (though it wasn't called the Bible).  The NT books were canonized and added later.  

Edited April 15, 2015 by Spammer

[Spammer]

That is an assumption that the writers went to the nearest Kinkos (Is that still even around today) and made copies. Anyway we know some letters of Paul are not in the NT so they got lost somewhere. Not everything gets copied and gets mass distribution.

Yep. We only have what was hand-copied and preserved. So what?

[Spammer]

Dup

Edited April 15, 2015 by Spammer