Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-15-2018 4:05 AM
193 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 191 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 841,962 Year: 16,785/29,783 Month: 773/1,956 Week: 276/331 Day: 4/50 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
16Next
Author Topic:   the new new testament???
ringo
Member
Posts: 15569
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 211 of 226 (706423)
09-11-2013 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Dawn Bertot
09-10-2013 4:58 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:

... please point to what Ive missed...


Go to the top of the page and find your name in the list of Participants in this thread. Click "Fetch" for a list of your own posts and look at the bottom of each post for replies.

Dawn Bertot writes:

... Im sure I will be echoing what Ive already said.


I'm sure you will. The problem is that echoed nonsense is still nonsense.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Absense of evidence is not lack of evidence.


Nor is it an indication that there "used to be" evidence that somehow vanished over the course of two thousand years. If you don't have evidence you're story can't be reliable.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Lets do a history and reason lesson with you, like I did with Jar. Imagine that you are now in that time period. Some of the non-canonical books do exist, but like the book of Mormon today we know for several reasons it is not reliable.


You can stop the lesson right there, teacher, and answer the question that I've already asked: How do we know that? What are the reasons?

Just take a specific non-canonical book and give us the specific reasons why it is not reliable.

Dawn Bertot writes:

History and reason lets us know why they accepted certain ones and rejected others


Exactly. The reasons why they accepted certain books and rejected others were religious and political. They were not based on objective scholarship. That's why there are many different canons.

Dawn Bertot writes:

I doubt any of this is hard to understand for you, but I suppose you are obligated to defend the position you have chosen


I haven't chosen any position. I'm just asking you why I should choose yours.

You're trying to sell me a car and you're insisting that Fords are more reliable than Chevys. I'm asking why but all you're telling me is that some guys many years ago decided that they are, so they must be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-10-2013 4:58 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2013 8:27 PM ringo has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 226 (706425)
09-11-2013 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Dawn Bertot
09-09-2013 4:54 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Im not sure what you think debating is or is not, but when you consistently ignore the fact that from the earliest times of Christianity we can see clearly what the majority of books that were considered as authentic by both Christian an heritic, you demonstrate you have no concern for objectivity

Really? From the earliest times? So what books were in the Bible at the Chruch of Ephesus back during Paul's visits, Bertot?

Your answer does not even address the question and is in fact historically inaccurate. We know that the process of canonization included disagreement and debate. It is foolish and ignorant to imply otherwise.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-09-2013 4:54 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2013 8:46 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 222 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 213 of 226 (706449)
09-11-2013 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by ringo
09-11-2013 12:02 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:
Lets do a history and reason lesson with you, like I did with Jar. Imagine that you are now in that time period. Some of the non-canonical books do exist, but like the book of Mormon today we know for several reasons it is not reliable.

Ringo writes

You can stop the lesson right there, teacher, and answer the question that I've already asked: How do we know that? What are the reasons?
Just take a specific non-canonical book and give us the specific reasons why it is not reliable.

Well I expected you to be unobjective, but really not that unobjective. practical applications and illustrations from what history, we do know, demonstrate that the non-canonical books were of relative no attention and usage in the early church. That is, whether they even did exist early on and I pretty sure they didnt

I know you will keep ignoring the evidence I present but I will keep presenting it anyway.

Dont you find it interesting Ringo, that there is very little if no usage of the suprious and non-canonical books. On the otherhand as witnessed by the excerpt below that they seem to recognize early on what was authentic and why

If you wish, we, you, I, can get into very deep specifics of the following, but for now I think this will suffice

from the Bible.org

The Process of Recognition of the New Testament Canon
(1) In the Apostolic Era. Since the books were inspired when they were written, they were already canonical and possessed authority as being a part of God’s Word. The responsibility of the church was simply to attest to the fact of their inspiration. This process began immediately with the writers recognizing that their own writings were the Word of God (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 4:15). But they also recognized that other writings of the New Testament were Scripture and on a par with the Old Testament. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 and referred to both passages as Scripture. Peter likewise attested to Paul’s writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Furthermore, the New Testament epistles were being read and circulated among the churches as authoritative revelation from God (cf. Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27).

(2) In the Post-Apostolic Era.

Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 95) mentioned at least eight New Testament books in a letter; Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 115) also acknowledged about seven books; Polycarp, a disciple of John, (c. A.D. 108), acknowledged fifteen letters. That is not to say these men did not recognize more letters as canonical, but these are ones they mentioned in their correspondence. Later Irenaeus wrote (c. A.D. 185), acknowledging twenty-one books. Hippolytus (A.D. 170-235) recognized twenty-two books. The problematic books at this time were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John.

Even more important was the witness of the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170), which was a compilation of books recognized as canonical at that early date by the church. The Muratorian Canon included all the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and one epistle of John.

In the fourth century there was also prominent recognition of a New Testament canon. When Athanasius wrote in A.D. 367 he cited the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as being the only true books. In A.D. 363 the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) recognized the twenty-seven books, and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) affirmed that only those canonical books were to be read in the churches.70
Ryrie has an important note in connection with Martin Luther’s opinion of the epistle of James.

Sometimes it is claimed that Martin Luther rejected the Book of James as being canonical. This is not so. Here’s what he wrote in his preface to the New Testament in which he ascribes to the several books of the New Testament different degrees of doctrinal value. “St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter’s Epistle—these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind.” Thus Luther was comparing (in his opinion) doctrinal value, not canonical validity.71
The Tests For Canonicity
The question naturally arises, what process and by what means did the early church recognize which books were canonical and which books were not? The following summarizes the tests used to discern which books were canonical.

(1) Authentication on the Divine side—Inspiration. Did the book give internal evidence of inspiration, of being God breathed? Was it of proper spiritual character? Did it edify the church? Was it doctrinally accurate? “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were rejected as a result of not meeting this test. The book should bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit.”72
(2) Authentication on the human side. Three issues were important here: (a) Was the author an apostle or did he have the endorsement of an apostle? Mark wrote the gospel of Mark, but he did so under Peter’s endorsement. Luke, as a close associate of the Apostle Paul, wrote under the endorsement of his authority. (b) Universal acceptance was another key factor. On the whole, was the book accepted by the church at large? The recognition given a particular book by the church was important. By this standard, a number of books were rejected. There were some books that enjoyed an acceptance by a few, but were later dropped for a lack of universal acceptance. Then there were a few books that some questioned because of doubts about the author, not the content, but were later accepted because the majority accepted them.73
The Reliability of the New Testament
Just how reliable are the New Testament documents?

There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. This means that no other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century.74

This contrast is startling and tremendously significant.

Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day. Of the 142 books of the Roman history of Livy (59 B.C-A.D 17), only 35 survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books III-VI, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of Histories of Tacitus (c. A.D. 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh.… The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 B.C.) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 480-425 B.C.). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use are over 1,300 years later than the originals.75
The fact of the many documents plus the fact that many of the New Testament documents are very early (hundreds of parchment copies from the 4th and 5th centuries with some seventy-five papyri fragments dating from A.D. 135 to the 8th century) assures us we have a very accurate and reliable text in the New Testament.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60 Merrill F. Unger, Introductory Guide to the Old Testament, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1951, p. 47.

61 Enns, p. 170.

62 For an excellent treatment of these evidences, see Josh McDowell’s book, Evidence Demands a Verdict, Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith, Revised Edition, Here’s Life Publishers, Inc. San Bernardino, CA, 1979.

63 Ryrie, electronic media. For other articles on canonicity, see our web page at www.bible.org under “Theology,” and then under “Bibliology--The Doctrine of the Written Word.”

64 Frederick W. Danker, Multipurpose Tools For Bible Study, Concorida Publishing House, St. Louis, 1960, p. 57.

65 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine, Moody Press, Chicago, 1972, pp. 45-46.

66 Enns, p. 170-171.

67 Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media.

68 Enns, p. 171.

69 Enns. P. 171.

70 Enns, p. 172.

71 Ryrie, electronic media.

72 Enns, p. 172-173.

73 For more reading on canonicity, see the BSF web page under the Theology/Bibliology section atwww.bible.org.

74 Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith, Revised Edition, Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., San Bernardino, 1979, p. 39.

75 F. F. Bruce, Are the New Testament Documents Reliable?, InterVarsity, Chicago, 1943, p. 16-17.

The key to remember is what flowed through the doorway of time. Here is an example. If the above writers, early on, accepted long before writing thier letters, quoting the books they did and exclusing others, assuming they existed,

There must have been very good reasons for doing so. it doent take a genius to figure out that being there made all the difference

Dont you find it just a bit coinincidental that 2000 years later we are ascribing to and using the same sacred texts, that the earliest followeres of Christ used?

Nor is it an indication that there "used to be" evidence that somehow vanished over the course of two thousand years. If you don't have evidence you're story can't be reliable.

Of course it does. You do realize how long 2000 years is right? Do you think the only independent article ever written about the bounty was the oxford journal?

Do you think the only evidence ever in existence concerning Pilate was an inscription on a stone somewhere.

From wiki

Pilate in Jewish literature[edit source | editbeta]

In chronicling the history of the Roman administrators in Judaea, ancient Jewish writers Philo and Josephus describe some of the other events and incidents that took place during Pilate's tenure. Both report that Pilate repeatedly caused near-insurrections among the Jews because of his insensitivity to Jewish customs.

Josephus notes that while Pilate's predecessors had respected Jewish customs by removing all images and effigies on their standards when entering Jerusalem, Pilate allowed his soldiers to bring them into the city at night. When the citizens of Jerusalem discovered these the following day, they appealed to Pilate to remove the ensigns of Caesar from the city. After five days of deliberation, Pilate had his soldiers surround the demonstrators, threatening them with death, which they were willing to accept rather than submit to desecration of Mosaic law. Pilate finally removed the images.[32][33]

Philo describes a later, similar incident in which Pilate was chastened by Emperor Tiberius after antagonizing the Jews by setting up gold-coated shields in Herod's Palace in Jerusalem. The shields were ostensibly to honor Tiberius, and this time did not contain engraved images. Philo writes that the shields were set up "not so much to honour Tiberius as to annoy the multitude." The Jews protested the installation of the shields at first to Pilate, and then, when he declined to remove them, by writing to Tiberius. Philo reports that upon reading the letters, Tiberius "wrote to Pilate with a host of reproaches and rebukes for his audacious violation of precedent and bade him at once take down the shields and have them transferred from the capital to Caesarea."[34]

Josephus recounts another incident in which Pilate spent money from the Temple to build an aqueduct. When Jews again protested his actions, Pilate had soldiers hidden in the crowd of Jews while addressing them. After giving the signal, Pilate's soldiers randomly attacked, beat, and killed scores of Jews to silence their petitions.[35]

In describing his personality, Philo writes that Pilate had "vindictiveness and furious temper", and was "naturally inflexible, a blend of self-will and relentlessness". He writes that Pilate feared a delegation that the Jews might send to Tiberius protesting the gold-coated shields, because "if they actually sent an embassy they would also expose the rest of his conduct as governor by stating in full the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty".[34]

Pilate's term as prefect of Judaea ended after an incident recounted by Josephus. A large group of Samaritans had been persuaded by an unnamed man to go to Mount Gerizim in order to see sacred artifacts allegedly buried by Moses. But at a village named Tirathana, before the crowd could ascend the mountain, Pilate sent in "a detachment of cavalry and heavy-armed infantry, who in an encounter with the firstcomers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential."[36] The Samaritans then complained to Vitellius, Roman governor of Syria, who sent Pilate to Rome to explain his actions regarding this incident to Tiberius. However, by the time Pilate got to Rome, Tiberius had died.[37]

Where are the jewish and Roman court records detailing these events? All we ahve are the accounts of the same historians that werent there, the same ones that detail events with Biblical figures

Many things and items of evidence get lost, but what remains can can also be considered evidence.

Evidence comes from different sources and in many different types

Exactly. The reasons why they accepted certain books and rejected others were religious and political. They were not based on objective scholarship. That's why there are many different canons.

Try and be alittle better and think deeper. There is an even better test than scholarship itself. Association with the events and first hand experience and knowledge of what goes where and why

There were only different canons latter on. Early on and even without canons, they already knew what was authentic for the most part. There was no real test. The body of knowledge that led to latter canons already existed

You're trying to sell me a car and you're insisting that Fords are more reliable than Chevys. I'm asking why but all you're telling me is that some guys many years ago decided that they are, so they must be.

Hardly, Im asking you to look at very objective historical progression. Even if you dont agree with the books content, one could hardly miss the reasons as to why most books were included and some were not.

From wiki

Historicity[edit source | editbeta]Main article: Historical reliability of the Gospels

The historicity of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis, attempting to differentiate authentic, reliable information from what they judge to be inventions, exaggerations, and alterations. However, all four of the Gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability according to some authors.[21]

Some biblical scholars consider the synoptic gospels to contain much reliable historical information about the historical Jesus as a Galilean teacher [58][59] and of the religious movement he founded, but not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

The baptism of Jesus, his preaching, and the crucifixion of Jesus are deemed to be historically authentic.[citation needed] Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as certain details about the crucifixion and the resurrection.[60][61][62][63][64][65] The fourth gospel, John, includes a number of historically reliable details, but it differs greatly from the first three gospels, and historians largely discount it. The canonical gospels, overall, are considered to have more historically authentic content than the various non-canonical gospels.[citation needed]

Some Christian scholars maintain that the gospels are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus.[66] On the other extreme, some scholars have concluded that the gospels provide no historical information about Jesus' life since the first gospel account (Mark) may have appeared as much as forty years after Jesus' death.

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by ringo, posted 09-11-2013 12:02 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by ringo, posted 09-12-2013 12:11 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 222 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 214 of 226 (706450)
09-11-2013 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by NoNukes
09-11-2013 12:30 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Really? From the earliest times? So what books were in the Bible at the Chruch of Ephesus back during Paul's visits, Bertot?

If I didnt think you were trying to be serious, Id actually find that question humerous.

Well besides some of Pauls letters, James and a few others Id say the Old Testament. But since there were inspired Apostles still in existence, books werent yet necessary

Your answer does not even address the question and is in fact historically inaccurate. We know that the process of canonization included disagreement and debate. It is foolish and ignorant to imply otherwise.

its only foolish and ignorant to not know what led to canonization and why. Its called history. Without the defining of history, the letters written, acceptance of books by the early church and numerous other factors, there would not be canons


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2013 12:30 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 09-11-2013 8:54 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 220 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2013 2:05 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 215 of 226 (706451)
09-11-2013 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Dawn Bertot
09-11-2013 8:46 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Yet none of Paul's letters regardless of who actually wrote them, Mark, Luke, John or Matthew made it into some Christian Canon and First Adam & Eve and the Book of Enoch did make it into some Christian Canon.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2013 8:46 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2013 10:11 PM jar has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 222 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 216 of 226 (706453)
09-11-2013 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by jar
09-11-2013 8:54 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Yet none of Paul's letters regardless of who actually wrote them, Mark, Luke, John or Matthew made it into some Christian Canon and First Adam & Eve and the Book of Enoch did make it into some Christian Canon.

As i stated before the councils did not decide which books should be included, this was done by time and history itself. History i might add that can demonstrated

From wiki: Concerning the council of Nicaea

A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all.[69] The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[70]

The reason there was no discussion of the canon was that it was already a demonstratable fact. No discussion necessary

Development of the canon is not tantamount to already knowing what should be in the canon and why. those are two different things that developed in different ways

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 09-11-2013 8:54 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by jar, posted 09-12-2013 8:35 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2013 9:56 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 217 of 226 (706465)
09-12-2013 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Dawn Bertot
09-11-2013 10:11 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
There is no Uniform Canon.

There are many different Canons.

The smallest has only 5 Books in it.

The largest has over 80 Books in it.

Each Chapter of Club Christian believes their Canon is authoritative based on time and history.

The "Muratorian fragment" is from the 7th century and so certainly did not get written by anyone close to the events.

Since ALL of the New Testament books are considered as extra-canonical by some Chapters of Club Christian that wiki statement is certainly false.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2013 10:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 226 (706469)
09-12-2013 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Dawn Bertot
09-11-2013 10:11 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
As i stated before the councils did not decide which books should be included, this was done by time and history itself.

Then that's not really a "canon". A canon is literally a list of books that is decided upon by people. Someone has to sit down and write it up. Some group of books that time and history have decided are the right ones isn't actually a "canon".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2013 10:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15569
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 219 of 226 (706486)
09-12-2013 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Dawn Bertot
09-11-2013 8:27 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:

Well I expected you to be unobjective, but really not that unobjective.


Please tell us what you think "objective" means. Specifically, explain how asking you for reasons indicates a lack of objectivity.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Dont you find it interesting Ringo, that there is very little if no usage of the suprious and non-canonical books.


That's obviously false. If the non-canonical books were so insignificant the early church wouldn't have had conferences to decide which books to include in their canons. AND, a point which you continue to ignore, they didn't all choose the same books.

Dawn Bertot writes:

There were only different canons latter on. Early on and even without canons, they already knew what was authentic for the most part. There was no real test. The body of knowledge that led to latter canons already existed


Yes, the body of knowledge for ALL of the canons already existed. Your task in this thread is to distinguish one canon from another.

By the way, did you even read what you quoted frm Wikipedia?

quote:
Some biblical scholars consider the synoptic gospels to contain much reliable historical information about the historical Jesus as a Galilean teacher and of the religious movement he founded, but not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable.

quote:
The fourth gospel, John, includes a number of historically reliable details, but it differs greatly from the first three gospels, and historians largely discount it.

Note that the claim, "The canonical gospels, overall, are considered to have more historically authentic content than the various non-canonical gospels," has no citation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2013 8:27 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-18-2013 4:55 PM ringo has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 226 (706493)
09-12-2013 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Dawn Bertot
09-11-2013 8:46 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Well besides some of Pauls letters, James and a few others Id say the Old Testament. But since there were inspired Apostles still in existence, books werent yet necessary

The obvious point is that at the time of the earliest points, many of the books in your Bible had not even been written. So the earliest fathers could not have made the decisions about those books.

Without the defining of history, the letters written, acceptance of books by the early church and numerous other factors, there would not be canons

What you are describing are the factors that were considered when the canon were established. And what you chose to ignore was that upon considering those factors, different people came up with different lists.

And it is not just a matter of semantics. You are pretending that the process of adoption never occurred. Yet your statement actually distinguishes the canons from the history. In short your own statements are completely inconsistent.

As usual.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-11-2013 8:46 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 222 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 221 of 226 (706857)
09-18-2013 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by ringo
09-12-2013 12:11 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Sorry I havent got back to this sooner, Ill respond this rather comical stament you made to try and get the ball rolling again

That's obviously false. If the non-canonical books were so insignificant the early church wouldn't have had conferences to decide which books to include in their canons. AND, a point which you continue to ignore, they didn't all choose the same books.

That is really a funny comment Ringo. When the coucils did convine Ringo, they werent trying to decide between what we now consider non-canical books and canoical books. There were only a few disputed books back then and they did not include non-canonical books

generally it was a letter of some well known Bishop like Polycarp, Clement or letters like 2Peter, 1&2-3 John and revelation, not spurious gospels. Most of them didnt even exist

I did however enjoy you comment it was rather comical as opposed to canonical. that was really funny I got a belly laugh

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by ringo, posted 09-12-2013 12:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by ringo, posted 09-19-2013 12:05 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15569
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 222 of 226 (706908)
09-19-2013 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Dawn Bertot
09-18-2013 4:55 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:

There were only a few disputed books back then and they did not include non-canonical books


Again, that's obviously false. There is not one single canon; there are many. Therefore, there is not one single set of non-canonical books; there are many.

Obviously, they did choose between canonical and non-canonical and they did make different choices based on different agendas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-18-2013 4:55 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2013 5:03 PM ringo has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 222 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 223 of 226 (707008)
09-20-2013 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by ringo
09-19-2013 12:05 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Again, that's obviously false. There is not one single canon; there are many. Therefore, there is not one single set of non-canonical books; there are many.
Obviously, they did choose between canonical and non-canonical and they did make different choices based on different agendas.

Really, then you have your work cut out for yourself. Show us which of the following councils and early church groups seriously considered any of the folowing works valid as authentic or inspired

Now note I did not say find a few here and there, but the vast majority that considered them as authentic, not just useful

it should send a red flag up to you Ringo that the influence of the Gospels is present in Gnostic works, but Gnostic claims are not present in the canonical works

Pop quiz Ringo, What does that tell you

From wiki

Sayings gospels[edit source | editbeta]One or two texts take the form of brief logia—sayings and parables of Jesus—which are not embedded in a connected narrative:

Gospel of Thomas
A minority[citation needed] of scholars regard the Gospel of Thomas as part of the tradition from which the canonical gospels eventually emerged; in any case both of these documents are important as showing us what the theoretical Q document might have looked like.

Passion gospels[edit source | editbeta]A number of gospels are concerned specifically with the "Passion" (arrest, execution and resurrection) of Jesus:

Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts of Pilate")
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem on the Life and the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (which claims to be according to Bartholomew)
Although three texts take Bartholomew's name, it may be that one of the Questions of Bartholomew or the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is in fact the unknown Gospel of Bartholomew.

Harmonized gospels[edit source | editbeta]A number of texts aim to provide a single harmonization of the canonical gospels, that eliminates discordances among them by presenting a unified text derived from them to some degree. The most widely read of these was the Diatessaron.

Gnostic texts[edit source | editbeta]Main article: Gnostic gospels
In the modern era, many Gnostic texts have been uncovered, especially from the Nag Hammadi library. Some texts take the form of an expounding of the esoteric cosmology and ethics held by the Gnostics. Often this was in the form of dialogue in which Jesus expounds esoteric knowledge while his disciples raise questions concerning it. There is also a text, known as the Epistula Apostolorum, which is a polemic against Gnostic esoterica, but written in a similar style as the Gnostic texts.

Dialogues with Jesus[edit source | editbeta]Apocryphon of James (also called the "Secret Book of James")
Book of Thomas the Contender
Dialogue of the Saviour
Gospel of Judas (also called the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot")
Gospel of Mary (also called the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene")
Gospel of Philip
Greek Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
General texts concerning Jesus[edit source | editbeta]Coptic Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Apocalypse of Paul)
Gospel of Truth
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Apocalypse of Peter)
Pistis Sophia
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Sethian texts concerning Jesus[edit source | editbeta]The Sethians were a gnostic group who originally worshipped the biblical Seth as a messianic figure, later treating Jesus as a re-incarnation of Seth. They produced numerous texts expounding their esoteric cosmology, usually in the form of visions:

Apocryphon of John (also called the "Secret Gospel of John")
Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians)
Trimorphic Protennoia
Ritual diagrams[edit source | editbeta]Some of the Gnostic texts appear to consist of diagrams and instructions for use in religious rituals:

Ophite Diagrams
Books of Jeu
Acts[edit source | editbeta]Main article: Acts of the Apostles (genre)
Several texts concern themselves with the subsequent lives of the apostles, usually with highly supernatural events. Almost half of these are said[who?] to have been written by Leucius Charinus (known as the Leucian Acts), a companion of John the apostle. The Acts of Thomas and the Acts of Peter and the Twelve are often considered Gnostic texts. While most of the texts are believed to have been written in the 2nd century, at least two, the Acts of Barnabas and the Acts of Peter and Paul are believed to have been written as late as the 5th century.

Acts of Andrew
Acts of Barnabas
Acts of John
Acts of the Martyrs
Acts of Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Acts of Peter
Acts of Peter and Andrew
Acts of Peter and Paul
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Acts of Philip
Acts of Pilate
Acts of Thomas
Acts of Timothy
Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca
Epistles[edit source | editbeta]Main article: Epistles
There are also non-canonical epistles (or "letters") between individuals or to Christians in general. Some of them were regarded very highly by the early church:

Epistle of Barnabas
Epistles of Clement
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
Epistle to Diognetus
Epistle to the Laodiceans (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Epistle to Seneca the Younger (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Third Epistle to the Corinthians - accepted in the past by some in the Armenian Orthodox church.
Apocalypses[edit source | editbeta]Main article: Apocalyptic literature
Several works frame themselves as visions, often discussing the future, afterlife, or both:

Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul)
Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter)
Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
Apocalypse of Thomas (also called the Revelation of Thomas)
Apocalypse of Stephen (also called the Revelation of Stephen)
First Apocalypse of James (also called the First Revelation of James)
Second Apocalypse of James (also called the Second Revelation of James)
The Shepherd of Hermas
Fate of Mary[edit source | editbeta]Several texts (over 50) consist of descriptions of the events surrounding the varied fate of Mary (the mother of Jesus):

The Home Going of Mary
The Falling asleep of the Mother of God
The Descent of Mary
Miscellany[edit source | editbeta]These texts, due to their content or form, do not fit into the other categories:

Apostolic Constitutions (church regulations supposedly asserted by the apostles)
Book of Nepos
Canons of the Apostles
Cave of Treasures (also called The Treasure)
Clementine literature
Didache (possibly the first written catechism)
Liturgy of St James
Penitence of Origen
Prayer of Paul
Sentences of Sextus
Physiologus
Book of the Bee
Fragments[edit source | editbeta]In addition to the known Apocryphal works, there are also small fragments of texts, parts of unknown (or uncertain) works. Some of the more significant fragments are:

The Unknown Berlin Gospel (also called the Gospel of the Saviour)
The Naassene Fragment
The Fayyum Fragment
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Oxyrhynchus Gospels
The Egerton Gospel
The Gospel of Jesus' Wife
Lost works[edit source | editbeta]Several texts are mentioned in many ancient sources and would probably be considered part of the apocrypha, but no known text has survived:

Gospel of Eve (a quotation from this gospel is given by Epiphanius (Haer. xxvi. 2, 3). It is possible that this is the Gospel of Perfection he alludes to in xxvi. 2. The quotation shows that this gospel was the expression of complete pantheism)
Gospel of the Four Heavenly Realms
Gospel of Matthias (probably different from the Gospel of Matthew)
Gospel of Perfection (used by the followers of Basilides and other Gnostics. See Epiphanius, Haer. xxvi. 2)
Gospel of the Seventy
Gospel of Thaddaeus (this may be a synonym for the Gospel of Judas, confusing Judas Iscariot for Judas Thaddaeus)
Gospel of the Twelve
Memoria Apostolorum
Close candidates for canonization[edit source | editbeta]While many of the books listed here were considered heretical (especially those belonging to the gnostic tradition—as this sect was considered heretical by Proto-orthodox Christianity of the early centuries), others were not considered particularly heretical in content, but in fact were well accepted as significant spiritual works.

While some of the following works appear in complete Bibles from the fourth century, such as 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas, showing their general popularity, they were not included when the canon was formally decided at the end of that century.

1 and 2 Clement
Shepherd of Hermas
Didache
Epistle of Barnabas
Apocalypse of Peter
The Protevangelium of James
Third Epistle to the Corinthians
Evaluation[edit source | editbeta]Among historians of early Christianity the books are considered invaluable, especially those that almost made it into the final canon, such as Shepherd of Hermas. Bart Ehrman, for example, said:

The victors in the struggles to establish Christian Orthodoxy not only won their theological battles, they also rewrote the history of the conflict; later readers then naturally assumed that the victorious views had been embraced by the vast majority of Christians from the very beginning ... The practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history ... the debate lasted three hundred years ... even within "orthodox" circles there was considerable debate concerning which books to include.[7]

This debate primarily concerned whether certain works should be read in the church service or only privately. These works were widely used but not necessarily considered Catholic or 'universal.' Such works include the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, and to a lesser extent the Apocalypse of Peter. Considering the generally accepted dates of authorship for all of the canonical New Testament works (ca. 100 AD), as well as the various witnesses to canonicity extant among the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc., the four gospels and letters of Paul were universally held as scriptural, and 200 years were needed to finalize the canon; from the beginning of the 2nd Century to the mid-4th Century, no book in the final canon was ever declared spurious or heretical, except for the Revelation of John which the Council of Laodicea in 363-364 AD rejected (although it accepted all of the other 26 books in the New Testament). This was possibly due to fears of the influence of Montanism which used the book extensively to support their theology. See Revelation of John for more details. Athanasius wrote his Easter letter in 367 AD which defined a canon of 27 books, identical to the current canon, but also listed two works that were "not in the canon but to be read:" The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache. Nevertheless, the early church leaders in the 3rd and 4th Centuries generally distinguished between canonical works and those that were not canonical but 'useful,' or 'good for teaching,' though never relegating any of the final 27 books to the latter category. One aim with establishing the canon was to capture only those works which were held to have been written by the Apostles, or their close associates, and as the Muratorian fragment canon (ca. 150-175 AD) states concerning the Shepherd of Hermas:

...But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.
See also[edit source | editbeta]Nag Hammadi library
List of gospels
The Q document, a hypothetical document underlying much of the text of the canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke
Textual criticism
Historicity of Jesus
History of Christianity
Authorship of the Pauline epistles
Books of the Bible; Biblical canon
List of early Christian writers

again show us the councils that did not know by association which works were authentic and which ones were were not

While there were struggles, the struggles had to against something known to be true. And why did they know it was true, you ask yourself. Surprise, surprise Golmer, they WERE THERE

Your task should be relative simle though correct?

Dawn Bertot

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ringo, posted 09-19-2013 12:05 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by ringo, posted 09-21-2013 11:53 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15569
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 224 of 226 (707052)
09-21-2013 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Dawn Bertot
09-20-2013 5:03 PM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Dawn Bertot writes:

Show us which of the following councils and early church groups seriously considered any of the folowing works valid as authentic or inspired


Have you read the OP? This thread is your opportunity to show why your chosen canon should remain sacrosanct. The challenge is for you to demonstrate that other documents don't meet your own standards for inclusion in the canon.

If you can show in specific detail why certain books were not included in your canon, please do so. But you also have to show why the new documents discovered in the past 150 years should not be included.

And why do you keep quoting Wikipedia articles that don't support your position?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-20-2013 5:03 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-24-2013 5:03 PM ringo has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 222 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 225 of 226 (707213)
09-24-2013 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by ringo
09-21-2013 11:53 AM


Re: whats your "evidence" for that?
Have you read the OP? This thread is your opportunity to show why your chosen canon should remain sacrosanct. The challenge is for you to demonstrate that other documents don't meet your own standards for inclusion in the canon.

While Im sure I love you, your above comment is nothing short of silly. I have no standards for the books to meet. Neither does anybody today living, have a say as to what should be included. I have already demonstrated that with stining accuracy, illustration, example and accurate logic

If you can show in specific detail why certain books were not included in your canon, please do so. But you also have to show why the new documents discovered in the past 150 years should not be included.

Specifically they were not included because the people that had access to the actual detailed facts, IOWs they were actually there.

secondly, as I have already stated to many times to mention. There is no influence of the noncanonical books or the Gnostic gospels in the traditional Gospel tradition. its the other way around

Thirdly, its a dead give away, as in the gospel of Thomas that the writer is trying to fill in what he considers Gaps in the original gospels. Such as the early life of Jesus

This is a clear indication that he used the known Gospels

Foruthly, most of the noncanonical Gospels are of a much later date, having only been quoted or used by 2nd or third century writers.

This indicates they were not really known or they were rejected by the earliest followers of Christianity

Fithly, Most of the non-canonical writings are not contained in any sort of canon, either individually or collectively

The Nag Hammadi is but it is of a much later date, or it shows clearly the influence of early traditions, that had been expounded or perverted

The Apostle Johns letters are an indication of this early Heresy

And why do you keep quoting Wikipedia articles that don't support your position?

History and time support my position, not wiki. I simply quoted those books to see if you could find them in any known Canon

I guess you cant

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by ringo, posted 09-21-2013 11:53 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by ringo, posted 09-25-2013 12:09 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018