Posted on 06/13/2010 6:41:27 PM PDT by markomalley
A correspondent writes:
Im just in need of a helping hand from you, because Im in the middle of a debate with a muslim friend.
While were in the middle of discussion, he happen to addressed me with a question that blew me away, because I dont 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 arent. The question is how the Holy Spirit guided the Church into a recognition of which were inspired and which werent.
Heres how that happened . . .
I dont 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 councilslike 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!
Read the verse carefully it says "the key OF the Kingdom of heaven". Big difference between "to" and "of". "of" denotes authority to bind and loose. This authority was given to all apostles and flows to all Church leaders. The Kingdom of heaven is within a believing person. "to" has a different meaning entirely. It is often interpreted to mean by Catholics that Peter has control over who gets into heaven. This is ridiculous because there is only one criteria that clearly defines who will get into heaven in the Bible.
The Catholic Church was interested in promoting Peter to be the head because it was easier to consolidate their power in a single man.
I rented the video documentary version and it was great. I borrowed the book from the library, and my oldest daughter read, and really benefited from reading it. I agree — a great book!
The issue of which Gospels made it into the Bible is readily answered (as the article demonstrates), much more so than why the chapters (Sur’as) of the Quran are ordered according to length rather than chronologically. He should ask his Muslim friend why that is, and what obvious conclusion one can draw from a review of a chronologically-ordered Qu’ran (answer: Mo went crazy in his later years), and what happened to the originals and where they are today. These, FRiends, are what’s known as inconvenient questions.
I knew before we corresponded that there are people out there who feel this way.
I defended my faith when it was challenged. That’s enough for me.
Westcott/Hort was the universally accepted critical text of the day, just as Nestle-Aland is now.
I must admit that I don't follow why you have a problem with it... I would hope it isn't because they didn't use the Textus Receptus, because that text has its own problems too.
When you meet your creator, I dont believe its 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.
The church Christ “founded” are his believers/followers. It’s not some organized religion. It’s about a relationship with Jesus.
I am not Catholic but I know some absolutely wonderful Catholics. Many of them are believers just like Protestant believers.
You’re trying to formalize a relationship with Christ. I don’t believe that’s what Jesus intended. It’s about knowing, loving, worshiping and submitting to God.
That’s just my opinion.
Greetings to both of you! Not sure if you saw this thread but being familiar with the Catholic pings I know you are both well qualified to help this person.
The church Christ founded are his believers/followers. Its not some organized religion. Its about a relationship with Jesus
I love Jesus, I admire Him, I acknowledge that He is the Messiah, I do all of these things, but I don’t follow Him....Does that make sense to you???Only Catholicism truly follows Christ, the breakaway protestants are partially right, but seriously in error. Catholics not only have a personal relationship with Christ....they recieve Him, body, blood, soul and divinity every day, if they wish, or every week at least. There is not one protestant denominaton that comes anywhere close. You cannot deny the true church after 1,500 years and have any credibility at all
Your comments remind me of Jesus’ comments to the scribes and Pharisees.
Your comments remind me of Jesus comments to the scribes and Pharisees
thanks, I’m very seldom compared to Jesus(except by those who know me of course)
2Ti 3:16
(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Your comments remind me of Jesus comments to the scribes and Pharisees.
LOL!
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.