Excellent book, btw.
Posted on 09/02/2014 10:11:49 AM PDT by CorporateStepsister
Plus they talked to each other face to face and passed down the stories from generation to generation. Holy Tradition
Excellent book, btw.
What it makes me think is that you don’t know the subject, which is known as ‘textual criticism’ or ‘lower criticism’.
FF Bruce, Norman Geisler and Josh McDowell have all written books on the subject of the reliability of the New Testament documents.
There are existing fragments that date back as early as the first century. We also have the very extensive writings of the ante-Nicene church fathers. 10 volumes of letters written before 325 AD. The church fathers quote so extensively from the biblical text that we could reassemble the original simply by using their letters.
Dear Watchman,
Regarding the paper. I am NOT the author of it. It is something I found and have kept in my quiver of useful papers.
Thus don’t be concerned that I, GreyFriar, have dismissed modern scholarship. Personally, I do reject those who say that the books and letters in the New Testament were written no earlier than the 300s, 400s or later. my reasoning, if later folks wanted to give positive light to Christianity, would they have put in sections of Jesus telling Peter “Satan get behind me” or Peter’s denying knowing Jesus 3 times? Both cases it shows the weakness of Peter, whom Jesus knew would be the best person to lead his ministry after His resurrection.
Who do you think the OT is talking about if not the actual Christ? Abraham believed before any of the OT was written.
“So then I would expect a smoothly homogeneous Christian faith. That is not what is observable. Those calling themselves “Christian” have sacred texts that are indeed quite different, with different language translations, with different gospel texts either included or omitted. There are fierce doctrinal arguments between various sects as to what is “Cannon”, and what beliefs are essential to the faith.”
Let’s see you elaborate on this claim of yours. And not to quibble but the discussion here is the biblical ‘canon’. The only known biblical ‘cannon’ were four howitzers named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by Confederate General Pendleton.
Greek was the common tongue of the New Testament era thanks to the conquests of Alexander the Great. The Hebrew bible in use in Christ’s time was the Septuagint, the Greek translation made in the 2nd century BC. The New Testament letters were written in Greek and versions such as the Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate were translated from the Greek original.
Early controversies in Church had nothing to do with language issues except for the homoousian/homoiousian debate. And even this had it’s roots in gnosticism. The actual doctrinal issues, as opposed to the ones you imagine, are well documented in JND Kelly’s classic work Early Christian Doctrines.
The New Testament began as letters circulating around the early church. The early church knew the authors. They didn’t always identify the author for posterity, and while you think that makes them of dubious origin the early church didn’t since they knew the provenance of the letters.
Marcion proposed a canon in 140 AD and he likely deserves credit for the finalizing of the canon as we know it, even though he himself was booted out of the church for teaching heresy.
I’ve heard your line of thought so often that it’s just not worth the effort to respond beyond this. If we acquiesce to your mindset we find nothing is historically reliable. I, instead, recognize that there is a valid textual and historical reference for my acceptance of the validity of the Christian tradition that my faith is built upon spiritual understanding and intellectual. The former is enough - the latter helps me to understand that my faith is as rational as it is spiritual.
Who do you think the OT is talking about if not the actual Christ? Abraham believed before any of the OT was written.
And rare.
Abraham’s household, Isaac and his son Jacob etc, all before the OT. The faithful Israelites without the Torah. The faithful of Israel prior to Christ. Not rare at all.
I assume you are being sarcastic.
How many men were told to sacrifice their own son on the altar?
It hit him at a very personal and experiential level. And they were not told of the saving grace through the death and resurrection of Christ. Abraham’s faith is what mattered, but not from a Christian perspective. There was no such thing as a Christian until Jesus was raised from the dead.
Not unless you were being purposely obtuse.
There was no such thing as a Christian until Jesus was raised from the dead.
So? Abraham believed in the promise of the Messiah. You know, the One promised in the Garden of Eden to Adam and Eve.
Abraham’s faith is what mattered, but not from a Christian perspective.
Right, because the God he worshiped was some other God? Are not Christians sons of Abraham? Heirs according to the PROMISE? In case you want to continue this line, read Galatians 3. We are just like Abraham, we live by faith, we haven't seen Christ either. Yet it too is very personal and experiential.
You and I have different perspectives on Christianity, apparently. That’s ok. It’s an iron sharpening iron sort of thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
