These documents didn't derive their Authority from being selected; each one was Authoritative before anyone gathered them together. The early Church merely listened and sensed that these were Authoritative documents.
For somebody now to say that the Canon emerged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, 'Let's get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.' I would say, 'THANKS FOR NOTHING! We knew that before the pronouncement was made.' We know it because of sensitivity to what is good music and what is not. The same with the Canon." (emphasis mine)
Best, OP
I need that "master of the obvious" .gif.
Everyone knows they didn't "derive their authority from being selected" and were "authoritative before anyone gathered them together".
That's sort of like observing that diamonds are diamonds before anyone goes into a diamond mine and hacks them out of the rocks in which they're embedded. Sure enough, they are. That doesn't make diamond miners irrelevant to the process of acquiring a diamond ring.
It's hard to attach any real authoritative quality to a work before you know which work to attach it to. It's hard to attach authority to "Scripture" over and above anything else when you're not sure whether the Epistle to the Hebrews, or the Didache, or the "Shepherd of Hermas" are "Scripture" or not.
These are the philosophical questions that bother me - and I have not heard a satisfying answer yet. I'm still listening for one, however.
Wonderful. How do you know that the music you hear "labeled" as from Bach or Beethoven is really from them? Have you heard either play before? You trust other people, don't you?
Thanks for nothing? You already HAVE experts who tell you that "this recording" is from the music of Bach. They have his actual manuscripts, their music sheets. Of course we trust that these experts are able to figure out the music is genuine because we trust the manuscripts ON THEIR OWN MERIT.
This is not true with the Bible! We don't possess ONE SINGLE AUTOGRAPH! Thus, BY ITSELF, the Bible does not validate itself! In many of the letters, we don't even know who wrote them! Second Peter? Hebrews? Jude? Paul HIMSELF WARNS of forgeries! Who wrote the "Gospels"?! Practically everything we know (without witnesses - the Church) about Jesus is based on the absolute trust that those particular writers were honestly recording a true narrative and passing along orthodox teachings. Any courtroom in America would laugh you out if you tried to foist the idea that even INDIVIDUAL letters were self-attesting, like the music of Bach.
What makes your stance even more ridiculous is that you are presuming that ALL 27 books of what we call the New Testament ARE INDEED FROM GOD. Based on what internal evidence? A few vague verses that do not mention the entire canon? You don't even know if you got some of the individual books correct - nor do you know you got ALL the correct books in what we call the Bible!
The only way we know that the Gospel of Mark is not a forgery or not a heterdox Gospel (like the Gospel of Thomas) is because the CHURCH validates it. They taught the Gospel by word of mouth FIRST. THEY were in the position to KNOW what was truly from the hand of an apostle, not us! Thus, you comparison is not much of a comparison at all. Without the Church, you wouldn't even know you got the Word of God in your hands.
Sadly, you take for granted that there was FIRST an Apostolic Teaching that everyone already KNEW. With this, they validated the Scriptures. The Scriptures didn't validate the teachings already given. The Scriptures were revered later as they were FIRST RECOGNIZED as true letters from the Apostles - those sent by Christ.
The early Church merely listened and sensed that these were Authoritative documents.
Exactly. Without the Church's idea of Tradition, they wouldn't have sensed anything as truly from the Apostles.
Regards
Wonderful. How do you know that the music you hear "labeled" as from Bach or Beethoven is really from them? Have you heard either play before? You trust other people, don't you?
Thanks for nothing? You already HAVE experts who tell you that "this recording" is from the music of Bach. They have his actual manuscripts, their music sheets. Of course we trust that these experts are able to figure out the music is genuine because we trust the manuscripts ON THEIR OWN MERIT.
This is not true with the Bible! We don't possess ONE SINGLE AUTOGRAPH! Thus, BY ITSELF, the Bible does not validate itself! In many of the letters, we don't even know who wrote them! Second Peter? Hebrews? Jude? Paul HIMSELF WARNS of forgeries! Who wrote the "Gospels"?! Practically everything we know (without witnesses - the Church) about Jesus is based on the absolute trust that those particular writers were honestly recording a true narrative and passing along orthodox teachings. Any courtroom in America would laugh you out if you tried to foist the idea that even INDIVIDUAL letters were self-attesting, like the music of Bach.
What makes your stance even more ridiculous is that you are presuming that ALL 27 books of what we call the New Testament ARE INDEED FROM GOD. Based on what internal evidence? A few vague verses that do not mention the entire canon? You don't even know if you got some of the individual books correct - nor do you know you got ALL the correct books in what we call the Bible!
The only way we know that the Gospel of Mark is not a forgery or not a heterdox Gospel (like the Gospel of Thomas) is because the CHURCH validates it. They taught the Gospel by word of mouth FIRST. THEY were in the position to KNOW what was truly from the hand of an apostle, not us! Thus, you comparison is not much of a comparison at all. Without the Church, you wouldn't even know you got the Word of God in your hands.
Sadly, you take for granted that there was FIRST an Apostolic Teaching that everyone already KNEW. With this, they validated the Scriptures. The Scriptures didn't validate the teachings already given. The Scriptures were revered later as they were FIRST RECOGNIZED as true letters from the Apostles - those sent by Christ.
The early Church merely listened and sensed that these were Authoritative documents.
Exactly. Without the Church's idea of Tradition, they wouldn't have sensed anything as truly from the Apostles.
Regards