Which books belong in the New Testament?

[doubtingmerle]

No, you can't use the argument that gnostic writings were used in the early Churches. Sorry, no cookie for you.

Then why is it that many of the earliest Christian writings were indeed gnostic?

And the Infancy Gospel of James was not gnostic. There are over 100 surviving Greek manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of James. So yes, it was a very popular book in the church.

Why on earth would anyone choose to go along with modern scholars vs the early Church, re: matters of the early Church?

Because the only way to determine what the early church taught is to study the manuscripts and other artefacts that come from the early church. Do you have a better method of knowing what the early church taught?

 

[razeontherock]

Then why is it that many of the earliest Christian writings were indeed gnostic?

Because the only way to determine what the early church taught is to study the manuscripts and other artefacts that come from the early church. Do you have a better method of knowing what the early church taught?

Yup. And I've told you. Repeatedly. In this thread. We know what they did, when they did it, how they did it, and even why they did it, from times that pre-date any manuscripts and other artefacts we have today.

Where you're confused is that just because something exists, like say the gospel of Thomas, that it was a 'Christian' writing. What matters is if it was used in the Church. The only exception to this is Revelation.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yup. And I've told you. Repeatedly. In this thread. We know what they did, when they did it, how they did it, and even why they did it, from times that pre-date any manuscripts and other artefacts we have today.

Do you have any way of determining what the early church said other than through early documents and artefacts? If so, how is it that you are determining what the early church said?

Do you have a single document that verifies that the early church taught that the book of James was written by the James you claim?

Where you're confused is that just because something exists, like say the gospel of Thomas, that it was a 'Christian' writing. What matters is if it was used in the Church. The only exception to this is Revelation.

The Book of Thomas claims to be the teachings of Jesus.

Acts also claims to record what the followers of Jesus did.

Could it be that the Gospel of Thomas acurately records the teaching of the early church, and that Acts is shear fabrication?

 

[razeontherock]

Do you have any way of determining what the early church said other than through early documents and artefacts?

Sure Where was the first Church? Go there. Or talk to those that do. There are in fact 4 of them that pre-date the Roman Church, that have ALWAYS been in Communion with one another and remain so to this day. They have also kept themselves pure from the abuses of the Church of Rome.

But as far as me "having any" of their precious relics? No, they guard those closely, and I wouldn't think of wanting to remove them from wherever it is they deem they belong.

Do you have a single document that verifies that the early church taught that the book of James was written by the James you claim?

As long as you are prioritizing documents, you will not be making room in your inner being for the Lord whom you presumably wish to approach.

Could it be that the Gospel of Thomas acurately records the teaching of the early church, and that Acts is shear fabrication?

No How do we know? Acts was read in the Churches, Thomas was not.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you have any way of determining what the early church said other than through early documents and artefacts?

Sure Where was the first Church? Go there. Or talk to those that do. There are in fact 4 of them that pre-date the Roman Church, that have ALWAYS been in Communion with one another and remain so to this day. They have also kept themselves pure from the abuses of the Church of Rome.

OK, so you have a way of knowing these things happened in the first century without any documents to confirm it? Very interesting.

Can I ask you once more how you know these things since you have no documents to confirm it? How do you know there were exactly 4 churches that pre-date the Roman Church, that they have ALWAYS been in Communion with one another and remain so to this day, etc.? Since you have no documents to confirm such assertions, were you living in the first century? Did you conduct a seance to bring back James? No? Tell me please, with no documents to confirm what you say, how can you possibly know any of this?

Acts was read in the Churches, Thomas was not.

Please document your assertion.

 

[razeontherock]

documents

documents
documents
documents
document

You appear to confuse G-d with Hitler's SS, always requiring papers for passage. Do you think documents you respect will gain you clearance before His throne?

Your priorities are completely out of line for Spiritual matters:

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

[doubtingmerle]

razeontherock, there is a simple answer you can give when you don't know something. Why not simply say, "I don't know."

Who wrote the book of James? We don't know. The author says his name is James, but "James" was a common name, and he doesn't tell us which James he is. He doesn't say he was the half-brother of Jesus. And we have no record of anybody near to the time of James saying he was the half-brother of Jesus. Futhermore, it was very common in those days for somebody to write a book and claim to be somebody else.

So why not say that we have no evidence to claim that the writer of James was the half-brother of Jesus? But instead of admitting that, you make all these claims about people saying that in the New Testament times. How do you know they said that? You have presented us with no evidence. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada. But for some reason, that does not stop you from repeating your claim over and over, as though repeating an assertion many times makes it true.

You appear to confuse G-d with Hitler's SS, always requiring papers for passage.

So now you try to compare me to Hitler? Are you that desperate?

Why not simply say you have no evidence? If you stop making such doubtful claims while refusing to give evidence, then I will stop asking you if you have evidence.

Do you think documents you respect will gain you clearance before His throne?

No. Why do you ask?

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Huh? You turn to quoting from a book? Why do you quote a document to tell us what Jesus and the disciples taught? If passing things down by word of mouth for 2000 years is so much more accurate--as your words imply--why not simply repeat what somebody else has heard that someone else heard that someone else heard that someone else heard that Jesus said instead of quoting from an ancient document?

 

[razeontherock]

there is a simple answer you can give when you don't know something. Why not simply say, "I don't know."

Because I do know.

If passing things down by word of mouth for 2000 years is so much more accurate--as your words imply

Now you're just being whack

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because I do know.

Even with no evidence? For so far you have presented no evidence for your claim that the first century church said that the writer of the book of James was the half-brother of Jesus. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

How is it that you know you are right, if you cannot present a shred of evidence?

 

[razeontherock]

Baloney. So far you haven't gone to the Church of Jerusalem.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Baloney. So far you haven't gone to the Church of Jerusalem.

Have you gone to the Church of Jerusalem in the first century? Do you have any records that show what they said about the book of James? If you have never gone there, if you have never talked to anybody who had gone there, if you have no written records of what they said about the book of James, how can you be so very certain you know what they said about the book of James?

 

[razeontherock]

Merle, what happens when you assume?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Merle, what happens when you assume?

When I assume what?

 

[razeontherock]

Post 131

 

[doubtingmerle]

Post 131

Do you think I assumed something in post 131 that I should not have assumed? If so, what is it?

 

[razeontherock]

Merle, I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are sincere, and not intentionally just being annoying, but it sure is getting harder! How many times have I repeated myself, that the Bible exists solely to record what had been recited in the Churches for decades before it was ever written down? That the sole exception is Revelation, which has precious little practical application anyway? That James served in the first Church, that was in Jerusalem? Are you trying to tell those people they don't know who James was? Really??

 

[doubtingmerle]

razeontherock,

Once more, the question that you absolutely refuse to even acknowledge: How do you know that the author of the book of James was the half-brother of Jesus, and that he was the one who led the church in Jerusalem?

How many times have I repeated myself, that the Bible exists solely to record what had been recited in the Churches for decades before it was ever written down?

Please show me where the Bible asserts the point in question, that the writer of the Book of James was the half-brother of Jesus. If the Bible nowhere asserts the claim you say you know is true, then you cannot turn to it as your evidence.

You may claim that the Bible is simply copying down what had been recited for years, but how do you know that this is true? How do you know that the epistles of Peter correctly record what the church said for years, but the apocalype of Peter does not? How do you know that Matthew correctly records what the church taught, but the Gospel of Thomas does not?

That James served in the first Church, that was in Jerusalem?

I agree that the book of Acts teaches this.

But as Acts is widely regarded to be fiction, I wouldn't put much weight on that. Besides the doubtful book of Acts, you have no real evidence that this is so.

Are you trying to tell those people they don't know who James was? Really??

Even if the leader in Jerusalem was named James, how do you know that the James that wrote the book of James was that same James? You refuse to deal with that question, don't you? You just pretend that question was never asked, don't you?

But the question does not go away. How do you know that the James that wrote the book of James was that same James that led the church in Jerusalem?

 

[razeontherock]

Merle, you're being entirely circular and argumentative. I have repeated the same answer more than enough. Do your due diligence, and decide. As it is, you have no basis for forming an opinion.

 

[doubtingmerle]

How many times have I repeated myself, that the Bible exists solely to record what had been recited in the Churches for decades before it was ever written down?

Zero? Is that the answer you are looking for?

I sure don't remember you saying "the Bible exists solely to record what had been recited in the Churches for decades before it was ever written down" in this thread, so I went back and read through all your posts in this thread again. I could not find this assertion made one time.

And yet you say you have been repeating this? Really? Please list one of the posts where you made this assertion.

Now that you have finally posted this assertion give me one chance to respond, please. How do you know that the Bible correctly records those things that were repeated for decades? And how do you know that the rumors that were repeated for decades were true? And most importantly for this thread, how do you know that people who chose which books go into the Bible correctly selected those books that recorded those things that had been recited for decades? How do you know they did not insert some books into the Bible that did not belong?

Do you understand that simply asserting that the Bible is true does not prove it is true?

 

[doubtingmerle]

How many times have I repeated myself, that the Bible exists solely to record what had been recited in the Churches for decades before it was ever written down?

Oh, I see now that you said this in another thread that had been closed for a while. As that thread is past history, I see no need to revive that discussion there.

This assertion has little relevance to this thread. It does nothing to prove which books are part of the canon, unless you assume the point in question, that they recited the books of the canon.

However, this assertion does apply to another thread I am thinking of starting, regarding the historicity of the book of Mark. Maybe I will take that thought up there.