Sacred status of ancient documents

[Jollybear]

Okay let me refraise.
how did the books now in the bible get chosen? Who chose and what was the criteria used? – and is that decision long ago still valid

They wer chosen based on figuring out what books wer written by witnesses or had witness approval.

 

[sojourner]

I think before a document reaches that sacred status, 2 things need to be determined.

is it written by an eyewitness or have an eyewitness approval?

2, is the teaching sound?

But, wait! Much of the Bible was written by non eyewitnesses and without eyewitness approval.

 

[sojourner]

They wer chosen based on figuring out what books wer written by witnesses or had witness approval.

Were they?

 

[74x12]

The process by which some documents were accorded sacred status and collected to form the Bible must be reviewed with other ancient documents now competing for that sacred status.
Do you agree or disagree? And why?

Well how would you review it?

You know Moses met God face to face on the mountain. Or Elijah for example talked directly to God on the mountain. How could you decide what is "sacred" unless you talk to God?

 

[sayak83]

The process by which some documents were accorded sacred status and collected to form the Bible must be reviewed with other ancient documents now competing for that sacred status.
Do you agree or disagree? And why?

What makes only ancient documents sacred.

 

[blü 2]

The process by which some documents were accorded sacred status and collected to form the Bible must be reviewed with other ancient documents now competing for that sacred status.
Do you agree or disagree? And why?

Well, the NT is a collection of documents selected according to the religious politics of the selectors ─ that is, of a particular group, time and place.

However there wasn't then and there isn't now any objective criterion that would allow the process to be done impartially.

 

[paarsurrey]

They wer chosen based on figuring out what books wer written by witnesses or had witness approval.

Paul was not an eyewitness of the Jesus' accounts, and Luke* was also not an eyewitness.
Regards
___________
*"Some scholars[103][104] uphold the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Others point out that Acts contradicts Paul's own letters and denies him the important title of apostle, suggesting that the author was not a companion of Paul's.[105]
As is the case with all the Gospels, it is unknown exactly when the Gospel of Luke was written. Scholars have proposed a range of dates from as early as 60 AD to well into the second century, but the majority of recent critical scholars favour late 1st-century dates after 70 AD".[106][107][108][109]
Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Some scholars[103][104] uphold the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Others point out that Acts contradicts Paul's own letters and denies him the important title of apostle, suggesting that the author was not a companion of Paul's.

Another possibility is that Paul didn't always read what Luke was writing. That's what happens when you just don't do it yourself.