What you wrote here, as far as my ctrl + f skills tell, is not out of Wikipedia.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Intertestamental Period
- Thread starter pearl
- Start date
Of course much was word of mouth, the oral tradition was just that. Apostolic preaching followed by word of mouth, 'what's the buzz?'. It always amazes me that as a culture we advance in every other field, medicine, cosmology etc., yet we are unable, or refuse to advance when it comes to faith and religion.
The word in 'the Word of God' is human.
Long before the Catholic Church even existed, there were already minor collections of several of the recognized inspired books from the first century AD. For example: it was already known that the inspired gospels numbered four and there were already several smaller collections of Paul's letters.
In the minds of some people the canon is something that some persons who get together decide... The reality is very different: CANON is something that has to do mainly with the divine inspiration of the writings. Even if someone says that a book is canonical, that does not make it such, but rather it is necessary to check if the book was already considered that way when it began to circulate and why.
It must also be taken into account that some books were accepted by sectarian minorities that were detached from the official community, but they were not books recognized as inspired by the rest. Likewise, a divinely inspired book is not historically inaccurate or contradicts other previously recognized canonical books. Inspired books have to be written by people REALLY inspired by holy spirit to do so, not just anyone who says he is.
The formation of the BIBLICAL CANON is not a matter of human decisions, but of discovery. What was not canonical when the holy spirit was given to men directly, IS NOT canonical because today it is said to be by someone or some people.
In the first century there were ways to discover whether or not a Christian's writing was divinely inspired. Some of those who had the power that gives the holy spirit of God could perceive the reality behind the writing, because that power gave them a special intuition and a correct perspective on the matter. That gift was called "discernment of spirits" and only some authentic Christians could have that gift that came precisely from the holy spirit that was in them.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Again, the canon simply did not choose itself as the basic history behind its being chosen is really quite clear. There were some wide disagreements on some of the books, but it was the Church that you obviously hate that did this work with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Thus, as the saying goes, "You can have your own opinion but not your own facts".
No church decides which written document is inspired by God or not.
Interesting question: why no writing after the 2nd century was included in a collection made after the 4th century?
Answer: because it had already been decided beforehand which documents were inspired and which were not.
The people who put the collection together so many years later just put together something whose parts were already created two centuries or more before.
Interesting question: why no writing after the 2nd century was included in a collection made after the 4th century?
Answer: because it had already been decided beforehand which documents were inspired and which were not.
The people who put the collection together so many years later just put together something whose parts were already created two centuries or more before.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That is not even remotely logical, nor is it even slightly historical. Again, you're inventing something easily proven wrong. These bishops simply were not sitting around for half a century playing poker.
There were plenty of books/letters written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries as theologians, such as William Barclay [Anglican], well know, but the decision was not to include those in the canon. There were roughly 2000 of them, according to Barclay, to choose from.
If any group of people can decide which documents to include in the canon of books they want to consider eligible to belong, then we would have no canon... all religions would have an equal right to set up their own committee and choose their own criteria, and we would have thousands of different opinions.
The inspired books that would be part of a future collection were already well defined beforehand. As I explained in another post, it was already known that there were 4 gospels; there were collections of Paul's letters and the writings of Peter, Jude and the rest were known, including, of course, the ones written by the last living apostle at the end of the first century: John.
The only thing that was done in the fourth century and later was to rediscover and collect the documents in a single volume.
The inspired books that would be part of a future collection were already well defined beforehand. As I explained in another post, it was already known that there were 4 gospels; there were collections of Paul's letters and the writings of Peter, Jude and the rest were known, including, of course, the ones written by the last living apostle at the end of the first century: John.
The only thing that was done in the fourth century and later was to rediscover and collect the documents in a single volume.
Which they do, and is exactly what the Protestants did.
I can't help but think you're arguing this way because the Witnesses have a historic known hatred of the Catholic Church. Yet it was that Church that put the canon together. Either like it or lump it
Jehovah's Witnesses do not hate anyone, quite the contrary, and even so we have been hated by many. However, that is not the subject of the topic, and it would be better if you stopped directing this topic to personal attacks so that people understand the information being shared. Thanks in advance.
The Catholic Church was not the only one to make a collection, so did the Orthodox Church which became another church in a short time. Later the Protestants, and now even the atheists want to include as canonical (from their own criteria) even the apocrypha that nobody wants.
The Catholic Church was not the only one to make a collection, so did the Orthodox Church which became another church in a short time. Later the Protestants, and now even the atheists want to include as canonical (from their own criteria) even the apocrypha that nobody wants.
The Orthodox Canon does not really work the way any Western Canon does and some Orthodox Churches have books others don't. The Ethiopian OC is a good example of this.
Atheists don't believe the Bible is divinely inspired so how they can or why they'd have a Biblical canon is nonsensical. They haven't. The bare fact is that it is your church that took books out and has to justify that, not the other way around.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Inventing or parroting your own "reality" is not reality. If one cannot accept the reality, then their problem is beyond the scope of this discussion.
The canonical books were not "defined beforehand", and I guarantee that you cannot substantiate that in any way that they supposedly were. We even know why some of the books were hotly debated, such a Hebrews [uncertain author] and the Book of Revelation, the latter not being used in many local congregations because of some questions.
I'm on a debate forum. I like what I do.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Which goes to support my point, so thanks.
BTW, I was not insulting you, so if you take it that I was, then I'm sorry.
Well, it was not your point, but mine, hehehe. My statement was rethorical.
The issue is: who is really authorized to determine which books were inspired by God or not? Some humans have to get involved somehow, but who would that be? Christians in the first century, or Catholic theologians, Orthodox, modern atheist bibliophiles, or who? What would be the criteria?
However, the OP was not about the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures but about the canon of the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures. Who is authorized to decide which writings from before Christ were truly inspired by God? Catholic theologians? ...
The issue is: who is really authorized to determine which books were inspired by God or not? Some humans have to get involved somehow, but who would that be? Christians in the first century, or Catholic theologians, Orthodox, modern atheist bibliophiles, or who? What would be the criteria?
However, the OP was not about the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures but about the canon of the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures. Who is authorized to decide which writings from before Christ were truly inspired by God? Catholic theologians? ...
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The stage was being created for a major change. Humans had been expelled from paradise, to an imperfect world, due to Satan having so much influence over them. God put Satan in charge of the humans after the fall. God was like the chairman of the Board, with Satan his CEO in charge of the humans.
Jesus said that nobody has seen the Father except the Son. If this was true, What was assumed to be the Father in the Old Testament, was not the Father, but Satan, who was placed in charge as an agent and CEO, who reported to the Father; Book of Job.
Satan, like law and knowledge of good and evil was also both good and evil. The Father is above this division and was still resting after the six days of creation. Since humans chose this division of reality and Satan, he was made Lord of the Earth. God gave the humans a king they would obey. Just before the time of Jesus, the stage was being set for a changing of the guard, via the Son, who knew God, since he had access to the Father; family.
The doctrine of faith was different from doctrine of the law that came from Satan. It was more like the instincts that Adam and Eve had before the Fall. There was no need to be taught, law, since this was innate or supplied from within; DNA and internal instinctive data processes in 3-D.
In Revelations, Satan is thrown from heaven. Satan was condoned in heaven up to this point and was part of God's plan in the OT, and most of the drama of the NT. But after Satan loses his divine authority from God, and is expelled, he continues to exist, but under his own power. This is why there are no consensus compilation of the third or the Newest Testament. Satan ruled, law was created, even false prophets appear, but Satan lost his divine connection. We do not have a third Testament for the past 2000 years, since Satan and law did not come from the highest level of authority. The Holy Spirit offered some clarity, but those of faith were usually under the thumb of Satan and Law. There is no compilation, yet, since it is still not clear to anyone what is just from the Holy Spirit and what is contaminated by the renegade Satan acting as God but lacking divine authority. The Old and New Testament still strikes a nostalgia of when he was God's mediator.
Last edited:
Both denominations (Catholic and Orthodox) that came out of the early Christian Church, which were one Church until the 1000s, chose to include what you call the Apocrypha. There wasn't an orthodox Church in existence that rejected those books. They are only rejected in the 1500s by Protestants. No-one in the early Church rejected them. So it doesn't really matter who chose them, what matters is all Christians that would go on to form the Catholic/Orthodox Church accepted them as scripture. Unless you reject the first 1500 years of Christian history as being Christian, there's no way around this.
One of the criteria for inclusion in the canon was the appropriateness for reading in liturgical worship. Canonization was a long and complicated process carried out by the Catholic Church. The Didache refers to reading the 'memoirs' of the Apostles'.
The Orthodox still have this distinction, so some don't read Revelation as they don't find it appropriate for liturgy.