by jimwalton » Sat May 05, 2018 12:30 am
> I consider you contradicting yourself by implying the cannon was established except for several books, that alone means it was not established.
What I said was that it was essentially established. If Democrats and Republicans sat down at a table to establish a policy, and agreed instantly on 21 of 27 laws, and generally agreed on the other 6 but had to talk them through, we would say they were in basic agreement. That's the point I was making.
> I will go much further and state that there was no agreement among the many varied churches and different factions and the bible of today is representative of those who won many interfaith squabbles.
This is incorrect. All Christians—ALL Christians—accept the 66 books of the canon. The Roman Catholics accept the extra 14 books of the Apocrypha. So it's not fair to say "there was no agreement among the many varied churches and different factions..."
> I can point you towards several different websights that I would suggest you read
Thanks, but I don't need to read websites. I've studied the subject deeply and continue to.
> All I can point out is that for the first hundred years there were basically widespread sects of judaism (Maccabes to Mishnah is a good start if your into jewish histories)
This isn't true. The Maccabees were in 150 BC and have nothing to do with the Christian era. King Herod the Great was a descendent of their line, but he was certainly not influencing religious direction nor assuredly anything about the canon.
> John the Baptist as the messiah
The Bible speaks of various groups who had only been baptized with the baptism of John (Acts 18.25; 19.3-4), but not of a group that considered him the Messiah. John never claimed to be the messiah, claimed that his mission was to exalt Jesus, and himself said that his role was to diminish while the status of Christ was increased. The Gospel of John also teaches that John the Baptist was not "the light" but came only to bear witness to the "True Light."
> The Mishnah
The Mishnah was also BC. When you claim "for the first hundred years there were basically widespread sects of Judaism," that is true but has nothing to do with Christianity or the canonization process.
> During this time it was difficult to separate christian and jewish groups
It actually wasn't. The book of Acts, which picks up the story of Jesus after the resurrection and continues to about AD 60 or so, mentions that the demarcation between the two religious systems were clear and noticeable. Christianity at the time was known as "The Way" (Acts 9.2; 19.9, 23; 22.4). The Sanhedrin, the high priest, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and those who followed Judaism (Acts 5.17, 21) were set apart from the apostles and those who followed Jesus and spoke in his name (Acts 5.18, 27-28, 38-40). Saul, as a Pharisee, was part of intense Christian persecution (Acts 8.1-3). Acts 9.2, the first mention of "The Way," was in the mid- to late 30s AD, possibly only a handful of years after Jesus's death.
> you had several different factions Marcion, Tertullion, Ireneus, Gnostics, and the Montanists to name a few
Marcion was rejected as heretical, as were the Montanists, but Tertullian and Irenaeus were mainstream and orthodox, not factions. Eusebius is highly regarded as an extremely well-learned Christian of his time. The NT used by Eusebius included all but James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Jude. At his time these 5 books were recognized by most, but spoken against by some. Eusebius accepted Revelation as a legitimate part of the canon.
> the Revelation of John was often doubted as being gnostic.
Justin Martyr (AD 135) quoted it verbatim and attributed its authorship to the Apostle John. Justin's writing is the earliest allusion to it, so originally it was regarded as apostolic, not Gnostic.
Irenaeus (AD 180) writes that the book appeared in the early 90s (late 1st century), and he quotes from it (Book 4, chapter 20) as if it is authoritative as Scripture.
Revelation was included in the Muratorian Canon (AD 180), in Origen’s list (AD 250), Athanasius (367), The Synod of Rome (382), and the Synod of Carthage (397). The only one who does not include it is Eusebius (320).
> Richard Carrier's "exhaustive look"
I have no respect for the scholarship of Richard Carrier. Every time I read his works or watch his videos I am struck but his "way out there" perspectives. His work is not a "wonderful look," but rather a disreputable perspective. I'm actually tired of reading his stuff. It's not worth it, I have learned.
> Just to toss a few more points up you are absolutely wrong about the early bishops and elders.(fathers of the church you name them) It was all about power and control.
When you read their writings, you get a completely different opinion of them. They are concerned with the truth of Christianity, not personal power and control.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Sat May 05, 2018 12:30 am.