A correspondent writes:Posted on 06/13/2010 6:41:27 PM PDT by markomalley
A correspondent writes:
I’m just in need of a helping hand from you, because I’m in the middle of a debate with a muslim friend.
While we’re in the middle of discussion, he happen to addressed me with a question that blew me away, because I don’t have any idea on how I could tackle his question.
This is what he said, “Could you also tell me that there are hundreds of Gospels, then how come only four made it through the New Testament?”
I know that the “Books or Gospels” contained in the New Testament are all inspired by the Holy Spirit, but I think there are much more broader explanation regarding this matter.
I hope you could give me a helping hand regarding this subject Sir. I would really appreciate it if you could give me at least a brief explanation and answer regarding this.
The correspondent is correct that the canonical gospels are inspired by the Holy Spirit and false gospels aren’t. The question is how the Holy Spirit guided the Church into a recognition of which were inspired and which weren’t.
Here’s how that happened . . .
I don’t know that there are literally hundreds of gospels (that would mean 200 or more), but there are a large number of purported gospels that were written between A.D. 100 and A.D. 400. There may have been hundreds written back then (and people continue to crank out false gospels even today, like the Aquarian Gospel of Levi), but only a few dozen survive from those centuries.
The reason that they are not in the New Testament is that they are all fakes. The Church recognized them as such because (1) they often theologically contradicted the canonical gospels that had been passed down from the apostles and their associates and (2) they showed up out of nowhere, with no history of having been read in the churches down through the years.
The canonical gospels, by contrast, all date from the first century, they were written by the apostles or their associates, they were given to the first churches to read, and the churches read them all the way down through history. Also, the doctrine contained in them agreed with the doctrine passed down by the apostles to the bishops and handed on by them.
The later-written “gospels” thus were spotted as phonies because they had not been passed down like the others and they contained bad doctrine.
Eventually, as a warning to the faithful who might be confused by the new gospels, some of the early Church councils—like Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 (among others)—published official canon lists naming the specific books of Scripture that had been handed down as sacred from the time of the apostles.
Incidentally, the image is Matthew 23:3-15 from an Arabic New Testament. (Note also that it reads from right to left.)
Hope this helps!
The enquiring friend could ask his Muslim friend how come the Muslim account of Abraham and his sons contradicts what it says in the Old Testament, as accepted by both Jews and Christians. But careful, he doesn’t want to have his head cut off if he asks an awkward question.
This issue is what caused my wife and I both to convert as adults to Catholicism. Because your friend is right, there were many Gospels and there had to be something with the authority to include or exclude the books. That something was the people that Jesus left in charge which early in the second century called itself the “Universal” or Catholic Church.
The ones that were included in the canon were those that the early Church quoted and used.
Because Constantine said so.
Maybe this guy’s Muslim friend can answer a question of mine.
If Mohammed (or however they’re spelling it today) is really a prophet and has a direct link to God and therefore truth, why did Mohammed implement a system of abrogation in the Koran?
That system of abrogation means that if after Mohammed died (which he did die and from which he did not return) if another inspired Muslim came along and wrote something for the Koran that conflicted with something already in the Koran, then that latest addition is “the truth.”
This is the same tactic that lying politicians use when they are campaigning. During one speech, they’ll say they support tax cuts. At another they’ll say they support tax increases (on the rich or some similar cajoling phrase). Then, when they are elected and they push a policy, they have all bases covered. “But I told you I supported raising taxes on those filthy rich. I’m just now defining “rich” as anyone who earns over 10K a year.”
That abrogation was built into the Koran proves it is not based on truth and that it was intended to provide cover for a gang as that gang went through changing societies. And what sort of person looks at a foundational document as a “living, breathing document” that needs to “evolve” with society? Those who want to have the POWER to manipulate what has been considered the highest standard FOR THEIR OWN INCREASED POWER AND SELF-GLORY.
If Islam were ever true (which it is not, because “Truth” does not change or evolve or adapt to suit a particular set of mores), it is now based upon the lies of subsequent contributors to the Koran.
Uh the Catholic Church did not get started from the beginning. The Churches were separate entities that were combined by the Church and Bishop of Rome. Constantine was the first pope. Not Peter.
Hehe! Watch out for incoming fire.
Enjoyed your reasoning, ty !
Only 2 eye-witnesses are required to verify the story.
Or could it be one holy catholic church?
Well... “The Gospel Of Jesus Christ” is plain and simple...one can get hung up on volumes of “Other” Gospels... after all it’s clearly a distraction from the simplicity of The Gospel of Christ.....available to all who desire.
However, it is the work of the Holy Spirit to draw people to Christ...each in God’s own time. Some have to take the long way around in certain circles I think. If it’s not complicated and doesn’t require a great deal of investigative work then it can’t possibly be for them in their thinking.
Well... “The Gospel Of Jesus Christ” is plain and simple...one can get hung up on volumes of “Other” Gospels... after all it’s clearly a distraction from the simplicity of The Gospel of Christ.....available to all who desire.
However, it is the work of the Holy Spirit to draw people to Christ...each in God’s own time. Some have to take the long way around in certain circles I think. If it’s not complicated and doesn’t require a great deal of investigative work then it can’t possibly be for them in their thinking.
COUNTER QUESTION to the Muslim: Did you know that there is no proof whatsoever that the Koran dates back to the 7th Century.
As the poster says, authentic gospels were those those used in he liturgy from the first century on. The obvious differences between them led a Syrian `Writer To produce a single reconciliation of them that was used in many churches> ~But it did not find wide acceptance because the churches were convinced that the four were authentic views by four reliable witnesses,
btt
The abrogation in the Koran doesn’t even date from after muhammad’s death. He was changing things as the situation on the ground changed in his favor. In the early days he was talking about mutual respect and living in harmony with other religions. As muslims gained power, it quickly changed to killing the infidel and dhimmitude for Christians and Jews.
Simple answer: Because the Christian writings that did and did not “make it” into the New Testament were subjected to the test of the TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. Those that were heretical—e.g., gnostic writings—were rejected.
The very process by which the writings that were inspired were eventually identified would have been impossible if the notion of “sola scriptura” had been invented at the time.
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.