|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 3, 2009 14:38:35 GMT -8
I have read about this issue in many places but this site ran of militant deists gives a good summary of the electoral process amongst humans in the 4th Century to Decide what was, and what was not, God's word. I wonder if the Holy Spirit got an extra vote? www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 3, 2009 15:51:15 GMT -8
You found that article a "good summary" of how the Bible was formed? You mean those few scant paragraphs at the top of the page?
All of the books of the New Testament have good reason to be included in the canon- the councils of the 300's and 400's were just sorting through the evidence and making some final decisions on the subject. All of the books in the NT had been in common use for the previous several hundred years. Whether you agree with these formal actions of councils or not is irrelevant. Their reasons for accepting the various books of the New Testaments were solid.
Two of the main criteria they used (rather than mere opinion) were:
a) Was the book linked to an apostle of Jesus Christ? (either penned by an apostle or an associate of one)
b) Did the book have a history of usage in the Church from early times?
We can adequately defend the valid authority of each of the New Testament books independent of the Councils and solidly reject the same books they rejected on the same criteria.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 3, 2009 16:20:27 GMT -8
What of the Apocrypha, We Protestant basically ignore it, Yet our Brothers and Sisters in Christ the Catholics and Orthodox embrace it. There must be something out of sort.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 3, 2009 21:06:29 GMT -8
Though always held as helpful material, the Apocrypha was only added in later by the church and only then with lesser status than the rest of the Bible.
Jews proper never held it as canonical, however.
And of course, it's more akin to the Old Testament than the New, being written before the life of Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Sept 6, 2009 14:50:13 GMT -8
no they didnt. but books like enoch and jasher were studied by the rabbis. they were regarded highly and by some as scripture.
but dont get me started on canonization, inerrency, and sola scripture stuff. i am WAAAYY of the orthodox view on that, especially for the majority of Jews who regard judaism as a "religion of the book." religion has to be decided by more than just a book.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 6, 2009 18:53:49 GMT -8
I think this would be a good thread to talk about canonization in general*. Go ahead with your thoughts, yeshuafreak, any time.
* I modified the title slightly
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 6, 2009 20:20:08 GMT -8
God help us.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Sept 7, 2009 15:07:42 GMT -8
lolol :-P
i wil copy an excerpt from my notebook after i get into a routine at school- i have to get off now. but i like the subject and currently i am very interested in it.
so will talk about canonization later... do you want me to articulate my views on inerrency and sola scripture?
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 7, 2009 17:44:39 GMT -8
Robin and John: I copied your remarks on the Book of Mormon here (deleted from this thread): aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=cults&thread=2390so we can keep this thread on the subject of the origins of the New Testament. As to your original point about the Book of Mormon, popularity was a very low criterion in the selection process for the Christian canon of Scripture, as it should have been. Had popularity run the day, we probably would have had the Shepherd of Hermas included in the New Testament, for instance. |
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Sept 8, 2009 2:31:33 GMT -8
once again i am limited on time, so i will have to pos on canonization later... but is the subject of inerrency and such okay to talk about here too?
i have to leave for school- (i walk) tata for now!
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 8, 2009 15:28:45 GMT -8
This is the thread for the selection of the canon/ how we got the New Testament. The thread on Inerrency is here: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=inspiration&action=display&thread=601Take your time, but we always appreciate your thoughts. Sorry I haven't gotten around to checking out your new articles. This is a very busy time of year for me (school year just started for me too, from the teaching end) |
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Sept 9, 2009 11:06:55 GMT -8
its fine- busy for me too.you probably have a lot of paperwork.
shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 9, 2009 11:33:15 GMT -8
I have often imagined myself in my declining years owning a cranberry bogg and Christmas tree farm and Pumpkin Patch so I would only have to work 3 months a year!
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 9, 2009 12:42:30 GMT -8
So, basically, Mose from the Office?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 11, 2010 11:17:01 GMT -8
rockelle wrote:
Rockelle, you might find the post above helpful, but just to clarify a few things:
Who was responsible? Informally: the early churches who received, copied, and spread the books they received from the first generation of believers. Formally: the Councils of the church from roughly 300-500 AD.
Remember that in the first millenium of the Church, all Christians were catholics (catholic simply meaning universal). The early church looked a lot different than the Roman Catholic church of the 1200s or the 1500s or today.
The "left out books" you are referring to are known as the Apocrypha. They are Jewish books written between the Old and New Testaments. I made some comments on them above. If you have any remaining questions, don't hesitate to ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 3, 2011 19:36:25 GMT -8
I jumped into a discussion on facebook on this topic and invited people here (I can't stand the facebook format for detailed debates!!!), so I'm resurrecting this thread!
|
|
