Which Bible

[AgnosticMike]

There was certainly the group that became known as Orthodox Christianity (whether it is actually the Orthodoxy is another question), and the group that became known as the Gnostic Christianity. Besides this, to what are you referring?

The group! There were probably hundreds even thousands of fractured groups. There wer the big players like the difference between eastern and western beliefs. There were the Arians too. In addition to this you have an idea of the ideas that were developing in the epistles. Many were following particular teachers. If you read Corinthians it is but one example of the different smaller groups that were developing.

 

[Willtor]

The group! There were probably hundreds even thousands of fractured groups. There wer the big players like the difference between eastern and western beliefs. There were the Arians too. In addition to this you have an idea of the ideas that were developing in the epistles. Many were following particular teachers. If you read Corinthians it is but one example of the different smaller groups that were developing.

Not quite. The Arians didn't arise until Arius began his ministry (fourth century). Notions of East and West are also later. All that said, all of these groups used the Orthodox texts. As for fracturing in the early Church, you are talking about groups that didn't produce any Scriptures. The very fact that they are mentioned in Paul's Epistles means that they are pre-Orthodox-Canon.

In the context of "which Bible," it's really only the Orthodox Scriptures and the Gnostic Scriptures.

 

[AgnosticMike]

Not quite. The Arians didn't arise until Arius began his ministry (fourth century). Notions of East and West are also later. All that said, all of these groups used the Orthodox texts. As for fracturing in the early Church, you are talking about groups that didn't produce any Scriptures. The very fact that they are mentioned in Paul's Epistles means that they are pre-Orthodox-Canon.

In the context of "which Bible," it's really only the Orthodox Scriptures and the Gnostic Scriptures.

I'm not limiting my comments to one particular time or era. You are failing to realise the fractured nature of early Christianity up until the middle ages. Even first and second century Christianity had many differences. You can read about them in your Bible.

Just two versions of scripture? Church history reveals much more than that. From memory Marcion had his own version too. Some people debate semantics with codex versus canon. Semantics.

So whose orthodoxy was orthodox?

 

[Willtor]

I'm not limiting my comments to one particular time or era. You are failing to realise the fractured nature of early Christianity up until the middle ages. Even first and second century Christianity had many differences. You can read about them in your Bible.

Just two versions of scripture? Church history reveals much more than that. From memory Marcion had his own version too. Some people debate semantics with codex versus canon. Semantics.

Oh, certainly, there were people who accepted less. Marcion, who you aptly reference, was adamantly opposed to Judaism, and only accepted the Gospel of Luke as authentic Scripture (also, he made use of Paul's Epistles, minus charitable references to Judaism). But, besides his work in editing, Marcion never produced any original Scriptures, nor did his followers. He was reputed to have sympathies for Gnosticism, but that doesn't help the "which Bible" argument, as I've already mentioned the Gnostic Scriptures.

It might help to note that people like Marcion were very much originators of the sects that bear their namesakes. They never argue otherwise, so it's hard to call them Orthodoxy.

So whose orthodoxy was orthodox?

There was certainly the group that became known as Orthodox Christianity (whether it is actually the Orthodoxy is another question), and the group that became known as the Gnostic Christianity.

 

[jesusfreak_2008]

i dont think it really matters which version of the bible you get. just get a version that you can understand.

hoped i helped,
jesusfreak_2008

 

[AgnosticMike]

i dont think it really matters which version of the bible you get. just get a version that you can understand.

hoped i helped,
jesusfreak_2008

G'day J freak and all. I havn't been back here in a while. It's not about which version of the Bible ie NIV AV LV etc, its about what historical version you accept. Aerly versions included stuff like Clement while later the Apocraphal books were added. Have a look at the OP and you'll know what I'm talking about. I know some of the threads get a bit off track from time to time. That's always going to happen, so I thought I'd steer it back on course.

Regards

Mike

 

[Radagast]

G'day I'm new to this forum but find the level of faith Christians put in their version of the Bible a little odd. It seems as though each of the versions of the New Testament through history have been very different. The books that were included and accepted by the early church differ from those accepted today...

Not quite true. See http://www.acm.org/~dekker/essays/history.html#SEC16 for a discussion.

 

[AgnosticMike]

Not quite true. See http://www.acm.org/~dekker/essays/history.html#SEC16 for a discussion.

I had a quick scan of the essay. Can you write a brief synopsis of its contents?

I began to see it better when reading a book called the Indestructible Book and more recently with a series on SBS called Who Wrote the New Testament. I notice you're from Oz, so have you seen the recent TV series. It is available in BS shops too.

Regards

Mike