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!
Sorry, but the RSV was an ECUMENICAL text prepared in the 1950s in a joint effort between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. Because of its nature as a literal translation from Greek/Hebrew, it is one of the preferred English-language scholarly texts in general.
Most conservatives would rebel at the idea that government could determine their religion.
If constantine had been a Gnostic, you would be a Gnostic now.
HospiceNurse:
That is the popular “legend” among fundamentalist Protestants. Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion. All the Edict of Milan in 313 AD did was change the Roman Law so that Christianity would be given legal protection under the Law and thus was no longer to be persecuted by the Roman State.
It was the Emperor Theodosius, the last Roman Emperor of the united West and Eastern part of the Roman empire who made orthodox Christianity [Nicene-Constantinopilian Creed] the state religion of the Roman empire. This occurred around 380-385.
He was actually sympathetic to the arian cause.
The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicea
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm
Thanks.
Both absolutely reject Mary's title of "Mother of God" using the juvenile argument that "God is older than Mary."
Yeah, there is also the theory that there was an “Underground” church that dates back to the time of Christ which is not the Catholic Church. That is what I learned growing up in the Church of Christ. Unfortunately these re-writes of history don’t hold up historically speaking.
No wonder we disagree. I am a member of the only religion founded by Jesus Christ and thus learned my religion from those in the direct lineage.
But thanks for your interesting, schismatic viewpoint.
I know I sound sarcastic but this really isn’t a forum for dividing Christians and your post is a collection of anti-Catholic positions.
For instance, this line: “The Catholic Church has since the beginning totally misinterpreted that verse,” can only be interpreted as Peter and the Apostles misunderstood Jesus as he spoke directly to them but you, 2000 years later, see things clearly.
No need to respond. Nobody’s mind is going to be changed.
When you meet your creator, I don’t believe it’s going to matter which denomination. What matters is if you were a believer.
take a chance, Columbus did....a believer in what, Luther, zwingly, Calvin, Wesley. L.Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Muhammed.....nope, Christ founded ONE true church, find it, follow it, it has the only path to the Lord.
|
|
|||
Gods |
As one might expect, this has gotten a little ugly. But I don't *have to* come back in here. ;') |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · Archaeology · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Not true. The Catholic Church chased down and murdered its competitors wherever it found them. So if what you say were to be true it would only be because the road through Catholic history is paved in blood. If the Catholic Church says it follows Christ then why did they kill those it disagreed with.
can only be interpreted as Peter and the Apostles misunderstood Jesus as he spoke directly to them but you, 2000 years later, see things clearly.
I have the Bible which is God's word and can read it for myself I don't need a religious organization and a priesthood that has a clear history of putting people to death that differed with it to tell me what the gospel of Christ is. I asked a priest once that If I were to be a good Catholic and observe the sacraments and live to the best of my ability as a Catholic, would I have a sure place in heaven? The priests answer was, "I am not sure"
Tell you what I will trust in what Jesus says...
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
No need to respond. Nobody’s mind is going to be changed.
So says you...
All Wescott and Hort men to the bone.
Sorry, but that argument is sufficiently weak not to impress me.
If one were to pick out the best thing about the Catholic Church, it would be their unity of purpose.
Er, the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.
Also, if Peter was NOT the Rock upon which Christ founded His Church...then why would he give Peter "the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven"?
I have to wonder whether at some time in the past there were certain ‘teachers’ in Islam - their Imams who didn’t add to what Mohammed had supposedly said over the hundreds of years it was apparently preserved in oral tradition. Plus many radicals put a LOT of stock in teachings that weren’t even from Mohammed.
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.