Creation of Christianity and Scriptures in 4th Century

[Duvduv]

Why can't people discuss facts instead of issuing useless rhetoric not backed up by any facts?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Step 1: Show that some peripheral errors exist in the OP.

Step 2: Insult the OP.

Step 3: Ignore the main point of the OP.

Step 4: Claim victory.


The OP is asking WHO decided which books went into the NT. One person said it was Jehovah, which explains nothing unless we're supposed to be imagining the Christian equivalent of the Necronomicon levitating in midair and compiling itself like something out of Evil Dead.

So I think we got our answer. We have no idea who compiled the NT. It's completely lost to history. But I won't hold my breath for anyone to admit that.

The obvious follow-up questions are, "Why those books and not any others? How do we know those are the inspired ones, or if any are inspired at all?"

*crickets*

Or how do we know the NT can even be trusted at all?

If you were Satan in the OT days, would you create a new religion which:

1. Discourages following the law, including animal sacrifices?

2. Praises human sacrifice and even the death of God?

3. Encourages people to worship a deity that is not Jehovah the Father?


The creation of Christianity would be in Satan's best interests.

This is why WHO matters. What if Judaism is the correct religion and Satan invented the NT? Prove me wrong. Good luck!

 

[dzheremi]

The OP is asking WHO decided which books went into the NT. One person said it was Jehovah, which explains nothing unless we're supposed to be imagining the Christian equivalent of the Necronomicon levitating in midair and compiling itself like something out of Evil Dead.

So I think we got our answer. We have no idea who compiled the NT. It's completely lost to history. But I won't hold my breath for anyone to admit that.

And I won't hold my breath waiting for people who think this HASN'T already been answered to go back and read post #6 on the previous page, where I give the proper historical reference to the first list of the NT canon as we have it now, written down in 367 AD in the 39th festal letter of our father HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic of Alexandria. An edited version, which contains only those portions dealing with the canon, is available in English here. The original Greek was preserved by Thedorus Balsamon (12th c.; available in Migne), and it is on this basis that it found its way into wider circulation in the non-Greek West, as it is found in the Latin collection (identified as the "Benedictine" edition, tom. I, p. 767, ed. 1777 in Schaff, n. 4541) of works of St. Athanasius. There is also a Syriac translation of some note for its translation differences, found in English in the Anglican-produced collection of select letters (it is credited in the work itself as having been translated "by members of the English Church") translated from Syriac, available for free on Google Books.

All of this is to say that if people would just read the darn sources that are already out there, and have been for centuries, and are known by pretty much every historically-informed Christian, threads like this would not have to be started and argued for as though it's all six of one, half dozen of another when it's not. Insane, obviously false conspiracy gibberish is not to be taken seriously just because it's popular among the anti-Christian or the skeptic, or in any case placed on the same footing as things which have actual historical backing.

The obvious follow-up questions are, "Why those books and not any others? How do we know those are the inspired ones, or if any are inspired at all?"

*crickets*

No, not "crickets" -- about 2,000 years of ante-Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of all descriptions, but again, if nobody will read the most famous letter dealing with exactly this subject, what is the point of pointing out all of the other places we could look to to substantiate our view in the face of lazy, ignorant critics who want to pseudo-answer everything with a million and a half "but how do we know..."s, when the very answer to that non-question is in precisely those historical sources that we cite who they refuse to look at, or in this case even acknowledge as having been brought up in the first place?

It's a stacked deck, and we see that and yet we are the ones who are claimed to have insulted the OP, danced around the point, and claimed victory without reason? You, like the OP, seem to be projecting here. Having been given answers that do not meet your own standard of what you, the atheist, or the OP as an obviously contentious Jew, would accept as "proof" doesn't mean that the traditional answers have not already been given. You not liking them or wanting to acknowledge them has no relevance to anything. They're there, and anyone who is curious as to the traditional Christian apologetics concerning this question or the questions which follow it is free to consult HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic, or the councils of Carthage which established the same canon in the West, or any of the other many other sources that deal with the transmission of the scriptures and their reliability and/or selection in the canonization process (e.g., the Armenian Catechism of St. Gregory the Illuminator by Agathangelos, c. 5th century, trans. Thomson 1970; if one is careful in considering his eventual rejection by the Church, works like Adversus Marcionem by Tertullian; the relevant portions of St. Ignatius' Against Heresies; any of the many, many, many commentaries on the scriptures themselves by basically every Church Father ever, etc).

Or how do we know the NT can even be trusted at all?

Sigh. Right on cue with the "how do we know"s. See immediately above. It is the entire weight of Christian history for 2,000 years and counting against some person who dismisses everything that doesn't fit their preconceived notion of what must have happened during that history (directly contradicting it in the process), despite the mountains of evidence that they are flat out wrong. Metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating "But how we do know!" doesn't magically make everything you personally doubt for your own reasons disappear.

If you were Satan in the OT days, would you create a new religion which:

1. Discourages following the law, including animal sacrifices?

2. Praises human sacrifice and even the death of God?

3. Encourages people to worship a deity that is not Jehovah the Father?


The creation of Christianity would be in Satan's best interests.

Not only do these questions all reveal that you don't know anything about Christianity, but you seem to think you know an awful lot about Satan's interests and how he would go about achieving them. That's rather strange for an atheist. So God doesn't exist, but Satan does? Is this like how belief in angels survives disbelief in everything else among many who describe themselves as non-religious?

This is why WHO matters. What if Judaism is the correct religion and Satan invented the NT? Prove me wrong. Good luck!

Don't need luck. The scriptures and the fathers and all other relevant points in 2,000 years of Christian history have already have proven you and the OP wrong. But nobody here can shake you from your ardent disbelief. To paraphrase what Abba Anthony said to the youths who came to him with similar questions, if you cannot do even the simplest things for yourself, then what can anyone else do for you?

 

[Duvduv]

Take for example the so-called Apology of judyin Martyr, a single copy of which was found in a monastery in the 14th century, attributed to the second century. Here's a guy appealing to the emperor on behalf of the Christians, who says nothing of the actual Christian communities of his time, nothing of the Canon (with a dubious reference to "memoirs of the Apostles) or Paul, or the origins of Christianity or the Old Man, and we're expected to believe its authenticity from the second century.
It was a poorly done attribution to Christianity of a document originally written regarding some other group. But monks werr pretty good at that....

 

[dzheremi]

Does everything we have today have to be found in any one particular source for you to believe that it at least existed? (I don't think anyone here is asking that you believe in Christianity as a religion, but that you back up your claims as we clearly can, even though you say we can't.) I doubt you'd treat Jewish writings that way, so why not extent to other religions the same courtesy?

We do recognize, after all, that St. Justin lived in the era in which he lived (i.e., before the ecumenical councils), and even taught views that would be rejected by the Church (he apparently believed in the preexistence of matter, for instance, rather than creation ex nihilo, which is the standard in Christianity). So what is the point in bringing him up as though he should know the canon when that was not established until centuries after his death, or should be writing on any particular thing so as to prove its antiquity? Because that would suit your clearly anti-Christ purposes? Sorry, but neither the holy saints nor the Church established on the chief cornerstone Who is Christ exist to serve your wildly erroneous and fanciful theories regarding the establishment of the Christian religion, which you have defended with nothing but an endless stream of "what ifs", which are not in themselves any kind of evidence for your alternate history of the religion.

 

[Radagast]

So WHO established the New Testament narrative and the canon?
The only body that had the means, motive and opportunity was the new regime established by Constantine

The bulk of the canon was established centuries before that, and referred to by Christian writers.

 

[Duvduv]

There is NO corroborative evidence from anywhere that a canon was established in the 1st or 2nd century EXCEPT according to exclusive church dogma and doctrine. There is also NO evidence as to WHO established the canon, since none of the usual apologists such as Irenaeus of Lyon identified anything. That's because it DIDN'T exist until the days of the Constantine Regime under his faithful propagandist, Eusebius. This has no bearing on being pro- or anti- anything. All it has to do with is historical factual matter. Period.

 

[Duvduv]

Why was it necessary to worry about a church if people were to merely follow the teachings in the four gospels? What does one have to do with the other, especially since the gospels merely recount the life and teachings of what the first authors describe as a holy man and nothing beyond that? Not only that, the author of Matthew created the Sermon on the Mount directly from scriptural and from rabbinic teachings that we find in Pirkei Avot, Proverbs, etc. But the Romans needed a structure to contain all of this, which became the Church as it took over in the 4th century, destroying all the pagan temples and structures while doing so....

 

[dzheremi]

Is this subforum Christian Apologetics, or is this a place where you get to continue asking questions over and over without showing that you've read anything that has been written? You're still asking questions as though you have not been given the relevant sources that show your erroneous view of Church history to be flat out false, this time asserting that Constantine and Eusebius had some role in creating the canon when anyone who has actually read any introductory level text to the history of the Christian religion will be able to tell you that both men were of the Arian party, the Arians being those who were cast out of the Church at Nicaea, at which time the Creed of 325 was composed, according to the tradition of the Alexandrian Church which he would later come to shepherd by the very same Athanasius of Alexandria who would later define the canon in 367 -- again, 30 years after Constantine died (and 28 after Eusebius died).

So how on earth were they able to do that? Did they have a time machine, and if they did why didn't they use it to change the outcome of the council that threw their party out in the first place, or at least force the council (you know, will all the imperial power they apparently had to just make stuff happen, like establishing Christianity according to you...) to accept the Arian or at least the semi-Arian homoiousian theological position instead of what actually happened?

You don't seem to care what actually happened, or how little sense your questions make in light of what the historical record shows. Luckily not all anti-God people are like this. Since you probably won't listen to me, perhaps you'll listen to this video produced by the YouTube channel Milwaukee Atheists, which I somehow doubt is just blindly accepting any Church narrative, and yet still manages to at least be honest and informative about the Council of Nicaea and what Constantine did and did not do (though I'm pretty sure I can't buy into his idea of Constantine maintaining his sun worshiping ways...even the Arians wouldn't have allowed that, although maybe that wouldn't have mattered by then as he was only baptized on his deathbed anyway):

Take home point:

The council (convoked under Constantine) did not "create" Jesus/Christianity, and did not define the Christian canon.

So there goes basically everything you have been saying about this topic. According to an atheist. This ought to show that you don't need to argue as you currently are doing. You can still disbelieve in Christianity and yet not be a wild conspiracy theorist who ignores everything that is inconvenient or detrimental to his pet theory. You're quite simply wrong in what you are asserting, and history is on our side in this (regarding the canon and the pre-4th century existence of Christianity), and that stands no matter what you personally believe.

 

[Duvduv]

The difference between you and me Dzheremi is that you uncritically accept the Church narrative and I don't. All the rest is commentary. I'm quite familiar with your doctrines and intolerance to ignore critical challenges of your official narrative....

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, you've tried that particular line several times now. That's why I presented Milwaukee Atheists as an alternative view that is clearly not interested in uncritically accepting Church narratives and yet can still deal with the basic facts of Christian history. Why you cannot is a mystery to me (I think I know more atheists and other non-Christians who are like Milwaukee Atheists than who are like you in this respect, thank GOD), but it's getting pretty tiring. You know the old saying "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"? It most definitely applies here.

(Also "uncritically accepting Church narratives" like what -- not accepting Chalcedon? Not accepting Roman Catholicism? Not accepting Protestantism? There goes +/- 96% of world Christianity that I am not accepting nor accepted by due to my supposed "uncritically accepting Church narratives". Funny how that works out. )

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And I won't hold my breath waiting for people who think this HASN'T already been answered to go back and read post #6 on the previous page, where I give the proper historical reference to the first list of the NT canon as we have it now, written down in 367 AD in the 39th festal letter of our father HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic of Alexandria. An edited version, which contains only those portions dealing with the canon, is available in English here. The original Greek was preserved by Thedorus Balsamon (12th c.; available in Migne), and it is on this basis that it found its way into wider circulation in the non-Greek West, as it is found in the Latin collection (identified as the "Benedictine" edition, tom. I, p. 767, ed. 1777 in Schaff, n. 4541) of works of St. Athanasius. There is also a Syriac translation of some note for its translation differences, found in English in the Anglican-produced collection of select letters (it is credited in the work itself as having been translated "by members of the English Church") translated from Syriac, available for free on Google Books.

Your source, CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 39 (Athanasius), does not back up your claims.

1. Not even close to all 27 NT documents are mentioned

2. Documents are not mentioned as complete works; rather, individual verses are referenced

3. Reference of a part does not equal endorsement of the whole; endorsement of a part does not equal endorsement of the whole

4. Even if all 27 documents of the NT were endorsed, it would not be clear that other NT-era Christian documents were meant to be excluded


You aren't making it clear that this is even meant to be understood as the initial formulation of the NT canon. If this is nothing more than the first time it's referenced, so what? We already knew there had to be a first recorded instance. Where is it clear that this is the proclamation of what is and is not canon? Was that proclamation recorded or was it lost to history?

All of this is to say that if people would just read the darn sources that are already out there, and have been for centuries, and are known by pretty much every historically-informed Christian, threads like this would not have to be started and argued for as though it's all six of one, half dozen of another when it's not. Insane, obviously false conspiracy gibberish is not to be taken seriously just because it's popular among the anti-Christian or the skeptic, or in any case placed on the same footing as things which have actual historical backing.

Seems the problem is that you're just skimming what nonbelievers say, you see "WHO" in all caps and you provide us with an early, authored letter that is not actually relevant. Unless of course this was the proclamation of NT canon... in which case... why are you being so cryptic?

No, not "crickets" -- about 2,000 years of ante-Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of all descriptions, but again, if nobody will read the most famous letter dealing with exactly this subject, what is the point of pointing out all of the other places we could look to to substantiate our view in the face of lazy, ignorant critics who want to pseudo-answer everything with a million and a half "but how do we know..."s, when the very answer to that non-question is in precisely those historical sources that we cite who they refuse to look at, or in this case even acknowledge as having been brought up in the first place?

Would you stop whining and think about the so-called "answer" you're providing?

It's a stacked deck, and we see that and yet we are the ones who are claimed to have insulted the OP, danced around the point, and claimed victory without reason? You, like the OP, seem to be projecting here. Having been given answers that do not meet your own standard of what you, the atheist, or the OP as an obviously contentious Jew, would accept as "proof" doesn't mean that the traditional answers have not already been given. You not liking them or wanting to acknowledge them has no relevance to anything. They're there, and anyone who is curious as to the traditional Christian apologetics concerning this question or the questions which follow it is free to consult HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic, or the councils of Carthage which established the same canon in the West, or any of the other many other sources that deal with the transmission of the scriptures and their reliability and/or selection in the canonization process (e.g., the Armenian Catechism of St. Gregory the Illuminator by Agathangelos, c. 5th century, trans. Thomson 1970; if one is careful in considering his eventual rejection by the Church, works like Adversus Marcionem by Tertullian; the relevant portions of St. Ignatius' Against Heresies; any of the many, many, many commentaries on the scriptures themselves by basically every Church Father ever, etc).

So... an atheist, a contentious Jew, and a Christian apologist walk into a bar.

The atheist orders a Big Bang, and the bartender pours him a drink. The contentious Jew orders a Bloody Mary, not because he wants it but just because he's so darn contentious and he's sitting next to an apologist. The bartender asks what the apologist wants, and the apologist dodges the question.

Sigh. Right on cue with the "how do we know"s. See immediately above. It is the entire weight of Christian history for 2,000 years and counting against some person who dismisses everything that doesn't fit their preconceived notion of what must have happened during that history (directly contradicting it in the process), despite the mountains of evidence that they are flat out wrong. Metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating "But how we do know!" doesn't magically make everything you personally doubt for your own reasons disappear.

Uh huh. Ok.

Not only do these questions all reveal that you don't know anything about Christianity, but you seem to think you know an awful lot about Satan's interests and how he would go about achieving them. That's rather strange for an atheist. So God doesn't exist, but Satan does? Is this like how belief in angels survives disbelief in everything else among many who describe themselves as non-religious?

So when sci-fi fans argue over who would win between the Starship Enterprise and a death star, do you really think they both believe such things exist?

Strawmen only make you look weak. The lore of the character known as Satan has been well formed and thoroughly fleshed out.

Kind of funny that after you whine and moan about skeptics and their "how do we know"s you immediately go on about how I'm not allowed to make the absolute most basic comments about Satan's "prime directive."

I made utterly unimpeachable comments and you dodged the questions while also contradicting yourself. Classic apologetics.

Don't need luck. The scriptures and the fathers and all other relevant points in 2,000 years of Christian history have already have proven you and the OP wrong. But nobody here can shake you from your ardent disbelief. To paraphrase what Abba Anthony said to the youths who came to him with similar questions, if you cannot do even the simplest things for yourself, then what can anyone else do for you?

Ah, the ol' "Hey kid, the church has been around for millenia. We own the world." Yeah, not for long. To borrow a phrase from your Bible, the writing is on the wall.

 

[dzheremi]

Severe edit, since I don't actually want to participate in this conversation anymore...

Your source, CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 39 (Athanasius), does not back up your claims.

This was included to provide backing as to how this is what is found whenever you search for the formation of the Christian Biblical canon, not because it is the best source (I believe that is, however, the first source that will come up when you search for the 39th letter, and is also cited on wikipedia). To find the full list as it is in the larger English translation, you'll have to look in the Syriac version I also linked in the same post (from Google Books). It's in appendix 3 of the collection, and it answers a lot of your subsequent questions. It is very obvious from the text there that HH is establishing the canon. He even writes about other books not included in the canon but to be read (e.g., the Shepherd of Hermas and others), and what types of books are to be excluded (Gnostic/"secret" writings).

The rest of your post is largely a lot of comments about things I didn't say (I never said you couldn't comment on Satan; I just find it odd), which I don't want to drag this conversation into.

My point stands if you and the OP (and everyone, really) would please just read HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic. The list is in there.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Severe edit, since I don't actually want to participate in this conversation anymore...

And yet I see you went on to reply. Odd.

This was included to provide backing as to how this is what is found whenever you search for the formation of the Christian Biblical canon, not because it is the best source (I believe that is, however, the first source that will come up when you search for the 39th letter, and is also cited on wikipedia). To find the full list as it is in the larger English translation, you'll have to look in the Syriac version I also linked in the same post (from Google Books). It's in appendix 3 of the collection, and it answers a lot of your subsequent questions. It is very obvious from the text there that HH is establishing the canon. He even writes about other books not included in the canon but to be read (e.g., the Shepherd of Hermas and others), and what types of books are to be excluded (Gnostic/"secret" writings).

I'm not going to read that whole thing. There is no appendix 3. Do you mean section 3? If so, which pages?

The rest of your post is largely a lot of comments about things I didn't say (I never said you couldn't comment on Satan; I just find it odd), which I don't want to drag this conversation into.

So you prop up a strawman, then act like you didn't want to go there?

My point stands

Lol, no. I read your one source and it was irrelevant. Your other source needs to be narrowed down.

if you and the OP (and everyone, really) would please just read HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic. The list is in there.

It's on you. It's your source. I'm not going to read the whole thing. Either post it here or tell me the page number. This is absurd.

 

[cvanwey]

This is why WHO matters. What if Judaism is the correct religion and Satan invented the NT? Prove me wrong. Good luck!

This reminds me of a post I placed a couple of months back... Does Lucifer Have Free Will?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This reminds me of a post I placed a couple of months back... Does Lucifer Have Free Will?

Yeah. It's a sadly obvious question with no obvious answer. The best they've got is, "Oh, so you believe in Satan now? Why believe in him but not in Jesus also?"

I'll chime in on your thread. Looking forward to some good dance moves... er, I mean "answers."

 

[Radagast]

Your source, CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 39 (Athanasius), does not back up your claims.

1. Not even close to all 27 NT documents are mentioned

Wrong. Did you even read it?

It says: "Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (4). Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles (5) and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude (12). In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon (26). And besides, the Revelation of John (27)."

2. Documents are not mentioned as complete works; rather, individual verses are referenced

Wrong.

4. Even if all 27 documents of the NT were endorsed, it would not be clear that other NT-era Christian documents were meant to be excluded

Quite clear, actually, given that these 27 books are being distinguished from (a) useful but not inspired books, like the Didache and the Shepherd, and (b) heretical books.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Wrong. Did you even read it?

It says: "Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (4). Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles (5) and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude (12). In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon (26). And besides, the Revelation of John (27)."

Ah. Apparently I did not read it.

Wrong.



Quite clear, actually, given that these 27 books are being distinguished from (a) useful but not inspired books, like the Didache and the Shepherd, and (b) heretical books.

Everything you say here is right. Everything you quote of me is an instance in which I'm wrong.

But is there a reason you redacted the majority of what I said? Are you conceding those points?

 

[Radagast]

But is there a reason you redacted the majority of what I said? Are you conceding those points?

The rest of what you said just seemed to be nonsense and/or gratuitous abuse.

 

[John 1720]

As is known, the traditional Jewish texts make no mention of a Jewish movement following someone named Jesus in the first century CE. Not in the Jerusalem Talmud, not in the Babylonia Talmud, not in any Midrash. Outside of the official church narrative and texts in the possession of the Church and its monasteries, there is no corroboration of the stories of the New Testament at all. And of course there is no evidence as to WHO established the canon of texts back in the 1st century. Archeological data especially from scraps is sparse and unclear, whereby parchments are used and reused, and not sufficiently tested, including inks.
So WHO established the New Testament narrative and the canon?
The only body that had the means, motive and opportunity was the new regime established by Constantine and his loyal chief propagandist named Eusebius, a process that continued through the 4th century and then into the 5th.
How did the gospel stories become exclusive canon? In this regard it is clear that the regime established a boiler plate of ideas and stories and allowed scribes to write narratives for acceptance that appealed to different segments of the Empire using these basic themes and embellishing them as required by the standards for the Empire. Thus we have similar but not identical gospel stories (that include contradictions among one another), as well as the follow-up body of literature contained in the Epistles to reinforce and give a life to the theoretical teachings and stories but which yet also contradict the gospels and even one another, giving the impression of multiple witnesses to the 1st century events. Thus the Chi Rho religion established under Constantine and his Bible became the (backdated) religion of the 1st century Judea for the great new regime...

Don't think so ….