Who is right?

Athanasius377 said:

This is why Ehrman considers Kruger wrong:

Click to expand...

No that is one of their debates, on this topic it's about how the canonization happened. Even Ehrman says that it took centuries for widespread agreement.

Huh? This statement makes no sense. Was there controversy or not? I can't tell by what you wrote in order to respond. Consider revising.

Click to expand...

I don't get why you don't understand that post especially since you've been reading Kruger. You must have missed his dialogue with James White on how RCC apologists have the same argument as Ehrman about the canon being all in disarray. I'll find it online if you don't want to look for it.

Kruger wasn't giving the info straight because regardless of the acknowledgement of the canon it wasn't all a "unanimous decision" in the early church. There was still debates and controversy on which books should and should not be canon leading to Trent.

Still not making that argument and still irrelevant.

This is a Red Herring. Still not relevant.

Click to expand...

It is relevant to your post in where you say: "animosity between Rome and Protestants it is the mishandling of history". Even non-christians acknowledge the RCC's involvement and responsibility involving the NT and there is a reason why the RCC gets the blame for what they dismiss in the NT.

I have so much respect for the intelligence and theology of Lutherans in comparison to other protestant denominations and I completely agree of Luthers reasons for reforming but lets stick true to the academics here.

I am just a Jesus Follower. I don't like assigning myself to a sect or particular church. My great-aunt truly believed if you weren't a Nazarene you were going to hell. So silly, judgmental and WRONG.

Cis.jd said:

don't get why you don't understand that post especially since you've been reading Kruger. You must have missed his dialogue with James White on how RCC apologists have the same argument as Ehrman about the canon being all in disarray. I'll find it online if you don't want to look for it.

Click to expand...

I can find the reference but that wasn't my issue. My issue was your statement in that I couldn't tell which side you were taking. Perhaps due to my interpretation. I confess, I find it odd that a Roman Catholic would take the same position that an unbelieving skeptic would simply to allow for the later dating of the canon in order to make it appear that the canon is solely a product of the (Roman) Church. That may be on over-simplification but that is how what I call the "Table of Contents (of Your Bible)" argument functions. The fact remains that the books that were included in the canon were already circulating amongst christians as early as the late first century and for sure by the mid second century as evidenced by the Morutorian Fragment. If the canon was in such disarray why is it that I have volumes of Early church fathers alluding to or directly quoting Scripture authoritatively long before the councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome? I don't mind giving the Church her due in recognizing the canon what I have a problem is the idea that the church made the canon. I have Erhman's book Misquoting Jesus but I confess I have not read all of it (or even much of it) so I'm afraid I cannot comment on what he assets.

Also if you take Erman's later date for the canon into dialogues with non-christians such as Muslims how in the world does that help your position since by denying the earlier date(s) you are forced to appeal to authority (sola ecclesia)? An authority I might add that your dialogue partner will likely be far more hostile to than a classical protestant such as myself. That proposition sounds self-defeating in my estimation.

Cis.jd said:

It is relevant to your post in where you say: "animosity between Rome and Protestants it is the mishandling of history". Even non-christians acknowledge the RCC's involvement and responsibility involving the NT and there is a reason why the RCC gets the blame for what they dismiss in the NT.

Click to expand...

What I mean by the mishandling of history specifically is again the idea the Roman Church made the canon. What some non-christian believes about the RCC is irrelevant to what I am specifically saying. The RCC gets the blame for everything everytime some guy sees a Chick tract and instantly goes looney tunes but it doesn't have any relevance to this discussion.

Cis.jd said:

I have so much respect for the intelligence and theology of Lutherans in comparison to other protestant denominations and I completely agree of Luthers reasons for reforming but lets stick true to the academics here.

Click to expand...

That's because we both believe theology is best discussed with a pitcher of beer . At least I do.

.

Athanasius377 said:

The fact remains that the books that were included in the canon were already circulating amongst christians as early as the late first century and for sure by the mid second century as evidenced by the Morutorian Fragment.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The whole NT was written in the 1st century, and the majority of the canon (4 Gospels, Acts, Pauline Epistles, 1 John) was settled in the 2nd century, as evidenced by early lists and quotes.

Lost4words said:

Why do we attack one another all the time?

Click to expand...

Lost4words said:

Thing is, the Bible wasnt around for over 300 years so how can one claim Sola Scripture?

Click to expand...

It didn't take you long to go from a plea for unity to an attack on Protestants.

Lost4words said:

In fragments. Not bound together in a book.

Click to expand...

While Christians were early adopters of the bound book (codex), in the 1st century pretty much everybody used scrolls. Of course these were not bound together.

whereloveandmercymeet said:

It would be nice if we could all focus on our similarities rather than our differences.

Click to expand...

And there used to be a lot more of that here on CF.