Could some books have been left out because they did not fit in with what the 'church' wanted? Did they take people away from the church and were thus not included?
I suspect that the books chosen for canonization were not chosen because of their intrinsic value but because they fit the belief system of those doing the choosing.
I have thought of that. If some writings told of Salvation outside of church I would think that would not be included?
I have thought of that. If some writings told of Salvation outside of church I would think that would not be included?
The books of the Bible included were fairly inclusive and represented a wide consensus of what books were deemed authoritative(apostolic) and universally accepted by the whole of the Christian world.
I guess we'll never know since the Roman Church destroyed anything not agreeable by them.
So when did they do this?
-CryptoLutheran
A bit paranoid??? The Church at that time, and in centuries to come became the repository of a great wealth of knowledge; not just the canon of Scripture, but everything, science, the arts, paganism, history, heretical works... the list goes on.The books of the Bible included were fairly inclusive and represented a wide consensus of what books were deemed authoritative(apostolic) and universally accepted by the whole of the Christian world.
I guess we'll never know since the Roman Church destroyed anything not agreeable by them.
I'm sure the 70 wrote many books as well as others who understood Christs teachings.
The 12 were instructed to teach the Jews (by James), which is why Matthew and Mark are directed towards the Jews. The apostles took the Gospels to the Gentiles, Pagans and others who did not follow or know of the Hebrew Scriptures, nor needed to. The Gospel was taught to all, not the Bible.
The people pushing for the ousting of Enoch would've been the elders themselves. At first I did not consider this but, what better story to create about what books are "inspired by God" than one involving seventy "pious scribes" who wrote "the entire old testament"? Of course this is speculation. There is the possibility that these men did possess the seventy books mentioned by God to Ezra which were to be kept for the wise to read and keep twenty four for public reading. Now if this were true then it follows that lying scribes during the time of the LXX and now, are purposely keeping the list of ninety four books hidden.are you saying Greek politics kept out Enoch? if that was true then wouldnt they have pushed them to lose Maccabees being as it wasnt so favorable to the Greeks.
Following Constantine was a several centuries long persecution of paganism. Anything tainted with paganism was destroyed --- temples, academies, libraries. Not just the structures but the priests, professors and librarians as well.
I was specifically asking when "the Roman Church" destroyed all these heretical books. But since we're on the subject, if the Church was out and about destroying every bit of knowledge from the classical era then why were scholars in the middle ages still able to read these works of antiquity? Latin and Greek works were copied and preserved not in spite of the Church, but by the Church. The fall of the Roman Empire in the West was the leading cause for a loss of works in the West (which wasn't a problem in the East); and it was because of the Islamic conquests into Christian territories that put them into contact with the great works of the classical age and which ultimately gave rise to the Islamic Golden Age--Aristotle was preserved among the Arabs and the Persians largely because of the conquest Egypt and the Levant; with Alexandria in Islamic hands its great libraries became a boon to the Umayyads and subsequent Islamic empires. That learning would, again, feed itself back into Western Europe via Muslim Iberia; but not all was lost in Western Europe either.
The myth of the "big bad Catholic Church" is just that, a myth. The Church wasn't stamping out classical learning, but preserving it. The Church wasn't destroying the works of classical paganism, but again, preserving them. In most cases Christian violence in late antiquity against pagans and pagan temples involved zealous mobs, and such violence was sanctioned neither by the civil or ecclesiastical powers.
-CryptoLutheran
The destruction was quite a bit worse in the west than in the east. The Orthodox and later the Muslims did much to preserve the ancient writings. Zealous mobs were certainly involved but in a great many cases either civil or church authorities incited the destruction.
I was specifically asking when "the Roman Church" destroyed all these heretical books. But since we're on the subject, if the Church was out and about destroying every bit of knowledge from the classical era then why were scholars in the middle ages still able to read these works of antiquity? Latin and Greek works were copied and preserved not in spite of the Church, but by the Church. The fall of the Roman Empire in the West was the leading cause for a loss of works in the West (which wasn't a problem in the East); and it was because of the Islamic conquests into Christian territories that put them into contact with the great works of the classical age and which ultimately gave rise to the Islamic Golden Age--Aristotle was preserved among the Arabs and the Persians largely because of the conquest Egypt and the Levant; with Alexandria in Islamic hands its great libraries became a boon to the Umayyads and subsequent Islamic empires. That learning would, again, feed itself back into Western Europe via Muslim Iberia; but not all was lost in Western Europe either.
The myth of the "big bad Catholic Church" is just that, a myth. The Church wasn't stamping out classical learning, but preserving it. The Church wasn't destroying the works of classical paganism, but again, preserving them. In most cases Christian violence in late antiquity against pagans and pagan temples involved zealous mobs, and such violence was sanctioned neither by the civil or ecclesiastical powers.
-CryptoLutheran
So when did they do this?
-CryptoLutheran
If you truly want to know, you'll seek as I did.
It was done during Constantine's reign and after the Council of Nicaea.
If you truly want to know, you'll seek as I did.
It was done during Constantine's reign and after the Council of Nicaea.
I was specifically asking when "the Roman Church" destroyed all these heretical books. But since we're on the subject, if the Church was out and about destroying every bit of knowledge from the classical era then why were scholars in the middle ages still able to read these works of antiquity? Latin and Greek works were copied and preserved not in spite of the Church, but by the Church. The fall of the Roman Empire in the West was the leading cause for a loss of works in the West (which wasn't a problem in the East); and it was because of the Islamic conquests into Christian territories that put them into contact with the great works of the classical age and which ultimately gave rise to the Islamic Golden Age--Aristotle was preserved among the Arabs and the Persians largely because of the conquest Egypt and the Levant; with Alexandria in Islamic hands its great libraries became a boon to the Umayyads and subsequent Islamic empires. That learning would, again, feed itself back into Western Europe via Muslim Iberia; but not all was lost in Western Europe either.
The myth of the "big bad Catholic Church" is just that, a myth. The Church wasn't stamping out classical learning, but preserving it. The Church wasn't destroying the works of classical paganism, but again, preserving them. In most cases Christian violence in late antiquity against pagans and pagan temples involved zealous mobs, and such violence was sanctioned neither by the civil or ecclesiastical powers.
-CryptoLutheran
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?