Superiority of the 'Protestant Canon'?

The Coptic Church is just a 4th century Constantine Nicea offshoot. It isn't based on the beliefs of some older Christian community. It might as well be considered another European "Christian" religion.The Syrian churches ended up all accepting the Gospel of John (and that was despite the general rejection of the writings attributed to the "John" that is attached to so many books in the Bible ).Even the Ethiopian churches are offshoots of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic Church ilk.The Ethiopian churches did gain independence early enough from the "Christian" powers (above) that they were able to get some pre Roman Catholic features maintained in what is otherwise another Roman Catholic offshoot. Pork isn't eaten and the cannon is larger.The Book of Enoch is extant in Ethiopia and this great exception to the rest of the "Christian" world , when combined with the near total ignorance of the Book of Enoch issue, is a fact that prevents me from seeing organized religion as anything but a mass brain washing machine. (it isn't like the Book of Enoch is just any book ) Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Perhaps you have fallen for Roman Catholic bogus history. There was no Romanism until the papacy was officially established in the 7th century and there were plenty of canons developing before that.

What about the Coptic Church?So is this the mythic pre-Roman Catholic , "original Baptist church" ?The Coptic Church eats pork, while the 1st and 2nd century Egyptian Christians were vegetarian.Where is this pre Luther Southern Baptist church Faith? Your head.EDIT --- I should point out that the Orthodox & Catholics & Southern Baptists ( and Protestants of all stripes ) are all the same post 80/100 AD thing. Late and post Apostolic. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

The early Church was just the early Church, not Romanist. There were something like five or six main bishoprics and thousands of separate churches that were more or less independent. It was when the Bishop of Rome got called Universal Bishop in 606 AD that the papacy was born and the Roman Church became a recognizable entity that started issuing decrees and acting like King of the World, and took on the garb of the Roman pagan religions and a lot of their pagan practices like the rosary the celibate priesthood and the confessional and the sign of the cross and worship of saints and all that which is specifically Roman Catholic but not Christian. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I assume that is your favorite explanation for the New Testament cannon being "inspired" by God and not "Roman Catholic or Orthodox "(capital C Catholic means Roman Catholic not simply catholic/universal just like capital O Orthodox means Eastern Orthodox which was the early European "pre Catholic Church " brand of what is still essentially the same thing.)(I call it all Catholic but Faith considers the slightest variations of the European pre Catholic Christians as BOTH "Apostolic" and somehow different from the later Roman Catholic Church. )These (pre Catholic Church ) Greek "orthodox" Christians are all Faith has, right Faith?Any chance you can show a Semitic group or 2 from pre AD to make your case?NOW THE CANNONI think of the fact that Aristotle established the concept of Cannon and the specific idea of neither adding to or subtracting from. It is noteworthy that Irenaeus was the first to mention four Gospels and he frequently said "No more, no less " while Aristotle said "neither add nor take away " was a proverbial expression.Justin Martyr might have referenced the Gospel of John in a few places. I Apology 61.4 draws on John 3:3-5 and Dialogue 88.7 on John 1:19-20This makes 150 AD the most early reference to Gospel John but not by name.This makes 180 the earliest known cannon if you want to read into Irenaeus.Look at archaeological evidence for the codex and 4 Gospels.In 1933 F G Kenyon edited the recent P45 discovery which had the four Gospels and Acts. It was dated 200 to 250 ADSome say that the 175 to 225 P75 might have had all four GospelsT C Skeat also has shown that P64 + P67 + P4 are from the same single quire codex which may date from the late 2nd century. All four Gospels there but not before 150 ADWe need to understand that the Gospel Harmonies with John all are after 150 AD too. No evidence at all from archaeology or scholarship for anything before 150 at the earliest.The pre 150 Gospel Harmonies are very telling evidence that destroys the Fundi claims of an early fourfold Gospel Cannon.The pre 150 Gospel harmonies lack the Gospel of John but contain the 3 Synoptic Gospels.The early ones are from Jewish Christian communities too.The harmonies aren't the worst problem (perhaps ) for fundi Christians.Look at the c 110 Bishop of Smyrna, Polycarp. He quoted scripture in his writings.And the Bishop of Smyrna was a proficient quoter of the New Testament books but showed no knowledge of the Gospel of John.The same 2ND century apologists that offered the early mentions of John and the (possible ) fourfold Gospel Cannon also said (by later reports of their writings ) that Polycarp was a disciple of John.So much for the Holy Cannon with the Gospel of John!And shouldn't we ask why Syriac Aramaic Cannons reflected a deep suspicion of books attributed to John. Like Revelation.Nevermind the Hebrew Ebionites and Nazarene churches.

As usual I have a terrible time figuring out anything you write. I don't know what you are trying to prove or why and when I posted the info about the RCC it was because you seemed to be making the usual mistake of identifying the early Church as Roman Catholic which it was not. Otherwise I have no idea what you are on about concerning the Biblical canon and it doesn't interest me.

Well it could be because LNA embraces some of the Zoroastrianistic teachings, which according to what I have read are stranger and more unbelievable than the stuff you study.

You can't back up your claims, so you say you aren't interested. You have no proof that the early Nicean church of the 4th century matches up with the earliest Christianity. You know that the evidence shows that it was rather different from the picture you like to draw.You are forced to do a yo-yo like detour around the Roman Catholic Church, where you state that the Roman Empire was part of the Holy Spirit inspired cannon for a while (during the formative 4th century cannon period and the well-known "Holy" deliberations ) , then went bad (in the "7th century" or so you have been farting out lately ) for a spell, then magically the Holy Spirit appeared around 1500 AD in Europe.You are high on claims BUT then you run when presented with semi-specific historic evidence (as I have presented from time to time ).People are ever so slightly understanding the historic role that the 4th century Roman Empire played in shaping your preferred brand of "Christianity", and be advised that I am talking about the general population of the United States. You can do the hit&run tactic (even on the much more informed EVC site ) but many are catching on to what happened at the important stages of the last 2 millennia.

What on earth are you talking about? I should know better than ever to address anything to you. Absolutely nothing you are saying has anything to do with anything I've ever said or thought. I mentioned one incident in the 7th century, NOTHING ELSE. Good grief.

So did the Holy Spirit inspired era of the Roman Empire end before 606 AD?Did it end after the Cannon closing in 397 AD?Is this an unfair question?

I've never heard of a "Holy Spirit inspi9red era of the Roman Empire" and can't even imagine what it means.I also never heard of the canon (not cannon) closing in 397.

So the canon isn't closed?I thought you said that the Holy Spirit guided the book selection process and the ultimate canon.How about if you give your own history about how the Bible came to be ( I mean the Greek and Hebrew books and I am more interested in the Greek New Testament collection and canon ) and I am not at all talking about the English translation which is a late issue.I am wondering how I can even begin to understand what you just said (and I mean it when I say it ). I expected you to say that the Roman Empire didn't control the councils or Bishops (not that I can do anything but disagree strongly, based on the historic record of things ), but now I am totally lost. I also expected that you would say that there was a canon already completed in the 2nd century ( and then say that the second century archaeological evidence has lists that are similar to the 397 completion ).In the past, you have said that the Roman Empire developed into the Catholic Church. You said it was a church extension of an Empire. You agree with what I just recalled? Care to explain it anyway?

I don't really have a clear idea of the early development of the canon, just that the Greek writings were collected by hundreds or thousands of church leaders for use in their own congregations, and eventually collections got compiled and listed at councils, but that there wasn't a completed collection accepted by all for a very long time if ever, and I wouldn't even guess when that was. The collections would all have been of the Greek writings; the Hebrew text wasn't available until just before the Reformation IIRC; if earlier I don't know when; all they had was the Septuagint before that, and it was a completed collection in itself I think.All I wanted to say about the Roman Church was that it is a mistake to think it is synonymous with the early Church, though that's what the RCC themselves claim. I understand there were some early Roman Catholic-like practices that later became incorporated into it, but they weren't practiced by all the churches. Beyond saying that much it would probably be best if I didn't say any more and you go back to whatever you were engaged in before I jumped in.I hope saying this much isn't going to cause more confusion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is the early Christian years (pre Constantine) and then the early Christian Roman Empire years ( which includes the Council of Nicea and the canon formation process during the fourth century) .The problem with what I have seen (over the years of observing your posts) is that you do indeed consider the early Christian Roman Empire years as part of the Holy inspired part of Christian history.Your (theological) posts clearly have presented that view.You say that 606 AD was different enough from 325 (the Council of Nicea year of the Roman Empire ) that you can see a Roman Catholic Church in the former while the latter is just small "c" catholic and inspired by the Holy Spirit.Perhaps you could tell us which Church Councils were inspired by the Holy Spirit and which were simply Roman Catholic Church councils.It makes alot of the difference when we are going to throw (Catholic)labels around on the one hand and "Spirit inspired" descriptions on the other.

It is dated to just before or after Irenaeus.Does this list count?What about Marcion?His denomination had its own churches all over the Roman Empire.Anybody want to comment on the 2nd century possibilities?Could there have been an unknown committee of canon?In the 100s AD?