Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Don't sell those Rosary beeds?
Comments
-
Tim Robbins wrote: »2. Council of Rome in 382: This was head by Pope Damasus I. This was 2 years after 380, when "Emperor Theodosius I enacted a law establishing Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire and ordering others to be called heretics."
I think you are confusing Catholicism with Roman Catholicism (understandable if you refuse to read any books on the subject). Theodosius' edict used 'Catholicism' as referring to the Nicene credal position adopted by the majority of Christians as represented by the bishops of Rome and Alexandria.
You may not be aware of this, but the term 'Pope' as used by Damasus was also used by many other Bishops at that time (simply meaning 'father'). Indeed, for many years Rome acknowledged that the Bishop (or Pope) of Constantinople had equal authority with Rome. It was not until the East-West schism in the early 11th Century that the title of 'pope' was declared to belong to the Bishop of Rome and no other. This is an example of how much of the defining character of Roman Catholicism was adopted at a very late date.
Yes, it is quite true that the Book of Revelation (singular not plural) was not listed by the Council of Laodicea. In fact, the exact canon of Scripture as used by non-Catholics was never approved by any Church Council. There were always books omitted or added. For non-Catholics, the authority of these books was decided by the usage of church congregations all over the known world, not by any hierarchical decree.Council of Laodicea 360: The Canon of the New Testament as it is today was not agreed at this. Revelations was left out.0 -
Leave out the personal insults please. When did I say I refuse to read books. That silly petulant insult is highly annoying and has no place in this discussion. If you don't respect me, don't bother talking to me.I think you are confusing Catholicism with Roman Catholicism (understandable if you refuse to read any books on the subject).
I don't see what that has got to do with it. It is simply a matter of when the Roman Catholic Church began. You say it is with Leo 1. I am questioning that. Michael seemed to point Roman Catholic teaching is not consistent with this. Perhaps Noel would like to comment.Theodosius' edict used 'Catholicism' as referring to the Nicene credal position adopted by the majority of Christians as represented by the bishops of Rome and Alexandria.
You may not be aware of this, but the term 'Pope' as used by Damasus was also used by many other Bishops at that time (simply meaning 'father'). Indeed, for many years Rome acknowledged that the Bishop (or Pope) of Constantinople had equal authority with Rome. It was not until the East-West schism in the early 11th Century that the title of 'pope' was declared to belong to the Bishop of Rome and no other. This is an example of how much of the defining character of Roman Catholicism was adopted at a very late date.
Well then why are you referencing Church councils at all then? Your reasoning is very confusing.In fact, the exact canon of Scripture as used by non-Catholics was never approved by any Church Council. There were always books omitted or added. For non-Catholics, the authority of these books was decided by the usage of church congregations all over the known world, not by any hierarchical decree.
It is completely unclear to me how the non-Catholics decided their New Testament Canon. This is a very pertinent question because it is exactly the same as the Roman Catholic New Testament Canon.
Logically there are two possibilities:
1. The Roman Catholic Church decided it and the reformed Churches kept the same one.
2. Someone else decided it, before the RC Church did. Who? When? Where?
Could Luther, Calvin etc answer these questions a few hundreds years ago?
Well if we can't get clear answers today, I doubt very much they could.0 -
If only people who respect you are allowed to answer your posts then that is going to limit the discussion somewhat, isn't it?Tim Robbins wrote: »Leave out the personal insults please. When did I say I refuse to read books. That silly petulant insult is highly annoying and has no place in this discussion. If you don't respect me, don't bother talking to me.
That is the problem. You don't seem to grasp the core of the debate. I post facts demonstrating that Roman Catholicism as we know it is a comparatively late historical development (certainly much later than the Canon of Scripture). This is highly relevant since all the characteristics that distinguish Roman Catholicism from Protestantism postdate the formation of the New Testament canon. Therefore it would appear to be bad history that claims that Protestants got their Bible from Roman Catholicism.I don't see what that has got to do with it.
Of course it isn't. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the only true Church. Throughout its history it has arrested, tortured and executed those who disagree. Of course its teaching will try to support its own exclusive claims.Michael seemed to point Roman Catholic teaching is not consistent with this.
I am suggesting that evidence from partisan sources is tainted. You are unlikely to get any real insight if you choose to rely on purely Roman sources, or indeed on the writings of Paisleyites and other committed Protestants. Therefore I tried to help by linking to a nonpartisan site that states the views of historians. You, although an atheist (if I remember correctly), prefer to rely on the Roman Catholic Church's own self-promotion rather than a nonpartisan source. It is difficult for me to avoid any other conclusion than that you are trying to find sources that will support your argument rather than evidencing any genuine desire to uncover the facts.Well then why are you referencing Church councils at all then? Your reasoning is very confusing.
It is completely unclear to me how the non-Catholics decided their New Testament Canon. This is a very pertinent question because it is exactly the same as the Roman Catholic New Testament Canon.
Logically there are two possibilities:
1. The Roman Catholic Church decided it and the reformed Churches kept the same one.
2. Someone else decided it, before the RC Church did. Who? When? Where?
Could Luther, Calvin etc answer these questions a few hundreds years ago?
Well if we can't get clear answers today, I doubt very much they could.
I am referencing Church Councils because you asked me to in post #46.
My point all along has been that non-Catholics (I reject the term 'Protestant' as not applicable to many of us) do not rely on pronouncements by Church hierarchies as to what is true or not true. The fact, therefore, that Church Councils affirmed certain books as canonical has no bearing on what we believe. Such Councils merely agreed with a process that had already taken place at grass roots level.
The Christian Church decided which books were Scriptural long before anything we would recognise as Roman Catholicism ever existed. Thousands of individual congregations all over the known world had reached a consensus. This is the reason why Luther, Calvin et al rejected certain books from the Roman Catholic Bible. Their historical research (a fruit of the burgeoning scholarship of the renaissance) demonstrated which books had been commonly accepted as Scripture by early Christians. Prior to the Renaissance, such information was limited and controlled by Church authorities and so was not available. This is why the Renaissance and the Reformation, in the eyes of historians, are inextricably linked.
Certainly scholarship in Luther and Calvin's day was not what it is now. Luther wanted to exclude four books from the Canon that are today acknowledged by Protestants and Catholics alike. Subsequent scholarship has confirmed that the early reformers were correct in ignoring Luther since the books in question (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) were all treated as Scriptural by the majority of Christians in the earliest years of the Church.0 -
I appreciate the concept of treating with reverence those who question can be a lofty one - as you said in another thread:PDN wrote:If only people who respect you are allowed to answer your posts then that is going to limit the discussion somewhat, isn't it?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54960454#post54960454
But even in a wider context of Christianity, a bit of respect wouldn't go amiss. Note - if I couldn't understand something scientific and I was asking someone who could I think I get a lot more respect.PDN wrote:Patient questioning is fine, and no Christian should have a problem with that. After all, Christians are encouraged to always be ready "to make a defence to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:15). (I personally find the defence bit easier than the gentleness or reverence...)
Can you be more specific here? Do you mean one and only one Christian Church? Where was this church and what was the nature of this decision?The Christian Church decided which books were Scriptural long before anything we would recognise as Roman Catholicism ever existed.
Meeting, council or did it just sort of happen.
It appears, the New Testament was not decided by 360, for we agree that at Laodicea, Revelation was not Canon. Now are you saying there was another Church that had Revelation in Canon? Or that Revelation just sort of made it's way in and in the Council of Rome ramification of it was just coincidence?
It would appear the non Catholic / Protestant Churches are not returning to the early Christian churches pre 150 AD as they are using revelation.
Would you agree with that?
Name one book of the New Testament they rejected? Please let's keep this on the New Testament. You are not sticking to the point bring the OT into it.Thousands of individual congregations all over the known world had reached a consensus. This is the reason why Luther, Calvin et al rejected certain books from the Roman Catholic Bible.
Also you have stated your opinion that the Roman Catholic Church began in 408 with Leo 1, A.D. 440, just so there is no counfusion can you clarify
1. When you think the Catholic Church began?
2. When you think the Christian Church began?
You are saying that the decision for Canon was made at "grass roots level". Are you therefore saying that all Christians were co-incidentally using the exact same 27 books in New Testament Canon? I doubt it.
Finally, if the New Testament canon was agreed (or reaffirmed) in the council of Rome would you agree there have been no changes to the New Testament canon since then, even though there were changes before?0 -
I really don't know what you're talking about. I am perfectly happy to engage in debate with posters irrespective of whether they respect me or not. If you start demanding that other posters respect you or don't talk to you then I think you're going to have difficulty on an internet discussion board.Tim Robbins wrote: »That's rather a Christian attitude PDN.
If you or others post statements about Christianity then I am free to respond, irrespective of whether I respect you or not.
I am referring to the Christian Church as all those who worshipped Jesus Christ and participated in local congregations - what is commonly known as the Church Universal. These congregations, by a process of trial and error, gradually determined which books they would treat as Scriptural and which were rejected. It was not a formal pronouncement or Council. Historians agree that it was very much a bottom-up process than a top-down diktat. There was not total uniformity, as we would expect in such an organic process, a few individual congregations here or there added a book or two or left one out, but for the vast majority there was a consensus of opinion that the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament were Scriptural.Can you be more specific here? Do you mean one and only one Christian Church? Where was this church and what was the nature of this decision?
Meeting, council or did it just sort of happen?It appears, the New Testament was not decided by 360, for we agree that at Laodicea, Revelation was not Canon. Now are you saying there was another Church that had Revelation in Canon? Or that Revelation just sort of made it's way in and in the Council of Rome ramification of it was just coincidence?
It would appear the non Catholic / Protestant Churches are not returning to the early Christian churches pre 150 AD as they are using revelation.
Would you agree with that?
No, I would not agree at all.
The Book of Revelation was viewed as Scripture by Christians long before the Council of Laodicea. It is quoted as Scripture by early Christian leaders and teachers such as Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Irenaeus (120-200 AD), Tertullian (155-220 AD), Hippolytus (170-235 AD), Clement of Alexandria (150-211 AD) and Origen (185-254 AD).
You are making the mistake of focusing on a few formal actions in Church History (the Councils) and ignoring the vast majority of evidence that speaks of the everyday life of the Church. Church Councils were political affairs, and it hardly surprising that ecclesiastical leaders who were now under the direct control of the Imperial authorities would wish to disown a book that is strongly anti-government, describes Rome as 'Babylon' and prophesies its violent destruction. Incidentally, history has a habit of repeating itself. The Three-Self Patriotic churches in China (officially tolerated churches that accept Communist control and are subject to censorship) forbid their pastors from preaching from Revelation. Very Laodicean of them.
For non-Catholics, our definition of Scripture is determined by the usage of the earliest Christians, not the self-serving pronouncements of ecclesiastical princes in the pay of the Roman Empire. If we received our Bible from the Roman Catholic Church, then we would have accepted their canon of Scripture as defined by their Councils and included books like Tobit and Baruch.
That is not true. Your original claim earlier in the thread was that Protestants got their Bible (not just the New Testament) from the Roman Catholic Church. By trying to shift your stance to focus on the New Testament alone you are the one who is failing to stick to the point.Name one book of the New Testament they rejected? Please let's keep this on the New Testament. You are not sticking to the point bring the OT into it.
Also, I am not bringing the Old Testament into it. I am rather referring to the intertestamental books, or DeuteroCanonical books, which the Roman Catholic Church accepts, which were proclaimed as canonical by Church Councils, but which most non-Catholics reject on the historical grounds that they existed at the time of Christ but were not treated as Scripture by Jesus or His first followers.Also you have stated your opinion that the Roman Catholic Church began in 408 with Leo 1, A.D. 440, just so there is no counfusion can you clarify
1. When you think the Catholic Church began?
2. When you think the Christian Church began?
The Catholic Church (Catholic means universal) is the Christian Church which began on the Day of Pentecost a few weeks after the death of Jesus. Nearly all Christians (including Protestants) subscribe to the Apostles' Creed which says "I believe in the holy Catholic Church".
The Roman Catholic Church is a completely different animal, claiming that all those not in communion with Rome are not real Christians and therefore are outside the Church Universal, and therefore not 'Catholic'. It is difficult to pin an exact date on when the Roman Catholic Church began, as we are talking about a gradual process of theological invention and political shennanigans.
If you want to refer to the RC Church in the context of the OP, with its complete set of exclusive practices such as rosary beads, papal infallibility, belief in the assumption of Mary etc - then the answer would be the 19th Century.
If you want to refer to the point where an organisation headquartered in Rome began to teach that it was the only true church and that all others must submit to it, then the reign of Leo, beginning in 440AD, would be a reasonable starting point.
However, in my opinion the rot had already set in before then. The uniting of Church and State under Constantine in the 4th Century set the stage for the later development of Roman Catholicism.
No, not all Christians. I don't think that there has ever been a time in history when all Christians have agreed on anything. There are always minorities who hold differing views. For example, there are posters on this board who profess to be Christians yet reject doctrines that are held by 99% of Christians.You are saying that the decision for Canon was made at "grass roots level". Are you therefore saying that all Christians were co-incidentally using the exact same 27 books in New Testament Canon? I doubt it.
What I am saying is that the vast majority of Christians were accepting the same 27 New Testament books as Scriptural long before any Church councils considered the matter. This was not 'coincidentally'. They are the books that met fairly standard guidelines for inclusion in the Scriptures (apostolic authorship etc). Also there was a lot of interaction between the churches with visiting preachers etc, so it is hardly surprising that they reached a consensus.
You may doubt it, but most historians don't.
One thing that needs to be understood is that early Christians did not initially have two separate canons for the Old Testament and the New Testament. This is to read our modern concepts anachronistically back into history. They either viewed a book as Scripture or as not Scripture. Also, this was not just a matter of academic debate but rather of life and death. Living under persecution, they faced execution if found with banned books in their homes. Therefore it was important to know which books were worth risking your life for. After all, why get arrested for possessing a Gnostic gospel if it wasn't even the Word of God anyway? So Christians had a very real incentive to decide which books were canonical and which were not. They could easily be compared to cells of the resistance in different parts of Nazi occupied Europe who quickly developed common practices and systems of communication even though there was no centralised headquarters or bureaucracy.
The Council of Rome, in my opinion, got their list of OT books wrong, and managed to get it right in regard to the NT (although they were wrong about some of the authorship). Thus the Council's canon agrees with non-Catholics on the NT books (because they both are based on pre-existing usage).Finally, if the New Testament canon was agreed (or reaffirmed) in the council of Rome would you agree there have been no changes to the New Testament canon since then, even though there were changes before?0 -
No I said they got the concept of having a Bible from the Roman Catholics, see post 9.That is not true. Your original claim earlier in the thread was that Protestants got their Bible (not just the New Testament) from the Roman Catholic Church. By trying to shift your stance to focus on the New Testament alone you are the one who is failing to stick to the point.
Thereafter, with respect to Canon, I referred specifically and only to New Testment.
See posts 11, 13, 22, 34, 35, 39, 42, 44, 50, 53 and again in 55.
So to say I am not sticking to a point in post 55, when that is the point I have been sticking to and mentioned explictly in 10 previous posts is just ridiculous.
Ok so now you are saying it is not clear the Roman Catholic Church did begin Leo I. To be honest, I think this is one reason why we are at an impasse.The Catholic Church (Catholic means universal) is the Christian Church which began on the Day of Pentecost a few weeks after the death of Jesus. Nearly all Christians (including Protestants) subscribe to the Apostles' Creed which says "I believe in the holy Catholic Church".
The Roman Catholic Church is a completely different animal, claiming that all those not in communion with Rome are not real Christians and therefore are outside the Church Universal, and therefore not 'Catholic'. It is difficult to pin an exact date on when the Roman Catholic Church began, as we are talking about a gradual process of theological invention and political shennanigans.
You seem to change your mind on this.
In post 48 of this debate, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055115831&highlight=Athanasius&page=3, you indicated it's 314 AD, and then you then change (below) to the 19th century.
I am not sure how that helps. Say in 5 years times, the RC bring in 6 new traditions and in 6 years times two people have a conversation when did the RC begin, one could use your reasoning and just say - last year.If you want to refer to the RC Church in the context of the OP, with its complete set of exclusive practices such as rosary beads, papal infallibility, belief in the assumption of Mary etc - then the answer would be the 19th Century.
It seems if I may say a matter of theological dispute when the Roman Catholic began simple as that. In my opinion it seems that Roman Catholic Church think they began when you think the Catholic Church began.
See above.If you want to refer to the point where an organisation headquartered in Rome began to teach that it was the only true church and that all others must submit to it, then the reign of Leo, beginning in 440AD, would be a reasonable starting point.
However, in my opinion the rot had already set in before then. The uniting of Church and State under Constantine in the 4th Century set the stage for the later development of Roman Catholicism.
Hold on, Revelation was not considered Canon at Laodicea.What I am saying is that the vast majority of Christians were accepting the same 27 New Testament books as Scriptural long before any Church councils considered the matter.
So how do we know that was accepted by the majority of Christians before the Council of Rome, please?
Where is the evidence of any consensus of exact New Testament Canon outside the councils and synods? Athanasius Easter letter seems to be the only other evidence. Was this a recommendation or a reflection - we don't know.They are the books that met fairly standard guidelines for inclusion in the Scriptures (apostolic authorship etc). Also there was a lot of interaction between the churches with visiting preachers etc, so it is hardly surprising that they reached a consensus.
what a nice co-incidence.Thus the Council's canon agrees with non-Catholics on the NT books
Basically PDN, we don't know percentages of usage for any of the books in the first few centuries after the life Jesus Christ. We don't have much evidence outside the councils, synods and Athanasius' Easter letter of any officiating as what could be canon and what was not.
It is possible that councils only rattified what was widely in use at the time and their role was entirely superflous. I doubt it very much, it seems to me that councils intention was to provide some direction, organisation etc to Christianity. They may have been influence by what was widely in use at the time, but to say they play no role at all in finalizing Canon or that without them New Testament Canon would be the exact same, I think is improbable and naieve.0 -
In that case there is little point arguing with such ahistorical nonsense. The concept of having a Bible, or holy Scriptures, goes way back before either Christianity or Roman Catholicism. The concept was inherited from Judaism.Tim Robbins wrote: »No I said they got the concept of having a Bible from the Roman Catholics, see post 9.Ok so now you are saying it is not clear the Roman Catholic Church did begin Leo I. To be honest, I think this is one reason why we are at an impasse.
You seem to change your mind on this.
In post 48 of this debate, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...anasius&page=3, you indicated it's 314 AD, and then you then change (below) to the 19th century.
I'm sorry if the concept of an organisation developing over a period, rather than at one given point in time, is too much to grasp. I assure you I am doing my best to keep this as simple as possible.
What I said is clear enough for any person of average intelligence to grasp.
1. The Roman Catholic Church in its present form, with its full range of extrabiblical doctrines and practices has only existed as such since the 19th Century.
2. If you want to use a much broader definition of Roman Catholicism (ie as an organisation headquartered in Rome and claiming absolute authority over all of Christianity, then the reign of Leo I, which began in 440, would make a good starting point.
3. However, most of the root causes can be traced to the Church/State union under Constantine in 314AD.
The link to another thread simply records that I said, "I would contend that to call the early Church (pre-314AD) Roman Catholic is akin to calling the continent of North America 1000 years ago the United States." This certainly does not indicate that I believe that was the date when Roman Catholicism began. I will assume that in your excitement you didn't take time to read the post carefully, rather than that you are being deliberately dishonest.
Well, that is part of the problem. The Roman Catholic Church likes to portray itself as unchanging, and therefore as having always existed in something akin to it's present form. For example, calling people 'Popes' who lived long before the concept of the papacy had developed. I was pointing out that we need to look more carefully at the gradual development of Roman Catholicism.I am not sure how that helps. Say in 5 years times, the RC bring in 6 new traditions and in 6 years times two people have a conversation when did the RC begin, one could use your reasoning and just say - last year.
Your faith in accepting Roman Catholicism's own version of history is quite touching. (Are you as accepting of their claims on scientific matters?) Of course they say that, to say otherwise would be to reveal that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to demanding the submission and allegiance of all other Christians.It seems if I may say a matter of theological dispute when the Roman Catholic began simple as that. In my opinion it seems that Roman Catholic Church think they began when you think the Catholic Church began.
By the fact that it was quoted and cited as Scripture by a wide range of early Church leaders who were framing their arguments in a way calculated to influence the maximum numbers of Christians. This really is quite elementary and, I would stress again, reading a good Church History book (preferably written from a secular non-partisan stance) or two would help you enormously if you want to debate these matters from an informed perspective.Hold on, Revelation was not considered Canon at Laodicea.
So how do we know that was accepted by the majority of Christians before the Council of Rome, please?
There are thousands of manuscripts, documents and letters surviving from the early centuries of the Church. Many of these warn against certain books and cite others as Scripture. From these historians have been able to make a very good job of ascertaining which books were accepted by the majority of Christians.Where is the evidence of any consensus of exact New Testament Canon outside the councils and synods? Athanasius Easter letter seems to be the only other evidence. Was this a recommendation or a reflection - we don't know.
Think of it this way. If I was debating with you it would make little sense for me to quote 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' as an authoritative source. Since we both know it to be a fraud there would be no point. If I quote an authority I will seek to ensure that it is one respected by us both, otherwise I'm wasting my time. Similarly, the fact that so many early Christian literature quotes from books as 'clinchers' debates gives historians a good idea of which books were considered Scriptural and which were spurious.
How so coincidence? Both are based on historical evidence - a common source that preceded Catholicism and Protestantism.what a nice co-incidence
Given the wealth of early Christian literature you would be hard pressed to find a single reputable historian who will agree with that.We don't have much evidence outside the councils, synods and Athanasius' Easter letter of any officiating as what could be canon and what was not.
I am amazed that someone with obvious little knowledge of a subject would attempt to paint most historians of the period as naive.It is possible that councils only rattified what was widely in use at the time and their role was entirely superflous. I doubt it very much, it seems to me that councils intention was to provide some direction, organisation etc to Christianity. They may have been influence by what was widely in use at the time, but to say they play no role at all in finalizing Canon or that without them New Testament Canon would be the exact same, I think is improbable and naieve.
There was, of course, a very good reason why the Councils felt the need to make a list of canonical books. Once they found themselves sufficiently removed from the time of Jesus and the first apostles, there were many who tried to write their own books and pass them off as Scripture (the Gnostic books for example). Therefore the point of the lists produced by the Councils of Laodicea and Rome was not to pass judgment on books that the Church had already accepted as Scripture, but rather to rule out the new pretenders that were springing up everywhere.0 -
Can I summarize where we are at right now?
You think:The 27 books of New Testament were in wide use, before any council, without the need for any council (even though in your last post you said the council of Rome were ruling out "new pretenders springing up everywhere").
Ergo the councils or the Roman Catholic Church had no influence on what was to be New Testament Canon.
You also think it is not clear when the Roman Catholic church began. You have various views on this.
I think:
I agree that the 27 books of the New Testament were in wide use, before any council, without the need for any council. However, to say that all Christians were using the exact same 27 books is highly improbably, especially when there were many other Christian books. I would say that some Christians groups were using X of the 27 books, other Christian groups were using Y of the 27 books where X is not equal Y and both X or Y could be less or even greater than 27.
Either way sometime in the course of history there was a convergence to exactly 27 books and it stayed that way. Now, even though there is ample evidence many of these books were used before Athanasius and the councils, there is no evidence of this exact list of 27 books and only these 27 books used as Canon, at an earlier time than any of these references.
So for me it boils down to three simple questions:
1. What are the earliest historical reference of these 27 books and only these 27 books as being NT Canon we still have today?
I would say they are Athanasius and the councils.
2. Are these references from the Roman Catholic Church?
Well there seems to be some Theological dispute here. You seem to change your own mind when the RC Church began, anytime you suggest is different to when they think.
3. How much influence did these references have on final Canon of the New Testament?
This seems an unknown. They may have had a huge influence or they have been merely a reflection or co-incidence.0 -
I think anyone with basic literacy can read this thread and see that I have been entirely consistent as to when the RC Church began. If you can't debate without resorting to untruths then there is little point in continuing this.Tim Robbins wrote: »You seem to change your own mind when the RC Church began, .0 -
Advertisement
-
There's no untruths, you have mentioned three different times. That very accusation is an untruth itself. Basically your reasoning is very muddled, I am trying to summarize and work my way through so I can understand it, but it's impossible. I get the impression you are unable to treat this subject with objectivity because you have a chip on your shoulder about the RC Church. I have been there myself. But I'd like to think at this age of my life I wouldn't hold grudges.I think anyone with basic literacy can read this thread and see that I have been entirely consistent as to when the RC Church began. If you can't debate without resorting to untruths then there is little point in continuing this.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »There's no untruths, you have mentioned three different times. That very accusation is an untruth itself. Basically your reasoning is very muddled, I am trying to summarize and work my way through so I can understand it, but it's impossible. I get the impression you are unable to treat this subject with objectivity because you have a chip on your shoulder about the RC Church. I have been there myself. But I'd like to think at this age of my life I wouldn't hold grudges.
I have explained, in language so plain that even a brain-damaged sheep could understand, that Roman Catholicism has developed over time and that setting a date for its beginning depends on whether you are referring to the time when it first claimed to be the Catholic (Universal) Church (Leo's reign beginning in 440) or its full blown manifestation complete with all its extrabiblical doctrines as they stand today (the 19th Century). I have also, in this and in another thread, stated that the roots of the whole problem can be traced back to Constantine in 314, meaning that any reference to Roman Catholicism before that time is hopelessly anachronistic.
At no time have I changed my mind on this, nor have I made any statements that would be inconsistent with this view.
I don't know if you are genuinely incapable of grasping fairly simple concepts, or whether you are deliberately being pathetic and misrepresenting me. In the words of Augustine, "Let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable".0 -
I am fairly good at grasping simple concepts but a lot of your reasoning was convoluted. If your latest insult at me is similar to how you treat people who question your Church preaching, I can only draw two conclusions:I have explained, in language so plain that even a brain-damaged sheep could understand, that Roman Catholicism has developed over time and that setting a date for its beginning depends on whether you are referring to the time when it first claimed to be the Catholic (Universal) Church (Leo's reign beginning in 440) or its full blown manifestation complete with all its extrabiblical doctrines as they stand today (the 19th Century). I have also, in this and in another thread, stated that the roots of the whole problem can be traced back to Constantine in 314, meaning that any reference to Roman Catholicism before that time is hopelessly anachronistic.
At no time have I changed my mind on this, nor have I made any statements that would be inconsistent with this view.
I don't know if you are genuinely incapable of grasping fairly simple concepts, or whether you are deliberately being pathetic and misrepresenting me. In the words of Augustine, "Let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable".
1. These people don't question.
2. Anybody who does question just moves on.
Unlike Augustine's quote, both options are possible.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »I am fairly good at grasping simple concepts but a lot of your reasoning was convoluted. If your latest insult at me is similar to how you treat people who question your Church preaching, I can only draw two conclusions:
1. These people don't question.
2. Anybody who does question just moves on.
Unlike Augustine's quote, both options are possible.
Plenty of question and answer times happen at our church, but generally those who ask questions display some knowledge, or a willingness to learn, concerning the subject at hand.
I am really interested by this, Tim. I have clearly stated that an organisation can develop over a period of time, and that you might date the organisation's starting point as being:
a) When the primary interests and motivations of the organisation begin to become prominent, even if the organisation itself has not taken shape (embryonic stage).
b) When the organisation begans to become recognisable as a distinct structure (infancy stage).
c) When the organisation assumes its present shape and form (adult stage).
You can apply this model to any organisation or historical movement (eg communism, Nazism, the Salvation Army etc). It would seem to me to be a fairly basic idea for anyone seeking to understand sociological or historical developments, and hardly convoluted by any stretch of the imagination.
Are you genuinely claiming that this is too confusing for you? Or are you (as I suspect) just taking the mickey?0 -
What's making this confusing is your bias against the RC Church. I stated in previous posts when the RC church began seems a matter of theological interpretation or dispute. Rather than agreeing with this, you take the long way around, equivocate and instead of sticking to the subject at hand objectively, seem all to keen to use this thread as an opportunity for more RC mud slinging - describing when the "rot" set in etc.Plenty of question and answer times happen at our church, but generally those who ask questions display some knowledge, or a willingness to learn, concerning the subject at hand.
I am really interested by this, Tim. I have clearly stated that an organisation can develop over a period of time, and that you might date the organisation's starting point as being:
a) When the primary interests and motivations of the organisation begin to become prominent, even if the organisation itself has not taken shape (embryonic stage).
b) When the organisation begans to become recognisable as a distinct structure (infancy stage).
c) When the organisation assumes its present shape and form (adult stage).
You can apply this model to any organisation or historical movement (eg communism, Nazism, the Salvation Army etc). It would seem to me to be a fairly basic idea for anyone seeking to understand sociological or historical developments, and hardly convoluted by any stretch of the imagination.
Are you genuinely claiming that this is too confusing for you? Or are you (as I suspect) just taking the mickey?
If you are not slagging that off you are slagging me off. None of this is necessary or helpful in the discussion.
It seems my summary in post 59 seems reasonable and beyond that of a retarded sheep. You have differing views of when the RC Church began, depending on what is meant by RC Church.
But as you say, all organisations have an organic nature, and so if one takes that approach one can decided whenever one wants when an organisation began. I think in your case, you are using this convenient maxim and letting your anti-RC bias to dictate history to you.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »What's making this confusing is your bias against the RC Church. I stated in previous posts when the RC church began seems a matter of theological interpretation or dispute. Rather than agreeing with this, you take the long way around, equivocate and instead of sticking to the subject at hand objectively, seem all to keen to use this thread as an opportunity for more RC mud slinging - describing when the "rot" set in etc.
If you are not slagging that off you are slagging me off. None of this is necessary or helpful in the discussion.
So you find things confusing when another poster has a bias for or against something? Well, you might wish every debate to be carried on in totally value-free terminology, indeed you may even imagine that you yourself never betray any bias in your posts, but I freely admit that I am biased. An organisation that has tortured and killed its enemies over the years claims to be the sole representative on earth of one who taught His followers to turn the other cheek and forgive their enemies. Yes, I have a bias against such a claim. I also have a bias against the Inquisition, the Crusades, witchhunts, antisemitism, and other crimes against humanity.
As for your claim that it is a matter of theological interpretation or dispute when the Catholic Church began, that is true in the same sense that it was a matter of theological interpretation or dispute in Galileo's day whether the sun revolved around the earth or not. Of course Galileo was correct because his observations were based on science, not theology. In the same way, history clearly demonstrates that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist at the time when Christians developed the Canon of Scripture.
You complain about me slagging you off but then you make statements like this that virtually invite a slagging. Of course you can't decide for yourself when an organisation began. For example, it would be the utmost nonsense to claim that the Salvation Army began in 55BC.But as you say, all organisations have an organic nature, and so if one takes that approach one can decided whenever one wants when an organisation began.
What I have stated is that, depending on your criteria, you can date the beginning of an organisation to its embryonic stage, to its infancy, or to its mature expression.
So, for example, you could say that the Salvation Army had its origins in the many evangelical organisations that carried out charitable work in the East End of London in the early 19th Century. You could also legitimately claim that the Salvation Army began in 1865 when William Booth began a movement called The Christian Mission. You could also point to 1878 when the Christian Mission was reorganised using military terminology and uniforms and rebranded itself as the Salvation Army. However, only a complete moron would claim that the Salvation Army began in, say 1520. Even if the Salvation Army tried to make such a claim, we would be entitled to point out that historians agree that claim to be nonsense. Only someone who is wilfully ignorant would try to stifle debate by claiming that the Salvation Army's false claim was a matter of theological interpretation or dispute.0 -
Advertisement
-
There's a difference between developed and finalised. I am not talking about developing I am talking about the finalisation of it.PDN wrote:In the same way, history clearly demonstrates that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist at the time when Christians developed the Canon of Scripture.
Here is the historical fact.
The earliest historical reference of the 27 books forming canon is
Athanasius' Easter letter 367. This list was ratified in Rome 382.
There is no earlier historical reference of the 27 books and only the 27 books being Canon. We don't have any historical references of the 27 books and only the 27 as Canon before that.
Yes or No, do you accept that?
I am not going to fall for analogy. let's leave them out.Only someone who is wilfully ignorant would try to stifle debate by claiming that the Salvation Army's false claim was a matter of theological interpretation or dispute.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »There's a difference between developed and finalised. I am not talking about developing I am talking about the finalisation of it.
Here is the historical fact.
The earliest historical reference of the 27 books forming canon is
Athanasius' Easter letter 367. This list was ratified in Rome 382.
There is no earlier historical reference of the 27 books and only the 27 books being Canon. We don't have any historical references of the 27 books and only the 27 as Canon before that.
Yes or No, do you accept that?
OK, so you want to talk only about the finalisation of the canon of the New Testament, but you want to refer to Roman Catholicism during its development rather than its finalisation? A tad inconsistent of you, but let's humour you.
Yes, a letter by Athanasius of Alexandria is the oldest surviving list of New Testament books that coincides exactly with our modern New Testament canon.
Now I look forward to you demonstrating how a guy who claimed to be the Pope of Alexandria was actually acting on behalf of an organisation that claims that there was only Popes in Rome. This should be fun.0 -
I have always been referring to the finalisation of Canon. Nothing new there.OK, so you want to talk only about the finalisation of the canon of the New Testament, but you want to refer to Roman Catholicism during its development rather than its finalisation? A tad inconsistent of you, but let's humour you.
Yes, a letter by Athanasius of Alexandria is the oldest surviving list of New Testament books that coincides exactly with our modern New Testament canon.
What is new is an admission on your part that there earliest evidence we have of the finalisation is Athanasius. I think you wasted a lot of time in this thread harping on and on about 1st, 2nd and 3rd century AD.
Yes I may have to admit error in all this.Now I look forward to you demonstrating how a guy who claimed to be the Pope of Alexandria was actually acting on behalf of an organisation that claims that there was only Popes in Rome. This should be fun.
The first list of NT Canon was by the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. However Athanasius was / is revered a saint in the RC Church. I am going to have admit the limits of my knowledge now. I am not sure of the exact nature of the relationship between Athanasisus and the RC Church.0
Advertisement