Originally posted by jaywillWell, it's a bit simplistic, isn't it? In the early Christian church, there were many texts claiming divine authority, many pseudo-gospels and pseudo-Pauline letters and apocryphal acts and so on. Many had the support of churches. The problem continues even now. There are still books which Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Protestants disagree on. Even between Protestants there is disagreement. Certain Protestant movements would want to remove a number of Pauline letters as spurious. Clearly canonicity is not so easily discovered.
The subject of canonization is too extensive to handle in one or two short Internet posts.
But men of God did not bestow authority on biblical books. They DISCOVERED that authority.
The canon is not an [b]authoritative list of books. It is a list of authoritative books.
Inspiration was not bestowed on biblical books. Inspiration was ...[text shortened]... Not all spiritual writings, and there were probably thousands, were discovered to be canonical.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau K=====================================
Well, it's a bit simplistic, isn't it? In the early Christian church, there were many texts claiming divine authority, many pseudo-gospels and pseudo-Pauline letters and apocryphal acts and so on. Many had the support of churches. The problem continues even now. There are still books which Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Protestants disagree on. Even bet ...[text shortened]... emove a number of Pauline letters as spurious. Clearly canonicity is not so easily discovered.
Well, it's a bit simplistic, isn't it? In the early Christian church, there were many texts claiming divine authority, many pseudo-gospels and pseudo-Pauline letters and apocryphal acts and so on. Many had the support of churches. The problem continues even now. There are still books which Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Protestants disagree on. Even between Protestants there is disagreement. Certain Protestant movements would want to remove a number of Pauline letters as spurious. Clearly canonicity is not so easily discovered.
=====================================
That the history of the formation of the Old Testament and New Testament canon involves a lengthier discussion then my simple comment? Yes.
But, eventually I believe that after a long historical analysis you arrive at the same basic conclusion.
I would benefit from a review of this extensive subject of which I have not studied in a long time.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillBut, eventually I believe that after a long historical analysis you arrive at the same basic conclusion.
[b]=====================================
Well, it's a bit simplistic, isn't it? In the early Christian church, there were many texts claiming divine authority, many pseudo-gospels and pseudo-Pauline letters and apocryphal acts and so on. Many had the support of churches. The problem continues even now. There are still books which Catholics, Orthodox C ...[text shortened]... enefit from a review of this extensive subject of which I have not studied in a long time.[/b]
Really? Why then do so many Christians have different biblical canons?
Originally posted by Conrau K==============================
[b]But, eventually I believe that after a long historical analysis you arrive at the same basic conclusion.
Really? Why then do so many Christians have different biblical canons?[/b]
Really? Why then do so many Christians have different biblical canons?
================================
Recall Paul's words - "For there must even be parties among you, that those who are approved may become manifest among you." ( 1 Cor. 11:19)
That all religious people do not agree on this will not prevent the approved disciples from becoming manifested.
If your church is full of idol worship just maybe your inclusion of some religious writings in your canon are not profitable.
You may have a trojan horse in there somewhere.
Originally posted by jaywillOk...
[b]==============================
Really? Why then do so many Christians have different biblical canons?
================================
Recall Paul's words - "For there must even be parties among you, that those who are approved may become manifest among you." ( 1 Cor. 11:19)
That all religious people do not agree o ...[text shortened]... in your canon are not profitable.
You may have a trojan horse in there somewhere.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KYou seem to have a fondness for the Roman Catholic Church.
Ok...
Don't they believe they were established on the rock, being
St. Peter? If this is so then it seems they would be quick to
accept the Gospel and Apocalypse of St Peter as part of their
Bible. Since they haven't then there must be something
they don't like. Would you agree?
Originally posted by RJHindsYou seem to have a fondness for the Roman Catholic Church.
You seem to have a fondness for the Roman Catholic Church.
Don't they believe they were established on the rock, being
St. Peter? If this is so then it seems they would be quick to
accept the Gospel and Apocalypse of St Peter as part of their
Bible. Since they haven't then there must be something
they don't like. Would you agree?
I used to be a Roman Catholic.
Don't they believe they were established on the rock, being
St. Peter?
They certainly believe that Christ's Church was entruted to St Peter, that he was the rock and that his successors, the popes, share in his authority.
If this is so then it seems they would be quick to
accept the Gospel and Apocalypse of St Peter as part of their
Bible.
No. As I said, it is not about orthodoxy (although, the fact this particular text has Docetic influences and is obviously a later work is significant.) The primary question is whether this text was used universally by the Church.
Since they haven't then there must be something
they don't like.
Not at all. The Didache for example is clearly an eary text, has some link to the apostles, and is demonstrably orthodox, vindicating a lot of Catholic beliefs. If I recall correctly Eucharist and Confession are both validated here. Nonetheless this does not warrant inclusion in the Scriptures. For Catholics, the fact that it never survived, never used in churches nor promoted as inspired text, is enough to exclude it from the canon. It is obvioulsy important for Christian scholars but does not have the necessary credentials for canonicity.
Originally posted by jaywillOk. I just want to point out that there are difficulties in discovering the exact biblical canon. It is not as easy as you initially implied.
I am not ready for an in depth discussion on the process of canonicity.
Maybe in a few weeks.
Maybe I'll add that to the list of things I need to study.
Got an easier question ?
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KThe Wikipedia article on the Gospel of Peter says the following:
[b]You seem to have a fondness for the Roman Catholic Church.
I used to be a Roman Catholic.
Don't they believe they were established on the rock, being
St. Peter?
They certainly believe that Christ's Church was entruted to St Peter, that he was the rock and that his successors, the popes, share in his authority.
If this is so important for Christian scholars but does not have the necessary credentials for canonicity.
The Gospel of Peter, although not used in today's teachings in the churches, was known and used as Scripture in many parts of the Christian Churches during the second century.
So are you saying that if one church did not use it that was enough to
throw it out?
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau K================================
Ok. I just want to point out that there are difficulties in discovering the exact biblical canon. It is not as easy as you initially implied.
Ok. I just want to point out that there are difficulties in discovering the exact biblical canon. It is not as easy as you initially implied.
====================================
I didn't mean that it was easy. Neither is it as easy as some fellow saying he doesn't like a certain book so it should not be included.
Ie. Luther disliked James. Doesn't mean his enfluence kept it out. The consensus feeling of other men of God said it was canonical.
Some didn't like Song of Songs. But others said " No. This is of God. "'
Same with Hebrews.
I don't think it was as much a matter of personal preference as you want to imply.
Originally posted by jaywillBut it is a matter of people deciding which are 'of god' and which are not, yes?
[b]================================
Ok. I just want to point out that there are difficulties in discovering the exact biblical canon. It is not as easy as you initially implied.
====================================
I didn't mean that it was easy. Neither is it as easy as some fellow saying he doesn't like a certain book so it should not be i ...[text shortened]...
I don't think it was as much a matter of personal preference as you want to imply.[/b]