Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 12/26/2011 12:46:40 PM PST by rzman21
The new testament is pretty much like the Talmud(jewish)..
Some teachers opinions of what “things” are and or should be..
The Talmud is some Rabbi’s opinions on other Rabbi’s opinions..
The New Testament is pretty much the same thing..
Except the Rabbis are called Apostles, same thing really..
And the Rabbi’s and Apostles may have actually had experiences with “God” in some fashion.. or NOT..
But both ask interesting questions and attempt to answer some of them as well..
Both are worth reading but the damned Talmud is way too big..
The modern Protestant’s stance on the New Testament canon vis-a-vis their stance on the “Apocrypha” is slightly hypocritical.
Thank you for posting this. I’m saving it for closer reading a little later, and for future reference.
The original part of the Didache was written by Paul and Barnabus.
Can you summarize the article in a flow chart???.... Just kidding... that is a lot of excellent information! Thank you for sharing.
Very long but very good listing of New Testament history. Thank you. Marking for later study.
In my small experience of working with my parish RCIA team, I have come to see that very few people, Protestant or Catholics, have much knowledge about the formation of the Biblical canon, if they have thought of this issue at all.
The deeper you get into the history, the more you realize the vulnerabilities and contingencies of translation, canonization and interpretation, and the need for God's protection every step of the way through the tens of centuries of the human transmission of things divine.
It makes me love the Catholic Church all the more. It also inclines me to be gentle in dealing with non-Catholic Christians. I am loath to call anyone a "hypocrite" when I realize how many of my own mistakes are made through my own ignorance.
My claim about hypocrisy is aimed at the Protestant scholars who should know better when it comes to their studies.
I’m not attacking uninformed laity who don’t know better.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
The people who question the canon of the New Testament are generally those who do not like what the New Testament has to say and want to add more books in order to 1) water down the parts they don’t like or 2) add parts they can interpret and twist to their own way of thinking.
The reality is that the books considered for inclusion in the canon but ultimately left out (namely I and II Clement, Shepherd of Hermas and Ignatius’s Epistles) are solid and worthy reads but do not say anything that the other books don’t already say. In other words, they’re redundant.
The so-called “Sayings Gospel of Thomas” (a favorite of revisionists), the Gospel of Mary, and others were never considered authoritative by the early church. The Thomas Gospel, for example, is a collection of quotes without any background or context. revisionsist love it because they are able to imagine a context of their liking and then cite the Gospel as authoritative.
Another good essay. Thank you for sharing.
But books that made the canon like Revelation, Jude, Hebrews and James were questioned by many of the Church Fathers for the same reasons they questioned some of the Old Testament books.
My argument is Protestants undermine themselves by claiming the so-called “Apocrypha” isn’t scripture because certain Church fathers had issues with them while ignoring the questions surrounding these books in the NT.
Luther threw them out, but what authority states that Revelation, Hebrews, etc. belong in the Bible or that they are inspired, considering they fail the Protestant test for OT canonicity.
Thank you for that clarification. I am always reminding myself to check my own writing to delete uncharitable unwarranted assumptions. My record on this is far -— far!-—from perfect, and will be revealed to all On That Day!
BKMK for later.
The article is written from the perspective of one who is an enemy of Christ.
Nothing in the article glorifies Christ, the work of God the Holy Spirit, nor the Plan of the Father, but attempts to counterfeit the authority of God with their personal worldly judgment.
The Word of God just didn’t happen to evolve when a body of bishops voted upon it.
**The article is written from the perspective of one who is an enemy of Christ.*
??
Just because one may not agree with the idea of the article does not make the author an enemy of Christ — the devil.
This comes from a Catholic website
http://catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Scripture/Articles/CanonOfTheNewTestament.aspx
There are also may hotlinks in the article which the poster did not show. You may wish to view them by going to the original article.
But then it is a Catholic website. LOL!
More nonsense...Polycarp never referenced anything in your mythical apocrypha...
| New Testament | ||
You mean apocrypha like Revelation? :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.