Holy Tradition

[BluhdoftheLamb]

at least that's how it is handled in contemporary Luther bibles.

That is correct

 

[Zoness]

That I was unaware of.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

If you want utter nonsense, look no further than a mentality that essentially boils down to:
"Tradition is right because it's tradition."

Funny how no one has said that.
Well, the RCs say that, but I'm not RC so you can take that principle up with them, if you want to..

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Funny how no one has said that.

Funny how no one has said what you accused others of, either.
See how that works?

Mirrors are a wonderful thing.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Nonsensical cliché-rant over?

1: At one point, 2/3rds of the bishops were Arians, and had the sympathy of the Emperor, who did what he could to get that heresy pushed through. Unsuccessfully.
Thank God for Julian the Apostate who didn't give a fiddlestick about Christological disputes - his brief reign gave Orthodoxy the time to catch its breath and "strike back", ending up as the dominant position within the Church by the time of the ascension of Theodosius the Great.

And of course, Theodosius the Great's ruthless and thorough persecution of ALL other religions (and factions within Christianity) except for his own had nothing to do with that. At all. Not even a little.

2: For the first 325 years, the Church was persecuted, many times ending in martyrdom. And yet, it still continued to just grow and grow. Your "evil Christians are evil, and have always just used power to get rich" is ridiculous nonsense.

The same applied to other Christian groups that were considered heretical, and to quite a few Non-Christian religions as well. The Isis mysteries, Mithraism - most of them faced persecution at one point or the other, yet continued to grow.
The difference between pagan Rome persecuting or prohibiting specific religions and Christian Rome persecuting and prohibiting specific religions is this: Roman paganism was pretty inclusivistic; if a specific religion was indexed, it was either because their beliefs undermined the Roman state cult and were thus perceived as a challenge to the Empire, or because their practices were perceived as somehow dangerous to the fabric of society.
With Theodosius the Great, however, persecution reached an all-new level, as Christian exclusivism all but demanded the thorough elimination of all "false" religions.

3: The most successful "faction" shouldn't be considered correct BECAUSE it's the most successful one, but because it's the one that is in accordance with Scripture.
Yes, Scripture. If you're now going to throw back the ridiculous notion that Scripture was just decided by a bunch of old men based on random criteria to make themselves more powerful, it just shows how little you know about the actual process.

Random criteria? Not at all. They had a very clear image in mind, and sifted the extant body of texts according to this. Personal power played a VERY minor factor in this. This was about ideology, about promoting a very narrowly defined world view, about consolidating a specific set of exclusivist criteria with regards as to who was to be considered a champion of the "true" faith and who was to be condemned as a dangerous aberrant.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

And of course, Theodosius the Great's ruthless and thorough persecution of ALL other religions (and factions within Christianity) except for his own had nothing to do with that. At all. Not even a little.

He couldn't very well persecute anyone until he ascended the Roman throne. And by the time he did, Orthodoxy had more or less prevailed.

The difference between pagan Rome persecuting or prohibiting specific religions and Christian Rome persecuting and prohibiting specific religions is this: Roman paganism was pretty inclusivistic; if a specific religion was indexed, it was either because their beliefs undermined the Roman state cult and were thus perceived as a challenge to the Empire, or because their practices were perceived as somehow dangerous to the fabric of society.

Tell me something I don't know, please?

With Theodosius the Great, however, persecution reached an all-new level, as Christian exclusivism all but demanded the thorough elimination of all "false" religions.

No, it didn't. There is no demand in Christianity for Caesar to persecute those who aren't Christian.

Random criteria? Not at all. They had a very clear image in mind, and sifted the extant body of texts according to this. Personal power played a VERY minor factor in this. This was about ideology, about promoting a very narrowly defined world view, about consolidating a specific set of exclusivist criteria with regards as to who was to be considered a champion of the "true" faith and who was to be condemned as a dangerous aberrant.

LOL
The criteria were:
1: Authorship - MUST have been by an Apostle or close associate thereof
2: General acceptance in the Church - some gnostic nonsense used only by a heretical sect in one of Rome's upper class suburbs can hardly be said to be inspired.
3: Accordance with the faith of the Church - again: Gnostic nonsense doesn't need to be considered. Also known as: Consistency.
4: Antiquity: Written during the time of the Apostles. Only the books of the current NT fits this criteria - the vast horde of gnostic nonsense doesn't.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The criteria were:
1: Authorship - MUST have been by an Apostle or close associate thereof

Well, pretty much the whole New Testament ought to hit the bin, then.
Not a single gospel nor acts was written by an eyewitness, least of all by the people they were traditionally attributed to, most non-Pauline (and even some Pauline) epistles are pseudepigrpahical, and don't even get me started on the Book of Revelation.

2: General acceptance in the Church - some gnostic nonsense used only by a heretical sect in one of Rome's upper class suburbs can hardly be said to be inspired.

This is pretty much exactly what I was talking about the whole time. Not "evil" Christians rubbing their hands in glee as they quest for personal power, but the most successful faction establishing "truth" by popularity/success.

3: Accordance with the faith of the Church - again: Gnostic nonsense doesn't need to be considered. Also known as: Consistency.

See above.

4: Antiquity: Written during the time of the Apostles. Only the books of the current NT fits this criteria - the vast horde of gnostic nonsense doesn't.

Few non-canonical texts have survived the ascent of the most successful Christian faction. Who knows what has been lost to the pyre and/or careful editing? After all, they even added a resurrection scene to the gospel of "Mark".

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

Well, pretty much the whole New Testament ought to hit the bin, then.
Not a single gospel nor acts was written by an eyewitness, least of all by the people they were traditionally attributed to, most non-Pauline (and even some Pauline) epistles are pseudepigrpahical, and don't even get me started on the Book of Revelation.

That view is out of date by at least a century. I think only the most radical of scholars hold this view, and they usually do so not because the evidence points them there, but because they have a point that they need to back up.
Sure, liberal "scholars" and conservative scholars disagree on the authenticity of much of the NT (and it is by no means as clear-cut as you make it out to be). There is no legitimate reason to believe that the authors of the majority of the NT, are not who tradition say that they are. Unless, of course, one is on a crusade that means that the Bible HAS to be inauthentic. But that's bad scholarship.
#trustmeimatheologian.

Well, pretty much the whole New
Few non-canonical texts have survived the ascent of the most successful Christian faction. Who knows what has been lost to the pyre and/or careful editing?

So your argument is: "There might have been something else at the same time, therefore the Bible is wrong". What?

After all, they even added a resurrection scene to the gospel of "Mark".

Again: That is a matter of opinion, not fact.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

That view is out of date by at least a century. I think only the most radical of scholars hold this view,[...]

In an alternate Bizarro universe.
Few non-fundamentalist "scholars" embrace the Augustinian hypothesis these days.

And if you see this...

... and then say: "Yeah, those are totally independent eyewitness accounts", don't expect me to take you seriously ever again.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

In an alternate Bizarro universe.
Few non-fundamentalist "scholars" embrace the Augustinian hypothesis these days.

No, that universe is where your ramblings belong. The fact that you can't stand people, scholars, not agreeing with you is pretty much your problem, not mine.

And if you see this...

... and then say: "Yeah, those are totally independent eyewitness accounts", don't expect me to take you seriously ever again.

1: Where did I say that?
2: You're on a mission to deconstruct the Scriptures. Naturally, you're not going to take people seriously who disagree with you.
3: If you multipy 2 by 0, you'll have arrived at the exact number of fiddlesticks I give about your opinion of me.

 

[simplegifts]

Well, pretty much the whole New Testament ought to hit the bin, then.
Not a single gospel nor acts was written by an eyewitness, least of all by the people they were traditionally attributed to, most non-Pauline (and even some Pauline) epistles are pseudepigrpahical, and don't even get me started on the Book of Revelation.


This is pretty much exactly what I was talking about the whole time. Not "evil" Christians rubbing their hands in glee as they quest for personal power, but the most successful faction establishing "truth" by popularity/success.


See above.


Few non-canonical texts have survived the ascent of the most successful Christian faction. Who knows what has been lost to the pyre and/or careful editing? After all, they even added a resurrection scene to the gospel of "Mark".

And your proof?

Go to most any public library and you can find surviving spurious Scripture.

Must have missed a few:
The Encyclopedia of Lost and Rejected Scriptures: The Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha - Section One - Lost Scriptures of the Old Testament - First Book of Adam and Eve, Second Book of Adam and Eve, First Book of Enoch, Second Book of Enoch (Secrets of Enoch), Third Book of Enoch (Hebrew Enoch), Jubilees, Jasher - Section Two - Apocalyptic Writings and the End of Days - Apocalypse of Abraham, Apocalypse of Thomas, 2 Baruch, War Scroll (Sons of Dark vs. Sons of Light) - Section Three - Lost Scriptures of the New Testament - Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Apocryphon of John, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Acts Chapter 29 - - Section Four - The Life and Times of Jesus - Infancy Gospel of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Life of Joseph The Carpenter, Letters of Pilate, Life of Saint Issaa - Section Five - The Apocrypha - 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Letter (Epistle) of Jeremiah, The Prayer of Azariah, 1 Baruch, Prayer of Manasseh (Manassas), Bel and the Dragon, Wisdom of Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Additions to Esther, Tobit, Judith, Susanna, Psalm 151, 1 Clements, Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache

 

[Ishraqiyun]

That view is out of date by at least a century.

I don't think it's accurate to say that the mainstream of Biblical scholarship has reversed itself on that issue in the last century. I've done a fair amount of reading on the topic and it's seems to me that the question of authorship is really up in the air for the most part. The majority of scholars seem to reject the classical attributions of authorship for many of the books and claim that the real authors are as of yet unknown. It was normal for people to author religious texts pseudonymously and to attribute them to authoritative figures like that. People will often admit this when it comes to the texts they don't like (say the so called "Gnostic" Gospels for example) but then tend to ignore that fact when it comes to the ones they like. The problem of authorship is even noted in the writings of a lot of the Catholic ,Eastern Orthodox, and mainline Protestant theologians I've read. Some of the more conservative scholars will admit to the problem with the traditional attributions of authorship as well. Just yesterday I was reading the Harper Collins Study Bible and the Cambridge Study Bible and both of them note in the introductions to a lot of the books that they are thought to be pseudonymous.

I'm not saying this because I want to destroy the Gospels and Epistles either. I read the Four Gospels and accept them as Scripture myself. Same thing with the Epistles of Paul minus the so called Pastoral Epistles. I'm just saying it because I like to go with the evidence. If there isn't enough evidence verifying that say the Apostle John wrote the Book of John then I'm not going to say I know that St John wrote the text for example. I don't know who wrote it. I still accept it as scripture none the less. The message is more important than the identity of the author. Argument from authority only goes so far.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

And your proof?

Evidence would be required from the people claiming a specific author.

 

[dlamberth]

Your claim does not jibe with the history. All of the doctrine that matters was written and complete by the first 100 years, and no armies were involved. The weeding out process that followed is done by sheer merit, and is plain to see which ideas have merit and which do not.

Considering that in ancient Rome there were more Christians killed by the armies of the first Christian State because of perceived heretic beliefs than were killed in the Coliseum, I'd have to agree with the armies comment.

.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

I don't think it's accurate to say that the mainstream of Biblical scholarship has reversed itself on that issue in the last century. I've done a fair amount of reading on the topic and it's seems to me that the question of authorship is really up in the air for the most part. The majority of scholars seem to reject the classical attributions of authorship for many of the books and claim that the real authors are as of yet unknown.

Indeed, but no scholar I know of present an opinion as radical as the one she expressed. There is legitimate discussion about the authorship of parts of the NT. Hebrews is one. That's a far cry, though, from what she said.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

It's really not just the opinion of some extreme haters of Christianity with an ax to grind against the Bible (as some conspiracy theorists might suggest) either. It's where the actual evidence seems to point and even some of the dedicated Christians you might think apt to reject this questioning of authorship on traditional grounds have been willing to accept it on evidential grounds. The people who wrote the Cambridge and Harper Collins study Bibles I was reading yesterday weren't a bunch of people out to attack Christianity for example.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Indeed, but no scholar I know of present an opinion as radical as the one she expressed.

Is it though? The authorship of all four of the Canonical Gospels have been called into question in most of the books I've read on the subject at least. I don't think anyone has yet provided any sort of solid conclusive evidence attributing them to any single person. All we have in favor for the most part is the word of 2nd century Church Fathers. The best case scenario is a "maybe" at most. The Gospels appear to be composite works integrating other early sources rather than reports of a single eyewitness giving their own account too.

The case of the Pastoral Epistles especially seems case closed in terms of non Pauline authorship. How many scholars think the author of Revelation is the John it's commonly attributed to? 1st Peter? Many of these weren't even accepted by the early Church of the East outside the Roman Empire as having apostolic authorship. Revelation was even iffy among the eastern Roman/Byzantines and still isn't used in the liturgy in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I think questions of authorship involved a good deal of guessing back then and those guesses became the tradition.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

All four gospels are pseudonymous. Paul is likely the author of only Romans, 1/2 Cor., Galatians, Philemon, Philippians (maybe), and 1 Thessalonians (maybe).

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Considering that in ancient Rome there were more Christians killed by the armies of the first Christian State because of perceived heretic beliefs than were killed in the Coliseum, I'd have to agree with the armies comment.

.

You've got a disconnect of more than 200 years! Armies did not determine who wrote what within Christendom prior to 100 AD. All were persecuted alike. It wasn't until after 300 AD that State started its unholy alliance with Church.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

I don't think anyone has yet provided any sort of solid conclusive evidence attributing them to any single person.

And how would you accomplish that, anyway?