- Apr 9, 2018
- 593
- 83
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Married
Why can't people discuss facts instead of issuing useless rhetoric not backed up by any facts?
Upvote
0
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!
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 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who think this HASN'T already been answered to go back and read post #6 on the previous page, where I give the proper historical reference to the first list of the NT canon as we have it now, written down in 367 AD in the 39th festal letter of our father HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic of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.
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).
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.
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?
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?
Your source, CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 39 (Athanasius), does not back up your claims.
Severe edit, since I don't actually want to participate in this conversation anymore...
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.
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?
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
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
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)."
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.
But is there a reason you redacted the majority of what I said? Are you conceding those points?
Don't think so ….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...