other doctrines

[Frenchfrye]

i wasnt sure if this is where this belongs but i was watching tv when it said that the bible current bible was put together by constitine when he started the chritian rome. does that mean that the other gospels and scriptures not in the bible are just as authentic as what we have? i mean there were 12 disciples wh are only 4 in the in the bible?
i know that some cant be true. but couldnt some be true

 

[Eloy]

i wasnt sure if this is where this belongs but i was watching tv when it said that the bible current bible was put together by constitine when he started the chritian rome. does that mean that the other gospels and scriptures not in the bible are just as authentic as what we have? i mean there were 12 disciples wh are only 4 in the in the bible?
i know that some cant be true. but couldnt some be true

Constantine had nothing to do with Christians recording the scriptures. Not every disciple of Christ wrote down Holy Scripture, but only those disciples who were instructed by the Lord. Stay with the proven Holy Bible and reject all unholy writings that are contrary to the true record. I favor using the original Greek Byzantium manuscripts for translating the New Testament into English. The authorship and authenticity of the following 27 books have been accepted and read since the time of Christ in Christian temples around the Mediterranean, and Palestine, and the Middle East:

1. Matthew
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. John
5. Acts
6. Romans
7. I Corinthians
8. II Corinthians
9. Galatians
10. Ephesians
11. Philippians
12. Colossians
13. I Thessalonians
14. II Thessalonians
15. I Timothy
16. II Timothy
17. Titus
18. Philemon
19. Hebrews
20. James
21. I Peter
22. II Peter
23. I John
24. II John
25. III John
26. Jude
27. Revelation

 

[Frenchfrye]

he didnt write them but used them to make a base for christianity to unify it and where does it say that they were the only scriptures to be written
im not trying to argue but im seriously questioning alot of what i beleive in

 

[hedrick]

This is common folklore.

Constantine called together the Council of Nicea. Its purpose was to deal with challenges to the Trinity. Its best-known output was the Nicene Creed. It did not make any decisions on the canon (the list of books in the Bible). I have no idea where that myth came from.

It's true that there were lots of books floating around in the early Church. However the process of deciding which were Scripture was informal. Different congregations accepted slightly different lists. By about the time of Nicea the list had largely been agreed on, though the usual date given for agreement is slightly later. As far as I know, the first actual official decision in the Western church was the Council of Trent in the 16th Cent., though certainly people agreed on the NT books by the 4th Cent.

Note that the Gospels and Paul's letters were cited widely as Scriptural as early as we know, like early 2nd Cent. The disputes were over a few books, e.g. Jude or Rev.

Because the process was informal, it's hard to say what it was based on. But in general terms the question seems to have been whether books were "apostolic." This didn't mean just written by apostles, since the Gospel of Mark clearly wasn't. But it is probably based on Peter's teaching. Similarly, John was probably not written by the Apostle John, but a follower. However the books were all thought to represent the views of the apostles. (In this context Paul was considered to be an Apostle.)

There are a number of other books that are sometimes mentioned, like additional Gospels, etc. But these are almost all from later than the canonical books, and in my opinion have no real historical value for seeing Jesus or the first-generation church.

Normally the myth you hear is "there were lots of Gospels. Constantine arbitrarily picked 4 of them." But the distinction between those 4 and the later ones was accepted in the early 2nd Cent. (in a time when most of the others hadn't even been written). There was never a serious chance that the mainstream Church would accept any other Gospels.

 

[ebedmelech]

i wasnt sure if this is where this belongs but i was watching tv when it said that the bible current bible was put together by constitine when he started the chritian rome. does that mean that the other gospels and scriptures not in the bible are just as authentic as what we have? i mean there were 12 disciples wh are only 4 in the in the bible?
i know that some cant be true. but couldnt some be true

No...not Constantine. The OT was fully accepted before Constantine was even born.

If you're a Christian...become a student of history and do the research as more and more there is historical revision going on. You have to research things.

TV is not necessarily bad...but to often people assume because they saw it on TV...it's true.

If you want a history of how the 66 books of the bible were accepted, and you like reading books. I recommend "The Cannon of Scripture" by F. F Bruce. It is one of many books on how this was done. It's available as an e-book too. Here's a look at the front cover:

I can honestly tell you Constantine had nothing to do with it. Also if you have a study bible it may give you information on this.

Try this site also:

History of the Bible: How The Bible Came To Us

 

[Eloy]

he didnt write them but used them to make a base for christianity to unify it and where does it say that they were the only scriptures to be written
im not trying to argue but im seriously questioning alot of what i beleive in

The early church's acceptance of the Biblical New Testament canon

1) Valid authorship- the scripture had to be written by an Apostle, or a holy man inspired by God.
2) Right doctrine- the scripture had to be in accord with Iesous's commandments and teachings.
3) Date written- the scripture had to be written between 5 B.C. (from Christ's birth), and 29-30 A.D. (soon after Christ's death and resurrection). The N.T. began to be recorded by Matthew in 5 B.C., and finished by John around the 3rd decade A.D.
4) Usage- the scripture had to be accepted and read in the Christian temples around the Mediterranean and Palestine and the Middle East.

By mid-first century A.D. the writings of the 27 books of the New Testament were found to be circulating and read in the Christian churches of the Near East.

 

[Keachian]

By mid-first century A.D. the writings of the 27 books of the New Testament were found to be circulating and read in the Christian churches of the Near East.

Just a minor niggle here, unless by mid-first century you mean post 70AD your statement is incorrect.

 

[Eloy]

Just a minor niggle here, unless by mid-first century you mean post 70AD your statement is incorrect.

50 A.D. is mid-first century, and not 70 A.D. And it was not long thereafter that this gospel was propagated and spread around the world, and was translated into other languages.

 

[Radagast]

Note that the Gospels and Paul's letters were cited widely as Scriptural as early as we know, like early 2nd Cent. The disputes were over a few books, e.g. Jude or Rev.

That's right -- the 4 gospels, Acts, and the Pauline epistles were agreed upon by the early 2nd century.

As you say, the idea that there were other accepted gospels deleted by Constantine is a myth -- the other so-called "gospels" were seen from the time they were written as fake.

Just a minor niggle here, unless by mid-first century you mean post 70AD your statement is incorrect.

Some people date the gospels as earlier than others, but there is agreement that Revelation dates from around 95 AD.

 

[def]

God uses people to do his will. If it is not Constantine, then it is someone else. If an apostle put the Scriptures together, the same question would be asked, why that apostle?

God inspired the Scriptures, and where necessary would have inspired others to do what is necessary to spread the message.

 

[pshun2404]

Just a minor niggle here, unless by mid-first century you mean post 70AD your statement is incorrect.

Not really, for example we have a passage from a copy of Mark's gospel from 68 A.D. and we know historically 1 Corinthians was written around 54 A.D. when Nero was beginning the persecutions in their area and a team of researchers (though more work is being done) in Germany which was instigated by scholar Carsten Theide has a portion of Matthew from around 50 A.D.!

If we add the history attested to by the origin Church of India which has an unbroken tradition when Thomas came to them he had with him a copy of the Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew from which he preached (this event was between 54 A.D and 75 A.D). It was a copy (a very low process) plus the journey in that time would place it as extant before 70 A.D. (I admit this one is my speculation).

Even many critical scholars now agree with John A. T. Robinson in Redating the New Testament that important internal evidence forces us to make new decisions. One such inference is that Jesus predicted the fall of the Temple (as did Daniel) so why then would none of the Gospel writers (especially the historian Luke) if writing after the fact not include the amazing fulfillment proving Him a genuine prophet of God?

Then mid-first century grave markers from Jerusalem, Bethany, and else where (only discovered in this century) demonstrate these people already believed He was Messiah, He was Lord, and that He rose from the dead and one discovered by Jewish (non-believing) archaeologist Sukenik reads Jesus the Messiah our Redeemer so they also believed He came to redeem us though His blood (all elements from the gospels as well as the graves of Mary, Martha, Lazarus, Ciaphas, and more)

Therefore I find no reason to believe any Gospel (except maybe John's) was written after 70 A.D.

Paul

 

[ebia]

Not really, for example we have a passage from a copy of Mark's gospel from 68 A.D.

Citation?

Carsten Theide has a portion of Matthew from around 50 A.D.!

Citation?

One such inference is that Jesus predicted the fall of the Temple (as did Daniel) so why then would none of the Gospel writers (especially the historian Luke) if writing after the fact not include the amazing fulfillment proving Him a genuine prophet of God?

Because it would have been crass, unnecessary, and out if character.

 

[pshun2404]

Citation?

Citation?

Because it would have been crass, unnecessary, and out if character.

1. Spanish papyrologist Jose O´Callaghan in his work ”Papiros neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 de Qumrân” which speaks to a fragment of New Testament from Cave 7 at Qumran.

2. In The Earliest Gospel Manuscript, German Scholar Carsten Theide and his team, on paleographical evidence conclude a section provided them of P64 dated to mid-1st century (between 50 -70 A.D.) some scholars agree and as expected most critical scholars give a date later by about 2 centuries (this is approximately how far or even more they are usually off with their dating starting with their assessment of the Torah, the Exodus, Jericho, and more).

3. Nice unfounded attempt (zero evidence exists for this opinion) to avoid a very good point that makes absolute sense in that for Hebrew people to believe one was a prophet there had to be a near time fulfillment (this was it. If they wrote after someone would have included it). It makes ZERO sense not to.

Paul


Hope this has helped

 

[ebia]

1. Spanish papyrologist Jose O´Callaghan in his work "Papiros neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 de Qumrân" which speaks to a fragment of New Testament from Cave 7 at Qumran.

And how was that fragment dated to 68?

2. In The Earliest Gospel Manuscript, German Scholar Carsten Theide and his team, on paleographical evidence conclude a section provided them of P64 dated to mid-1st century (between 50 -70 A.D.) some scholars agree and as expected most critical scholars give a date later by about 2 centuries (this is approximately how far or even more they are usually off with their dating starting with their assessment of the Torah, the Exodus, Jericho, and more).

3. Nice unfounded attempt (zero evidence exists for this opinion) to avoid a very good point that makes absolute sense in that for Hebrew people to believe one was a prophet there had to be a near time fulfillment (this was it. If they wrote after someone would have included it). It makes ZERO sense not to.

Paul

Hope this has helped[/QUOTE]

 

[ebia]

And how was that fragment dated to 68?

2. In The Earliest Gospel Manuscript, German Scholar Carsten Theide and his team, on paleographical evidence conclude a section provided them of P64 dated to mid-1st century (between 50 -70 A.D.) some scholars agree and as expected most critical scholars give a date later by about 2 centuries (this is approximately how far or even more they are usually off with their dating starting with their assessment of the Torah, the Exodus, Jericho, and more).[/quote]
In other words "a minority of people think the fragment is from... ". Very different from what you said.

3. Nice unfounded attempt (zero evidence exists for this opinion)

There doesn't need to be evidence. Your assertion only holds water if there is no other possible reason for them not saying. In fact there is no reason why they would - the fall of Jerusalem would be blatantly obvious to someone living in the decades immediately after. To point out that it fulfills Jesus's prediction would be unnecessary and in complete contrast to the subtlety of the gospel writers. The readers would infer that to themselves.

An argument from silence is always a weak argument but in this case it's spectacularly feeble.

 

[pshun2404]

2. In The Earliest Gospel Manuscript, German Scholar Carsten Theide and his team, on paleographical evidence conclude a section provided them of P64 dated to mid-1st century (between 50 -70 A.D.) some scholars agree and as expected most critical scholars give a date later by about 2 centuries (this is approximately how far or even more they are usually off with their dating starting with their assessment of the Torah, the Exodus, Jericho, and more).

In other words "a minority of people think the fragment is from... ". Very different from what you said.

There doesn't need to be evidence. Your assertion only holds water if there is no other possible reason for them not saying. In fact there is no reason why they would - the fall of Jerusalem would be blatantly obvious to someone living in the decades immediately after. To point out that it fulfills Jesus's prediction would be unnecessary and in complete contrast to the subtlety of the gospel writers. The readers would infer that to themselves.

An argument from silence is always a weak argument but in this case it's spectacularly feeble.[/quote]

Yawn! Minority would only apply if I had said majority but I said "some" and there is also no evidence that the gospels of Matthew or Mark were written after 70 A.D. and O'Calligan's fragment is one of the basis many critical scholars now use (having their foot placced firmly in their mouth) that Mark's was the first gospel written (which is yet another of their VERY HUGE assumtions based on the contrived "synoptic problem" which if you just read what history/tradition gave us as taught to the first and second century bishops, there is no such thing).

Like your spin on Daniel are you saying these are all fraudulent evolved traditions redacted decades later (Yawn!)? There is no evidence this is the case, only speculation. Are you a non-believer pretending to be a Christian? Or perhaps a member of the club of Churchianity who has a form of godliness but denies the power thereof? Come on...just be honest at least with the Lord Himself...you love and push the gospel of doubt so vehemently I wonder. The point you seem to always make is "Did God really say...?" One day you will meet Him you know.

I was just asked for citations or sources if you will and these are fine as a starting point. Certainly as good as anything from Crossan, Borg, and Funk and the outcome of the roll of their colored dice! They are a very p-Q-liar bunch.

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

Yawn! Believe the Lord and it shall be counted unto you as righteousness.

Paul

 

[ebia]

Yawn! Minority would only apply if I had said majority but I said "some"

Your original statement was that so and so "had a manuscript fragment from" such and such a date. Now we find out that "some" scholars put that date on it.

and there is also no evidence that the gospels of Matthew or Mark were written after 70 A.D.

I'm critiquing certain statements you made.

and O'Calligan's fragment is one of the basis many critical scholars now use (having their foot placced firmly in their mouth) that Mark's was the first gospel written (which is yet another of their VERY HUGE assumtions based on the contrived "synoptic problem"

The synoptic problem is real and demands a solution. You can't just hand-wave it away.

Like your spin on Daniel are you saying these are all fraudulent evolved traditions redacted decades later

Daniel isn't fraudulent. Continuing to portray my statement as saying such is at best highly disingenuous.

FWIW I'm convinced Mark was written mid-60s, Luke and Matthew in the 70's. John probably 80ish. No - that doesn't make them fraudulent.

(Yawn!)? There is no evidence this is the case, only speculation. Are you a non-believer pretending to be a Christian? Or perhaps a member of the club of Churchianity who has a form of godliness but denies the power thereof?

Reduced to ad-hominim attacks and breaking forum rules? Oh dear!

I was just asked for citations or sources if you will and these are fine as a starting point. Certainly as good as anything from Crossan, Borg, and Funk and the outcome of the roll of their colored dice! They are a very p-Q-liar bunch.

Paul

I'm not a fan of the Jesus Seminar either. Much as you might like to polarise the world, the reality isn't like that.

 

[pshun2404]

Daniel isn't fraudulent. Continuing to portray my statement as saying such is at best highly disingenuous.

Really? You said it was fiction...and implied Daniel did not write it when all historical readition says he did...you claim it was not written in the time it claims and so on...so then if all these unproven acccusations are true is it actually then the Book of Daniel the Prophet? If it is not as you say but is claimed to be then this means you believe it is a fraud (even if it may contain some truth centuries after the facts)...fiction os not reality it is the stuff of imagination and can be mongled with fact, but to say later redactors made this up and claimed it to be Daniel's work IMO is committing pseudipigraphic forgery and is fraud...

One either believes the OT IS the word of God (John 17:17) or not...Jesus says it is and said the words He quoted were the words of "the Prophet Daniel". Believe God against the world...it is called faith.

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

FWIW I'm convinced Mark was written mid-60s, Luke and Matthew in the 70's. John probably 80ish. No - that doesn't make them fraudulent.

If true then I must apologize for this one because it appeared you were defending the all gospels written beyond 70 A.D. crowd (for which there is no evidence). So if you believe this we are close....I of course believe what the Apostles taught the early church (Matthew was the first).

Paul