Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I don't doubt the gospels have some truth in them, but the mythical parts are hard for any person in this day and time to accept.
-
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!
Why were the Gospels written down?
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Um, no.
The books of the NT were in use for about 300 years before Constantine. They didn't just fall out of the sky. The reason why they were canonized is because they were in use... the other Gospels simply had fallen out of use at the time.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
They may have existed before then, but there was no official canon before then. There were varying codexes containing books such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Well, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas does not appear in ANY New Testament Codex.
The Epistle of Barnabas and parts of the Shepherd of Hermas appears in Codex Sinaicus and probably should have been in the NT. But niether one of these are Gnostic nor heretical. Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
They were hard for folks in the early times to accept as well - Celsus' view of Christians and Christianity
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I am speaking of such codexes like Origen's codex, Clement of Alexandria's codex, Ambrose's codex, etc. Any codexes, in general.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You have no idea what you're talking about.
These writings don't appear in those codexes, either. I would suggest that you read the wikipedia articles on these writings before you go any further.
logician
Well-Known Member
I doubt any of it is true from a historical perspective.
JustWondering2
Just the facts Ma'am
Yes i am aware of that fact, I never said they feel from the sky. There were other gospels in use but were not included in the Canon. My point is Costaintine was a Roman King trying to orginize an impire and his was the final word on the canon, from what I have been able to gather on the subject. I am by no means an expert on the subject but I wonder why a Roman King would be the authority to decide what goes in and what stays out?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
The simple fact is - he didn't.
Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
ye of little faith.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
logician
Well-Known Member
I'm not a faith person.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Have you ever bought a used car?
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
That was my point. One has to have a great deal of faith to believe the gospels in any way reflect actual historical accounts. You and I both are not people of the faith.
Speaking for myself, my experiences buying a used car took me from being a "faith person" to a "profanity person".
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Speaking for myself, my experiences buying a used car took me from being a "faith person" to a "profanity person".
Not me.
I bought a 1994 Ford Ranger in 1997 with 70k miles on it.
I've kept it up. Now 200k miles and still trucking.
Heh... in two years, I've spent more repairing my van than I paid for it in the first place.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A rough guess is 35,000 biblical scholars. Half of them are atheist. And thousands of libraries.
A colleague of mine - an atheist - is publishing a history of the NT that will provide him $10k a year for the rest of his life. Not much, but that's just one book, and he has a lot more in him.