Posted on 11/29/2012 2:55:12 PM PST by DaveMSmith
LOL! How do you write in bright orange?
Though I know your intent is probably to get me to admit ALL church councils were "infallible" in their selections of books to include in the canon since they were instrumental in identifying and canonizing the books that make up the New Testament, I can only accept such proof as limited, at best. There is no dispute that certain books were accepted as inspired immediately by believers due to their Apostolic origin and personal delivery. From the link On the Formation of the New Testament Canon we learn:
Extant writings of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, Ignatius, Papias, Polycarp) indicate a body of authoritative literature and sayings that was called upon, although this authority was not officially recognized as a "canon." In this stage, we find what Metzger calls "the warranty arising from the fact that these words are preserved in such and such books which deserve the readers' confidence." [Metzg.NT, 73] We also find a reliance on oral tradition, which relates in part, perhaps, to a "cultural presupposition" that writing was an unworthy means of transmission.
As the Apostles pass away, authority is then vested in "apostolical men" like Papias and Polycarp who can still bring to the fore direct memory of the teachings of the Apostles. [Black.Marc, 11]
The Epistle of 1 Clement [ibid, 41], for example, dated by some to c. 95 AD (we prefer a pre-70 date), exhorts readers to "remember the words of the Lord Jesus" and contains quotations from Jesus which are found in our present texts of Matthew, Mark and Luke. 1 Clement also contains allusions to Romans, Galatians, Philippians, and Ephesians, as well as possibly Hebrews, Acts, James and 1 Peter. The former "may presuppose the existence of a collection of Pauline Epistles." [ibid., 42] Paul's works, and therefore Paul himself, are clearly recognized as authoritative.
Per Metzger, NT works cited or alluded to - in actuality and in probability - by Apostolic Fathers are:
All Four Gospels;
Acts
All Pauline epistles except three (see below)
Hebrews
1 John
1 Peter
James
Revelation
Not cited or alluded to are Titus, Philemon, 2 Corinthians, 2 Peter, Jude, 2nd and 3rd John. However, no conclusions may be drawn from this for two reasons:
First, except for 2 Corinthians, all of these books are so short that it is possible that there was never any need to refer to them - especially in light of the following facts:
Second, as Metzger indicates, the total extant works of the Apostolic Fathers fits "a volume about the same size as the New Testament". [ibid., 72] It would therefore have been very fortunate if we had indeed had witness to all 27 NT books.
At this stage, none of the NT books was recognized as Scripture (with the exception of a verse from Luke being recognized as Scripture in 1 Timothy - which of course requires defending the early date of that book, which we will not engage here, but will look at elsewhere); but they did function as Scripture in the means whereby they were used, for they were used authoritatively. McDonald: "It is clear that the sayings of Jesus had a scripture-like status from the very beginning of the church." [MacD.FormCB, 143]
From what I have seen so far - and I will note if I find out otherwise - NONE of the non-canonical works of the NT are recognized or quoted as authoritative in this stage. We DO have several quotations that were evidently preserved by means of oral tradition - but NONE that appear uniquely in the non-canonical works. This would point to the non-canonical works being of a later date than the canonical works (range of 50-100 AD), and would certainly move to refute any claim that they were written by authoritative eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.
All too soon, it seemed, the "honeymoon" was over. The syncretistic beast of Gnosticism was starting to breathe down the Church's neck, ready to absorb Jesus into its fold, and because of this, a need arose to ensure the "stamp of apostolic guarantee" on all materials - and at the same time, oral tradition lost its importance. To keep Gnosticism and other heresies from destroying Christianity, or else morphing it out of all recognizance, it was seen to be necessary to set things down "in stone", once and for all.
In a perverse sort of way, heretics were partially responsible for the formation of the NT canon. They motivated the church to identify - and eventually canonize - the true works of the Apostles. These heretical movements, therefore, had a "collective" influence on the setting of the canon.[Gamb.NTC, 65]
So, though you impugn the authority of the Apostle John in his inspired writing of the book of Revelation, it appears that it had ALWAYS been considered part of the body of books that made up the New Testament canon. As to the "official" church lists and canons, the same link tells us:
...official decisions by the Church are not involved. Synodal judgments and episcopal pastoral letters concerning the contents of the Bible become usual only in the fourth century, and at first are of only local importance. They encourage uniformity between the various areas of the church, but are unable to bring about a completely uniform canon until the Middle Ages.
Let it not be said, then, that force was the prime mover behind acceptance of the NT canon.
Metzger divides his history between the Eastern and Western sectors of the Roman Empire and we shall follow suit for convenience.
Eastern Stages
Metzger notes these three significant developments in the Eastern half of the late Roman Empire in the late 2nd century AD:
The four Gospels became a sort of "mini-canon," a closed collection which would admit no other Gospels. "...the Gospels became part of the (final) canon as a collection and not individually." [Patz.MNT, 64; see also Gran.FormNT, 148]
The Pauline letters, Acts and Revelation are accepted as divine Scripture. First, we have seen that Marcion evidently had some collection of Pauline letters, but the "final" set of 13 attributed to Paul, we may safely say, was assembled as a corpus by the beginning of the third century. [Patz.MNT, 88]
Other letters are on the fringe of acceptance: Hebrews, James, Jude and letters attributed to Peter and John.
The East saw the invention of the very first harmony of all four Gospels: Tatian's Diatessaron. Composed around 156 AD, this work demonstrates that the four Gospels we have today were considered authoritative and no other Gospels were included, other than an occasional phrase or clause.
In Tatian, incidentally, we see a perfect example of someone who "crossed out" things he did not like. He rejected the authenticity of 1 Timothy, and was the founder of the Encratites, a group that rejected marriage, meat and wine - the latter, which is recommended for stomach disorder in 1 Timothy. [Metzg.NT, 116]
Somewhat later, Clement of Alexandria (180-211) is found quoting all of our current NT books as authoritative except Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. Except for James, these books are so short that Clement may not have had cause to cite them. He also refers to the Gospels as "Scripture." [VonCamp.FCB, 294] At this point, aside from the Gospels, the canon is still "open."[Metzg.NT, 135]
Origen (185-250) is the first writer to use the name "New Testament" and to indicate a classification of its works. He divided the NT into two collections: Gospels and works of the Apostles. These he proclaimed as "divine Scriptures," written by the evangelists under the same Spirit of the same God as in the OT. He also makes note of heretical Gospels: those of Thomas, Matthias, the 12 Apostles, Basilides, and the Gospel of the Egyptians. However, Origen does not issue any directive that these alternate Gospels be burned or thrown away. Indeed, he does quote them, though with the qualifying phrase, "If anyone receives it..."
Origen accepts the four Gospels, the 13 letters of Paul, and Revelation. [Gamb.NTC, 50] He also comments on several works that were on the "fringe" of acceptance as authoritative. Of 2 Timothy he writes: "...some have dared to reject this Epistle, but they were not able." Of Peter's Epistles, he notes of one that is acknowledged and "possibly a second, but this is disputed." To John he attributes one Gospel and one Epistle, "and, as it may be, a second and third - but not all consider these to be genuine."
Of James, he implies some doubt as to its authenticity but does accept the genuineness of Jude. He also mentions two books outside of our current NT: the Shepherd of Hermas, which he calls "divinely inspired," and the Preaching of Peter, which he rejects because: 1) it was not composed by Peter; 2) it was not inspired by the Spirit of God, although he recognizes in it "elements of inspired value." [ibid., 136-141] He also felt free to use works like the Acts of Paul and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
It is important to note here that:
Origen does NOT tell people to burn or get rid of the heretical Gospels. Quite the contrary, he expresses admirable tolerance for them, even as he rejects their authenticity. That he does not viciously attack them indicates that the presence of false Gospels was an accepted fact, but one easily dealt with, not requiring any kind of "political war" to get rid of them or the views they express.
This would also suggest that the false Gospels were so poorly grounded in reality that they had to struggle to survive (as indeed may be seen from those that survive to this day).
The authenticity of 2 Peter, James and 2 and 3 John are apparently being discussed throughout the church - based on their genuineness. The issue, again, is apostolic authority: do these books truly come from the hands of an Apostle? The church did NOT rush to judgment on these issues; although if they had, I wonder if critics would criticize them for being to hasty in their decisions.
Western Stages
Justin Martyr, c. 150 AD, refers to "memoirs of the Apostles" and quotes them as authoritative. Allusions in his work are identifiable from Mark, Matthew, Luke, and possibly John and Revelation. Metzger notes that these works were "read interchangeably with the Old Testament prophets," indicating their importance and authority in the eyes of Justin. [ibid., 145; see also MacD.FormCB, 163-4]
Hippolytus (170-235), mirroring developments in the East, accepts all four Gospels as Scripture; he also acknowledges as authentic 13 Pauline Epistles (not including Hebrews), Acts, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John and Revelation. He does quote Hebrews, though not as Scripture. Other works, he quotes less authoritatively, include the Shepherd of Hermas. His work may show knowledge of 2 Peter and James. [ibid., 150]
Irenaeus (130-202) quotes all of our present NT works except Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude - whether due to length or lack of recognition cannot be determined. He sees the Gospels quartet as fixed: the famous "four winds" quote, which many Skeptics misuse, thinking it means that 4 Gospels were chosen, and not 3 or 5, because there were 4 winds. More likely, though not discernibly, Ireaneus was "simply confirming a concept that (was) well established in the churches" [Patz.MNT, 65] by means of a natural analogy. The rest of the forming canon, however, is still open. Ireneaus does identify two criteria for acceptance: 1) apostolic authority, and 2) agreement with the traditions maintained by the church.
Tertullian (converted to Christianity c. 195) made citations to every current NT book except 2 Peter, James, and 2 and 3 John - again, possibly due to their length, or perhaps due to ignorance of their existence. [Metzg.NT, 159-60] He regarded the books he quoted as being equal in stature to the OT Law and Prophets. The Book of Hebrews he accepted on the basis of authorship by Barnabas, an associate of Paul (again, note that apostolic authority plays a role in acceptance). On the other hand, he used Jude to argue for the status of Enoch as Scripture. (Important point here: It is assumed that apostolic authorship of Jude was adequate authoritative basis to decide questions of OT canon - showing that a high degree of authority has been accorded to Jude!), and early in his career accepted the Shepherd of Hermas as inspired, although he later rejected it when he converted to Montanism.
Cyprian of Carthage (converted 246 AD) cites as authoritative all four Gospels, all of the Pauline Epistles (except Philemon), 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation. He does not cite Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude - but again, whether due to shortness or rejection, we cannot say. [ibid., 160-1]
The Muratorian Canon, by an unknown author, is usually dated to the end of the second century. Attempts to date it later have been unconvincing, according to Metzger, although McDonald provides an opposite view dating it to much later, that contains some persuasive elements. A very persuasive case for a fourth-century date is presented by Hahneman [Hahn.MurFrag], from whom we gain much of our material below on the subject.
Discovered by the Italian historian, archivist and librarian Ludovico Antonio Muratori, and published in 1740, this fragment indicates books that are accepted and rejected by the church. The only books clearly missing from the text are James and Hebrews, but Hahneman suggests that we have simply lost these references from the fragment, which has a number of defects. 2 and 3 John may be missing, but that is a matter of debate. The text indicates two epistles of John as accepted, and these may be 2 and 3 John, with 1 John subsumed categorically under John's Gospel. (Hahnemen notes that the close relationship of 2 and 3 John make it improbable that the fragment only knows of 1 and 2 John.)
Only one, presently non-canonical book, was noted as accepted; namely, The Wisdom of Solomon. Two apocalypses are mentioned, of John (Revelation) and Peter, though it is noted of the latter that "some of us are not willing that (it) should be read in church." There are also indications in the Canon as to which books are to be rejected as heretical.
The list of Eusebius refers to all 27 of our current books. 22 of the 27 were placed in the "universally accepted" category: The four Gospels, Acts, Paul's 13 epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John, and finally, Revelation "if it really seems proper." The 5 remaining books were placed in a category that were "disputed, but familiar to the people of the church." A final list set out books that were to be rejected or were heretical; curiously, Eusebius also puts Revelation in this category, saying that it should be excluded if it seems proper.
Recently, David Dungan has argued persuasively in Constantine's Bible for a significant effect on the canon by the Emperor Constantine -- not in the way that The Da Vinci Code has it, with Constantine picking the books himself, but in a more passive way. Constantine did order heretical materials destroyed, and also ordered copies made of the orthodox books which became our canon. Dungan is surely correct to suppose that this would have had some influence on a defining of the canon, but Constantine, though he issued the orders, relied on Eusebius to figure out what the guidelines were, and Eusebius was eminently qualified to act as an informer in this regard.
The "final" listing comes from 367 AD, at which time Athanasius of Alexandria set forth a NT canon with a listing of books identical to those we have today [Gran.FormNT, 175]. Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) confirmed this enumeration. To be sure, this was not the end of the controversy (as we shall see) but it essentially made all later controversies a case of feet in a door that was closing.
The only reason I phrased my questions in this way was to attempt to understand your beliefs on the Scriptural truth of Almighty God being revealed in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That, while Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was physically present on this earth - retaining His deity while also a man with its limitations - the Father, who is God, was also in Heaven WITH the Holy Spirit and together they addressed the Son at His baptism by John the Baptist as in the passages From Matthew 3:17 and Mark 1:11. I, as well as most ALL Christians, believe that there IS the Triune God, revealed in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
That mischaracterizes what i said, which was that the OP churches and the SDA together make up less than 2% of all Christians. Oneness Pentecostals rep. 1.1% of all Christians, and 24 million out of 279 million pentecostal Christians and 305 million charismatic Christians, while Pentecostals overall (apart from Char. Christians) rep. 12.8% of all Christians. Pentecostal and charismatic Christians together make up about 27% of all Christians. (http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Global-Christianity-exec.aspx; http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Global-Christianity-movements-and-denominations.aspx)
Charismatics can include Catholics, and in which tongues are often prominent, while a 10-country survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life in 2006 found that 49 percent of Pentecostals in the United States, 50 percent in Brazil, 41 percent in South Africa, and 54 percent in India said they “never” speak or pray in tongues. (http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Orphan_Migrated_Content/pentecostals-08.pdf)
This is relevant as OPs (wrongly ) require glossolalia for salvation.
No, you don't have to go slower. I can read slow enough to keep up, thank you very much. The funny thing - curious funny not ha-ha funny - is that you keep coming back to this 20,000 number whether you are talking about "there are not 20,000 different sets of core beliefs -- many retain the same beliefs but have different locations, or disagree on some organizational matter" or "I'd say the number is about 20,000 roughly of Christianity that all claim the same Bible". And this was in reply to someone who was talking EXACTLY about there being 30,000 different beliefs of those non-Catholics out there. My whole contention, Cronos, has been that you yourself stated:
i would suggest stop using the 20,000 argument. The number is too random and too arbitrary and includes theological, geographical, linguistic and organizational differences
So, are you planning on continuing to use that "too arbitrary number" or stop using it because it is "too random" a number? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Amen! Truth REMAINS truth because it is absolute, not relative, not dependent upon men to "develop" or to evolve.
We are speaking in the overall sense, in which Catholics overall believe in papal infallibility and jurisdiction, Roman purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, if not universally, while the real comparison is btwn those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture as the wholly inspired Word of God, and those who hold that the Church is the supreme authority. Under both you have unity as well as disunity, but the type of unity is the difference.
The check is in the mail for lesson ;-)
I wish you a Blessed day!
(This is for free... ;^)
Mormons are not Christians because they do not believe in the Trinity
Within the "E" group, there is no consensus on this most basic of topics -- Oneness Pentecostals believe in a fundamentally different nature of God from say Assemblies of God or Southern Baptists
That is a core, foundational difference
you cannot call this any form of common opinion if there is no foundational agreement on the nature of the Godhead
And Oneness pentecostals are 24 million, about 10% of the "E" denomination
and you said : The Apostles of Jesus Christ gave their approval of these books as they were composed and circulated throughout the different local churches to which I pointed out that not for the book of Apocalypse
And then you said Most all of these local churches, with very few exceptions, received these letters and I pointed out again, not for the book of Apocalypse
and again you said Lastly, because they speak to the heart of every believer as if the Holy Spirit was right there leading and guiding us through them.
and I pointed out -- that is subjective -- and the same can be said of the "Shepherd of Hermes"
sorry, but without the councils in which The Holy Spirit worked through the attendees, there is no reason for keeping the book of Apocalypse in and the Shepherd of Hermes out.
All of your points fail when brought against the Book of the Apocalypse. you are jumping ahead by saying "Though I know your intent is..." -- stick to the points above and in that, all of your points against the Deuterocanonicals fail as the same holds true against the Book of the Apocalypse
Let's review what you said: I don't get that sense when I read from the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books. There is no light of God that I feel when reading them, no spiritual connection. to which I replied Really? Not from Maccabbees? I see God working there, protecting the Jews against overwhelming odds
and you said : The Apostles of Jesus Christ gave their approval of these books as they were composed and circulated throughout the different local churches to which I pointed out that not for the book of Apocalypse
And then you said Most all of these local churches, with very few exceptions, received these letters and I pointed out again, not for the book of Apocalypse
and again you said Lastly, because they speak to the heart of every believer as if the Holy Spirit was right there leading and guiding us through them.
and I pointed out -- that is subjective -- and the same can be said of the "Shepherd of Hermes"
sorry, but without the councils in which The Holy Spirit worked through the attendees, there is no reason for keeping the book of Apocalypse in and the Shepherd of Hermes out.
All of your points fail when brought against the Book of the Apocalypse.
I have a lot of issues with the book of the Apocalypse, but it has been agreed in council under the Holy Spirit and we accept it, just as we accept the teaching of the nature of Christ's Godhood and the nature of God.
Re-inventing the wheel by tossing out what has been discussed before led to the revival of Arianism (Jehovah's Witnesses) etc
For the simple reason that just as you are doubting various books of the Bible, in the 1500s the various reformations (first, second, third etc) led to wholescale doubts of the entire canon by various groups including unitarians, etc.
But that was for Protestants -- for varying groups, Christian and non-Christian such as yours, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, etc. that's now your prerogative to toss out as many books as you want to
is that your Mormon explanation for Moroni's doctrine?
Also, there is no longer such a thing as "Protestantism" -- the Protestant groups are the Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians/Reformed and Methodists
All other groups have split from these and are in varying stages of being Christian like the Assemblies of God, to not being Christian like Jehovah's Witnesses etc. -- as I pointed out, there are Christian and non-Christians groups who either club themselves under the "P" or "E" term or are derived from it -- as the aforementioned Seventh Day Adventists (Satan as Jesus' brother, Jesus as Archangel Michael, etc) and Oneness Pentecostals (rejection of the Trinity etc) and your groups etc. -- there is disagreement on the fundamental nature of God, hence the dogmas are utterly distinct, so cannot be clubbed under one "P" or even "E" term
Even amongthe Adventists, etc. there are various denominations - some divided on dogma, most on region etc. -- so the 20,000 number still holds as the number of denominations under the wide non-orthodoxy umbrella, but the number of different groups based on core dogma seems to be just about 2 to 3 dozen imho.
Man made teachings don’t need explanation. They are only meant to deceive and only the deceived are interested in them anyway. Watching paint dry is a better use of one’s time.
God’s Word is the FINAL Authority.
Also, there is no longer such a thing as "Protestantism" -- the Protestant groups are the Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians/Reformed and Methodists
All other groups have split from these and are in varying stages of being Christian like the Assemblies of God, to not being Christian like Jehovah's Witnesses etc. -- as I pointed out, there are Christian and non-Christians groups who either club themselves under the "P" or "E" term or are derived from it -- as the aforementioned Seventh Day Adventists (Satan as Jesus' brother, Jesus as Archangel Michael, etc) and Oneness Pentecostals (rejection of the Trinity etc) and your groups etc. -- there is disagreement on the fundamental nature of God, hence the dogmas are utterly distinct, so cannot be clubbed under one "P" or even "E" term
Even amongthe Adventists, etc. there are various denominations - some divided on dogma, most on region etc. -- so the 20,000 number still holds as the number of denominations under the wide non-orthodoxy umbrella, but the number of different groups based on core dogma seems to be just about 2 to 3 dozen imho.
For the simple reason that just as you are doubting various books of the Bible, in the 1500s the various reformations (first, second, third etc) led to wholescale doubts of the entire canon by various groups including unitarians, etc.
But that was for Protestants -- for varying groups, Christian and non-Christian such as yours, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, etc. that's now your prerogative to toss out as many books as you want to
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.