OT & NT Canon

[Pats]

What about the Eastern Orthodox? The Church was one at that time, yes, but Roman Catholicism is based in Rome . . there were other Partriarchs . . and they all had the scriptures . . . What you are suggesting is that all 5 Partriarchs would have had to do the same thing your friend thinks Rome did . .

I don't think so . .

And if your friend is Sola Scritpurist, and thinks the scriptures have been corrupted, then what can he base his faith on?


Peace in Him!

Oh no, he's not a Christian. But he reads the Bible, more to pick it apart than anything. He can't understand why the Apochrypha isn't considered Scripture to Protestants.... There's a lot I'm discussing with him, but I have to really read up on this. This is my first time to really begin studying these issues.

Pats---the one what says thanks

 

[filosofer]

I would hardly recommend his works as a christian scholar . . for his stands against what Christianity teaches, using heretical sources (such as the Gospels of Thomas and Peter) to try to teach us about Jesus - the man . . not Jesus the God-Man:

Through a careful evaluation of the New Testament Gospels and other surviving sources, including the more recently discovered Gospels of Thomas and Peter, Ehrman proposes that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet, a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within his lifetime, and that a new kingdom would be created on earth--a just and peaceful kingdom ruled by a benevolent God. According to Ehrman, Jesus's belief in a coming apocalypse and his expectation of an utter reversal in the world's social organization underscores not only the radicalism of his teachings, but also sheds light on both the appeal of his message to society's outcasts and the threat he posed to the established leadership in Jerusalem.




​

I would hardly take such a person's work as authoritative on the subject . . .

A couple of notes on your post.

1. One, I did not post that I approved of what he said. The reference to Ehrman's book was relative to the OP question about whether anyone had heard/read anything that might suggest the kind of thing Ehrman addressed. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Ehrman does not change the value of his work.

2. If you are going to comment on Ehrman's book, it would at least be appropriate to quote Ehrman. No one is even sure whom you are quoting. By posting what someone anonymously wrote, you have placed your opinions in the hands of that person to think for you. If you haven't read the book, then read it. Examine for yourself. You may still come to the conclusion that you disagree with him - I do not agree with him, because I have read him. But don't pretend to lecture me about what is authoritative Christian scholarship, when you haven't demonstrated it yourself.

 

[PaladinValer]

Geee...didn't Constantinople have to deal with heretics too? I guess those unicals and other texts were also corrupted too...

So now we no longer have a Bible! Thanks TR folks! Your logic just condemned the Bible since everywhere had to deal with heresy, so therefore, all texts are corruptions!

 

[thereselittleflower]

A couple of notes on your post.

1. One, I did not post that I approved of what he said. The reference to Ehrman's book was relative to the OP question about whether anyone had heard/read anything that might suggest the kind of thing Ehrman addressed. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Ehrman does not change the value of his work.

Whether one agrees or disagrees does not change the value of his work, but his biases, his prejudices very much do affect the value of his work . .

You can find something written by anyone on just about anything . . Just because someone wrote a book that discusses this "idea" doesn't make it worthy of reading or presenting as a source for Christians to turn to . .

As a source for a well grounded Christian to turn to in order to understand the opponent's attack, perhaps . . but not a source to go to to understnd better how to defend against it . .

Pat was asking for help in defending against this type of attack on the Christian faith.

Much has been charged agains the Catholic Church over the years . . most of it has been myth, which I discovered as I went searching for the truth . . (As you can see, I became Catholic as a result of what I found. . . ) This is just one of the many charges some have fabricated in order to discredit the Catholic Church, and in this case, all of Christianity as well . .

2. If you are going to comment on Ehrman's book, it would at least be appropriate to quote Ehrman. No one is even sure whom you are quoting. By posting what someone anonymously wrote, you have placed your opinions in the hands of that person to think for you.

Sorry . . I was quoting a book review found at Oxford University Press and meant to include the url:

http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/HistoryofChristianity/~~/c2Y9YWxsJnNzPWF1dGhvci5hc2Mmc2Q9YXNjJnBmPTIwJnZpZXc9dXNhJnByPTEwJmJvb2tDb3ZlcnM9eWVzJmNpPTAxOTUxMjQ3NFg=

And also found at Barnes and Noble . .





http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?pwb=1&ean=9780195124743

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

FROM THE PUBLISHER

Few biographical subjects spark passions as intensely as do interpretations of the life of Jesus. In this highly accessible book, Bart Ehrman reviews the latest textual and archeological research into Jesus's life and the history of first-century Palestine, and draws a fascinating; controversial portrait of the man and his teachings. Through a careful evaluation of the New Testament Gospels and other surviving sources, including the more recently discovered Gospels of Thomas and Peter, Ehrman proposes that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet, a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within his lifetime, and that a new kingdom would be created on earth - a just and peaceful kingdom ruled by a benevolent God. According to Ehrman, Jesus's belief in a coming apocalypse and his expectation of an utter reversal in the world's social organization underscores not only the radicalism of his teachings, but also sheds light on both the appeal of his message to society's outcasts and the threat he posed to the established leadership in Jerusalem.

SYNOPSIS
Jesus is one of the few people whose biographies have the ability to spark intense passion and heated controversy. Now, in this highly accessible exploration into Jesus' life, Bart Ehrman reviews the latest textual and archeological research as well as the history of first-century Palestine, drawing a fascinating portrait of the man and his teachings. Ehrman shows us what historians have long known about the Gospels and the man who stands behind them. Through a careful evaluation of the New Testament (and other surviving sources, including the more recently discovered Gospels of Thomas and Peter), Ehrman proposes that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet—a man convinced that the world would end dramatically within his lifetime and that a new kingdom would be created on earth. According to Ehrman, Jesus' belief in a coming apocalypse and his expectation of an utter reversal in the world's social organization not only underscores the radicalism of his teachings but also sheds light on both the appeal of his message to society's outcasts and the threat he posed to Jerusalem's established leadership. In this sharply written and persuasive book, Ehrman suggests that the apocalyptic fervor that perpetually grips large segments of society is nothing new. Indeed, history's many doomsayers, including those today who are frantic about the new millennium, are close in spirit and thinking to Jesus, who waited in vain for the imminent arrival of a new, peaceful kingdom.


​

Should be pretty reliable. Doesn't sound to me as though I have relied on what someone "annonymously wrote" or put my understanding in the hands of "that person" to think for me . ..

I think the PUBLISHER should know what is in the book, don't you think?

If you haven't read the book, then read it. Examine for yourself. You may still come to the conclusion that you disagree with him - I do not agree with him, because I have read him. But don't pretend to lecture me about what is authoritative Christian scholarship, when you haven't demonstrated it yourself.

Hmmm . . "prentending to lecture" ? I guess presenting what the PUBLISHER has to say is not acceptable . .

I guess no one should take exception with something presnted for consideration if they have not read it themselves . .

hmmm

I seem to remember something along that lines of your reasoning that occured in the Garden of Eden . . don't reject something untill you have first "tasted" or examined it for yourself . . .



It seems from your comments above in response to my quote that you are perhaps not aqainted with this aspect of Erlman's works? . . . Oitherwise, I do know why you would take such exception with what I presented from the publisher even if you didn't know what the source actually was . . .


Peace to all!

 

[pachomi33]

As an additional note, let us not forget that the Scriptures were liturgical. canonical is primarily a reference to what is allowed to be read during liturgy (in historic context). The church carefully omitted deleterious writings and they were forbidden to be read during the service. As an additional note, God sent His Son into Egypt to preserve Him. The word of God along with a great number of witnesses to Christianity were preserved in Egypt. The whole Alexandrian/Antiochian division is an unbearable simplification of matters. Truth is found Kata- holikos- catholicly (not in the Roman sense)- in concensus of manuscripts. As all doctrine is as well.

 

[Pats]

Based on his location in the heart of the Empire at Rome, and based on his close association with apostolic succession of Peter, the patriarch in Rome always had a special status in the early Christian communities.
Nevertheless, in spite of the much disputed idea of Roman papal primacy, the Roman bishop was never in a position during any time period to enforce his will over the whole of the Church. In almost all respects before Constantine, the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria operated independantly of Rome. Distances, linguistic barriers, and severe persecution from hostile secular authorities ensured that a conspiracy to manipulate the texts would have been all but impossible for the Roman Church to achieve.

After Constantine, the relative position of the Roman Bishop to be able to manipulate Biblical texts was essentially no different than before. Even as the secular authority of the Empire became Christianized, the capital was now bi-located into Constantinople as well, and the Roman Church simply would not be able to change biblical texts from Rome without such changes being noticed by the new patriarch in Constantinople.

Furthermore, just as was apparently the case among the disciples of the Lord who were often portrayed assquabbling amongst each other over who was the most important, the relationships between the patriarchs likewise were as often as not marred by petty disputes and jealousies. Cooperative ventures were as often as not the exception rather than the rule.

Moreso than any ancient writing, we can be fairly confident that the texts of the New Testament that we have today vary only slightly from th4e original writings. The Coptic texts of North Africa, the Latin texts of Rome, the Aramaic texts of Antioch, and the Greek texts of the Eastern Orthodox all contain essentially the same gospel, and have contained that same gospel from the beginning.

The evidence just does not support a singular source for the Christian gospels emanating only from Rome.

Thanks more than you know. You are a life saver. I wish I had the mind to study these issues this deeply.

 

[brotheralex]

John 3:16

 

[SolomonVII]

In the Da Vinci Code, there is claim that Pagan Constantine, evolved the text to his elect. During the Fouth century, Constantine called all the Bishops in the council of Nicene. This Meeting is one of the most important fellowships in Christian History, because the men compilated the books of the Bible. During the Fourth century, alot of new "sects" were emerging out of Chrysindom. So much Hericy or false doctrine was attacking the Christian Congregations in that era. The Pagan Emperor Constantine, tried to unite all partisan groups together, thus forming the universal church.

The emperor of Rome Constantine, is a Heritic. While looking at the life of this pagan, he made a discission at Niccene which effected Contemporary Christianity even till today. So in conclusion, the emperor Constantine was a snake in the grass that needed to be steped on, since the begginning.

Was the da Vinci code even purported as to being a factual historical account???

 

[Gold Dragon]

In the Da Vinci Code, there is claim that Pagan Constantine, evolved the text to his elect. During the Fouth century, Constantine called all the Bishops in the council of Nicene. This Meeting is one of the most important fellowships in Christian History, because the men compilated the books of the Bible. During the Fourth century, alot of new "sects" were emerging out of Chrysindom. So much Hericy or false doctrine was attacking the Christian Congregations in that era. The Pagan Emperor Constantine, tried to unite all partisan groups together, thus forming the universal church.

The emperor of Rome Constantine, is a Heritic. While looking at the life of this pagan, he made a discission at Niccene which effected Contemporary Christianity even till today. So in conclusion, the emperor Constantine was a snake in the grass that needed to be steped on, since the begginning.

Fiction thrillers designed to titillate and sell many copies may not be the best source for accurate historical information.

 

[Kripost]

In the Da Vinci Code, there is claim that Pagan Constantine, evolved the text to his elect. During the Fouth century, Constantine called all the Bishops in the council of Nicene. This Meeting is one of the most important fellowships in Christian History, because the men compilated the books of the Bible. During the Fourth century, alot of new "sects" were emerging out of Chrysindom. So much Hericy or false doctrine was attacking the Christian Congregations in that era. The Pagan Emperor Constantine, tried to unite all partisan groups together, thus forming the universal church.

The emperor of Rome Constantine, is a Heritic. While looking at the life of this pagan, he made a discission at Niccene which effected Contemporary Christianity even till today. So in conclusion, the emperor Constantine was a snake in the grass that needed to be steped on, since the begginning.

I would be hesitant to trust a work of fiction without checking for references.

Firstly, the Council of Nicea did not deal with the canons of the OT and NT, but mainly with Arianism, and also some other matters. Secondly, it was the elders who made the decisions at the Council of Nicea, not Constantine. Thirdly, the concept of a universal church was already present a long time before the council, as is present in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John the son of Zebedee.

 

[jason_the_ecumenicalist]

Initially I would say no to that and anything he did do to mess with the canon would have been pretty quickly condemned by Athanasius, which Athanasius never addreses, though he pretty much hated Constantine's gut. In my brief study of Canon formation. Anything he would have tried would have been short lived. We must believe our Canon is trustworthy and has been since the fourth century when their became universal agreement, MORE OR LESS, over the content it would have.

 

[prodromos]

Athanasius hated Constantine's guts? Where on earth did you get this from?

 

[BBAS 64]

In the Da Vinci Code, there is claim that Pagan Constantine, evolved the text to his elect. During the Fouth century, Constantine called all the Bishops in the council of Nicene. This Meeting is one of the most important fellowships in Christian History, because the men compilated the books of the Bible. During the Fourth century, alot of new "sects" were emerging out of Chrysindom. So much Hericy or false doctrine was attacking the Christian Congregations in that era. The Pagan Emperor Constantine, tried to unite all partisan groups together, thus forming the universal church.

The emperor of Rome Constantine, is a Heritic. While looking at the life of this pagan, he made a discission at Niccene which effected Contemporary Christianity even till today. So in conclusion, the emperor Constantine was a snake in the grass that needed to be steped on, since the begginning.

Good Day, Brotheralex

The DVC is not a historical work, to try to use it as such does damage to the ture record attested to by many scholars that use the rules of historical methods to arrive at truth.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Peter A.V.]

I believe you are referring to the 50 Bibles that Constantine commissioned Eusebius, an Arian, to make. During Constantine's reign, the area around Alexandria was in a theological war. A man by the name of Arius had arisen preaching a new doctrine, namely that Jesus was a created being and not God in the strictest sense but merely a lower created God. Arius was excommunicated by Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, but he merely moved on to the closest church that would accept him until Alexander sent letters to them and they expelled him and then Arius moved on to the next church, thus causing trouble all around Alexandria. Constantine's rule was to some extent upset by this theological battle, so he saw a political advantage in taking a side and advancing it by having various 'Bibles' made and delivering them for use in the churches. He commissioned an Arian, Eusebius, to make 50 'Bibles' which were to be appointed for reading in the churches in and around Alexandria. Eusebius complied, copying them unfaithfully so as to have them support Arianism. They were rejected by the churches post haste, and Constantine seeing that the Arians were the losing side then joined with the Orthodox. All these 'Bibles' were destroyed, save two, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Fragments of the others began to be found post 1860s. The local text embodied in these corrupt manuscripts was unknown for 1440 years, and the Received Text was in continual use all over the world during that time, and still is in such translations as the KJV and NKJV. All other modern translations, however, are based on the corrupt local Alexandrian Arian text because the two major liberal Greek 'scholars' of the late 1800s (Westcott and Hort) were Neo-Arians who favored these two manuscripts from the ancient trash-dumps of Egypt simply because they minimize the deity of Christ. 95% of all Greek manuscripts are Received Text - only 5% are Alexandrian text. The 95% come from all over the world. The 5% from one manuscript of Alexandrian origin found in the Vatican Library, one manuscript of Alexandrian origin found in the waste-basket of a monastery on Mt. Sinai, and a few fragments found in Alexandria. The oldest manuscript of each form dates to the 4th century, but only the Received Text has been in continuous use, and only the Received Text was used all over the world prior to 1881. (Since 1881 most languages have had the Alexandrian text dumped on them by 'scholars.')

Good work there John Jones the most forward and honest report of the bunch.
Eusebius was more than happy to make the fifty coppies that would put both paganism and the christians in the same boat.After reading the LXX that started by Origen,he saw in it a prefect tool to do Constantine's bidding.Origen claimed that the original scriptures were inpired bur would change them any time he wanted.He taught that a pastor is a priest,that purgatory was necessary,outer darkness was ignorance,he believed regeneration by sprinkling,no millenial reign of Christ,no rapture,no restoration of Israel,Gen 3 was a myth.luke 4 was a myth.You can find this material in works like "Alexandrian Cult Series" by Ruckman and several others.

Eusebius was the standard bearer for Arianism at the Council of Nicaea,he equated Contantine with Christ and the apostles.Constatine never professed the new birth,and his bible he ordered had the ccorrupt Alexandrian text that included the Apocrapha as part of the cannon,including apocraphal works in the new testament too.If these were published today as our bibles Orthodox Christianity would be in convulsed at the sight.
Yes the manuscripts were corrupted in the thidd and fourth century,and before that too,2 cor 2:17.They died out because of thier corruption,and they have been resurected by Westcott and Hort in these last days of apostacy,which is now in every modern day English text,except the King James that is faithfull to the majority of the ancient manuscripts.Peter A.V.

 

[Peter A.V.]

This is so far from the truth that it would take hours to refute it in detail. And that has been proven by people with some respect for the truth about Scripture.

However, Mr. Jones is entitled to post his opinions about the world here. But it would be nice for someone with the scholarship to tell the truth about the Uncial Codices.

Just for the record, a few facts I do know without research: the Textus Receptus was compiled a short time prior to the Reformation. So it would have taken an amazing miracle for it to be in use for 1400 years before the recovery of the ancient Codices. And the 95% of manuscripts (an accuracy) are nearly all from the same few sources, and date much later than the other texts. The "garbage dump" libel about Sinaiticus is far from the truth -- as Mr. Jones has been told several times here, with evidence, and no doubt has been told before.

A few facts you forgot to mention is that the manuscript evidece is backed up by several early chuch translasions into thier own language such as the Peshita 160 A.D. largely that of the Majority text,or Texus Receptus,what ever name you would like to call them.There is also the Old Vulgate,not the corupted Latin Vulgate put out by Jerome.There are thousands of sitations by the early church fathers always quoting Texus Receptus readings more than the ccorrupt,showing that they were there along with the corupt manuscripts at the same time.In fact when it came to important verses of doctrinal import the King James readings are in even a higher precentage.
Plus we all know of the story of the Sinaticus.There is more than ample evidence all through the field of scholarship to prove this point,of it being found in a wastebasket spot at the monestary,the only difference is they give the garbage bin a exotic name so they can make money on the poor student. PeterA.V.

 

[jgnov99]

The evidence just does not support a singular source for the Christian gospels emanating only from Rome.

Well said, sirrah.

 

[jgnov99]

Was the da Vinci code even purported as to being a factual historical account???

Believe it or not the book claims basis on "historical fact". However, a quick examination should tell ANY bible believing christian what a fallacy that is. Deeper examination should even convince even skeptics. Do some research on Pierre Plantard...